Jump to content


- - -


Photo
- - - - -

Answer,s Of The Objections Imposed On Ameer Mavia


83 replies to this topic

#51 Rosy Pearl

Rosy Pearl

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 19 July 2010 - 10:29 AM

Sure, I don't mind you arguing that Ibn Ishaaq was a mudalis, but I do have issues with you claiming that he was a liar.


Brother... Tadlis constitutes intentional fraud/lies. What is Tadlis to you?

#52 Lord Botta

Lord Botta

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Religion:Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a

Posted 19 July 2010 - 10:40 AM

Brother... Tadlis constitutes intentional fraud/lies. What is Tadlis to you?


Sister, I suggest you pick up a book or two regarding hadith sciences before you end up discrediting your own scholars without realizing that you are doing so. According to your definition, Al-A'amash, Abu Ishaaq Al-Subai'ee, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, and both Sufyan's are liars. By holding this position, you are doing something that has never been put to practice by hadith scholars. Even the strictest scholars, like Shu'ba bin Al-Hajjaj narrated the hadiths of mudaliseen and honored and respected them for their knowledge.

I know that you have only love for your religion and that your intentions are pure, but you cannot make accusations against Sunni scholars when you yourself are still new to hadith sciences. My suggestion is to learn more before making posts without thinking twice of the backlash that your opinions may cause.

#53 Abdaal

Abdaal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 4,213 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 10:43 AM

It's strange that ibn Kathir would record that. What then is their excuse for treating Muawiyah as a righteous companion?

I also wonder what was the explanation before Nawawi.


Also Ibn Kathir said Umar II (ra) has a higher status than Muawiyah.

Most scholars agree that Umar bin Abdul Aziz is superior to Muawiyah ibn Sufyaan, for his matchless justice, modesty and asceticism.
(Biographies Of Rightly Guided Caliphs, Ibn Kathir Pg 398)

The Ummayads use to abuse Ali bin Abi Talib in speeches, but when Umar bin Abdul Aziz became the calipah, he put an end to that by writing to his provincial rulers, ordering them to stop that tradition and quoted the verse.

"Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and he forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: he instructs you, that ye may recieve admonition." (Al-Nahl:90).
This is verse was always quoted in their speeches from then onwards.
(Biographies Of RightlyGuided Caliphs, Ibn Kathir Pg 393)
Online source: http://abdurrahman.o...s-IbnKathir.pdf

#54 ghulam-e-ali

ghulam-e-ali

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:21 AM

salam

any opinions on these



ÍÏËäí ÚíÓì Èä ÚËãÇä Èä ÚíÓì ¡ ÞÇá : ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÚíÓì ¡ Úä ÇáÃÚãÔ ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÎÇáÏ ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ãÚÞá ¡ ÞÇá : ÕáíÊ ÎáÝ Úáí ÇáãÛÑÈ ¡ ÝáãÇ ÑÝÚ ÑÃÓå ãä ÇáÑßÚÉ ÇáËÇáËÉ ¡ ÞÇá : « Çááåã ÇáÚä ÝáÇäÇ æÝáÇäÇ æÃÈÇ ÝáÇä æÃÈÇ ÝáÇä » ¡ ÞÇá ÇáÃÚãÔ : æßÇä ãÚäÇ ÃÈæ ÈÑÏÉ ¡ ÝÇÓÊÍííÊ Ãä ÃÐßÑ ÃÈÇ ÝáÇä ¡ ÝÞÇá ÃÈæ ÈÑÏÉ : æÃÈæ ÝáÇä ßÇä Ýíåã

ÊåÐíÈ ÇáÂËÇÑ ááØÈÑí - (Ì 6 / Õ 118)

ÍÏËäÇ Êãíã Èä ÇáãäÊÕÑ ÇáæÇÓØí ¡ ÞÇá : ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÅÓÍÇÞ íÚäí ÇáÃÒÑÞ ¡ Úä ÔÑíß ¡ Úä ÍÕíä ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ãÚÞá ÇáãÒäí ¡ ÞÇá : ÕáíÊ ãÚ Úáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ ÑÖæÇä Çááå Úáíå ÇáÝÌÑ ¡ « ÝÞäÊ Úáì ÓÈÚÉ äÝÑ : ãäåã ÝáÇä æÝáÇä æÃÈæ ÝáÇä æÃÈæ ÝáÇä »


ÊåÐíÈ ÇáÂËÇÑ ááØÈÑí - (Ì 6 / Õ 119)


salam brother botha
i was waiting for opinion on this sanad.............
plz comment
thanks


òSalam...

The above Hadiths are not to be used as evidence for/against Mu'awyah (ra) as they only mention
However, In Tarikh Al Tabari... There came another narration where the list of people included Muawyah and others...
Çááåã ÇáÚä ãÚÇæíÉ æÚãÑÇ æÃÈÇ ÇáÇÚæÑ ÇáÓáãì æÍÈíÈÇ æÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ÎÇáÏ æÇáÖÍÇß Èä ÞíÓ æÇáæáíÏ

This Narration is From Abu Mukhnaf ÃÈæ ãÎäÝ as the one you mentioned before about cursing on pulpit.
And he is a Matruk Al Hadith Narratior.. ie; We do not take any hadith from him as he is deemed weak/Liar.
Therefore this is not a hujjah against Mu'awyah (ra).


well, are u dreaming?

the narrations which i gave do not contain abu mokhnif

read the sanad again

ÍÏËäí ÚíÓì Èä ÚËãÇä Èä ÚíÓì ¡ ÞÇá : ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÚíÓì ¡ Úä ÇáÃÚãÔ ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÎÇáÏ ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ãÚÞá

ÍÏËäÇ Êãíã Èä ÇáãäÊÕÑ ÇáæÇÓØí ¡ ÞÇá : ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÅÓÍÇÞ íÚäí ÇáÃÒÑÞ ¡ Úä ÔÑíß ¡ Úä ÍÕíä ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ãÚÞá ÇáãÒäí


i agree that this narration has not given the names
but why?

reason is simple

they are hiding it

and this is not new
even bukhari has done this?

you wish for proof

let me give you

we find in bukhari that he quotes from sahal bin suhail


ãÇ ßÇä áÚáí ÇÓã ÃÍÈ Åáíå ãä ÃÈí ÊÑÇÈ ¡ æÅä ßÇä áíÝÑÍ Èå ÅÐÇ ÏÚí ÈåÇ ¡ ÌÇÁ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÈíÊ ÝÇØãÉ ÚáíåÇ ÇáÓáÇã ¡ Ýáã íÌÏ ÚáíÇ Ýí ÇáÈíÊ ¡ ÝÞÇá : ( Ãíä ÇÈä Úãß ) . ÝÞÇáÊ : ßÇä Èíäí æÈíäå ÔíÁ ¡ ÝÛÇÖÈäí ÝÎÑÌ Ýáã íÞá ÚäÏí ¡ ÝÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã áÅäÓÇä : ( ÇäÙÑ Ãíä åæ ) . ÝÌÇÁ ÝÞÇá : íÇ ÑÓæá Çááå åæ Ýí ÇáãÓÌÏ ÑÇÞÏ ¡ ÝÌÇÁ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã æåæ ãÖØÌÚ . ÞÏ ÓÞØ ÑÏÇÄå Úä ÔÞå ÝÃÕÇÈ ÊÑÇÈ ¡ ÝÌÚá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã íãÓÍå Úäå æåæ íÞæá : ( Þã ÃÈÇ ÊÑÇÈ ¡ Þã ÃÈÇ ÊÑÇÈ ) .


ÇáãÕÏÑ: ÕÍíÍ ÇáÈÎÇÑí - ÇáÕÝÍÉ Ãæ ÇáÑÞã: 6280

now, from the same narrator imam muslim quotes


ÇÓÊÚãá Úáì ÇáãÏíäÉ ÑÌá ãä Âá ãÑæÇä . ÞÇá ÝÏÚÇ Óåá Èä ÓÚÏ . ÝÃãÑå Ãä íÔÊã ÚáíÇ . ÞÇá ÝÃÈì Óåá . ÝÞÇá áå : ÃãÇ ÅÐÇ ÃÈíÊ ÝÞá : áÚä Çááå ÃÈÇ ÇáÊÑÇÈ . ÝÞÇá Óåá : ãÇ ßÇä áÚáí ÇÓã ÃÍÈ Åáíå ãä ÃÈí ÇáÊÑÇÈ . æÅä ßÇä áíÝÑÍ ÅÐÇ ÏÚí ÈåÇ . ÝÞÇá áå : ÃÎÈÑäÇ Úä ÞÕÊå . áã Óãí ÃÈÇ ÇáÊÑÇÈ ¿ ÞÇá : ÌÇÁ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÈíÊ ÝÇØãÉ . Ýáã íÌÏ ÚáíÇ Ýí ÇáÈíÊ . ÝÞÇá " Ãíä ÇÈä Úãß ¿ " ÝÞÇáÊ : ßÇä Èíäí æÈíäå ÔíÁ . ÝÛÇÖÈäí ÝÎÑÌ . Ýáã íÞá ÚäÏí . ÝÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã áÅäÓÇä " ÇäÙÑ . Ãíä åæ ¿ " ÝÌÇÁ ÝÞÇá : íÇ ÑÓæá Çááå ! åæ Ýí ÇáãÓÌÏ ÑÇÞÏ . ÝÌÇÁå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã æåæ ãÖØÌÚ . ÞÏ ÓÞØ ÑÏÇÄå Úä ÔÞå . ÝÃÕÇÈå ÊÑÇÈ . ÝÌÚá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã íãÓÍå Úäå æíÞæá " Þã ÃÈÇ ÇáÊÑÇÈ ! Þã ÃÈÇ ÇáÊÑÇÈ ! " .


ÇáãÕÏÑ: ÕÍíÍ ãÓáã - ÇáÕÝÍÉ Ãæ ÇáÑÞã: 2409

do you see the difference,
from the same narrator
sahal
imam bukhari took the narration
with same wordings

but what is the difference?

bukhari omitted

ÇÓÊÚãá Úáì ÇáãÏíäÉ ÑÌá ãä Âá ãÑæÇä . ÞÇá ÝÏÚÇ Óåá Èä ÓÚÏ . ÝÃãÑå Ãä íÔÊã ÚáíÇ . ÞÇá ÝÃÈì Óåá . ÝÞÇá áå : ÃãÇ ÅÐÇ ÃÈíÊ ÝÞá : áÚä Çááå ÃÈÇ ÇáÊÑÇÈ . ÝÞÇá Óåá


you did this thing even before

i did not reply because i m not here to waste my time

the best person in this regard
is botha

yes, atleast he is a rational

so

let me ask botha only to comment on the isnaad

thanks

#55 JimJam

JimJam

    The World for Man, Man for God.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,598 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:30 AM

What the Sunnis view of Hadi bin Urwa (ra)?

forget the hadith, the conjecture, the bogus rijal

what about the WAR

is that a lie too


Yeah lol, it strikes me funny to see how they bend over backwards and perform all sorts of literary gymnastics to defend the man

“When I asked abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘what is Intelligence,’ He
replied, ‘It is a fact with whose help one worships Allah, the
Merciful, and attains paradise.’ I then asked, ‘What was the
thing with Mu’awiya?’ ‘It was shrewdness. It was mischief
which is similar to Intelligence but is not Intelligence,’ the Imam
replied.”

Al Kafi- The Book of Intelligence and Ignorance H 3, Ch. 1, h3

Indeed the war has taken place. It was not out of hatred from either side, it was only due to the matter of Uthman's killing.
Indeed Mu'awyah (ra) always openly declared the virtue of Imam Ali (as) as higher and better than him, and indeed he was more closer to the Haqq (Truth) than Mu'awyah as Ibn Taymyiah also stated and this is mostly by consensus of Scholars.

Here is what Imam Ali (as) said about the War in Nahj Al Balaghah:

You will also see from Ali's words in Nahj Al Balagha:

"The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it."


Muaviah went on a rampage, raiding all over Iraq, you ignore all of Imam Ali's (as) condemnation of that man in the Nahjul Balgha and think one incomplete hadith is going to defend your view?

By Allah Mu`awiyah is not more cunning than I am, but he deceives and commits evil deeds. Had I not been hateful of deceit I would have been the most cunning of all men. But (the fact is that) every deceit is a sin and every sin is disobedience (of Allah), and every deceitful person will have a banner by which he will be recognised on the Day of Judgement. By Allah, I cannot be made forgetful by strategy, nor can I be overpowered by hardships.
Sermon 200- Nahjul Balagha, also found in Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi, II, 336, 338.

One of Amir al-mu'minin's companions (from Banu Asad) asked him: "How was it that your tribe (Quraysh) deprived you of this position (Caliphate) although you deserved it most." Then in reply he said:
O' brother of Banu Asad! Your girth is loose and you have put it on the wrong way. Nevertheless you enjoy in-law kinship and also the right to ask, and since you have asked, listen. As regards the oppression against us in this matter although we were the highest as regards descent and the strongest in relationship with the Messenger of Allah. It was a selfish act over which the hearts of people became greedy, although some people did not care for it. The Arbiter is Allah and to Him is the return on the Day of Judgement.
"Now leave this story of devastation about which there is hue and cry all round."
Come and look at the son of Abu Sufyan (Mu`awiyah). Time has made me laugh after weeping. No wonder, by Allah; what is this affair which surpasses all wonder and which has increased wrongfulness. These people have tried to put out the flame of Allah's light from His lamp and to close His fountain from its source. They mixed epidemic-producing water between me and themselves. If the trying hardships were removed from among us, I would take them on the course of truthfulness otherwise:
"... So let not thy self go (in vain) in grief for them; verily Allah knoweth all that they do." (Qur'an, 35:8)

Sermon 162, Nahjul Balagha

Tell me Rosy Petal, why did the issue of Qasas of Usman die down after Muviah gained the Khalifate? Was the Qasas of Usman not needed anymore?
This issue is a common sense political issue, no amount of hadith gymnastics can turn black into white. Goddamn Sophists

Edited by JimJam, 19 July 2010 - 11:42 AM.


#56 aladdin

aladdin

    ÈöÓúãö Çááóøåö ÇáÑóøÍúãóäö ÇáÑóøÍöíãö

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,471 posts
  • Religion:Shia

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:30 AM

^^ Atta boy! ^^

Wa'Salam!

#57 Rosy Pearl

Rosy Pearl

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:31 AM

Sister, I suggest you pick up a book or two regarding hadith sciences before you end up discrediting your own scholars without realizing that you are doing so. According to your definition, Al-A'amash, Abu Ishaaq Al-Subai'ee, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, and both Sufyan's are liars. By holding this position, you are doing something that has never been put to practice by hadith scholars. Even the strictest scholars, like Shu'ba bin Al-Hajjaj narrated the hadiths of mudaliseen and honored and respected them for their knowledge.

I know that you have only love for your religion and that your intentions are pure, but you cannot make accusations against Sunni scholars when you yourself are still new to hadith sciences. My suggestion is to learn more before making posts without thinking twice of the backlash that your opinions may cause.


Thanks...
There are different branches of Tadlis in Hadith Science... and not all are of one degree.
Al Mudalis can be a liar, or they can be just a weak narrator who narrated from the majhoolin. There is 4 types of Tadlis..

ÊÏáíÓ ÇáÅÓäÇÏ, ÊÏáíÓ ÇáÔíæÎ, ÊÏáíÓ ÇáÊÓæíÉ, ÊÏáíÓ ÇáÚØÝ
ÊÏáíÓ ÇáÅÓäÇÏ ãÚäÇå: åæ Ãä íÑæí ÇáÑÇæí Úãä ÓãÚ ãäå ãÇ áã íÓãÚå ãäå
So tadlis the Isnaad is to narrate that which you have not heard.

Anyhow, thanks for your post regarding this and assuming the best in people.
May Allah swt make our intentions always sincere to him.

#58 aladdin

aladdin

    ÈöÓúãö Çááóøåö ÇáÑóøÍúãóäö ÇáÑóøÍöíãö

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,471 posts
  • Religion:Shia

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:33 AM

Salam,

Atta boy!

#59 JimJam

JimJam

    The World for Man, Man for God.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,598 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:40 AM

Brother... This is Allah's religion and we cannot "assume" unless clear sahih evidence comes to prove so.
Mu'awyah never fought Ali (as) for anything more than the Qisas issue of Uthman (ra). And indeed he loved him and preffered over himself.


What has Muaviah got to do with Islam? What has a wordly king got anything to do with Islam? The only true unique religious legacy of the Ummayads, is the Yazdi religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi

Does the testimony of Ali and his sons and their lineage mean anything to you? You wont accept anything but hadiths of your own sect, born out of those who silently stood by and watched the sons of Abu Sufyan take the Khalifate for themselves at the expense of the prophets (pbuh) grandsons.

Meet your new best friend

Brother i am not defending anyone.I have seen many shia brothers abusing this personality of islam.This is just like throwing your good deeds in a basket.If he has done any thing wrong to islam and the people then its Allah who Knows every thing.He will surely punish.We dont know much about the history.Many things went wrong after the death of Mohammad (pbuh).Even Hazrat Muawvia R.A
was a close friend of Hazrat Ali R.A. It was Abdullah ibn Saba who created all the misunderstandings between Hazrat ali and Mavia.
But Hazrat Ali R.A refused to accept anything wrong about Hazrat Ameer Mavia R.A.May Allah help us to find the true knowledge about Sahabba,s and Ahle Bait
Ameen


Anyhow, thanks for your post regarding this and assuming the best in people.
May Allah swt make our intentions always sincere to him.


Yeah lets all assume the best for Ghenghis Khan and Abu Jahl, there is a limit to hiding your head in the sand. You are a friend of those who win, not a friend to those who are on haq.

Edited by JimJam, 19 July 2010 - 11:49 AM.


#60 Rosy Pearl

Rosy Pearl

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:54 AM

well, are u dreaming?

the narrations which i gave do not contain abu mokhnif

(salam)

No I'm not dreaming brother... I mentioned to you another hadith with a different sanad including this weak narrator as your hadiths don't mention names. So how can we use them against Muawyah?. As for the difference between Bukhari and Muslim in Contents... Bukhari is stricter than Muslim in his rules of accepting Hadith. And Bukhari himself declared many 1000s of hadiths which are sahih not included in his Musnad. But we take Bukhari and Muslim, so it is not a problem in my view.

Tell me Rosy Petal, why did the issue of Qasas of Usman die down after Muviah gained the Khalifate? Was the Qasas of Usman not needed anymore?
This issue is a common sense political issue, no amount of hadith gymnastics can turn black into white. Goddamn Sophists


(salam)

Ali (ra) was in Khilafah too, it was not taken away from him. So the question goes both ways.

#61 ghulam-e-ali

ghulam-e-ali

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:15 PM

Bukhari is stricter than Muslim in his rules of accepting Hadith. And Bukhari himself declared many 1000s of hadiths which are sahih not included in his Musnad. But we take Bukhari and Muslim, so it is not a problem in my view.


no sister
you are in deed sleeping
read carefully

bukhari did accept this narration
what he did is that he played hell with it
just to defend his masters

why?

so that in future, people like you can make excuses
that the original narration is not having names
etc etc

when bukhari rejected ahadeeth, he did not included those at all...............

keep in mind
that bukhari has this habit

i can give u more proofs

and this is my main point

the narration which is authentic does not give names
why?
atleast this does tell us that there were few who were cursed?

atleast you would accept this one?

i have been doing research into mawia

and i ll give you more narrations where he was cursed;
none other than by prophet

though as usual, people try to omit names
and that was natural

keep in mind that he was a king
and would kill anyone

i hope you understand what i am saying...............

but he was the person whom prophet mentioned that
he will be calling to hell...............
[remember narration of ammar yasir?]

anyways

take care

fi aman Allah

#62 JimJam

JimJam

    The World for Man, Man for God.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,598 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:11 PM

(salam)

No I'm not dreaming brother... I mentioned to you another hadith with a different sanad including this weak narrator as your hadiths don't mention names. So how can we use them against Muawyah?. As for the difference between Bukhari and Muslim in Contents... Bukhari is stricter than Muslim in his rules of accepting Hadith. And Bukhari himself declared many 1000s of hadiths which are sahih not included in his Musnad. But we take Bukhari and Muslim, so it is not a problem in my view.



(salam)

Ali (ra) was in Khilafah too, it was not taken away from him. So the question goes both ways.


Ali (as) was in the ahl-e-kisa, Ali (as) accompanied the prophet (pbuh) during the Mubahila, Ali(as) was the father of Muhammad's(pbuh) grandchildren. Ali(as) was declared to be Maula of the believers. As soon as Ali (as) came to power and the Ummayads lost the governorship they they given by Usman they went into total war mode? Why is that? Ali (as) was passed over 3 times by the Quraysh & only given the Khaliphate when all the Ummayad cronies were booted out by the public of medina? why is that?
The Khalifate of Ali (as) was the most unstable of the first 4? Why? Because of the constant war waged on Ali (as) by the Ayesha and Muviah since inception. Who is to blame for all the innocent Muslim life lost during this?
If Abu Lulu is hellbound for stabbing Umar, if those who refused to pay Abu Bakr the Zakat are in the wrong and so are those that rioted agaisnt Usman, then what say you of those who waged war on Ali (as)?

Why did the Qasas of Usman issue, raised by Ayesha and Muaviah suddenly die down after Ali (as) and Hasan (as) lost the Khalifate and it was back in Ummayad hand? Simple, it was like the WMD issue in Iraq.

Abdullah ibn `Abbas says that when Amir al-mu'minin set out for war with the people of Basrah he came to his audience at Dhiqar and saw that he was stitching his shoe. Then Amir al-mu'minin said to me, "What is the price of this shoe?" I said:
"It has no value now." He then said, "By Allah, it should have been more dear to me than ruling over you but for the fact that I may establish right and ward off wrong." Then he came out and spoke:
Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (p.b.u.h.a.h.p.) when none among the Arabs read a book or claimed prophethood. He guided the people till he took them to their (correct) position and their salvation. So their spears (i.e. officers) became straight and their conditions settled down. By Allah, surely I was in their lead till it took shape with its walls. I did not show weakness or cowardice. My existing march is also like that. I shall certainly pierce the wrong till right comes out of its side. What (cause of conflict) is there between me and the Quraysh? By Allah, I have fought them when they were unbelievers and I shall fight them when they have been misled. I shall be the same for them today as I was for them yesterday.
By Allah, the Quraysh only take revenge against us because Allah has given us (i.e. the Holy Prophet and his progeny) preference over them. So, we have allowed them into our domain, whereupon they have become as the former poet says:
By my life, you continued drinking fresh milk every morning,
And (continued) eating fine stoned dates with butter;
We have given you the nobility which you did not possess before;
And surrounded (protected) you with thoroughbred horses and tawny-coloured spears (strong spears)

Sermon 33: Nhajul Balagha.
Al-Mufid, al-'Irshad, 154.

Edited by JimJam, 19 July 2010 - 01:13 PM.


#63 B-N

B-N

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 783 posts
  • Interests:Trying to take interest in life but in vain

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:44 PM

(salam)

As for the the explanation I gave earlier, I cannot force my views on you... but I can only put them forward. :)
As for the above Hadith, As you can see in the sanad... You have ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓÍÇÞ who is well known to be a Liar and from Ahl Al Bid'ah.


Well no one can force one's views on others for that matter, so thats not the point here. You may have problems with the sanad of this hadith but when when we see all such traditions, would you overlook the comulative effect of all?

What about this one:

"On his way to Hajj, Sa'd met Mu'awiya and his companions mentioned 'Ali upon which Mu'awiya showed disrespect towards Ali, Sa'd got angry and asked 'why do you say such things?'"
Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah by Albani, Volume 1 page 26

And would you be kind enough to enlighten us about the conditions of the peace treaty made between Imam Hasan (as) and Muawiya?

#64 Lord Botta

Lord Botta

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Religion:Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a

Posted 19 July 2010 - 02:54 PM

bukhari omitted

ÇÓÊÚãá Úáì ÇáãÏíäÉ ÑÌá ãä Âá ãÑæÇä . ÞÇá ÝÏÚÇ Óåá Èä ÓÚÏ . ÝÃãÑå Ãä íÔÊã ÚáíÇ . ÞÇá ÝÃÈì Óåá . ÝÞÇá áå : ÃãÇ ÅÐÇ ÃÈíÊ ÝÞá : áÚä Çááå ÃÈÇ ÇáÊÑÇÈ . ÝÞÇá Óåá


you did this thing even before

i did not reply because i m not here to waste my time

the best person in this regard
is botha

yes, atleast he is a rational

so

let me ask botha only to comment on the isnaad

thanks


Akhi, why would Al-Bukhari do such a thing?

Also, Al-Tabarani and Ibn Hibban both included the same hadith in their books without the addition included in Saheeh Muslim.

#65 ghulam-e-ali

ghulam-e-ali

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 03:55 PM

Akhi, why would Al-Bukhari do such a thing?

Also, Al-Tabarani and Ibn Hibban both included the same hadith in their books without the addition included in Saheeh Muslim.



salam

i have seen him
at different places

for example

he took a hadeeth about samura, who was his sheikh
muslim said he was cursed by umar

and he mentioned his name

bukhari took the same hadeeth; keep in mind, samura is narrator of bukhari,
so what he did is
that he used the word FULAN there
to cover his sheikh

there are other examples too

#66 haideriam

haideriam

    Ya Qaim Ali Muhammad(AS) Adrikni

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Religion:Islam - Muhhib

Posted 19 July 2010 - 05:27 PM

(bismillah)
(salam)

we know muawiya(la) fought a war against a rightly guided caliph ali(as)
and we see double standards
and we see the hadith of ammar yasir(ra) declaring muawiya(la) a baghi

next we see the treaty of imam hasan(as)
and muawiya(la) on his death bed went against this treaty
so he did not even repent from being a baghi to a rightfully guided caliph
for if he had repented he would have honoured his treaty
what more does one need
to declare him an apostate

(wasalam)

ps. \/ \/

\nd for the qisas of one person they justify the killing of thousands
same with jamal, same with siffien
wake up muslims

Edited by haideriam, 19 July 2010 - 05:46 PM.


#67 Dead-Man

Dead-Man

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 05:43 PM

i Take it those sunni's who praise Muwaiyah are Wahabi Influenced ?

it won't be too long till Yazid (LA) gets praised by these kind of people '
of All these narations are enough proof to show the Reality of this man ..

PS. who killed Muhammed bin Abu Bakr (ra) ? the Brother of Aisha?

#68 Lord Botta

Lord Botta

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Religion:Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a

Posted 19 July 2010 - 09:31 PM

bukhari took the same hadeeth; keep in mind, samura is narrator of bukhari,
so what he did is
that he used the word FULAN there
to cover his sheikh

there are other examples too


Mmm... Yes, I remember this.

You will also find it in Musnad Imam Al-Shafi'ee, hadith # 1462. First edition - Gharas Publishing.

Akhi, it is pretty hard to stick Al-Bukhari with something like this. He is just a hadith collector. Most of these "changes" are due to the narrators themselves. In most cases, the narrators are different. In other cases, the narrators narrate the same hadith in a different way.

#69 aladdin

aladdin

    ÈöÓúãö Çááóøåö ÇáÑóøÍúãóäö ÇáÑóøÍöíãö

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,471 posts
  • Religion:Shia

Posted 20 July 2010 - 12:34 AM

Mmm... Yes, I remember this.

You will also find it in Musnad Imam Al-Shafi'ee, hadith # 1462. First edition - Gharas Publishing.

Akhi, it is pretty hard to stick Al-Bukhari with something like this. He is just a hadith collector. Most of these "changes" are due to the narrators themselves. In most cases, the narrators are different. In other cases, the narrators narrate the same hadith in a different way.

He has basically destroyed Mr. Bukhari and you understand him pretty well like others who understand him too. However, as usual when caught you profess ignorance.

#70 Faris-Al-Hujjat

Faris-Al-Hujjat

    Wannabe a Knight in the Army of The Hujjat (as)

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:Black Goldland
  • Religion:Usooli
  • Interests:Jafar, Humanity, Relegion, History, Mind Sciences, Following Mohammad Wa Aale Mohammad

Posted 20 July 2010 - 01:14 AM

He has basically destroyed Mr. Bukhari and you understand him pretty well like others who understand him too. However, as usual when caught you profess ignorance.



Bold underlined and upsized....

#71 Rosy Pearl

Rosy Pearl

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 20 July 2010 - 01:35 AM

Mmm... Yes, I remember this.

You will also find it in Musnad Imam Al-Shafi'ee, hadith # 1462. First edition - Gharas Publishing.

Akhi, it is pretty hard to stick Al-Bukhari with something like this. He is just a hadith collector. Most of these "changes" are due to the narrators themselves. In most cases, the narrators are different. In other cases, the narrators narrate the same hadith in a different way.


Correct, Al Shaf'i listed the same hadith with the same Lafz without the name. And so did Abd Alrazaaq...
So the Narration he listed was heard from Al Shaf'i. As for Bukhari's words "Fulan"... He used this for people who are munafiqs/kafirs.. or even people related to Hafsa (ra)...
And this matter is not an issue since even Sahih Muslim Sharh indicates

And also... In Nahj Al Balaghah.. the same thing is used. "Fulan" for Umar's name (ra)..
ááå ÈáÇÁ ÝáÇä ÝÞÏ Þæøã ÇáÃæóÏ æÏÇæì ÇáÚãóÏ¡ ÎáøÝ ÇáÝÊäÉ æÃÞÇã ÇáÓäøÉ¡ ÐåÈ äÞíóø ÇáËæÈ Þáíá ÇáÚíÈ ÃÕÇÈ ÎíÑåÇ æÓÈÞ ÔÑøåÇ¡ ÃÏøì Åáì ÇááÜå ØÇÚÊå¡ æÇÊÞÜÇå ÈÍÞøå¡ ÑÍá æÊÑßåã Ýí ØÑÞò ãÊÔÜÚøÈÜÉ¡ áÇ íåÊÜÏí ÝíåÜÇ ÇáÖÜÇøá æáÇ íÓÜÊíÞä ÇáãåÊÜÏí

#72 aladdin

aladdin

    ÈöÓúãö Çááóøåö ÇáÑóøÍúãóäö ÇáÑóøÍöíãö

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,471 posts
  • Religion:Shia

Posted 20 July 2010 - 02:45 AM

You did reply about my question who is included in the AhlulBayt. So is Mr. Ninjaslim avoiding my question too.

You seem to have abandon the following thread:

http://www.shiachat....vs-muawiyah-la/

Hopefully, my questions are not difficult for you to answer

#73 ghulam-e-ali

ghulam-e-ali

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 182 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 03:02 AM

Mmm... Yes, I remember this.

You will also find it in Musnad Imam Al-Shafi'ee, hadith # 1462. First edition - Gharas Publishing.

Akhi, it is pretty hard to stick Al-Bukhari with something like this. He is just a hadith collector. Most of these "changes" are due to the narrators themselves. In most cases, the narrators are different. In other cases, the narrators narrate the same hadith in a different way.



salam

sorry about taking the thread away
i asked you about the chains
you did not reply

i am pretty much confused about the chains of these
which i mentioned ..............

what do you say?

secondly

there is a narration which tells us that mawia was drinking wine
ahmad shakir says it is sahih
shoib ul arnawit says qawi
hafiz haithmi also authenticated the chain

what do you say about that ?

ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÍÏËäí ÃÈí ÍÏËäÇ ÒíÏ Èä ÇáÍÈÇÈ ÍÏËäí ÍÓíä ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÈÑíÏÉ ÞÇáþ:þ

þ(þÏÎáÊ ÃäÇ æÃÈí Úáì ãÚÇæíÉ ÝÃÌáÓäÇ Úáì ÇáÝÑÔ Ëã ÃÊíäÇ ÈÇáØÚÇã ÝÃßáäÇ Ëã ÃÊíäÇ ÈÇáÔÑÇÈ ÝÔÑÈ ãÚÇæíÉ Ëã äÇæá ÃÈí Ëã ÞÇáþ:þ ãÇ ÔÑÈÊå ãäÐ ÍÑãå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ëã ÞÇá ãÚÇæíÉþ:þ ßäÊ ÃÌãá ÔÈÇÈ ÞÑíÔ æÃÌæÏå ËÛÑÇ æãÇ ÔíÁ ßäÊ ÃÌÏ áå áÐÉ ßãÇ ßäÊ ÃÌÏå æÃäÇ ÔÇÈ ÛíÑ ÇááÈä Ãæ ÅäÓÇä ÍÓä ÇáÍÏíË íÍÏËäíþ)þþ


#74 Lord Botta

Lord Botta

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Religion:Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:40 AM

^ There is a problem with the above hadith.

Here is another narration with similar narrators:

(27) ÍÏËäÇ ÒíÏ Èä ÇáÍÈÇÈ Úä ÍÓíä Èä æÇÞÏ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÈÑíÏÉ ÞÇá : ÞÇá : ÏÎáÊ ÃäÇ æÃÈí Úáì ãÚÇæíÉ ÝÃÌáÓ ÃÈí Úáì ÇáÓÑíÑ æÃÊì ÈÇáØÚÇã ÝÃØÚãäÇ ¡ æÃÊì ÈÔÑÇÈ ÝÔÑÈ ¡ ÝÞÇá ãÚÇæíÉ ¡ ãÇ ÔÆ ßäÊ ÃÓÊáÐÉ æÃäÇ ÔÇÈ ÝÃÎÐå Çáíæã ÅáÇ ÇááÈä ¡ ÝÅäí ÂÎÐå ßãÇ ßäÊ ÂÎÐå ÞÈá Çáíæã ¡ æÇáÍÏíË ÇáÍÓä.

hafiz haithmi also authenticated the chain


Actually Al-Haithami said, "The men are the men of the Saheeh, but there is something in the words of Mu'awiyah that I left out." This implies that there is something in the matn that should be rejected.

Also, if you look closely at the first hadith, you will realize that it is talking about laban and not khamr and that the whole thing really doesn't make much sense.

#75 JimJam

JimJam

    The World for Man, Man for God.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,598 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:27 AM

No ones telling me why those who were howling for the qasas of Usman suddenly cooled down after Muaviah got the Khalifat and put the whole issue behind them?



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users