Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Muawiya'.
Found 5 results
https://historyofislam.com/contents/the-age-of-faith/muawiya/ I strongly Advise you read the above link. A Sunni' professor, describing Sunni perspective of the History of Muawiya. For those among my Shia brothers who believe their Sunni Brothers say RadiAllahu 'Anhu after Muawiyah, you can see that the Sunni's do not do that, at all. For those of you who want to see a Shia Acadamic, who is well known (and whom I saw lectures at UMAA this year), I refer you to Nabil Hussayn :http://scholar.princeton.edu/nhussen/links/term/400 and if you're lazy, here http://scholar.princeton.edu/nhussen/links/pro-alid-sunnis-المنزهون من اهل الحديث The above is a scholarly study on the Pro-'Ali Sunni scholars, that many of you may or may not know The reason I made this post is because I came across certain rhetoric over here making ill based sweeping generalizations that the MAJORITY of their Sunni brother's despise Ali and Revere Muawiyah so much so that they say RA after his name, The first step in Unity is to dispel ignorance and misconceptions from both sides. I've gone through great lengths with my Sunni' brothers to dispel and normalize their misconceptions of the Shia', now I feel I must do the same here. This: Modern Sunni literature Despite his endeavours in the expansion of the Caliphate and the establishment of the Umayyad Dynasty, the persona of Caliph Muawiyah I evokes a controversial figure in standard Islamic history whose legacy has never quite been able to shed the taint of his opposition to the Rashidun Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib. The late (Sunni) theologian Mawdudi (founder of Jamaat-E-Islami) wrote that the establishment of the caliphate as (essentially) a monarchy began with the caliphate of Muawiyah I. It wasn't the kind where Muawiyah was appointed by the Muslims. Mawdudi elaborated that Muawiyah wanted to be caliph and fought in order to attain the caliphate, not really depending upon the acceptance of the Muslim community. The people did not appoint Muawiyah as a caliph, he became one by force, and consequently the people had no choice but to give him their pledge of allegiance (baiah). Had the people not given Muawiyah their allegiance at that time, it wouldn't have meant so much as losing their rank or position, as much as it would have meant bloodshed and conflict. This certainly couldn't have been given preference over peace and order. Following Hasan ibn Ali's abdication of the caliphate, all the Muslims (including the Sahabah and Tabi'een) gave their pledge of allegiance to Muawiyah I, bringing an end to civil war. That year was called the Aam Al Jamaat (Year of Congregation). As Mawdudi pointed out, Muawiyah's own speech during the initial days of his caliphate expressed his own awareness of this: By Allah, while taking charge of your government I was not unaware of the fact that you are unhappy over my taking over of government and you people don’t like it. I am well aware of whatever is there in your hearts regarding this matter but still I have taken it from you on the basis of my sword… Now if you see that I am not fulfilling your rights, then you should be happy with me with whatever is there The above taken from Wikipedia, with proper citations. Legacy Mu'awiyah greatly beautified Damascus and developed a court to rival that of the Byzantines. He expanded the frontiers of the empire, reaching the very gates of Constantinople at one point, though failing to hold any territory in Asia Minor. Throughout the Umayyad dynasty which he founded, its borders would be commensurate with those of the Islamic community (with the exception of the short-lived rival caliphate in Mecca, 680–692). No later caliphate would share the same borders as the whole ummah. Sunni Muslims credit him with saving the fledgling Muslim nation from post civil war anarchy, although many are critical of his controversial decision to designate his son as his successor, thereby converting the caliphate from an elective office to a monarchy. He nonetheless attempted to preserve the form of the election however, by causing his nobles and the chiefs of the empire to elect and swear allegiance to his son in his own lifetime, a tradition that endured for several succeeding dynasties. Later Sunnis decided that preservation of unity was more important than how the leader was chosen, and concentrated more in their writing on the caliphate on the qualities that were needed rather than on how he should be selected. Like Uthman, he tended to favor Arabs in general (and his own family in particular) over others. However, his administrative skills are widely acknowledged. It is said that friends and critics alike recognized his quality of hilm (civilized restraint). He shared this with his predecessors but not their humility and simple lifestyle. In contrast to their simple dress and table, he dressed and ate like a king. He began the transformation of Damascus, his capital, into a center of culture and learning. The Sunni view of Mu'awiyah Mu'awiya is not recognized as one of the four rightly guided caliphs. Most of the early Sunni historians saw his rule, and that of the Umayyad dynasty that followed him, as a descent into mere worldly rule (mulk), kingship rather than religious leadership. These historians were writing after the fall of the Umayyad dynasty to the Abbasids, and hence their writings reflect the Abbasid justifications for the Umayyad overthrow. Few later Sunni historians wholeheartedly defend Mu'awiyah. However, they do not dispute his right to rule. Sunni clerics and scholars have generally preached submission to authority, even when authority is less than perfect. Sunnis tend to view communal dissension with horror and accept flawed rule as preferable to civil war (fitnah). @ The above taken from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Muawiyah @kirtc @Gaius I. Caesar @Abu-Jafar Herz @Tawheed313 @Sarah2016 @shiaman14
As Salaamu Alaikum. I found this alleged secret letter from Umar to Muawiyyah. You may already know about it. If it is true then it will be an amazing revelation. It is in Urdu. Will you or someone you know translate it for me, as accurately as you can, from Urdu to English and post mail or email it back to me? I realize that this is not a high priority project and I know you are extremely busy. Therefore, if you know of someone who has the time and interest I would appreciate it if you could invite him to assume the task of translation. If you can provide me with the same letter in the original Arabic that would be helpful as well. I definitely would like to keep it for my own research and study and not publicize it due to its sensitive content. Let me know what you think. email: firstname.lastname@example.org file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ahmad/My%20Documents/Downloads/umars%20letter%20to%20mavia%20(3).pdf umars letter to mavia.pdf .
This is an extremely important topic, and I don't want to be controversial; but it is important to discuss in my opinion, and the reasons why we are seeing a plague in Muslim societies today. I won't go into the specifics of what happened right after the death of the Prophet(S) to avoid sounding controversial. Let us say that Hazrat Umar was a good administrator of the Islamic empire, and kept a tight lid/control over affairs. The empire grew very rapidly after the death of Prophet(S), in fact, too rapidly, which caused a lot of problems. However, after the death of Hazrat Umar, rifts based on tribal affiliations and families started taking place within the Muslim community. The Ummayads started to influence matters, and challenged the writ of the state. I would say that the problem with the Muslim community even during the time of Prophet(S) was that the people that had directly fought Muslims in the Battles of Badr and Uhad, people/munafiqs such as Abu Sufyan and Khalid bin Waleed, started gaining prominence in the Muslim Ummah once they entered the realm of Islam, and after the life of the Prophet(S) during the caliph's times. It were these people, and their progeny (Muawiya was the son of Abu Sufyan, Yazid was the son of Muawiya) that caused the destruction of Muslim society, and caused tremendous pain and suffering to the family of the Prophet(S). It was clear from the death of Hazrat Umar, that the Muslim community started disintegrating rapidly, with the Ummayads (and Abbasids later on) trying to grab power at the expense of the state. Imam Ali (AS) saw Muawiya responsible for the first great fitna, and in-fighting between Muslims in the Battle of Jamal and Siffin. Imam Hasan (AS) had to settle with Muawiya through a peace treaty, and was then poisoned to death. It was abundantly clear that under Yazid, and bloodthirsty, power grabbing people; Islam would have gone undergone total destruction, and Imam Hussain (AS) made the ultimate sacrifice in Karbala. However, with the rise of ISIS and other militant groups throughout the world, we can see all this emanated after the life of Prophet(S), with the gradual disintegration of the Muslim Ummah. Green - Region under the control of Imam Ali (AS) Red - Region under the control of Muawiya Blue - Region under the control of Amr bin Aas It absolutely boggles me how anyone can call the progeny of Abu Sufyan (Muawiya, Yazid), and Abu Sufyan companions of the Prophet(S), when they were responsible for creating fitna in the Muslim society for their thirst for power; and are the reason why we see the plague in the Muslim world today. There are more and more Wahabi and Deobandi scholars coming out today, praising Yazid (calling him Yazeed ® nauzibillah) and claiming Imam Hussain (AS) was wrong. Calling Yazid the rightful caliph, and Imam Hussain (AS) a rebel. This is the reason why the Muslim world, and especially the Arab world, has its plague.
Some Muslims expressed their unfavorable impressions of Mu'a`wiya in his time. They are as follows: 1. Ibn 'Abba`s: 'Abd Allah b. 'Abba`s, a great Muslim thinker, expressed his opinion of Mu'a`wiya saying: "Mu'a`wiya has no quality to bring him near to the Caliphate.(Al-Mas'u`di, Ha`mish b. al-Athïr, vol. 6, p. 7). 2. Sa'sa'a bin Soha`n Sa'sa'a bin Soha`n al-'Abdi, a great Muja`hid, met Mu'a`wiya in the days of his government, and he asked him: "Which Caliph you have seen me?" Sa'sa'a answered him courageously, saying: "He who rules the people by force, governs over them with pride, and sizes (power) with the means of falsehood, lying, and trickery, is not a caliph! By Allah, at the Battle of Badr, you had neither a sword nor an arrow! You and your father were among those who fought against Allah's Messenger, may Allah bless him and his family! You are a freedman, and son of a freedman. Allah's Messenger, may Allah bless him and his family, released you. Therefore, how is the caliphate appropriate for a freedman?(Al-Mas'u`di, Ha`mish b. al-Athïr, vol. 6, p. 7). 3. Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba, Mu'a`wiya's friend and partner in sins, came to Mu'a`wiya and heard him saying a tradition thereby he slandered the great Prophet. Hence he was dissatisfied with him, left him, went to his son Yazid, and said to him: "I have come from the most malicious of all the people!" Then he related the tradition to him.(Al-Mas'u`di, Muru`jj al-Dhahab, vol. 2, p. 342). 4. Samra bin Jundub Samra bin Jundub, who was a hypocrite and liar, was among those who were indignant with Mu'a`wiya. That was when he removed him from the office of Basrah. Hence he said: "May Allah curse Mu'a`wiya! By Allah, if I had obeyed Allah as I obeyed Mu'a`wiya, He would never had chastised me! (Al-Tabari, Ta`rikh (first edition), vol. 6, p. 157). With this we will end our speech about Mu'a`wiya. He who carefully considers Mu'a`wiya's policy finds it full of acts of disobedience to Allah and His Messenger such as murdering the free, chasing the reformers, violating women, and spreading crimes and offenses.
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.