Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Question To Sunni's

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

The reason i am asking especially from the hanafi school of thoughts is because i have come across with a statement before stating that Imam Abu Hanafi didn't like the Umayyad's himself and said "I am sure that the umayyads are spoiling the original being of Islam, Islam was after belief, but with umayyad's Islam has gone and king & queen rule-meant & Un justification has began taking place. There for i give my support's to the abbasid's on over taking the caliphate from the umayyad's". But when i ask questions to the Sunni's who say they follow the hanafi madhab about their imam Hanafi and his affairs with Umayyad's etc. They say nothing because they don't even know who actually umayyad's were and what they did. Yet in another hand i have Sunni friend's who state that MUAWIYAH was a trusted sahabi of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh). But this is the part i get confused. They say they are Hanafi, and yet again like the person (Muawiyah) that their own imam dislikes. Some one please brighten up me.

Edited by Huseyin_Cetin_Turkish_Shia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I opened this thread a couple of days ago. It's funny it has been open for quite a day but no Sunni's didn't even intend to write nothing about their own Imam. Is it that you are not capable to write about him, or is it that you seriously don't know him properly either and just follow what people says.

I hope some can give a short biography about him. Because reading it from wikipedia is different compared to hear it from actual living's & follower's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Both Abu Hanifa and Malik to a lesser extent were what we can properly describe as being politically, but not theologically shi'a. They supported the ahl al-bayt and suffered for that. However, the political theory of Abu Hanifa is now basically non-existent because the scholars who followed after him were greatly integrated into the governmental structures of the day. By taking positions as government muftis they lost some of their independence and became politically quietest which has lingered as the hallmark of sunni thought. If you understand how the schools grew and developed and the influences and pressures on them then you can understand better why they can to the conclusions that they do today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The reason i am asking especially from the hanafi school of thoughts is because i have come across with a statement before stating that Imam Abu Hanafi didn't like the Umayyad's himself and said "I am sure that the umayyads are spoiling the original being of Islam, Islam was after belief, but with umayyad's Islam has gone and king & queen rule-meant & Un justification has began taking place. There for i give my support's to the abbasid's on over taking the caliphate from the umayyad's". But when i ask questions to the Sunni's who say they follow the hanafi madhab about their imam Hanafi and his affairs with Umayyad's etc. They say nothing because they don't even know who actually umayyad's were and what they did. Yet in another hand i have Sunni friend's who state that MUAWIYAH was a trusted sahabi of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh). But this is the part i get confused. They say they are Hanafi, and yet again like the person (Muawiyah) that their own imam dislikes. Some one please brighten up me.

May be turkish people are ill versed in history thats why they dont knwo about ummayyads. Sunnis generally know very well who ummayyads were and stance of Abu Hanifa about them. Abu Hanifa supported Zaid bin Ali against ummayyads. Politically he was of the view that if Khurooj is not likely to succeed, it should not be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

May be turkish people are ill versed in history thats why they dont knwo about ummayyads. Sunnis generally know very well who ummayyads were and stance of Abu Hanifa about them. Abu Hanifa supported Zaid bin Ali against ummayyads. Politically he was of the view that if Khurooj is not likely to succeed, it should not be done.

No my friend, It's not that us Turk's are not ill versed to history. Its just that Sunni's do not make sense to me. One minute they phrase muawiya next minute they say they are the followers of hanafia madhab, then when u ask any further they say muawiya was a great sahabi, then next u ask about umayyads they say (Admit) that the umayyads actually destroyed the style of original Islam. So when has asking about the real Sunnis'm become being ill versed, Just to let u know that 90 % of Turkey follow Hanafi madhab (Well apart from me and few shia brothers and sisters alhamdulillah).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

No Im pretty sure that Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) did not like the Umayyad dynasty...but as for my own opinion I think that a big Sunni-Syed Sufi( who by the way was a follower of the Hanfi Madhab) has said that "Lanat be on Yazid but not his father...and as for Umayyad dynasty I hate them as much as the normal Shia/Sunni but there are some that arent included for me...like Muawiya (ra) 1 and the 2nd (ra)...and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra)

Edited by MZR786
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not really surprising. See here from Abu Hanifa's Fiqh al-Akbar:

8. The most virtuous of all men after the Messenger of God, -- may God's peace and blessings be upon him! – are Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him; then 'Umar ibn al-Khattab; then 'Uthman ibn 'Affan; then 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, may they all enjoy the pleasure of God Most High. They were all steadfast in the truth, with the truth, and we proclaim our allegiance to all of them. We make only good mention of all of the Companions of the Messenger of God, may God's peace and blessings be upon him!

So a couple of things there. Since he clearly believed the first three were superior to Amir al-Mu'mineen (as) then there's no meaning to saying he was somehow a semi-Shi`a. As to the latter part, since he is praising all of the companions, declaring allegiance to them all, and since Mu`awiya would be counted as a sahaba to them as such, he would thus be praiseworthy as well. The later Umayyads who came afterwards who had not met the Prophet (pbuh) would not be companions, thus the difference of attitude to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a couple of things there. Since he clearly believed the first three were superior to Amir al-Mu'mineen (as) then there's no meaning to saying he was somehow a semi-Shi`a. As to the latter part, since he is praising all of the companions, declaring allegiance to them all, and since Mu`awiya would be counted as a sahaba to them as such, he would thus be praiseworthy as well.

None of the 12 imams had a problem with this view. Imam Jafar as Sadiq's (as) majority students in Madina were sunni, he didn't tell them you can't be mommins with this belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not really surprising. See here from Abu Hanifa's Fiqh al-Akbar:

8. The most virtuous of all men after the Messenger of God, -- may God's peace and blessings be upon him! – are Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him; then 'Umar ibn al-Khattab; then 'Uthman ibn 'Affan; then 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, may they all enjoy the pleasure of God Most High. They were all steadfast in the truth, with the truth, and we proclaim our allegiance to all of them. We make only good mention of all of the Companions of the Messenger of God, may God's peace and blessings be upon him!

So a couple of things there. Since he clearly believed the first three were superior to Amir al-Mu'mineen (as) then there's no meaning to saying he was somehow a semi-Shi`a. As to the latter part, since he is praising all of the companions, declaring allegiance to them all, and since Mu`awiya would be counted as a sahaba to them as such, he would thus be praiseworthy as well. The later Umayyads who came afterwards who had not met the Prophet (pbuh) would not be companions, thus the difference of attitude to them.

He was Shi'a in his politics. He is also not praising all of the companions (ra). He is saying that you do not speak badly about the companions (ra).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...