Ammar (r.a) Will Be Killed By Rebellious Group

[Aabiss_Shakari]

(salam)

The problem with Sunnis is that they never accept the reality and always try to twist and turn the facts and reality to suit their faith. The proper approach should be acceptance of truth and mold our faith and deeds according to the reality and truth. Now see the point in an authentic hadith Prophet (pbuh) said

Sahih Bukhari Narrated by 'Ikrima

Ibn 'Abbas said to me and to his son 'Ali, "Go to Abu Sa'id and listen to what he narrates." So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida', wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, "We were carrying one adobe at a time while 'Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious, aggressive group. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire." 'Ammar said, "I seek refuge with Allah from affliction."

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438

Instead of accepting the reality they will always try to twist the reality in their favor. Now see Sonador twisted its meanings to save corrupt and evil Muawvia (l.a)

Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakra saying, "I saw Allah's Apostle (SAW) on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin Ali was by his side. The Prophet (SAW) was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin Ali saying, 'This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him."

Comments:

1. According to the above hadith that I've posted; Rasoolullah s.a.w affirms that both groups belong to Muslims. He didn't say one of them would be hell bound.

2. Khalifah Muawiyah offered peace.

3. Hasan bin Ali said he had wealth.

4. Hasan bin Ali said his people were involved in killing and corruption. In other words they killed for the sake of money. So nothing can stop them but money.

5. Khalifah Muawiyah offered money to make a deal.

6. The hadith about Saiyidina Ammar Yasir only confirms that those people who kill him belong to the wrong doers. And I believe those people (rebels in the camp of Saiyidina Ali) killed Saiyidina Ammar because he most probably was in favour of ending the war (of Siffeen) and mischief makers like Malik Ashtar didn't want that. So they killed Saiyidina Ammar.

7. Saiyidina Ali's army at Siffeen really comprised these two groups; one group was of Sahabah like Saiyidina Ammar Yasir, and the other group was of mischief makers like Malik Ashtar. And so according to both hadiths it's confirmed that the group of conspirators, headed by people like Malik Ashtar was the rebellious and aggressive group that invited people to the hell fire.

This is the same reasoning Amr bin Al-aas used against Imam Ali a.s when the army of Syria started to avoid fighting against Imam Ali a.s because of martyrdom of Ammar Yasir (r.a) by rebellious and hell bound Muawvia's army. Amr Bin Al-aas who was famous for his satanic politics, deception, lie and Muafiqat said to the people that "Factually, Imam Ali's is killer of Ammar Yasir (r.a) because he brought him r.a in the battlefield. If he a.s would not have brought him here, he would not have been killed". For the first time Imam Ali a.s came in the battlefield and gave a sermon that "O people of Syria do you think that Prophet (pbuh) is killer of Hamza (r.a) as Prophet p.b.u.h took Hamza to fight against Kufaar in Ohad? You are the killers of Ammar r.a".

Can Mr. Sonodar can confirm us that he will go to heaven for sure? If no then he is a muslim how he can not claim this? Being Muslim does not save one from hell due to the bad deeds. Even Kharjiites were muslims but they are destined to hell fire. Two big groups of muslims does not necessarily mean that one of the group will never be hell bound. Actually it proves nothing. Muawvia (l.a)'s army was muslim though by name or apparently therefore, it has no point in his support.

[al-`Ajal Ya Imaam]

Here's a few more Hadith:

• 
  "Mu'awiya shall not die on the path of Islam".
  Tarikh Tabari, volume 8, page 186
  
• 
  "At the time of his death, Mu'awiya shall not be counted as member of my Muslim Ummah"
  Wa'qat Siffeen page 287
  
• 
  "Mu'awiya has a coffin in the deepest part of Hell, one that has a lock on it".
  Ansab al Ashraf Volume 5 page 132
  
• "Verily Mu'awiya shall be in the deepest part of Hell from where he shall shout 'Ya Hanan, Ya Manan' verily I have sinned and spread fitnah throughout the earth".
  Tarikh Tabari, Volume 5 page 622
  

So Sonador, like OP asked, does he go to heaven?

[ßÑíã]

Not only did he try and twist it; he also pinned Ammar's murder on the right wing of Imam Ali (as) in battle (Malik Al-Ashtar) - how rediculous does that sound?

Maybe you should look into Malik's biography to see how saintly this man was, he would never kill a believer - especially seen as Ammar's belief was confirmed by the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

[md. ammar ali]

where is sonodar ??????????? :shifty:

[Hot hot]

Doing sunnah umar coming on the way

[Sonador]

where is sonodar ??????????? :shifty:

Sonador has already defeated his rivals on it in the other thread. Do you want to see how?

Sahih Bukhari

Chapter no: 51, Book of Peacemaking (Reconciliation)

Narrated / Authority of: Al-Hasan Al-Basri

By Allah, Al-Hasan bin Ali led large battalions like mountains against Muawiya.

Amr bin Al-As said (to Muawiya), "I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents."

Muawiya who was really the best of the two men said to him, "O Amr! If these killed those and those killed these, who would be left with me for the jobs of the people, who would be left with me for their women, who would be left with me for their children?"

Then Muawiya sent two Quraishi men from the tribe of Abd Shams called Abdur Rahman bin Sumura and Abdullah bin Amir bin Kuraiz to Al-Hasan saying to them, "Go to this man (i.e. Al-Hasan) and negotiate peace with him and talk and appeal to him." So, they went to Al-Hasan and talked and appealed to him to accept peace.

Al-Hasan said, "We, the offspring of Abdul Muttalib, have got wealth and people have indulged in killing and corruption (and money only will appease them)."

They said to Al-Hasan, "Muawiya offers you so and so, and appeals to you and entreats you to accept peace.

" Al-Hasan said to them, "But who will be responsible for what you have said?" They said, "We will be responsible for it." So, whatever Al-Hasan asked they said, "We will be responsible for it for you."

So, Al-Hasan concluded a peace treaty with Muawiya.

Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakra saying, "I saw Allah's Apostle (SAW) on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin Ali was by his side. The Prophet (SAW) was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin Ali saying, 'This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:

1. According to the above hadith that I've posted; Rasoolullah s.a.w affirms that both groups belong to Muslims. He didn't say one of them would be hell bound.

2. Khalifah Muawiyah offered peace.

3. Hasan bin Ali said he had wealth.

4. Hasan bin Ali said his people were involved in killing and corruption. In other words they killed for the sake of money. So nothing can stop them but money.

5. Khalifah Muawiyah offered money to make a deal.

6. The hadith about Saiyidina Ammar Yasir only confirms that those people who kill him belong to the wrong doers. And I believe those people (rebels in the camp of Saiyidina Ali) killed Saiyidina Ammar because he most probably was in favour of ending the war (of Siffeen) and mischief makers like Malik Ashtar didn't want that. So they killed Saiyidina Ammar.

7. Saiyidina Ali's army at Siffeen really comprised these two groups; one group was of Sahabah like Saiyidina Ammar Yasir, and the other group was of mischief makers like Malik Ashtar. And so according to both hadiths it's confirmed that the group of conspirators, headed by people like Malik Ashtar was the rebellious and aggressive group that invited people to the hell fire.

[ßÑíã]

Sonador has already defeated his rivals on it in the other thread. Do you want to see how?

So you finally admit that your business here on this site is about satisfying and obeying your ego rather than truth-seeking!

Ahsant your true colours have been revealed - now I know that debating you is a waste of time.

[Sonador]

This is the same reasoning Amr bin Al-aas used against Imam Ali a.s when the army of Syria started to avoid fighting against Imam Ali a.s because of martyrdom of Ammar Yasir (r.a) by rebellious and hell bound Muawvia's army. Amr Bin Al-aas who was famous for his satanic politics, deception, lie and Muafiqat said to the people that "Factually, Imam Ali's is killer of Ammar Yasir (r.a) because he brought him r.a in the battlefield. If he a.s would not have brought him here, he would not have been killed". For the first time Imam Ali a.s came in the battlefield and gave a sermon that "O people of Syria do you think that Prophet (pbuh) is killer of Hamza (r.a) as Prophet p.b.u.h took Hamza to fight against Kufaar in Ohad? You are the killers of Ammar r.a".

This is very childish, Aabis. You want to know how?

First it's beyond probability that Syrians or even the people in the camp of Ali ra were aware of this prophesy (hadith). Traditions of the Holy Prophet s.a.w were not compiled then at all. And it was not common among companions to circulate hadiths, they related them to either their students or companions.

To make it simple and digestible to you, I would say that Usul Al-Kafi or Sahih Bukhari didn't exist then. So it's not possible that a whole army was aware of it and it's nonsense to believe that Syrians stopped fighting because of the martyrdom of Saiyidina Ammar bin Yasir ra. It was a war, one side determined to defeat the other and to do that you kill. They hadn't gathered there to give each other hugs.

Can Mr. Sonodar can confirm us that he will go to heaven for sure? If no then he is a muslim how he can not claim this? Being Muslim does not save one from hell due to the bad deeds. Even Kharjiites were muslims but they are destined to hell fire. Two big groups of muslims does not necessarily mean that one of the group will never be hell bound. Actually it proves nothing. Muawvia (l.a)'s army was muslim though by name or apparently therefore, it has no point in his support.

Actually we don't care what shias believe about who is Muslim and who is not. Because according to Ahl-as-Sunnah shias lack knowledge of deen, they follow what they hear from their marjas or ayatullas.

To us it's sufficient what our Prophet says that both groups belong to Islam. Shias don't matter at all here.

So you finally admit that your business here on this site is about satisfying and obeying your ego rather than truth-seeking!

Ahsant your true colours have been revealed - now I know that debating you is a waste of time.

I defeat my rivals for the sake of Allah. I don't even exist here the way I exist in this world. This is just an electronic ID on this forum that will vanish one day. You don't know me, nor do I know you. Do I want fame through this forum? No, I don't.

If I make you pointless, I believe that's from Allah.

If my intention is good, if it's to defend the honour of the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu alayhe wasallam by defending his blessed spouses and his righteous companions, I believe Allah has given me this ability. I'm nothing, just a piece of flesh and bone and a thought granted by Allah.

I hope my arrogance and pride is for the sake of Allah.

[GodBlessAli]

Sonador. The entire point of having a debate is to use the other school of thought's sources to prove to them how their own scholars said 'so and so.' But if you quote your own hadith from your own scholars, those who we don't accept and find fabricated, that defeats the whole purpose. In this case, Bukhari clearly states the faith of Mu'awiya, non-Muslim!

[ßÑíã]

I defeat my rivals for the sake of Allah. I don't even exist here the way I exist in this world. This is just an electronic ID on this forum that will vanish one day. You don't know me, nor do I know you. Do I want fame through this forum? No, I don't.

If I make you pointless, I believe that's from Allah.

If my intention is good, if it's to defend the honour of the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu alayhe wasallam by defending his blessed spouses and his righteous companions, I believe Allah has given me this ability. I'm nothing, just a piece of flesh and bone and a thought granted by Allah.

I hope my arrogance and pride is for the sake of Allah.

There's no such thing as arrogance in the cause of God - I don't know where you got that from, you might want to look up what will happen to those who have self-conceit on the day of judgement.

I'm sorry but somebody debating fe sabeel illah would not have adopted that arrogant approach in the post I addressed you about - no matter how much you try twist and turn it.

[WilayaBlood]

Aslamalaykum,

@Sonador

Think don't be a sheep all your life.

Amr bin Al-As said (to Muawiya), "I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents."

Muawiya who was really the best of the two men said to him, "O Amr! If these killed those and those killed these, who would be left with me for the jobs of the people, who would be left with me for their women, who would be left with me for their children?"

Where did the "BEST" of Muawiyah go with regards to those who were killed during the battle of Siffeen in THOUSANDS over a number of years, their women and their childrens? That now all of a sudden he is concerned now, come on bring a serious narration not a joke.

MU'AWIYA WAS WELL AWARE OF THE KILLERS OF HAZRAT AMMAR R.A, THAT'S WHY THEY ENDED UP IN HIS CAMP

1. These 2 people came in the prescence of Mu'awiya claiming they killed Hazrat Ammar r.a

2. Mu'awiya was aware of the hadith & believed in it but he was reminded that he was the transgressing party that the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w was referring to that's why he got angry & reacted that way by calling him mad

Hazrat hunzila narrates that once i was sitting with Mu'awiya when two men came fighting. each of them said that he martyred hazrat ammar (r.a). abdullah bin amr said: each of you should congratulate each other because i had heard holy prophet saws saying that ammar would be killed by rebel group. Mu'awiya said:why are you then with us? o amr (Mu'awiya is now speaking to his father Amr now) why do you not make us free of his mad person of yours? he replied: once my father complained to holy prophet about me. and he told me to obey my father for whole of my life. and not to disobey him. that is why i am with you, but not there in fights.

Narrated in Musnad Ahmed

Sheikh shoaib termed the sanad sahih and so was the case with sheikh ahmad shakir

[Sonador]

Sonador. The entire point of having a debate is to use the other school of thought's sources to prove to them how their own scholars said 'so and so.' But if you quote your own hadith from your own scholars, those who we don't accept and find fabricated, that defeats the whole purpose. In this case, Bukhari clearly states the faith of Mu'awiya, non-Muslim!

Well, the thing is we don't care what shias believe. Because to us they are not important at all. They are a minority like other sects and religions. Allah has never given them any strength to over power or dominate us. We lead the orthodox Islam and are acknowledged as the mainstream of Islam by the whole world (minus the shias).

But the problem is, shias don't study their own hadith books but they are taught probably since they learn how to read or write, to read sunnis' books of hadith in order to refute them :)

So we just show them how they are wrong through the Quran and our own established Sunnah. We care least for what their own books say. We are NOT dying to prove the Islam or kufr of some personalities. Like it's the aim of life of shias to prove that the wives and companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w were hypocrites and those of them who fought their Imams were apostates.

Where did the "BEST" of Muawiyah go with regards to those who were killed during the battle of Siffeen in THOUSANDS over a number of years, their women and their childrens? That now all of a sudden he is concerned now, come on bring a serious narration not a joke.

MU'AWIYA WAS WELL AWARE OF THE KILLERS OF HAZRAT AMMAR R.A, THAT'S WHY THEY ENDED UP IN HIS CAMP

1. These 2 people came in the prescence of Mu'awiya claiming they killed Hazrat Ammar r.a

2. Mu'awiya was aware of the hadith & believed in it but he was reminded that he was the transgressing party that the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w was referring to that's why he got angry & reacted that way by calling him mad

1. In Siffeen both parties couldn't dominate each other.

2. Imam Ali lost in the way that he made a peace deal with Ameer Muawiyah and lost Syria.

3. It's nonsensical to believe that two soldiers of Ameer Muawiyah appear in his court and claim that they killed Ammar bin Yasir. Why? Because Ammar bin Yasir was not leading the opponents' army. Instead Ali was leading that. Now if they had killed Ali and would have come to Muawiyah to inform of their achievement, it would have made sense.

4. It's also stupid to believe that the alleged killers of Ammar bin Yasir came to Muawiyah for seeking a reward of this killing. Had the war of Siffeen been over by then? Hadn't they come to Muawiyah to receive their 'war booty' too early?

5. If Ammar bin Yasir's death was a cruicial development for the Syrian Army, shouldn't this news have reached Muawiyah earlier than through these claimants of the war booty/reward?

6. And interestingly, how come Muawiyah be inviting Ammar bin Yasir to hell fire when Ammar was not fighting for him. Ammar was fighting for Ali. And according to the hadith Ammar would be killed by the group who would invite him to the hell fire. Do we have a reference to prove that Muawiyah had invited Ammar to join his camp through bribe or whatever sources and means?

7. That's why it's common sense to believe that Saiyidina Ammar bin Yasir ra was killed by the associates of Ali ra by the likes of Malik Ashtar. Because the associates of shia imams were never loyal and faithful to him. They even tried to kill their own imams.

The rest of your post my dear can't prove anything because Masnad of Imam Ahmed or some Sheikh Shoeb has no authority over Sahih Al-Bukhari or Imam Bukhari and the consensus of Ahl-as-Sunnah in this matter.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Sonador

[Aabiss_Shakari]

6. And interestingly, how come Muawiyah be inviting Ammar bin Yasir to hell fire when Ammar was not fighting for him. Ammar was fighting for Ali. And according to the hadith Ammar would be killed by the group who would invite him to the hell fire. Do we have a reference to prove that Muawiyah had invited Ammar to join his camp through bribe or whatever sources and means?

 

So you want to say that Ali (a.s) was nauzbillah calling Ammar (r.a) to hell fire?

 

What non sense

[Panzerwaffe]

Bravo sonadar your truthiness amazes me in fact you get the colbert prize of the year for it