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
Sign in to follow this  
Ibrahim786

Who Killed Ammar Bin Yassir Ra?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

who killed ammar bin yassir ra?

I would like to know how the shia arrived to the conclusion that muawiyah killed ammar ra when there is no hadith or narration (that I am aware of) stating that muawiyah or a man from muawiyahs camp killed ammar bin yasser ra.

how do we know who killed ammar? is it authentic narration or not?

we know that uthman ra was killed by men cliaming to love ali ra but ali ra was innocent of them

we know that zubair ra was killed by a man from ali ra's camp but ali ra was innocent of him

we know that ali ra was killed by an ex supporter who then later reviled him

we know that hussain ra was killed by shimr and another man who were both with ali ra in siffee

but who killed ammar ra? did he die before or after the arbitration? where is the proof as to who killed him. we know of a hadith of his killers being trangressors but the hadith does not state names !!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was killed by the partisons of Muawiyah, and those partisons were not like the partisons of Ali who later left him and killed him. And if they had heard this hadith, they would never have killed him, but ofcourse it was to happen so that they may not be aware of the hadith, so they killed him, and thus it proved that Ali (ra) is on the truth and Muawiyah is wrong in his stance. It was many of the evidences, which happened during or after the war, which proved that Ali (ra) was upon the truth. And Muawiyah committed mistake in ijtihad. Some people try to prove the kufr of Muawiyah from the martyrdom of Ammar bin Yasir, and this is not right, anyhow people try to make opinions on the basis of selected ahadith, and wrong interpretations, while we should look at all the relevant ahadith and than make any opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

we know that uthman ra was killed by men cliaming to love ali ra but ali ra was innocent of them

we know that zubair ra was killed by a man from ali ra's camp but ali ra was innocent of him

we know that ali ra was killed by an ex supporter who then later reviled him

we know that hussain ra was killed by shimr and another man who were both with ali ra in siffee

Edited by B-N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was killed by the partisons of Muawiyah, and those partisons were not like the partisons of Ali who later left him and killed him. And if they had heard this hadith, they would never have killed him, but ofcourse it was to happen so that they may not be aware of the hadith, so they killed him, and thus it proved that Ali (ra) is on the truth and Muawiyah is wrong in his stance. It was many of the evidences, which happened during or after the war, which proved that Ali (ra) was upon the truth. And Muawiyah committed mistake in ijtihad. Some people try to prove the kufr of Muawiyah from the martyrdom of Ammar bin Yasir, and this is not right, anyhow people try to make opinions on the basis of selected ahadith, and wrong interpretations, while we should look at all the relevant ahadith and than make any opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says in al-Isti’aab fee Ma’rifah al-Sahaabah (Beirut: Daar al-Jayl; 1st edition, 1412 H) [annotator: ‘Alee b. Muhammad al-Bajaawee], vol. 3, p. 1117:

æáåÐå ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ØÑÞ ÕÍÇÍ ÞÏ ÐßÑäÇåÇ Ýì ãæÖÚåÇ æÑæì ãä ÍÏíË Úáì æãä ÍÏíË ÇÈä ãÓÚæÏ æãä ÍÏíË ÃÈì ÃíæÈ ÇáÃäÕÇÑì Ãäå ÃãÑ ÈÞÊÇá ÇáäÇßËíä æÇáÞÇÓØíä æÇáãÇÑÞíä.

For these reports are saheeh chains, which we have mentioned at their places. It is narrated in the hadeeth of ‘Alee, and thehadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood, and the hadeeth of Aboo Ayoob al-Ansaaree that he (‘Alee) was commanded (by the Prophet) to fight the oath-breakers, and the Qaasiteen and the apostates.

Imaam al-Bazzaar in his Musnad al-Bazzaar (Beirut: Muasassat ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan; 1st edition, 1409 H) [annotator: Dr. Mahfooz al-Rahmaan Zayn Allaah], vol. 3, pp. 26-27, #774, also records this saheeh hadeeth of Imaam ‘Alee:

ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÇÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ ÞÇá äÇ ÇáÑÈíÚ Èä ÓÚíÏ ÞÇá äÇ ÓÚíÏ Èä ÚÈíÏ Úä Úáí Èä ÑÈíÚÉ Úä Úáí ÞÇá ÚåÏ Åáíø ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ýí ÞÊÇá ÇáäÇßËíä æÇáÞÇÓØíä æÇáãÇÑÞíä.

Narrated ‘Alee:

The Messenger of Allaah, peace be upon him, made a covenant to me to fight the oath-breakers, the Qaasiteen and the apostates.

Commenting upon the authenticity of this report, Imaam al-Haythamee states in Majma’ al-Zawaaid (Beirut: Daar al-Kitaab al-‘Arabī; 1407 H), vol. 7, p. 238:

ÑæÇå ÇáÈÒÇÑ æÇáØÈÑÇäí Ýí ÇáÃæÓØ æÃÍÏ ÅÓäÇÏí ÇáÈÒÇÑ ÑÌÇáå ÑÌÇá ÇáÕÍíÍ ÛíÑ ÇáÑÈíÚ Èä ÓÚíÏ ææËÞå ÇÈä ÍÈÇä.

Al-Bazzaar recorded it, as well as al-Tabaraanee in al-Awsaat. One of the chains of al-Bazzaar contains narrators of theSaheeh, with the exception of al-Rabee’ b. Sa’eed, and Ibn Hibbaan declared him trustworthy.

Imaam al-‘Asqalaanee explains this hadeeth in Talkhees al-Habeer (Madīnah al-Munawwara; 1384 H) [annotator: Sayyid ‘Abd Allaah Haashim al-Yamaanee al-Madanee], vol. 4, p. 44:

æóíóÏõáõø Úáíå ÍóÏöíËõ Úóáöíòø ÃõãöÑúÊ ÈöÞöÊóÇáö ÇáäóøÇßöËöíäó æóÇáúÞóÇÓöØöíäó æóÇáúãóÇÑöÞöíäó ÑóæóÇåõ ÇáäóøÓóÇÆöíõø Ýí ÇáúÎóÕóÇÆöÕö æóÇáúÈóÒóøÇÑõ æóÇáØóøÈóÑóÇäöíõø æóÇáäóøÇßöËöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáúÌóãóáö áöÃóäóøåõãú äóßóËõæÇ ÈóíúÚóÊóåõ æóÇáúÞóÇÓöØöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáÔóøÇãö áöÃóäóøåõãú ÌóÇÑõæÇ Úä ÇáúÍóÞöø Ýí ÚóÏóãö ãõÈóÇíóÚóÊöåö æóÇáúãóÇÑöÞöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáäóøåúÑóæóÇäö

What further proves this is the hadeeth of ‘Alee in which he says “I was COMMANDED to fight the oath-breakers,theQaasiteenand the apostates”. Al-Nisaaee recorded it in al-Khasaais, as well as al-Bazzaar and al-Tabaraanee. The people of al-Jamal (under ‘Aa’ishah) were the oath-breakers because they broke their bay’ah to him (i.e. ‘Alee), and theQaasiteen were the people of Syria (under Mu’aawiyah) because they left the haqq (truth) in their refusal to give himbay’ah. The apostates were the people of al-Nahrawaan (i.e. the Khawaarij)

The Prophet called Mu’aawiyah and his gang “Qaasiteen”. The implications of this are very severe.

I haven't yet seen any Sahih hadith for the hadith of qasiteen , naqiseen etc

You presented one hadith with sanad, and its first narrator Ibad ibn Yaqoob is Shia Muhaddith,

Ibn Adi says : He narrates munkar narrations in the fazail and mathalib, he further said that this person is extremist in tashayyu.

Ibn Khuzaima declared him thiqah in hadith, and condemned in his beliefs.

Dhahabi declared him Saduq and Shia muhaddith and an innovator.

And it is a rule of science that if an innovator narrates a narration which is supportive of his beliefs and ideologies, such of his narrations are not accepted.

The partisons of Muawiyah were transgressors according to this hadith. Being a transgressor doesn't make anyone kafir. Keep it in mind. It is just like the narration that if any Muslim kills any Muslim, he commits kufr, now many Muslims have been killed by Muslims, are they kafirs? No. Similarly, there is a narration that Muslims are like a body, if one part aches, the other part feels it, so if there is a Muslim who feels joy at the trouble of his Muslim brother, does it mean he is out of this body or in other words, is he kafir? No. These ahadith are meant to show the severity of the mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zubair was killed by amr b jumroz ( various spellings) of tribe of ahnaf b qays ( who were neutral in Jamal not sided with ali) they later claimed a prize for their kill

Talha was killled by Marwan to claimed to be supporting aisha

but we can only presume that most likely ammar was killed by a partison of muawiyah in siffeen if there is no proof in the seerah of ali ra. otherwise who are the trangressors


Ammar was killed by abul ghadiya al juhni a companion who supported muawiyah in siffin its well recorded, he has a seperate entry in Isaba as well.Some say Abul ghadiya is not a sahabi others say he is

btw bro what do u have against iraqis , dont take ur hatred of the twelvers on iraqis of that time

we know that hussain ra was killed by shimr and another man who were both with ali ra in siffeen like just Sahaba Ammar Yasir and others were in Siffeen yet Ahle Sunnah chose to take Hadiths from those killers instead of cursing them.

so whats wrong with thAT ?, abu mikhanaf's narrative about karbala also comes in part from the kufan army that fought hussain

just because they sinned dosent mean they were all liars , didnt muslim b aqeel drink wine ? but we dont condemn all from him for that sin

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so whats wrong with thAT ?, abu mikhanaf's narrative about karbala also comes in part from the kufan army that fought hussain

just because they sinned dosent mean they were all liars , didnt muslim b aqeel drink wine ? but we dont condemn all from him for that sin

But those people are called 'Shias' unlike the present day Nawasib who are dying to declare Shimer as (Imami) Shia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ there were no imami shias as we know them at that time so its a moot point.

IrAqis were caught between different parties and supported them as lomg as it suited them , some were more loyal for whatever reason but others were not.Same thing happened when ummayyads and zubayrids fought and later abbassids and ummayyds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zubair was killed by amr b jumroz ( various spellings) of tribe of ahnaf b qays ( who were neutral in Jamal not sided with ali) they later claimed a prize for their kill

Talha was killled by Marwan to claimed to be supporting aisha


Ammar was killed by abul ghadiya al juhni a companion who supported muawiyah in siffin its well recorded, he has a seperate entry in Isaba as well.Some say Abul ghadiya is not a sahabi others say he is

btw bro what do u have against iraqis , dont take ur hatred of the twelvers on iraqis of that time

so whats wrong with thAT ?, abu mikhanaf's narrative about karbala also comes in part from the kufan army that fought hussain

just because they sinned dosent mean they were all liars , didnt muslim b aqeel drink wine ? but we dont condemn all from him for that sin

I have nothing against Iraqis - although alot of fitnah and groups emerged from kufa.

on a side point - are you sure muslim bin aqeel drank wine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yet no bigger fitna than malookiat which emerged from shaam

according to abu mikhanaf's version of karbala ( he wud hardly say that about a hashmi considering his family loyalties to them)

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yes no bigger fitna than malookiat which emerged from shaam

according to abu mikhanaf's version of karbala ( he wud hardly say that about a hashmi considering his family loyalties to them)

apologies.........who are the malookiat??

I find it very hard to believe that muslim bin aqeel drank wine !!!!!! are we on the same wave length.

are you telling me that you believe that muslim bin aqeel drank wine????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ dude qudama b mazun a badri sahabi drank wine , muslim's dad aqeel was polytheist at that time.Hamza was BIG drinker ( before wine was outlawed though).Muslim was neither an angel nor a prophet.There is conversation between ibn ziyad and muslim in which it seems that muslim denies this accusation first but then defends that as better than drinking blood of muslims.

anyways God knows best I'm just going by our old pal abu mikhanaf this matter is of trivial importance the point is one sin does not automatically make someone ineligable as a narrater.

malookiat is tyranny or dictatorship

btw what were u trying to imply with your initial question ? it seems like u were trying to say some follower of ali might have killed ammar for all we know

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if they had heard this hadith, they would never have killed him, but ofcourse it was to happen so that they may not be aware of the hadith, so they killed him,

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ dude qudama b mazun a badri sahabi drank wine , muslim's dad aqeel was polytheist at that time.Hamza was BIG drinker ( before wine was outlawed though).Muslim was neither an angel nor a prophet.There is conversation between ibn ziyad and muslim in which it seems that muslim denies this accusation first but then defends that as better than drinking blood of muslims.

anyways God knows best I'm just going by our old pal abu mikhanaf this matter is of trivial importance the point is one sin does not automatically make someone ineligable as a narrater.

malookiat is tyranny or dictatorship

btw what were u trying to imply with your initial question ? it seems like u were trying to say some follower of ali might have killed ammar for all we know

well......that was a possibility I thought as I was unaware of the killer's name and who he was etc etc. Although you would suspect a man from muawiyah's army as the most likely......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aslamalaykum,

@Kalaam

I haven't yet seen any Sahih hadith for the hadith of qasiteen , naqiseen etc

If you remove the wool from your eyes maybe that will help.

Did I quote this in french... I will make it more clear by enlarging the fonts for you

Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says in al-Isti’aab fee Ma’rifah al-Sahaabah (Beirut: Daar al-Jayl; 1st edition, 1412 H) [annotator: ‘Alee b. Muhammad al-Bajaawee], vol. 3, p. 1117:

æáåÐå ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ØÑÞ ÕÍÇÍ ÞÏ ÐßÑäÇåÇ Ýì ãæÖÚåÇ æÑæì ãä ÍÏíË Úáì æãä ÍÏíË ÇÈä ãÓÚæÏ æãä ÍÏíË ÃÈì ÃíæÈ ÇáÃäÕÇÑì Ãäå ÃãÑ ÈÞÊÇá ÇáäÇßËíä æÇáÞÇÓØíä æÇáãÇÑÞíä.

For these reports are saheeh chains, which we have mentioned at their places. It is narrated in the hadeeth of ‘Alee, and thehadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood, and the hadeeth of Aboo Ayoob al-Ansaaree that he (‘Alee) was commanded (by the Prophet) to fight the oath-breakers, and the Qaasiteen and the apostates.

Hope that helps unless you will try to say that Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr is a jahil in the imul rijaal field?

Imaam al-‘Asqalaanee explains this hadeeth in Talkhees al-Habeer (Madinah al-Munawwara; 1384 H) [annotator: Sayyid ‘Abd Allaah Haashim al-Yamaanee al-Madanee], vol. 4, p. 44:

æóíóÏõáõø Úáíå ÍóÏöíËõ Úóáöíòø ÃõãöÑúÊ ÈöÞöÊóÇáö ÇáäóøÇßöËöíäó æóÇáúÞóÇÓöØöíäó æóÇáúãóÇÑöÞöíäó ÑóæóÇåõ ÇáäóøÓóÇÆöíõø Ýí ÇáúÎóÕóÇÆöÕö æóÇáúÈóÒóøÇÑõ æóÇáØóøÈóÑóÇäöíõø æóÇáäóøÇßöËöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáúÌóãóáö áöÃóäóøåõãú äóßóËõæÇ ÈóíúÚóÊóåõ æóÇáúÞóÇÓöØöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáÔóøÇãö áöÃóäóøåõãú ÌóÇÑõæÇ Úä ÇáúÍóÞöø Ýí ÚóÏóãö ãõÈóÇíóÚóÊöåö æóÇáúãóÇÑöÞöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáäóøåúÑóæóÇäö

What further proves this is the hadeeth of ‘Alee in which he says “I was COMMANDED to fight the oath-breakers,theQaasiteenand the apostates”. Al-Nisaaee recorded it in al-Khasaais, as well as al-Bazzaar and al-Tabaraanee. The people of al-Jamal (under ‘Aa’ishah) were the oath-breakers because they broke their bay’ah to him (i.e. ‘Alee), and theQaasiteen were the people of Syria (under Mu’aawiyah) because they left the haqq (truth) in their refusal to give himbay’ah. The apostates were the people of al-Nahrawaan (i.e. the Khawaarij)

As to that hadeeth, al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalaanee HAS USED IT AS PROOF, and has done a commentary of it.

You presented one hadith with sanad, and its first narrator Ibad ibn Yaqoob is Shia Muhaddith,

Ibn Adi says : He narrates munkar narrations in the fazail and mathalib, he further said that this person is extremist in tashayyu.

Ibn Khuzaima declared him thiqah in hadith, and condemned in his beliefs.

Dhahabi declared him Saduq and Shia muhaddith and an innovator.

And it is a rule of science that if an innovator narrates a narration which is supportive of his beliefs and ideologies, such of his narrations are not accepted.

Narration which the two previous scholars that I've mentioned didn't have problem with the hadith, also the same narration which the scholars of the Ahle sunna didn't have a problem with it

Commenting upon the authenticity of this report, Imaam al-Haythamee states in Majma’ al-Zawaaid (Beirut: Daar al-Kitaab al-‘Arabī; 1407 H), vol. 7, p. 238:

ÑæÇå ÇáÈÒÇÑ æÇáØÈÑÇäí Ýí ÇáÃæÓØ æÃÍÏ ÅÓäÇÏí ÇáÈÒÇÑ ÑÌÇáå ÑÌÇá ÇáÕÍíÍ ÛíÑ ÇáÑÈíÚ Èä ÓÚíÏ ææËÞå ÇÈä ÍÈÇä.

Al-Bazzaar recorded it, as well as al-Tabaraanee in al-Awsaat. One of the chains of al-Bazzaar contains narrators of theSaheeh, with the exception of al-Rabee’ b. Sa’eed, and Ibn Hibbaan declared him trustworthy.

Now this has nothing to do with supporting his beliefs because even some sunni scholars of the past did not have a good opinion of Mu'awiyaa and not surprising He is not even included in the khulafaa Rashideen, even Imam Nasai was beaten up now you gonna start accusing him now of tashayyu beliefs. Sort your own mess up first as this has nothing to do with tashayyu beliefs, this is to do with reality if you like it or not Mu'awiyaa was a baaghi.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...