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
em

what is the sunni view on ahlul-bayt

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, SayedShuhada said:

I have never met a sunni who said he didn't love ahl al bayt, but i have never met a sunni who didn't love muawiya and yazid....

It's an hyoicrite love. They say the love them but they also love their killer.

I've never met a Sunni who said he loves Yazid.  As for Mu'awiyah we side with Ali and Hasan in his altercations with them because they were without a doubt correct in the matter.  And ask yourself this, when was the last time you met anyone named Mu'awiyah or Yazid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Al Afari said:

I've never met a Sunni who said he loves Yazid.  As for Mu'awiyah we side with Ali and Hasan in his altercations with them because they were without a doubt correct in the matter.  And ask yourself this, when was the last time you met anyone named Mu'awiyah or Yazid?

I've never met a Sunni that says that they love Muawiyah and Yazid either. I think some Sunnis don't really know who they are because they weren't closely involved with the Prophet (saw), hence why the names are unpopular.

I have seen one or two awful lectures where some scholars give Muawiyah the title of 'Khal-ul-mulmineen' and one where the scholar had the cheek to say Imam Hussain (as) was wrong to fight Yazid! Astaghfiruallah! Though I doubt most Sunnis buy this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zainabamy said:

I've never met a Sunni that says that they love Muawiyah and Yazid either. I think some Sunnis don't really know who they are because they weren't closely involved with the Prophet (saw), hence why the names are unpopular.

I have seen one or two awful lectures where some scholars give Muawiyah the title of 'Khal-ul-mulmineen' and one where the scholar had the cheek to say Imam Hussain (as) was wrong to fight Yazid! Astaghfiruallah! Though I doubt most Sunnis buy this.

 

I always wondered, do you believe al-Hasan (ra) should have fought Mu'awiyah rather than allowing him to be caliph just like al-Husayn (ra) fought Yazid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Al Afari said:

I always wondered, do you believe al-Hasan (ra) should have fought Mu'awiyah rather than allowing him to be caliph just like al-Husayn (ra) fought Yazid?

Well Hassan (as) wanted to fight Muawiyah but the problem was the Muslims had fought 3 hard battles under the leadership of Ali (as) so they didn't want to fight anymore. Therefore Hassan (as) couldn't fight Muawiyah because he didn't have the support. But what he did do was sign a treaty which is significant because Muawiyah agreed to several terms, including allowing Hussain (as) to become caliph after his death. But Muawiyah broke these conditions showing his hypocrisy. So in this way Hassan was able to show and separate truth from falsehood, the very thing Hussain did when he fought at Karbala. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm i have only met a handful of sunni's who love Yazid (love is a strong word, maybe the best word is regard him as legitimately right) , maybe two or three at the most. The majority who i have met do not respect him.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zainabamy said:

Well Hassan (as) wanted to fight Muawiyah but the problem was the Muslims had fought 3 hard battles under the leadership of Ali (as) so they didn't want to fight anymore. Therefore Hassan (as) couldn't fight Muawiyah because he didn't have the support. But what he did do was sign a treaty which is significant because Muawiyah agreed to several terms, including allowing Hussain (as) to become caliph after his death. But Muawiyah broke these conditions showing his hypocrisy. So in this way Hassan was able to show and separate truth from falsehood, the very thing Hussain did when he fought at Karbala. 

As for your the point that al-Hasan (ra) had no support, what about those who gave bay'ah to him?  And didn't al-Husayn (ra) likewise have minimal support as well?  Even less I think!  And also, Mu'awiyah didn't agree to make al-Husayn his sucessor.  Where did you get that?

Edited by Al Afari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Al Afari said:

As for your the point that al-Hasan (ra) had no support, what about those who gave bay'ah to him?  And didn't al-Husayn (ra) likewise have minimal support as well?  Even less I think!  And also, Mu'awiyah didn't agree to make al-Husayn his sucessor.

Its true people gave bay'ah to Hassan (as) but in comparison to Muawiyah's numbers it was only a tiny amount. It was dangerous for people to support Ahlulbayt (as) as well - from the death of the Prophet (saw) people were murdered for mentioning Ghadeer or pledging their allegiance to the grandsons of the Prophet (saw). 

Its true Muawiyah did agree to hand over the caliphate back to the Ahlulbayt (as) - it was one of the conditons of the treaty of the Hassan-Muawiyah treaty. But Muawiyah passed on the caliphate to his son Yazid.

And yes it is true that Hussain (as) was in a very similar position at Karbala. But before he had got to Karbala he did have the support of the people of Kufa, approxiametly 18,000 men in support of the uprising. But by the time the Imam arrived at Kufa, the people of Kufa had turned their backs on him in support of Yazid's new governor, Ubaydallah ibn Zaid. 

Yazid's army blocked Hussain's (as) path to Kufa and instead Hussain and his companions went to Karbala and the enemy army gave them an ultimatium - either pledge allegiance to Yazid or be killed. Imam Hussain (as) could not allow this injustice and that is why he gave everything for Allah (swt) on that day. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zainabamy said:

Its true people gave bay'ah to Hassan (as) but in comparison to Muawiyah's numbers it was only a tiny amount. It was dangerous for people to support Ahlulbayt (as) as well - from the death of the Prophet (saw) people were murdered for mentioning Ghadeer or pledging their allegiance to the grandsons of the Prophet (saw). 

Its true Muawiyah did agree to hand over the caliphate back to the Ahlulbayt (as) - it was one of the conditons of the treaty of the Hassan-Muawiyah treaty. But Muawiyah passed on the caliphate to his son Yazid.

And yes it is true that Hussain (as) was in a very similar position at Karbala. But before he had got to Karbala he did have the support of the people of Kufa, approxiametly 18,000 men in support of the uprising. But by the time the Imam arrived at Kufa, the people of Kufa had turned their backs on him in support of Yazid's new governor, Ubaydallah ibn Zaid. 

Yazid's army blocked Hussain's (as) path to Kufa and instead Hussain and his companions went to Karbala and the enemy army gave them an ultimatium - either pledge allegiance to Yazid or be killed. Imam Hussain (as) could not allow this injustice and that is why he gave everything for Allah (swt) on that day. 

 

What I mean is, that given your belief that al-Husayn (as) knew that he was heading to his death, what is really the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Al Afari said:

As for your the point that al-Hasan (ra) had no support, what about those who gave bay'ah to him?  And didn't al-Husayn (ra) likewise have minimal support as well?  Even less I think!  And also, Mu'awiyah didn't agree to make al-Husayn his sucessor.  Where did you get that?

Salamunalaykum dear brother,

A few points to raise:

No matter what excuses one can find for Muawiyah (and his father Abu Sufiyan), the following really makes one ponder over him:

 

1. Muawiyah appointed his son Yazid, who at the time was aged 33. This means Muawiyah would have had a clear indication of what sort of character his son had. Yazid reigned for three years, until the year 683, so died around aged 36.

 

2. Not only did Muawiyah appoint his son, according to Ibn Kathir, he threatened sahaba, including Imam Hussain a.s

 

Ibn Katheer wrote in his book the Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah that "in the year 56 AH Muawiyah called on the people including those within the outlying territories to pledge allegiance to his son, Yazeed, to be his heir to the Caliphate after him. Almost all the subjects offered their allegiance, with the exception of Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr (the son of Abu Bakr), Abdullah ibn Umar (the son of Umar), al-Husain bin Ali (the son of Ali), Abdullah bin Az-Zubair (The grandson of Abu Bakr) and Abdullah ibn Abbas (Ali's cousin). Because of this Muawiyah passed through al-Madinah on his way back from Makkah upon completion of his Umrah Pilgrimage where he summoned each one of the five aforementioned individuals and threatened them.."

 

3. It is widely agreed upon by all schools what sort of an evil, dirty , drunkard Yazid was. A well known sunni scholar of old, imam suyuti himself sends Lanah upon yazid.

 

 Ibn Kathir's comments on Yazeed

Ibn Kathir himself writes in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 1169 "Dhikr Yazeed bin Muawiyah":
"Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to music, kept the company of boys with no facial hair [civil expression for paedophilia with boys, a form of homosexuality], played drums, kept dogs [civil expression for bestiality], making frogs, bears and monkeys fight. Every morning he used be intoxicated and use to bind monkey with the saddle of a horse and make the horse run".
Reference:Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Vol 8 Page 1169

 

4. Why on earth would someone with the best interests of the Ummah, decide to break a peace treaty they made with Imam Hassan a.s (by which hussain a.s was to be the next caliph), but also appoint his own son (who was aged 33) knowing full well what sort of character his son possesed? How can one say 'May Allah be pleased with Muawiyah' ? Some can argue he didn't know what his son would be like, but the very fact many prominent Sahaba outright did not agree with the appointment and had to be threatened, and even rebel against it shows even while Muawiyah was alive, there was already strong reservations against Yazid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me. For a sunni Muslim, like me, Yazeed was a mardood because he was involved in the martyrdom of the leader and the flower of paradise, Imam Hussain Ibn Ali RA. We hold Maula Ali as sher-e-yazdaan, quwat-e-parwadagar, sher-e-khuda, shah-e-mardan and the gate of the city of knowledge. Though it is right we respect Muawiyah RA too, i can kill anyone who says we love yazeed ibn muawiyah whose dead body was fed to dogs. Now the reasons for respecting Muawiyah RA:

1. First of all, Shia Muslims claim that he was the son of Abu Sufyan who was a bitter enemy of Islam. Remember Allah is the often forgiving most merciful. When Abu Sufyan had accepted Islam at the time of conquest of Mecca 8 A.H and Prophet SAW forgave him, who are we to say that he was a kafir. In this way except the syeds everyone is kafir because his ancestors would have converted to islam from hinduism etc. 

2. Secondly for both battle of Jamal and siffin, I believe that Maula Ali was on the right stance and his opponents were on the wrong stance. But believe me everyone is right in their preception and you doubt the intention of Ummul Mumineen Aisha RA and actions are judged by intentions. As her intention was good she would get only Sawab for fighting against Ali RA nothing else and Ali RA who was on the right will particularly have a higher status in jannah as he forgave hazrat Aisha RA and sent her back alongwith Muhammad Bint Abu Bakar and Imam Hassan to Madinah. Kia tum Ali  RA say baray shia ho? 

3. And yes we believe that Shaykhayn are the most exalted in status after the Messenger of Allah and we are proud of it. But in actual hazrat Aisha RA herself reported that after the Messenger of Allah the most high in status is Hazrat Fatima tuz Zahra RA the shining one the one through whom the spiritual progeny continued so as Hazrat Fatima was the daughter of Wajah e Takhliq E Kainat we claim that after her Shaykhayn were the most high in status and I can give my life for Abu Bakar RA ot Ali RA because both were sahaba of the Holy Prophet though we believe neither of them to be infalliable. Only the Last Messenger SAW is infalliable no one else even the earlier Prophets or the later Imams though they are higher in status and I am literally not parallel to the mud on which they placed their foot. Ya Maula Muhammad SAW Ya Maula ALi RA. and yes Ali RA ko manay baghair ibadaton ka silla nahi milta. But Abu Bakar RA ko bhi manay baghair jannat nahi millay gi likh lo meri yeh baat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Al Afari said:

I've never met a Sunni who said he loves Yazid.  As for Mu'awiyah we side with Ali and Hasan in his altercations with them because they were without a doubt correct in the matter.  And ask yourself this, when was the last time you met anyone named Mu'awiyah or Yazid?

So, Ibn 'Umar was not a "Sunni"? That seems weird.

And, concerning Mu'awiyah, you seem to agree that he was a baghi who invited to Hellfire? Am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

So, Ibn 'Umar was not a "Sunni"? That seems weird.

And, concerning Mu'awiyah, you seem to agree that he was a baghi who invited to Hellfire? Am I right?

Have you met ibn Umar even if he did claim love for him in addition to his bay'a to him?  Or anyone else who claimed to love Yazid?

And no I never said that about Mu'awiyah.

Edited by Al Afari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Al Afari said:

Have you met ibn Umar even if he did claim love for him in addition to his bay'a to him?  Or anyone else who claimed to love Yazid?

And no I never said that about Mu'awiyah.

Let me get you clear. Ibn 'Umar gave ba'yah to Yazid without loving him? Is that your point?

Also, are you claiming that Mu'awiyah was NOT a baghi? That seems to be your second point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Let me get you clear. Ibn 'Umar gave ba'yah to Yazid without loving him? Is that your point?

Also, are you claiming that Mu'awiyah was NOT a baghi? That seems to be your second point.

Great.  If you say that ibn Umar loves Yazid,  then Ali loved Abu Bakr Umar and Uthman.

And yes thats my second point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Al Afari said:

Great.  If you say that ibn Umar loves Yazid,  then Ali loved Abu Bakr Umar and Uthman.

And yes thats my second point.

so how he could not be a Baghi when prophet's predictive statement verify that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mahdi servant.01 said:

so how he could not be a Baghi when prophet's predictive statement verify that.

Are you talking about the one involving Ammar bin Yasir?  Then yes Mu'awiyah is the one being referred to but he is excused due to his ijtihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Al Afari said:

Are you talking about the one involving Ammar bin Yasir?  Then yes Mu'awiyah is the one being referred to but he is excused due to his ijtihad.

dear brother have you ever thought of this statement?

If it was out of Ijtihad no one has right to call him Baghi.

if you do something wrong while you believe it is true based on your reasoning you are justified and people can not call you transgressor. The concept of transgressor only applies when the guy knows the reality yet he goes against it.

Given the above explanation we should say that prophet has done a mistake by calling Muawiad as a transgressor[and to let you know it is narrated in Bukhari] . and do you believe so? the prophet that Allah talks of his as follows:

Nor does he speak out of[ his own ]desire. 53:3

????

 

Edited by mahdi servant.01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/01/2016 at 10:57 PM, Al Afari said:

What I mean is, that given your belief that al-Husayn (as) knew that he was heading to his death, what is really the difference?

The historian S.H.M. Jafri describes this beautifully:

'Husayn's acceptance of Yazid, with the latter's open reactionary attitude against Islamic norms, would not have meant merely a political arrangement, as had been the case with Hasan and Muawiyah, but an endorsement of Yazid's character and way of life as well.' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Al Afari said:

Great.  If you say that ibn Umar loves Yazid,  then Ali loved Abu Bakr Umar and Uthman.

And yes thats my second point.

The ba'yah of Imam 'Ali, 'alaih al-salam, if it ever took place, was given under duress. Read your Sahih al-Bukhari. That clearly was not a ba'yah. A true ba'yah is done completely out of free will, with no pressure or force. If anything, that ba'yah under duress is evidence of hatred against the unjust ruler.

By contrast, Ibn 'Umar willingly gave ba'yah to Yazid, may Allah curse them. He was even prepared to denounce his own blood relations if they broke their ba'yah to Yazid! That is evidence of deep love for the unjust ruler.

3 hours ago, Al Afari said:

Are you talking about the one involving Ammar bin Yasir?  Then yes Mu'awiyah is the one being referred to but he is excused due to his ijtihad.

So, the Prophet, sallallah 'alaih wa aalih, was WRONG to have referred to Mu'awiyah as a baghi who invited to Hellfire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

The ba'yah of Imam 'Ali, 'alaih al-salam, if it ever took place, was given under duress. Read your Sahih al-Bukhari. That clearly was not a ba'yah. A true ba'yah is done completely out of free will, with no pressure or force. If anything, that ba'yah under duress is evidence of hatred against the unjust ruler.

By contrast, Ibn 'Umar willingly gave ba'yah to Yazid, may Allah curse them. He was even prepared to denounce his own blood relations if they broke their ba'yah to Yazid! That is evidence of deep love for the unjust ruler.

So, the Prophet, sallallah 'alaih wa aalih, was WRONG to have referred to Mu'awiyah as a baghi who invited to Hellfire?

Quote the hadith :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

So, the Prophet, sallallah 'alaih wa aalih, was WRONG to have referred to Mu'awiyah as a baghi who invited to Hellfire?

When you answer that, I will quote the requested hadith.

 

Are you alright?  I want you to quote where he says that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Al Afari said:

Are you alright?  I want you to quote where he says that.

So, you are now denying that he said that? Let me remind you of what you wrote before:

4 hours ago, Al Afari said:

Are you talking about the one involving Ammar bin Yasir?  Then yes Mu'awiyah is the one being referred to but he is excused due to his ijtihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mahdi servant.01 said:

the Hadith regarding what prophets said about the killer of Ammar?

 

http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-38171/page-1485

قلت: ورواه كذلك أحمد وابن حبان في الصحيح ولفظهم كنا نحمل في بناء المسجد لبنة لبنة وعمار لبنتين لبنتين فرآه النبي - صلّى الله عليه وسلم - فجعل ينفض التراب عنه ويقول ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار قال السيوطي في الخصائص هذا متواتر

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Al Afari said:

Well lets analyze the quote in depth because there are a few things to be said about it.  

This is from Sahih al-Bukhari:

حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُخْتَارٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدٌ الْحَذَّاءُ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، قَالَ لِي ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَلاِبْنِهِ عَلِيٍّ انْطَلِقَا إِلَى أَبِي سَعِيدٍ فَاسْمَعَا مِنْ حَدِيثِهِ‏.‏ فَانْطَلَقْنَا فَإِذَا هُوَ فِي حَائِطٍ يُصْلِحُهُ، فَأَخَذَ رِدَاءَهُ فَاحْتَبَى، ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ يُحَدِّثُنَا حَتَّى أَتَى ذِكْرُ بِنَاءِ الْمَسْجِدِ فَقَالَ كُنَّا نَحْمِلُ لَبِنَةً لَبِنَةً، وَعَمَّارٌ لَبِنَتَيْنِ لَبِنَتَيْنِ، فَرَآهُ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَيَنْفُضُ التُّرَابَ عَنْهُ وَيَقُولُ ‏ "‏ وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ، يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ، وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ يَقُولُ عَمَّارٌ أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الْفِتَنِ‏.‏

Narrated `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 (ﷺ) saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to `Ammar. 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."

Whoever compares the Arabic text with the English translation - specifically the red parts - sees a huge fraud here. The red part in Arabic reads: "Woe to befall 'Ammar! The baghi group will murder him." Compare that with what the Salafi translator, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, has translated.

 

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are actually two narrations that got combined.

The one that says, "woe to ammar he will be killed by the baghi group" is narrated separately from the one that says that they invite to hell and he invites to heaven.

Read here: http://*************/2016/01/14/ammar-calls-them-to-paradise-and-they-call-him-to-hellfire/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Al Afari said:

Those are actually two narrations that got combined.

The one that says, "woe to ammar he will be killed by the baghi group" is narrated separately from the one that says that they invite to hell and he invites to heaven.

Read here: http://*************/2016/01/14/ammar-calls-them-to-paradise-and-they-call-him-to-hellfire/

Do you have eyes at all? Did you read what I posted from your Sahih al-Bukhari? Are you saying your Bukhari altered the hadith or what? Besides, what difference does it make? You have already confessed that Mu'awiyah and his group are those referred to as the murderers in the hadith. So, even if you play games and remove the last part (not that I am surprised), you are still stuck with Mu'awiyah the Murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Mu'awiyah is part of the transgressive group by waging an unjustified war on Ameer al Mumineen Ali (as).

But he isnt the one thats being referred to as the inviter to hell.  Read the link its two different narrations.  Bukhari includes many versions of the same hadith with different chains of narrators.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...