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

1 minute ago, Al Afari said:

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.

This is how al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani interprets the hadith in Fath al-Bari:

فإن قيل كان قتله بصفين وهو مع على والذين قتلوه مع معاوية وكان معه جماعة من الصحابة فكيف يجوز عليهم الدعاء إلى النار فالجواب أنهم كانوا ظانين أنهم يدعون إلى الجنة وهم مجتهدون لا لوم عليهم في أتباع ظنونهم

If it is said: "He ('Ammar) was murdered at Siffin while he was on the side of 'Ali, while his murderers were with Mu'awiyah, and a group of the Sahabah were also with him. Then, how is it possible that they were calling to Hellfire?" The answer is: They were thinking that they were calling to Paradise, and they were doing ijtihad. There was no blame upon them for following their thoughts.

Ibn Hajar is a billion times more knowledgeable in hadith than all those mediocre Nawasib whom you are relying upon. He agreed that Mu'awiyah and a group of other Sahabah and their followers were the callers to Hellfire in the hadith.

Share this post


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

This is how al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani interprets the hadith in Fath al-Bari:

فإن قيل كان قتله بصفين وهو مع على والذين قتلوه مع معاوية وكان معه جماعة من الصحابة فكيف يجوز عليهم الدعاء إلى النار فالجواب أنهم كانوا ظانين أنهم يدعون إلى الجنة وهم مجتهدون لا لوم عليهم في أتباع ظنونهم

If it is said: "He ('Ammar) was murdered at Siffin while he was on the side of 'Ali, while his murderers were with Mu'awiyah, and a group of the Sahabah were also with him. Then, how is it possible that they were calling to Hellfire?" The answer is: They were thinking that they were calling to Paradise, and they were doing ijtihad. There was no blame upon them for following their thoughts.

Ibn Hajar is a billion times more knowledgeable in hadith than all those mediocre Nawasib whom you are relying upon. He agreed that Mu'awiyah and a group of other Sahabah and their followers were the callers to Hellfire in the hadith.

Firstly,

It's the opinion of al-Bayhaqi, al-Samit, al-Dhahabi and al-Qastalani that that hadith doesn't appear in the original Bukhari in that combination.  They are two separate hadiths about two separate occasions.  The hadith got combined by khalid al hatha' (whose name is in your original quote) wrongfully.

Secondly, 

Let's just say for argument's sake that YES Muawiah is the one being referred to as the caller to hellfire.  Read what ibn Hajar said in your quote.  That he is forgiven as that is from his own ijtihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 23, 2016 at 4:07 PM, em said:

What is the sunni view on ahlul-bayt?

sunnis deeply love and respect the ahlul-bayt(as). we also love and respect the sahaba(ra) all of them. we do not make takfir, curse or disrespect any of them, we leave their affair to Allah(azwj). With regards to our love and respects for them, we are not extreme in our love for any one of them. Nor do we dissociate from any of them.  This is position of the sunnis.

"whoever speaks well of the the companions of the Messenger of God (pbuh), his chaste wives, and his purified progeny is absolved of hypocrisy"--this is from the aqeedah of ahlul sunnah wal jammah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, simple-muslim said:

sunnis deeply love and respect the ahlul-bayt(as). we also love and respect the sahaba(ra) all of them. we do not make takfir, curse or disrespect any of them, we leave their affair to Allah(azwj). With regards to our love and respects for them, we are not extreme in our love for any one of them. Nor do we dissociate from any of them.  This is position of the sunnis.

"whoever speaks well of the the companions of the Messenger of God (pbuh), his chaste wives, and his purified progeny is absolved of hypocrisy"--this is from the aqeedah of ahlul sunnah wal jammah.

something is bothering me in this regard.

let's say I am a Sunni. Now I am to love two guys who one attaked the other. one is the killer of the another. how can I digest it ? plz , help me

Share this post


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

Firstly,It's the opinion of al-Bayhaqi, al-Samit, al-Dhahabi and al-Qastalani that that hadith doesn't appear in the original Bukhari in that combination.  They are two separate hadiths about two separate occasions.  The hadith got combined by khalid al hatha' (whose name is in your original quote) wrongfully.

The hadith has been narrated by others apart from Khalid al-Hadha, like these reports from Tarikh Dimashq:

خبرنا أبو عبد الله الحسين بن عبد الملك أنا أبو طاهر أحمد بن محمود أنا أبو بكر محمد بن إبراهيم بن علي نا أحمد بن الحسين الجراري وراق علي بن حرب نا محمد بن أحمد بن أبي المثنى خال أبي يعلى حدثني الأسود بن عامر نا شريك عن الحسن بن عبيد الله عن مجاهد عن أسامة بن شريك وقال مرة أخرى أسامة بن زيد قال قال النبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ما لهم ولعمار يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار قاتله وسالبه في النار

And:

كذا رواه موصولا والمحفوظ مرسل أخبرناه الشريف أبو القاسم النسيب نا أبو بكر الخطيب نا الحسن بن أبي بكر أنا أبو محمد الحسن بن محمد بن يحيى بن الحسن بن جعفر العلوي حدثني جدي نا هارون بن موسى هو الفروي نا محمد بن يحيى حدثني عبد العزيز بن عمران عن عبد العزيز بن أبان عن سفيان بن سعيد عن سلمة بن كهيل عن مجاهد عن ابن شريك قال رآهم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) وهم يحملون الحجارة على عمار وهو يبني المسجد فقال ما لهم ولعمار يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار وذلك فعل الأشقياء الأشراز

Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani also records:

حدثنا سفيان ابن احمد بن عمرو البزار ثنا خالد بن يوسف السمتي ثنا عبدالنور بن عبدالله عن عبدالملك بن أبي سليمان عن ليث عن طاووس عن ابن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم اللهم إنك أولعتهم بعمار يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار

And Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah has a mursal version:

حدثنا وكيع قال ثنا سفيان عن سلمة بن كهيل عن مجاهد قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ما لهم ولعمار يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار وكذلك دأب الأشقياء الفجار

 

Quote

Secondly, 

Let's just say for argument's sake that YES Muawiah is the one being referred to as the caller to hellfire.

Actually, everyone who rose against Imam 'Ali, 'alaih al-salam, was a caller to Hellfire, as Ibn Taymiyyah states:

وهذا أيضا يدل على صحة إمامة علي ووجوب طاعته وأن الداعي إلى طاعته داع إلى الجنة والداعي إلى مقاتلته داع إلى النار - وإن كان متأولا - وهو دليل على أنه لم يكن يجوز قتال علي وعلى هذا فمقاتله مخطئ وإن كان متأولا أو باغ بلا تأويل وهو أصح

Quote

 Read what ibn Hajar said in your quote.  That he is forgiven as that is from his own ijtihad.

So, Ibn Hajar decides for Allah whom He must forgive?!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, simple-muslim said:

I don't know who that is  but mashallah you mr. tawheedi know so much.  please educate me, I'm not ashamed to say I don't know.

He was one of the Sahabah.

And, by the way, I am not "Mr. Tawheedi" and I don't know so much.

Share this post


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

something is bothering me in this regard.

let's say I am a Sunni. Now I am to love two guys who one attaked the other. one is the killer of the another. how can I digest it ? plz , help me

As best I know, with regard to the fitnah that occurred between them. The position of ahl sunnah is that the position of sayyidina Ali(ra) was the right position but again we do not curse or hate any of the sahaba.  Allah will judge between them.  It's not for a no body like me to judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Salafi view -

Imam Ali [AS], Imam al-Hasan [AS], Imam al-Husayn [AS] and Sayyedah Fatima [AS] are all valued and highly respected (from their point of view). Imam Ali [AS] being the fourth of the rightly guided Caliphs, al-Hasan [AS] and al-Husayn [AS] being the Leaders of the Youth in Paradise, and Sayyedah Fatima [AS] being the Sayyedah of the Women in Paradise.

Now, as for Imam Zayn'ul Abideen [AS], Imam al-Baqir [AS], Imam al-Sadiq [AS], Imam al-Kadhim [AS] and possibly Imam al-Ridha [AS], and maybe even Imam al-Jawad [AS], they were all highly regarded Islamic scholars.

As far as Imam al-Hadi [AS] and Imam al-Askari [AS], I have not seen any Sunni praise them as being scholars, but what they say is that they were respected Muslims.

As for Imam al-Mahdi [AS], he either existed or didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, simple-muslim said:

As best I know, with regard to the fitnah that occurred between them. The position of ahl sunnah is that the position of sayyidina Ali(ra) was the right position but again we do not curse or hate any of the sahaba.  Allah will judge between them.  It's not for a no body like me to judge.

The Prophet called Mu'awiyah and his gang "callers to Hellfire." Do you agree with the Prophet in that?

Share this post


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

The Prophet called Mu'awiyah and his gang "callers to Hellfire." Do you agree with the Prophet in that?

So you are debating me?  I'm not debating you.  If you want a debate there is a website of sunnis who specialize in debating 12er shia and their beliefs feel free to go there and engage them in a debate  http: // forum. twelver shia .net / index. php I'm not a member and only occasionally look through their website.  I've seen your copy and paste work on this site and it seems you do this full time and special in this as well, so best you debate those who specialize in this topic.  I simply present the sunni position as I understand them.  Now if you like I'll contact those guys for you so you can set up a debate them.

Again with regards to the fitnah that occurred among the sahaba(ra) our position as ahl sunnah wal jammah is that we leave their affair to Allah.  We don't hate, curse, or disrespect any of them. Nor do we go to an extreme with our love for any of them. 

Edited by simple-muslim

Share this post


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

The hadith has been narrated by others apart from Khalid al-Hadha, like these reports from Tarikh Dimashq:

خبرنا أبو عبد الله الحسين بن عبد الملك أنا أبو طاهر أحمد بن محمود أنا أبو بكر محمد بن إبراهيم بن علي نا أحمد بن الحسين الجراري وراق علي بن حرب نا محمد بن أحمد بن أبي المثنى خال أبي يعلى حدثني الأسود بن عامر نا شريك عن الحسن بن عبيد الله عن مجاهد عن أسامة بن شريك وقال مرة أخرى أسامة بن زيد قال قال النبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ما لهم ولعمار يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار قاتله وسالبه في النار

And:

كذا رواه موصولا والمحفوظ مرسل أخبرناه الشريف أبو القاسم النسيب نا أبو بكر الخطيب نا الحسن بن أبي بكر أنا أبو محمد الحسن بن محمد بن يحيى بن الحسن بن جعفر العلوي حدثني جدي نا هارون بن موسى هو الفروي نا محمد بن يحيى حدثني عبد العزيز بن عمران عن عبد العزيز بن أبان عن سفيان بن سعيد عن سلمة بن كهيل عن مجاهد عن ابن شريك قال رآهم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) وهم يحملون الحجارة على عمار وهو يبني المسجد فقال ما لهم ولعمار يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار وذلك فعل الأشقياء الأشراز

Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani also records:

حدثنا سفيان ابن احمد بن عمرو البزار ثنا خالد بن يوسف السمتي ثنا عبدالنور بن عبدالله عن عبدالملك بن أبي سليمان عن ليث عن طاووس عن ابن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم اللهم إنك أولعتهم بعمار يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار

And Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah has a mursal version:

حدثنا وكيع قال ثنا سفيان عن سلمة بن كهيل عن مجاهد قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ما لهم ولعمار يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار وكذلك دأب الأشقياء الفجار

 

Actually, everyone who rose against Imam 'Ali, 'alaih al-salam, was a caller to Hellfire, as Ibn Taymiyyah states:

وهذا أيضا يدل على صحة إمامة علي ووجوب طاعته وأن الداعي إلى طاعته داع إلى الجنة والداعي إلى مقاتلته داع إلى النار - وإن كان متأولا - وهو دليل على أنه لم يكن يجوز قتال علي وعلى هذا فمقاتله مخطئ وإن كان متأولا أو باغ بلا تأويل وهو أصح

So, Ibn Hajar decides for Allah whom He must forgive?!

 

 

 

Haha I appreciate the reference to ibn Taymiyyah (rh) but he isn't as qualified to talk on matters hadith as the other scholars I've named.

And no, ibn Hajar merely comments that Muawiyah is a mujtahid and is aloowed to make decisions based on his own judgement.  I should have used the word "excused" rather than forgiven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, simple-muslim said:

 If you want a debate there is a website of sunnis who specialize in debating 12er shia and their beliefs

Just to say this site is Anti-shia they are not debating anything. It is just a group of people talking about shia and saying they are ex-shia and talking bad they don't debate their is no proof evidence and no Quran and hadith brought.

Not to start a debate but shia chatt is way better than this BS site to look for information and shia/sunni things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, simple-muslim said:

Again with regards to the fitnah that occurred among the sahaba(ra) our position as ahl sunnah wal jammah is that we leave their affair to Allah.  We don't hate, curse, or disrespect any of them. Nor do we go to an extreme with our love for any of them. 

You didn't have to get so defensive. I merely asked a simple question. I know you love Mu'awiyah. But, the Prophet described him - in a sahih Sunni hadith - as a caller to Hellfire. I only asked: do you agree with the Prophet? Or do you disagree with him? The question is that simple:

1. If the Prophet was right, you are wrong to love Mu'awiyah, a caller to Hellfire.

2. If the Prophet was wrong (a'udhubillah), then you are free to love Mu'awiyah.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


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

Haha I appreciate the reference to ibn Taymiyyah (rh) but he isn't as qualified to talk on matters hadith as the other scholars I've named.

Well, al-Bukhari has included it in his Sahih, which means he considers the hadith authentic. I would assume that al-Bukhari is far more "qualified" than the mediocre Nawasib whom you are referencing. Shaykh al-Albani too has graded the same hadith as sahih, and he too was far more knowledgeable than your mediocre Nasibi "scholars" and friends.

Quote

And no, ibn Hajar merely comments that Muawiyah is a mujtahid and is aloowed to make decisions based on his own judgement.  I should have used the word "excused" rather than forgiven. 

Ijtihad is allowed ONLY where there is no nass in the Qur'an or Sunnah. When there is nass, then you must follow that nass, and you cannot do ijtihad concerning it. Rebellion has been explicitly forbidden in the Qur'an 16:90 and 7:33. So, Mu'awiyah had no defence or excuse at all.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


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

Well, al-Bukhari has included it in his Sahih, which means he considers the hadith authentic. I would assume that al-Bukhari is far more "qualified" than the mediocre Nawasib whom you are referencing. Shaykh al-Albani too has graded the same hadith as sahih, and he too was far more knowledgeable than your mediocre Nasibi "scholars" and friends.

Ijtihad is allowed ONLY where there is no nass in the Qur'an or Sunnah. When there is nass, then you must follow that nass, and you cannot do ijtihad concerning it. Rebellion has been explicitly forbidden in the Qur'an 16:90 and 7:33. So, Mu'awiyah had no defence or excuse at all.

Rebellion isn't whats being referenced in the verses you cited.  It's talking about immorality and the whole point here is that Muawiyah and his shia thought they were correct and that Ali and his shia were wrong.  There is no nass in that situation so it required ijtihad.

Share this post


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

Rebellion isn't whats being referenced in the verses you cited.  It's talking about immorality and the whole point here is that Muawiyah and his shia thought they were correct and that Ali and his shia were wrong.  There is no nass in that situation so it required ijtihad.

Stop being a lazy duck:

قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَالْإِثْمَ وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَأَن تُشْرِكُوا بِاللَّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَأَن تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

Say: My Lord has only prohibited indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed, and sin and rebellion without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know.

Qur'an 7:33

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ وَإِيتَاءِ ذِي الْقُرْبَىٰ وَيَنْهَىٰ عَنِ الْفَحْشَاءِ وَالْمُنكَرِ وَالْبَغْيِ يَعِظُكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ

Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of good (to others) and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion; He admonishes you that you may be mindful.

Qur'an 16:90

And the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, has used that same, exact word to describe Mu'awiyah and his gang:

وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ

 

 

 

Share this post


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

You didn't have to get so defensive. I merely asked a simple question. I know you love Mu'awiyah. But, the Prophet described him - in a sahih Sunni hadith - as a caller to Hellfire. I only asked: do you agree with the Prophet? Or do you disagree with him? The question is that simple:

1. If the Prophet was right, you are wrong to love Mu'awiyah, a caller to Hellfire.

2. If the Prophet was wrong (a'udhubillah), then you are free to love Mu'awiyah.

Mr. Tawheedi, I'm in the medical field so I don't get into engineering debates with engineers.  You seem to do this full time and have the resources at your finger tips.  You love the back and forth, you love proving the other is wrong, you love the debate.  This is your field, so why debate me on this, I'm openly telling you I'm not  a great scholar like yourself and debating people is not a passion of mine.  I have directed you to a group of people who live to debate 12er shia scholars like you.  Again if you like I'll try to contact them so you can have a back and forth with them.   

Guy, you think too highly of yourself, no one was getting defensive. The person who started this topic had a question and I presented the sunni position as best I understand it. Mr. Tawheedi I'm sure you are familiar with the sunni brothers on the website I provided you with earlier, feel free to contact them and set up a debate on the topic. However I'm certain you will not because God forbid you run into a sunni version of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SayedShuhada said:

Just to say this site is Anti-shia they are not debating anything. It is just a group of people talking about shia and saying they are ex-shia and talking bad they don't debate their is no proof evidence and no Quran and hadith brought.

Not to start a debate but shia chatt is way better than this BS site to look for information and shia/sunni things

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, simple-muslim said:

The person who started this topic had a question and I presented the sunni position as best I understand it.

Well, thanks for that. But, then, you made a claim that you Sunnis love Mu'awiyah and al-Hakam b. Abi al-'As, since both were Sahabis. I was just seeking clarification on that aspect of your 'aqidah. You really didn't need to explode like that. And, this is not a "debate" as you like to view it. This is only a call for clarification:

1. Prophet Muhammad described Mu'awiyah as a "rebel" who called the people to Hellfire.

2. Sunnis love Mu'awiyah nonetheless.

Why should this be so? What is the justification? I just need clarifications. That's all.

Share this post


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

Stop being a lazy duck:

قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَالْإِثْمَ وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَأَن تُشْرِكُوا بِاللَّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَأَن تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

Say: My Lord has only prohibited indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed, and sin and rebellion without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know.

Qur'an 7:33

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ وَإِيتَاءِ ذِي الْقُرْبَىٰ وَيَنْهَىٰ عَنِ الْفَحْشَاءِ وَالْمُنكَرِ وَالْبَغْيِ يَعِظُكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ

Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of good (to others) and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion; He admonishes you that you may be mindful.

Qur'an 16:90

And the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, has used that same, exact word to describe Mu'awiyah and his gang:

وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ

 

 

 

You're not gettign the whole point.  The point was that Muawiyah thought that Ali ra was transgressing.  After the fact we know that yes he was the one referred to but he didn't know that.  Thats called ijtihad.

Also, I'm not fluent in arabic but I never knew baghi translated to rebel.  In that case what would you call what al-Husayn (ra) did?  

Edited by Al Afari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, simple-muslim said:

Mr. Tawheedi, I'm in the medical field so I don't get into engineering debates with engineers.  You seem to do this full time and have the resources at your finger tips.  You love the back and forth, you love proving the other is wrong, you love the debate.  This is your field, so why debate me on this, I'm openly telling you I'm not  a great scholar like yourself and debating people is not a passion of mine.  I have directed you to a group of people who live to debate 12er shia scholars like you.  Again if you like I'll try to contact them so you can have a back and forth with them.   

Guy, you think too highly of yourself, no one was getting defensive. The person who started this topic had a question and I presented the sunni position as best I understand it. Mr. Tawheedi I'm sure you are familiar with the sunni brothers on the website I provided you with earlier, feel free to contact them and set up a debate on the topic. However I'm certain you will not because God forbid you run into a sunni version of yourself.

salaam simple muslim,

I believe tawheed and أبو فاطمة المحمدي are different people on shiachat, but with the same profile picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the question in the OP was NOT about Muawiyah or Yazid. It was about Sunni's point of view on the Ahlulbayt.

Secondly, yes, the Sunnis respect the Muawiyah but not Yazid. No matter what you say or how many proofs you bring, it's not easy to persuade someone about your opinions from the back of a screen.

I, even when I was a Sunni, never had any love or respect for Muawiyah whereas most of the Sunnis do. Without a doubt, there are enough narrations in the Sunni hadith books which prove that Muawiyah was not someone who deserves to be liked by anyone!

What I hate about most (not all) of the Sunni scholars (who are obviously fake!), ignore the facts that go against their views & make excuses so as to not answer them.

Share this post


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

You're not gettign the whole point.  The point was that Muawiyah thought that Ali ra was transgressing.  After the fact we know that yes he was the one referred to but he didn't know that.  Thats called ijtihad.

Imam 'Ali, peace be upon him, was duly elected as caliph, even by Sunni standards. Are you saying that Mu'awiyah was not aware of that? Or, did Mu'awiyah really see himself as the legitimate caliph instead of Imam 'Ali? If yes, when was he elected as caliph by the majority of Muslims? On what basis would he have done that? 

Again, do you think the Prophet was wrong to have described Mu'awiyah as a caller to Hellfire?

I will shock you about Mu'awiyah soon. But, I want us to get past this stage first.

Quote

Also, I'm not fluent in arabic but I never knew baghi translated to rebel.  In that case what would you call what al-Husayn (ra) did?  

We never accept that Yazid b. Mu'awiyah, may Allah curse them both, was a caliph, to begin with. Rather, Imam al-Husayn, peace be upon him, was the legitimate caliph of Muslims, while Yazid was the rebel. There are authentic Sunni and Shi'i ahadith which prove that al-Husayn was appointed to the khilafah by Allah and His Messenger, peace be upon him and his family. That is exactly what bestows the khilafah according to Islam - not military power or political domination.

Actually, I should put that question to you: was Imam al-Husayn a rebel according to Sunni Islam? (I might shock you on this, if you try to play games)

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


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

You're not gettign the whole point.  The point was that Muawiyah thought that Ali ra was transgressing.  After the fact we know that yes he was the one referred to but he didn't know that.  Thats called ijtihad.

Also, I'm not fluent in arabic but I never knew baghi translated to rebel.  In that case what would you call what al-Husayn (ra) did?  

Do you really believe this, or are you just repeating what you have been taught?

Ask yourself honestly, if the Sahaba were all great friends are Sunnis like to portray, then is it really plausible that one of them could raise an army against the son-in-law/cousin of the Prophet (s), one of his greatest companions, and the rightfully elected Caliph, because of some faulty ijtihad? What possible legitimate line of reasoning could have led to that decision?

Even if we accept that Mu`awiya thought `Ali (a) was sheltering the killers of `Uthman (which surely would cast doubt on Mu`awiya for thinking such bad thoughts of `Ali), is it legitimate to raise an army against the rightful Caliph over this, knowing it will lead to the death of Muslims? Couldn't such an allegedly pious individual have left matters up to Allah on judgment day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Do you really believe this, or are you just repeating what you have been taught?

Ask yourself honestly, if the Sahaba were all great friends are Sunnis like to portray, then is it really plausible that one of them could raise an army against the son-in-law/cousin of the Prophet (s), one of his greatest companions, and the rightfully elected Caliph, because of some faulty ijtihad? What possible legitimate line of reasoning could have led to that decision?

Even if we accept that Mu`awiya thought `Ali (a) was sheltering the killers of `Uthman (which surely would cast doubt on Mu`awiya for thinking such bad thoughts of `Ali), is it legitimate to raise an army against the rightful Caliph over this, knowing it will lead to the death of Muslims? Couldn't such an allegedly pious individual have left matters up to Allah on judgment day?

Nobody said the sahaba were all friends.  Mu'awiyah led an army against Ali (ra) because he felt that Ali (ra) was failing to uphold justice in the land and therefore he was unfit for leadership of the believers.

6 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Imam 'Ali, peace be upon him, was duly elected as caliph, even by Sunni standards. Are you saying that Mu'awiyah was not aware of that? Or, did Mu'awiyah really see himself as the legitimate caliph instead of Imam 'Ali? If yes, when was he elected as caliph by the majority of Muslims? On what basis would he have done that? 

......

We never accept that Yazid b. Mu'awiyah, may Allah curse them both, was a caliph, to begin with. Rather, Imam al-Husayn, peace be upon him, was the legitimate caliph of Muslims, while Yazid was the rebel. There are authentic Sunni and Shi'i ahadith which prove that al-Husayn was appointed to the khilafah by Allah and His Messenger, peace be upon him and his family. That is exactly what bestows the khilafah according to Islam - not military power or political domination.

Actually, I should put that question to you: was Imam al-Husayn a rebel according to Sunni Islam? (I might shock you on this, if you try to play games)

We're now entering into a whole 'nother conversation involving what constitutes a legitimate caliph.  This is a huge topic that requires a thread on it's own.  In such a thread we would talk about rebellion and the attitudes of muslims toward a caliph.

6 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

 

Again, do you think the Prophet was wrong to have described Mu'awiyah as a caller to Hellfire?

I will shock you about Mu'awiyah soon. But, I want us to get past this stage first.

We went over this part, but since you keep pushing it I'll summarize:

It is undeniable that the hadith is in two parts and wasn't compiled together in Bukhari's (rh) original Sahih.  So it is unclear that they are both referring to the same circumstance.

But let's say that they were both together originally and they were talking about Muawiyah.  Muawiyah was acting on his own ijtihad meaning that he believed that he was the one calling to heaven while his opponents were calling to hellfire.  By definition of ijtihad he is excused in the matter.

Share this post


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

Nobody said the sahaba were all friends.  Mu'awiyah led an army against Ali (ra) because he felt that Ali (ra) was failing to uphold justice in the land and therefore he was unfit for leadership of the believers.

Can you please shed some light on what Muwaiyah (la) did to the killers of Uthman after the became Caliph? How many killers of Uthman did he punish?

What proof did Muwaiyah (la) or you have to accuse Imam Ali (as) of shielding the killers?

Can anyone just hold a view that a Caliph is unfit for leadership and fight him? This despite the fact that the caliph is a person who was loved by both Allah swt and His Prophet (pbuh)?

What views do you have of those who fought Abu Bakr when he became the first Caliph?

And lastly, are you aware of the conditions of the treaty Muwaiyah (la) signed with Imam Hassan (as)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, yam_110 said:

Can you please shed some light on what Muwaiyah (la) did to the killers of Uthman after the became Caliph? How many killers of Uthman did he punish?

What proof did Muwaiyah (la) or you have to accuse Imam Ali (as) of shielding the killers?

Can anyone just hold a view that a Caliph is unfit for leadership and fight him? This despite the fact that the caliph is a person who was loved by both Allah swt and His Prophet (pbuh)?

Like I responded to Abu Fatima, this is opening a new topic concerning matters of the caliph.  If you wan't you can make a separate post about that since its such a big topic and I will discuss it with you guys.

27 minutes ago, yam_110 said:

What views do you have of those who fought Abu Bakr when he became the first Caliph?

And lastly, are you aware of the conditions of the treaty Muwaiyah (la) signed with Imam Hassan (as)?

I think you're talking about the ridda wars.  Those men were apostates and dajjalun.  And, yes, I am aware of the conditions of Muawiyah's treaty with al-Hasan (ra).  What point are you trying to push here?  This is not to do with the discussion we're having right now.  We're talking about Muawiyah's battle with Ali (ra).

Share this post


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

Like I responded to Abu Fatima, this is opening a new topic concerning matters of the caliph.  If you wan't you can make a separate post about that since its such a big topic and I will discuss it with you guys.

No, how is Muwaiyah fulfilling (rather not) his promise on which he waged the war against Imam Ali (as) a matter concerning caliphate? Your defense of Muwaiyah was that Imam Ali (as) was failing to uphold justice (nauzubillah). So I am merely asking you what did the person you are defending here do once he became the caliph? How many killers of Uthman did he punish?

I think you're talking about the ridda wars.  Those men were apostates and dajjalun.  And, yes, I am aware of the conditions of Muawiyah's treaty with al-Hasan (ra).  What point are you trying to push here?  This is not to do with the discussion we're having right now.  We're talking about Muawiyah's battle with Ali (ra).

Merely fighting a caliph made them apostates and dajjalun? 

Regarding the treaty, do you know that one of the condition of the treaty was that Muwaiyah (la) would not appoint anyone as his successor and would return the caliphate to the household of the Prophet (pbuh) ?

Share this post


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

Nobody said the sahaba were all friends.  Mu'awiyah led an army against Ali (ra) because he felt that Ali (ra) was failing to uphold justice in the land and therefore he was unfit for leadership of the believers.

This is the issue:

Mu'awiyah "felt" that Imam 'Ali, 'alaih al-salam, was an unjust ruler. Therefore, he rose in armed rebellion against him.

This is the reason for his rebellion according to you. Now, was this "feeling" based upon conjecture or facts? Clearly, it was NOT based upon facts. Then, are we supposed to based our "feelings" upon conjecture, and then murder hundreds or thousands on its basis?

Secondly, is this one of your Sunni ahadith:

Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman reported: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil time and Allah brought us good which we live in now. Will there be evil after this good?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Yes.” I said, “And any good after this evil?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “And any evil after this good?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “How will it be?” The Prophet said, “Rulers after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my tradition (sunnah). Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, what should I do if I live to see that time?” The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey them even if the ruler strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.”

Source: Sahih Muslim 1847

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim

قَالَ حُذَيْفَةُ بْنُ الْيَمَانِ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّا كُنَّا بِشَرٍّ فَجَاءَ اللَّهُ بِخَيْرٍ فَنَحْنُ فِيهِ فَهَلْ مِنْ وَرَاءِ هَذَا الْخَيْرِ شَرٌّ قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ هَلْ وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ الشَّرِّ خَيْرٌ قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ فَهَلْ وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ الْخَيْرِ شَرٌّ قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ كَيْفَ قَالَ يَكُونُ بَعْدِي أَئِمَّةٌ لَا يَهْتَدُونَ بِهُدَايَ وَلَا يَسْتَنُّونَ بِسُنَّتِي وَسَيَقُومُ فِيهِمْ رِجَالٌ قُلُوبُهُمْ قُلُوبُ الشَّيَاطِينِ فِي جُثْمَانِ إِنْسٍ قَالَ قُلْتُ كَيْفَ أَصْنَعُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنْ أَدْرَكْتُ ذَلِكَ قَالَ تَسْمَعُ وَتُطِيعُ لِلْأَمِيرِ وَإِنْ ضُرِبَ ظَهْرُكَ وَأُخِذَ مَالُكَ فَاسْمَعْ وَأَطِعْ

1847 صحيح مسلم كِتَاب الْإِمَارَةِ نعم فقلت هل بعد ذلك الشر من خير قال نعم وفيه دخن قلت وما دخنه قال قوم يستنون بغير سنتي

 This is a clear nass against what Mu'awiyah did. So, again, the excuse of ijtihad does not avail him.

 

Quote

It is undeniable that the hadith is in two parts and wasn't compiled together in Bukhari's (rh) original Sahih.  So it is unclear that they are both referring to the same circumstance.

Which argument are you making exactly? Is it that someone interpolated that hadith into Sahih al-Bukhari? Or that Khalid al-Hadha interpolated the "dangerous" part into the hadith. You have been jumping between these two positions. Pick one, and let us focus on that.

Yet, even if we remove the "dangerous" part from the hadith, you are still left with two conclusions which you can never deny:

1. Mu'awiyah was a rebel.

2. He and his gang were jointly responsible for the murder of our beloved master, 'Ammar b. Yasir.

Either way, you still lose.

 

Quote

But let's say that they were both together originally and they were talking about Muawiyah.  Muawiyah was acting on his own ijtihad meaning that he believed that he was the one calling to heaven while his opponents were calling to hellfire.  By definition of ijtihad he is excused in the matter.

If he is excused, the Prophet would not have accused him of (i) the murder of 'Ammar and (ii) calling the people to Hellfire. You are either right or the Prophet was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, yam_110 said:

No, how is Muwaiyah fulfilling (rather not) his promise on which he waged the war against Imam Ali (as) a matter concerning caliphate? Your defense of Muwaiyah was that Imam Ali (as) was failing to uphold justice (nauzubillah). So I am merely asking you what did the person you are defending here do once he became the caliph? How many killers of Uthman did he punish?

I didn't claim that Ali (ra) was failing to uphold justice (a'oothibillah).  I was saying that was the judgement made by Muawiyah's (ra) ijtihad.  It's irrelevent what Muawiyah did after that fact, that's irrelevant to the decision he made right then (I don't know what he did to Uthman's (ra) killers).

Share this post


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

This is the issue:

Mu'awiyah "felt" that Imam 'Ali, 'alaih al-salam, was an unjust ruler. Therefore, he rose in armed rebellion against him.

This is the reason for his rebellion according to you. Now, was this "feeling" based upon conjecture or facts? Clearly, it was NOT based upon facts. Then, are we supposed to based our "feelings" upon conjecture, and then murder hundreds or thousands on its basis?

Secondly, is this one of your Sunni ahadith:

Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman reported: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil time and Allah brought us good which we live in now. Will there be evil after this good?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Yes.” I said, “And any good after this evil?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “And any evil after this good?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “How will it be?” The Prophet said, “Rulers after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my tradition (sunnah). Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, what should I do if I live to see that time?” The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey them even if the ruler strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.”

Source: Sahih Muslim 1847

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim

قَالَ حُذَيْفَةُ بْنُ الْيَمَانِ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّا كُنَّا بِشَرٍّ فَجَاءَ اللَّهُ بِخَيْرٍ فَنَحْنُ فِيهِ فَهَلْ مِنْ وَرَاءِ هَذَا الْخَيْرِ شَرٌّ قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ هَلْ وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ الشَّرِّ خَيْرٌ قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ فَهَلْ وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ الْخَيْرِ شَرٌّ قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ كَيْفَ قَالَ يَكُونُ بَعْدِي أَئِمَّةٌ لَا يَهْتَدُونَ بِهُدَايَ وَلَا يَسْتَنُّونَ بِسُنَّتِي وَسَيَقُومُ فِيهِمْ رِجَالٌ قُلُوبُهُمْ قُلُوبُ الشَّيَاطِينِ فِي جُثْمَانِ إِنْسٍ قَالَ قُلْتُ كَيْفَ أَصْنَعُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنْ أَدْرَكْتُ ذَلِكَ قَالَ تَسْمَعُ وَتُطِيعُ لِلْأَمِيرِ وَإِنْ ضُرِبَ ظَهْرُكَ وَأُخِذَ مَالُكَ فَاسْمَعْ وَأَطِعْ

1847 صحيح مسلم كِتَاب الْإِمَارَةِ نعم فقلت هل بعد ذلك الشر من خير قال نعم وفيه دخن قلت وما دخنه قال قوم يستنون بغير سنتي

 This is a clear nass against what Mu'awiyah did. So, again, the excuse of ijtihad does not avail him.

This Hadith doesn't apply to Muawiyah since Ali (ra) wasn't technically his ruler.

Muawiyah at this point was the governor of al-Sham and was their ruler at the time.  Ali (ra) recieved bay'a from the others and declared his caliph-hood and was seeking bay'a from Muawiyah.  Muawiyah at this point (due to the whole confusion about the situation with the murderers of Uthman (ra)), found Ali (ra) to be unfit for the position of Caliph (ra) and sought to challenge him for that role using his own authority as leader of a large group of muslims.  Again, we're getting into the topic of "how does someone gain legitimacy as caliph" which is very deep but we can touch on it. 

19 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Which argument are you making exactly? Is it that someone interpolated that hadith into Sahih al-Bukhari? Or that Khalid al-Hadha interpolated the "dangerous" part into the hadith. You have been jumping between these two positions. Pick one, and let us focus on that.

Yet, even if we remove the "dangerous" part from the hadith, you are still left with two conclusions which you can never deny:

1. Mu'awiyah was a rebel.

2. He and his gang were jointly responsible for the murder of our beloved master, 'Ammar b. Yasir.

Either way, you still lose.

My point is that the hadith was compiled together by a few compilers in later versions of Sahih Bukhari, al-Hadha being one of them.  

As for your two points:

1. I explained this in my point above.

2. Like I said, Muawiyah believed he was calling to heaven and his enemies were calling to hellfire.  He is excused due to his ijtihad.  The hadith is clearly stating that one side was correct and the other was wrong without being too specific.  

It was narrated that Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “A group will secede from my ummah at a time of division among the Muslims, and they will be killed by the group that is closer to the truth.”

Narrated by Muslim (1064). 

Later scholars agree that this was talking about the battle of Siffin and Muawiyah and his group were the ones being referred to.  Muawiyah's group is the one that got killed so therefore Ali (ra) was correct in the matter.

It's wrong to claim that there was nass in the situation because these ahadith were referring to vague situations.  We only know who was right and who was wrong due to hindsight.

34 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

If he is excused, the Prophet would not have accused him of (i) the murder of 'Ammar and (ii) calling the people to Hellfire. You are either right or the Prophet was.

Calling people to hellfire, by agreement is calling to that which leads to it, such as disobeying the rightful caliph.  In the hadith it also says those who consume riba or orphan's wealth are in the fire.  That doesn't necessarily mean that those people are directly in hell, rather it is a warning from an act that leads to hell.

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...