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

33 minutes ago, Al Afari said:

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).

I am sorry to say this brother but your defense of Muwaiyah's actions is pretty weak and intangible. Whatever you have said so far seems to even have you dumbfounded, yet I do not understand your reasons for defending a person who is destined to hell-fire for his actions or in your terms his ijtihad.

You are defending his crimes and yet do not know why he did it. Not sure, if you are arguing here just for the sake of arguing.

Share this post


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

I am sorry to say this brother but your defense of Muwaiyah's actions is pretty weak and intangible. Whatever you have said so far seems to even have you dumbfounded, yet I do not understand your reasons for defending a person who is destined to hell-fire for his actions or in your terms his ijtihad.

You are defending his crimes and yet do not know why he did it. Not sure, if you are arguing here just for the sake of arguing.

How do you know if someone is in hellfire?

Share this post


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

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) ?

And you haven't responded to the two questions I asked in my previous reply.

Share this post


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

And you haven't responded to the two questions I asked in my previous reply.

My apologies, I was carried away with my other responses.

There were apostates and dajjalun independent of their fighiting the caliph.  The likes of Musaylima for instance.

With the appointment of Yazid, that is a whole separate topic in and of itself.  But to make it short, I will say that I disagree with his appointment wholeheartedly and also I believe that Muawiyah should have gave the rulership to al-Husayn (ra).

Share this post


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

My apologies, I was carried away with my other responses.

There were apostates and dajjalun independent of their fighiting the caliph.  The likes of Musaylima for instance.

With the appointment of Yazid, that is a whole separate topic in and of itself.  But to make it short, I will say that I disagree with his appointment wholeheartedly and also I believe that Muawiyah should have gave the rulership to al-Husayn (ra).

How about people like Malik Bin Nuwaira for instance?

 

Great, so we agree that Muwaiyah went against the treaty and did not live up to his promises?

Share this post


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

Do you trust the words of our Holy Prophet (pbuh) ?

Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 1, book #3, hadith #103:

Narrated: Salama
I heard the Prophet saying, "Whoever (intentionally) ascribes to me what I have not said then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire."

Are you saying that Rasul-Allah (pbuh) said, "Muawiyah is in hell fire?".

Share this post


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

How about people like Malik Bin Nuwaira for instance?

Why do Shi'as like to open up a bunch of topics at the same time?  I'm not going to go there khalili.

4 minutes ago, yam_110 said:

Great, so we agree that Muwaiyah went against the treaty and did not live up to his promises?

Us and the ijma' of Ahl-as-Sunnah agree that he went against the treaty.

Edited by Al Afari

Share this post


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

Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 1, book #3, hadith #103:

Narrated: Salama
I heard the Prophet saying, "Whoever (intentionally) ascribes to me what I have not said then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire."

Are you saying that Rasul-Allah (pbuh) said, "Muawiyah is in hell fire?".

Haven't you read the narration about the group which kills Ammar Yasir (ra)?

Share this post


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

Haven't you read the narration about the group which kills Ammar Yasir (ra)?

Regardless you're misquoting the prophet (pbuh) intentionally.

Read what I wrote earlier about the difference between "inviting to hell-fire" and "being in hell-fire" according to the point of view of ahl-us-Sunnah.

Share this post


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

Why do Shi'as like to open up a bunch of topics at the same time?  I'm not going to go there khalili.

Us and the ijma' of Ahl-as-Sunnah agree that he went against the treaty.

I am only going with the flow based on your answers. You are not willing to compare apples to apples?

When someone opposes the first caliph, he is a rebel but when someone opposes your fourth caliph, he is not making a mistake and is only doing ijtihad. Oh, double standards galore!!

Us and the ijma' of Ahl-as-Sunnah.

Good, based on his actions we have read in history, it is safe to conclude that Muwaiyah (la) was a person who cannot be trusted. Are we together on this?

Share this post


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

Regardless you're misquoting the prophet (pbuh) intentionally.

Read what I wrote earlier about the difference between "inviting to hell-fire" and "being in hell-fire" according to the point of view of ahl-us-Sunnah.

Misquoting? Do you seriously think Muwaiyah is still inviting people to hell-fire on the battleground or has he landed there already given that it's almost 1400 years?

Please tell me whose group killed Ammar Yassir (ra) ?

Share this post


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

I am only going with the flow based on your answers. You are not willing to compare apples to apples?

When someone opposes the first caliph, he is a rebel but when someone opposes your fourth caliph, he is not making a mistake and is only doing ijtihad. Oh, double standards galore!!

Those who rebelled against Abu Bakr (ra) fought under the banner of one who claimed to be a prophet (he was a dajjal).  If you veridy that there is a prophet after Muhammad (pbuh) you are a kafir.  They don't have ijtihad.

 

4 minutes ago, yam_110 said:

Good, based on his actions we have read in history, it is safe to conclude that Muwaiyah (la) was a person who cannot be trusted. Are we together on this?

No.

Share this post


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

Misquoting? Do you seriously think Muwaiyah is still inviting people to hell-fire on the battleground or has he landed there already given that it's almost 1400 years?

Please tell me whose group killed Ammar Yassir (ra) ?

Read what I said earlier about that.

Share this post


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

Those who rebelled against Abu Bakr (ra) fought under the banner of one who claimed to be a prophet (he was a dajjal).  If you veridy that there is a prophet after Muhammad (pbuh) you are a kafir.  They don't have ijtihad.

That's why I asked you about Malik Bin Nuwaira. Did he claim the same?

 

No.

No??? Then please tell me what do you call a person who does not fulfill his promises?

Do you call such a person Siddique???

Share this post


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

That's why I asked you about Malik Bin Nuwaira. Did he claim the same?

Don't wanna go there.

2 minutes ago, yam_110 said:

No??? Then please tell me what do you call a person who does not fulfill his promises?

You put a plural on "promise" as if he was previously known to break promises.  He thought that it was the best decision to make his son succeed him due to his ijtihad.  Was it the right move?  In my opinion, no.  

4 minutes ago, yam_110 said:

Do you call such a person Siddique???

I certainly wouldn't call him a kafir for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Al Afari said:
3 minutes ago, yam_110 said:

Can you please re-post it if it's not too much a trouble for you?

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
1 minute ago, Al Afari said:

Don't wanna go there.

I know why you don't want to go there. I won't force you if you don't want to discuss this issue but I am sure you are aware how weak your reply about Muwaiyah's ijtihad was. It must have got you thinking about the truth.

You put a plural on "promise" as if he was previously known to break promises.  He thought that it was the best decision to make his son succeed him due to his ijtihad.  Was it the right move?  In my opinion, no.  

God, you guys are so quick to jump on the Ijtihad bandwagon. There were others conditions on the treaty which he broke like for example stopping the cursing of Imam Ali (as) from the pulpits. It continued until it was stopped by Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

So again, what do you call a person who breaks his promises?

I certainly wouldn't call him a kafir for that.

Did I call him a Kafir for breaking his promises? 

Share this post


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

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. 

Let me get you clear here. You are saying that Mu'awiyah considered himself a "caliph"?

Well, this is from al-'Asqalani in Fath al-Bari:

وقد ذكر يحيى بن سليمان الجعفي أحد شيوخ البخاري في كتاب صفين في تأليفه بسند جيد عن أبي مسلم الخولاني انه قال لمعاوية أنت تنازع عليا في الخلافة أو أنت مثله قال لا وأني لأعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالأمر ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما وأنا بن عمه ووليه أطلب بدمه

Yahya b. Sulayman al-Ju'fi, one of the teachers of al-Bukhari, mentioned in his Kitab Siffin with a good chain from Abu Muslim al-Khawlani, that he said to Mu'awiyah: "Are you disputing with 'Ali concerning the khilafah or are you like him?" He said, "NO, and I know that he is better than me, and is more entitled to power. But, don't you know that 'Uthman was murdered and I am his cousin, and his heir, and I am seeking revenge for his blood."

That does not tally with your blind defence.

Quote

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.

Khalid al-Hadha lived BEFORE al-Bukhari. How did he manage to compile Sahih al-Bukhari later from his grave?

Quote

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.  

Do you agree that Mu'awiyah and his gang were the murderers of 'Ammar b. Yasir?

That shouldn't be too hard for you to answer.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


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

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.

Pardon me, but do you know how ridiculous your reply sounds?

On one hand you have a rightful caliph (unless you don't think of Imam Ali (as) as a rightful caliph) and on the other a rebel. Clearly, it is a case of Muwaiyah disobeying the rightful caliph which means he leads the people along with him to hell. You have just said it yourself. He is inviting people to hell-fire as that's where he is going. I am not sure on what basis you are arguing here. Verdict is as clear here as daylight.

 

 

Share this post


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

Let me get you clear here. You are saying that Mu'awiyah considered himself a "caliph"?

Well, this is from al-'Asqalani in Fath al-Bari:

وقد ذكر يحيى بن سليمان الجعفي أحد شيوخ البخاري في كتاب صفين في تأليفه بسند جيد عن أبي مسلم الخولاني انه قال لمعاوية أنت تنازع عليا في الخلافة أو أنت مثله قال لا وأني لأعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالأمر ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما وأنا بن عمه ووليه أطلب بدمه

Yahya b. Sulayman al-Ju'fi, one of the teachers of al-Bukhari, mentioned in his Kitab Siffin with a good chain from Abu Muslim al-Khawlani, that he said to Mu'awiyah: "Are you disputing with 'Ali concerning the khilafah or are you like him?" He said, "NO, and I know that he is better than me, and is more entitled to power. But, don't you know that 'Uthman was murdered and I am his cousin, and his heir, and I am seeking revenge for his blood."

You're right here.  Muawiyah did fight Ali due to his misinterpretation of the texts rather than for rulership.

 

5 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Khalid al-Hadha lived BEFORE al-Bukhari. How did he manage to compile Sahih al-Bukhari later from his grave?

The hadith still did not exist in the interpolated form in the original sahih.  

6 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Do you agree that Mu'awiyah and his gang were the murderers of 'Ammar b. Yasir?

That shouldn't be too hard for you to answer.

Yes, they clearly killed him.  They were transgressing because Ammar was calling people to obey the rightful caliph(which was the haq, that's why he's calling to paradise), while Muawiyas group was calling to something else and was transgressing (calling to hell-fire)

Share this post


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

You're right here.  Muawiyah did fight Ali due to his misinterpretation of the texts rather than for rulership.

Which text was he "misinterpreting"? Would you mind quoting that text?

Also, he called himself the blood "heir" of 'Uthman, even though the latter had biological children. Please tell us: how was Mu'awiyah the blood heir of 'Uthman, at the expense of 'Uthman's children?

Now, you have agreed that the hadith about obeying even unjust rulers applied to Mu'awiyah too. Are you still going to claim that he was only doing "ijtihad" despite the existence of clear nass against rebellion?

Quote

The hadith still did not exist in the interpolated form in the original sahih.  

I see. So, who interpolated the "dangerous" part into Sahih al-Bukhari? Any names?

Quote

Yes, they clearly killed him.  They were transgressing because Ammar was calling people to obey the rightful caliph(which was the haq, that's why he's calling to paradise), while Muawiyas group was calling to something else and was transgressing (calling to hell-fire)

What is the "reward" of anyone who murders a believer?

Share this post


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

Pardon me, but do you know how ridiculous your reply sounds?

On one hand you have a rightful caliph (unless you don't think of Imam Ali (as) as a rightful caliph) and on the other a rebel. Clearly, it is a case of Muwaiyah disobeying the rightful caliph which means he leads the people along with him to hell. You have just said it yourself. He is inviting people to hell-fire as that's where he is going. I am not sure on what basis you are arguing here. Verdict is as clear here as daylight.

Calling to hell-fire is a term meaning that they were calling to that which LEADS to it, which is disobeying the rightful leader.  When two parties are committing ijtihad against one another, someone  is right and someone is wrong.  After the fact Muawiyah felt regret, through that regret he repented.

Share this post


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

Calling to hell-fire is a term meaning that they were calling to that which LEADS to it, which is disobeying the rightful leader.  When two parties are committing ijtihad against one another, someone  is right and someone is wrong.  After the fact Muawiyah felt regret, through that regret he repented.

Two things here.

1. Muwaiyah is disobeying the rightful caliph who in this case is Imam Ali (as). So Muwaiyah (la) being the leader of a rebellious group is going to lead people to Hell-fire as promised, right?

2. Muwaiyah regretted? You are seriously good at concoctions. Never have I heard or read about such an action of Muwaiyah (la). So what did he do while repenting, gave up caliphate to the rightful owners? On the contrary, he targeted Imam Hassan (as) for caliphate.

 

Unfortunately, your little fairy tales are not helping you in any way. Let's just agree with the historical facts and put this to rest once and for all as your ijtihad excuse doesn't seem to be taking you anywhere.

Share this post


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

Which text was he "misinterpreting"? Would you mind quoting that text?

Also, he called himself the blood "heir" of 'Uthman, even though the latter had biological children. Please tell us: how was Mu'awiyah the blood heir of 'Uthman, at the expense of 'Uthman's children?

When I say "texts" I loosely mean his understanding of the rules of Islam with his judgement.

This is off topic.

6 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Now, you have agreed that the hadith about obeying even unjust rulers applied to Mu'awiyah too. Are you still going to claim that he was only doing "ijtihad" despite the existence of clear nass against rebellion?

Perhaps he was unaware of that hadith.  Doesn't strip him of his ijtihad.

6 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

I see. So, who interpolated the "dangerous" part into Sahih al-Bukhari? Any names?

I earlier listed all the scholars that concluded that the hadith didn't exist in the combined form in the original Sahih al-Bukhari.

9 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

What is the "reward" of anyone who murders a believer?

There were believers on both sides.

Share this post


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

When I say "texts" I loosely mean his understanding of the rules of Islam with his judgement.

How was Mu'awiyah the blood heir of 'Uthman at the expense of 'Uthman's children?

You have to answer this question, since it is the heart of the whole discussion. Mu'awiyah launched his bloody rebellion on the claim that he was the blood heir of 'Uthman.

Quote

Perhaps he was unaware of that hadith.  Doesn't strip him of his ijtihad.

And, he was not aware of the Qur'anic verses against rebellion too?

Quote

There were believers on both sides.

Every enemy of Imam 'Ali is an enemy of Allah, according to the mutawatir Hadith al-Ghadir. And every hater of Imam 'Ali is a munafiq, according to the sahih Sunni hadiths. A believer is not an enemy of Allah or a munafiq.

In any case, when a believer murders another believer, what will the reward of that believing murderer be, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah?

Share this post


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

How was Mu'awiyah the blood heir of 'Uthman at the expense of 'Uthman's children?

You have to answer this question, since it is the heart of the whole discussion. Mu'awiyah launched his bloody rebellion on the claim that he was the blood heir of 'Uthman.

I'm not aware of his saying this so I won't comment on it.

9 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

And, he was not aware of the Qur'anic verses against rebellion too?

The verses you quoted from the Qur'an don't talk about rebellion against a leader.

10 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Every enemy of Imam 'Ali is an enemy of Allah, according to the mutawatir Hadith al-Ghadir. And every hater of Imam 'Ali is a munafiq, according to the sahih Sunni hadiths. A believer is not an enemy of Allah or a munafiq.

In any case, when a believer murders another believer, what will the reward of that believing murderer be, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah?

Off topic.  We're not talking about takfir and who and who isn't a munafiq also isn't what we're talking about here.  That's another topic that delves into what nifaq is (lesser and major).

 

Share this post


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

I'm not aware of his saying this so I won't comment on it.

It is interesting how you have quickly forgotten this, which I quoted minutes ago from Fath al-Bari:

وقد ذكر يحيى بن سليمان الجعفي أحد شيوخ البخاري في كتاب صفين في تأليفه بسند جيد عن أبي مسلم الخولاني انه قال لمعاوية أنت تنازع عليا في الخلافة أو أنت مثله قال لا وأني لأعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالأمر ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما وأنا بن عمه ووليه أطلب بدمه

Yahya b. Sulayman al-Ju'fi, one of the teachers of al-Bukhari, mentioned in his Kitab Siffin with a good chain from Abu Muslim al-Khawlani, that he said to Mu'awiyah: "Are you disputing with 'Ali concerning the khilafah or are you like him?" He said, "NO, and I know that he is better than me, and is more entitled to power. But, don't you know that 'Uthman was murdered and I am his cousin, and his heir, and I am seeking revenge for his blood."

Quote

The verses you quoted from the Qur'an don't talk about rebellion against a leader.

So, you mean, the Qur'an only forbids rebellion against a non-leader? How "logical" does that sound? Can there be a rebellion which is not against a leader?

Quote

Off topic.  We're not talking about takfir and who and who isn't a munafiq also isn't what we're talking about here.  That's another topic that delves into what nifaq is (lesser and major).

Forget about the kufr or nifaq of Mu'awiyah and his gang for now (we will reach there later insha Allah). I asked a different, simpler question, which you have ignored twice now:

What is the reward of a believer who murders another believer, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah?

 

Share this post


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

It is interesting how you have quickly forgotten this, which I quoted minutes ago from Fath al-Bari:

وقد ذكر يحيى بن سليمان الجعفي أحد شيوخ البخاري في كتاب صفين في تأليفه بسند جيد عن أبي مسلم الخولاني انه قال لمعاوية أنت تنازع عليا في الخلافة أو أنت مثله قال لا وأني لأعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالأمر ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما وأنا بن عمه ووليه أطلب بدمه

Yahya b. Sulayman al-Ju'fi, one of the teachers of al-Bukhari, mentioned in his Kitab Siffin with a good chain from Abu Muslim al-Khawlani, that he said to Mu'awiyah: "Are you disputing with 'Ali concerning the khilafah or are you like him?" He said, "NO, and I know that he is better than me, and is more entitled to power. But, don't you know that 'Uthman was murdered and I am his cousin, and his heir, and I am seeking revenge for his blood."

It seems to me that he is making relational terms with Uthman (ra) in order to justify his revenge for him.

6 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

So, you mean, the Qur'an only forbids rebellion against a non-leader? How "logical" does that sound? Can there be a rebellion which is not against a leader?

The word you translated as "rebellion" also translates to "oppression", and "transgression".  You have to prove that it literally means rebellion.

7 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

What is the reward of a believer who murders another believer, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah?

49:9 If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). 

Muawiyah transgressed, and Allah justified taking up arms against transgressors.  And we see how Allah (swt) gives supremacy to those who are correct.
 

Share this post


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

It seems to me that he is making relational terms with Uthman (ra) in order to justify his revenge for him.

How was Mu'awiyah the blood heir of 'Uthman, at the expense of 'Uthman's biological heir?

Quote

The word you translated as "rebellion" also translates to "oppression", and "transgression".  You have to prove that it literally means rebellion.

Well, the same term has been used to describe Mu'awiyah and his gang. So, the effect is still the same thing. Mu'awiyah must have been aware that Allah forbade oppression and transgression against the ruler. Right?

Quote

49:9 If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). 

Muawiyah transgressed, and Allah justified taking up arms against transgressors.  And we see how Allah (swt) gives supremacy to those who are correct.

So, Mu'awiyah "transgressed" against Imam 'Ali, despite being aware that Allah forbade transgression even against common Muslims.

How does your blind "ijtihad" excuse stand now?

Share this post


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

How was Mu'awiyah the blood heir of 'Uthman, at the expense of 'Uthman's biological heir?

I have no clue what he meant by that.  I still don't see how it's relevant.

7 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Well, the same term has been used to describe Mu'awiyah and his gang. So, the effect is still the same thing. Mu'awiyah must have been aware that Allah forbade oppression and transgression against the ruler. Right?

One term can be used in many contexts.  Baghi can mean immoral, or even wanton.  Like in Surah Maryam 19:20:

19_20.png

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

7 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

So, Mu'awiyah "transgressed" against Imam 'Ali, despite being aware that Allah forbade transgression even against common Muslims.

How does your blind "ijtihad" excuse stand now?

He thought his enemies were the transgressors which is what lead him to battle.  He wasn't justified to do battle with Ali (ra).  That's why victory was given to Ali (ra).  

Share this post


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

I have no clue what he meant by that.  I still don't see how it's relevant.

He launched his armed rebellion on that very basis (i.e. that he was the blood heir of 'Uthman). So, it is relevant. Actually, you are trying to avoid this particular issue because you have no way out of it (not even the ridiculous excuses that you are notorious for churning out).

Quote

One term can be used in many contexts.  Baghi can mean immoral, or even wanton.  Like in Surah Maryam 19:20:

So, basically, what are you saying? That the Qur'an has not forbidden rebellion against the Imam of Muslims? And that Mu'awiyah was thereby excused?

Quote

He thought his enemies were the transgressors which is what lead him to battle.  He wasn't justified to do battle with Ali (ra).  That's why victory was given to Ali (ra).  

That again dodges the question I asked (I will keep asking it until you reply it):

What is the reward of a believer who murders another believer, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah?

Meanwhile, while you are at that, you may enjoy this sahih report from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah as well:

حدثنا أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن عمرو بن مرة عن سعيد بن سويد قال صلى بنا معاوية الجمعة بالنخيلة في الضحى ثم خطبنا فقال ما قاتلتكم لتصلوا ولا لتصوموا ولا لتحجوا ولا لتزكوا وقد أعرف أنكم تفعلون ذلك ولكن إنما قاتلتكم لأتأمر عليكم وقد أعطاني الله ذلك وأنتم له كارهون

Abu Mu'awiyah - al-A'mash - 'Amr b. Murrah - Sa'id b. Suwayd:

Mu'awiyah led us in the Jum'ah prayer at Nukhaylah in the morning. Then, he addressed us, saying: "I did not fight you so that you should perform salat, or fast, or do Hajj or pay Zakat. I already knew that you do all of that. Rather, I only fought you in order to rule over you; and Allah has given me that while you detest (it)."

 

 

Share this post


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

He launched his armed rebellion on that very basis (i.e. that he was the blood heir of 'Uthman). So, it is relevant. Actually, you are trying to avoid this particular issue because you have no way out of it (not even the ridiculous excuses that you are notorious for churning out).

Excuse my arabic, but to my knowledge, the word heir in arabic is "warith" or other conjugations of that.  In the quote I only see the word "wali" which I don't see as translating into "heir" in any way.

8 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

So, basically, what are you saying? That the Qur'an has not forbidden rebellion against the Imam of Muslims? And that Mu'awiyah was thereby excused?

Well if it does you still have to prove it to me.  You have to prove to me that the verses you quoted specifically refer to rebellion because as I demonstrated "baghi" has many meanings depending on the context.

8 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

What is the reward of a believer who murders another believer, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah?

Here's my answer, it's not murder if it occurred during a war.  It was a great fitna.  I felt that this verse summed it up:

49:9 If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). 

No where in that verse does it say that the believers who killed the others were doomed to hellfire.  It emphasizes keeping peace between the warring parties.  But here is the answer I think you want:

Sahih Bukhari 6672, Sahih Muslim 2888:

Abu Bakrah reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If two Muslims confront each other with swords, then both the killer and the killed will be in Hellfire.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allah, we understand for the killer, but why for the one killed?” The Prophet said, “Verily, he intended to kill his companion.”

If you were looking for another thing feel free to quote that.  

Anyway, these two hadiths seem to be referring to a situation where two individual muslims are fighiting to the death due to anger/spite.  There is nothing in this that indicates that this applies to two parties engaging in a war (that is what that Qur'an verse is referring to).

In fact that was the opinion of the criminal khawarij at the time.  They made takfir on both Ali (ra) and Muawiyah claiming that no true muslims would fight one another.

Share this post


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

Excuse my arabic, but to my knowledge, the word heir in arabic is "warith" or other conjugations of that.  In the quote I only see the word "wali" which I don't see as translating into "heir" in any way.

Well if it does you still have to prove it to me.  You have to prove to me that the verses you quoted specifically refer to rebellion because as I demonstrated "baghi" has many meanings depending on the context.

Here's my answer, it's not murder if it occurred during a war.  It was a great fitna.  I felt that this verse summed it up:

49:9 If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). 

No where in that verse does it say that the believers who killed the others were doomed to hellfire.  It emphasizes keeping peace between the warring parties.  But here is the answer I think you want:

Sahih Bukhari 6672, Sahih Muslim 2888:

Abu Bakrah reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If two Muslims confront each other with swords, then both the killer and the killed will be in Hellfire.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allah, we understand for the killer, but why for the one killed?” The Prophet said, “Verily, he intended to kill his companion.”

If you were looking for another thing feel free to quote that.  

Anyway, these two hadiths seem to be referring to a situation where two individual muslims are fighiting to the death due to anger/spite.  There is nothing in this that indicates that this applies to two parties engaging in a war (that is what that Qur'an verse is referring to).

In fact that was the opinion of the criminal khawarij at the time.  They made takfir on both Ali (ra) and Muawiyah claiming that no true muslims would fight one another.

واني خفت الموالي من ورائي وكانت امراتي عاقرا فهب لي من لدنك وليا

 

And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been barren, so give me from Yourself an heir

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...