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 hour ago, Abu-Jafar Herz said:

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

You're right my mistake (bad arabic)

11 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).

The whole "heir" business is based on his understanding of surah Isra' (17:33):

وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّـهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ۗ وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلَا يُسْرِف فِّي الْقَتْلِ ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنصُورًا 

"And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly - We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law]".

Uthman (ra), his cousin, was killed unjustly, Muawiyah was in a very large position of authority, therefore he felt that this verse was referring to him.

Edited by Al Afari

Share this post


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

You're right my mistake (bad arabic)

The whole "heir" business is based on his understanding of surah Isra' (17:33):

وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّـهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ۗ وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلَا يُسْرِف فِّي الْقَتْلِ ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنصُورًا 

"And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly - We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law]".

Uthman (ra), his cousin, was killed unjustly, Muawiyah was in a very large position of authority, therefore he felt that this verse was referring to him.

Clearly, Mu'awiyah declared himself the blood heir of 'Uthman, at the expense of 'Uthman's son. I am sure you are going to defend that too, calling it a mistake in ijtihad, for which he will be rewarded. But, the question is: was Mu'awiyah really so ignorant that he did not know that the blood heir of a deceased is his biological son? Also, was he so ignorant that all Qur'anic verses and the Sunni ahadith which forbid rebellion were unknown to him? He seems to be ignorant on pretty every aspect of Islam. Yet, you defend him blind every time, claiming that he did ijtihad due to his ignorance. But, is ijtihad for the ignorant? Or, is it for the fully qualified scholars?

I am afraid you will say again that Mu'awiyah was ignorant of this new hadith from Sahih Muslim:

مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ الطَّاعَةِ وَفَارَقَ الْجَمَاعَةَ فَمَاتَ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً وَمَنْ قَاتَلَ تَحْتَ رَايَةٍ عُمِّيَّةٍ يَغْضَبُ لِعَصَبَةٍ أَوْ يَدْعُو إِلَى عَصَبَةٍ أَوْ يَنْصُرُ عَصَبَةً فَقُتِلَ فَقِتْلَةٌ جَاهِلِيَّةٌ وَمَنْ خَرَجَ عَلَى أُمَّتِي يَضْرِبُ بَرَّهَا وَفَاجِرَهَا وَلاَ يَتَحَاشَ مِنْ مُؤْمِنِهَا وَلاَ يَفِي لِذِي عَهْدٍ عَهْدَهُ فَلَيْسَ مِنِّي وَلَسْتُ مِنْهُ

Whoever rejects obedience to the ruler and divides the community and dies will have died upon ignorance. Whoever fights under the banner of one who is blind, raging for the sake of tribalism, or calling to tribalism, or supporting tribalism, and is killed will have died upon ignorance. Whoever rebels against my nation, striking the righteous and wicked alike and sparing not even the believers and does not fulfill the pledge of security, then he has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.

To be honest, nothing from you surprises me anymore. So, do not hesitate to defend Mu'awiyah with the "ignorance" or "ijtihad" card again. After all, he did not seem to know anything, which was why he was always doing "ijtihad." Isn't it?

Anyway, I gave you this athar, which you conveniently ignored. So, I am repeating it. It is a sahih report from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:

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)."

Are you gonna say he did that too out of ijtihad and will be rewarded by Allah?

Quote

Here's my answer, it's not murder if it occurred during a war.  It was a great fitna.

Now, that's a "great" point! What you have stated is that all the millions murdered in the two Iraq wars were in reality NOT murdered. After all, it was a great crisis. The same goes for the hundreds of thousands killed so far in Syria, and the 7000 killed by the Saudi regime so far in Yemen. None of them has been MURDERED. They were all killed though. And, we look at your ijtihad card again, then all the killers will be rewarded by your Sunni "Allah" for their crimes, since they committed them in ijtihad. Masha Allah! What a "beautiful" religion!

One can now understand better why Sunnis kill people everywhere across the world. There is Boko Haram in Nigeria. There is Daesh in Syria, Iraq and Libya. There are Saudi warplanes bombing civilians in Yemen. There are Taliban terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. None of these Sunni groups has ever murdered a single soul. It is a time of great crisis, after all.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


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

Clearly, Mu'awiyah declared himself the blood heir of 'Uthman, at the expense of 'Uthman's son. I am sure you are going to defend that too, calling it a mistake in ijtihad, for which he will be rewarded. But, the question is: was Mu'awiyah really so ignorant that he did not know that the blood heir of a deceased is his biological son? Also, was he so ignorant that all Qur'anic verses and the Sunni ahadith which forbid rebellion were unknown to him? He seems to be ignorant on pretty every aspect of Islam. Yet, you defend him blind every time, claiming that he did ijtihad due to his ignorance. But, is ijtihad for the ignorant? Or, is it for the fully qualified scholars?

This was due to his interpretation of the meaning of Qur'an 17:33.  Ibn Abbas (ra) even backed that up...

The great scholar and Imam Ibn `Abbas understood from the general meaning of this Ayah that Mu`awiyah should take power, because he was the heir of `Uthman, who had been killed wrongfully, may Allah be pleased with him, and Mu`awiyah did event- ually take power, as Ibn `Abbas said on the basis of this Ayah. This is one of the stranger of matters.(end quote)

[Mojam al Kabeer Tabraani 10/320]

You keep talking about the Qur'anic verses that forbid rebellion.  You have failed to bring proof that the word "baghi" meant rebellion in that case.

Uthman did have sons, but he thought that this was referring to him because he is the heir that is in a position of power.

4 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Anyway, I gave you this athar, which you conveniently ignored. So, I am repeating it. It is a sahih report from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:

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)."

Didn't you attack me for stipulating this earlier?  He fought them to rule them and for revenge.

4 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Now, that's a "great" point! What you have stated is that all the millions murdered in the two Iraq wars were in reality NOT murdered. After all, it was a great crisis. The same goes for the hundreds of thousands killed so far in Syria, and the 7000 killed by the Saudi regime so far in Yemen. None of them has been MURDERED. They were all killed though. And, we look at your ijtihad card again, then all the killers will be rewarded by your Sunni "Allah" for their crimes, since they committed them in ijtihad. Masha Allah! What a "beautiful" religion!

One can now understand better why Sunnis kill people everywhere across the world. There is Boko Haram in Nigeria. There is Daesh in Syria, Iraq and Libya. There are Saudi warplanes bombing civilians in Yemen. There are Taliban terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. None of these Sunni groups has ever murdered a single soul. It is a time of great crisis, after all.

I was talking about two armies out at war.  Not civilians or by standers.  Nobody anywhere who understands what the word murder means would stipulate that this referred to two armies that were in the midst of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically because Mu'awiyah thought he was acting on good intentions (no matter the death and destruction caused to human lives and Islam as a whole) we all have to excuse him and move on peacefully with our lives.

Then when we die and inshallah meet Imam Ali (as), we can all have a cup of tea and laugh about the good old days of how Mu'awiya did this funny thing that dealt Islam a massive amount of damage.

I have been trying to find some kind of logic in all of your reasonings @Al Afari but I'm sorry, the truth is Mu'awiya's mistake led to the following:

1 - Deaths of an incredible number of muslims and mu'mins

2 - Empowering existing enemies of Imam Ali (as) and thereby empowering enemies of the Prophet's family

3 - Islam's reputation damaged horribly

4 - Refined and fortified the clear divide between followers of Ghadir and followers of the political caliphate

 

This division eventually led to the deaths of both Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) and numerous mu'mins in their family and friends circle. It led to the persecution and oppression of the future Imams as well and solidified the reign of the materialistically powerful over the spiritually powerful. It caused the whole ummah to be ripped apart into various sects not just sunni and shia.

 

The damage that Mu'awiya has caused is immeasurable. Further than that if he was claiming to be an heir to Uthman for the Caliphate, the least he could have done is practiced negotiations through dialogue with Imam Ali (as). It's not like Imam Ali (as) was the kind of man who killed people on sight.

 

Such a man as Mu'awiya was so ignorant in Islamic theology and jurisprudence claiming to be an heir to the Islamic caliphate is a laughable matter. Further to this, I find it astounding how you can so many claims about Mu'awiya and his ignorance of numerous hadiths and Quranic verse exegesis, yet say that he did ijtehad. Ignorance and Ijtehad are 2 mutually exclusive things.

Edited by ServantOfTheOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27-1-2016 at 4:22 AM, 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.

Salam, 

Then why did Abu Bakr wanted to burn the House of the remaining Ahl al-Kisa down if they did not give him Bay'ah?

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


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

This was due to his interpretation of the meaning of Qur'an 17:33.  

Or rather, his "distortion" of that blessed verse.

Quote

Ibn Abbas (ra) even backed that up...

The great scholar and Imam Ibn `Abbas understood from the general meaning of this Ayah that Mu`awiyah should take power, because he was the heir of `Uthman, who had been killed wrongfully, may Allah be pleased with him, and Mu`awiyah did event- ually take power, as Ibn `Abbas said on the basis of this Ayah. This is one of the stranger of matters.(end quote)

[Mojam al Kabeer Tabraani 10/320]

Quote the athar, with its authentic chain.

Quote

You keep talking about the Qur'anic verses that forbid rebellion.  You have failed to bring proof that the word "baghi" meant rebellion in that case.

You have agreed, at least, that the word baghi in the Qur'an means "transgression." And every rebellion is a transgression against the Imam of the Ummah. Or, are you going to deny that as well?

Quote

Uthman did have sons, but he thought that this was referring to him because he is the heir that is in a position of power.

So, he was that dumb?

Quote

Didn't you attack me for stipulating this earlier?  He fought them to rule them and for revenge.

He fought Imam 'Ali, 'alaih al-salam, only in order to seize power over the Ummah. In the report of Ibn Abi Shaybah, he ruled out any other reason, using the term إنما. By his own words, he exposed his own fraud, and revealed that his claim of seeking revenge for 'Uthman's blood was only a ruse. This becomes even clearer through the fact that after seizing power, he did nothing about the killers of 'Uthman. He did not arrest them. He did not prosecute them. Instead, he turned against Allah full-time, as Sahih Muslim records:

I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu'awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:" O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you" (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and diqobey him in matters involving disobedience to God.

I hope you will not use the "ijtihad" card again to justify these crimes of Mu'awiyah, as you have been doing.

Quote

I was talking about two armies out at war.  Not civilians or by standers.  Nobody anywhere who understands what the word murder means would stipulate that this referred to two armies that were in the midst of battle.

Shaykh al-Albani records in his Sahihah, No. 2008 that the Prophet said:

قاتل عمار وسالبه في النار

The killer of 'Ammar and his looter will be in the Fire.

He grades it "sahih."

Imam al-Manawi explains the hadith:

قاتل عمار وسالبه في النار) قتلته طائفة معاوية في وقعة صفين)

(The killer of 'Ammar and his looter will be in the Fire) He was murdered by the group of Mu'awiyah at the Battle of Siffin.

According to you, Mu'awiyah and his gang were doing ijtihad in their murder of 'Ammar. Therefore, they will be actually rewarded for their good efforts by Allah. But, the Prophet disagrees with you. What is your refutation of the Prophet?

Secondly, you stated that murder is never committed on the battlefield. Yet, here, Allah has promised Hellfire for Mu'awiyah and his gang for killing 'Ammar on the battlefield. What is your refutation to Allah too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, 

I'm the layman you know but if you'd ask me.

You can only recognize a hypocrite when his real face becomes manifest.

For those on the truth this will be the proof while for those on falsehood it will only strengthen their position.

It seems that political power is the norm no matter how dirty the games played to take the power stay in charge or handle it over.

To me Muawiyah is like Blackadder, the Caesar of the Islamic Empire and the Pharao of our time.

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


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

Didn't you attack me for stipulating this earlier?  He fought them to rule them and for revenge.

I have asked you about this before. But since you have once again stated that Muwaiya (la) fought for revenge. Let me repeat my question.

Now, please enlighten us how many killers of Uthman did Muwaiyah (la) take revenge from. After all you are saying he fought to take revenge for the murder of Uthman, right? So please tell me how many killers of Uthman were punished after Muwaiyah (la) became the Caliph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peace?

I want to just say, the final person that has done no mistakes in life is the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), everyone after him could have committed mistakes, were all humans.

Now carrying on, I want to say that even if you find proof against each other, this is just widening the gaps in Islam and it ain't doing any good, after all none of us can go back in time. As long as the Qur'an and Sunnah stays true and authentic and with muslims till the end of time, we as an Ummah must hold it in our hearts till The Day of Judgement.

I hope everyone here will be rewarded for their efforts and good intentions, Ameen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Guest Peace? said:

I want to just say, the final person that has done no mistakes in life is the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), everyone after him could have committed mistakes, were all humans.

Now carrying on, I want to say that even if you find proof against each other, this is just widening the gaps in Islam and it ain't doing any good, after all none of us can go back in time. As long as the Qur'an and Sunnah stays true and authentic and with muslims till the end of time, we as an Ummah must hold it in our hearts till The Day of Judgement.

I hope everyone here will be rewarded for their efforts and good intentions, Ameen.

Salam Sunnah only remains true & authentic  when an infallible  person protects it that in sunni side you can't  find such infallible person even some sunnis like wahabist & Salafists deny infallibility of prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) in all aspects  except receiving  the revelation but in Shia side we always have an infallible person (Imam) in every era that will follow holy Quran & protects Sunnah from corruption also saying  Ameen is a deviation that is taken from people of book instead of saying inshaAllah .

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...