Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Doing Ijtihad

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

As-Salam 'Alaikum,

Most Shi'ah who have discussed the crimes of some Sahabah with Sunnis have come across their threadbare "ijtihad" defence card. For instance, when evidence is presented that a certain Sahabi committed murder, you hear the Sunni saying: "He did ijtihad, and will be given one good reward for his effort." So, his crime becomes a source of good rewards, due to the ijtihad card. Sunnis play this card always, whenever any of their Sahabah becomes vulnerable. So, I consider it appropriate to investigate the source of this wonderful ijtihad card.

Its source is this hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari:

حدثنا عبد الله بن يزيد المقرئ المكي حدثنا حيوة بن شريح حدثني يزيد بن عبد الله بن الهاد عن محمد بن إبراهيم بن الحارث عن بسر بن سعيد عن أبي قيس مولى عمرو بن العاص عن عمرو بن العاص : أنه سمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد ثم أصاب فله أجران وإذا حكم فاجتهد ثم أخطأ فله أجر

Narrated 'Amr b. al-'As:

I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saying: "When a judge gives a judgment, and he strives. Then, he is correct. He will have two rewards. And when he gives a judgment, and strives. Then, he made an error. He has one reward.

As it is obvious, the hadith speaks only about judges when they are giving their judgments in judicial proceedings. However, Sunnis have extended it to cover all Sahabah indiscriminately - including all of those among them who were never judges. For instance, Mu'awiyah and his gangs were collectively responsible for the murder of our beloved master, 'Ammar b. Yasir, may Allah be pleased with him. If you put the point to a Sunni, he will answer: "Mu'awiyah did ijtihad. He will have one reward. 'Ammar also did ijtihad. He will have two rewards." One then wonders: was Mu'awiyah a judge at the time of the murder? Was he also striving to give judgment in a judicial case? How then is the above hadith possibly applicable in his case?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point but I think your giving their argument much too much weight.

No sensible person would accept this theory of theirs, or there is no justice in the world at all, anyone will just claim an itjtihad mistake, eg Hitler or Israel will just say, we make an itjtihad mistake etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sunnilove2hussain said:

Its like how Shias take out a verse from the Quran and use it as a proof for ahlulbayt in the Quran. Every sect uses some things to arrive at a conclusion they want. Sunnis use this and shias use that.

We do not "use" any verse wrongly in the Qur'an. You may disagree. But, we have our authentic and mutawatir ahadith which give tafasir to the verses we quote.

In the case of ijtihad, you guys use it always to justify every single crime of the Sahabah. Yet, the very hadith over which that ijtihad card is based does not support such mischievous misuse.

Share this post


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

We do not "use" any verse wrongly in the Qur'an. You may disagree. But, we have our authentic and mutawatir ahadith which give tafasir to the verses we quote.

In the case of ijtihad, you guys use it always to justify every single crime of the Sahabah. Yet, the very hadith over which that ijtihad card is based does not support such mischievous misuse.

Agree to disagree as usual like for the past 1000 or so years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sunnilove2hussain said:

Agree to disagree as usual like for the past 1000 or so years

Unfortunately, the crimes of your Sahabah still have effects these days. Your brothers bomb Shi'ah all the time for mentioning those crimes, documented in your authentic books with authentic chains.

Share this post


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

Unfortunately, the crimes of your Sahabah still have effects these days. Your brothers bomb Shi'ah all the time for mentioning those crimes, documented in your authentic books with authentic chains.

If that's the case,why do you mention it? So they are are happy and you're happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sunnilove2hussain said:

The sahabah are for all " believing Muslims" ,for other religions only they are not sahabah.

You mean al-Hakam b. Abi al-'As is for you? He is never for me, and was never for the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


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

You mean al-Hakam b. Abi al-'As is for you? He is never for me, and was never for the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family.

Either way,no point debating a topic that has been on and off for 1000+ years. Let's avoid the mud slinging. Sunnis are gonna be Sunnis and Shias as Shias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sunnilove2hussain said:

Either way,no point debating a topic that has been on and off for 1000+ years. Let's avoid the mud slinging. Sunnis are gonna be Sunnis and Shias as Shias.

Actually, there is every point in exposing people like al-Hakam b. Abi al-'As and other Sahabah like him. Love and hatred in Islam must be for the sake of Allah Alone. If you love al-Hakam b. Abi al-'As and die upon that, nothing can ever save you from hellfire.

Share this post


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

Actually, there is every point in exposing people like al-Hakam b. Abi al-'As and other Sahabah like him. Love and hatred in Islam must be for the sake of Allah Alone. If you love al-Hakam b. Abi al-'As and die upon that, nothing can ever save you from hellfire.

Allah-o-alaam. Assalamu alaikum

Share this post


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

That does not clear al-Hakam b. al-'As and other similar Sahabah of their crimes. Sadly, you love them with their atrocities.

You didn't even have the courtesy to return the Salam and I have to take a lecture about a sahaba from you? Lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sunnilove2hussain said:

Well,i humbly decline it. Please find another Sunni,who is more equipped than me to prove you wrong. JazakAllah! Ya Allah madad!

Which "Allah" is that? The one who will change shapes on the Day of al-Qiyamah, whom you will deny?

Share this post


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

Which "Allah" is that? The one who will change shapes on the Day of al-Qiyamah, whom you will deny?

Whatever bro! Be cool and take your war to another forum. Just tured of sone stubborn guys like you. I am going for a night cap (coffee btw.) and back to my book. Hat bow! Signing off. Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2016 at 9:49 PM, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

As-Salam 'Alaikum,

Most Shi'ah who have discussed the crimes of some Sahabah with Sunnis have come across their threadbare "ijtihad" defence card. For instance, when evidence is presented that a certain Sahabi committed murder, you hear the Sunni saying: "He did ijtihad, and will be given one good reward for his effort." So, his crime becomes a source of good rewards, due to the ijtihad card. Sunnis play this card always, whenever any of their Sahabah becomes vulnerable. So, I consider it appropriate to investigate the source of this wonderful ijtihad card.

Its source is this hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari:

حدثنا عبد الله بن يزيد المقرئ المكي حدثنا حيوة بن شريح حدثني يزيد بن عبد الله بن الهاد عن محمد بن إبراهيم بن الحارث عن بسر بن سعيد عن أبي قيس مولى عمرو بن العاص عن عمرو بن العاص : أنه سمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد ثم أصاب فله أجران وإذا حكم فاجتهد ثم أخطأ فله أجر

Narrated 'Amr b. al-'As:

I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saying: "When a judge gives a judgment, and he strives. Then, he is correct. He will have two rewards. And when he gives a judgment, and strives. Then, he made an error. He has one reward.

As it is obvious, the hadith speaks only about judges when they are giving their judgments in judicial proceedings. However, Sunnis have extended it to cover all Sahabah indiscriminately - including all of those among them who were never judges. For instance, Mu'awiyah and his gangs were collectively responsible for the murder of our beloved master, 'Ammar b. Yasir, may Allah be pleased with him. If you put the point to a Sunni, he will answer: "Mu'awiyah did ijtihad. He will have one reward. 'Ammar also did ijtihad. He will have two rewards." One then wonders: was Mu'awiyah a judge at the time of the murder? Was he also striving to give judgment in a judicial case? How then is the above hadith possibly applicable in his case?!

May Allah have grant you sound judgment & wisdom brother Abu Fatimah because every time i check a thread started by you, i always find you making serious mistakes in explaining hadith.

The Prophet (Peace be upon him) used the example of a Judge because he couldn`t made mention of every professional in various fields who face a situation where they have to make ijtihaad. he used the example of a judge in order to help the people understand the concept, but it does not mean he limited ijtihaad for Judges alone. 

Let me ask you a simple question to open your mind In`sha Allah. 

Do the Jurists of Fiqh (Fuqaha) make personal ijtihaad when there comes a matter where they don`t have a verse of the Qu`ran or Hadith to derive the rulings on it ? if yes then how could they do it when they are not judges (Qadis) ?

 

Share this post


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

The Prophet (Peace be upon him) used the example of a Judge because he couldn`t made mention of every professional in various fields who face a situation where they have to make ijtihaad. he used the example of a judge in order to help the people understand the concept, but it does not mean he limited ijtihaad for Judges alone.

That is only your opinion. We can as well extend that "logic" to everything in the Deen and thereby collapse the religion. If what you said were true, he would have mentioned "every professional" or "every knowledgeable believer" or similar phrases.

Quote

Let me ask you a simple question to open your mind In`sha Allah. 

Do the Jurists of Fiqh (Fuqaha) make personal ijtihaad when there comes a matter where they don`t have a verse of the Qu`ran or Hadith to derive the rulings on it ? if yes then how could they do it when they are not judges (Qadis) ?

Which fuqaha? Sunni or Shi'i?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

That is only your opinion. We can as well extend that "logic" to everything in the Deen and thereby collapse the religion. If what you said were true, he would have mentioned "every professional" or "every knowledgeable believer" or similar phrases.

that is not only my opinion brother Abu Fatimah, that is the Understanding of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah. my personal opinions are of no worth here because i`m in no position to give my opinion on any hadith and no it will never lead to the collapse of the Deen but rather what you are suggesting would have lead to the collapse of the Muslim society long ago.

The Prophet (Peace be upon him) used the example of a Judge to help the people understand the rule. In simple words the rule is that a Qadi, a Faqih, an Ameer and any other professional who has a public duty of guiding & leading the Muslim Ummah can make personal ijtihaad when he has to make a decision but he doesn`t finds any direct references of the matter in the Qu`ran and Sunnah.

But what you are suggesting that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) should have used the words "every professional" or "every Knowledgeable believer" or similar phrases is something that would have lead to a disaster and the Prophet (Peace be upon him) understood it better than all of us. 

Do you think every professional or knowledgeable believer can derive the ruling on a matter all by himself ? if that is the case then explain to me who do we have students in the prestigious institute of Hawza who study for over a Decade in order to become a Mufti ?

BTW if you are talking about a hadith from Sahih Bukhari to prove Sunnis wrong then why do you ignore the rest of the Bukhari ? To your nightmare i have a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari which will completely disprove your argument In`sha Allah. 

Narrated Ibn Abi Mulaika: Somebody said to Ibn 'Abbas, "Can you speak to the chief of the believers Muwaiyah, as he does not pray except one Rak'a as Witr?" Ibn 'Abbas replied, "He is a faqih (i.e. a learned man who can give religious verdicts). 

[Bukhari Book #57, Hadith #109]

So now that it is proved from Sahih Al Bukhari that Ibn Abbas (May Allah be well pleased) with him considered Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) a Faqih then i`m sorry but who are you to say Ameer Mu`awiyah  cannot make ijtihaad ?

21 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Which fuqaha? Sunni or Shi'i?

Both Sunni as well as Shia scholars make ijtihaad. 

Share this post


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

But what you are suggesting that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) should have used the words "every professional" or "every Knowledgeable believer" or similar phrases is something that would have lead to a disaster and the Prophet (Peace be upon him) understood it better than all of us. 

Oh, really? Didn't know that! I thought his job was to "convey the message clearly." Sorry for my mistake.

Quote

Do you think every professional or knowledgeable believer can derive the ruling on a matter all by himself ? if that is the case then explain to me who do we have students in the prestigious institute of Hawza who study for over a Decade in order to become a Mufti ?

Are you applying to Umayyad Sunni hadiths to Shi'is? Does that sound sensible to you?

Quote

BTW if you are talking about a hadith from Sahih Bukhari to prove Sunnis wrong then why do you ignore the rest of the Bukhari ? To your nightmare i have a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari which will completely disprove your argument In`sha Allah. 

Narrated Ibn Abi Mulaika: Somebody said to Ibn 'Abbas, "Can you speak to the chief of the believers Muwaiyah, as he does not pray except one Rak'a as Witr?" Ibn 'Abbas replied, "He is a faqih (i.e. a learned man who can give religious verdicts). 

[Bukhari Book #57, Hadith #109]

So now that it is proved from Sahih Al Bukhari that Ibn Abbas (May Allah be well pleased) with him considered Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) a Faqih then i`m sorry but who are you to say Ameer Mu`awiyah  cannot make ijtihaad ?

He called him a "faqih". The words in parentheses are only interpolations of the translator. We have no regard for those. As for the claim that he was a faqih, well, that supports our position. He was a faqih only, and was not a judge and faqih. That means he was not qualified for ijtihad, as per the Sunni hadith.

Secondly, because he was a faqih, we are confident that all his violations and distortions of the Shari'ah were done intentionally and knowingly.

 

Share this post


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

Oh, really? Didn't know that! I thought his job was to "convey the message clearly." Sorry for my mistake.

the Prophet (Peace be upon him) was always clear in his message. it is the severe deficiency in your understanding that has made you fail to get the message of this hadith. 

25 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:
43 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Do you think every professional or knowledgeable believer can derive the ruling on a matter all by himself ? if that is the case then explain to me who do we have students in the prestigious institute of Hawza who study for over a Decade in order to become a Mufti ?

Are you applying to Umayyad Sunni hadiths to Shi'is? Does that sound sensible to you?

what does Sunni hadith has to do with this ? 

29 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

He called him a "faqih". The words in parentheses are only interpolations of the translator. We have no regard for those. As for the claim that he was a faqih, well, that supports our position. He was a faqih only, and was not a judge and faqih. That means he was not qualified for ijtihad, as per the Sunni hadith.

Secondly, because he was a faqih, we are confident that all his violations and distortions of the Shari'ah were done intentionally and knowingly

As i said before the severe deficiency in your ability to understand hadiths is misguiding you from getting things right. i think it is also due to you are trying way to hard hoping you could prove that every single Hadith in the Sunni collections is wrong. you are only showing your lack of understanding by started so many threads which are easily refuted by people. 

how come you forgot Mu`awiyah (May Allah be well pleased with him) was not only a Faqih but also the governor of Syria ? Normally shias don`t forget this fact but your bad memory is making things difficult for you. 

As the governor of the people of Syria and the Faqih in the view of a member of Ahle Bayt, he had every right to make personal ijtihaad in the interest of the people of Syria. it is another thing his ijtihaad was wrong and he should have given Bayyah to Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) when he demanded for it.

Share this post


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

how come you forgot Mu`awiyah (May Allah be well pleased with him) was not only a Faqih but also the governor of Syria ? Normally shias don`t forget this fact but your bad memory is making things difficult for you.

You mean Imam 'Ali, the ruling caliph, appointed Mu'awiyah the governor of Syria? That's a new lie, I guess. Do you have any evidence for that?

Quote

As the governor of the people of Syria and the Faqih in the view of a member of Ahle Bayt, he had every right to make personal ijtihaad in the interest of the people of Syria. it is another thing his ijtihaad was wrong and he should have given Bayyah to Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) when he demanded for it.

Well, I only know that Mu'awiyah was a self-appointed governor during the rule of Imam 'Ali. THAT doe not make him a real governor.

Secondly, when he and his gang assassinated 'Ammar b. Yasir, they were not in any judicial proceeding, and his assassination was not carried out as the judgment in a fair judicial trial.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


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

You mean Imam 'Ali, the ruling caliph, appointed Mu'awiyah the governor of Syria? That's a new lie, I guess. Do you have any evidence for that?

Well, I only know that Mu'awiyah was a self-appointed governor during the rule of Imam 'Ali. THAT doe not make him a real governor.

No i don`t mean Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) appointed Ameer Mu`awiyah as the governor of Allah because Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) was appointed as the governor of Syria in 639 CE under the Caliphate of Umar bin khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) after his elder brother Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan (his predecessor) passed away in a plague along with Abu Ubaiydah ibn al Jarrah (who was his predecessor at this post before passing away). he already held this post for many years before Imam Ali (ra) became the Khalifah of the Rashidun Caliphate and therefore he didn`t had to appoint him at this post. 

So i hope that In`sha Allah finally you can see that he wasn`t self appointed governor of Syria. Do your history book even inform you of this fact that he was one of the first generals to be sent for the conquest of Syria during the Caliphate of Abu bakr as siddiq (May Allah be well pleased with him) ? 

4 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Secondly, when he and his gang assassinated 'Ammar b. Yasir, they were not in any judicial proceeding, and his assassination was not carried out as the judgment in a fair judicial trial.

it is true that Ammar (ra) was killed by one of the soldiers in the army of Ameer Mu`awiyah but he personally had no part in the killing of Ammar ibn Yasir (May Allah be well pleased with him).

In fact it was the martyrdom of Ammar (ra) which pushed Amr bin al-`As (ra) to suggest to raise the Qu`ran in order to stop the battle because he had heard the hadith of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) regarding the martyrdom of Ammar (ra) for himself and it completely broke his morale when he realized someone from the Syrian army has killed Ammar ibn Yasir (ra). 

Share this post


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

No i don`t mean Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) appointed Ameer Mu`awiyah as the governor of Allah because Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) was appointed as the governor of Syria in 639 CE under the Caliphate of Umar bin khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) after his elder brother Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan (his predecessor) passed away in a plague along with Abu Ubaiydah ibn al Jarrah (who was his predecessor at this post before passing away). he already held this post for many years before Imam Ali (ra) became the Khalifah of the Rashidun Caliphate and therefore he didn`t had to appoint him at this post. 


So i hope that In`sha Allah finally you can see that he wasn`t self appointed governor of Syria.

Well, unless his governorship was CONFIRMED by Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him), Mu'awiyah became a self-appointed "governor" the moment the rightful caliph assumed power. If you want to claim that Imam 'Ali confirmed his governorship or re-appointed him, then bring your evidence. Mu'awiyah might have been a rightful governor during the rule of 'Umar and 'Uthman (by Sunni standards), but only because both of them confirmed his governorship.

Do I really need to explain these basic matters to you?

Quote

Do your history book even inform you of this fact that he was one of the first generals to be sent for the conquest of Syria during the Caliphate of Abu bakr as siddiq (May Allah be well pleased with him) ?

Is that your evidence that Imam 'Ali re-appointed him as the governor of Syria?

Quote

it is true that Ammar (ra) was killed by one of the soldiers in the army of Ameer Mu`awiyah but he personally had no part in the killing of Ammar ibn Yasir (May Allah be well pleased with him).

You mean Mu'awiyah did not order his soldiers to kill the soldiers of Imam 'Ali?!

Quote

In fact it was the martyrdom of Ammar (ra) which pushed Amr bin al-`As (ra) to suggest to raise the Qu`ran in order to stop the battle because he had heard the hadith of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) regarding the martyrdom of Ammar (ra) for himself and it completely broke his morale when he realized someone from the Syrian army has killed Ammar ibn Yasir (ra). 

That confirms that Mu'awiyah and his baghi gang were callers to hellfire, as that hadith declares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Well, unless his governorship was CONFIRMED by Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him), Mu'awiyah became a self-appointed "governor" the moment the rightful caliph assumed power. If you want to claim that Imam 'Ali confirmed his governorship or re-appointed him, then bring your evidence. Mu'awiyah might have been a rightful governor during the rule of 'Umar and 'Uthman (by Sunni standards), but only because both of them confirmed his governorship.

Do I really need to explain these basic matters to you?

No you do not need to explain these basic matters to me but it will be very good for you if you learn it for yourself.

Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) removed those officials he wanted to remove and appointed other officials of his choice BUT he didn`t do it in the case of Ameer Mu`awiyah. he was asking him for Bayyah, not for surrender of his position as the governor of Syria, even after the battle of Siffin he was making the same demand. he didn`t said to Ameer Mu`awiyah "now i only expect resignation from you after all this has happened" because that`s not what he wanted in the first place.

So once again your case is wrong. 

1 hour ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Is that your evidence that Imam 'Ali re-appointed him as the governor of Syria?

No, i only asked this question out of curiosity. i have already refuted your argument above so nothing further is needed to add here.

1 hour ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

You mean Mu'awiyah did not order his soldiers to kill the soldiers of Imam 'Ali?!

you mean after the battle had already commenced ? what else was he supposed to tell them once the battle had started ? "lay down your arms and happily get slaughtered" ?

1 hour ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

That confirms that Mu'awiyah and his baghi gang were callers to hellfire, as that hadith declares.

yes it`s the group of Mu`awiyah (ra) was baghi and they were calling Ammar bin Yasir (ra) towards hellfire, as that hadith declares.

But there is a grave misunderstanding about this hadith among the majority of Muslims. the hadith does not says they are baghi (rebel) to Islam, instead they were Baghis to the righteous caliph and that`s whay made them Baghi group. it is also true they were calling Ammar bin Yasir (ra) towards hellfire, not because they were calling him towards shirk Nuadhubillah, but because he had already given Bayyah to the Caliph of Muslims and breaking the Bayyah after giving it to the Caliph is a grave sin to commit. 

Use your mind brother Abu Fatimah, if you are saying that Naudhubillah Mu`awiyah and his group were kaffirs then why did Imam Ali led funeral prayers of their dead ? More importantly why did Imam Hassan handed the Caliphate to a Kaffir (Naudhubillah) ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) removed those officials he wanted to remove and appointed other officials of his choice BUT he didn`t do it in the case of Ameer Mu`awiyah. he was asking him for Bayyah, not for surrender of his position as the governor of Syria, even after the battle of Siffin he was making the same demand. he didn`t said to Ameer Mu`awiyah "now i only expect resignation from you after all this has happened" because that`s not what he wanted in the first place.

And your evidence is?

And, when Mu'awiyah refused to give the ba'yah, then Imam 'Ali re-appointed him or confirmed his governorship? Is that what you are saying?

Quote

yes it`s the group of Mu`awiyah (ra) was baghi and they were calling Ammar bin Yasir (ra) towards hellfire, as that hadith declares.

But there is a grave misunderstanding about this hadith among the majority of Muslims. the hadith does not says they are baghi (rebel) to Islam, instead they were Baghis to the righteous caliph and that`s whay made them Baghi group. it is also true they were calling Ammar bin Yasir (ra) towards hellfire, not because they were calling him towards shirk Nuadhubillah, but because he had already given Bayyah to the Caliph of Muslims and breaking the Bayyah after giving it to the Caliph is a grave sin to commit.

Alhamdulillah, we both agree that Mu'awiyah was a caller to Hellfire, and he was a baghi. Many of your brothers deny these simple facts.

Quote

Use your mind brother Abu Fatimah, if you are saying that Naudhubillah Mu`awiyah and his group were kaffirs then why did Imam Ali led funeral prayers of their dead ? More importantly why did Imam Hassan handed the Caliphate to a Kaffir (Naudhubillah) ?

Mu'awiyah was only a Nasibi. And a Nasibi is a hypocrite. He is outwardly a Muslim, of course, But, inwardly, he is worse than a Jew or Christian in kufr.

Share this post


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

And your evidence is?

where is my evidence for what ? i found no report which says Imam Ali wanted to replace the governor of Syria both before and ever the battle of Siffin.

16 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

And, when Mu'awiyah refused to give the ba'yah, then Imam 'Ali re-appointed him or confirmed his governorship? Is that what you are saying?

what made you say that ? i made it clear Imam Ali did not wanted to replace Ammer Mu`awiyah from his post right from the beginning of his Caliphate. 

16 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Alhamdulillah, we both agree that Mu'awiyah was a caller to Hellfire, and he was a baghi. Many of your brothers deny these simple facts.

only those who are unaware of the Position of Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah deny it. Ahlus Sunnah agrees that Ameer Mu`awiyah`s ijtihad was wrong, his group was rebel to THE CALIPH ( NOT TO ISLAM ) and they were calling ONLY Ammar bin Yasir towards hellfire because breaking the Bayyah of Allegiance to the Caliph after giving it is a grave sin.  

so yes Alhamdulilah, Ahlus Sunnah accepts the truth of this matter but we disagree with Shi`i over the interpretation of this matter.

16 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Mu'awiyah was only a Nasibi. And a Nasibi is a hypocrite. He is outwardly a Muslim, of course, But, inwardly, he is worse than a Jew or Christian in kufr.

So Imam Hassan (ra) handed the leadership of the Muslim Ummah in the hands of a Munafiq ? Naudhubillah! 

there are only 2 possibilities here.

1) you are right but that means Imam Hassan (ra) made a HUGE mistake and he was not infallible and if he was not infallible then it means the rest of the Imams were also fallible.

2) you are wrong then it means Mu`awiyah (ra) was a Momin and he was fit to be the Caliph of the Muslims in the view of Imam Hassan (ra) and therefore he handed the Caliphate to him and personally gave him Bayyah plus also told Imam Hussain to give bayyah to Ameer Mu`awiyah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

No i don`t mean Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) appointed Ameer Mu`awiyah as the governor of Allah because Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) was appointed as the governor of Syria in 639 CE under the Caliphate of Umar bin khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) after his elder brother Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan (his predecessor) passed away in a plague along with Abu Ubaiydah ibn al Jarrah (who was his predecessor at this post before passing away). he already held this post for many years before Imam Ali (ra) became the Khalifah of the Rashidun Caliphate and therefore he didn`t had to appoint him at this post. 

So i hope that In`sha Allah finally you can see that he wasn`t self appointed governor of Syria. Do your history book even inform you of this fact that he was one of the first generals to be sent for the conquest of Syria during the Caliphate of Abu bakr as siddiq (May Allah be well pleased with him) ? 

it is true that Ammar (ra) was killed by one of the soldiers in the army of Ameer Mu`awiyah but he personally had no part in the killing of Ammar ibn Yasir (May Allah be well pleased with him).

In fact it was the martyrdom of Ammar (ra) which pushed Amr bin al-`As (ra) to suggest to raise the Qu`ran in order to stop the battle because he had heard the hadith of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) regarding the martyrdom of Ammar (ra) for himself and it completely broke his morale when he realized someone from the Syrian army has killed Ammar ibn Yasir (ra). 

 

Why the spin? Why not just say it as it is.

 

Muawaiya rebelled against the Muslims. Muawaiya rebelled against unanimously agreed  caliph of the Muslims,  

What is the sunni position of those who rebelled against Abu Bakr leadership? They are held as murtad and to be executed and no repentance is to be accepted from them.

So let me now ask you again, what is the difference between those that rebelled against Abu Bakr and those who rebelled against Imam Ali AS?

Share this post


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

Why the spin? Why not just say it as it is.

where is the spin ? i`m just telling you the understanding of those narrations based on evidence and common sense. 

on the other hand what you are asking me to say goes against both evidence and common sense.

2 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

Muawaiya rebelled against the Muslims. Muawaiya rebelled against unanimously agreed  caliph of the Muslims,  

Unanimously agreed ? i`m sorry but are wrong @iraqi_shia

Tell me if there was unanimous agreement and acceptance of the Caliphate of Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) throughout the Muslims lands then why was he demanding for the Bayyah of Ameer Mu`awiyah in the first place ? it`s the remaining lands had to confirm the Caliphate of Imam Ali by giving him Bayyah even if they were not agaisnt his rule, they had to confirm it in order to finalize it and Unify the Muslim Ummah under the leadership of the Rightly guided Caliph.

the people of Syria, Egypt, some parts of Anatolia (i.e Turkey) and other remaining parts of Muslim lands in Africa were yet to give Bayyah (through their officials) to Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him). they did not disagreed with but they needed to give him Bayyah in order to officially make him the Caliph of the Entire Muslim population living in the Middle east, central Asia and Africa at that time. the Muslims lands couldn't`t have been unified until every state official and notable people had given Bayyah to the Caliph.

2 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

What is the sunni position of those who rebelled against Abu Bakr leadership? They are held as murtad and to be executed and no repentance is to be accepted from them.

where did you read or heard that The apostate wars occurred because people refused to give Bayyah to Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with him) ? 

you`ve been badly misinformed about the Islamic history.

2 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

So let me now ask you again, what is the difference between those that rebelled against Abu Bakr and those who rebelled against Imam Ali AS?

the difference is that Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) rebelled against the Caliph without giving Bayyah to him. he rebelled agaisnt the Caliph and not agaisnt Islam.

While those who were fighting with Caliph Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with him) actually Rebelled against Islam. Many of them even wanted to Invade Makkah and Medina and some even reached Medina before being repelled by the Muslim forces. 

Edited by Student_of_Deen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction

1 hour ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Unanimously agreed ? i`m sorry but are wrong @iraqi_shia

Tell me if Allegiance was already sworn by everyone unanimous agreement and acceptance of the Caliphate of Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) throughout the Muslims lands then why was he demanding for the Bayyah of Ameer Mu`awiyah in the first place ? it`s because the remaining lands had to confirm the Caliphate of Imam Ali by giving him Bayyah even if they were not agaisnt his rule, they had to confirm it in order to finalize it and Unify the Muslim Ummah under the leadership of the Rightly guided Caliph.

the people of Syria, Egypt, some parts of Anatolia (i.e Turkey) and other remaining parts of Muslim lands in Africa were yet to give Bayyah (through their officials) to Imam Ali (May Allah be pleased with him). they did not disagreed with the rule of Imam Ali but they needed to give him Bayyah in order to officially make him the Caliph of the Entire Muslim population living in the Middle east, central Asia and Africa at that time. the Muslims lands couldn't`t have been unified until every state official and notable people had given Bayyah to the Caliph.

 

 

Share this post


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

where is my evidence for what ? i found no report which says Imam Ali wanted to replace the governor of Syria both before and ever the battle of Siffin.

So, whatever you have not seen does not exist? Yeah, I know that "Sunni" kind of reasoning.

Anyway, Mu'awiyah was an illegal governor, no matter how hard you twist the fact. He was neither re-appointed nor confirmed by the ruling caliph. That made him a rebel, actually.

 

Quote

only those who are unaware of the Position of Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah deny it. Ahlus Sunnah agrees that Ameer Mu`awiyah`s ijtihad was wrong, his group was rebel to THE CALIPH ( NOT TO ISLAM ) and they were calling ONLY Ammar bin Yasir towards hellfire because breaking the Bayyah of Allegiance to the Caliph after giving it is a grave sin.  

so yes Alhamdulilah, Ahlus Sunnah accepts the truth of this matter but we disagree with Shi`i over the interpretation of this matter.

It is interesting that you (i) agree that Mu'awiyah, may Allah curse him and his lovers, was a rebel, and yet (ii) you maintain that he was a legitimate governor!

You simply cannot reason straight, or stick to a single, straightforward position, I guess. You have been very consistent in spewing contradictory positions for some time now.

Quote

Ameer Mu`awiyah`s ijtihad was wrong, his group was rebel to THE CALIPH ( NOT TO ISLAM ) and they were calling ONLY Ammar bin Yasir towards hellfire because breaking the Bayyah of Allegiance to the Caliph after giving it is a grave sin.  

What then is your refutation to Ibn Baz in this fatwa:

Another piece of evidence is also the Hadith authentically reported in the Sahih from Al-Harith Al-Ash`ary that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Allah commanded Yahia (John), son of Zakariya (Zachariah) to do five things and to order the Children of Israel to do the same. The Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned these five things and said, 'I, too, command you to do five things that Allah commanded me to do: listening, obedience, Jihad (fighting or striving in the Cause of Allah), Hijrah (a believer's migration to an Islamic land), and (sticking to) the Jama'ah (the Muslim mainstream), for whosoever separates from the community within a span takes off the noose of Islam from his neck, unless he repents. Moreover, whoever adopts the call of Jahiliyyah, will be one of those who will crawl on their knees in Hell.' A man said, 'O Messenger of Allah, even though he observes Salah (Prayer) and Sawm (Fast)?' He (peace be upon him) said, 'Yes, even though he observes Salah and Sawm and claims to be a Muslim. So adopt the call of Allah whereby He called you Muslims and believers and servants of Allah. This sound Hadith is one of the clearest Hadiths and the most obvious one of them regarding the invalidity of the call to Nationalism and considering it a call belonging to Al-Jahiliyyah, the callers to which deserve to be from the denizens of Hell-Fire, even if they perform Salah, Sawm, and claim that they are Muslims.

You have a few choices before you:

1. Claim that rebelling against a legitimate caliph is not separation from the Muslim community.

2. Or, claim that Mu'awiyah did not rebel against a legitimate caliph.

 

Quote

So Imam Hassan (ra) handed the leadership of the Muslim Ummah in the hands of a Munafiq ? Naudhubillah! 

there are only 2 possibilities here.

1) you are right but that means Imam Hassan (ra) made a HUGE mistake and he was not infallible and if he was not infallible then it means the rest of the Imams were also fallible.

2) you are wrong then it means Mu`awiyah (ra) was a Momin and he was fit to be the Caliph of the Muslims in the view of Imam Hassan (ra) and therefore he handed the Caliphate to him and personally gave him Bayyah plus also told Imam Hussain to give bayyah to Ameer Mu`awiyah. 

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) made  a peace treaty with the kuffar, and allowed them to have full control of the holiest place on the earth, Makkah al-Mukarramah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...