Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Muawiyah (la) died as a disbeliever [Sunni Proof]

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
On 9/8/2016 at 8:26 AM, Abu_Rumaysah said:

Moawiyah and Imam Hasan (alaihi salam).

Ibn Asakir in his history narrated a very interesting story, it begins with such words:

أضاق الحسن بن علي وكان عطاؤه في كل سنة مئة ألف فحبسها عنه معاوية في إحدى السنين

(Once) Al-Hasan ibn Ali was in difficult financial position, and his salary each year was equal to 100 000 dirhams, and in one year Muawiyah didn’t pay it (in time).

After story tell us that al-Hasan (radi Allahu anhu) wanted to write to Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu) regarding that, then he changed his mind. In his dream he seen prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and he teached him a long duah. Then story continues by words of Hasan:

قال فوالله ما ألححت به أسبوعاً , حتى بعث إلى معاوية بألف ألف وخمسمائة ألف

By Allah didn’t pass the week after I prayed, and Muawiyah send me 1 500 000.

Source: Mukhtasar Tarih Madinatul Dimashk 1/895

 

Not usual picture of tyrant and oppressed one

This is indeed a typical picture of tyrant and oppressed which fact has been acknowledged by sunni scholars but its just that you are more than keen and excited to use the acceptance of stipend by Imam Hassan (as) and Muawiya (la in la) as proof of "extremely close and friendly" relationship with each other thats why you are not even bothering to go deep into the issue. An esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:

“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors, but not because they were friends with them or deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they used to take it because it was their own right which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir people. How could this happen on the basis of friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj via sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Pirior to them, people had the same behavior with Muawiyah when he became ruler after the murder of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to take stipends from Muawiyah), they werent friendly to him, in fact they used to do Tabbarra on him [Muawiyah] in the same manner as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) till Allah (swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan. Thus, accepting the position of a judge and taking stipends from them [oppressors] does not mean that those people were on friendly terms with them or accepted their rulership.”
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87 (Beirut)

 Imam Ghazzali:

“There were many among the companions who lived up to the time of tyrant rulers and used to accept properties from them. Such were Abu Hurairah, Abu Sayeed Khodri, Zaid bin Sabei, Abu Ayyub Ansari, Jarir bin Abdullah, Anas bin Malik and others. Some of them received from caliphs Marwan and Yazid bin Abul Malik, some from the turant governor Hajjaj. Imam Shafeyi received once from caliph Harun Rashid one thousand dinars. Imam Malik also received them from different caliphs. Hazrat Ali said: ‘Whatever a ruler gives you, he gives out of lawful things. He himself did not accept it out of greater sense of piety. When Imam Hasan came to caliph Muawiyah, the latter gave him four lac dirhams which he accepted. These sages used to accept properties of tyrant rulers. The supporters of above opinion say that some of the sages did not accept out of great sense of piety. This does not show that it is illegal.”
Ihya Ulum-id-din, Volume 2 page 98

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2016 at 2:30 PM, Tawhidist said:

oh Ammar you will be killed by INFIDELS.

Prophet Muhammad (saa)

Ammar ibn Yaser was killed by Muawiya's army ....

i rest my case

Please don't attribute lies to our beloved prophet (saws). He never said to Ammar that he would be killed by infidels. That is a lie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Abu_Rumaysah relax homeboy,

 

1. eat a snickers

2. the amount of time and effort you spent trying to defend muawiya's position is beyond my understanding. He was just a bad guy man, why can't you see this (most of the sunni friends I know wholeheartedly agreed of Muawiya being in the wrong; under no circumstance can he ever be seen in the right.).. however maybe I don't see your point of view just yet, so:

Do you believe Muawiya to be a bad person?

Whether or not he was kafir, do you believe he was in the wrong or in the right?

Did you eat your snickers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

@Abu_Rumaysah relax homeboy,

 

1. eat a snickers

2. the amount of time and effort you spent trying to defend muawiya's position is beyond my understanding. He was just a bad guy man, why can't you see this (most of the sunni friends I know wholeheartedly agreed of Muawiya being in the wrong; under no circumstance can he ever be seen in the right.).. however maybe I don't see your point of view just yet, so:

Do you believe Muawiya to be a bad person?

Whether or not he was kafir, do you believe he was in the wrong or in the right?

Did you eat your snickers?

Bcz he's a Wahhabi. Simple that's why you need to ignor, ban then kick them of the forum.

I'm sure the domain name is: Shiachat.

A place that shia brothers and sister can be relax.

These Sunni or Wahhabi shia debated are done long time ago.

Learn, buy books and solve them by yourself. That's what I told myself, so if you see someone making doubt it's bcz of 2 reason:

1- he's lazy to research.

2- he's here for fitn

Otherwise there are a few people who's truly seeking true, bcz due to internet you can download books and videos and check it by your own.

[MOD EDIT to remove personal information.]

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

@Abu_Rumaysah relax homeboy,

1. eat a snickers

2. the amount of time and effort you spent trying to defend muawiya's position is beyond my understanding. He was just a bad guy man, why can't you see this (most of the sunni friends I know wholeheartedly agreed of Muawiya being in the wrong; under no circumstance can he ever be seen in the right.).. however maybe I don't see your point of view just yet, so:

Do you believe Muawiya to be a bad person?

Whether or not he was kafir, do you believe he was in the wrong or in the right?

Did you eat your snickers?

Thank you very much indeed for taking care about my mental health. :grin: 

No I did't eat anything, today is Monday, and it is a day for voluntary fasting. Trying to improve my emaan :pushup2:

Fasting can really helps.

Back to your question. There is a great difference between sunnis and sunnis. Don't want to be offensive towards your sunni friends. But there are knowledgeable sunnis, they don't speak ill anything, and neither discussing flaws of companions. And there are ignorant. Under shia influence, they think they will look more moderate if they will say: Yes such and such companion was bad man, wrong and etc.

Guess to which group of sunnis I am attributing myself? :grin:

All I can say, I can repeat my scholars. In the wars between hz Ali and Muawiyah, truth was on the side of hz Ali. 

 

 

 

Edited by Abu_Rumaysah
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Haimi said:

Bcz he's a Wahhabi. Simple that's why you need to ignor, ban then kick them of the forum.

I'm sure the domain name is: Shiachat.

A place that shia brothers and sister can be relax.

These Sunni or Wahhabi shia debated are done long time ago.

Learn, buy books and solve them by yourself. That's what I told myself, so if you see someone making doubt it's bcz of 2 reason:

1- he's lazy to research.

2- he's here for fitn

Otherwise there are a few people who's truly seeking true, bcz due to internet you can download books and videos and check it by your own.

[MOD EDIT to remove personal information.]

So many letters, and all about me? Well, I am not worse to spend so much time on me. Really.

But, my little friend.

Wallahi la ilaha ila huwa, you lied upon me by naming me wahabi. I am not a big fan of shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdulwahab. 

I am sunni, mazhab is hanafi. 

But I like your approach.

Quote

That's what I told myself, so if you see someone making doubt it's bcz of 2 reason:

1- he's lazy to research.

2- he's here for fitn

So basically, you sure that true path is the way of modern jafariyah. And if someone didn't get it, he is fitna maker. Sunni/Shia discussion forum. In itself, by default, by its very own name means that here people from 2 different groups would discuss, debate different issues around their religion. There is no: Shia (only true way) Sunni (that could come here only with intention to become shia) discussion forum

There is Shia/Sunni Dialogue forum. I can enlighten you what does it mean dialogue. Two people speaking. It is not Shia/Sunni monologue forum. Hope you see the difference.:grin:

And again talking about "if someone has doubts". Man should I remind you how many differences even between modern day shia scholars? You are not agreed even between yourself on some things. But you are definitely agreed on hate of companions. 

I have been compared with satan. Wow. I do assume your post like baseless attack upon my humble personality. Am I waiting to see justice here? No, sunni can't find justice when he surrounded by shias.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
48 minutes ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

Thank you very much indeed for taking care about my mental health. :grin: 

No I did't eat anything, today is Monday, and it is a day for voluntary fasting. Trying to improve my emaan :pushup2:

Fasting can really helps.

Back to your question. There is a great difference between sunnis and sunnis. Don't want to be offensive towards your sunni friends. But there are knowledgeable sunnis, they don't speak ill anything, and neither discussing flaws of companions. And there are ignorant. Under shia influence, they think they will look more moderate if they will say: Yes such and such companion was bad man, wrong and etc.

Guess to which group of sunnis I am attributing myself? :grin:

All I can say, I can repeat my scholars. In the wars between hz Ali and Muawiyah, truth was on the side of hz Ali. 

 

 

 

Was muawiyah a good person

If yes, type yes

If no, type no

 

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

Was muawiyah a good person

If yes, type yes

If no, type no

:salam:

He was the man who was prayed upon by prophet (saws).

Imam Tirmizi narrated in his Sunnan 4213:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُسْهِرٍ عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى بْنُ مُسْهِرٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي عَمِيرَةَ، وَكَانَ، مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّهُ قَالَ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ ‏”‏ اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْهُ هَادِيًا مَهْدِيًّا وَاهْدِ بِهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏.‏
Prophet (saws) said to Muawiyah: “Allah, make him (Muawiya ) guided, a guider, and guide people through him”.

Hadith is good at least, Tirmizi said: Hadith hasan gharib. Muhammad Shinqiti authenticated chain of similar report from Tarih al-Kabir of imam Bukhari. 

All narrators are thiqah, there is one objection to the chain, that probably Abdurrahman ibn Abi Umayrah wasn't companion. But it is wrong assumption.

Tirmizi said he was from companions. Ibn Hajar in “Isaba” wrote:

ذكره البخاري وابن سعد وابن البرقي وابن حبان وعبد الصمد بن سعيد في الصحابة وذكره أبو الحسن بن سميع في الطبقة الأولى من الصحابة الذين نزلوا حمص
“Bukhari, ibn Sad, ibn al-Barqi, ibn Hibban, Abdussamad ibn Sayed mentioned him as companion, Abul Hasan ibn Sumay mentioned him in 1-st generations of companions which settled in Hums”.

And he also said:

فعجب من قول بن عبد البر حديثه منقطع الإسناد مرسل لا تثبت أحاديثه ولا تصح صحبته
“And opinion of ibn abd-Al-Bar is amazing, (he claimed) that his narrations are broken, chain is disconnected, and his narrations are not established and it’s not proven his talks (with prophet, (saws).

Hafidh Alaatdin al-Mughlutai in “al-Ibanah ila marifat al-mukhtalif fihim min as sahaba” (2/24) said that Abu Nuaym, ibn Ghani, ibn Hibban, ibn Mandah mentioned him amongst companions.

So prophet (saws) prayed for this man to be guided and to be guider. 

Besides Muawiyah was katib al-wahy. Mean he was scribe for the revelations. 

Ibn Athakir said in “Tareeh madinatul dimashq” (59/106):

وأصح ما رُوي في فضل معاوية حديث أبي حمزة عن ابن عباس أنه كاتِبُ النبيِّ منذ أسلم، أخرجه مسلم في صحيحه. وبعده حديث العرباض: اللهم علمه الكتاب. وبعد حديث ابن أبي عَميرة: اللهم اجعله هاديا مهديا”
“And most authentic that was narrated in merits of Muawiya narration of Abu Hamza from ibn Abbas that he was scribe of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) after he embraced Islam,it was reported by Muslim in his Sahih, and after that narration of al-Irbad: O Allah teach him the book, and after that narration of ibn Abu Umeyrah: O Allah make him guided, a guider”.

And now you asking sunnis, if he was good or bad.  I would answer by the words of our scholar, Abu Abdurrahman an-Nasai. The one who compiled famous book "Khasais amiral muminin", about merits and characteristic of our master hz Ali. 

Mizzi in “Tahzib al-kamal” (vol 1, number 48) wrote:

روى بإسناده عن أبي الحسن علي بن محمد القابسي قال سمعت أبا علي الحسن بن أبي هلال يقول سئل أبو عبد الرحمن النسائي عن معاوية بن أبي سفيان صاحب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال إنما الإسلام كدار لها باب فباب الإسلام الصحابة فمن آذى الصحابة إنما أراد الإسلام كمن نقر الباب إنما يريد دخول الدار قال فمن أراد معاوية فإنما أراد الصحابة

“And he narrated with his chain from abul-Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad al-Qabsi (or al-Qabusi) which said: I heard Abu Ali Al-Hasan ibn Abu Khallal, that he said: Abu Abdurrahman an-Nasai was asked about Mu’awiyah. His reply was: “Islam is like a house with a door. The door of Islam is the Sahaba. Whoever speaks ill of the Sahaba seeks but to harm Islam, just like one who knocks a door to enter a house. As for Mu’awiyah, whoever speaks ill of him seeks to find a way to speak ill of the Sahaba.”

If you would blame Nasai in being nasibi, due to these words of him. Blame us all in the same. Because Nasai without any doubt was great man, the man whose heart was full with love towards Amir al-Muminin hz Ali. But at the same time, he said about Muawiyah: whoever speaks ill of him seeks to find a way to speak ill of the Sahaba.

I don't think that average shia would understand this. Almost all of you are full with hater towards companions, and ahlesunnah in general. But, again and again. We would try to explain you our stand point, and to establish good relations with shias. 

:ws:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

:salam:

He was the man who was prayed upon by prophet (saws).

Imam Tirmizi narrated in his Sunnan 4213:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُسْهِرٍ عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى بْنُ مُسْهِرٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي عَمِيرَةَ، وَكَانَ، مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّهُ قَالَ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ ‏”‏ اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْهُ هَادِيًا مَهْدِيًّا وَاهْدِ بِهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏.‏
Prophet (saws) said to Muawiyah: “Allah, make him (Muawiya ) guided, a guider, and guide people through him”.

Hadith is good at least, Tirmizi said: Hadith hasan gharib. Muhammad Shinqiti authenticated chain of similar report from Tarih al-Kabir of imam Bukhari. 

All narrators are thiqah, there is one objection to the chain, that probably Abdurrahman ibn Abi Umayrah wasn't companion. But it is wrong assumption.

Tirmizi said he was from companions. Ibn Hajar in “Isaba” wrote:

ذكره البخاري وابن سعد وابن البرقي وابن حبان وعبد الصمد بن سعيد في الصحابة وذكره أبو الحسن بن سميع في الطبقة الأولى من الصحابة الذين نزلوا حمص
“Bukhari, ibn Sad, ibn al-Barqi, ibn Hibban, Abdussamad ibn Sayed mentioned him as companion, Abul Hasan ibn Sumay mentioned him in 1-st generations of companions which settled in Hums”.

And he also said:

فعجب من قول بن عبد البر حديثه منقطع الإسناد مرسل لا تثبت أحاديثه ولا تصح صحبته
“And opinion of ibn abd-Al-Bar is amazing, (he claimed) that his narrations are broken, chain is disconnected, and his narrations are not established and it’s not proven his talks (with prophet, (saws).

Hafidh Alaatdin al-Mughlutai in “al-Ibanah ila marifat al-mukhtalif fihim min as sahaba” (2/24) said that Abu Nuaym, ibn Ghani, ibn Hibban, ibn Mandah mentioned him amongst companions.

So prophet (saws) prayed for this man to be guided and to be guider. 

The tradition cited regarding Muawiyah being a Haadi has not been even approved by Imam Tirmidhi himself as he decalred it ‘Hasan Ghareeb’. Allamah Muhammad Abdurehman bin Abdurahim al-Mubarakfuri in his commentary of this tradition cited the comments of Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr:

‘The hafiz ibn Abdulbar said: “His companionship is not true and his chain (isnad) is not Sahih.” 
 

We also read in ‘Tanaqudat al-Albani’ volume 2 page 228 by Allamah Hassan Saqaaf:

“The Marfu Hadith from Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaira (Oh Allah guide him and make let him guide) referring to Mu’awiya, this hadith cannot be Sahih in any way”

Razi records in ‘Elal al-Hadith’ Volume 2 page 362:

“Verily Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaria didn’t hear this hadith from the prophet (s)”

Imam Dhahabi records in ‘Siar alam al-Nubala’ Volume 3 page 126:

“The (chain) is disconnected”

 

Not a single hadith in praise of Mu’awiya is Sahih


The leading ‘Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all hadith praising Mu’awiya as fabricated.

Imam Jalaluddeen Suyuti in his book Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Volume 1 page 424 while Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in al- Mawdu’at, Volume 2 page 24 have recorded:

قال الحاكم سمعت أبا العباس محمد بن يعقوب بن يوسف يقول سمعت أبي يقول سمعت إسحق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي يقول لا يصح في فضل معاوية حديث
Al-Hakim said: ‘I heard Aba al-Abbas Muhammad bin Yaqoob bin Yusuf saying: ‘I heard my father saying: ‘I heard Ishaq bin Ibrahim al-Handhali saying: ‘There is no Sahih tradition about Mu’awyia’s virtues”’.
1. Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Volume 1 page 424
2.  al-Mawdu’at Volume 2 page 24

Muhammad bin Ali bin Shawkani in his boko Fawa’id al Mujmu’a fi Bay’an al-Hadith al-Maudu’a, page 147 states that:

“Ibn Hibban commented that all ahadith in praise of Mu’awiya are fabricated”.
 Fawa’id al Mujmu’a, page 147

 

 

Edited by B-N
font size
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

[Note from Mod: This topic has been temporarily closed for review by a moderator pending one of the following actions:

1) Cleanup: Topic will be reviewed, inappropriate posts will be deleted followed by warnings/bans being implemented and then reopened.

2) Topic will be permanently deleted or sent to the lounge.

3) Topic will remain permanently closed.

Please allow up to 48 hours for one of the above actions to take place. Contact the appropriate moderator for any further explanations

The ShiaChat.com rules can be found at: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12120] [Auto]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Are there any authentic hadiths on the virtues of Muawiyah?

 

Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal has said: “I asked my father about Ali and Muawiyah. He said: “Know that Ali has many enemies, and no matter how much they tried to find any fault or flaws in him, they couldn’t. That is why they gathered around one who had battled against him and provoked him to deceive and plot against Ali.”[20] Hakem says: “I heard Abu al-Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub bin Yusuf saying: “I heard my father saying: “I heard Is’haq bin Ibrahim Handhali saying: “There is no authentic hadith on the virtue of Muawiyah.”[21] Seeing that there are no hadiths in praise of Muawiyah, Bukhari saw no other option other than to add a chapter where mentioning the virtues of the first khalifahs, with the title of “A Remembrance of Muawiyah”[22]; in Fat’h al-Bari (7:83), Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes: “This itself shows that the disputed virtues narrated about Muawiyah aren't authentic and have no basis. Many hadiths have been narrated about the virtues of Muawiyah, none of which bear a decent and acceptable chain of narrators.[23] Is’haq ibn Rahwiyyah and Nisa’i and others share the same view. Muslim and Ibn Majah who also weren’t able to find an acceptable hadith about Muawiyah, have added a page to their books in praise of the Sahabah. As for Teyrmidi, he hasn’t narrated more than one hadith (O’ Allah, make him a guider and a guided one and in a way that others are guided by him) saying that the hadith is “hasan sahih” (authentic).[24] This is while the hadith is narrated like this: “O’ Allah guide him”. Ibn Teymiyyah in his book of Minhaj (2:207) writes: “Some have attributed certain virtues to Muawiyah and have narrated hadiths from the prophet (pbuh) about him, which are all lies.Firuz Abadi, in the end of his book of Safar al-Sa’adah, and Ajaluni in his book of Kashf al-Khafa’, pg. 420, in the chapters of Muawiyah’s virtues, say: There is no authentic hadith in this regard. In Umdah al-Qari, Eyni writes: “If you say that there are many hadiths on the virtues of Muawiyah, I will say yes there are, but none of them have authentic chains of narrators and are unreliable. Shawkani writes in Fawa’id al-Majmu’ah: “Those preserving the ahadith all agree that there is no authentic hadith on the virtues of Muawiyah.”[25]

 

The conclusion being that, in order to free Muawiyah and Yazid from vices and impurities, some engaged in the act of fabricating hadiths but failed, and although some reject these hadiths, they still speak good of Muawiyah and attribute qualities to him, as was seen in the words of Ibn Teymiyyah and Sarakhsi.

 

http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa3186

 

And God knows best,

Wsalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, B-N said:

The tradition cited regarding Muawiyah being a Haadi has not been even approved by Imam Tirmidhi himself as he decalred it ‘Hasan Ghareeb’. Allamah Muhammad Abdurehman bin Abdurahim al-Mubarakfuri in his commentary of this tradition cited the comments of Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr:

‘The hafiz ibn Abdulbar said: “His companionship is not true and his chain (isnad) is not Sahih.” 

We also read in ‘Tanaqudat al-Albani’ volume 2 page 228 by Allamah Hassan Saqaaf:

“The Marfu Hadith from Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaira (Oh Allah guide him and make let him guide) referring to Mu’awiya, this hadith cannot be Sahih in any way”

Razi records in ‘Elal al-Hadith’ Volume 2 page 362:

“Verily Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaria didn’t hear this hadith from the prophet (s)”

Imam Dhahabi records in ‘Siar alam al-Nubala’ Volume 3 page 126:

“The (chain) is disconnected”

 

Barakallahu fik brother. I already have pointed that there is difference of opinions regarding companionship of Abdurrahman ibn Abi Umairah. I can repeat my words, in case they missed your kind attention.

 Ibn Hajar in “Isaba” wrote:

ذكره البخاري وابن سعد وابن البرقي وابن حبان وعبد الصمد بن سعيد في الصحابة وذكره أبو الحسن بن سميع في الطبقة الأولى من الصحابة الذين نزلوا حمص
“Bukhari, ibn Sad, ibn al-Barqi, ibn Hibban, Abdussamad ibn Sayed mentioned him as companion, Abul Hasan ibn Sumay mentioned him in 1-st generations of companions which settled in Hums”.

And he also said:

فعجب من قول بن عبد البر حديثه منقطع الإسناد مرسل لا تثبت أحاديثه ولا تصح صحبته
“And opinion of ibn abd-Al-Bar is amazing, (he claimed) that his narrations are broken, chain is disconnected, and his narrations are not established and it’s not proven his talks (with prophet, sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

Hafidh Alaatdin al-Mughlutai in “al-Ibanah ila marifat al-mukhtalif fihim min as sahaba” (2/24) said that Abu Nuaym (see Marifatus sahaba 1/1836/n1845, thk Adil Yusuf al-Azzaz), ibn Ghani (see Tahqiq wad Dirasah wa Tahrij Mojamus Sahaba li Hafidh Abdulbaqi ibn Gani d 351, p 174), ibn Hibban, ibn Mandah mentioned him among companions.

I fully appreciate fact that you as a shia, will never take this point of view, while other is exist. But, please do understand that other scholars did confirm companionship of ibn Abi Umairah. And scholars authenticated this report. 

Now let us address you quote from shaykh, allama Ishaq ibn Rahaweyh.

Quote

 

Not a single hadith in praise of Mu’awiya is Sahih


The leading ‘Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all hadith praising Mu’awiya as fabricated.

Imam Jalaluddeen Suyuti in his book Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Volume 1 page 424 while Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in al- Mawdu’at, Volume 2 page 24 have recorded:

قال الحاكم سمعت أبا العباس محمد بن يعقوب بن يوسف يقول سمعت أبي يقول سمعت إسحق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي يقول لا يصح في فضل معاوية حديث
Al-Hakim said: ‘I heard Aba al-Abbas Muhammad bin Yaqoob bin Yusuf saying: ‘I heard my father saying: ‘I heard Ishaq bin Ibrahim al-Handhali saying: ‘There is no Sahih tradition about Mu’awyia’s virtues”’.
1. Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Volume 1 page 424
2.  al-Mawdu’at Volume 2 page 24

 

This expression from ibn Rahaweyh was narrated by Hakim as it is in Siyar of Dhahabi (3/132) and “Fawaid al Majmua” of Shawkani from the way of al-Asm Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Asm, which said “narrated to me my father, which said: I heard ibn Rahaweyh saying”. And in “Fawaid” words “narrated to my father” were dropped. And it is established, (because) al-Asm didn’t hear from ibn Rahaweyh.

Yaqub ibn Yusuf ibn Maqal, Abu Fadl an-Naysaburi, father of al-Asm – status was unknown. His bio was given by al-Hatib in his history (14/286), and what added upon these words (of ibn Rahaweyh, that this Yaqub) came to Baghdad and narrated this from Ishaq ibn Rahaweyh. And from him narrated Muhammad ibn Mukhalad.

Even it this verdict was correctly attributed to shaykh, that be opinion of scholar, not masoom. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2016 at 5:57 PM, Ali_ said:

Mu'awiya sent poison to Asma' Ju'da and promised her that if she killed Hasan Ibn Ali, he would give her 100,000 dirhams and would marry her to his son Yazid.

Any claim of a historical nature must be substantiated with proof. An accusation made without providing proof is slanderous, and should accordingly be dismissed as such.

But even the mere presentation of evidence is not sufficient to prove the claim. There is one very important condition that has to be met, and that is authenticity. The onus rests upon the claimant not only to provide evidence for his claim, but also to authenticate his evidence. For as long as he fails to prove its authenticity his claim is nothing more than an empty and worthless accusation.

This is a general rule which applies to all historical claims, and not only those to do with alleged misdeeds of the Sahabah radiya Llahu `anhum. Let us look, for example, at the issue of the “satanic verses” which was so maliciously taken advantage of by the notorious Salman Rushdie. Mr. Rushdie did not suck the incident out of his thumb; he found it in historical books. However, what he failed to do was to authenticate. Why? The reason is obvious. He had his own agenda and his own preconceived notions.

Rest of answer here: The-poisoning-of-Hasan.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/7/2016 at 3:42 PM, Abu_Rumaysah said:

Abu Jafar al-Uqayli said: I asked from Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, why did not you write anything from Ali ibn al-Jaad? He said: My father prohibited to me to visit him, he was informed that (Ali) was speaking (ill) about companions of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam).

 

So Hanbal Sr. cherry picked, basically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/8/2016 at 8:36 AM, twoblade said:

The principle itself is sound. 'Ali established his bid'a through comments independent of narrations. The fact that his narrations support his abberant comments/beliefs is a concern.

How do you know that his beliefs didn't result from knowledge of these narrations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
9 hours ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

Rest of answer here: The-poisoning-of-Hasan.pdf

It's amazing the knots you guys will tie yourselves up in to defend Muawiya.

Quote

It is authentically narrated that when Sayyidunā Ḥasan I lay on his deathbed, dying from poisoning, his brother, Sayyidunā Ḥusayn I came to him and asked him: “Brother, tell me who is the one who poisoned you.” Sayyidunā Ḥasan I asked: “Why? That you may kill him?” Sayyidunā Ḥusayn said: “Yes,” to which Sayyidunā Ḥasan I responded: “I will not tell you anything. If it is the one I think it is, then Allah’s revenge is harsher. And if it is not he, then by Allah, no innocent person will be killed on account of me.”1 

This authentic narration shows that even Sayyidunā Ḥasan I was not exactly sure of the identity of the poisoner. Over and above that, he refuses to tell his own brother who he suspects. It is strange that Sayyidunā Ḥasan I himself displayed such great caution in the matter, fearing that he might be accusing an innocent person, but that people today can blurt out, without the blink of an eye,
that “Muʿāwiyah poisoned Ḥasan”.

This is absurd. It's fairly clear who it is that he likely suspects, since there is no other reasonable suspect. How exactly would he know with 100% certainty though, unless he has knowledge of the unseen? Furthermore, the author of the article immediately then gives a prime reason for why Imam Hasan (a) wouldn't tell his brother who it is:

Quote

The greatest concern Sayyidunā Ḥasan I had was the preservation of the ummah’s unity. It was on account of this concern that he made peace with Muʿāwiyah in 41 A.H. It was also this outstanding accomplishment of his which was predicted by his grandfather, Rasūlullah, in the well known ḥadīth: This son of mine is a Sayyid, and soon the time will come when through him Allah will reconcile two great masses of Muslims.
He had this concern of not causing strife in the ummah, right up to the time of his demise.

Isn't it possible that Imam Hasan (a) declined to accuse his likely killer for the sake of the ummah, which the author asserts was his greatest concern right up until his death?

Quote

It was his dearest wish to be buried with his grandfather, Rasulullah, in the room of Sayyidah ʿĀ’ishah J, but he instructed Sayyidunā Ḥusayn I not to resort to violence in the event Banū Umayyah tried to prevent his burial there, and to bury him with his mother in Jannah al-Baqīʿ. Sayyidunā Ḥasan I was prepared to sacrifice the things nearest and dearest to him in order to preserve the peace and unity of the ummah.

Why on earth would Banu Umayyah try to prevent Imam Hasan's burial next to his grandfather? Isn't Muawiya supposed to be a good guy? See this is where your story about all these people loved and respected each other falls down. If Muawiya loved Imam Hasan (a) so much, then why wouldn't he let him be buried next to his grandfather? It sounds more like there was some animosity between Banu Ummayah and the Ahlul bayt, and in that climate, would it not be surprising if Muawiya, or at least one of his clan, were not a prime suspect?

In any murder investigation, you need to establish a motive. Who stands to benefit from the murder of Imam Hasan (a)? That would clearly be Muawiya.

Quote

Therefore, if it was Sayyidunā Muʿāwiyah I whom he suspected of having him poisoned he would rather have been expected to tell Sayyidunā Ḥusayn I something like “I fear that you will cause civil war if you try to revenge yourself upon the one I suspect”. In the fact that he does not allude to the prospect of disunity and sedition at all, but rather expresses fear at an innocent person being
killed on account of him, we therefore have reason to see that the one whom Sayyidunā Ḥasan suspected of poisoning him was not Sayyidunā Muʿāwiyah

Really? So Imam Hasan should have pointed the finger at Muawiya, without naming him? What kind of sense does that make? Given the things that the author has already conceded about Imam Hasan (a) being concerned about the state of the Ummah, and not even wanting to risk his brother trying to have him buried next to the Prophet (s) for fear of violence, it's pretty clear why he wouldn't have given a massive hint to his brother, as the author apparently thinks he should have. To then use that as some kind of evidence that he didn't think it was Muawiya is absurd.

Quote

Sayyidunā Muʿāwiyah I lived for ten more years after the passing of Sayyidunā Ḥasan I. In all that time the valiant and fearless Sayyidunā Ḥusayn I was alive, and so was his brother, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah V, his cousins ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar and ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās L, and numerous other members of the Ahl al-Bayt. However, not a single one of them ever confronted Sayyidunā Muʿāwiyah I on the poisoning of Sayyidunā Ḥasan.

What good would confronting him have done, other than risk all-out war on the family of the Prophet (s)? Unlike Muawiya in the case of `Uthman, they clearly didn't want to make accusations without solid proof, and risk a civil war. And what kind of solid proof could have been brought in this case anyway?

Quote

To come back now to the alleged involvement of Jaʿdah bint Ashʿath: There is one other report which implicates her in the poisoning of Sayyidunā Ḥasan, but it does not mention anything about Yazīd.7
 It is narrated from Umm Mūsā, who was a bondswoman of Sayyidunā ʿAlī.8
 The chain of narration up to Umm Mūsā is reliable. However, we might pose a question here with regard to Umm Mūsā herself: Did she identify Jaʿdah as the culprit out of knowledge of her guilt, or must her words here be construed as the emotional outburst of a bereaved woman who simply must find someone to blame for the cause of her bereavement?

Right... So there this woman was emotional, and so decided to randomly point the finger at one of Imam Hasan's wives? Does this make any sense? Is it not more logical to assume that she must have had some reason for at least suspecting this? Is this really impartial scholarship, when such ridiculous excuses are made?

Quote

We do not pose this question out of unnecessary scepticism. There are two things which prompt us to ask it: Firstly, Sayyidunā Ḥasan’s own reluctance to name the person he suspected. Keep in mind also that he himself merely suspected, and did not know it for a fact. Secondly, if there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Jaʿdah bint Ashʿath, no man would readily marry her, especially a man of the Ahl al-Bayt. But with Jaʿdah we find that after the demise of Sayyidunā Ḥasan she was married by his father’s cousin Sayyidunā ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās I, and that she bore him a son, Muḥammad, and a daughter, Quraybah.9 

After being poisoned Imam Hasan (a) was bed-ridden, meanwhile other members of his household would have been able to observe things that he couldn't. For example, strange behaviour by certain individuals. I don't know why this guy keeps referring back to the fact that Imam Hasan (a) didn't have 100% certainty, as if he is supposed to have knowledge of the unseen. Not to mention, that even if he did know, then he may have simply being trying to avoid any conflict.

As for the 'so-and-so married so-and-so' argument that Sunnis are so fond of using in order to make people look innocent, I don't know what it's supposed to prove. If `Abdallah ibn Abbas didn't believe she was guilty, would that mean that she wasn't? It's not like he had to fear Muawiya wanting him dead anyway.

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...