Ziyarat e Ashura arrest

[haideriam 870]

7 hours ago, Guest Knoweldgeseeker said:

I gave you the example of the "Diversion tactic" Tawhidi uses to mask his agenda. He believes that everyone is the "wrong kind of Muslim" except him and entertains Anti-Islamic thoughts brought up by the interviewers he goes. If he goes to a Hindu, He'll say Muslims are at fault for eating beef and all the lynchings are justified. If he goes to any Religious sect, He'll listen to the Anti Muslim thought coming from the religious sect then agree with them while telling them how he isn't that kind of Muslim. In return, he gets a head-pat and on air screen time.  You do the same, Whenever the issue of Sunni Terrorism comes, You act like Tawhidi and say No no, that's not me. Those are someone else. Sorry but it really doesn't work. But you seem to have a penchant of defending them as shown here so I won't really say anything bad about your personal heroes as I wouldn't want to insult your precious Sunni Ibn Taymiyyah, the man whose books are literally wajib to have in every Sunni book-shop in the world though I have no idea why someone would go around defending them as "Muslims".

"You consider ISIS and Taliban kuffar? We don't consider them kuffar because we don't make takfir of the people of the Qiblah. ISIS are Khawarij, and Taliban definitely are militant extremists, but we consider them Muslims at the end of the day, although ISIS are muharibin."

As for your question on Imam Ali(عليه السلام), On another topic I was reading that you were holding the Quran and explicitly asking people where does it say that Imam Ali(عليه السلام) is the successor of the Prophet(SW). It told me everything about your level of intelligence that day. You're pretty much the same level of genius as Shashi Tharoor, people who mask their words in an eloquent tone to make others feel like they know what they are talking about but when you put the words together, there's no substance or sense which in turn makes "debating" with people like you the same as whistling at graves.  Every nation before us has been tested. In the time of Prophet(SW), The test was to identify the correct religion and follow it with the default options being: Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, zoroastrianism and Islam. We are the people of the end of times. Our test has been made quite difficult yet easy at the same. Our test isn't to identify what religion is correct as in our hearts we all know it's Islam but for us Muslims, the challenge is WHICH ISLAM IS THE CORRECT PATH? And we have a musical chair of 73 sects where you gotta pick one using your OWN INTELLIGENCE. Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) hasn't been cruel to us in this challenge either, if he put everything as explicit as possible. Then really what is the challenge in the test? Where are you going to use your own intelligence? Being spoon-fed isn't using your intelligence. As a shia proverb goes, If it said explicitly in the Quran about Imam Ali((عليه السلام))'s succession, the Quran would be altered/destroyed/illegal to own by your "Sayyidina Caliphs". Perhaps reading Ummayad history would give you perspective on why it's a proverb. However, the Quran isn't explicit yet it's subtle. Feel free to explore these: https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/quran-and-ahlul-bayt https://www.islamicbooks.info/H-21-Math'habs/Quran-Ahlul-6.htm 

I know you're allergic to Shia websites and if a western scholar wrote the same stuff in their books, You would probably believe it more there but hey worth checking out right? Our Imams(عليه السلام) have told us the interpretations of various quranic Surahs which refer to their position. This is why Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says that only He(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and the Masoom(عليه السلام) know the correct interpretations of the Quran. Whomever misguides people by deliberately denying them or introducing his own interpretations is surely destined for Hellfire.

As for your little question: 

Secondly, you accuse our first three Caliphs of terrorism (God forbid) but your own literature mentions the fact that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه had a ditch dug, a bunch of heretics thrown in it, and then had them burnt alive. What is this according to you, is it terrorism?

According to your doctrine, when the twelfth Imam appears, will he be a peaceful man or a man of war and bloodshed?

^ Are you honestly this shameless that in a vain attempt of defending your "Sayyidina Caliphs" that you would question the actions of Imam Ali(عليه السلام). That you would compare Imam Ali(عليه السلام) punishing heretics equaivalent to an ASSAULT ON THE HOUSEHOLD OF MUHAMMAD(SW) to absolve your Caliphs of their actions?You can deny these events all you want, It does not change history nor it changes what happens. I can deny anything I want, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Are you really this deformed in your heart that you would even go one step further and say Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام) would be a man of bloodshed? We do not question the actions of our Imams(عليه السلام). Prophet(SW) famously said Imam Ali(عليه السلام) is the gate of knowledge. I think it's pretty slanderous to question his actions and misconstrue them to fit your narrative because none of us has the same level of knowledge Imam Ali(عليه السلام) has which is why we cannot even comprehend why they did something the way they did. Not even all your Caliphs+Companions combined. In an attempt to defend your Caliphs, you tried to lower the position of Imam Ali(عليه السلام). I'm in disbelief, brother. But this is nothing new in Sunni Islam. Whenever you want to raise the image of your Caliphs, you lower the position of someone else for example that famous hadith you people love quoting where the Prophet(SW) was sitting with his legs open or something but he immediately changed his stance when Usman came in because "Usman is the guy who even angels are modest around". Is this something you say about Prophet(SW)? Is that something you say about Imam Ali(عليه السلام)? I just have no words man.

Wasalam.

May Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you for being straight direct and yet not offensive.  To the point. 

[haideriam 870]

On 9/25/2020 at 8:47 AM, starlight said:

 

Also says that Umar and Mouviya are the leaders of paradise

About the only withdrawal these scum have made is withdrawing the name of Yazeed(la) and replacing it with Umar. Don't worry about the hadith the names are more important. And what about Abu bakr the best amongst them.   It is what they have learnt from their ideological masters/bed fellows. From Al Qaida to various factions to ISIS. From Wahabbi to Salafi to Deobandi to Ahle Hadith etc.  The pattern is so visible. 

[haideriam 870]

As predicted by a Bangladeshi Professor about Pakistan's Foreign Policy predicament in the following words: The Latest Geo Political Developments:

"Pakistan is about to end its relations with Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). Saudi Arabia presented a long list of conditions in front of Pakistan to fulfil which Pakistan has outrightly rejected.
List includes:

1. Saudi Arabia wants Pakistan to close CPEC deal with China and move back to US camp and close relations with China.

2. Saudi Arabia wants Pakistan to stop all gas and economic cooperation with Iran and support UN sanctions on Iran.

3. Pakistan should stop raising Kashmir issue and accept annexation of Kashmir by India. Plus roll back its new political map and maintain status-quo.

4. Break all relations with Turkey, Qatar and Malaysia, accept help from Saudi, fight for Saudi in Yemen.

5. Stop interfering in Israel. Pakistan must stop supporting Palestine and usher ties with Israel and accept US peace plan of Jerusalem as capital of Israel.

6. Failing which Saudi Arab will deport 1-million Pakistani workers and stop oil supply over deferred payment.

7. Pakistan has outrightly declined these conditions and has reiterated  to maintain its unconditional support to Kashmir and Palestine.

8. Pakistan rejected the deal of US Israel and breaking away from China and stop CPEC projects.

9. If Saudi stops oil then Pakistan will undermine US sanctions on Iran and will get oil directly from Iran. 

10. If Saudi Arabia deports Pakistani labour then Pakistan will be obliged to call back its army and other security personals, that play a very key role in Saudi security, from Saudi Arabia.

11. Pakistan will break away from OIC and join Turkey, Malaysia, Libya, Iran, Qatar, Azerbaijan & Central Asian Countries. A big turn-around in the muslim world and two major muslim blocks face to face having major military might in Pak-Turk-Iran sector.

12. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt block will face a bigger and a mightier led by Pak-Turk-Iran-Malaysia. 

13. Saudi has never seen this face of Pakistan and are very upset. They are exerting all types of diplomatic and financial pressure on Pakistan.

14. Unlike past, this time Pakistan has alternate shoulders to bank upon. That has perturbed Saudi Arabia the most. 

15. Saudi realise that if Pakistan leaves OIC then it will be followed by other members of the group like Iran, Turkey and Malaysia, leaving OIC as an ineffective organisation and saying good-bye to Saudi hegemony. 

16. The days to follow are very critical for Pakistan as the stance it has taken against Saudi whims might lead to increased border standoffs with India that will be  initiated on behest of Saudi American backing to India

[starlight 14,076]

15 hours ago, Guest KnowledgeSeeker said:

Sorry brother Cherub but it's pretty clear you're just doing what I call a "Diversion tactic". When negative remarks surround you, you shift the blame onto something else instead of owning up to it. It's the same tactic used by an ill repute "Shia" by the name of Brother Tawhidi. He goes to western talk shows and preaches Anti muslim tirades. When the hosts say well you're a muslim too. He uses this tactic and says no I'm the Shia kind of Muslim so it doesn't involve me. Then when someone says well Iran is Anti west and shia. Then he says They are not the right kind of Shia Muslims but I am. Just diverting attention onto something else. They are not Kharjites but Sunnis. Terrorism isnt something new in Sunni Islam. The whole religion started with it when the household of Prophet SW was attacked in the Hopes of making it submit to your "Sayyidina Caliphs". No idea why you love hijacking titles of our Ahylebayt[AS] for your people but Oh well nothing new as Umar and Abu Bakr are masters of the elderly in Jannah as compared to Imam Hassan[AS] and Husayn[AS] who are masters of youth even though there are no elderly in Jannah.

Also in another thread you were blaming Shias for being the root cause of all this. No offense but you sound like the kind of guy who blames rape victims for leaving the house and dressing in a certain way instead of imposing punishment on the rapist. Hope Allah[(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)] opens your Locked heart one day.

Thank you!

[Cherub786 432]

14 hours ago, Guest Knoweldgeseeker said:

You do the same, Whenever the issue of Sunni Terrorism comes, You act like Tawhidi and say No no, that's not me. Those are someone else. Sorry but it really doesn't work.

I don’t deny that there are Sunnis who are involved in terrorism. Usually, their terrorism isn’t in the name of Religion but ethnic separatism or something else. Such Sunnis are actually nominally Sunni, self-professing Sunni, but clearly going against the principles of Sunni Islam.

However, terrorism that is done in the name of Religion is largely a Kharijite phenomenon, and I mentioned the two main terrorist groups – AQ and IS – are pure Kharijites. They may self-profess Sunnism, but Sunni academia is unanimous in recognizing them as non-Sunni Kharijites. That is because Sunni Islam has specific doctrines and positions, one of them is that takfir cannot be made on Muslim rulers simply because they are sinful or corrupt or don’t rule by the Shari’ah, likewise, it is forbidden to revolt against a Muslim ruler. Thirdly, the method of terrorism, which involves indiscriminate targeting of civilians – women and children particularly – is definitely contrary to the principles of Sunni Islam.

14 hours ago, Guest Knoweldgeseeker said:

 But you seem to have a penchant of defending them as shown here so I won't really say anything bad about your personal heroes as I wouldn't want to insult your precious Sunni Ibn Taymiyyah, the man whose books are literally wajib to have in every Sunni book-shop in the world though I have no idea why someone would go around defending them as "Muslims".

I disagree with many of Ibn Taymiyyah’s thoughts and positions. One of those positions, as I understand it, is that the zanadiqah should be fought and killed, and he included several sects in the category of zanadiqah. Ironically, it was you who defended the killing of zanadiqah when you said:

14 hours ago, Guest Knoweldgeseeker said:

^ Are you honestly this shameless that in a vain attempt of defending your "Sayyidina Caliphs" that you would question the actions of Imam Ali(عليه السلام). That you would compare Imam Ali(عليه السلام) punishing heretics

Now it is apparent that in principle you actually agree with Ibn Taymiyyah that heretics ought to be punished (although he would disagree with the method of burning alive as a punishment – since that is forbidden in our Sunni interpretation of Shari’ah).

In essence, you and Ibn Taymiyyah agree regarding punishing and fighting heretics, you only disagree as to who specifically is a heretic or what constitutes heresy.

The rest of your arguments were circular reasoning fallacies – "if the Ahl al-Bayt do it it is okay if anyone else does it it is bad."

[Cool 787]

5 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

likewise, it is forbidden to revolt against a Muslim ruler.

So you are building case against Muawiyah. Why Sunni doctrine collapse when applying this rule to him?

5 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

one of them is that takfir cannot be made on Muslim rulers simply because they are sinful or corrupt or don’t rule by the Shari’ah,

Means in Sunni Islam, obedience to sinful, corrupt or one who doesn't rule in accordance with the divine law is obligatory? What would you do with plenty of verses in Quran prohibiting you to obey such person?

[Abu Hadi 9,336]

22 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Brother, what are you holding back. If it is exposing enemies of Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام), you shouldn't. After this episode started, I'm seeing more and more clips in favor of Yazid (la), potraying him as God-fearing legitimate caliph and using titles like rahimallaho anhu. If we don't expose them this movement of theirs will continue till all sunnis unanimously start believing in his khilafat as they do for the first two. 

I think the best course of the time is using evidence only, not public cursing. As other posts on this thread have shown, all the attempts of some to put a 'halo' around certain personalities in Islam can be thwarted simply by evidence from books like Sahih Muslim, ibn Dawood, etc. 

[Sirius_Bright 4,341]

16 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I think the best course of the time is using evidence only, not public cursing. As other posts on this thread have shown, all the attempts of some to put a 'halo' around certain personalities in Islam can be thwarted simply by evidence from books like Sahih Muslim, ibn Dawood, etc. 

We should continue exposing from the books as you mentioned. About cursing, I don't think any Indo-Pak Zakir publicly curse revered figure of others. They just expose them and their oratory riles our opponents. 

[Guest KnowledgeSeeker]

22 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I don’t deny that there are Sunnis who are involved in terrorism. Usually, their terrorism isn’t in the name of Religion but ethnic separatism or something else. Such Sunnis are actually nominally Sunni, self-professing Sunni, but clearly going against the principles of Sunni Islam.

However, terrorism that is done in the name of Religion is largely a Kharijite phenomenon, and I mentioned the two main terrorist groups – AQ and IS – are pure Kharijites. They may self-profess Sunnism, but Sunni academia is unanimous in recognizing them as non-Sunni Kharijites. That is because Sunni Islam has specific doctrines and positions, one of them is that takfir cannot be made on Muslim rulers simply because they are sinful or corrupt or don’t rule by the Shari’ah, likewise, it is forbidden to revolt against a Muslim ruler. Thirdly, the method of terrorism, which involves indiscriminate targeting of civilians – women and children particularly – is definitely contrary to the principles of Sunni Islam.

I disagree with many of Ibn Taymiyyah’s thoughts and positions. One of those positions, as I understand it, is that the zanadiqah should be fought and killed, and he included several sects in the category of zanadiqah. Ironically, it was you who defended the killing of zanadiqah when you said:

Now it is apparent that in principle you actually agree with Ibn Taymiyyah that heretics ought to be punished (although he would disagree with the method of burning alive as a punishment – since that is forbidden in our Sunni interpretation of Shari’ah).

In essence, you and Ibn Taymiyyah agree regarding punishing and fighting heretics, you only disagree as to who specifically is a heretic or what constitutes heresy.

The rest of your arguments were circular reasoning fallacies – "if the Ahl al-Bayt do it it is okay if anyone else does it it is bad."

Thank you for your reply on the matter. Now I shall post my thoughts on your post. However, I don't see the acknowledgement of my answers to the matter of Succession anywhere but anyway it's fine if you don't want to discuss that.

 

"I don’t deny that there are Sunnis who are involved in terrorism. Usually, their terrorism isn’t in the name of Religion but ethnic separatism or something else. Such Sunnis are actually nominally Sunni, self-professing Sunni, but clearly going against the principles of Sunni Islam.

However, terrorism that is done in the name of Religion is largely a Kharijite phenomenon, and I mentioned the two main terrorist groups – AQ and IS – are pure Kharijites. They may self-profess Sunnism, but Sunni academia is unanimous in recognizing them as non-Sunni Kharijites. That is because Sunni Islam has specific doctrines and positions, one of them is that takfir cannot be made on Muslim rulers simply because they are sinful or corrupt or don’t rule by the Shari’ah, likewise, it is forbidden to revolt against a Muslim ruler. Thirdly, the method of terrorism, which involves indiscriminate targeting of civilians – women and children particularly – is definitely contrary to the principles of Sunni Islam. I disagree with many of Ibn Taymiyyah’s thoughts and positions. One of those positions, as I understand it, is that the zanadiqah should be fought and killed, and he included several sects in the category of zanadiqah. Ironically, it was you who defended the killing of zanadiqah when you said:"

I don't really see how this point is relevant as this time you're acknowledging that Sunni-ism does have a link with Terrorism and that terrorists are involved in this religion but now you're diverting their cause which is essentially spreading bloodshed/hatred to those they deem to be heretics for example the Shi'a onto other factors such as "ethnic separatism" which is just another way of oppressing a group through forced segregation and destroying their way of life. You disagreeing or agreeing with the thoughts and positions of Ibn Taymiyyah has zero relevance in this discussion. There are about 1.5-1.8 billion Muslims on the planet with Sunnis being 80% of them, Exactly how do your thoughts fit into the grand scheme of things when the main issue is that you cannot deny that Ibn Taymiyyah has had a large influence on your religion where a sizeable population of your school of thought not only entertains his thoughts but also follows them. There's a reason why his works are found in literally every Sunni bookstore and how his literature is being used by Sunnis today which in turn is leading to all this chaos in the world. He is considered a Sunni scholar and he is followed like a Sunni scholar. Salafi-ism is also derived from his works but in this case you mask both Sunni-ism and Salafi-ism as being "Kharjite" in this case just to avoid being blamed for the mess of things, pretty much Tawhidi's playbook at play here. Just because your Ulema are going around saying that they aren't Sunni doesn't make them Kharjites. I'm sure they have Sunni Ulema of their own who call your Ulema "Kharjites". It's just an act of trying to shift the blame of something onto something else when it's historically clear that your religion was founded on an act of terrorism against the House(عليه السلام) of Muhammad(S). 

 

 

"Now it is apparent that in principle you actually agree with Ibn Taymiyyah that heretics ought to be punished (although he would disagree with the method of burning alive as a punishment – since that is forbidden in our Sunni interpretation of Shari’ah).

In essence, you and Ibn Taymiyyah agree regarding punishing and fighting heretics, you only disagree as to who specifically is a heretic or what constitutes heresy.

The rest of your arguments were circular reasoning fallacies – "if the Ahl al-Bayt do it it is okay if anyone else does it it is bad.""

We Shi'as have a very special Du'a which is called Du'a Al-Faraj. It's a gift from the current Imam(عليه السلام) of our time. Two lines from that Du'a are as follows: Oh Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Send blessings upon Muhammad(S) And the Progeny of Muhammad(S). The possessors of Authority whose obedience you have enjoined upon us." How is this relevant to our current discussion? Because this is the basis of Shia-ism itself. We obey Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), his Prophet(SW) and the Household(عليه السلام) of the Prophet(عليه السلام). We also believe that our Imams(عليه السلام) were not ordinary men but they are Masoom, they are infallible and they are sinless. They cannot commit acts of injustice or inhumanity. Terrorism is both acts of injustice and inhumanity done by people who I would not even consider human beings yet you defend them as "Muslims". Seems there is a bit of Ibn Taymiyyah in you as well. I told you above in my previous post that Imam Ali(عليه السلام) is called the Gate of knowledge by Prophet(S). The amount of knowledge He(عليه السلام) possess, No one else does including me. So who exactly am I to question His(عليه السلام) actions? Who exactly am I to agree or disagree with Him(عليه السلام) on what He(عليه السلام) did in the past? I don't operate on the same level of intelligence that He(عليه السلام) does, I can't make any judgement whether it's the judgement itself or judgement in principle as you mentioned. I don't possess such arrogance nor I'm some Jurist/Qazi/Mufti/Ayotallah somewhere. I don't follow the Sunnah of Umar where I go around criticizing/questioning the actions of the Masoomeen like Umar was fond of doing when he would give unnecessary insights into the actions of Prophet(SW) like at the treaty of Hudaibiya. However, I'm still confused why you took this incident and compared this to the Assault on the Household(عليه السلام) of the Prophet(S)? How is Imam Ali(عليه السلام) punishing those he deemed worthy to be punished equivalent of the aforementioned event above? Or are you basically saying that Well the Caliphs did some brutal things but look at this incident from your books. It's like you're not seeing What is being done to whom, you're just saying both are equally violent and Thus justified. The Caliphs are not Masoom, They aren't sinless. They don't have the same knowledge or intellect that members of the Ahl al Bayt(عليه السلام) do. Even if you look at the previous track record of the Caliphs, it's filled with violence and ignorance for example there is another famous hadith in which Umar is saying that He was burying his daughter alive, while he was digging her grave in front of her. She was cleaning the dirt from his beard. This makes him sad. He use to make an Idol he worshipped out of dates and then eat it in the morning which made him laugh everytime he remembered it. Sure, sure. These are all actions from the age of ignorance. They aren't for me to forgive, they are for Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to forgive. Again, I don't have such authorities but I wouldn't take my religion from such people. I wouldn't follow their Sunnah nor I would believe in their intelligence as they were shown to be the most ignorant in the age of ignorance whilst already showing their penchant for violence from the past. The track record of the Ahl al Bayt(عليه السلام) is perfectly clean, they have not committed any acts of transgressions on their own will or due to any ignorance.  They are guided by Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) perfectly which is why we can't question them based on both factors which I mentioned above even if you perceive their actions to be "violent" which is just plain arrogance on your part as you my friend do not operate on the same level of knowledge that They(عليه السلام) do. You cannot comprehend Their(عليه السلام) actions, you can only use your extremely limited understanding or try to misconstrue them to further your agenda. This is why you feel there's a double standard. Even if you believe that our Imams(عليه السلام) were not Masoom, It still doesn't change the fact that none of their actions on this Earth can ever be interpreted as something sinful. They followed the teachings of Prophet(S) perfectly on all matters which is why their judgement is to be respected and acknowledged as sinless. After all, If not for them, You wouldn't have a madhab right now. 

[Cherub786 432]

16 hours ago, Cool said:

So you are building case against Muawiyah. Why Sunni doctrine collapse when applying this rule to him?

Firstly, we don’t excuse Mu’awiyah for waging war against Amir al-Mu’minin كرم الله وجهه. He was sinful and we acknowledge that.

Secondly, it wasn’t actually a rebellion or uprising but a war between two Muslim states.

16 hours ago, Cool said:

Means in Sunni Islam, obedience to sinful, corrupt or one who doesn't rule in accordance with the divine law is obligatory? What would you do with plenty of verses in Quran prohibiting you to obey such person?

Can you quote me one such verse?

Also, do you obey the government of your country?

Edited September 27 by Cherub786

[Cool 787]

11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

He was sinful and we acknowledge that.

Actually the position of some prominent scholars of ahlul sunnah is that they consider what you mentioned as "sin", his ijtihadi mistake and some even grant him one نیکی for his mistake.

11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Secondly, it wasn’t actually a rebellion or uprising but a war between two Muslim states.

Were there two Muslim states existed in that times? If yes, there must be two caliphs of Muslims. 

11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Can you quote me one such verse?

I have quoted many in different threads, quoting few here too:

فَاصْبِرْ لِحُكْمِ رَبِّكَ وَلَا تُطِعْ مِنْهُمْ آثِمًا أَوْ كَفُورًا {24} 

76:24

فَلَا تُطِعِ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ {8}

68:8

وَلَا تُطِعْ كُلَّ حَلَّافٍ مَهِينٍ {10}

68:10

11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Also, do you obey the government of your country?

Our governments don't ask us to pledge allegiance like one need to do in Islamic form of government existed in those time where it is obligatory on everyone to obey the command of caliph. 

And even in our democratic governments the criteria for any elected representative is set as he must be "sadiq & ameen" in his character. 

Muawiya was neither sadiq nor was he ameen. 

[haideriam 870]

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Firstly, we don’t excuse Mu’awiyah for waging war against Amir al-Mu’minin كرم الله وجهه. He was sinful and we acknowledge that.

Secondly, it wasn’t actually a rebellion or uprising but a war between two Muslim states.

Can you quote me one such verse?

Also, do you obey the government of your country?

1. You take the cake my friend. This is rewriting history to prove a point. This is sinful, honest.

2. Sahih International: And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [Allah] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [Allah] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."