Imam Hassan gave bayah to muawiyah?

[zahralzu]

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

[Zainuu]

11 hours ago, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

To under the allegience, you need to understand the treaty. 

Why? 

Because bayah was on the conditions mentioned in the treaty. Their were 5 conditions. If those 5 conditions were respected, I concede that the bayah stands correct. But if not, then the bayah doesn't matter. It is void. 

One more thing, Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself was a legitimate standing Caliph and his period comes under the 30 years of Rashid Caliphs (from a Sunni perspective). So, his conditions in the treaty for the allegience are very crucial. If they are violated, the government of Muawiya loses it's credibility and the bayah itself is becomes invalid.

So, the bayah happened but the conditions never met (as it is clear from the history) so it invalidates the government of Muawiyah.

[Guest Curious]

44 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

To under the allegience, you need to understand the treaty. 

Why? 

Because bayah was on the conditions mentioned in the treaty. Their were 5 conditions. If those 5 conditions were respected, I concede that the bayah stands correct. But if not, then the bayah doesn't matter. It is void. 

One more thing, Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself was a legitimate standing Caliph and his period comes under the 30 years of Rashid Caliphs (from a Sunni perspective). So, his conditions in the treaty for the allegience are very crucial. If they are violated, the government of Muawiya loses it's credibility and the bayah itself is becomes invalid.

So, the bayah happened but the conditions never met (as it is clear from the history) so it invalidates the government of Muawiyah.

What were the 5 conditions?

[zahralzu]

3 hours ago, Zainuu said:

To under the allegience, you need to understand the treaty. 

Why? 

Because bayah was on the conditions mentioned in the treaty. Their were 5 conditions. If those 5 conditions were respected, I concede that the bayah stands correct. But if not, then the bayah doesn't matter. It is void. 

One more thing, Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself was a legitimate standing Caliph and his period comes under the 30 years of Rashid Caliphs (from a Sunni perspective). So, his conditions in the treaty for the allegience are very crucial. If they are violated, the government of Muawiya loses it's credibility and the bayah itself is becomes invalid.

So, the bayah happened but the conditions never met (as it is clear from the history) so it invalidates the government of Muawiyah.

but does this not prove that muawiyah is not a hypocrite since you can't voluntarily give authority and pledge allegiance to a hypocrite?

[eThErEaL]

15 hours ago, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

 

thanks for sharing that.   This is why I am now Sunni.  Because I stopped believing in the lies against the Sahaba

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Zainuu]

4 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

but does this not prove that muawiyah is not a hypocrite since you can't voluntarily give authority and pledge allegiance to a hypocrite?

Salaam, 

I already said. It was not a pledge straight away but a diplomatic move to be accurate. 

And he was not given authority actually. His Caliphate was not more than a kingdom. 

I agree that a hypocrite cannot be given authority but it was not a give away. Is giving authority to a hypocrite based on a treaty also not correct? You need to consider the treaty actually. Without that, any argument on this is impossible. 

The form of the Peace Treaty the two parties signed is as follows:

Item One:

Handing over authority to Mu'awiya provided that he should act according to the Book of Allah, the Sunna (practices) of His Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family,2 and the Sire (behavior) of the righteous Caliphs.3

Item Two:

Authority should be for al-Hasan after him.4 If an accident happened to him, authority should be for his brother al-Husayn.5 Mu'awiya has no right to entrust anybody to it.6

Item Three:

He (Mu`awiya) should abandon cursing the Commander of the faithful and the practice of using the personal prayer (qunut) in the ritual formal prayer (salat) (as prayer) against him,7 and that he should not mention 'Ali except in a good manner.8

Item Four:

He (Mu'awiya) should excluded what is in the treasury of Kufa, that is five million (dirhams). So handing over authority does not include it (i.e., this sum of money). Mu'awiya should send al-Husayn one million dirhams a year, he should prefer the banu (children) of Hashim in giving and gifts to the banu `Abd Shams, and should divide one million (dirhams) among the sons of those who were killed with the Commander of the faithful at the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin, and should spend that from the taxes of Dar Abjard.9

Item Five:

"The people should be safe wherever they are in the earth of Allah; in Sham (Syria), Iraq, Hijaz, the Yemen, etc. He should give security to the black and the red (ones). He (Mu'awiya) should bear their slips, should not follow some of them for the bygone nor should he punish the Iraqis for their hostility."10

 

This treaty easily concludes that Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) didn't recognize the authority of Muawiya but recognized the real form of Caliphate which was missing in Muawiya. 

[Zainuu]

@zahralzu a question for you. 

What if Muawiyah would have abided with all the conditions? 

Others can also respond. 

[Zainuu]

3 hours ago, Guest Curious said:

What were the 5 conditions?

 

9 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Salaam, 

I already said. It was not a pledge straight away but a diplomatic move to be accurate. 

And he was not given authority actually. His Caliphate was not more than a kingdom. 

I agree that a hypocrite cannot be given authority but it was not a give away. Is giving authority to a hypocrite based on a treaty also not correct? You need to consider the treaty actually. Without that, any argument on this is impossible. 

The form of the Peace Treaty the two parties signed is as follows:

Item One:

Handing over authority to Mu'awiya provided that he should act according to the Book of Allah, the Sunna (practices) of His Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family,2 and the Sire (behavior) of the righteous Caliphs.3

Item Two:

Authority should be for al-Hasan after him.4 If an accident happened to him, authority should be for his brother al-Husayn.5 Mu'awiya has no right to entrust anybody to it.6

Item Three:

He (Mu`awiya) should abandon cursing the Commander of the faithful and the practice of using the personal prayer (qunut) in the ritual formal prayer (salat) (as prayer) against him,7 and that he should not mention 'Ali except in a good manner.8

Item Four:

He (Mu'awiya) should excluded what is in the treasury of Kufa, that is five million (dirhams). So handing over authority does not include it (i.e., this sum of money). Mu'awiya should send al-Husayn one million dirhams a year, he should prefer the banu (children) of Hashim in giving and gifts to the banu `Abd Shams, and should divide one million (dirhams) among the sons of those who were killed with the Commander of the faithful at the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin, and should spend that from the taxes of Dar Abjard.9

Item Five:

"The people should be safe wherever they are in the earth of Allah; in Sham (Syria), Iraq, Hijaz, the Yemen, etc. He should give security to the black and the red (ones). He (Mu'awiya) should bear their slips, should not follow some of them for the bygone nor should he punish the Iraqis for their hostility."10

 

This treaty easily concludes that Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) didn't recognize the authority of Muawiya but recognized the real form of Caliphate which was missing in Muawiya. 

 

[zahralzu]

23 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

@zahralzu a question for you. 

What if Muawiyah would have abided with all the conditions? 

Others can also respond. 

if he would've abided by the conditions we would probably have no problem with him

[Zainuu]

1 minute ago, zahralzu said:

if he would've abided by the conditions we would probably have no problem with him

Also, Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) would become the next Caliph (or Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) if Alive) 

And Karbala wouldn't have happened. 

[MaisumAli]

Bay3a also means "To come to an agreement", so it would depend on how it is said to determine what it means

 

Which would make a whole lot more sense, knowing that they were making a peace treaty

Edited November 23, 2020 by MaisumAli

[Northwest]

45 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

...

On the other hand, Imam Khomeini seemingly took a different line:

Quote

The fundamentals of Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision for the establishment and maintenance of [Twelvers Shi’a] Islamic Government rests on three key factors:

1. Power [Governance] as reflected in today’s Twelvers Shi’a Islamic Government of Iran.
2. Might [The Islamic military might] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHB0-_S_1ZQ
3. Battles

The battles would be waged at any cost for the welfare of Islam,  “the seizure of a certain facility ... the burning of a certain house ... (or) annihilation of a certain race [Tayefeh] whose existence [seems] harmful to Islam, [and] Muslims,” are all considered just order. As Khomeini stressed, these “distinct qualities are the essential part of a believer [a Shi’a Islamist] whenever he courageously performs justice with power, and shows no emotion.” ...

In 1943 or 1944, Ayatollah Khomeini “began his political career with typical Shi’a ambiguities.” In his first political tract, Kashf al-Asrar Kashf al-Asrar (The Unveiling of Secrets), he “denounced the recently deposed Reza Shah for a host of secular sins: for closing down seminaries, expropriating religious endowments, propagating anticlerical sentiments, replacing religious courts with state ones… If on rare occasions they (the Shia – ed.) had criticized their rulers, it was because they opposed specific monarchs, not the “whole foundation of monarchy.” He also reminded his readers that Imam Ali had accepted “even the worst of the early caliphs.”

“The most Khomeini asked in Kashf al-Asrar was that the monarch respect religion, recruit more clerics into Parliament (Majles), and ensure that state laws conformed with the sacred law. The sacred law, he argued, had prescriptions to remedy social ills; and the clergy, particularly the fuqaha, who specialized in the sacred law, were like highly trained doctors with knowledge of how to cure these social maladies.”

Khomeini “explicitly disavowed wanting to overthrow the throne and repeatedly reaffirmed his allegiance to monarchies in general and to “good monarchs” in particular. He argued that the Shi’a clergy had never opposed the state as such, even when governments had issued anti- Islamic orders, for “bad order was better than no order at all.”

“However, one would search it in vain to find any discussion of such key subjects as revolution (enqelab), republic (jomhuri), martyrdom (shahdat), the oppressed masses (mostazafin), and even jurist’s guardianship (velayat-e faqih).

Khomeini retained traditional attitudes toward the state throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Even in 1963 when he emerged as the most vocal anti-regime cleric, he did not call for a revolution or for the overthrow of the monarchy.”

Ervand Abrahamian (Khomeinism 1993, pp.16-17)

Source

[Zainuu]

18 minutes ago, Northwest said:

On the other hand, Imam Khomeini seemingly took a different line:

Source

An Iranian can reply this in a better way:

@Ashvazdanghe

I have read the lectures of Imam al Khomeini on wilayat al faqih in which he mentioned that the Ottomans though cruel but were still needed as their existence was a wall between imperialists and the Islamic world. 

So, his opinions on Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) situation completely fall in line with his stances. 

He didn't revolt against Reza Shah because Ayatullah Borujerdi (رضي الله عنه) stopped him from doing so who was the leading cleric in the Shia Islamic world from 1946 to 1961. It is written in the Biography of Imam al Khomeini by Dr.  Hamid Algar.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Zainuu
Typo

[Cool]

16 hours ago, zahralzu said:

How to digest this?

First of all search that did Muawiyah pledged allegiance to Imam Hassan (عليه السلام)? Did he pledged allegiance to Imam Ali (عليه السلام)? If not, why? 

And if he himself not pledged allegiance, how would he dare to ask from Imam to pledge allegiance to him? 

Fact of the matter is that there was no question of "allegiance" put forward by Muawiyah. He simply asked for power (governance) which was given to him conditionally. Main conditions were:

1. He will rule according to Quran & Sunnah.

2. He doesn't nominate caliph and after his death, caliphate will return back to Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) or to Imam Hussain (عليه السلام)

I am not quoting other conditions at the moment as the above two conditions are sufficient to prove what I am trying to say. 

So this "temporary" transition of power doesn't include that Imam have to pledge allegiance (the way people pledge) to a temporary ruler. 

Secondly, it is not obligatory on us to accept any such narration or historical record which contradicts with the Quran. Technically, pledging allegiance means one is bound to be loyal to other & obey or follow (the commands of) other. 

Imam cannot pledge allegiance in the sense of obedience & following some one. And Qur'an is the نص for this statement.

So what the reports called pledge, must be referring to  the "Bayʿah" which is sometimes taken under a written pact given on behalf of the subjects by leading members of the tribe with the understanding that as long as the leader abides by certain requirements towards his people, they are to maintain their allegiance to him. "

Hassan-Muawiyah treaty" itself is a pact after which there is no need to pledging allegiance in the way Arabs used to pledge in those times. 

[Cool]

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

This is why I am now Sunni.  Because I stopped believing in the lies against the Sahaba

I am wondering how can you revere a person like Muawiyah! 

He had made promises with Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) and had a covenant with Allah as well. Instead of honouring the covenant, he openly violated it.

And the following are the verses you often recite:

But because of their breaking their covenant, we cursed them and made their hearts hard” (5:13)

"(Those) who violate the covenant of Allah after its confirmation, and cut asunder that which Allah commands to be joined, and make mischief in the land are the losers." (2:27)

I don't know how you are happy after cutting yourself from the "Furqan"! Unfortunately, there is no truth for you now.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

 

9401 - 9400 - 9419 - الفضل غلام: محمد بن راشد يأتي في الفضل مولى محمد بن راشد " المجهول 9403 ".

المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث - محمد الجواهري - الصفحة ٤٥٨

Link: http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/3021_المفيد-من-معجم-رجال-الحديث-محمد-الجواهري/الصفحة_466

Narrator Fazal is Majhool.

And hadith of Manaqib Ibn Abi Talib has no chain.

[zahralzu]

3 hours ago, Zainuu said:

item One:

Handing over authority to Mu'awiya provided that he should act according to the Book of Allah, the Sunna (practices) of His Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family,2 and the Sire (behavior) of the righteous Caliphs.3

this condition mentions the requirement to follow the sira of the 3 caliphs...is this not a huge problem?

[Zainuu]

Just now, zahralzu said:

this condition mentions the requirement to follow the sira of the 3 caliphs...is this not a huge problem?

Not the three Caliphs, the righteous Caliphs which are four.

For this, we need to get into the historical context. 

Who are these Caliphs:

Abu Bakr 

Umar 

(both above, good or bad,  were popular in the masses because their reigns were stable and in the time of Umar, both empires were defeated)

Uthman (problems started here but Uthman still gained significance because he was assassinated by a group and after his death people made him a hero) 

Ali (عليه السلام)  (this was the main person Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) pointed out. But his enmity was huge because of the campaigns of character-assassination against him led by Muawiyah. So, including him alone would have raised questions on Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself (because Ali (عليه السلام) was his father and Syrians disliked him because of Muawiya's conspiracies))

So, being right would not suffice, being politically right was important. Aim was to unveil the hypocrisy of Muawiyah. So, their was a need to compare him with the Caliphs who were right in the eyes of the people. So that in the eyes of the people, if muawiyah violates the condition, he is humiliated.

When you want to expose the evil of someone, you don't set the barrier of righteousness to be too high. Rather it should be minimal so that if he doesn't achieve even that minimal barrier, that would make the case against him more stronger. 

Their are even more factors. The man who made Uthman a hero is also Muawiyah. By making an excuse of 'revenge'.

[zahralzu]

8 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Not the three Caliphs, the righteous Caliphs which are four.

For this, we need to get into the historical context. 

Who are these Caliphs:

Abu Bakr 

Umar 

(both above, good or bad,  were popular in the masses because their reigns were stable and in the time of Umar, both empires were defeated)

Uthman (problems started here but Uthman still gained significance because he was assassinated by a group and after his death people made him a hero) 

Ali (عليه السلام)  (this was the main person Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) pointed out. But his enmity was huge because of the campaigns of character-assassination against him led by Muawiyah. So, including him alone would have raised questions on Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself (because Ali (عليه السلام) was his father and Syrians disliked him because of Muawiya's conspiracies))

So, being right would not suffice, being politically right was important. Aim was to unveil the hypocrisy of Muawiyah. So, their was a need to compare him with the Caliphs who were right in the eyes of the people. So that in the eyes of the people, if muawiyah violates the condition, he is humiliated.

When you want to expose the evil of someone, you don't set the barrier of righteousness to be too high. Rather it should be minimal so that if he doesn't achieve even that minimal barrier, that would make the case against him more stronger. 

Their are even more factors. The man who made Uthman a hero is also Muawiyah. By making an excuse of 'revenge'.

how would you respond to imam huseyn's (عليه السلام) shocking reaction to muawyah's death? 

 

[Zainuu]

27 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

how would you respond to imam huseyn's (عليه السلام) shocking reaction to muawyah's death? 

I don't know where it is recorded but I clearly smell fabrication. 

What is the chain? Who is the main narrator?

In my opinion, I cannot accept anything from Walid as true. A drunkard who prayed 4 rakah of Salaat al Fajr.

Moreover, it is From Maqtal al Hussain by Abu Muqnif. 

@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi might shed some light on this.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Zainuu

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

15723 - الوليد بن عتبة بن أبي سفيان:
لم يذكروه. هو عامل معاوية على المدينة. 

مستدركات علم رجال الحديث - الشيخ علي النمازي الشاهرودي - ج ٨ - الصفحة ١٠٨
Majhool along with his shajra e nasab

This guy worked for Muawiyah. How can his narrations be accepted? lol

Edited November 24, 2020 by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

[Ali bin Hussein]

On 11/23/2020 at 1:56 PM, zahralzu said:

but does this not prove that muawiyah is not a hypocrite since you can't voluntarily give authority and pledge allegiance to a hypocrite?

A munafiq is one that shows outward characteristics of a Muslim, but inwardly has hatred for Islam.

Without proof they are treated as muslim.

Now that Muawiya has passed away and we can review his whole life. I'm more than confident to call him munafiq.

 

[Guest Abu Muhammad Al muhajir]

On 11/23/2020 at 9:48 AM, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

No. The imams did not give bay3ah to muawiyah. A peace treaty and bay3ah are 2 entirely different things. Also they are ma3sumeen. If you say they gave bay3ah then their infallibility has been taken out. Ahlul bayt would never give bay3ah to a tyrant murtad.  

[Fountain of youth]

On 12/5/2020 at 7:54 PM, Guest Abu Muhammad Al muhajir said:

No. The imams did not give bay3ah to muawiyah. A peace treaty and bay3ah are 2 entirely different things. Also they are ma3sumeen. If you say they gave bay3ah then their infallibility has been taken out. Ahlul bayt would never give bay3ah to a tyrant murtad.  

 

Peace treaty is only given between two armies that sit infront of each other and this was not the case here but Muwiya had rule over the entire lands and beyond Arabia. It was a Bayah. 

Also Muwiya certainly did fulfill his bayah to the Prophet and Allah which was to keep spreading Islam via Jihad conquests and expand territories which he and his progeny did. Millions converted out of their works and recieved the light of Allah. They just didn't sit there in Jerusalem doing nothing. They were warriors and conquerors. They did what is refered to today as the Muslim blitz krieg reaching in short span of time all the way to Spain and conquering entire of Spain, North Africa, all the way to Sindh (current day Pakistan) 

This religion is spread by two means the blood of the martyrs and the ink of the pen. The fact that Muwiya was a warrior rules him out as munafiq. What did we learn in the quran that the signs of the munafiqeen is there hatred towards battle because they have nifaq which makes them love this dunya and hate death but a true believer doesn't fear death literally and is willing to embrace death at any given time at the hands of the enemy of Allah.

All these campaigns cost a fortune and Muwiya and his progeny had to pay directly from the tax payers using alot of human resources and blood

 

 

[Fountain of youth]

Muwiya had no time for people over-glorifying saints or doing the rounds in grave-worships but his task was much greater and it was to conquer the world and spread Islam in the name of Allah. Which he certainly did a great portion of it.

The problem with shiism is that they have plenty of doubt about Allah's verdict. Get hold of a Quran read it is that simple. Islam has no time for overglorifying saints or stuff like that this is a religion based upon strict monotheism. 

These people will not give you anything of dunya or akhira. We only have scholars in Islam and we certainly over-glorifying or take them besides Allah and in fact they themselves can be refuted with evidence. But there is no mere human who is holier then thou in Islam period. A mere human is a mere human. The religion is for Allah alone  

[313_Waiter]

I heard a famous Sunni sheikh in Iraq cursed Muawiya, does anyone know his name?

 

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

On 11/22/2020 at 5:48 PM, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

The pledge was most likely a condition (if this pledge even happened) in the treaty. Imam al Hasan (عليه السلام) wanted to finish Muawiya (la), but he had his troops bribed by Muawiya (la). So, I would say this pledge was like the pledge of Ali (عليه السلام) to Abu Bakr. 

[Guest Salam]

MashaaAllah from reading a above points one will clearly understand why the bayah signing of the peace treaty took place.

if one looks within the peace treaty it self points to many things.

e.g. Hatred in that time towards imam Ali (عليه السلام). 
who the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) appointed as a leader to lead the ummah.

The Sunni religion was actually created soon after the passing away of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم),

when 5 people rather then attending the funeral got together to hold a meeting.

this is a very big topic that has sources and evidence from Shia and Sunni sources which are available for your eyes to read and minds to accept.

 

furthermore, the other point in the treaty about the power passing down to Imam Hasan as or Imam Hussain as if anything happened Imam hassan, so my question is was this peace treaty broken by muawaya or his son? Was muaway there to guide his son to power and guide him to break the treaty is that not enough to make him and his progeny hypocrite. Or is it not enough that they battled Imam Hussain and killed his family family of the prophet in Karbala? 
who do you really love? 
 

Anyways 

wasn’t another point broken because they still hated Imam ali and other other imams until Imam Mahdi ajtf who had to be in temporary occultation because of these people before finally going in to permanent occultation.

furthermore it is better to discus the life of muaway who is accused as (the drunkard)

was he really a drunkard ? Doesn’t that break another point in the treaty?

 

what was the point of the treaty ? Was it not to save blood shed ?

what is the obsession with the signing of this treaty? 
why don’t you just pledge your allegiance to the munafiq like we have pledged ours to our infallible imams.

our imams are infallible, and divinely guided,

imam Mahdi ajtf who will come back and avenge the martyrdom of the prophet.

Allah created human beings for the love of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

he loved that particular human being more than anything, and imams were human being but please don’t compare them to me and you or muawaya, Allah loved them and they all played their roles and they will hold their places in the heavens,

Allah guides who he wills and misguides who he wills,

the Quran says to fight those who kill in the name of religion , so who are you conquering?

stop backing these munafiq and get a grip of the real history and why things happened 

 

[Guest Mohsin Ali]

On 11/23/2020 at 4:18 AM, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

The narrations you brought are weak Majhool(Unknown ) and this Book Rijal u Kishi Original text is not available today it got lost and what we have today is a selection of the book by Shaykh Tusi known as Ilhtiyaar Maarifat u Rijal or Maarifat u Naqilin,so u cannot do Istedlal from this book + narrations are Majhool better luck next time.  https://imgur.com/a/zeuEe61

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 11/24/2020 at 6:09 AM, zahralzu said:

how would you respond to imam huseyn's (عليه السلام) shocking reaction to muawyah's death? 

 

Salam at first as @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi has mentioned narrator is not reliable also it has weak documentation which source of it is Tarikh Al-Tabari which it's possible that red part has been added by Tabari himself due that  he has been a sunni historian also maybe it has been said due to need for Taqiyya or  saying a conventional sentence , not  a prayer .

source of red quote

Quote

[1] منبع: تاريخ الطبري؛ ج۵، ص۳۳۹.

Tarikh Al-Tabari ; V5 ; P 339

which in book of Luhuf  it has been narrated in differnt way .

Quote

«ثُمَّ بَعَثَ إِلَى الْحُسَيْنِ ع فَجَاءَهُ فِي ثَلَاثِينَ رَجُلًا مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ وَ مَوَالِيهِ فَنَعَى الْوَلِيدُ إِلَيْهِ مَوْتَ مُعَاوِيَةَ وَ عَرَضَ عَلَيْهِ الْبَيْعَةَ لِيَزِيدَ فَقَالَ أَيُّهَا الْأَمِيرُ إِنَّ الْبَيْعَةَ لَا تَكُونُ سِرّاً وَ لَكِنْ إِذَا دَعَوْتَ النَّاسَ غَداً فَادْعُنَا مَعَهُمْ؛[2]

[2] اللهوف على قتلى الطفوف / ترجمه فهرى ؛ النص ؛ ص22.

Luhuf / Translation of Fahri ; Al Nas ; P 22

[The ruler of Madinah] sent a messenger after the Imam and the Imam came with thirty members of  Ahl al-Bayt and his companions. So Walid informed them of Muawiyah's death and demanded allegiance. The Imam said: Pledge of allegiance cannot be done secretly. Tomorrow, when you have invited the people, invite us too."

 

The need for Taqiyyah
In addition to this, there was also the possibility of taqiyyah there; Because the Imam did not want to show himself as an opponent. Therefore, in response to the governor of Medina, Marwan was with him who insisted on being strict with the imam[3] and he did not oppose so then about  demand of allegiance  said: "secret allegiance has no value and must be done openly. when you have invited the people, invite us too." It is known that the Imam's negative stance towards the Umayyad ruler, and that too in the presence of Marwan, who was a staunch enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt, could have led to the Imam's murder without the Imam's martyrdom having any effect.

Quote

[3] تاريخ الرسل والملوك، ج5 ص340.

[3] History of the Prophets and Kings (Arabic: تاريخ الرسل والملوك Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk) [by Tabari] , V5 p 340

Saying a conventional sentence, not a prayer
If this news is true, it seems to be a common saying that was said when hearing the news of a person's death, and the imam also said the same thing to keep up appearances, not because they had serious intentions and prayers; Because it is customary to say such sentences when hearing the news. In addition, Muawiya had many fans among the Muslims, especially in Madinah, and the Imam's negative stance when he heard of Muawiya's death would ended up being detrimental to him, and public opinion would turned against the Imam.

Imam Hussain's encounters with Muawiya
The behavior of Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).) with Muawiyah during his rule and his objection to the martyrdom of Hujr bin Adi and his companions and the harsh letters that the Imam wrote to Muawiyah in some cases, defines the Imam's point of view towards Muawiyah and his relationship with him. Not a sentence  رَحِمَ اللهُ مُعاوِیَه!  May Allah have mercy on Muawiyah ! 

Quote

Here, we refer to a sample of Imam Hussain's letters, which reveal his view of Muawiya's hypocrisy and malice. In a reported report, Marwan informed Mu'awiyah that Hussain bin Ali was thinking of uprising, and Mu'awiyah wrote a letter to the Imam and threatened him. Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) wrote in response to the letter:"I neither wanted to prepare for war with you, nor was I thinking of an uprising against you. But don't think that I am happy with my silence, but I am afraid of my Allah against your false government and abandoning the uprising and jihad with you. In any case, there is no excuse left for me, and I have to tell you this truth for you and your friends, who are the party of evildoers and lovers of devils. Aren't you the killer of Huar Bin Adi, brother of Kandah and his praying companions who worshiped Allah? They were against injustice and bad heresies, and they enjoined the good and forbade the evil, and they were not afraid of reprimanding in the path of truth. But you killed them with the sword of oppression and hatred, after you made strong and firm agreements with them and gave them peace! You did not fear from Allah and considered his covenant weak and you killed them with full courage and boldness. Aren't you the murderer of Amr bin Hamaq helper  and the companion of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his progeny , that righteous servant who had worn out his  body  and made his body thin and removed color from his face  by many worships?" And he wrote the following letter:

"You forced allegiance from the people for your son (Yazid), who was a drunkard and  playing with dog. But know that Allah is aware of these crimes, and He will not forget your disasters. I see that in all these circumstances you have not harmed anyone except yourself and you are throwing yourself into destruction. You have lost your religion and you have betrayed the Islamic Ummah, and you have betrayed in trust." [4] These are examples of the Imam's dealings with Muawiya, which shows his true view on Muawiyah, which his majesty publicly declared. 

[4] دانشنامه اسلامی به نقل از کتاب «الامامة والسیاسة» ابن قتیبه دنوری و «الرجال» کشی

https://btid.org/fa/news/181984

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/7/2020 at 5:55 PM, Fountain of youth said:

The fact that Muwiya was a warrior rules him out as munafiq. What did we learn in the quran that the signs of the munafiqeen is there hatred towards battle because they have nifaq which makes them love this dunya and hate death but a true believer doesn't fear death literally and is willing to embrace death at any given time at the hands of the enemy of Allah

Salam cursed Muawiya has not participated in an Islamic war as a warrior which he only led army against commander of believers  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in safest tent totally far from battle field   while commander of believers  Imam Ali (عليه السلام)  always has been present in  battlefield  against cursed Muawiya even called for hand to hand battle with cursed Muawiya which cursed Muawiya have not responded to it due to his cowardice & hypocrity   

 

You have called me to war. Better to leave the people on one side, come out to me and spare both the parties from fighting so that it may be known who of us has a rusted heart, and covered eyes. I am Abu'l-Hasan who killed your granfather 2 your brother 3 and your uncle 4 by cutting them to pieces on the day of Badr. The same sword is with me and I meet my adversary with the same heart. I have not altered the religion nor put up any new prophet. I am surely (treading) on that very highway which you had willingly forsaken (in the beginning) and then adopted per force.

 

You think you have come out seeking to revenge 'Uthman's blood. Certainly, you know how 'Uthman's blood was shed. If you want to avenge it, avenge it there. It is as though I see that when war is cutting you with its teeth you cry like camels crying under a heavy load. And it is as though I see your party bewildered by the incessant striking of swords, occurrence of death and

falling of bodies after bodies, calling me towards the Qur'an 5 although they would themselves be either unbelievers, deniers of truth or breakers of allegiance after swearing it.

Quote

وَقَدْ دَعَوْتَ إِلَى الْحَرْبِ، فَدَعِ النَّاسَ جَانِباً وَاخْرُجْ إِلَيَّ، وَأَعْفِ الْفَرِيقَينِ مِنَ الْقِتَالِ، لِتَعْلَمَ أيُّنَا الْمَرِينُ عَلَى قَلْبِهِ، وَالْمُغَطَّى عَلَى بَصَرِهِ! فَأَنَا أَبُو حَسَن قَاتِلُ جَدِّكَ وَخَالِكَ وأَخِيكَ شَدْخاً يَوْمَ بَدْر،ذلكَ السَّيْفُ مَعِي، وَبِذلِكَ الْقَلْبِ أَلْقَى عَدُوِّي، مَا اسْتَبْدَلْتُ دِيناً، وَلاَ اسْتَحْدَثْتُ نَبِيّاً، وَإنِّي لَعَلَى الْمِنْهَاجِ الَّذِي تَرَكْتُمُوهُ طَائِعِينَ، وَدَخَلْتُمْ فِيهِ مُكْرَهِينَ.

 

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-10-muawiyah

short story

When Imam Ali (peace be upon him) invited Mu'awiya to a hand-to-hand battle so that the people would be relieved from the war by killing one of them.
Amr al-Aas said to Muawiyah: Ali has given justice.
Muawiyah said: Since you have been my benefactor, you have not betrayed me except today.
Do you order me to fight hand-to-hand with Abul Hasan, when you know that he is brave and gallant who cut  head off?
I see you like this, that you are greedy for ruling  Shaam after me! (1)

Footnote:

(1) Sharh nahj al-balagha (by Ibn Abi l-Hadid) , v1 , p 15

https://rasekhoon.net/article/show/1043059/#:~:text=وقتي امام علي (علیه السلام) معاويه را به,من بوده‌اي به من خيانت نكردي مگر امروز.

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 11/24/2020 at 7:39 AM, zahralzu said:

how would you respond to imam huseyn's (عليه السلام) shocking reaction to muawyah's death? 

 

point to be noted that this is just history without any certainty of what has been narrated. I'm not sure from where this story is coming from as there doesn't seem to be any chain whatsoever for it. And when we clearly know that this is against Mutawatir traditions, its obviously a lie.

Like why would Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) say may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have mercy on Muawiya & give him a great reward? For breaking all conditions of the peace treaty with Imam Hasan (عليه السلام).(accepted by both Shia-sunni hence no need of reference)? For making his brother's life a hell? For fighting and plotting against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and getting 100s of Muslims killed? (Siffen) For forcing his brother to give away the rulership to avoid mass bloodshed of Muslims (Fazail e Sahaba Isnad e Sahih)?

Its against soo many Sahih traditions not sure whats the point of quoting shazz (odd) stuff

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/7/2020 at 5:55 PM, Fountain of youth said:

Also Muwiya certainly did fulfill his bayah to the Prophet and Allah which was to keep spreading Islam via Jihad conquests and expand territories which he and his progeny did.

Proving the blasphemy of Muawiyah with authentic-document narratives!

“Ali Sami al-Nashar” who is amongst Sunni big scholars and faith is Shafi’i”, says:

«فان الرجل لم یؤمن ابداً بالاسلام»

Muawiyah never became Muslim.

“Nas’at al-Fikr al-Falsafi fi al-Islam”- v 2, p 18

When theY call us they sometimes call him: “leader Muawiyah” and defend him!! Several days ago dear Sunni called and said: I became Shia because one day I went beside the grave of “Hujr ibn Udi” and saw that it’s written there:

«حجر بن عدی (رضی الله عنه) قتل بأمر معاویة (رضی الله عنه)»

This issue is laughable! We don’t know what to say to these guys. a guy orders someone to be killed then both killer and slain are said “may god be pleased of him”!! So what is the instance of this holy verse?

(وَ مَنْ یقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُتَعَمِّداً فَجَزاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خالِداً فی‌ها)

The recompense for he who kills a believer deliberately is Hell, he is eternal there.

Sura An-Nisa- verse 93

As for the hadith you mentioned, it’s been quoted in “Masa’il imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal” book narrated by “Isaac ibn Abraham Nishapuri” searched by “Zuhayr Shawish”:

«سمعت علی بن جعد یقول مات والله معاویة علی غیر الاسلام»

I heard of “Ali ibn Ju’d” who said: swear by god “Muawiyah” died Non-Muslim.

I’ll talk about “Ali ibn Ju’d” later. And this narrative in “Genealogies of the Nobles” book from “Al-Baladhuri” vol. 5, p 126:

«کنْتُ عِنْدَ النَّبِی صَلَّی اللَّهُ عَلَیهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ: [یطْلُعُ عَلَیکمْ مِنْ هَذَا الْفَجِّ رَجُلٌ یمُوتُ عَلَی غَیرِ مِلَّتِی،»«قَالَ: وَکنْتُ تَرَکتُ أَبِی قَدْ وُضِعَ لَهُ وَضُوءٌ، فَکنْتُ کحَابِسِ الْبَوْلِ مَخَافَةَ أَنْ یجِیءَ،»«قَالَ: فَطَلَعَ مُعَاوِیةُ فَقَالَ النَّبِی صَلَّی اللَّهُ عَلَیهِ وَسَلَّمَ: هُوَ هَذَا] »

We were with Prophet Muhammad [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] who said: someone will come here right now who will die Non-Muslim. Narrator says: “Muawiyah” came in and Prophet [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] said: the guy who I was talking about who will die Non-Muslim is him.

Studying the document of this narrative: https://www.valiasr-aj.com/english/shownews.php?idnews=491

Quote

It’s written in “Genealogies of the Nobles” book, vol. 5, p 128, that “Khalaf ibn Hisham” quotes from “Abu Awanah” and him from “A’mash” and he quotes from “Salim ibn abi Ja’d” that:

«قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّی اللَّهُ عَلَیهِ وَسَلَّمَ: مُعَاوِیةُ فِی تَابُوتٍ مُقْفَلٍ عَلَیهِ فِی جَهَنَّمَ»

Prophet Muhammad [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] said: “Muawiyah is in locked coffin in the Hell.

It’s written in many narratives that “Muawiyah” is in the Hell the lowest place just one degree higher than “Pharaoh” and it’s because “Pharaoh” said that I’m god but “Muawiyah” didn’t do so.

 

 

Quote

“Tabari” who is accepted by Sunnis says:

«إن معاویة فی تابوت من نار فی أسفل درک»

“Muawiyah” is in a coffin made by fire in the lowest spot of the Hell.

“Tabari” - Tarikh Tabari- vol. p 622

 

As our dear said we don’t know “Muawiyah” as Sahaba. Commander of the faithful [AS] says in “Nahj al-Balagha” letter 16:

«فَوَ الَّذِی فَلَقَ الْحَبَّةَ وَ بَرَأَ النَّسَمَةَ مَا أَسْلَمُوا وَ لَکنِ اسْتَسْلَمُوا وَ أَسَرُّوا الْکفْرَ فَلَمَّا وَجَدُوا أَعْوَاناً رَجَعُوا إِلَی عَدَوَاتِهِمْ»

Swear by god “Muawiyah” and his companions didn’t convert to Islam at all, they pretended to be Muslim and hid their blasphemy and now that they have some forces {in the battle of Siffin} they showed their infidelity.

Nahj al-Balagha- p 374- letter 16

This issue has been said in “Majma’ al-Zawa’id” book quoted by “Ammar Yasir”:

«والله ما أسلموا ولکن استسلموا وأسروا الکفر فلما رأو علیه أعوانا أظهروه»

Then Mr.”Haythami” says:

«وسعد بن حذیفة لم أر من ترجمه»

I’ve not seen anyone to translate “Sa’d ibn Hudhayfa”.

“Ali ibn abi Bakr al-Haythami”- Majma’ al-Zaw’id wa Manba’ al-Fawa’id- v 1, p 113

We don’t want to say that he said it deliberately, perhaps his mind didn’t serve him well; but you take a look at “Al-Thuqat” book from “Ibn Habban”. In the fourth volume of this book he’s said that “Sa’d ibn Hudhayfah” is amongst reliable guys!

Quote

It’s written in “Al-Nujum al-Zahira fi Muluk al-Misr wa’l-Qahira” book. vol. 1, p 164 from “Mr. Atabaki” which is one of Sunni books; that when “Yazid” went to the Hell, his son went on the pulpit and said:

«أیها الناس، إن جدی معاویة نازع الأمر أهله ومن هو أحق به منه لقرابته من رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم وهو علی بن أبی طالب»«ورکب بکم ما تعلمون»«حتی أتته منیته، فصار فی قبره رهیناً بذنوبه وأسیراً بخطایاه»«ثم قلد أبی الأمر فکان غیر أهل لذلک، ورکب هواه وأخلفه الأمل، وقصر عنه الأجل. وصار فی قبره رهیناً بذنوبه، وأسیراً بجرمه»«ثم بکی حتی جرت دموعه علی خدیه»«ثم قال: إن من أعظم الأمور علینا علمنا بسوء مصرعه وبئس منقلبه»«وقد قتل عترة رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم وأباح الحرم وخرب الکعبة»

O people! My grandfather “Muawiyah” argued with “Ali ibn abi Talib” on the matter of caliphate while “Ali” was right because he was close to Prophet [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)]. He imposed himself on people until he died, he went to grave while he’s the captive of his errors. After him my father “Yazid” wasn’t qualified becoming caliph, he rode his passion and lust and went to grave and is the captive of sins and crime.

Then he cried in a way that his tears appeared on his cheek and said: I know that my father is faced the worst punishment in the worst place and is in the worst spot. He martyred prophet [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)]’s “Ahl al-Bayt” and made “Haram” things “Halal” and destroyed god’s house.

“Iskafi” who is amongst Sunni big scholars have written book rejecting his book, “Shaikh Mufid” did so, and even he himself {Jahiz} wrote book rejecting his book!! This guy writes in “Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin”, vol. 2, p 84:

«ثم ولی یزید بن معاویة، ویزید الخمور»

Then “Yazid ibn Muawiyah” became governor, the one who would drink wine a lot.

«المأبون فی فرجه»

I don’t dare translating this part!!

«فعلیه لعنة الله وملائکته»

And “Al-Dhahabi” who is amongst Sunni scientific pillars, says in “Siyar a’lam al-Nubala’” book, vol. 4, p 37:

«وکان ناصبیا، فظا، غلیظا، جلفا یتناول المسکر، ویفعل المنکر»

“Yazid” was “Nasibi”, impolite, jaunty and would drink water and do evil works.

It’s written in “The History of Damascene”[damascus] book, vol. 27, p 429 from “Ibn Asakir”: when some of people of “Medina” including “Muhajirin”, “Ansar” and Sahaba in Sham met “Yazid” and returned, speechified in “Medina”:

«ان رجلا ینکح الأمهات والبنات والأخوات ویشرب الخمر ویدع الصلاة»

This man would marry his mother and daughters and sisters and drink wine and wouldn’t say prayer.

And it’s also written in “History of caliphs” book about “Yazid” quoted by “Abdullah Ibn Hanzala”:

«إنه رجل ینکح أمهات الأولاد، والبنات، والأخوات، ویشرب الخمر، ویدع الصلاة»

“Suyuti”- history of caliphs- vol. 1, p 159

https://www.valiasr-aj.com/english/shownews.php?idnews=491

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/7/2020 at 6:04 PM, Fountain of youth said:

Muwiya had no time for people over-glorifying saints or doing the rounds in grave-worships but his task was much greater and it was to conquer the world and spread Islam in the name of Allah. Which he certainly did a great portion of it.

Muawiyah and Abusing Imam Ali (عليه السلام)

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

What The Prophet Said About Those Who Fight, Hate, Or Abuse His Ahlul-Bayt

The Messenger of Allah said: "Loving ‘Ali is the sign of belief, and hating ‘Ali is the sign of hypocrisy."

Sunni references:

- Sahih Muslim, v1, p48;
- Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643;
- Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142;
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128
- Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 1, p202
- Hilyatul Awliya’, by Abu Nu’aym, v4, p185
- Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v14, p462

This tradition of Prophet was popular to the extent that some of the companions used to say:

"We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of ‘Ali."

Sunni references:

- Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition #1086
- al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47
- al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v3, p242
- Dhakha’ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p91

Muawiyah Instituting The Curse Of Imam ‘Ali (عليه السلام)

Muawiyah not only fought Imam ‘Ali, he cursed Imam ‘Ali as well. Furthermore, he did force/make everybody to curse ‘Ali (عليه السلام). To prove it, we begin with

Sahih Muslim:

Narrated Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas: Muawiyah, the son of Abu Sufyan, give order to Sa’d, and told him: "What prevents you that you are refraining from cursing Abu Turab (nickname of ‘Ali)?”Sa’d replied: "Don’t you remember that the Prophet said three things about (the virtue of) ‘Ali? So I will never curse ‘Ali."

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of Virtues of ‘Ali, Arabic, v4, p1871, Tradition #32.

For the English version of Sahih Muslim, see Chapter CMXCVI, p1284,

Tradition #5916

Quote

 أمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان سعدا ، فقال: مامنعك أن تسب أبا التراب ، فقال: أما ما ذكرت ثلاثا قالهن له رسول الله (ص) فلن أسبه 

The above tradition, by the way, indicates that Muawiyah was surprised why Sa’d does not follow his order of cursing ‘Ali, like others do. This shows that cursing ‘Ali was a habit (Sunnah) for people at that time. Who made this Sunnah? Was it ‘Ali, or those who fought him? Now, who fought against ‘Ali? Wasn’t he Muawiyah (the beloved companion of Wahhabis)? So this implies that Muawiyah did innovate that habit (cursing ‘Ali as Sunnah).

Below is more references in Sahih Muslim about Sunnah cursing Imam ‘Ali (عليه السلام), to prove that people were urged/forced to curse ‘Ali in public, otherwise they would face a costly sentence. It is narrated on the authority of Abu Hazim that:

The Governor of Medina who was one of the members of the house of Marwan called Sahl Ibn Sa’d, and ordered him to curse ‘Ali. But Sahl refused to do so. The governor said: "If you don’t want to curse ‘Ali, just say God curse Abu Turab (the nickname of ‘Ali).”Sahl said: "‘Ali did not like any name for himself better than Abu Turab, and ‘Ali used to become very happy when somebody would call him Abu Turab.”

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of Virtues of ‘Ali, Arabic version, v4, p1874, Tradition #38.

Here is the Arabic text of the above tradition given by Sahih Muslim:

استعمل على المدينة رجل من آل مروان ، قال فدعا سهل بن سعد فأمره أن يشتم عليا ، قال: فأبى سهل ، فقال له: أمّا إذ أبيت فقل: لعن الله أبا التراب. فقال سهل: ما كان لعليٍّ اسم أحب إليهِ من أبي التراب و إن كان ليفرح إذا دُعيَّ به.

Cursing Imam ‘Ali (عليه السلام) was an order from the beginning of Muawiyah’s reign for 65 years. He was Umar Ibn Abdil Aziz (may Allah be easy with him) who canceled this order after more than half a century. Some historians even believe that the Umayyah descendants themselves killed (poisoned) Umar Ibn Abdil Aziz, because he changed their Sunnah, one of which was cursing ‘Ali.

(See the Sunni book entitled "History of the Saracens,”by Amir ‘Ali, Chapter X, pp 126-127).

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/muawiyah-and-abusing-imam-ali

 

ISLAMIC HISTORY

Muawiyah And The Cursing Of Imam Ali: The Unspoken Truth

https://islam4u.pro/blog/muawiyah-and-the-cursing-of-imam-ali-the-unspoken-truth/

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/7/2020 at 5:55 PM, Fountain of youth said:

Millions converted out of their works and recieved the light of Allah. They just didn't sit there in Jerusalem doing nothing. They were warriors and conquerors. They did what is refered to today as the Muslim blitz krieg reaching in short span of time all the way to Spain and conquering entire of Spain, North Africa, all the way to Sindh (current day Pakistan) 

This religion is spread by two means the blood of the martyrs and the ink of the pen.

This has no value & benefit for cursed Muawiya 7 cursed Yazid because they have done all of these for their worldly desires not for sake of Islam .

On 12/7/2020 at 5:55 PM, Fountain of youth said:

All these campaigns cost a fortune and Muwiya and his progeny had to pay directly from the tax payers using alot of human resources and blood

They have forced people to pay heavy taxes & give their blood  unwillingly  just for increasinf wealth of cursed Muawiya & cursed Yazid which means they hoarded Haram money for themselves or wasted in  their personal wars & conquests just for increasing their Haram wealth & treasure.