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

Obedience to Corrupt Ruler.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Prove it. Provide evidence. You keep saying she did all these things, so prove it to me. 

What is there to prove. You already admitted the battle took place.

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

She did not want to fight 'Ali. Nobody wanted to fight. They wanted to avenge the death of 'Uthman. Reread our story in depth. No Shi'a I have met can tell me in detail what happened in the battle from authentic evidences and would rather blindly hate.

All I care is that you are clearly admitting that 'nobody wanted to fight but it sorta happened anyway for the 'excuse' of revenge'.

9 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

You have misrepresented our side because of how you misconstrued a narration that you have no authority in the world to do.

All I know is that the narration says there will be rulers** with a devil's heart, and a command to hear and obey. You making the excuse of being able to refuse in the case of "a handful of situations" doesn't make your position any more appetizing because at the end of the day, you will have to hear and obey some of the commands of a devil (i.e. man with devil's heart, i.e. an evil person, i.e. a kaffir)

Edited by dragonxx
*spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Concerning Muawiya Fighting Ali (عليه السلام), I am sure you have all heard the Hadith “Ali is with the Haq and the Haq is with Ali and they will not separate until they meet me at the pond.” 

Salam brother I see your question is actually for the ahl Sunnah and not Shias. I am a Shia and strictly oppose this.  It is clearly evident that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) stood against a t

I am not offended that you said Muawiya is Better then us, but you saying that is also saying he was a good person. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said about Ali (عليه السلام) that only a Belie

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, dragonxx said:

What is there to prove. You already admitted the battle took place.

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Okay? I can admit a lot of things. Admission is not evidence unless you are a fool. Prove to me that she did exactly the things you mentioned.

1 minute ago, dragonxx said:

All I care is that you are clearly admitting that 'nobody wanted to fight but it sorta happened anyway for the 'excuse' of revenge'.

8 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

This is true. Nobody did want to fight and 'Aisha herself said that she was going to reconcile with 'Ali after he told her to put a halt on searching for the killers of 'Uthman and putting them to justice.

3 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

All I know is that the narration says there will be rules with a devil's heart, and a command to hear and obey. You making the excuse of being able to refuse in the case of "a handful of situations" doesn't make your position any more appetizing because at the end of the day, you will have to hear and obey some of the commands of a devil (i.e. man with devil's heart, i.e. an evil person, i.e. a kaffir)

As long as they are ruling according to Allah and His Messenger, we have to obey, providing they do not transgress further than the stipulations the Messenger provided.

This is your interpretation that holds no basis to me. Even if you were a Sunni, this would hold no basis because this is not what it means. You are putting your own meaning on it. This is not the meaning of this narration, despite the meanings you attribute to it from your own flawed reasoning and lack of understanding and comprehension. 

The ruler who does not rule according to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger should be obeyed in matters that do not involve disobedience towards Allaah and His Messenger, and it is not obligatory to fight him because of that; rather it is not permissible to do so unless he reaches the level of kufr, in which case it becomes obligatory to oppose him and he has no right to be obeyed by the Muslims.

Is this same place where I found the above ruling... saying this, too?!

Wow. It is almost as if these are coinciding with what.. I am saying! Wow. What a wonder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Prove to me she was wrong from your sources. Explain this battle from your books alone with authentic, sound traditions.

Was George Bush wrong to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? 

No

Why? 

He was avenging the 9/11.

Without even knowing where the terrorists are? 

Well, it happens. 

 

Now, I understand why Saudis stand with the US tyrants. We cannot prove them wrong from their books. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

This is true. Nobody did want to fight and 'Aisha herself said that she was going to reconcile with 'Ali after he told her to put a halt on searching for the killers of 'Uthman and putting them to justice.

Oh wooow, very nice. Nobody wanted to fight but somehow a bunch of people are dead on the floor. Wonder how that happened. 

No getting through to you, so I'll leave you with some food for thought from your magnificent sahih book which contains no errors...

image.png.3b0e0615ce16ddc1a2713ade337e8070.png

image.png.2458210a0ba5cc8af03142bbd5ac32dc.png

image.png.3d8140ba317e4b67c0fd8b08312731ba.png

image.png.f085fd3eb41bc237e78f46795313b74c.png

 

So as per Abu Bakr's laws, everyone at the battle of jamal is going to hell.

As per the Shia, those who sided with Ali sided with Haqq, and thus there is at least a hope for us to attain heaven by the logic of the above hadiths.

Good luck reconciling your contradictory beliefs 

 

addendum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel#cite_note-38

Quote

The name of the battle refers to the camel ridden by Āʿisha — once the camel had fallen, the battle was over. Some Muslim scholars believe the name was recorded as such in history to avoid linking the name of a woman with a battle.[38]

 

 

Edited by Mahdavist
Personal attacks removed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
19 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Comments removed by moderator

I think the people who brainwashed this young man into becoming a Sunni obviously skipped the lesson on Akhlaq when dealing with people.

Then he has the nerve to say this:  rather are a Muslim by name and not action

Oh the irony.

Edited by Mahdavist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/25/2020 at 11:11 PM, El Cid said:

I just want to know the Mainstream Sunni perspective.

@eThErEaL I would like to see your response to this and specifically to the following:

10 hours ago, El Cid said:

Sunni view on these issues:

Karbala = Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) didn't intend to rebel. He miscalculated and this got Him(عليه السلام) killed. Yazid's rule was not established yet. So they get to have their cake and eat it too.

Jamal = Aisha did not intend to rebel against Imam Ali(عليه السلام). She made a mistake and it was Talha/Zubayr who were the real instigators. She's the mother of believers at the end of the day and the Prophet's(SW) favourite wife.

Siffin = Muwaiya simply wanted justice for Uthman's murder. That makes the battles with Imam Ali(عليه السلام) perfectly okay. Muwaiya was also a senior companion and most beloved of the Prophet(SW) even though he met the Prophet(SW) once or twice in his entire lifetime before running away to Syria after the conquest of Makkah(Depending on the resources). Muwaiya was also guarenteed paradise by Prophet(SW) because he participated in some battle. So it was a dispute between two senior Sahabas which unfortunately led to war.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

We were taught Jamal a bit differently in school. We were taught that Umm ul Momineen and Amir ul Momineen marched out with an army to have a little bit of discussion. They were both sad and angry at Uthman's death, and wanted justice to be carried out.

When Abdullah ibn Saba saw that negotiations were almost finalised, he ordered his infiltrators in both sides to practice archery at each other. This triggered the war. (read Farkhanda Noor Muhammad's book for the full tale).

 

Sometimes I read these stories, shake my head, and proceed to recite a certain dua from Sahifa e Alaviya.

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

We were taught Jamal a bit differently in school. We were taught that Umm ul Momineen and Amir ul Momineen marched out with an army to have a little bit of discussion. They were both sad and angry at Uthman's death, and wanted justice to be carried out.

When Abdullah ibn Saba saw that negotiations were almost finalised, he ordered his infiltrators in both sides to practice archery at each other. This triggered the war. (read Farkhanda Noor Muhammad's book for the full tale).

 

Sometimes I read these stories, shake my head, and proceed to recite a certain dua from Sahifa e Alaviya.

Farkhanda Noor Muhammad's book is absolute trash. It's written to appease both Sunnis and Shiahs in some manner.

I had the misfortune of studying it in my Olevels too. 

I talked about it in another topic:

"

In Pakistan, you have to study Sunni history in school whether you're a Shia or christian. So that's what was taught in those silly course books as well be it the Matric system of the country or the British system of GSCE. You get the same book with the same stuff in it with a special emphasis on the life of the first three caliphs. For Imam Ali(عليه السلام). You just get a shortened version and questions about Him(عليه السلام) never appear on the final exam. One section is translation or explaination of ayah and the second section is How did Umar ibn Al Khattab run his empire, How did Abu Bakr defeat the False Prophets, What are the merits of Abu Bakr/Umar. You also get points deducted if you don't write "RA" in front of any one names. I never wrote RA lol

This was the final exam I got which thankfully had questions about Prophet(SW) : https://pastpapers.papacambridge.com/viewer/caie/cambridge-upper-secondary-gce-international-o-level-islamiyat-2058-2010-jun-2058-s10-qp-1-pdf#pdf

What's question number 4 on that paper? Describe the events relating to the Prophet’s(SW) experiences in caves. 

And they made the question about Sahaba non optional "

lol

Edited by El Cid
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, El Cid said:

What's question number 4 on that paper? Describe the events relating to the Prophet’s(SW) experiences in caves.

The description in her book about the first revelation isn't even the mainstream sunni belief. My mother, with her sunni upbringing, rubbished the book's claims how he was "frightened, ran out of the cave, broke down", among other stuff like "he was just like us ordinary people". These teachings in the book actually made her angry.

Btw, the mainstream sunni position, from what I've observed, is that the companions made mistakes. They were humans after all, they made mistakes, and they sinned. However, we should avoid these discussions in case we accidentally slander them.

"Sunnis" influenced by a certain country named after a certain family, however, will blatantly deny and revise these historical facts. They will readily and loudly discuss them. Unfortunately, these "sunnis" are infiltrating the wider body of rational, mainstream sunnis in general.

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 11/27/2020 at 7:03 PM, Nightclaw said:

As long as they are ruling according to Allah and His Messenger, we have to obey, providing they do not transgress further than the stipulations the Messenger provided.

The statement is only a theoretical statement but it is not followed or implemented any where in ground reality,  history and present.

Umaayd rulers were mostly  corrupt and oppressors.

Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was killed by order of ruler Yazeed and his army

At present,  Israeli PM flew to Saudi Arabia, met crown prince

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/reports-israeli-pm-flew-saudi-arabia-met-crown-74353725

UAE, Bahrain and alike are also accepting the  Israel as country which is  killer of Palestinians.

These all are considered violation of verses of quran but rulers were being followed  and the same is continued in present time as quoted above.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
19 hours ago, El Cid said:

Karbala = Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) didn't intend to rebel. He miscalculated and this got Him(عليه السلام) killed. 

@Cool

 

My view is that Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) didn’t intend to to fight Yazid or the Army of Yazid. He sought only To “defend” himself and his family.  He wasn’t trying to revolt or start a revolution. 

 

Quote

Jamal = Aisha did not intend to rebel against Imam Ali(عليه السلام). She made a mistake and it was Talha/Zubayr who were the real instigators. She's the mother of believers at the end of the day and the Prophet's(SW) favourite wife.

She (رضي الله عنه) Was certainly one of the most dearest of wives to the Prophet (S).  I say most dearest because Khadijah (رضي الله عنه) was one of them (And the first of them)

Aisha (رضي الله عنه) did intend to seek revenge for the killers of Uthman (رضي الله عنه).  Whether she was instigated by Talha and Zubayr or whether she herself Instigated all this... she is still wrong to have done what she did.  But she was forgiven and she asked for forgiveness.  

 

Quote

Siffin = Muwaiya simply wanted justice for Uthman's murder. That makes the battles with Imam Ali(عليه السلام) perfectly okay.

Sunnis don’t say that Muawiyyah was justified in his action.  They say that he was wrong, but those were the reasons were why he battled Imam Ali (عليه السلام).  His “ijtihad” was wrong.  And he shouldn’t have gone to battle.  In other words, he didn’t have evil intentions.  He had good intentions but still misguided.

 

Quote

Muwaiya was also a senior companion and most beloved of the Prophet(SW) even though he met the Prophet(SW) once or twice in his entire lifetime before running away to Syria after the conquest of Makkah(Depending on the resources). Muwaiya was also guarenteed paradise by Prophet(SW) because he participated in some battle. So it was a dispute between two senior Sahabas which unfortunately led to war.

 

 

no the favor goes to Imam Ali (عليه السلام) but Muawiyyah is still worthy of respect for the mere fact that he was with the Prophet (S) even if only twice!  The respect is given to the Prophet (S) through Muawiyyah (not to Muawiyyah in and of himsef). 

Quote

There you go, that's the simple breakdown of the lengthy posts on SC by Sunnis over the years.

Your portrayal is not accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

When Abdullah ibn Saba saw that negotiations were almost finalised, he ordered his infiltrators in both sides to practice archery at each other. This triggered the war. (read Farkhanda Noor Muhammad's book for the full tale).

As salaamun aleikum,

I find this very interesting. Ive never heard this before. Would you by chance be able to name who these infiltrators were or at least what tribe they were from and who their real allegiance was to? It would be very helpfull. I will see if i can find the book you mentioned as a pdf.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, shia farm girl said:

As salaamun aleikum,

I find this very interesting. Ive never heard this before. Would you by chance be able to name who these infiltrators were or at least what tribe they were from and who their real allegiance was to? It would be very helpfull. I will see if i can find the book you mentioned as a pdf.

 

there you go

it's our course book in pakistani highschools lol

o-levels.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 

Your portrayal is not accurate.

 

My portrayal is 100% accurate as your entire Sunni perspective is this: As long as intentions were good, the rest is history. So we can excuse all the senseless killing and power usurp attempts.

This is why in my opening statement was this: "

All these issues have justifications and operate on the principle "Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has those days."

It's a reference to a Hannah montana song called "Nobody's perfect" which is essentially what Sunni Islamic History is in a nutshell. Infact instead of debating these issues, If a Sunni Sheikh just played that song to answer Shiah's then there would really be no difference as He/she would be saying the same things Hannah Montana is saying in those songs.

9 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

but Muawiyyah is still worthy of respect for the mere fact that he was with the Prophet (S) even if only twice!

 

And Abu Lahab(LA) was around the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) since the Prophet's birth. Why don't you respect him as well given your illogical logic? He was an open enemy of Islam. His wife the aunt of Muwaiya was also an open enemy of Islam. Hinda was an open enemy of Islam. Abu Sufyan was an open enemy of Islam. Muwaiya was an open enemy of Islam. Yazid was an open enemy of Islam.

This entire family is corrupt and Nawasib. The only difference was that Abu Sufyan and Muwaiya played the hypocrite game as the power of balance had tipped after the conquest of Makkah and they could no longer eliminate Islam. Yazid and his successors tried to eliminate Islam completely that's why they got over thrown by the Abbasids. That's literally the only difference and anyone who can't see all of this for what it is is just a blind sheep.

 

Edited by Mahdavist
Personal attacks removed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As Imam Ali(عليه السلام) said to Muwaiya:

" When Allah made Arabia enter (the fold of) His religion, and the people submitted to it willingly or unwillingly, you were among those who entered the religion either from greed or from fear, at a time when those who had gone first had preceded and the first muhajirun had acquired their (peculiar) distinction. Now, do not allow Satan have a share with you nor let him have his sway over you; and that is an end to the matter."

As Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) said to Muwaiya:

"You have also mentioned that 'if I oppose you, you would oppose me and if I proceed against you, you will proceed against me.' You may take whatever steps you can against me. I am sure that your planning will cause me no harm. The greatest harm shall be to you. For, you are riding the vehicle of ignorance and are apt at breaking oaths and treaties. By my life, you have never considered any point of agreement.

You have killed those with whom you had made treaties, promises and oaths. And you killed them when they had neither any intention of waging a war against you nor had they committed any murder. You shed their blood only because they related our merits and were cognizant of the greatness of our rights. Although it was possible that natural death would have occurred to them or to you even before their uprising to reach to a conclusion."

So in the end, it really shows what side of history you are on and what side of history us Shia's are on. 

Though, these issues are beaten to death on SC and you can find lots of threads discussing them. The main topic of this discussion is your Absolute obedience to corrupt rulers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
22 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

They wanted to avenge the death of 'Uthman

By going to Basra even though Uthman was killed in Medina?

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

Sunnis don’t say that Muawiyyah was justified in his action.  They say that he was wrong, but those were the reasons were why he battled Imam Ali (عليه السلام).  His “ijtihad” was wrong.  And he shouldn’t have gone to battle.  In other words, he didn’t have evil intentions.  He had good intentions but still misguided.

no the favor goes to Imam Ali (عليه السلام) but Muawiyyah is still worthy of respect for the mere fact that he was with the Prophet (S) even if only twice!  The respect is given to the Prophet (S) through Muawiyyah (not to Muawiyyah in and of himsef). 

The misguided companion is more worthy of respect even at the cost of disrespect and going against the  4th rashid caliph from Ahl albayt ((عليه السلام)) of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Even as per sunni  view the one who has battled / gone against a Rashid caliph is unbeliever. The Ahl albayt (عليه السلام) of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) are to be respected more as per many hadiths.

I enjoy by laugh on such contradictory statements from sunni view

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

“Obey rulers” is vague. You talking about following all laws?  A declared endorsement or oath of loyalty? Active collaboration? Or simply a silent, passive acceptance and toleration of whatever or whoever is in charge, in all circumstances?

Theres an issue of legitimacy. Are all those in power legitimate by definition, by default? Must it be acquired, or simply claimed? If there’s a civil war, and regardless of which side takes over, either would be legitimate anyway, since acquiring official power is the only criterion? Sounds like a world of no meaningful consequence. A convenient self-justification for the “winners” of conquest and ladder climbing, without scrutinizing actual merits that should determine legitimacy, and therefore a more measured response from the ruled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Reza said:

“Obey rulers” is vague. You talking about following all laws?  A declared endorsement or oath of loyalty? Active collaboration? Or simply a silent, passive acceptance and toleration of whatever or whoever is in charge, in all circumstances?

Theres an issue of legitimacy. Are all those in power legitimate by definition, by default? Must it be acquired, or simply claimed? If there’s a civil war, and regardless of which side takes over, either would be legitimate anyway, since acquiring official power is the only criterion? Sounds like a world of no meaningful consequence. A convenient self-justification for the “winners” of conquest and ladder climbing, without scrutinizing actual merits that should determine legitimacy, and therefore a more measured response from the ruled.

Refer to the hadith in the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"Obey rulers no matter what" seems to be a primarily the idea of the so-called Salafis. Arab authoritarian regimes love Salafis for this.

It's clear that it's not an idea held by the widespread sunni population in general. All these protests and uprisings we have seen over the years seem to point to this fact. The biggest example I can think of is these mass protests against different governments in Pakistan since 2007. Musharraf used to say that Allah has allowed him to take authority; apparently that argument didn't fly too well with the sunni majority population.

Arab spring also comes to mind, though sadly it didn't end well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, El Cid said:

 

My portrayal is 100% accurate as your entire Sunni perspective is this: As long as intentions were good, the rest is history. So we can excuse all the senseless killing and power usurp attempts.

This is why in my opening statement was this: "

All these issues have justifications and operate on the principle "Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has those days."

It's a reference to a Hannah montana song called "Nobody's perfect" which is essentially what Sunni Islamic History is in a nutshell. Infact instead of debating these issues, If a Sunni Sheikh just played that song to answer Shiah's then there would really be no difference as He/she would be saying the same things Hannah Montana is saying in those songs.

 

And Abu Lahab(LA) was around the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) since the Prophet's birth. Why don't you respect him as well given your illogical logic? He was an open enemy of Islam. His wife the aunt of Muwaiya was also an open enemy of Islam. Hinda was an open enemy of Islam. Abu Sufyan was an open enemy of Islam. Muwaiya was an open enemy of Islam. Yazid was an open enemy of Islam.

This entire family is corrupt and Nawasib. The only difference was that Abu Sufyan and Muwaiya played the hypocrite game as the power of balance had tipped after the conquest of Makkah and they could no longer eliminate Islam. Yazid and his successors tried to eliminate Islam completely that's why they got over thrown by the Abbasids. That's literally the only difference and anyone who can't see all of this for what it is is just a blind sheep.

 

 

15 hours ago, El Cid said:

?  


Hey!  

how can you compare the two? :confused:
Abu Lahab Did not accept the Message of a Islam and died in that state.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In any case. It is pointless now to delve into Shia-Sunni topics (I am getting tired of all this and I pretty much had my fill.  Lol).  I got whatever it is I need to get from such discussions.  I discussed these issues mainly for my own benefit.  To explore what others say and what others believe.  I will not longer participate in these Shia-Sunni dialogues unless someone specifically asks me a question about something (but I will no longer engage In prolonged back and forth arguments) 

But, for everything that it’s worth,  it has been nice chatting with you all.

:)

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The place where I see the double standards is that the people who protested against Uthman from Egypt all the way to Medina, they were rebels. While those who stood against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) were just 'mistaken'. 

Maybe Allah granted Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Caliphate for a short time just to expose the reality of all the 'narrations' written by the OP in the start. Those who wrote them, did so to remove the obstacles in the path of their thrones. So that no one objects, questions or stands against them. But when somehow it went to Ali (عليه السلام), their reality as well as the reality of these fabricated stories was open and out. 

Thanks to Allah that he showed the real face of hypocrisy through the AhlulBayt (عليه السلام).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 

 


Hey!  

how can you compare the two? :confused:
Abu Lahab Did not accept the Message of a Islam and died in that state.  

 

 

It's based on your own logic. You said we should respect Muwaiya even if he met the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) once or twice in his life. Abu Lahab was around the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) for decades. So you should respect him as well.

As for "Acceptance of the message of Islam and dying in states"

There have been numerous threads on SC about this with the last by brother @Ansur Shiat Ali who listed all the horrible things the aforementioned person did and you said in the thread "He's still better than all of you" so it's really a waste of time going over this again.

So I'll just leave it like this:

Abu Lahab = Open Enemy of Islam

Muwaiya = Hypocrite/Veiled enemy of Islam.

Abu Lahab = Fought against the Masomeen(Peace be upon them)

Muwaiya = Same until his very last days and succeeded in killing One.

Imam Ali(عليه السلام) said whoever hates me is a hypocrite.

Muwaiya had him cursed from the rooftops.

If your standard for believing men is this low, then I see your point. 

End of story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In Zaidiya its wajib to rise up against a corrupt leader even if he is from Ahlulbayt.

"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both.1 So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, of what you do, Aware." 4:135

"But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly." 49;9

And do not incline toward those who do wrong, lest you be touched by the Fire, and you would not have other than Allah any protectors; then you would not be helped. 11:113

Hz Abu Bakar: Obey me so long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. And if I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then I have no right to your obedience. Stand up now to pray, may Allah have mercy on you” [Al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah (6/305,306)]

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, El Cid said:

It's based on your own logic. You said we should respect Muwaiya even if he met the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) once or twice in his life. Abu Lahab was around the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) for decades. So you should respect him as well.

As for "Acceptance of the message of Islam and dying in states"

There have been numerous threads on SC about this with the last by brother @Ansur Shiat Ali who listed all the horrible things the aforementioned person did and you said in the thread "He's still better than all of you" so it's really a waste of time going over this again.

So I'll just leave it like this:

Abu Lahab = Open Enemy of Islam

Muwaiya = Hypocrite/Veiled enemy of Islam.

Abu Lahab = Fought against the Masomeen(Peace be upon them)

Muwaiya = Same until his very last days and succeeded in killing One.

Imam Ali(عليه السلام) said whoever hates me is a hypocrite.

Muwaiya had him cursed from the rooftops.

If your standard for believing men is this low, then I see your point. 

End of story.

Yes, of course Muawiyya is better than all of you (and myself included).  You should at least be honored that I am comparing him to us all.. in fact he is beyond comparison. 

It is a blanket rule indeed (that those closest to the Prophet (S) are most superior).  We use our discernment to judge actions not hearts.  We leave the judgement of hearts to God alone.  

About the definition of "sahaba" being one who looks at the Prophet (S)... this is about those who ended up accepting the Prophet's (S) message and who died as Muslims.  So this is why Abu Lahab doesn't fall in the category of Sahaba.  I have mentioned this for the second time now on this thread.  In any case I wont be responding to you anymore as I am done with such discussions.  I donlt find this discussion productive.  Let us agree to disagree.  God will be the judge inshallah.        

:)

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/29/2020 at 1:02 AM, eThErEaL said:

Sunnis don’t say that Muawiyyah was justified in his action.  They say that he was wrong, but those were the reasons were why he battled Imam Ali (عليه السلام).  His “ijtihad” was wrong.  And he shouldn’t have gone to battle.  In other words, he didn’t have evil intentions.  He had good intentions but still misguided.

Thank you brother for your input on my request. 

Lets assume, his ijtihad was wrong in Siffin. What about his violation of peace treaty he made with Imam Hassan (عليه السلام)?

He was given what he was demanding on some conditions. He ruined each & every condition of that peace treaty. 

Do you have any words for his defence here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Cool said:

Thank you brother for your input on my request. 

Lets assume, his ijtihad was wrong in Siffin. What about his violation of peace treaty he made with Imam Hassan (عليه السلام)?

He was given what he was demanding on some conditions. He ruined each & every condition of that peace treaty. 

Do you have any words for his defence here?

Sunnis don't agree on this narrative (that he violated the peace treaty).  I have heard some even argue that the conditions of the treaty are not even known.  It is about which narrative you "believe" in.  Shias believe in this narrative and Sunnis believe in another narrative.  By the way, I don't believe that history is an objective reality.  Even if it were an objective reality, it is epistemologically, impossible to be certain about it.  What I am saying is that what we call "history" is but a narrative.  You have an option to believe in it or not.  I grew up believing in the Shia narrative.  I no longer find it compelling for many reasons.  The reasons I do not find it compelling are not due to what people would call "historical evidence" or lack thereof (even if I find "historical evidence" interesting and supplemental).  My reasons are simply in the benefits or harms that accrue from believing in a given narrative.  The Sunni narrative seems more spiritually beneficial and meaningful to me than the Shia narrative.  It is as simple as that.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, El Cid said:

It's based on your own logic. You said we should respect Muwaiya even if he met the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) once or twice in his life. Abu Lahab was around the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) for decades. So you should respect him as well.

As for "Acceptance of the message of Islam and dying in states"

There have been numerous threads on SC about this with the last by brother @Ansur Shiat Ali who listed all the horrible things the aforementioned person did and you said in the thread "He's still better than all of you" so it's really a waste of time going over this again.

So I'll just leave it like this:

Abu Lahab = Open Enemy of Islam

Muwaiya = Hypocrite/Veiled enemy of Islam.

Abu Lahab = Fought against the Masomeen(Peace be upon them)

Muwaiya = Same until his very last days and succeeded in killing One.

Imam Ali(عليه السلام) said whoever hates me is a hypocrite.

Muwaiya had him cursed from the rooftops.

If your standard for believing men is this low, then I see your point. 

End of story.

Lol, I have waited almost a year for @eThErEaL’s response, he said that he is better then all of us and he said he would prove it. 

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Yes, of course Muawiyya is better than all of you (and myself included).  You should at least be honored that I am comparing him to us all.. in fact he is beyond comparison

Muawiya is better then all of us? I know that I didn’t Order to dig up the grave of Hamza (عليه السلام). The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said a man will come from this path and he will die not on my Religion and Muawiya then came from that path.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Proofs of Muawiya digging up Graves of the Martyrs of Uhud.

معاوية أول من نبش قبور الصحابة (الجهاد لابن المبارك - (1 / 84) ) .. سَمِعْتُ ابْنُ المُبَارَكِ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ: " لَمَّا أَرَادَ مُعَاوِيَةُ أَنْ يُجْرِيَ الْكَظَامَةَ قَالَ: قِيلَ مَنْ كَانَ لَهُ قَتِيلٌ فَلْيَأْتِ قَتِيلَهُ يَعْنِي قَتْلَى أُحُدٍ قَالَ: فَأَخْرَجْنَاهُمْ رِطَابًا يَتَثَنُّونَ، قَالَ :فَأَصَابَتِ الْمِسْحَاةُ أُصبع رجل منهم، فَانفطرتْ دمًا " قَالَ أَبُو سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِي: (وَلَا يُنْكِرُ بَعْدَ هَذَا مُنْكِرٌ أَبَدًا " ورواه عبد الرزاق بسند صحيح على شرط مسلم

The Hadith is Sahih under the Conditions of Muslim.

وَحَدَّثَنِي إِسْحَاقُ، وَبَكْرُ بْنُ الْهَيْثَمِ، قَالا: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّازِقِ بْنُ هَمَّامٍ، أَنْبَأَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ طَاوُسٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ، قَالَ: كُنْتُ عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ فَقَالَ: ” يَطْلُعُ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ هَذَا الْفَجِّ رَجُلٌ يَمُوتُ عَلَى غَيْرِ مِلَّتِي. قَالَ: وَكُنْتُ تَرَكْتُ أَبِي قَدْ وُضِعَ لَهُ وَضُوءٌ، فَكُنْتُ كَحَابِسِ الْبَوْلِ مَخَافَةَ أَنْ يَجِيءَ. قَالَ: فَطَلَعَ مُعَاوِيَةُ، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ: هُوَ هَذَا”

Ansab al Ashraf, by al Baludhuri
 

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al a’as (la) that he was with the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), He (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (then) said, “An man will come from this path and he will die not on my religion.”...Then came (from the path) Muawiya (la). So the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said “him.”

Hassan Ibn Farhan al Maliki (May Allah help him) says in his Book “Mathalib Muawiya Ibn Abi Sufyan bil Asaneed al Sahiha” that this Hadith has been narrated with strong chains.

So if you like Muawiya, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Will you put you where he is going.

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
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...