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
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

This guy Mirza seems to be unacceptable by majority of Sunnis.

I quoted Bukhari and Muslim, and you raised question marks on Mirza in return? I was unaware that Bukhari and Muslim are controversial books among sunnis too.

Read the ahadith in question, and reflect.

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 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

the following excerpt from Wikipedia explains it

As someone in Pakistan, living among the people of Pakistan, I'll explain it more clearly.

Mirza isn't controversial amongst sunnis because of his descriptions of Mamu Jaan Mu'awiya, or his descriptions from authentic sunni books about Ghadeer, Thaqlain, Jamal, and Siffin.

He's controversial amongst sunnis (mostly Barelvis) because he has exposed quite a bit of heresies in their books; some of it exceeds what was said by Ghulam Ahmad Mirza. In fact, back in the heyday, Qadianis actually used these books to defend their position. It took some Shia scholars to actually make a solid case against them. He has attacked Sufi saints based on widespread Barelvi positions, and words in their books that are actually indefensible.

He was arrested about some comments on two of the most respected modern Barelvi scholars (and he was actually released because they couldn't make a case against him).

So again. Read the sunni books, unless of course you want to go the munkar e hadith path (aka nasibis).

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

I quoted Bukhari and Muslim, and you raised question marks on Mirza in return? I was unaware that Bukhari and Muslim are controversial books among sunnis too.

Read the ahadith in question, and reflect.

Do you know what it means to be a traditionalist?  Do you know how that is different from your modern day salafi?  A salafi doesn't follow a madhab in jurisprudence (i mean the 4 Sunni madhabs).  Do you know why that is?

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I think a better example, at least from the indian subcontinent region, would have been Mawdudi. 

Some other contemporary examples:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/links/pro-alid-sunnis-المنزهون من اهل الحديث

I am sorry, Maududi doesn't fit the bill.  Excuse my ignorance.  I was thinking he was among the classical authors.  But he isn't: This is why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul_A'la_Maududi

Abul A'la Maududi (Urdu: ابو الاعلی مودودی‎, Abul Alā Mawdūdī – alternative spellings of last name Maudoodi, Mawdudi; 25 September 1903 – 22 September 1979) was a colonial Indian and Pakistani Islamist, Muslim philosopher, jurist, historian, journalist, activist and scholar.[1] Described by Wilfred Cantwell Smith as "the most systematic thinker of modern Islam",[2] his numerous works, which "covered a range of disciplines such as Qur’anic exegesis, hadith, law, philosophy and history",[3] were written in Urdu, but then translated into English, Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Burmese, Malayalam and many other languages.[4] He sought to revive Islam,[5] and to propagate what he understood to be "true Islam".[6] He believed that Islam was essential for politics, and that it was necessary to institute sharia and preserve Islamic culture similar to the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb and abandon immorality, from what he viewed as the evils of secularism, nationalism and socialism, which he understood to be the influence of Western imperialism.[7]

He was the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, the then largest Islamic organisation in Asia.[8][9][10] At the time of the Indian independence movement, Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Isami actively worked to oppose the partition of India.[11][12][13] After it occurred, Maududi and his followers shifted their focus to politicizing Islam and generating support for making Pakistan an Islamic state.[14] They are thought to have helped inspire General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq to introduce "Sharization" to Pakistan,[15] and to have been greatly strengthened by him after tens of thousands of members and sympathizers were given jobs in the judiciary and civil service during his administration.[16] He was the first recipient of the Saudi Arabian King Faisal International Award for his service to Islam in 1979.[17] Maududi was part of establishing and running of Islamic University of Madinah, Saudi Arabia.[18]

He was the second person in history whose absentee funeral was observed in the Kaaba, after King Ashama ibn-Abjar.[4][9]

......................................................

But what does he say anyway....

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

As someone in Pakistan, living among the people of Pakistan, I'll explain it more clearly.

Mirza isn't controversial amongst sunnis because of his descriptions of Mamu Jaan Mu'awiya, or his descriptions from authentic sunni books about Ghadeer, Thaqlain, Jamal, and Siffin.

He's controversial amongst sunnis (mostly Barelvis) because he has exposed quite a bit of heresies in their books; some of it exceeds what was said by Ghulam Ahmad Mirza. In fact, back in the heyday, Qadianis actually used these books to defend their position. It took some Shia scholars to actually make a solid case against them. He has attacked Sufi saints based on widespread Barelvi positions, and words in their books that are actually indefensible.

He was arrested about some comments on two of the most respected modern Barelvi scholars (and he was actually released because they couldn't make a case against him).

So again. Read the sunni books, unless of course you want to go the munkar e hadith path (aka nasibis).

Sounds pretty controversial to me.  If he isn't all that controversial as far as his views on Muawiyyah are concerned then I am guessing you should be able to name another scholar that follows a tradition of teachers.  

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

Do you know what it means to be a traditionalist?  Do you know how that is different from your modern day salafi?  A salafi doesn't follow a madhab in jurisprudence (i mean the 4 Sunni madhabs).  Do you know why that is?

Deflection. Interesting that you'd choose to bring up the salafi in a discussion about the mainstream sunni view; remember my previous posts about how salafis (the minority 'sunnis') love this guy?

Have you read the ahadith in question?

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

Deflection. Interesting that you'd choose to bring up the salafi in a discussion about the mainstream sunni view; remember my previous posts about how salafis (the minority 'sunnis') love this guy?

Have you read the ahadith in question?

You are deflecting.  Just a making sure we are on the same page.  So please answer.  Ty

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

I don’t accept your Shia narrative.  

A truth is a truth irrespective of being Shia or Sunni. 

17 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Is this what Sunnis generally accept and believe?  Is this what you are saying?  If so, I would be interested in knowing of traditional Sunni scholars who also accept some of your statements above about what Muawiyyah has done (as per Shia narrative).

I think you would accept Molana Mowdudi's narrative. He wrote a whole book خلافت اور ملوکیت (Caliphate & Monarchy). In that book, you will find Mowdudi criticized on Muawiyah's act of nominating Yazeed as caliph.

This act of Muawiyah alone is against the Ijma'a we have seen in Abu Bakar's appointment, Consultation which we have seen in Umar's appointment, Council or Comittee we have seen in Usman's appointment and again ijma'a on Imam Ali (عليه السلام) appointment & Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) appointment. Even this ijma'a has been seen in the appointment of Muawiyah himself who took the charge after signing a peace treaty. 

So I said Muawiyah was neither from sabiqoon al awwaloon because he never accepted the invitation of Islam in the beginning, never fought the wars like Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Khyber, Hunayn etc. 

He also never followed the sabiqoon al awwaloon in true letter & spirit. One of its evidence is the appointment of Yazeed which converted the caliphate into monarchy as per Mowdudi. 

17 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

We are just interested in knowing what the respective narratives are.

You may get benefit of doubt from Sunni side on the wars he fought with Imam Ali (عليه السلام), you may find his act  marked as "khata e ijtihadi". But not the appointment of Yazid, that was not the khata e ijtihadi. 

Most Sunni criticize Muawiyah and his acts, what he has done. They only avoid cursing him & place (رضي الله عنه) after his name because:

(Sunni narrative):

a) He was a companion

b) and is no longer alive.

c) God will judge him

d) its not for us to curse him or to judge him.

I cannot accept this narrative and I hope you can see major problems if we hold this principle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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.” 
 

So Muawiya fought the Haq. How can a man claim to be on Haq when he is fighting the walking Truth, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (عليهم السلام)? 
 

Jabir Ibn Abdullah Al Ansari (رضي الله عنه) said, The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said, “If you like/love the actions of a group then it is as if you have done that action.”

Maqtal al Husayn, Abdul Zahra al Ka’bi.

If you follow Muawiya and you think it was just a misunderstanding then Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will send you where Muawiya is going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, Cool said:

A truth is a truth irrespective of being Shia or Sunni. 
 

it depends what It means for something to be “true”.

Quote

I think you would accept Molana Mowdudi's narrative. He wrote a whole book خلافت اور ملوکیت (Caliphate & Monarchy). In that book, you will find Mowdudi criticized on Muawiyah's act of nominating Yazeed as caliph.
 

Alright.

Quote

This act of Muawiyah alone is against the Ijma'a we have seen in Abu Bakar's appointment, Consultation which we have seen in Umar's appointment, Council or Comittee we have seen in Usman's appointment and again ijma'a on Imam Ali (عليه السلام) appointment & Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) appointment. Even this ijma'a has been seen in the appointment of Muawiyah himself who took the charge after signing a peace treaty. 

So I said Muawiyah was neither from sabiqoon al awwaloon because he never accepted the invitation of Islam in the beginning, never fought the wars like Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Khyber, Hunayn etc. 

Here, are you mixing Maududi’s point of view with your point of view?  Does Maududi say Muawiyyah never accepted Islam?

Quote

He also never followed the sabiqoon al awwaloon in true letter & spirit. One of its evidence is the appointment of Yazeed which converted the caliphate into monarchy as per Mowdudi. 
 

So Maududi says he never followed the Sabiqun in letter and in spirit...?

 

Quote

You may get benefit of doubt from Sunni side on the wars he fought with Imam Ali (عليه السلام), you may find his act  marked as "khata e ijtihadi". But not the appointment of Yazid, that was not the khata e ijtihadi. 
 

so according to Maududi this act of appointing Yazid makes Muawiyyah a non-Muslim?  

 

Quote

Most Sunni criticize Muawiyah and his acts, what he has done. They only avoid cursing him & place (رضي الله عنه) after his name because:

(Sunni narrative):

a) He was a companion

I think you succinctly put it!  I accept this completely.  This is precisely why I follow the Sunni narrative over the Shia narrative.  This first point for example is a major thing for me because it makes me feel closer to the  Prophet (S).  God raised the companions of the Prophet (S) not by virtue of the companions themselves but by virtue of the Prophet (S).  This is what I find to be very valuable.  

Quote

 

c) God will judge him

This applies everywhere and to everyone.  Only God judges people. We, however, can only discern between a good action and a bad action.  This is an important spiritual attitude to have.  This is another reason why I follow the Sunni narrative.  

 

Quote

d) its not for us to curse him or to judge him.
 

right.  Which follows from the above point.  

Quote

I cannot accept this narrative and I hope you can see major problems if we hold this principle. 

I hope you can see the major problems in NOT accepting this Sunni narrative  I was Shia before...  and i used to accept the Shia narrative by default.  And over the years, I have started to see that the Shia narrative creates a toxic atmosphere that is not spiritually conducive to me: 

 

the important thing is that YOU find it spiritually beneficial to curse Yazid (apparently).  Alright then do whatever makes you feel spiritually healthy. If you truly find it beneficial to judge others then fine... continue! 
I don’t find this to me healthy. It feels suffocating actually.  I only realized how suffocating it was when I started to accept the Sunni narrative more and more.

 In any case, We can agree to disagree. 
:)

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

If you truly find it beneficial to judge others then fine... continue! 

Judging others is very horrible thing, but it is not right to say that it should include everything about the person. If someone is open fasiq or kafir, then we need to do something about it without we fall to judging false thing about the person.  This is something that is commonly founded in Sunni and Shia Narratives.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
59 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Judging others is very horrible thing, but it is not right to say that it should include everything about the person. If someone is open fasiq or kafir, then we need to do something about it without we fall to judging false thing about the person.  This is something that is commonly founded in Sunni and Shia Narratives

Bro, get the hint.

Jews in Madina started worshipping idols and ally with polytheists in their blind hate against Muslims.

Saudis would rather ally themselves with Israel because of their blind hate against Iran.

Ex Deobandi atheists will say and believe anything. Anything. As long as it feeds their mental bias against Islam. All because their daddy would make them pray salat regularly when they were a kid.

Ex shia atheists will believe support and believe any narrative that supports their hatred of shia's and the Jafari faith. They will kiss up to Mamu Jaan Muawiya/ cousin Yazid's lovers if it means that they can (in their mind) stroke their bias against shias.

No need to reason with them in a rational way. No need to present "both sides of the coin". Their rationality is just a facade. Either ignore them, or call them out in these threads. Simple.

 

 

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

No need to reason with them in a rational way. No need to present "both sides of the coin". Their rationality is just a facade. Either ignore them, or call them out in these threads. Simple.

Unfortunately this happen often for those who were ex-something, always showing hatred for their old ways.

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

Here, are you mixing Maududi’s point of view with your point of view?  Does Maududi say Muawiyyah never accepted Islam?

I have clearly presented what Mowdudi wrote. 

Neither Mowdudi nor I say that Muawiyah never accepted Islam. 

I have separately added my view as an explanation of what I said about Muawiyah:

Quote

This act of Muawiyah alone is against the Ijma'a we have seen in Abu Bakar's appointment, Consultation which we have seen in Umar's appointment, Council or Comittee we have seen in Usman's appointment and again ijma'a on Imam Ali (عليه السلام) appointment & Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) appointment. Even this ijma'a has been seen in the appointment of Muawiyah himself who took the charge after signing a peace treaty. 

So I said Muawiyah was neither from sabiqoon al awwaloon because he never accepted the invitation of Islam in the beginning, never fought the wars like Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Khyber, Hunayn etc. 

 

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

so according to Maududi this act of appointing Yazid makes Muawiyyah a non-Muslim?  

He clearly mentioned it an act of turning caliphate into monarchy. And here is precisely where Muawiyah is proved to have not followed the Rashidun Caliphs (which, according to Sunni's were sabiqoon).

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

God raised the companions of the Prophet (S) not by virtue of the companions themselves but by virtue of the Prophet (S).

If you just look at the definition of "Companions" Sunni's have, and the read the verses of Quran, you will find them contradicting each other. 

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

This applies everywhere and to everyone.  Only God judges people. We, however, can only discern between a good action and a bad action.  This is an important spiritual attitude to have.  This is another reason why I follow the Sunni narrative.  

So this means there is neither truth nor falsehood in the history. We just read the history and cannot "decide" who were truthful and who were liars. All are (رضي الله عنه), the killed & the killer as well. And more ridiculous would be that if we follow both.

أَفَلَمْ يَسِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا أَوْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا فَإِنَّهَا لَا تَعْمَى الْأَبْصَارُ وَلَكِن تَعْمَى الْقُلُوبُ الَّتِي فِي الصُّدُورِ

22:46 Have they, then, never journeyed about the earth, letting their hearts gain wisdom, and causing their ears to hear? Yet, verily, it is not their eyes that have become blind - but blind have become the hearts that are in their breasts!

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

hope you can see the major problems in NOT accepting this Sunni narrative 

In any dispute between two parties, both of them cannot be on haqq. This is the very basic parameter.

Now start from Fadak to Jamal to Siffin to Naherwan to Hassan-Muawiyah Peace treaty to Karbala. If all is well for you and everyone is (رضي الله عنه) for you, then I am obviously cannot accept such narrative. Because I have been feed with the ability to distinguish between truth & falsehood. 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ اتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَكُونُواْ مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ

9:119 

Who is Sadiq for you @eThErEaL, Muawiyah or Ali (عليه السلام)? 

Find the answer of this question & كُونُواْ with the truthful one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Cool said:

I have clearly presented what Mowdudi wrote. 

Neither Mowdudi nor I say that Muawiyah never accepted Islam. 

I have separately added my view as an explanation of what I said about Muawiyah:

So those were your additions as I thought.  Which is where your personal judgement comes into play.  In other words this is where your narrative comes to play which is based on judging people rather THAN just their actions.  

Quote

He clearly mentioned it an act of turning caliphate into monarchy. And here is precisely where Muawiyah is proved to have not followed the Rashidun Caliphs (which, according to Sunni's were sabiqoon)

yes. That is what he did which is wrong.  This is where right and wrong comes into play for us.  We can judge that this and that action is right or wrong.  But you are going a step further and casting judgement on the fate of a person and his heart.  Do you see the difference?  

Quote

So this means there is neither truth nor falsehood in the history

there is.  This is why Maududi can say “Such and such a person was wrong or right to have done such and such”  but this doesn’t mean we can say, he is not a Muslim anymore unless he or she explicitly says so.  Again, do you see the difference between judging actions verses judging intentions?  

 

Quote

 

. We just read the history and cannot "decide" who were truthful and who were liars. All are (رضي الله عنه), the killed & the killer as well. And more ridiculous would be that if we follow both.

أَفَلَمْ يَسِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا أَوْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا فَإِنَّهَا لَا تَعْمَى الْأَبْصَارُ وَلَكِن تَعْمَى الْقُلُوبُ الَّتِي فِي الصُّدُورِ

22:46 Have they, then, never journeyed about the earth, letting their hearts gain wisdom, and causing their ears to hear? Yet, verily, it is not their eyes that have become blind - but blind have become the hearts that are in their breasts!

In any dispute between two parties, both of them cannot be on haqq. This is the very basic parameter.

Now start from Fadak to Jamal to Siffin to Naherwan to Hassan-Muawiyah Peace treaty to Karbala. If all is well for you and everyone is (رضي الله عنه) for you, then I am obviously cannot accept such narrative. Because I have been feed with the ability to distinguish between truth & falsehood. 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ اتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَكُونُواْ مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ

9:119 

Who is Sadiq for you @eThErEaL, Muawiyah or Ali (عليه السلام)? 

Find the answer of this question & كُونُواْ with the truthful one.

So all Sunnis agree that in the battle of Siffin and Jamal Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was doing the right thing while Muawiyyah and Aisha (رضي الله عنه) were wrong.  This is with regards to specific actions.  Sunnis don’t cast judgement on the person, just on specific actions.  Do you see the difference?

If tomorrow I see you womanizing and drinking alcohol, do I have the right to assume you are no longer interested in Religion and that you are outside the fold of Islam?  Can a killer, for example, Wahshi (who killed Hamza (ra)) not somehow be redeemed?  in the Sunni narrative, Wahahi’s story is a story of hope and mercy for every single sinner.  That Wahshi ultimately entered the folds of Islam and was later on redeemed by his killing of the false prophet, “Musaylama” during a battle (we assume the best not the worst, but we admit that only God knows best).  
 

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

In other words this is where your narrative comes to play which is based on judging people rather THAN just their actions.  

We cannot judge people, can we? We can judge their actions. And some actions of people are so low that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), His angels & people, all curse them. 

10 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

This is where right and wrong comes into play for us.  We can judge that this and that action is right or wrong.  But you are going a step further and casting judgement on the fate of a person and his heart

:) So I must erase from my memory the ahadith like these:

أنا حرب لمن حاربكم ، وسلم لمن سالمكم

انهم منى و انا منهم

حسين منى و انا من حسين

So the one who fought war with Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and died in a state while he was ruining the treaty by appointing a fasiq o fajir as caliph of Muslims, is eligible for your prayers like (رضي الله عنه)? He is eligible for your curses.

20 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

but this doesn’t mean we can say, he is not a Muslim anymore unless he or she explicitly says so.

Great, so lets see what happened with Malik bin Nuwerah. He was declared as apostate & beheaded on spot. He was claiming that he was a Muslim and there were witnesses in favor of his claim. Who "judged" him as apostate? 

We can surely say a person who is a Muslim and hate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as munafiq. This is in accordance with the unanimously accepted narration of holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

24 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Sunnis don’t cast judgement on the person, just on specific actions.  Do you see the difference?

Yes I know, and I also know why they think like that. That's why I place "haqq shanasi" prior to "haqq parasti". 

 "علي مع الحقّ والحقّ مع علي"

اللهمّ أدر الحقّ معه حيث دار

32 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

tomorrow I see you womanizing and drinking alcohol, do I have the right to assume you are no longer interested in Religion and that you are outside the fold of Islam?

:) This example is not suitable for defending Muawiyah who ended up his life in violating/ruining his promises, by appointing Yazid as khalifatul Muslimeen. Believe me! 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Cool said:

We cannot judge people, can we? We can judge their actions. And some actions of people are so low that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), His angels & people, all curse them. 

:) So I must erase from my memory the ahadith like these:

أنا حرب لمن حاربكم ، وسلم لمن سالمكم

انهم منى و انا منهم

حسين منى و انا من حسين

Your application of this is wrong.  This statement is not meant for us to start judging specific individuals.  Do Sunnis see Muawiyyah as despising and hating the AHlul Bayt (عليه السلام)?  

3 minutes ago, Cool said:

So the one who fought war with Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and died in a state while he was ruining the treaty by appointing a fasiq o fajir as caliph of Muslims, is eligible for your prayers like (رضي الله عنه)? He is eligible for your curses.

We can judge that action, you can't go further than that.  You are also adding in a lot of your own interpretation, like Muawiyyah intended to appoint "a fasiq".  No, how do you know that is what Muawiyyah intended?  That his intention was he wants "a fasiq" to be the next leader?  

 

3 minutes ago, Cool said:

Great, so lets see what happened with Malik bin Nuwerah. He was declared as apostate & beheaded on spot. He was claiming that he was a Muslim and there were witnesses in favor of his claim. Who "judged" him as apostate?

First tell me of this narrative by traditional Sunni accounts.  

3 minutes ago, Cool said:

We can surely say a person who is a Muslim and hate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as munafiq. This is in accordance with the unanimously accepted narration of holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

But is it in accordance with the Sunni Narrative that Muawiyyah "hates Imam Ai (as)"?  

3 minutes ago, Cool said:

Yes I know, and I also know why they think like that. That's why I place "haqq shanasi" prior to "haqq parasti". 

I don'ts peak urdu or farsi.  sorry.

 

 

 

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

Do Sunnis see Muawiyyah as despising and hating the AHlul Bayt (عليه السلام)?  

Perhaps for them, it was the love of Muawiyah for Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) that he started the practice of cursing Imam Ali (عليه السلام).from the mosques. And started the killing of those who love Ali (عليه السلام), may he be any companion like Hujr bin Adi (رضي الله عنه)

11 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

We can judge that action, you can't go further than that.  You are also adding in a lot of your own interpretation, like Muawiyyah intended to appoint "a fasiq".  No, how do you know that is what Muawiyyah intended?  That his intention was he wants "a fasiq" to be the next leader?  

Actions speaks louder than words. It is that simple. 

12 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

First tell me of this narrative by traditional Sunni accounts.  

Please google

12 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

But is it in accordance with the Sunni Narrative that Muawiyyah "hates Imam Ai (as)"?  

They say he started the practice of cursing Imam Ali (عليه السلام) from mosques.

Look brother, the case & evidences against Muawiyah are so strong that you or Sunni's cannot defend him in any way. Any effort of defending the طاغوت will not only cause embarrassment for you but would also take you away from Sadiqeen. 

You are supposed to BE with the Sadiqeen.

12 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

don'ts peak urdu or farsi.  sorry.

Haqq Shanasi حق شناسی means identifying & recognizing the truth.

Haqq Parasti حق پرستی means submitting to/worshipping to the truth. 

So Sunni's don't (either don't try to or don't want to) recognize who Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was. If you put Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in place of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and see what Muawiyah did, what would be your opinion about Muawiyah then? 

We Shia's see Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as

1. Ulil Amr

2. As Mowla of believers

3. As Nafs of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

4. As certified Sadiq by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & Quran (according to Verse of Mubahila)

لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّونَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَوْ كَانُوا آبَاءهُمْ أَوْ أَبْنَاءهُمْ أَوْ إِخْوَانَهُمْ أَوْ عَشِيرَتَهُمْ 

58:22 Thou canst not find people who [truly] believe in God and the Last Day and [at the same time] love anyone who contends against God and His Apostle - even though they be their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or [others of] their kindred.

أُوْلَئِكَ كَتَبَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الْإِيمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُم بِرُوحٍ مِّنْهُ وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ أُوْلَئِكَ حِزْبُ اللَّهِ أَلَا إِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

58:22 [As for the true believers,] it is they in whose hearts He has inscribed faith, and whom He has strength­ened with inspiration from Himself, and whom [in time] He will admit into gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide. Well-pleased is God with them, and well-pleased are they with Him. They are Gods partisans: oh, verily, it is they, the partisans of God, who shall attain to a happy state!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@eThErEaL 

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ تَوَلَّوْا قَوْمًا غَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِم مَّا هُم مِّنكُمْ وَلَا مِنْهُمْ وَيَحْلِفُونَ عَلَى الْكَذِبِ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ

58:14 

Are you not aware @eThErEaL

 

ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا اتَّبَعُوا الْبَاطِلَ وَأَنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّبَعُوا الْحَقَّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ كَذَلِكَ يَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ أَمْثَالَهُمْ

47:3 This, because they who are bent on denying the truth pursue falsehood, whereas they who have attained to faith pursue [but] the truth [that flows] from their Sustainer. In this way does God set forth unto man the parables of their true state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
21 hours ago, Cool said:

أُوْلَئِكَ كَتَبَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الْإِيمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُم بِرُوحٍ مِّنْهُ وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ أُوْلَئِكَ حِزْبُ اللَّهِ أَلَا إِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

58:22 [As for the true believers,] it is they in whose hearts He has inscribed faith, and whom He has strength­ened with inspiration from Himself, and whom [in time] He will admit into gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide. Well-pleased is God with them, and well-pleased are they with Him. They are Gods partisans: oh, verily, it is they, the partisans of God, who shall attain to a happy state!

I like to add the following verses for the identification of Hizb Ullah in clear and certain manner:

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ
وَمَن يَتَوَلَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فَإِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْغَالِبُونَ

Only Allah is your Vali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.And whoever takes Allah and His messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant. (5:55-56)

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
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...