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

hadiths about mu'awya

Rate this topic


Guest hannibal

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Salaam Alaiqum,

Yaa Ali madad

of course i am only going to qoute bukharee just like you guys have been quting from your own books.

the example of umar (ra) was to show his taqwa whic was umars quality that was associated to him. all sahaba had one distuingised feature linked to him.

for u I have posted some threads to prove we use SUNNI Sources

Shud visit these threads -- ofcourse SUNNI sources r provided there

Topic "muawiya the accursed'' proved from sunni books

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=26631&hl=

Topic "Muaweyah was a DRUNKARD.(Imam Hanbel says).,'' Again sunni sources

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=57041&hl=

Topic ''MUAWIYAH BEGAN THE CURSING OF A SAHABAH, Historical Fact From Sunni Sahih Hadith"http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=73038&hl=

Topic"Muawiya binte Hind 'A historical introduction again sunni sources provided

The auther of this thread was banned and post removed from a well known munafiq forum

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=41954&hl=

Its all proved from sunni sources

No wonder sunnis ignore this threads

MUAWIYA IS PROVED MUNAFIQ FROM SUNNI SOURCES

1)Myth of Umar, Investigation

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=62888

2) Umar al Khattab Insulted the Prophet(s.a.w),

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42367

3)Are Uthman/Umar, the misguided Innovators?,

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17622

4)UMER says, Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough.,

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=51832

5) Special Question To Ahlul Sunnah

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70618

6) UMAR, innnovator in islam

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37767

7)Abu-Bakr and Umer Wished To Be, Bowle evacuation... !!!!

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45076

8) Question unanswered?, A simple question to Sunnis

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70914

9) RUNNING IN BATLLE, DOES IT APPLY HERE

(FYI its not offtopic -since it was umer who ran away from Islamic Battle Fields leaving the Holy Prophet Behind)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=59367

With Sunni sources provided in threads- Not surprising sunnis ignore these threads

Allah Hafiz

Yaa Ali Madad

Hussainyet Zindabad

yazeediyet murdabad

Firoz Ali

Edited by Firoz Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
so no sunni brother or salafi(kafir) has come forward ,good :)

Here are Salafi, called kafir and I waited one just shia to tell that person to respect himself, at least where shiachat laws says "unity" is required. Zareen, some boss over here as usual, witnessed that and ignored, Aliya ignored and said dont praise muwaya in other words. So its alright to call Salafi (Traditional Muslims, All Sunnis) kafir but praising Muwaiyah is not allowed.

Dont tell me that Salafis are not Sunnis, Arabic is my first language, I call myself Sunni (traditional) and I see Salafis (traditional Muslim) is also a Muslim and I know that they are the same. I also know the history of the Arab world, and Saudia particulary, and know when did the term Salafi came up and to which demographic its targeted, and who it refers to.

Although, I'm not a big fan of Muwiayah, beliving that there are many of the Prophet companion better than him, especially the first 4. I also live in a forgein country, I don't have much resources about him, with the help of Allah, I found enough about him in the books I have right now.

With All respect to Sayyid Qutob, may Allah accept him in heaven, he is not that authentic.

Al Hakim, is not one of the 12 shia Imam, to know everything that Allah knows. Not that I believe in that. He could know many stuff but also not know other stuff.

I read some sayings about Muawiyah, and I didn't copy them all here, because I believe that they are not that authentic too. With all respect to them.

Athahabi said in Sayyr A'laam An Nubala' ( The biography of the Best Nobles) - One of the most authentic history books in the Arab world:

"(He is) The prince of the believers the king of Islam"

Notice, my sunnis brothers , he says the prince of believers, and that was the nickname of Muwaiyah when he ruled, So to who said that he was the prince of the shia to, I say this is wrong because Muawiyah is the prince of the believers and not shia. Shia did not exist at that time, for the ones who stood with Imam Ali, may Allah be pleased with him were of two types, believers and Khawarij. The believers used to have the same creed that Sunni believe in today. Muwaiyah do not need shia today he is in heaven ( In sha' Allah) and before that he used to rule the strongest army of his time.

At Tahtawi said "The first Muslim king is Muawiyah, and he is the best Muslim king "

And this is my fav, from Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, may Allah accept him in heaven:

Al Bayhaqi narrated that Ahmed ibn Hanbal said "The Khalifahs are Abu Bakr, Omer, Othman and Ali." So he was asked "what about Muawiyah?" He replied "No one was better than Ali at the time of Ali, to be the Khalifah, may Allah forgive Muwaiyah"

Those who became believers after them say, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brethren who

preceded us to the faith, and keep our hearts from harboring any hatred towards those who

believed. Our Lord, You are Compassionate, Most Merciful." Quran 59:10

This is what I wish to see shia believe in, Although they disagree with us in terms of the Khalifah, yet they are not biased, they believe that Muawiyah was wrong at that time, but at the same time respect him for the other things he did. Or at least learn the morals of Ahl Al Bayt and not be of hatred and dirty tongues.

Ibn Asakr narrted that a man came to Arazi and said:

"I hate Muawiyah" so he said "and why?" "because he fought Ali" So Arazi said "Shame on you, the Lord of Muawiyah is merciful and the enemy of Muawiyah is a generous, so what interupt you between them?"

This is my second fav,

Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal was asked about what happened between Muawiyah and Ali, so he replied:

[2:134] Such is a community from the past. They are responsible for what they earned, and you are responsible for what you earned. You are not answerable for anything they have done. (Quran)

I have not mentioned Alot of hadiths about the sunni view of Muawiyah (Including a saying of ibn Al Abbas, and 2 of Omer ibn Abdel Aziz), and saying that there is no hadith about Muawiyah in sahih Muslim and Bukhari is not right, because there is 2 hadiths about him at least, in fact, in Al Bukhari there is section called " Fatha'el Muawiyah" and I wanted to show you that hadiths but, unfortunatly the Bukhari online verision is not complete.

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

salafis/wahhabis are NOT mainstream sunnis. they (salafis/wahhabis) are the ones who do takfir on everyone who believes differently than them, and have declared shia blood halal. so no, most ppl here, even mods, don't have an issue with calling them out as being outside the mainstream, and even the enemies of Muslims (shias AND sunnis) for they are dangerous to Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
salafis/wahhabis are NOT mainstream sunnis. they (salafis/wahhabis) are the ones who do takfir on everyone who believes differently than them, and have declared shia blood halal. so no, most ppl here, even mods, don't have an issue with calling them out as being outside the mainstream, and even the enemies of Muslims (shias AND sunnis) for they are dangerous to Islam.

Salafis/Wahabis are the mainstream of Islam and not Sunnis.

At at time when Muslims in Saudia Arabia, used to pray alone the the holy mosques, Shafe'ees praying at a corner, Maliki in a corner, and Hanafi and Hanbli in other corners. Mohammed Ibn Abdel Wahab came , and we are all traditional Muslims, you follow the fiqh (and not mathhab) of Malik, others of Abu Hanifah, and I follow the teachings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, so we all follow the teachings of the Salaf (those who have passed before us) and they are the Salaf of the best Salaf (Mohammed and his companions) so we have a lot in common and we should all pray togather. Like that the unity of the sunnah became under the term of Salaf. Thats why when you hear religious verdict or lectures in Arabic you hear the lecterur saying "Once a Salaf said..." "The Salaf did this and this..." etc...

Mohammed ibn Abdel Wahab, is highly respected in the Arab gulf, Ive read a book called "Islam and politices" which says good thing about the man, written by a non Muslim.

If you read his private messeges, once a person asked him you say muslims are kafir, so he replied "I say to them come to the book of Allah and his Messenger, dont listen to me listen to what Allah and the Sunnah (tradition) says"

He also wrote his famous book At Tawheed (Monotheism) in Al Basra, he left Najd to Al Basra just because he saw people over not practising the right Islam. If you read that book he only says Allah said... the Messenger of Allah said... no explanation. Just the collection of Allah words, and the Prophets saying on Montheism.

His nickname is (Abu Ali), the father of Ali, because Arabs call their sons the names they like, If they like a person, then they call their children the name of the person they like. His daughters name was Fatimah, his other 2 sons were Al Hassan and Al Hussian. I don't know a shia who did the same with his children.

There is no sect called Wahabi, its a Media word, if you ask any Shia give me an example of a modern Wahabi, they would say = Osamah. Mohammed ibn Abdel Wahab is a Hanbali, he is the student of Ahmed ibn Hanbal. Ahmed ibn Hanbal in his Osool book says that one should obey his governer to avoid mass blood shedding. This is what he explained from the Prophet saying that one should obey his ruler even if he cut his back. Abdel Wahab, worked with the government and implemented his belief. So how come Osamah, is a Wahabi ?

You dont find books on "how to be a good Wahabi" "The Wahabi Creed" "Wahabi fiqh" this is because Wahabism, is not a sect. Abdel Al Wahab once said "I call to Allah who has no partner, and I call for the tradition of Mohammed which he adviced the first and last of his I hope that I wont reject the truth when it comes to me, but accept it and put it in my eyes and on my head, and Ill throw whatever my teachers said to me, because I know that the Messenger of Allah says nothing the the truth" Ar Rasa'el Al Shakhseyah (The Private Messeges) 252/1

And those people who learned from Abdel Wahab and his teachers are very great authors in my openion, you can read the book "Dont be sad" by Ayeth Al Qarni, its translated into English and available online.

And listen to what his teachers used to pray "O Allah, if you accept a sucrificer for the sinners of Mohammeds nation, then make me their sucrificer" Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Ahmed ibn Hanbal: bayn mehnat ad deen wa mehnat ad donya, 175

"O Allah whoever is not in the right path, from this nation, while he/she thinks that he is, then let him back to the truth, so that he/she becomes from the people of the right path" Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Ahmed ibn Hanbal: bayn mehnat ad deen wa mehnat ad donya, 175

Ibn Taymiyyah also used to say that sunnis should not judge shia extremely, because from a hadith in sunnis books, that a man asked his people to burn him and shatter his body parts when he is dead, so when Allah asked that person why did he asked for this, he said that he is afraid of his punishment , so Allah forgived him. So ibn taymiyyahs point was not sunnis who judge, its Allah, an as long as the shia is faithful, and wasnt from the scholars of curroption, then who knows, maybe Allah would forgive him/her ?

To avoid being biased, I say that Also ibn taymiyyah said that Shia scholars lie a too much, and I have seen the lies that spreads about him by shia in this forum twice.

Notice ibn taymiyyah is also accused of being a Wahabi( He is an Hanbali to), although he lived before Mohammed ibn Abdel Wahab, and you can check that in this post of ibn Taymiyyah.

About the people who consider Shia as disbelievers, then we call them Takfir's if they really did. Recently a very old fatwa of Abdullah ibn jabreen one of the biggest scholars of saudia arabia has been raised (by shia) and said that he said that hizbullah are kafirs, he replied and said he didnt say that about hizbullah but about who narrates that the Quran is not complete and has been edited by the Prophet companions. Then As Saffar the shia scholar of Saudia, said that shia too believe that their countries fellow are Muslims, with not exception.

Edited by ugllyllion
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
^ thanks panzerwaffe :) I have contacted Umar via pm about the closed topic, so I hope there will be no further questions concerning why it was closed (as to do so publicly is a rule violation, but I'm letting it go this once), and pointing out the questions that were answered (many times over).

As for Muawiya (LA) history speaks for itself, and I have yet to see ANYTHING brought by the non-shia side that show him to be a decent moral, pious human being worthy of praise or respect. In fact, we see quite the opposite.

Abdullah ibn Abbas says that Muawiyah is a Faqeeh (knoweldgable concerning religion)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
what do you guys think of yazeed bin abi sufyan(yazeed i) and muawiyah bin yazeed(muawiyah ii)?

muawiyah b yazid was a mild natured man and was apologetic for the crimes committed by his forfathers may Allah have mercy on him

Yazid b muawiyah was just another ummayyed aristocrat ...I think he was the governer before muawiyah of syria ....nothing particularly bad that i know about him although it is unlikely that would have behaved any differently than his brother had he lived

He used to be the governer of Syria, before Muawiyah, he was also martyred in one of the wars. He is also viewed better than Muawiyah, ibn Taymiyyah said "Ali was better than Muawiyah, and his brother, who was better than him" meaning Yazib ibn Abu Suffyan was better than Muawiyahn ibn Abu Suffyan.

And Allah knows best.

Ali (as) says that Muawiya (LA) is an apostate and should be killed... guess whose word I'm going to give more weight to???

Aliya:

As for Muawiya history speaks for itself, and I have yet to see ANYTHING brought by the non-shia side that show him to be a decent moral, pious human being worthy of praise or respect. In fact, we see quite the opposite.

ugllyllion:

Abdullah ibn Abbas says that Muawiyah is a Faqeeh (knoweldgable concerning religion)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If "Ummah" have leaders like umar and muavia, i would rather be a kaffir than a muslim... because such ummah is bound to hell.

you should be ashamed of such a shameful statement. no one should rather wish eternal misery in the hereafter. say astaghfaar

Here are Salafi, called kafir and I waited one just shia to tell that person to respect himself, at least where shiachat laws says "unity" is required. Zareen, some boss over here as usual, witnessed that and ignored, Aliya ignored and said dont praise muwaya in other words. So its alright to call Salafi (Traditional Muslims, All Sunnis) kafir but praising Muwaiyah is not allowed.

excellent point bro

Ali (as) says that Muawiya (LA) is an apostate and should be killed... guess whose word I'm going to give more weight to???

where is the proof. i reject all the "sayings" of ali (ra) about muawiyah in the shia ahaadith.it all sounds a bit too convenient. if what you are saying is true then surely muawiyah would have killed hassan (ra) hussain (ra) when he was the caliph. but he didnt, which shows your allegations are utterly false.

salafis/wahhabis are NOT mainstream sunnis. they (salafis/wahhabis) are the ones who do takfir on everyone who believes differently than them, and have declared shia blood halal. so no, most ppl here, even mods, don't have an issue with calling them out as being outside the mainstream, and even the enemies of Muslims (shias AND sunnis) for they are dangerous to Islam.

sis aliya there is no difference between wahabi,salafi,sunni,deobandi.....................

wahabi is a term used by jaahil sunnis, shias, americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

umar, we've been over this. Muawiya (LA) DID have imam Hasan (as) killed, and put his son into power (in violation of the treaty he signed with Imam Hasan (as)) which led to Imam Husain (as) being killed. I already addressed this in post #22

As for the "hadith", they're not hadith, they're letters to Muawiya (LA) from Imam Ali (as) taken from Nahj Al-Balaghah (available online at www.al-islam.org). just because you don't like them or what they say doesn't make them false :dry:

Edited by Aliya
Link to post
Share on other sites
umar, we've been over this. Muawiya (LA) DID have imam Hasan (as) killed, and put his son into power (in violation of the treaty he signed with Imam Hasan (as)) which led to Imam Husain (as) being killed.

As for the "hadith", they're not hadith, they're letters to Muawiya (LA) from Imam Ali (as) taken from Nahj Al-Balaghah (available online at www.al-islam.org). just because you don't like them or what they say doesn't make them false :dry:

the sunni sites show evidence that muawiyah didnot kill hassan (ra). that is just your accusation, even some of your shia scholars admit that muawiyah didnt kill hussain (ra) but he implied yazeed may have organised the killing. hussain (ra) asked his brother hassan (ra) who poisened him, he did not reply with muawiyah nor yazeeds name. this shows he was unsure.

with this in mind, if muawiyah was so bad that some of you guys would rather go jahanam than be under his caliphah, surely he would have SLAUGHTERED/BUTCHERED ALL of the ahlebait rather than resorting to devious tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

i agree with you on umar bin abdul aziz (ra) but of course i must disagree with you on muawiyah. umar bin abdul aziz (ra) himself preserved the ummayah masjid in damascus and refused to criticise nor condone muawiyah. he was the first one to give an example that a son should be neutral in the event of his parents arguing and used this on ali (ra) and muawiyah.

that is why he lived so long and ruled ..otherwise he would have ended up like the son of yazid ...given the circumstances I find it hard to disagree with him but his clear disapproval of muawiyahs rule is reflected in his lifestyle and his attitude towards the shias and kharijites.If he condemned muawiyah openly he would have alienated the ummayyads too much whose legitmacy depended on it

i must make one point clear, i dont support muawiyah over ali (ra) nor do i support ali (ra) over muawiyah. their disagreement was between them and they shall answer to Allah swt. i believe that if a sahabi made mistakes, it was not done out of hate or on purpose but with the best of intentions.

what makes you so optimistic ...esp. someone with a record like muawiyah with regards to early converts maybe we can take a more leniant view

the mainstream sunnis agree on this, the biigest ulema from saudi to egypt to pakistan to india are unanimous on their views on the sahaba including muawiyah. if you dont believe me then go to the sunni websites and check yourselves.

I was talking about early sunni historians and Tabaeen not present day sunnis

there are numerous ayahs in the quran refering to the courage of the sahaba. abu bakr (ra) was mentioned when he was in the cave with the prophet (pbuh).

And I dont doubt for a second the courage,devotion, piety and bravery of many companions of the Prophet(pbuh) however no quranic verse absolves ALL of them of any blame ...infact many quranic verses severely reprimands some of them at times

however the main source is in the ahadiths of the prophet (pbuh) where there are book written by our sunni ulama abouth the virtues of the companions based purely on the sayings of the prophet (pbuh)

Hadith is something we can argue on all day esp. when bukhari is full of ayesha and abuhuraira's narrations whose political affliations are too wellknown to be trusted completely

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

Umar, you make claims and don't bring ANY proof to back them up... I brought proof of what imam Ali (as) said about him, history shows he broke the treaty with Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Husain (as), and that those actions led to the events at Kerbala, so.... it's this unwillingness to treat good and evil as being different and UNEQUAL that is the main problem with sunni religion. Qur'an tells us over and over to enjoin good and forbid evil, that good and evil CANNOT be equal, etc. and yet, just because someone lived at the same time as the prophet (pbuh) they are excused of all sins and errors according to you guys, which is just so beyond the realm of reason, logic, and what Qur'an states, it's enbelievable.

I reiterate the quote of Imam Ali (as) I cited in a previous post in this thread

[For those who refused to side with any party, Imam Ali or his enemies, Imam Ali (as)said]: "They have forsaken religion and are of no use to infidelity also. "

Edited by Aliya
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
the sunni sites show evidence that muawiyah didnot kill hassan (ra). that is just your accusation, even some of your shia scholars admit that muawiyah didnt kill hussain (ra) but he implied yazeed may have organised the killing. hussain (ra) asked his brother hassan (ra) who poisened him, he did not reply with muawiyah nor yazeeds name. this shows he was unsure.

with this in mind, if muawiyah was so bad that some of you guys would rather go jahanam than be under his caliphah, surely he would have SLAUGHTERED/BUTCHERED ALL of the ahlebait rather than resorting to devious tactics.

offcourse there are no forensics to prove anything for sure right now but a good number of scholars have blamed muawiyah for murders with poison like that of abdul rehman b khalid, abdulrehman b. abubakr, Malik Ashtar, Sa'd b abiwaqqas.Plus that is only a part of his crime the grts being causing fitna and shedding the blood of thousand of muslims there is not dispute about that

No I would live patiently under his caliphate like all thepious muslims eventually did...why should I opt for jahanum ???secondly muawiyah was not a hajjaj rather he kept the likes of him so that he can not be directly accused for murders ...but offcourse it was clear to everyone who was behind his murders

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Muawiyah the son of Abu Sufyan was an austute and shrewd politician unlike his son. He worked for his agenda and pursued it through various political tactics. . .the tactics which resemble American in the modern era.

He was responsible for murdering many from Ahl-e-Bait including Imam Hassan and some other major sahaaba as mentioned above in addition to Hujar bin Adee bin Hatim al-kindi and some scholars suspect that he was behind murdering Bibi Ayesha as well. Read the last days of Bibi Ayesha and how she violently opposed Muawiyah's actions and as a result got persecuted.

If Sunnis suspect everything, which has been written in their history books. . .Its their problem. Believe me, Hiding the historical facts will lead you nowhere my brothers. Even If he was so noble as some portray, one of his biggest crimes he committed was to abolish the Khilafah-e-Rashidah according to Sunni standards and nominated his son to be the next ruler thus setting the prime example for Muslims of the future generations to follow his footsteps which ended in the ultimate dictatorship and imperliasm in Islam. . . throwing Prophetic traditions and Islamic democracy on the wall. The dilemma continues to this day in the Arab world.

Wasslam

Edited by Jibran Haider
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

. Even If he was so noble as some portray, one of his biggest crimes he committed was to abolish the Khilafah-e-Rashidah according to Sunni standards and nominated his son to be the next ruler thus setting the prime example for Muslims of the future generations to follow his footsteps which ended in the ultimate dictatorship and imperliasm of the others throwing Prophetic traditions and Islamic democracy on the wall. The dilemma continues to this day in the Arab world.

Umar who is taken as the model caliph by sunnis has stressed again and again the concept of early merit in Islam ....yet muawiyah overruling everything appointed his son when many companions were still alive

Muawiyah the son of Abu Sufyan was an austute and shrewd politician unlike his son. He worked for his agenda and pursued it through various political tactics. . .

Wasslam

Exactly that is the only difference between yazid and muawiyah ......while yazid would apply brute force ..muawiyah waged war with bribery and treachery

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

Bismillah

Assalam o Alaikum

Muawiyyah Odering Marwan (his Governor) to make following Bidah

============================================

Here one very important and clear Proof of Misguidance of Muawiyyah, when he ordered Marwan for the following Innovation

Sahih Muslim wrote:

Book 001, Number 0079:

It is narrated on the authority of Tariq b. Shihab: It was Marwan who initiated (the practice) of delivering khutbah (address) before the prayer on the 'Id day. A man stood up and said: Prayer should precede khutbah. He (Marwan) remarked, This (practice) has been done away with. Upon this Abu Sa'id remarked: This man has performed (his duty) laid on him (by Muawiyyah). I heard the Messenger of Allah as saying: He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.

Note: Marwan made this innovation while when he used to curse Ahle Bait in the Sermon (after prayer of Eid), people used to leave him (as they didn't want to hear cursing against Ahle Bait). Looking at this, Marwan changed the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saw) on the orders of Muawiyyah (as Sa'ad bin Abi Waqas referred it as his duty from Muawiyyah).

Indeed what a big crime and big innovation was that, and may Allah's curse upon the innovators (Remember, all innovators are fuel of hell fire). Insha-Allah.

Was Salam.

PS: Thousands of Sahaba and Tabaeen were present there and didn't have the courage to stop this innovation. Were all of them doing Taqqyyah?

This was same Taqqyyah of majority of Sahaba, which they did in case of Declaration of Ghadeer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Umar, you make claims and don't bring ANY proof to back them up... I brought proof of what imam Ali (as) said about him, history shows he broke the treaty with Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Husain (as), and that those actions led to the events at Kerbala, so.... it's this unwillingness to treat good and evil as being different and UNEQUAL that is the main problem with sunni religion. Qur'an tells us over and over to enjoin good and forbid evil, that good and evil CANNOT be equal, etc. and yet, just because someone lived at the same time as the prophet (pbuh) they are excused of all sins and errors according to you guys, which is just so beyond the realm of reason, logic, and what Qur'an states, it's enbelievable.

I reiterate the quote of Imam Ali (as) I cited in a previous post in this thread

[For those who refused to side with any party, Imam Ali or his enemies, Imam Ali (as)said]: "They have forsaken religion and are of no use to infidelity also. "

if you read hayatus sahabah, you will see that the letters sent between ali (ra) and muawiyah did not include hatred. when ali (ra) sent a letter to muawiyah, first he called him "my cousin". when he told muawiyah the possible consequences of his actionsm muawyiahs reply was (bismillah) showing that this dispute was an honest dispute. muawiyah in his khutbah on juma, made it clear that he did not want to be caliph nor was he a better man than ali (ra) . ali (ra) in his khutbah said that both muawiyah and him had the same prophet and quran- showing that he was of the same opinion of muawiyah.

a man was cursing ali (ra) in the company of muawiyah and some of the sons of the sahaba ikram. muawiyah couldnt hear what he was saying one of the tabeens told him, muawiyah reprimanded the person who was cursing telling him the virtues of ali (ra) . this incident directly follows on to the story of muawiyah and ibn abi waqas proving that muawiyah didnt ask him out of hatred.

when ali (ra) was martered it was muawiyah who took retribution on his behalf. the sunni ulama say the reason why muawiyah appointed yazeed was not because it was his son. it was the people around him that told him he should appoint yazeed to pereserve the unity of the ummah. the people around him said that the people who were supporting the ahlebait (ra) were unreliable. there were much better people around than yazeed such as hussain (ra) . muawiyah explicitly told yazeed that if hussain (ra) was to oppose him then give the calipah over without fighting.

all this is in hayatus sahabah or ryadus saliheen. everything i say is not a personal opinion but whats based in the authentic books and the opinioins of our ulama.

can i ask you guys why did muawiyah marry a quaraplegic old waoman when he was in the prime of his life?

sis aliya what you and other shia must realise is that sunnis dont accept most of the sayings of the ahlibait (ra) in shia hadiths as authentic. because the sunni have shown up the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the shia hadiths(yet to be answered by shia ulama). mind if you read some of the other topics in this forum, even some of the shia have reservations abouth their own ahadith books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
if you read hayatus sahabah, you will see that the letters sent between ali (ra) and muawiyah did not include hatred. when ali (ra) sent a letter to muawiyah, first he called him "my cousin". when he told muawiyah the possible consequences of his actionsm muawyiahs reply was (bismillah) showing that this dispute was an honest dispute. muawiyah in his khutbah on juma, made it clear that he did not want to be caliph nor was he a better man than ali (ra) . ali (ra) in his khutbah said that both muawiyah and him had the same prophet and quran- showing that he was of the same opinion of muawiyah.

a man was cursing ali (ra) in the company of muawiyah and some of the sons of the sahaba ikram. muawiyah couldnt hear what he was saying one of the tabeens told him, muawiyah reprimanded the person who was cursing telling him the virtues of ali (ra) . this incident directly follows on to the story of muawiyah and ibn abi waqas proving that muawiyah didnt ask him out of hatred.

when ali (ra) was martered it was muawiyah who took retribution on his behalf. the sunni ulama say the reason why muawiyah appointed yazeed was not because it was his son. it was the people around him that told him he should appoint yazeed to pereserve the unity of the ummah. the people around him said that the people who were supporting the ahlebait (ra) were unreliable. there were much better people around than yazeed such as hussain (ra) . muawiyah explicitly told yazeed that if hussain (ra) was to oppose him then give the calipah over without fighting.

all this is in hayatus sahabah or ryadus saliheen. everything i say is not a personal opinion but whats based in the authentic books and the opinioins of our ulama.

can i ask you guys why did muawiyah marry a quaraplegic old waoman when he was in the prime of his life?

sis aliya what you and other shia must realise is that sunnis dont accept most of the sayings of the ahlibait (ra) in shia hadiths as authentic. because the sunni have shown up the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the shia hadiths(yet to be answered by shia ulama). mind if you read some of the other topics in this forum, even some of the shia have reservations abouth their own ahadith books.

Baarak Allah feek, you are right

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

:rolleyes: it never ceases to amaze me that you guys paint a picture of familial squabbles that could've been resolved over tea and cakes, when in fact the reality is WARS and DEATH of THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS. seems ppl like to either live in ignorant bliss thinking that all these wars and deaths were over simple matters and the principle players were duped into participation as a way to avoid holding the guilty parties accountable, OR willingly deny historical FACTS... as a way to avoid holding the guilty parties accountable (I think I see a pattern :angel:)

Of course the situation didn't start out at full fledged war, it was an escalation pushed on by Muawiya (LA), but you guys deny that too, I would suggest reading the letters included in Nahj Al-Balaghah (which I don't know of a single shia or shia scholar that has doubts about it's authenticity) and seeing the lengths Imam Ali (as) went to in an effort to bring Muawiya (LA) to the right path, to curtail Muawiya's (LA) insistance for war and his own political and worldly endeavors.

Funny, also, how on one hand you guys consider Muawiya (LA) to be this great leader and politician (astaghfirullah since this man was an apostate, and responsible for the deaths of members of Ahlul Bayt (as) as well as respected sahaba (ra)) and yet on the other hand paint him to be a spineless puppet for his advisers. I have news for you, the good leaders and politicians are NOT puppets for their advisers.

Edited by Aliya
Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes: it never ceases to amaze me that you guys paint a picture of familial squabbles that could've been resolved over tea and cakes, when in fact the reality is WARS and DEATH of THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS. seems ppl like to either live in ignorant bliss thinking that all these wars and deaths were over simple matters and the principle players were duped into participation as a way to avoid holding the guilty parties accountable, OR willingly deny historical FACTS... as a way to avoid holding the guilty parties accountable (I think I see a pattern :angel:)

Of course the situation didn't start out at full fledged war, it was an escalation pushed on by Muawiya (LA), but you guys deny that too, I would suggest reading the letters included in Nahj Al-Balaghah (which I don't know of a single shia or shia scholar that has doubts about it's authenticity) and seeing the lengths Imam Ali (as) went to in an effort to bring Muawiya (LA) to the right path, to curtail Muawiya's (LA) insistance for war and his own political and worldly endeavors.

Funny, also, how on one hand you guys consider Muawiya (LA) to be this great leader and politician (astaghfirullah since this man was an apostate, and responsible for the deaths of members of Ahlul Bayt (as) as well as respected sahaba (ra)) and yet on the other hand paint him to be a spineless puppet for his advisers. I have news for you, the good leaders and politicians are NOT puppets for their advisers.

the problem is not with sunnis view on muawiyah it the shia who have full hatred for the sahaba.muawiyah was not an apostate-thats another of your baseless accusations and was not responsible for any deaths of the ahlibait (ra) -again another of your baseless accusations. you guys are brainwashed with hatred for muawiyah.

i challenge you to read the sunni books on muawyah and compare the authenticity of the two views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

let's examine the differences

sunni view- the ummah was a utoipia, there were no disagreements, no wars, nothing based on any malice or error, but all the deaths in wars fought against the rightful caliph was based on minor little familial issues and bad advisors (though who these advisors were is a mystery since ALL the sahaba were good, so we must assume these advisors were not sahaba, and not muslim) that would've been sorted with discussion. EVERYONE is equal among the sahaba, none were better or worse than others... except the two shaikhs, who were above all the rest of the ummah, even to the point of being given authority of changing sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and being backed up by Allah (SWT) against what prophet (pbuh) had said, naudobillah.

shia view- there were good people and bad people in the ummah/among the sahaba. we seek to be near and emulate the GOOD people among the sahaba/ummah and we distance ourselves from (and disassociate ourselves from) the bad ppl among the sahaba/ummah. We accept that wars were fought, instigated and spurred on by the bad ppl, even though the imams (as) did everything in their power to guide to the right path and avoid bloodshed of innocents, and division in the ummah. We do not think that just because someone had a (self-proclaimed) title of caliph that they are above error or criticism, or should not have the TRUTH told about them, even when their acts were evil. We do not put as equals good ppl and evil ppl. we do not think the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as) can ever be equal or right against the Ahlul Bayt (as) (who are with Qur'an, and will not be separated from it).

so to sum up, one side believes in a utopia which never existed even according to their own books and the other side believes in the reality of a real world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

the problem is not with sunnis view on muawiyah it the shia who have full hatred for the sahaba.muawiyah was not an apostate-thats another of your baseless accusations and was not responsible for any deaths of the ahlibait (ra) -again another of your baseless accusations. you guys are brainwashed with hatred for muawiyah.

i challenge you to read the sunni books on muawyah and compare the authenticity of the two views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Baseless???.. he fully engaged in a war against Hadrat Ali(as).. what was he trying to do then??.. killing apostates (naudubillah)???.. making 'his land' fitna free?.. was he blind that he could not see the antics of his son?.. pitiless bureaucracy.. he is unworthy of praise of the sunnis.. you can't blame the shi3as for knocking him off the list of sahabas.. wassalaamun alaikum

Link to post
Share on other sites

sunni view- the era of the sahaba will be the best era ever for muslims as the prophet (pbuh) himself said many times. the sahaba were not infallible and could be prone to mistakes. but their mistakes were genuine and not sinister. some sahaba such as abu bakr (ra) umar (ra) usman (ra) ali (ra) were better than others. the companions had the best teacher certainly. they were all united under the prophet (pbuh) . there were no famliy squabbles or other petty squabbles. no muslim sunni/shia would disagree that the first 5 caliphs were the best of all the caliphs of all the history of muslims. why because they were the sahaba. with the exception umar bin abdul aziz (ra) the other calpihs that came after were not as pious. also not one action of the sahaba contradicted the sunnah,infact acts that were established during the caliphate such as taraweeh are also sunnah. the sahaba were the epitamy of the sunnah.

(salam)

Baseless???.. he fully engaged in a war against Hadrat Ali(as).. what was he trying to do then??.. killing apostates (naudubillah)???.. making 'his land' fitna free?.. was he blind that he could not see the antics of his son?.. pitiless bureaucracy.. he is unworthy of praise of the sunnis.. you can't blame the shi3as for knocking him off the list of sahabas.. wassalaamun alaikum

i honestly believe that if muawiyah had outright won the battle with ali (ra) he would not have harmed ali (ra) nor his family (ra) and the outcome would have been the same if ali (ra) had won outright-i.e ali (ra) would still be the caliph.their disagreement was not a personal or family issue neither.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

and yet we see "sahaba" and "mother of the believers" waging war against 1 of the first 5 caliphs...

and you didn't answer ANY of the points raised (such as who were the advisors, since ALL sahaba were good, that led their leaders into wars with Ali (as)), nor the fact that there are numerous hadith about SAHABA going astray after the Prophet (pbuh) here are just a few from Sahih Bukhari

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 578:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount." 'Abdullah added: The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You do not know what they did after you had left.'

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 584:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 585:

Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa'd:

The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come to me some people whom I will recognize, and they will recognize me, but a barrier will be placed between me and them." Abu Hazim added: An-Nu'man bin Abi 'Aiyash, on hearing me, said. "Did you hear this from Sahl?" I said, "Yes." He said, " I bear witness that I heard Abu Said Al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: 'I will say: They are of me (i.e. my followers). It will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you left'. I will say, 'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed (their religion) after me." Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord (those are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam)."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 586:

Narrated Ibn Al-Musaiyab:

The companions of the Prophet said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 587:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), 'Come along.' I asked, 'Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah' I asked, 'what is wrong with them' He said, 'They turned apostate as renegades after you left.' Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.' I asked, "Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.' I asked, What is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned apostate as renegades after you left. So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd."

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 592:

Narrated Asma 'bint Abu Bakr:

The Prophet said, "I will be standing at the Lake-Fount so that I will see whom among you will come to me; and some people will be taken away from me, and I will say, 'O Lord, (they are) from me and from my followers.' Then it will be said, 'Did you notice what they did after you? By Allah, they kept on turning on their heels (turned as renegades).' " The sub-narrator, Ibn Abi Mulaika said, "O Allah, we seek refuge with You from turning on our heels, or being put to trial in our religion."

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 172:

Narrated Asma':

The Prophet said, "I will be at my Lake-Fount (Kauthar) waiting for whoever will come to me. Then some people will be taken away from me whereupon I will say, 'My followers!' It will be said, 'You do not know they turned Apostates as renegades (deserted their religion).'" (Ibn Abi Mulaika said, "Allah, we seek refuge with You from turning on our heels from the (Islamic) religion and from being put to trial").

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 173:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar) and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174:

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:

I heard the Prophet saying, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar), and whoever will come to it, will drink from it, and whoever will drink from it, will never become thirsty after that. There will come to me some people whom I know and they know me, and then a barrier will be set up between me and them." Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri added that the Prophet further said: "I will say those people are from me. It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.' Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! "

for more info you can read here http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter4/2.html but ALL the hadiths quoted above were taken from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...ri/076.sbt.html which is NOT a shia site so insha'Allah it should carry some weight with you.

Another flaw with your reasoning about the sahaba, sunnis insist some of the innovations of Umar were not innovations at all but reinstatements of things practiced during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), so there is a disconnect about them being the best teachers, the best practicers of the Prophet's (pbuh) sunnah IF after less than 3 years (give or take a few) a number of practices had been forgotten/neglected by the majority of the ummah that Umar had to "reinstate" them. So either they were neglectful/forgetful in such a short period after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), OR Umar changed the sunnah, but the majority sahaba WERE reliable narrators so that hadith could be narrated from them HUNDREDS of years later... So far no sunni has addressed this point, and I've brought it up on a number of threads now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Bismillah

Assalam o Alaikum

Muawiyyah Odering Marwan (his Governor) to make following Bidah

============================================

Here one very important and clear Proof of Misguidance of Muawiyyah, when he ordered Marwan for the following Innovation

Sahih Muslim wrote:

Book 001, Number 0079:

It is narrated on the authority of Tariq b. Shihab: It was Marwan who initiated (the practice) of delivering khutbah (address) before the prayer on the 'Id day. A man stood up and said: Prayer should precede khutbah. He (Marwan) remarked, This (practice) has been done away with. Upon this Abu Sa'id remarked: This man has performed (his duty) laid on him (by Muawiyyah). I heard the Messenger of Allah as saying: He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.

Note: Marwan made this innovation while when he used to curse Ahle Bait in the Sermon (after prayer of Eid), people used to leave him (as they didn't want to hear cursing against Ahle Bait). Looking at this, Marwan changed the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saw) on the orders of Muawiyyah (as Sa'ad bin Abi Waqas referred it as his duty from Muawiyyah).

Indeed what a big crime and big innovation was that, and may Allah's curse upon the innovators (Remember, all innovators are fuel of hell fire). Insha-Allah.

Was Salam.

PS: Thousands of Sahaba and Tabaeen were present there and didn't have the courage to stop this innovation. Were all of them doing Taqqyyah?

This was same Taqqyyah of majority of Sahaba, which they did in case of Declaration of Ghadeer.

Assalam o Alaikum

PMAM

Brother Umar Khan, .... have you taken notice of this Misguided Innovation, and Taqqyyah of Sahaba?

I wonder why all crimes of Sahaba are forgiven for our Ahle Sunnah brothers ...... I am afraid that this constitutes SAHABA WORSHIP?????

Was Salam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
and yet we see "sahaba" and "mother of the believers" waging war against 1 of the first 5 caliphs...

and you didn't answer ANY of the points raised (such as who were the advisors, since ALL sahaba were good, that led their leaders into wars with Ali (as)), nor the fact that there are numerous hadith about SAHABA going astray after the Prophet (pbuh) here are just a few from Sahih Bukhari

for more info you can read here http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter4/2.html but ALL the hadiths quoted above were taken from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...ri/076.sbt.html which is NOT a shia site so insha'Allah it should carry some weight with you.

Another flaw with your reasoning about the sahaba, sunnis insist some of the innovations of Umar were not innovations at all but reinstatements of things practiced during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), so there is a disconnect about them being the best teachers, the best practicers of the Prophet's (pbuh) sunnah IF after less than 3 years (give or take a few) a number of practices had been forgotten/neglected by the majority of the ummah that Umar had to "reinstate" them. So either they were neglectful/forgetful in such a short period after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), OR Umar changed the sunnah, but the majority sahaba WERE reliable narrators so that hadith could be narrated from them HUNDREDS of years later... So far no sunni has addressed this point, and I've brought it up on a number of threads now.

how can you try and quote them hadiths say they are in bukhari, i have seen them hadiths on the website of ayatullah sistani and they were quoted from a shia book. ihave read pretty much all of the sectioon on the companions and theses "hadiths" (lies) were not in.

theer were not manu companions left during the calip of ali (ra) and muawiyah as they were kids when the nabuwaah came. all the ashra mubashara were dead by then aswell. some of the companions were on ali (ra) side some on muawiyah as they were in syria but most remained neutral and refused to get involved.most of the advisers were tabeen

all sahabah had sunnah in their lives and thus could not be accused of innovations.the prophet (pbuh) said follow any one of my companions and you will reach your destination of jannah.

the example of umar (ra) and taraweeh was not that it was forgotten during the three periods becasue taraweeh was still done and was never forgotten. alot of people would read indidvidually as the prophet (pbuh) condoned reading together or indidvidually. umar (ra) for the sake of unity said that we should read together which was agreed upon by all sahaba including ali (ra) who was one of the main advocates. so taraweeh was not an innovation. ifind it starnge that the shia accuse umar (ra) of innovation when alot of their beliefs is innovation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

theer were not manu companions left during the calip of ali (ra) and muawiyah as they were kids when the nabuwaah came. all the ashra mubashara were dead by then aswell. some of the companions were on ali (ra) side some on muawiyah as they were in syria but most remained neutral and refused to get involved.most of the advisers were tabeen

all sahabah had sunnah in their lives and thus could not be accused of innovations.the prophet (pbuh) said follow any one of my companions and you will reach your destination of jannah. ...

Hadrat Ammar ibn Yassir (as) was killed by the the army of muawiyah (la).. and the Prophet(saww) did say that he would be killed by a group of rebels.. mauwiyah(la) was pathetic when it came to hiding his misdeeds.. he waged a war against the ulul amr of his time.. I think most sunnis hold the belief that you can't go against an ulul amr.. even if he is corrupt.. but mauwiyah did... so.. give me a reason why I shouldn't hate this low life?.. wassalaamun alaikum

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Umar, I went to the Sahih Bukhari collection available on the usc.edu website, which I linked. ALL the hadiths I posted I took DIRECTLY from there, NOT from the shia link I also posted, since I KNEW I would be accused of taking them from a shia source and not checking the sunni source. If you'd bothered to click the link you would've found the hadiths (at least most of them, some are from a different section of bukhari, but they're still on the website if you search by number listed).

And who has to limit the bidahs of Umar to Tarawi? One can look at the banning of both kinds of muta' (of women and of hajj), three at once talaq, changing of adhan, etc. to see the innovations, or neglectfulness of the ummah :dry: so few years after the death of the Prophet (pbuh).

Also, the hadith about following ANY of the companions has been proven WEAK. (taken from a post by Yousif found herehttp://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=60863&st=50&p=857952entry857952

Verily, my Companions are like the stars (nujum) in the sky; whichever of them you follow, you shall be guided rightly"4513

this is the hadith u want to quote

Now coming to above alleged hadith that all Sahaba are like stars. Among Sunni authorities those who have considered this tradition as unreliable are:

1- Naseem al Riyadh, Sharh Shifa, by Qadhi Iyad Volume 3 page 423 Chapter "Fadail Sahaba"

2- Sharh Shifa by Mullah 'Ali Qari Volume 4 page 424

3- Ahmad ibn Hanbal, as quoted in al-Taqrir wa al-tahbir, iii, 99;

4- Murqat Sharh Mishqat Volume 11 page 280 Chapter "Fadail Sahaba"

5- Nasa al Kafaya page 145

6- Lisan al Meezan Volume 2 page 137 Chapter "Dhikr Jameel bin Yazeed"

7- Jamia al Sagheera page 28 the letter Seen

8- Ibn Taymeeya, Minhaj-us-Sunnah, vol. 4, page 239

9- al-Mizzi, as quoted in Jami` bayan al-`ilm, ii, 89-90;

10- al-Bazzaz, as quoted in Jami` bayan al-`ilm, ii, 90;

11- Ibn al Qattan, in al-Kamil;

12- al-Darqutni, as quoted in Lisan al-mizan, ii, 137;

13- Ibn Hazm, as quoted in al-Bahr al-muhit, v, 528;

14- al-Bayhaqi, as quoted in al-Hafiz al-`Iraqi, Takhrij ahadith al ­Minhaj, MS.;

15- Ibn `Abd al-Barr in Jami` bayan al-`ilm, ii, 90-91;

16- Ibn `Asakir as quoted in Fayd al-Qadir, iv, 76;

17- Ibn al-Jawzi, in A'alam al-Moq'een, page 364, published in Delhi

18- Ibn Dahiyyah as quoted in Ta`liq Takhrij ahadith al ­Minhaj, MS.;

19- Abu Hayyan al-'Andlusi, in al-Durr al-laqit min al-Bahr al muhit published with al-Bahr al-muhit, v, 527-528;

20- al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-'i`tidal, i, 413, ii, 102, ii, 605;

21- Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah in I`lam al-muqi`in, ii, 223;

22- Zayn al-Din al-`Iraqi, in Takhrij ahadith al-Minhaj, MS.;

23- Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, in Talkhis al-Khabir, iv, 190-191;

24- Ibn al-Humam in al-Tahrir bi Sharh Ibn Amir al-Hajj, iii, 99;

25- Ibn Amir al-Hajj, al-Taqrir wa al-tahrir, iii, 99;

26- al-Sakhawi in al-Maqasid al-hasanah, 26-27;

27- Ibn Abi Sharif, as mentioned in Fayd al ­Qadir, iv, 76;

28- Jalal al Din al-Suyuti, Itmam al-dirayah and al-Jami` al-saghir, iv, 76;

29- al­Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-`ummal, vi, 133;

30- al-Qari, al-Mirqat, v, 523;

31- al-Munawi, al-Taysir fi sharh al-Jami` al-saghir, ii, 48 and Fayd al-Qadir, iv, 76;

32- al-Khafaji, in Nasim al-riyad (sharh of al-Shifa'), iv, 323-324;

33- al­Sindi, Dirasat al-labib fi al ­'uswat al ­hasanat al Habib, 240;

34- al Qadi Muhibb Allah al-Bihari, in Musallim al thubut bi sharh `Abd al­`Ali, ii, 510;

35- Nizam al-Din al-Sahalawi, al Subh al ­sadiq (sharh al Manar);

36- al ­Mawlawi `Abd al-`Ali, Fawatih al­rahmut (sharh Musallim al ­thubut), ii, 510;

37- al-Shawkani, in Irshad al ­fuhul, 83;

38- Wali Allah ibn Habib Allah al ­Lakhnowi in Sharh Musallim al ­thubut; and

39- Siddiq Hasan Khan al­Qannawji, in Husul al ­ma'mul, 568.

For the sake of brevity we shall quote some of the specific comments of the Sunni Ulema.

Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Hirani Al-Damishqi

The "Sheikh-ul-Islam" of Salafies and Deobandies, Ibne Taymiyyah writes about this hadith:

Briefly, this Hadith of "Sahaba like Stars" is weak. Hadith Masters have declared it weak. Imam Bazaz said, "It is not correct to refer this Hadith to Rasool Allah (saww), and also this Hadith don't exist in the authentic books of Ahadith.

Sunni / Salafi Reference: Minhaj-us-Sunnah, vol. 4, page 239, published in Egypt

Imam Abu Hayyan Andalusi

"This Hadith of "Sahaba are like Stars" should not be referred to Rasool Allah (saww). This is a fabricated Hadith and in no way that Rasool Allah (saww) said it. Imam Ibn Hazm Andalasi said it to be a lie.

Sunni Reference: Tafseer-ul-Bahar Al-Muheet, vol. 5, page 527-528, published by Darul Maarifa, Bairut

Hafidh Ibne Qayyim Ibn Jawziyyah

The Isnad (chain of narration) of famous Hadith of "Sahaba are Stars" are not proved. Hafidh Ibn Bar has said with reference to Bazaz that it is not right to refer it to Rasool Allah (saww).

Sunni / Salafi References:

A'alam al-Moq'een, page 364, published in Delhi

Allamah Qazi Muhib Ullah Bihari, in his book "Muslim-us-Suboot" page 510, published in Luknow, did a detail discussion upon the validity ??? of "Ijma on Sheikhain" and refuted the claims of supporters of this idea. He wrote:

"Some people, in order to prove the validity of "Ijma on Sheikhain" bring those Ahadith in support like "Follow Abu Bakr and Umar after me….." or "Follow the Sunnah of rightly guided Khulafa after me". The answer to this is that these rightly guided Khulafa are only Ahle-Bait?? and the "Followers"?? are told to follow only Ahle-Bait while Mujhtahideen?? oppose them in their opinions. And as well as the Hadith of "Sahaba are like Stars" and "Ahadith of Humaira?? (Aisha)" are concerned, then both of them are weak and fabricated.

We read in Naseem:

"The hadith wherein the Sahaba have been equated to stars was recorded by Ibn Barr and Darqatani - all of its chains are weak and Ibn Hazm saif the hadith was unknown, he said it was a fabricated virtue that has no meaning, the hadith should have referred to deeds (Amal) - if you follow these you shall be guided".

Mulla 'Ali Qari in Sharh Shifa:

"Ibn Barr narrated the tradition of stars on the authority of Jabir and passed comment that this Isnad should not be viewed as authority. Abdul ibn Hameed narrated it in his Musnad. Bazaaz said that the hadith is Munkar not Sahih. Ibn Adi narrated this in Kamil with a weak chain. Bayhaqi also narrated oit, commenting that it was well known but weak, Alibi stated that Qadhi Iyad should not have classified this as a correct tradition"

and As I've already quoted a few time now, Imam Ali (as) said about those who neither sided with him, NOR his enemies: "They have forsaken religion and are of no use to infidelity also. "

translation, refusing to take sides between good and evil is USELESS. you're either on the side of right, or wrong, but to be on neither side is WASTED.

Edited by Aliya
Link to post
Share on other sites
Umar, I went to the Sahih Bukhari collection available on the usc.edu website, which I linked. ALL the hadiths I posted I took DIRECTLY from there, NOT from the shia link I also posted, since I KNEW I would be accused of taking them from a shia source and not checking the sunni source. If you'd bothered to click the link you would've found the hadiths (at least most of them, some are from a different section of bukhari, but they're still on the website if you search by number listed).

And who has to limit the bidahs of Umar to Tarawi? One can look at the banning of both kinds of muta' (of women and of hajj), three at once talaq, changing of adhan, etc. to see the innovations, or neglectfulness of the ummah :dry: so few years after the death of the Prophet (pbuh).

Also, the hadith about following ANY of the companions has been proven WEAK. (taken from a post by Yousif found herehttp://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=60863&st=50&p=857952entry857952

and As I've already quoted a few time now, Imam Ali (as) said about those who neither sided with him, NOR his enemies: "They have forsaken religion and are of no use to infidelity also. "

translation, refusing to take sides between good and evil is USELESS. you're either on the side of right, or wrong, but to be on neither side is WASTED.

sis aliyah i have the bukhari sharif infront of me and i hve searched the section on companions and i couldnt find the "hadiths" that you mentioned. all i said was that i saw that hadith on al islam.com sistanis website qouted i presume from a shia book. i think that there may have been a mix up somewhere.

the hadith of following the sahaba is authentic and is a complimentary of all the other virturues that the prophet (pbuh) said about his companions. the majority of the ulama you have quoted i dont even recognise withe exception of habal,taymiyah, "bazaz"- i think you mean sheikh bin baaz.

its funny you quoted ibn taymiyah because he was one of the feircest critic of the shia, he was very damning on the shia and conclusive and convincing with his arguments. he quoted that hadith as one of his pointers so i am suprised you bought him up as your refrence. as for bin baaz he would also have been along the same lines of ibn taymiyah.to be honest with you i have not checked the verasity of that hadith mentioned but i will do so in my own time. there are plenty of other hadiths in bukhari about the virtues of the companions. there are hundreds of such hadiths that praise the companions which if you go that website you quoted and search virtues of sahaba and you will get some of the quotes below;

as Allah has described them:

"Those who came after them (the Sahabah) say: 'Our Lord forgive us. Forgive our brethren who preceded us in faith. Purify our hearts of any rancor toward the believers. Our Lord, You are Gentle, Compassionate." (al-Hashr 59/l0)

Obey the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):

"Do not revile my companions. By (Allah) in Whose Hand my soul is!, if any one of you spends gold (piled up) like (mount) 'Uhud it will not equal a pint of any one of them, nor its half." (al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu-Dawud, at-Tirmidhi Ibn Majah, Ibn Hanbal)

"That they are the best of all generations," (al-Bukhari and Muslim) and: "That the pint of charity any one of them might have given is better than a pile of gold the size of Mount 'Uhud if it is given by anyone who comes after them." (al-Bukhari and Muslim)

i am wary of reading quotes from hadiths or from scholars on the internet because it coulb be from anyone. if you qoute from bukhari i will search it myselg in my hard copy. jazakallah.

no sahabah ever innovated they were the personnification of the sunnah of the prophet (pbuh). on the issue of mutah i am sure there is a hadith of ali (ra) prohibiting mutah. hope my fellow sunni brethern can shed some light.

i want you to answer a question that i posed earlier.

why did muawiyah marry a quadraplegic old woman when he was in his prime?

for the sunnis this is just one of many proofs, the prophet (pbuh) told him that his son will his kill his grandson. after that it was said muawiyah was so shocked he vowed never to have children. but with his quadraplegic wife he had yazeed as it was the will of of Allah swt. hayatus sahabah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
i honestly believe that if muawiyah had outright won the battle with ali (ra) he would not have harmed ali (ra) nor his family (ra) and the outcome would have been the same if ali (ra) had won outright-i.e ali (ra) would still be the caliph.their disagreement was not a personal or family issue neither.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Umar, you don't check the resources I provide, you just go on and on about having seem them in shia sites (which I don't doubt since they do support the shia view of the companions, BUT I am providing NON-shia sources where they are found and you deny (note that numbering differs between arabic and english versions, thus why i am providing the links to the sources where I found them)

So here again is another site http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/076.htm (check hadiths # 578, 584, 585, 586, 587, and 592) and here http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/088.htm (check hadiths# 172 173 174)

same hadiths can be found here http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/076.html

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/088.html

or here http://www.spubs.com/sps/sbk/ books 76 and 88 (numbers differ, here they are 6163, 6169, 6170, 6171, 6172, 6177, 6599, 6600, 6601)

or here http://www.isna.net/library/hadith/bukhari/076_sbt.html and http://www.isna.net/library/hadith/bukhari/088_sbt.html with the same (smaller) hadith numbers listed above

are these enough SUNNI sources that back up what I've quoted???

if anyone wants more insight into muawiya (LA) (since this thread seems to be diverging from that topic) here's a good link (with more links on the left) to answering ansar's piece about Muawiya (LA) http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/en/index.php

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
i honestly believe that if muawiyah had outright won the battle with ali (ra) he would not have harmed ali (ra) nor his family (ra) and the outcome would have been the same if ali (ra) had won outright-i.e ali (ra) would still be the caliph.their disagreement was not a personal or family issue neither.

(salam)

if only muhammad bin abu bakr had not been treated the way he was treated, one would have thought there was some argument in your understanding.

quote from peshawar nights

'But look at Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, who was brought up by the Commander of the Faithful and was one of the staunchest friends of the holy Ahle Bait!

Addressing this illustrious family he says: "O descendants of Fatima! You are a place of safety for me and my guardian. It is through you that on the Day of Judgement, the significance of my good actions will be greater. Since my love for you is sincere, I do not mind if somebody barks near me."

Although he was the son of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, and the brother of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha, he was not call Khalu'l-Mu'minin. He was abused and deprived of his father's legacy!

When Amr Bin As and Mu'awiya Bin Khadij conquered Egypt, the supply of water was cut off to Muhammad Bin Abu Bakr. When he had nearly died of thirst, he was killed. He was then enclosed in the skin of an ass and the bundle was thrown into a fire. When Mu'awiya learned of this, he was very pleased.

Hearing these facts, you do not question why these damned people treated Abu Bakr's son, Khalu'l-Mu'minin Muhammad Bin Abu Bakr, so cruelly. But when Mu'awiya is cursed, you immediately become angry. So you see the opposition to the progeny of the Holy Prophet, and it continues today.

Since Muhammad Bin Abi Bakr was one of the friends of the descendants of the Holy Prophet, you neither call him Khalu'l-Mu'minin nor regret his murder. Since Mu'awiya was the bitterest enemy of the Ahle Bait of the Holy Prophet, you call him Khalu'l-Mu'minin. Allah save us from such fanatical perversity!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...