[qalam]

salam

ahle sunnat wal jamaats aqeeda regarding ameer muawiyaa alay rahmath - is he a king or khalifa

i have read volume 7 and volume 8 in tasheeluth taareekh - a deobandi children textbook that describes him as a khalifa

dr aq

[Faisal]

Quote

qalam (21.05.2009)

---

salam

ahle sunnat wal jamaats aqeeda regarding ameer muawiyaa alay rahmath - is he a king or khalifa

i have read volume 7 and volume 8 in tasheeluth taareekh - a deobandi children textbook that describes him as a khalifa

dr aq

We are all Khalifas of Allah Subhanu watala upon this earth!

[qalam]

salam

i think you are trying to be smart.

I mean was he khalifa of the prophet.

dr aq

[Faisal]

Quote

qalam (21.05.2009)

---

salam

i think you are trying to be smart.

I mean was he khalifa of the prophet.

dr aq

In what way are the answers to your two questions going benefit people?

[qalam]

salam

firstly they will benefit me

i dont care about any one else

dr aq

[Faisal]

Quote

qalam (21.05.2009)

---

salam

firstly they will benefit me

i dont care about any one else

dr aq

In what way?

That is very selfish!

[seeker]

Quote

qalam (21.05.2009)

---

salam

ahle sunnat wal jamaats aqeeda regarding ameer muawiyaa alay rahmath - is he a king or khalifa

i have read volume 7 and volume 8 in tasheeluth taareekh - a deobandi children textbook that describes him as a khalifa

dr aq

I think everybody will agree on the first 4 khulufa being well-known as the "Rightly Guided" i.e. khulufa rashideen

If you say Mu'awiya (ra) was a khalifah then that is correct because he was the ameer al-mu'mineen of the empire.
If you say he (ra) was a king, then you are also right in the sense that it became more of a dynasty after him.

In my opinion it is a bit insulting to call him a king, as Allah is the king and to be a king implies a very lavish lifestyle, which was ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE of ameer Mu'awiya (ra). He was not lavish in the least, and if I am correct then he had one set of clothes for the whole week, and one more set for Jumu'ah. So he had 2 clothes!

So between the two, I would say a khalifah, but who did start a family dynasty.

[Abu-Faizan]

Quote

seeker (21.05.2009)

---

Quote

qalam (21.05.2009)

---

salam

ahle sunnat wal jamaats aqeeda regarding ameer muawiyaa alay rahmath - is he a king or khalifa

i have read volume 7 and volume 8 in tasheeluth taareekh - a deobandi children textbook that describes him as a khalifa

dr aq

I think everybody will agree on the first 4 khulufa being well-known as the "Rightly Guided" i.e. khulufa rashideen

If you say Mu'awiya (ra) was a khalifah then that is correct because he was the ameer al-mu'mineen of the empire.
If you say he (ra) was a king, then you are also right in the sense that it became more of a dynasty after him.

In my opinion it is a bit insulting to call him a king, as Allah is the king and to be a king implies a very lavish lifestyle, which was ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE of ameer Mu'awiya (ra). He was not lavish in the least, and if I am correct then he had one set of clothes for the whole week, and one more set for Jumu'ah. So he had 2 clothes!

So between the two, I would say a khalifah, but who did start a family dynasty.

The first 5 were "Rightly Guided" i.e. Khulufa E Rashidoon. Hazrat Amir Muawiya was the sixth Khalifah. The term Khulufa E Rashidoon relates to a hadith pak where Hazoor Pak (SAW) stated that the muslims would be ruled by a Khalifah for 30 years after Them. The thirty years ended when Imam Hassan (RA) gave up their right to lead the Ummah.

[hanafi_student]

I don't know the wisdom of opening such a topic, for whether Muawiyah (ra) was a king or a khalifah, how will that effect your account on the day of judgment????? Besides, he was a Sahabi, isn't that enough.

He was definitely a King as per the words of Rasoolullah, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, in the authentic Narrations, and thats what the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah said.

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in His explanation of Bukhari Sharif,  Kitab Ta'bir, Vol 14, page 421:

ولو وقع ذلك في الوقت الذي كان معاوية خليفة لم يكن في ذلك معارضة لحديث الخلافة بعدي ثلاثون سنة لأن المراد به خلافة النبوة وأما معاوية ومن بعده فكان أكثرهم على طريقة الملوك ولو سموا خلفاء،

Which means: ( Even if that happened in the time where Muawiyah was a Khalifah, this would not conrtadict the Hadith that the Prophetic-style Khilafah is 30 years, because the latter implies a ruling according to the Prophet, but Muawiyah and those after him, most of them ruled accoding to the kings even if they were called Khulafa).

Imam Ibn Hajar in Bukhari explanation, Kitab Ahkaam, vol 15, page 125:

ظاهر قوله في حديث سفينة يعني الذي أخرجه أصحاب السنن وصححه ابن حبان وغيره «الخلافة بعدي ثلاثون سنة، ثم تكون ملكاً» لأن الثلاثين سنة لم يكن فيها إلا الخلفاء الأربعة وأيام الحسن بن علي.

Which means: (The obvious from the statment in the Hadith of Safeena that was narrated by the Imams of Sunnan and authenticated by Ibn Hibban and others: (The Prophet said): " the Khilfah of Nubuwwah (according to the Prophet) is 30 years then it will be kingship".

Imam Ibn Hajar continues: the 30 years only included the 4 khulafa and the days of Imam Hasan bin Ali.

Tha-Habi in Siyar Alaam Nubala, vol 4, page 285:

فَقَدْ رَوَى سَفِينَةُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ: "الْخِلافَةُ بَعْدِي ثَلاثُونَ سَنَةً. ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا" فَانْقَضَتْ خِلافَةُ النُّبُوَّةِ ثَلاثِينَ عَامًا، وَوَلِيَ مُعَاوِيَةُ، فَبَالَغَ فِي التَّجَمُّلِ وَالْهَيْئَةِ، وَقَلَّ أَنْ بَلَغَ سُلْطَانٌ إِلَى رُتْبَتِهِ، وَلَيْتَهُ لَمْ يَعْهَدْ بِالأَمْرِ إِلَى ابْنِهِ يَزِيدَ، وَتَرَكَ الأُمَّةَ مِنَ اخْتِيَارِهِ لَهُمْ.

Tha-Habi says which means: ( Safeena narrated the Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: "The Khilafa of Nubuwaah is 30 years, then it be kingship". Hence the Khilafa of Nubuwwa was finished in 30 years and Muawiyah became the ruler and he went extreme in acquiring looks and appearances, so much that it is rare that any other Sultan (emperor) has reached his level, and I wish he had not given the rulership after him to son Yazid and left the Ummah choose for itself".

P.s. (mind you Tha-Habi is a student of Ibn Taymiyya and SHAAMI = damascene, and the damascene are known for Nasibi leaning through out history).

And in the same page, Ath-Thahabi says:

حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةٌ عَنْ بُحَيْرٍ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، قَالَ: وَفَدَ الْمِقْدَامُ بْنُ مَعْدِي كَرِبَ، وَعَمْرُو بْنُ الأَسْوَدِ، وَرَجُلٌ مِنَ الأَسْدِ لَهُ صُحْبَةٌ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ. فَقَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ لِلْمِقْدَامِ: تُوُفِّيَ الْحَسَنُ، فَاسْتَرْجَعَ. فَقَالَ: أَتَرَاهَا مُصِيبَةً؟ قَالَ: وَلِمَ لا؟ وَقَدْ وَضَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي حِجْرِهِ وَقَالَ: هَذَا مِنِّي، وَحُسَيْنٌ مِنْ عَلِيٍّ. فَقَالَ لِلأَسَدِيِّ: مَا تَقُولُ أَنْتَ؟ قَالَ: جَمْرَةٌ أُطْفِئَتْ. فَقَالَ الْمِقْدَامُ: أَنْشُدُكَ اللَّهَ ! هَلْ سَمِعْتَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَنْهَى عَنْ لُبْسِ الذَّهَبِ وَالْحَرِيرِ، وَعَنْ جُلُودِ السِّبَاعِ وَالرُّكُوبِ عَلَيْهَا؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ. قَالَ: فَوَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُ هَذَا كُلَّهُ فِي بَيْتِكَ. فَقَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ: عَرَفْتُ أَنِّي لا أَنْجُو مِنْكَ.
إِسْنَادُهُ قَوِيٌّ.
وَمُعَاوِيَةُ مِنْ خِيَارِ الْمُلُوكِ الَّذِينَ غَلَبَ عَدْلُهُمْ عَلَى ظُلْمِهِمْ، وَمَا هُوَ بِبَرِيءٍ مِنَ الْهَنَّاتِ، وَاللَّهُ يَعْفُو عَنْهُ.

Tha-Habi says: " People were in the companionship of Muawiyah and Muawiayh asked Al Miqdam: Al Hasan (imam hasan) died. (Al Miqdam): said: inna lillah wa inna ilayhi ra ji'oon. Muawiayh said: do you see it (the death of Imam Hasan) a disaster? (al Miqdam replied: why not? didn't Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam put him in his room and said that this one is from me and Husayn is from Ali?. (Muawiyah) asked Al Asadi; what do you say?. (Al Asadi replied): a burning coal that has been put off.(i.e. we're more at ease/comfort because of his death!!!). Al Miqdam says: I ask you (O Muawiyah ) by Allah, did you hear Rasoolullah sallallahualayhi wa sallam prohibit from wearing gold and pure silk, and the skin of carniverous animals and riding on it?. (Muawiyah) replied: yes. (Al Miqdad) said: By Allah I have seen all that in your house. Muawiyah replied: I knew I would not be safe with you.

Strong Isnaad ( according to Thahabi), then Tha-Habi said:

"Muawiyah is from the good kings whose justice is more than their oppression, and he is not innocent from falls, so may Allah forgive him".

Sunan Tirmithi, with an authentic Isnaad:

حدثني سَفِينَةُ قَالَ ،: قَالَ رَسُولُ الله: «الْخِلاَفَةُ فِي أُمَّتِي ثَلاَثُونَ سَنَةً، ثُمَّ مُلْكٌ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ» ثُمَّ قَالَ لِي سَفِينَةُ: امْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ خِلاَفَةَ أَبي بَكْرٍ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: وَخِلاَفةَ عُمَرَ وَخِلاَفَةَ عُثْمانَ، ثُمَّ قَالَ لي: امسِكْ خِلاَفَةَ عَلِيٍّ قال: فَوَجَدْنَاهَا ثَلاَثِينَ سَنَةً. قَالَ سَعِيدٌ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ: إِنَّ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ يَزْعَمُونَ أَنَّ الْخِلاَفَةَ فِيهِمْ، قَالَ: كَذَبَ بنو الزرقاءا بَلْ هُمْ مُلُوكٌ مَنْ شَرِّ المُلُوكِ .

Safeena (companion) ra: said: Rasoollulah said: "The Khilafa in my Ummah is 30years then Kings after that". Safeena said: count the time of the khilafah of Abu Bakr, then Khilafah of Umar, and Khilafah of Uthman, then he said the Khilafah of Ali. We found the count to be 3o years. Sa'eed said, I told him (Safeena): Bani Umayyah claim that the Khilafah is in them. Safeena said: The sons of the blue woman are liars, they are kings of the worst kings".

P.S. Blue woman was a nick name for an Umawi grandmother. 

Musannaf Ibn Ali Shaybah, vol 8, page 355:

حدّثنا الفضل حدثنا حشرج بن نباته قال حدثني سعيد بن جمهان قلت لسفينة : إن بني أمية يزعمون أن الخلافة فيهم، قال: كذب بنو الزرقاء، بل هم ملوك من شر الملوك، وأول الملوك معاوية.

Sa'eed said: I asked Safeenah: " Bani Umayyah claim that the Khilafah( rulership) belongs to them. He said: The sons of the Blue Woman lie, they are kings, of the worst kings, and the first of the kings is Muawiyah".

Having said that, you can deduce:

1- After the 5 Khulafah Rashideen, the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, did not call it Khilafah, but explicitly called kingship. hence calling it that is Sunnah.

2- Muawiyah (ra) is the first king, yet he is among the good kings as Tha-habi said, and his good is more than his evil, as Tha-habi said. He is also a Sahabi, unlike the rest of the Umawi kings, so keep that in mind.

and the best thing is not to talk about these issues in other than academic learning sessions, Allahu'Alam.

[seeker]

JazakAllah khayran to the bro above for the informative post.

Just one small thing insha Allah if that's ok

Quote

hanafi_student (21.05.2009)

Safeena (companion) ra: said: Rasoollulah said: "The Khilafa in my Ummah is 30years then Kings after that". Safeena said: count thetime of the khilafah of Abu Bakr, then Khilafah ofUmar, and Khilafah of Uthman,then he said the Khilafah of Ali. We found the count to be 3o years. Sa'eed said, I told him (Safeena): Bani Umayyah claim that the Khilafah is in them. Safeena said: The sons of the blue woman are liars, they are kings of the worst kings".
........

........


1- After the 5 Khulafah Rashideen...

Is it 4 or 5?

[hanafi_student]

Sidi Seeker,

If you look above at the Imam Ibn Hajar's commentary, you would see that he counted Imam Hasan's days as part of the Khilafah Rashida, hence by that count they are 5. Because the days of governing by Imam Hasan was less that 6 months, it tends to get neglected as far as the count. If you would consider that Hazrat Uthman (ra) ruled for 12 years, and Hazrat Ali (as) for almost 6 years, and after them Amir Muawiyah (ra) for 20 years, you can see that a couple of months is easliy negligable in matters of numbers. But Ahlus Sunnah Ulama made sure to mention him among the Khulafa Rashidin, making him the 5th righteous Khalifah. Even the Hadith of Safeena implies that by default, i.e. when stating that the Umawi's are kings, hence before them is Khilafa Rashida, and Allah knows best.

[Qadri-Jilani]

Hazra Amir Mu'awiyya (radiAllahu 'anhu) also referred to himself as king.

[qalam]

Salam

QJ, so Amir mUAWAIYA IS AMEER IN THE SENSE OF A KING not AN AMEER In the sense of khilafat?

Is this fact correct?

DR AQ

[imamuna]

I have a question my cousin denies the Khilafat of Imam Hassan saying that the Khalifa rules over the whole Ummah. Imam Hassan(peace be upon him) was not given Bait by the Syrians since they had given it to Amr Muawiya(may Allah be pleased with him). So he is not Khulfa rashideen. He also gave the example the Ijma of the sahaba must be unanimous to decide the Khilafat instead they where divided.

So how do we decide upon this matter he is a TJ.

[qalam]

salam

thats a good point

any 1 with an answer?

dr aq

[hanafi_student]

Quote

imamuna (21.05.2009)

---

I have a question my cousin denies the Khilafat of Imam Hassan saying that the Khalifa rules over the whole Ummah. Imam Hassan(peace be upon him) was not given Bait by the Syrians since they had given it to Amr Muawiya(may Allah be pleased with him). So he is not Khulfa rashideen. He also gave the example the Ijma of the sahaba must be unanimous to decide the Khilafat instead they where divided.

So how do we decide upon this matter he is a TJ.

Brother, with all due respect this is the Umawi argument to discredit Imam Ali. In fact, if you use this argument, that means that Sayydina Ali (as) is also not a Khalifah Rashid ( an old Umawi argument, echoed by ibn taymiyyah). Because Muawiyah (ra) and the people of Shaam never gave him Bay'ah. In fact, not only they never gave Imam Ali Bay'ah, but they declared war against him and fought him and killed 10,000's of his companions, and eventually anyone who declared his explicit love to Ali way after his death. So does that make Ali (as) not a Khalifah, since Shaami's were his enemies, and refused to give him Bay'ah, and he never was let to control Shaam?

Besides, when your cousin speaks, he ought to learn what the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah say, or what his Daleel is/ Obviously his Daleel is flawd.

More flawd than the first argument is the notion that there has to be Ijma of ALL the SAHABA (ra). Ijma of the Sahaba means the people of (Hal wal Aqd) among them = qualified scholars with certain criteria, it does not mean that every single Sahabi must agree. For that was not even the case for Sayydina Siddiqque-e-Akbar Khilafah (ra). Not every single Sahabi agreed, and that is not necessary. In fact, some not only were delayed in giving Bay'ah to Sayyidina Siddiqque-e-Akbar (ra), but some refused to ever give it and they never did, like Sayyidina Qays bin Ubadah, the Master of Ansaar (ra). But all that is not required to legitimize the Khalifah, as the sahaba who are conisdered of the (Ahlul Hall-wal-Aqd) are those who agree or not agree. Besides, no one of the KHulafa Rashidin had a physical Bay'ah from every single Sahabi that lived at his time, for that was practically impossible, let along the ideological differences. But the majority of the Sahaba (ra) and the Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd among them agreed on the Khilafah of the 5 Khulafah Rashidin, and the later coming Imams of Ahlus Sunnah emphasized that and taught it.

Besides, in the case of Imam Hasan, talking about every single Sahabi having to agree, would elicit an old debate among the Tabi'in, of who is considered to be a Sahabi in the first place? .

So both of his arguments are like jellyfish

[imamuna]

Hanafi student I agree with you but he presented the case for hazrat Ali(peace be upon him) by saying that Amr Muawiya(may Allah be pleased with him) would right to Hazrat Ali(peace be upon him) and ask him for advice. This signals silent approval and acceptance of our master Ali ibn abi Talib(peace be upon him).

Also could you kidly provide references for the sahaba not giving bait. If the argument starts up again I can present them to him.

Jazak Allah khayr.

[hanafi_student]

Quote

imamuna (21.05.2009)

---

Hanafi student I agree with you but he presented the case for hazrat Ali(peace be upon him) by saying that Amr Muawiya(may Allah be pleased with him) would right to Hazrat Ali(peace be upon him) and ask him for advice. This signals silent approval and acceptance of our master Ali ibn abi Talib(peace be upon him).

Also could you kidly provide references for the sahaba not giving bait. If the argument starts up again I can present them to him.

Jazak Allah khayr.

As for writing to Imam Ali,  most of the letters were warnings by Sayyidina Ali to Muawiyah (ra). No writing of a letter - if that exiss authetically!!! and thats a big if- would constitute a Bay'ah. The letters were started by Sayyidina Ali (as) to try to avoid a war with Muawiyah (ra) and the Shaami's with him. Obviously that did not help, and Imam Ali declared war on him, i.e. the Righteous Khalifah of Rasoolullah declaring a war on the Shaami's and seeing not only the permissibility of fighting them, but killing them as Jihad and wajeb.

Anybody who says responding to a letter replaces giving the Ba'yah to the righteous Khalifah needs to learn the ABC's, and is not equiped to debate such issue.

The books of Seerah are filled and overwhelmed with examples.

[Faisal]

Quote

hanafi_student (21.05.2009)

---

Quote

imamuna (21.05.2009)

---

Hanafi student I agree with you but he presented the case for hazrat Ali(peace be upon him) by saying that Amr Muawiya(may Allah be pleased with him) would right to Hazrat Ali(peace be upon him) and ask him for advice. This signals silent approval and acceptance of our master Ali ibn abi Talib(peace be upon him).

Also could you kidly provide references for the sahaba not giving bait. If the argument starts up again I can present them to him.

Jazak Allah khayr.

As for writing to Imam Ali,  most of the letters were warnings by Sayyidina Ali to Muawiyah (ra). No writing of a letter - if that exiss authetically!!! and thats a big if- would constitute a Bay'ah. The letters were started by Sayyidina Ali (as) to try to avoid a war with Muawiyah (ra) and the Shaami's with him. Obviously that did not help, and Imam Ali declared war on him, i.e. the Righteous Khalifah of Rasoolullah declaring a war on the Shaami's and seeing not only the permissibility of fighting them, but killing them as Jihad and wajeb.

Anybody who says responding to a letter replaces giving the Ba'yah to the righteous Khalifah needs to learn the ABC's, and is not equiped to debate such issue.

The books of Seerah are filled and overwhelmed with examples.

This is why the question was not a good one. We are back to this topic again!

[Zarb-e-Haidari]

Bismilla irah maa nira heem.

Those who do not want to know want to hide something because they want to love but when they find the TRUTH it becomes very hard indeed. Hence because of this attitude more are leaving us and becoming one extreme or the other.  We need not be ashamed as we are 110% with the Ahle Baiet.

The fact of the matter is that Imam Ali (as) told Amir Muawiyya to step down from being governor. Imam Ali (as) to be the rightful Khalifah never needed any Bayah's from the Shami's in any way. Imam Ali (as) was undisputed Khalifah along with Imam Hasan (as) from the people of Hijaz. The people of Sham under the oppressive Ummavi rule could not exercise their freedom of choice they were taught to hate the Hashimi's, Moula Ali (as) was their favourite target.

Now who needed authority to rule ? Yes you guessed it , it was Amir Muawiyya. He badly needed to make his rule legitamate wanted to be known as Amir ul Momineen or Khalifah e Rashid. The Ummwi ruled as kings and wanted devine religious approval which was in way of getting Bayah from the Ahle Baiet (as).

As you can see from, Hz Amir Muawiyya to end of Ummayids rule, their ideology to rule without a religious backing. Moula Ali (as) never consented nor did Imam Hasn (as) they only gave away the right to rule in worldly terms. Hence even Mahdoodi in his book calls it Malookiyat. Khalafat & Malookiyat is worth reading as you will see exactly what views were held by even the fake lovers of the Ahle Baiet (as).

Had Amir Muawiyya known that he was a complete ruler then he would never have gone to war, just to AQUIRE approval. Even before surrounding Kufa he sent letters to Imam Hasan (as) to accept him as Khalifah but the Imam never consented only when the Imam's army betrayed him thinking that he was going to surrender or make a peace treaty that they decided, among the Imam's army there were bitter enemies of the Ummwi who had sworn never to make peace or surrender. Outside of Kufa, just before the battle the Imam's army deserted during the night. Some stayed but only to fight , they too left his side in the morning. Imam Pak could not cede to his people being slaughtered without an army defending them. After they had defected the blessed Imam was under no obligation to defend them either. Very few choices remained for the Imam (as).

More can be found here under Imam Hassan's (as) Abdication : This book is a great source in answering the Shias.

http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia_islam/06.htm