Spirit Of Islam: Hazrat Ameer Mu'awiyya (RadiAllah anho): The Blessed Companion - Spirit Of Islam

Jump to content



Icon Important Announcement!

Like us on facebook!


  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Hazrat Ameer Mu'awiyya (RadiAllah anho): The Blessed Companion The Hadith of the Prayer

Posted 19 June 2009 - 04:52 PM (#81) User is offline   Sarkar-di-Jogan 

  • New Moon
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 17-June 09

thanks for the post...very much appreciated!

May Allah increase our love For his Beloved Messenger (saw), his family  and Companions - ameen!

Mujhey iss ka gham nahain hai key badal gaya zamana merey zindagi hai tum sey kahain tum badal na jana
0

Posted 19 June 2009 - 05:40 PM (#82) User is offline   hanafi_student 

  • First Quarter
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: 31-October 04

Whether Technocore is a 12'er Rafidi or just confused, or whatever his creed maybe, this "tactic" of spreading the topic over many many subtopics, and throwing words with no evidences, is an old 12'er tactic, or at least is an old tactic reflecting signs of weakness and ignorance.

Just cuz you throw so many things at once, it doesn't mean we have no answer for each and every falsehood you bring. I am not taught to slander anyone, whether Rafidi' or whatever, nor am I taught to react to falsehoods that are like jellyfish with no backbone. But seeing your so many contradictions it makes me wonder what part of your ignorance should I be jelous at. The point brother is not to cut and paste. For cutting and pasting doesn't automatically grant the cutter/paster a brain!

Therefore, I will respond to some of your " usual 12'er" accusations and nullify it from a calm and academic point of view. But I suggest to the MODS that if this brother Technocore keeps his style of cutting and pasting lots of things about lots of different subtopics to divide attention, and if he accuses one of the Sahaba (ra) such as Muawiyah (ra) with Nifaaq blatently, to ban him or to omit his posts to say the least.

If you brother, and other 12'ers or who ever, seeks to know the truth and what Ahlus Sunnah believe and how they base things, then you came to the right place. If you think that YaNabi's unappologetic love for Ahlul Bayt gives you a license to spread your ignorance thinking that you know or what you say is truth (just because you're copying and pasting lots of words)!!! There are no place for clowns here.

It is enough tolerance and openmindedness that YaNabi is willing to debate you or any other 12'er on any issue, but the rules are respect and scientific-based argument. Rubish is not welcomed. So shape up or ship out.

P.S. I will insha'Allah refute some of what is worthy of refuting of technocore, Allah guide him and us.

Signature reset by YaNabi Team. Keep it nice and SHORT.
0

Posted 19 June 2009 - 07:15 PM (#83) User is offline   Imran. 

  • Full Moon
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4979
  • Joined: 25-December 05

[quote]technocore (19.06.2009)
"Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you"[/quote]

 

 

Now that you have accepted Hadrat muavya as companion(maybe not as a pious one but a companion indeed, by qualification at least).

now tell be if you are obeying the quranic verse you quote above?

Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The Messenger of Allah  (s.a.w) said: ‘Do not slander my Companions, for if one of you were to spend an amount of gold equivalent to the size of Mount Uhud, you would not even come halfway up to their level." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3379).

Are you obeying RasoolAllah(salalaahu Alaihi wassallam)?

For your information abu saeed khudri(radhiAllah anhu) was of the shiaane ali(companions of hadrat Ali Alayh assallam),who held him higher than all other companions(according to reports),yet he has not singled/or excluded out hadrat muavya or those companions that were on his side through any explanation of this hadith shareef,rather anyone who is a companion is included.

We do not ask you to agree with or even like any mistakes or  wrong actions of hadrat muavya(radhiAllah anhu),but merely to hold your tongue and not slander one who has unanimously been accepted as a sahhabi by ijma of Ahle Sunnah wal jamaah,even shias cant deny his companionship(by qualification)lest by home brewed formulas of qyas.

This has been the way of all of our predecessors(salaf),so why should you(who claims to be sunni)know any better,just by visiting rafidhi websites that usually employ any and every tactic(including lying and deliberate distortion/plagiarisation of sunni texts) to insult many ashaab?

We do not slander any  sahaabi but rather we try to think good,if we cant then at least hold your tongue,its in this way we obey Allah and his Rasool(salalaahu alaihi wassallam) my brother,you should too if you know any better.

As for yazeed and marwan,they werent sahaabis,so the prohibition by RasoolAllah(salalaahu alaihi wassallam) does not cover them,henced we do not stop those that slander them,feel free.

As for your understanding of munafiq,well let me tell you there are two types of munafiq in islam,one is the type that were around at the time of RasoolAllah (salaalaahu alayhi wassallam) and that which the Quran informs of i.e. those that outwardly claimed to be muslim yet deep down they were disbelievers in the Prophethood of RasoolAllah(salalaahu alaihi wassallam) and the fundementals of islam aswell as trying to bring down islam in favour of their religions.

How can you put a sahaabi in that category,especially as he lead muslims(was accepted by them/sahhaabi/ahle bayt members) as leader,although it was not khilafat e rashida but rather a start of a monarchy but a muslim one nevertheless, that spread islam to non muslim lands by conquering them in  the name of Allah and the true religion?

Are these the actions of above type of munafiq(as you imply) who tries to destroy islam ,or of a muslim who tries to spread and raise it above all religions?

The second type of munafiq is a muslim(within fold of islam an(in all ways),most of us fall in this category today to be honest.

I do not say that you should think even such of a sahhabi e rasool( maza'Allah),but even if in your confused state you did hold such an errant view,you would still have to accept that he lived and died a muslim(regardless of whatever mistakes he may have made),hence accept that he died a sahaabi(as per conditions of qualifying as a sahaabi),hence in accordance to the hadith of RasoolAllah(salalaahu alayhhi wassallam) you would have avoid thinking bad of any sahaabi,if thats not possible then hold your tongue at the very least.

PS If by your admission you dont say anything against the other companions that fought against moula e kainat(alayh assalaam) then how can you attribute being murtad or munafiq (of the first type as mentioned above) to one whom these very ashaab sided with and thought right in his decision to go to war with moula Ali(alayh assalaam) after the murder of hadrat usman dhun nurain(radhiAllah anhu)?

Yes the decision made by moula e kainat was the right one no doubt,and the those against him way in error by way of wrong ijtihad(yes ijtihad due to not only hadrat muavya but many many other ashaab agreeing with it), they were wrong in fighting against a righteous khalifa and not accepting his decision,a type of baghawat even,hence it was fardh upon moula ali to quell this uprising ,as he was the rightful ameerul momineen at that time and it was his duty to stop fitna(not neccassarily intentionally) being spread amongst muslim ummah and disunity occurring.

You could dislike or disagree with certain historical events as a sunni,our aslaaf have done in past too,but to accuse one that is accepted as a sahaabi e Rasool(salalaahu alaihi wassallam) by concensus of being murtad or a munafiq(thats out of the fold of islam)due to guessing his inner beliefs(as you have done) is not only a great sin ,but downright against what any of the  sahaaba or salaf e salihin has ever stated(according to any sunni reports).

Disliking/disagreeing is one thing,but accusing any muslim of becoming murtad or munafiq(kaafir/disbeliever type) is bad enough an abomination as it is,so what to say of accusing one who is accepted as a sahhabi(albeit of a lesser rank than most)by sunni concensus?

My nasihah to you is finished,just repent your calling him murtad or munafiq if you are a sunni,however if you dislike/disagree certain events of history or actions of certain muslims then you are only human,however you have no right or give fatwa on iman of any sahaabi,nor will it make a difference to his status if you did.

So why bother?

I  admire your love for Ahle bayt and understand your fear (i honestly do),but your rantings of murtad/munafiq has just gone against the wisdom and teachings of that blessed household.

Not everything is always black or white ,but there are always shades of grey you must realise this.

PS as opposed to your "formula"(inyour post above) then how about: Moula e kainat was righteous khalifa,but hadrat Muavya was a muslim(sahaabi) too and passed away in that state,he may have made mistakes or taken wrong decisions(which we do not deny),nor do we say that his rank was anywhere near that of Ali(Alayh assalaam)or any other bigger companions,but he is a sahaabi nevertheless and muslim(you can never prove otherwise through statement of salaf or circumstantiual evidences) hence he should not be slandered.

End of story!




0

Posted 19 June 2009 - 10:05 PM (#84) User is offline   Mystic 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2975
  • Joined: 06-August 04

Quote

Good Question, the Munafiqeen During our Master (SAW)’s time … are they declared as kafirs ? Well what is their status ? If one reads kalima from toungue without believing … would you call him a non-muslim?

Yes he/she is a non-Muslim.

Quote

Lets see Quran tells us to:

Obey Allah (SWT): If i don't based on my personal opinion do i remain a muslim ?
Obey the Apostal (SAW): If i don't based on my personal opinion do i remain a muslim ?
Obey those vested with authority from among you: If i don't based on my personal opinion do i remain a muslim ?

Brother we have Muslims today who don't pray all the 5 prayers. Are they not kaffir for not obeying Allah (swt) here ? A person is Muslim as long he/she believes in the kalma.

Quote


If voilation of this third article does not take one out of Islam then clearly the discarding of the first two should not either correct ?

Now if you can remind me what did our Master (SAW) say about hadeeths which voilate any injunctions of Quran ?

My statement was clear friends, either take out Imam Ali (AS) from Rightly guided Caliphs, or take out Muwaiya from list of pious companions. These are the only two ways you can fulfil the above.

In your previous post you also mentioned the arbitration episode. Are you not aware that it was Imam Ali's (as) own supporters who betrayed him and forced him to accept it ? Did they become kaffirs for forcing him into it ? As far as I know they didn't. In fact, even Imam Ali (as) did not call them kaffirs or the khawarij kaffirs. ON the contrary, the Khawarij called the imam a kaffir. Still we don't see any harsh replies from the Imam. So what gives you the right to do so? Also, there is no proof that those who fought against Abi Bakr (ra) are kaffirs. Whoever said this is or taught you this also wrong.

0

Posted 20 June 2009 - 02:35 AM (#85) User is offline   technocore 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 696
  • Joined: 15-February 09

I know our pious predecessors considered Muwaiya as a Sahabi. So please clarify the following two points and I will hold my tongue:

Quran says "Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you".
Muwaiya did not only disobey this order of Quran. He acted against it by raising his sword against “those vested with authority from among you”. If a person who slander’s Syda Aisha (AS) (family of the Prophet (SAW)) becomes a Kafir by consensus of the same predecessors, not because of slander itself, but because of a violation of a clear injunction of Quran. So why the voilation rules change for Muwaiya.

Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi said: "Because the people who slandered ‘Aa'ishah radilallaahu 'anhaa accused a pure and innocent person of immorality, then Allâh exonerated her. So everyone who accuses her of that of which Allâh has stated she is innocent is rejecting what Allâh says, and everyone who rejects what Allâh says is a kâfir. This is the opinion of Mâlik, and the matter is very clear to those who have insight." (Please note the highlighted part) (http://www.sunnahonl...seerah/0026.htm)

NOTE: Quoting hadeeths about status of sahaba and his sahabiyet is not an answer to the above/below query.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please bring forth from History one tiny event where Muwaiya asked his subjects (he was the ruler) to abandon such degradation of Sydna Ali (AS) and Family of the Prophet (SAW) or even expressed his sorrow/regret on such behavior of his subjects. His silence on such a grave atrocity shows what?

(2) Slandering the family of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam hurts and offends the Prophet himself, and there is no doubt that whatever hurts and offends the Prophet (peace be upon him) is kufr, by consensus (ijmâ‘). (http://www.sunnahonl...seerah/0026.htm)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don’t have a personal grudge against Muwaiya. He died 14 centuries ago. The problem has nothing to do with him. It is what it infers that is frightening:

If I consider him a sahabi, his status rises above Awliya, Jannah is his destination, yet his above mentioned actions don’t disappear. I believe in a JUST GOD. It cannot be that his laws are different for one person (sahabi) where all such atrocities land him in Jannah, and if a commoner (non-sahabi) does the same, he lands in Hell. Can you see the contradiction?

The only ways to avoid such contradiction are:

1. Ali (AS) was not a legatimate Caliph.
OR

2. None of this historical incidents happened and are just fairytales.
OR
3. He was not a sahabi.

- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 20 June 2009 - 02:50 AM (#86) User is offline   technocore 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 696
  • Joined: 15-February 09

As for brother Hanafi_Student,

one does not need to be a 12er to question the validity of our Sunni beliefs. Times have changed brother and so has human intellect. People nolonger believe in things just because their forefathers did. I guess you can call this an era of "...Produce your proof if ye are truthful" (2:111)

Please donot waste your point in giving hadeeths to validate his sahabiyet. Instead invalidate the points i have raised, specifically from Quran and related to cursing. If your evidence if convincing, you will not find me stubborn.

 

- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 20 June 2009 - 04:44 AM (#87) User is offline   hereandthere 

  • New Moon
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 24-May 09

Quote

technocore (17.06.2009)
Being a Sahabi of Prophet (SAW) is the greatest honor a person can have. By defination a Sahabi is a person who saw our Master (SAW) and died in the state of Iman (there is a difference in being a Muslim and having Iman).

From this statement it seems that technocore and many others do not consider Muawiya to be a Sahabi, based on the Usuli Ulama's definition of Sahabi, rather than the Hadeeth Ulama definition of who is a Sahabi. Since there is a huge difference in their definitions, yet such details are not spoken about only to leave the laymen believe  that there is only one way of defining who is a Sahabi.

Hz. Anas ben Malik said when asked: are there other than you who have accompanied (Suhbah) the Prophet of Allah (SAW), he said: there are people left who have seen him, but no one other than me is left who has accompanied him. From that you can state that vision of the Prophet SAW does not necessarily mean companionship, which has lots of priviliges applied to it. Surely, by the definiton of the Usuli Ulama, muawiya and the like are not Sahabi's.  I dare you to bring their definitions and then try to reject them. For if you do, you would be digging your own grave by rejecting your own rules/Ulama , this way it makes everything fair game for criticsm.

 

کتابِ فطرت کے سرِ ورق پہ
جو نامِ احمد نہ ہوتا
نقشِ ہستی اُبھر نہ سکتا
وجود لہو و قلم نہ ہوتا
تیرے غلاموں میں بھی
نمایاں جو تیرا عکسِ کرم نہ ہوتا
زمیں نہ ہوتی، فلک نہ ہوتا
عرب نہ ہوتا، عجم نہ ہوتا
0

Posted 20 June 2009 - 05:53 AM (#88) User is offline   Mystic 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2975
  • Joined: 06-August 04

Brother Techicore the Khawarij cursed Imam Ali (as) too. How come he didn't call them kaffir in return ? Also, in the arbitration process the majority of Imam Ali (as) supporters betrayed him and refuse to follow the authority which was among them. Are they not kaffirs too ? Why don't you answer this question ? In the previous post you were putting down sunni imams for having their own ijtihad on various fiqh issues, yet you seem to contradict the Ahlul bayt sunnah on this one. If Imam Ali (as) didn't call the Khawarij kaffir for cursing him why is it binding on us sunnis to force other sunnis to call Muawiyah a kaffir or monafiq ? Also, brother in your post you quoted Imam Ali (as) qunoot. This dua was read when Muawiyah killed the many of the major sahaba and tabaeen. Imam Ali (as) never made cursing a pillar of Islam. Also, Imam Hassan (as) still allowed a peace treaty to occur. Why is that ? The bottom line is if you have negative views about Amir Muawiyah then that's fine. However, calling him kaffir or monafiq is against the rules of the forum. Can't you at least respect the members around you. This is a sunni forum. We can't just come on a public forum and start throwing various views. Also, since you love history so much, are you not aware that Umar bin Abdul Aziz (ra) went to Khawarij, and tried to workout the differences with them? Guess what happened ? The Khawarij at the time refused Umar II (Ra) rule because they said they would only accept his rule under one condition. That condition was to to curse Amir Muawiyah on the pulpit for his injustice. Umar II (ra) did stop the injustice of cursing, but he didn't want to curse in return. Since Umar II (ra) refused follow the khawarij's condition he wasn't considered their calipah. Then as history goes the Khawarij start loosing their numbers. Why ? The reason is the bani Abbas come in power and remove the bodies of Ummavis from their graves to punish them. This violent method used by the Abbasids left the Khawarij in peace, and later gave them no reason to start any more violent oppositions.

0

Posted 20 June 2009 - 05:29 PM (#89) User is offline   technocore 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 696
  • Joined: 15-February 09

Salam Brothers,

Brother hereandthere, I am not familiar with who "usuli ulema" are. What i wrote is from pure commensense.

Now Brother Mystic,
 
I do respect my brothers and sisters on this forum. I have not slandered (calling bad names or curse) Muwaiya in any of my posts. If simplying bringing up his actions which voilate an injuction of Quran, if it constitutes as slander, then seriously the word need redefinition.

It is the same pious predecessors (that everyone is reminding me of) who declare that denying a ruling of Quran constitues kuffar. Personally I don't believe that and am more fond of  the opinion, that Kalima brings one in Islam and denying any article of it is what gets you out of islam (I think it was Imam Shafee). Therefore, I used the next term Munafiq.

Please, do we consider Khuwarij as believing Muslims ? (not even munafiqs)
In your own words 

"This dua was read when Muawiyah killed the many of the major sahaba and tabaeen. Imam Ali (as) never made cursing a pillar of Islam." (when did i say or encourage cursing anyone - i think i made it clear in my previous posts that cursing anyone including munafiqs is worthless - as Allah (SWT) will deal with them as He wishes)

If he is not a shahabi, then he is a Muslim king who commited some grave sins, and in accordance with Quran, May Allah (SWT) forgive us and our brothers who have passed away. But extending the status of a sahabi to him brings the following problem:

If a person (sahabi) goes against a clear order of Quran and through his actions encourages or accepts cursing of Prophet (SAW) and his Family (AS), and still retains the status of a shahabi that is higher then Awliya (RA) and attains Jannah, then by the virtue of the same JUST GOD which gives him this extension, we today should be able to attain JANNAH regardless of voilating Quranic orders and Prophetic commands.

If you can clarify this issue, I am more then willing to stop on this topic.


- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 20 June 2009 - 06:42 PM (#90) User is offline   hanafi_student 

  • First Quarter
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: 31-October 04

Quote

hereandthere (20.06.2009)

Quote

technocore (17.06.2009)
Being a Sahabi of Prophet (SAW) is the greatest honor a person can have. By defination a Sahabi is a person who saw our Master (SAW) and died in the state of Iman (there is a difference in being a Muslim and having Iman).

From this statement it seems that technocore and many others do not consider Muawiya to be a Sahabi, based on the Usuli Ulama's definition of Sahabi, rather than the Hadeeth Ulama definition of who is a Sahabi. Since there is a huge difference in their definitions, yet such details are not spoken about only to leave the laymen believe  that there is only one way of defining who is a Sahabi.

Hz. Anas ben Malik said when asked: are there other than you who have accompanied (Suhbah) the Prophet of Allah (SAW), he said: there are people left who have seen him, but no one other than me is left who has accompanied him. From that you can state that vision of the Prophet SAW does not necessarily mean companionship, which has lots of priviliges applied to it. Surely, by the definiton of the Usuli Ulama, muawiya and the like are not Sahabi's.  I dare you to bring their definitions and then try to reject them. For if you do, you would be digging your own grave by rejecting your own rules/Ulama , this way it makes everything fair game for criticsm.

 

 

Unfortunately,I had thought that the contradictions in the posts of technocore reveal weakness in knowledge, but I am certain now, that it is much beyond that.

Anyways to comment on things that worthy of commenting for the sake of the principal - to prove that the above two brothers are copiers and pasters of things they don't even understand to say the least for I don't want to accuse them intentionally of forging statments and betrayal in qoutation-. As for the debate for the sake of debate, that I have no intention of wasting my time with. Cutting and pasting multiple small subtopics to divert attention from major issues, is a tactic you can use, but does not fly you far in my book. Furthermore, your statement -which is truely serious- that :

technocore
Posted Today @ 01:50:46


New Moon

New Moon

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 02:16:42
Posts: 54, Visits: 210
As for brother Hanafi_Student,

one does not need to be a 12er to question the validity of our Sunni beliefs. Times have changed brother and so has human intellect. People nolonger believe in things just because their forefathers did. I guess you can call this an era of "...Produce your proof if ye are truthful" (2:111)

Please donot waste your point in giving hadeeths to validate his sahabiyet. Instead invalidate the points i have raised, specifically from Quran and related to cursing. If your evidence if convincing, you will not find me stubborn.

 

So I take it from you brother (assuming that you claim knowledge) that the Hadith of Rasoolullah -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, is "wasting my point" and not "convincing", and now after I have demolished your delusional proofs from the "Ahadith" you first brought up along with the other brother, to substantiate the "Kufr" of Muawiyah (ra), etc.., now you want to escape from that front, to open yet another one, based on the exclusion of the Sunnah and Hadith as a substantiating evidence, and you limit that to the Qur'an explicitly. Which by the same token - as it is argued by the Nasibi's- puts you in a predicament of substantiating explicitly from the Qur'an that Ali was right and Muawiyah was wrong- explicitly.without going to the narrations, Hadiths, etc.. I don't really wish to entertain such clownish circles. Ahadith were brought up to destroy your case against Muawiyah (ra), and your case has been larely demolished by the blessings of Allah. Furthermore, what you say - if you exclusde the Ahadith- becomes entirely fairytales and remains naked with absolutely no backing. So good luck with that. If you don't count the Sunnah and Ahadith as proof, then I don't know what your definition of proof is. Since Allah Ta'ala mandated the obligation of Sunnah explicitly in the Quran.

Now answering the objectives here.

First and foremost, the "so-called" definition of Suhba brought up in the qoutation above by technocore exists only in his mind. It reflects ignorance in knowledge to say the least, as I am not yet willing to interpret his niyyat. But nobody among the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah ever stated that:

]

Quote

technocore (17.06.2009)
Being a Sahabi of Prophet (SAW) is the greatest honor a person can have. By defination a Sahabi is a person who saw our Master (SAW) and died in the state of Iman (there is a difference in being a Muslim and having Iman).

Let us see now, what Ahlus Sunnah Ulama really said in the definition of the Sahabi. Imam Ibn Hajar says in Al Isaabah 1\10:

الحافظ ابن حجر في تعريف الصحابي : وأصح ما وقفت عليه من ذلك : أن الصحابي من لقي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مؤمنا به ومات على الإسلام

Which means: " The best definition I found is that: the Sahabi is one who have met the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- believing in him, and died on Islam".

You see no where it says it died on the state of Iman. This is such an ignorant statement, for only Allah Ta'ala knows who died on Iman, for Iman is in the hearts, and no one can claim to know that definitively other than Allah Ta'ala. So the condition is that when he met the Prophet-sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam- he was believing in him, and he died on Islam. Thats for starters. And you can never substantiate ith reference "your" definition that you wrote, except in your own mind -of course.

Nobody denies that the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah differed on the definition of Sahaba (ra), and I don't know who told you that this is somehow hidden. Obviously it may have been hidden on the ignorant, who does not yet know the details of Ulum. 

There has been a disagreement in the defintion of Sahaba (ra) from the early times, and the narration about Anas Bin Malek (ra) which Imam Ibn As-Salah mentioned in his Muqadimmah page 489 is correct, in which Sayyidina Anas (ra) replied when asked:

بقي اناس من الاعراب قد رأوه فأما من صحبة فلا

 

Is there any other than you left alive from the Sahaba of Rasoolullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), he said: some people of the desert who have seen him are still alive, but none who have accompanied him".

2- Ibn Al-Haaj Al-Hanafi said in his Book: At-Taqrir, which is an explanation on Imam Ibn Al Humam's work:

(الصحابي عند جمهور الأصوليين من طالت صحبته) .

Which means: ( The -defintion of- Sahabi according to the Jumhur of Usuli Scholars is one whose companionship was long-termed).

3- Imam Ibn Al Humam (As-Siwasi) Al Hanafi said in his Book : Tahrir:

الصحابي عند جمهور الأصوليين من طالت صحبته متتبعا مدة يثبت معها إطلاق صاحب فلان

Which means: ( The Sahabi according to the Jumhur of Usuli Scholars is one whose companionship was long-termed, so that is self-evident to say that he was the companion of so and so).

4- Al Imam Al-Baqillani as Imam Sakhawi mention in his Shar'h on the Hadith Alfiya and others:

الصحابي عندنا اسم واقع على من صحب النبي وجالسه واختص به لا على من كان فى عهده وأن لقيه مرات كثيرة هذا مقتضى اللغة وموجبها وحقيقتها

Which means: ( The Sahabi according to us, is a term applied to one who accompanied the Prophet and sat with him, and was close to him. Not anyone who lived during his time even if he saw him many times, this is what the language necessitates and its truthfulness).

5- Al-Attar in his Hashiya on Jam'e Al Jawame' said:

 نظراً للعرف في الصحبة فإنه لا يقال له صاحب إلا من طالت

صحبته

Which means: ( Looking at the traditional view in companionship, it is not said to anyone a companion, except for those whose companionship was long-termed).

 

6- Abul Muzaffar As-Sam'ani rahimahu Allah said:

هو من حيث اللغة والظاهر من طالت صحبته مع النبي وكثرت مجالسته له وينبغي أن يطيل المكث معه على طريق التبع له والأخذ عنه ولهذا يوصف من أطال مجالسة أهل العلم بأنه من أصحابه وهذه طريقة الأصوليين

Which means: ( - A companion- is from the apparent and linguistic view is one whose companionship was long-termed with the Prophet, and sat in sessions lots of times, and he must have adhered to him for a long time with the objective of following his to inheret his knowledge and acquire from him, therefore whose who have accompanied the scholars for a long time are called their companions, and this is the methodology of the Usuli scholars).

 

7- Ibn Al Amir As-San'ani said in his Book Al-Ijabah:

ولا عهد إلا لمن طالت مجالسته له صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فقولك صاحب رسول الله وصحابي مستويان في أنه يشترط فيهما طول الملازمة , بحيث لا يحتاج إلى قرينة عند الإطلاق فظهر بهذا صحة اشتراط طول الملازمة في الصحابي كما هو نص النظم :
ومن يطل للمصطفى المجالسة    متبعا لشرعه مذ جالسه

فهو الصحابي وهم عدول    إلا الذي يأيى وهم قليل

Which means: ( no covenant except for those whose companionship was long-termed with him sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, so when you say a companion of Rasoolillah or a companion, they are the same in that they it is conditioned that they have accompanied him for a long time. So that you would not need to even substantiate that, so therefore the condition of long-term companionship in the Sahabi is valid"

8- Hazrat Sa'id bin Musayab - in Usdul Ghabah 1\10 said:

قال سعيد بن المسيب: الصحابة لا نعدهم إلا من أقام مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سنة أو سنتين وغزا معه غزوة أو غزوتين

 

Which means: ( Sai'd bin Al Musayab said: We only consider the Sahabi as those who stayed with Rasoolullah -sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- one or two year, and has gone to battle with him once or twice).

 

9- Imam Al Maziri, in his Book Shar'h Al Burhaan said:

 شرح البرهان: لسنا نعني في قولنا الصحابة عدول كل من رأى النبي يوما او زاره عاما او اجتمع به لغرض او انصرف عنه وانما نعني الذين لزموه وعزروه واتبعوه ونصروه واتبعوا النور الذي انزل معه 

which means: ( Whe do not mean by saying the Sahaba are udool (just) that this is for everyone who saw the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, for one day or visited him on year, or met him for an issue then left. But we mean those who stayed by him, supported him, adhered to him, loyal to him, and followed the Noor that came with him).

There are many more narrations from the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, and anyone who opens their books can easily find them without any difficulty. This is the opinion of the Usuli Scholars, nothing hidden there. HOWEVER:

Lets see what Ahlus Sunnah have deemed as the opinion to be followed:

 

1- Imam Bukhari said, which Imam Ibn Hajar mentioned in the Fat'h 3\7:

من صحب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أو رآه من المسلمين فهو من أصحابه

Now, there is really no difference between the Usuli's and the Muhadditheen definitions as far as the companioship is considered, except to further classify that the companionship as either general (aam) or close (khass). i.e. those who just saw him or met and sat with him briefly - sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam- are sahaba in the (aam =general) meaning, and those who spent lots of time and inhereted his knowledge are sahaba in the (khass =close) meaning. This how we should interpret the differences in definitions betweem the Usuli and the Muhadditheen scholars, this way we accept both's efforts and not reject one or the other. From this view we can understand the Hadith in Sahih Muslim where the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, when he was angered by Khaled bin Walid for cussing at Abdurahman bin Awf, he looked at him and told him: (the famous Hadith)

لا تسبوا أصحابي

Which means: ( Do not cuss/curse my companions). Some people brought up this Sahih Hadith to prove that Khaled Bin Walid is not a Sahabi, because this Hadith the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, told him directly: do not cuss at MY COMPANIONS.  But we all know that based on the definition of Sahaba (ra) according to Ahlus Sunnah Ulama is everyone who saw or was seen or was present with the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam. So by that definition, khaled (ra) is also a Sahabi. So how come the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, tells him do not curse my companions. The Ulama said: it is an indication that the level of companionship of people like Abdurahman bin Awf is nothing similar to that of Khaled Bin Al Walid (ra), not that the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, is denying that the late people coming to Islam (like Khaled and Amru bin Al-Aas, etc..) are not Sahabi's. In fact, Ahlus Sunnah agree that the people who entered Islam during the Liberatin of Makkah, like Muawiyah (ra) and his father and his tribe and all the people who held out in Makkah till the last minute, etc.. are Sahaba. Though they came later than Khaled and Amru and the similars. There are simply different levels of Sahaba, and the Prophet's words by not calling Khaled a Sahabi though he's calling Abdurahman as one, is simply to show that Khaled is not at the same rank of companionship like Abdurahman, so much that if the people like Khaled (ra) spends like the mountain of Uhud worth God, they would not be able to attain even half of the rank of people in the rank of Abdurrahman bin Awf. But Ahlus Sunnah agree that at the end, both Abdurahman and Khaled are Sahaba (ra).

Here is how the Ulama articulate their rejection of Sayyidina Sai'd bin Musayab's comment if it is taken on its absolute apparent meaning:

 

2- As for the defintion of Sahaba attributed to Sayyidina Sa'id bin Musayab, well Imam Ibn Hajar follows his narration immediately by saying: (Fat'h 4\7):

 العمل على خلاف هذا القول؛ لأنهم اتفقوا على عد جمع جم من الصحابة لم يجتمعوا بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلا في حجة الوداع

Which means: ( The practice is on the contrary of what this definition says, because they agreed to count lots of Sahaba as Sahaba, though they have only met the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- during Hajjatul Wada).

3- Ibn kathir said in his Book: Al Baa'eth Al Hatheeth, after mentioning the above-mentioned narration by Sayyidina Anas Bin Malek (ra) denying that those who have seen him are his Sahaba:

وهذا إنّما نفى الصحبة الخاصة ، ولا ينفي ما اصطلح عليه الجمهور من أنّ مجرد الرؤية كافٍ في إطلاق الصحبة

Which means: (This -statement/opinion- is to deny the Special meaning of Suhba, and it does not negate what the Jumhur termed as simply seeing him, is enough to entitle the person a companion).

4- This narration and the rejection of its absolute meaning, unless you classify the Sahaba into Khass and Aam, is also echoed by Imam Ibn Hazm, who said in his Book Al Ihkaam 4\86:

وهذا خطأ بيقين ، لاَنّه قول بلا برهان ، ثم نسأل قائله عن حد التكرار الذي ذكر وعن مدة الزمان الذي اشترط

Which means: (Stating so, is definitively wrong. Because it is a saying without a Daleel, and then we will have to ask the person who says so, what is the rule on the number of times (the person must meet the Prophet) for you to consider him a Sahabi, and the length of time that you set as a condition? ).

 

5- To make things more clear, Imam Ibn Hajar states what is the righteous and authentic and reliable, in Al Isaabah 1\9-7:

فيدخل فيمن لقيه من طالت مجالسته له أو قصرت، ومن روى عنه أو لم يرو، ومن غزا معه أو لم يغز، ومن رآه رؤية ولو لم يجالسه، ومن لم يره لعارض كالعمى، ويخرج بقيد الإيمان من لقيه كافراً ولو أسلم بعد ذلك إذا لم يجتمع به مرة أخرى وقولنا: (به) يخرج من لقيه مؤمناً بغيره كمن لقيه من مؤمني أهل الكتاب قبل البعثة، ويدخل في قولنا: (مؤمناً به) كل مكلف من الجن والإنس… وخرج بقولنا: (مات على الإسلام) من لقيه مؤمناً به ثم ارتد ومات على ردته والعياذ بالله… ويدخل فيه من ارتد وعاد إلى الإسلام قبل أن يموت سواء اجتمع به صلى الله عليه وسلم مرة أخرى أم لا وهذا هو الصحيح المعتمد

Which means: ( This definition - of being Sahabi- includes those who saw him, whether staying with him was long or short, whether they trassnmitted from him or not, whether they went to battle with him or not, even if one has seen him without sitting with him, even if someone has not seen him because of a barrier such as being blind. That definition aslo excludes who met him and was kafer, even if he became Muslim afterwards, if he hasn't met him again on the state of Islam. The definition also excludes those who met him while they were on Islam, they rejected the Deen and died on Kufr. The definition - of being a sahabi- also includes he who rejected Islam and became Murtadd, but returned to Islam before he died, regardless whether he met him again or not, sallallahu aayhi wa sallam. This is the authentic and reliable definition).

  

6- Imam Al Hakem in his Book Marifatul Ulum Al Hadith, mentioned the last level of Sahabi's counting them as the 12th level:

صبيان وأطفال رأوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم يوم الفتح وفي حجة الوداع... ومنهم أبو الطفيل عامر بن واثلة

Which means: ( the 12th level includes: Boys, and children saw the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, on the day of Fat'h Makkah (liberation of Makkah), and during Hajjatul Wada', and among them Abu Tufayl Aamer bin Wathilah).

 

7- Imam Ali bin Mudayni said according to Imam Ibn Hajar 3\7 in Fat'h:

من صحب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم أو رآه ولو ساعة من نهار فهو من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم  

Which means: ( who ever accompanied the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, or seen him even if it was an hour in one day, then he is among the companions of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam).

 

That is second.

 

Thirdly, yes the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah did differentiate between Ru'ya and Suhba i.e. vision versus companionship, when the situation demanded that textually and intellectually.

1- Imam Ibn Hajar narrated that Aasem Al-Ahwal who died 140 H. said:

 قد رأى عبد الله ابن سرجس رسول الله غير انه لم تكن له صحبة

 

2- Imam Ibn Shu'bah said about Muhammad bin Al Hafeth:

 له رؤية ليست له صحبة

 

3- Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal said about Maslamah bin Mukhallad, as per the Tah'theeb of Imam Ibn Hajar:

ليست له صحبة

Then he says by Al Askari about him, in the same page:

له رؤية وليست له صحبة

 

In fact, Ahlus Sunnah denounced some of those who were technically in the companionship of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, but did not remain adherant on the Noor that came with him.

Examples:

4- Imam Ibn Hajar said about Muslim Bin Uqbah. You can see similar comments about him in Tahtheeb Al Kamal and others. 

اسماه السلف مسرف ابن عقبه وذموه مع انه له صحبة

Which means: ( The Salaf named him : Musref (instead of Muslim) and they denounced him, though he was a companion).

P.S. Musref is bad name for those who go to excess. He is the one who led Yazid's army and ransacked Madina killing the Sahaba and Tabi'in, etc...

5- Imam Ibn Hajar, and all those who mentioned the Tarajum of Sahaba, also mentioned among them : Hurqoos bin Zuhayr, who has accompanied the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, for a good amount of time and went with him to battles, yet he was among the leaders of Khawarej, and the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah denounce him.

The conclusion from all that is: that Ahlus Sunnah are bound by the texts that are authentic, and they were not hesitant to call as deviant or even to declare war on some " Sahaba" who deviated such as those who refused to pay Zakat and those rejected the Deen at the time of Abu Bakr (ra), though many of them were Sahaba in the linguistic term. So the Suhba is bound and conditioned with Islam, and no Nifaaq, and insome rare proven conditions no excessive crimes (usually accompanied with short Suhba or vision, or not even vision for being infants but presence only), such as Busr bin Abi Ar'ta'a, who was covered by the defintion of Sahaba, but Ibn Ma'in says about him: كان رجل سوء

Which means: (he was an evil man). For he was the killer of the two young infant in cold blood of Hazrat obaid Allah bin Al- Abbas, the cousin of the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, and the brother of Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas. Ibn Ma'in even negated his companionship, though he was born years before the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, passed away.

 

All that because there are evidence that are authentic in some who were present, but no such thing about Muawiyah (ra). In fact, all the Ahadith you brought were proven to be weak and cannot be substantiated to accuse someone of anything seriou, let along accuse a Sahabi of being kafer or Munafiq -nauthu Billah.

In fact, Muawiyah (ra) : by agreement of all:

1- Saw the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam.

2- accompanied him, even if it a short companionship.

3- wrote letters for him, at his request -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam. So He was Katibul Wahi, because the words of Rasoolullah -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, are Wahi too.

4- Was appointed by Umar (ra) for Shaam. Which is an endorsement not only by Umar, but also by lots of Sahaba who didn't object.

5- narrated Ahadith, which are in Bukhari, Muslim and others. With no one disagreeing or doubting the narrations!

6- Many of the Sahaba who lived during his time, did not object to him. ( this is a big thing).

7- Imam Hasan allowed the leadership to go to him, and had Muawiyah been a kafer/Munafiq, this would have been impermissible for Imam Hasan to do, don't you think? even if it means he had to die for it.

8- Muawiyah was wrong, Ali was right. Thats the bottom line. But: Muawiyah did not fight Ali because he hated Islam!!! (like the insane claims of the Rafidhi's)!!!. You cannot even start to substantiate such a crazy claim. He fought him because of Muawiyah's own convictions, which we Ahlus Sunnah believe that it was the wrong convictions, no endorsement there. But also, no slander there. For we do not know exactly what was his Niyyat in his heart, and our Husn Thann in the Sahaba of Rasoolullah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam) necessitates that we seek the best interpretations for them and look for all excuses for their actions. At the same time, we do not believe that they are infallible. May Allah be pleased with them all.

So all in all, all the things you are saying about Muawiyah (ra) are based on weak narrations and subject-to-interpretation and subject-to-doubt narrations. Doubt never supercedes what is Yaqin. In fact, Allah Ta'ala said: إن بعض الظن إثم

(Some doubt is sinful).

My dear brothers and sisters, do you realize why the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah emphysised that we should remain silent (Sukut) on these issues. Just becuase there are lots of hair splittings, weak narrations, and dangerous territory. Mistakes are easy to be made even for big people. So Love Ahlul Bayt, be on their side, and remain Silent (Sukut) on the wars and fights of Muawiyah (ra) against Sayyidina Ali (as). We will not be questioned on these wars, for we were not even present then.

There is one more hadith you mentioned way before that I will refute insha'Allah soon.

 

Ya Sayyidi your Nazar to me for the sake of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam). 

Signature reset by YaNabi Team. Keep it nice and SHORT.
0

Posted 20 June 2009 - 11:00 PM (#91) User is offline   Mystic 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2975
  • Joined: 06-August 04

Quote

technocore (20.06.2009)
Salam Brothers,

Brother hereandthere, I am not familiar with who "usuli ulema" are. What i wrote is from pure commensense.

Now Brother Mystic,

I do respect my brothers and sisters on this forum. I have not slandered (calling bad names or curse) Muwaiya in any of my posts. If simplying bringing up his actions which voilate an injuction of Quran, if itconstitutes as slander, then seriously the word need redefinition.


It is the same pious predecessors (that everyone is reminding me of) who declare that denying a ruling of Quran constitues kuffar. Personally I don't believe that and am more fond of the opinion, that Kalima brings one in Islam and denying any article of it is what gets you out of islam (I think it was Imam Shafee). Therefore, I used the next term Munafiq.

Please, do we consider Khuwarij as believing Muslims ? (not even munafiqs)


If the Khawarij are kaffir/monafiq for cursing the imam of the time then 12r shias are also monafiq for doing the same against the previous calipahs. Personally, I haven't seen Imam Ali (as) replying to them in a similar manner. At least it doesn't exist in history.

As for cursing calling someone a monafiq or kaffir is a curse itself. So let's avoid the harsh views.

Now for the status of Amir Muawiyah you don't have to believe he is higher than the Awlia. In fact in Ibn Kathir book posted a view that might surprise you.


Here are his views on Muawiyah and Umar bin Abdul Aziz (ra).



Most scholars agree that Umar bin Abdul Aziz is superior to Muawiyah ibn Sufyaan, for his matchless justice, modesty and asceticism.
(Biographies Of Rightly Guided Caliphs, Ibn Kathir Pg 398)

The Ummayads use to abuse Ali bin Abi Talib in speeches, but when Umar bin Abdul Aziz became the calipah, he put an end to that by writing to his provincial rulers, ordering them to stop that tradition and quoted the verse.

"Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and he forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: he instructs you, that ye may recieve admonition." (Al-Nahl:90).
This is verse was always quoted in their speeches from then onwards.
(Biographies Of RightlyGuided Caliphs, Ibn Kathir Pg 393)
Online source: http://abdurrahman.o...s-IbnKathir.pdf



0

Posted 20 June 2009 - 11:47 PM (#92) User is offline   technocore 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 696
  • Joined: 15-February 09

MashAllah brother Hanafi_Student,

Your postings as always increase our knowledge.  

My apologies brother, I meant don’t bring ahadeeth explaining the status of sahaba, I know about that and the point being raised is not about sahaba’s status. I am not denying the validity of hadeeths itself, simplying stating that previous postings of other brothers included hadeeths about status of sahaba trying to prove what i am quoting is wrong, whereas it had nothing to do with the topic, their status is not under question. 

I am putting everything in points not dividing into subtopics. There is only one subject “was Muwaiya a Sahabi(RA) or not”

Problem is our pious predecessors had so many different view on the same subject and each with its own terminology that if I say kafir, then some believe violating Quran does’nt constitute kuffar only disbelieving in kalmia does while others hold different opinion, if I say munafiq then each has its own definition of Nagfaq. With such broad range (in meaning) vocabulary it takes ages to first clear up terms and their meaning before going on to the subject.

To make it simple:

1.       Assuming, violating any injunction of Quran, lets say zakat/namaz etc constitutes state X, then my point is that Muwaiya was State X.

2.       Cursing the Prophet (SAW) and his Family constitutes as State Y.

 

Please invalidate the claim that Muwaiya belonged to state X and by his actions validated and encouraged State Y.

You may have missed what was said and therefore I will repeat:
 I know our predecessors considered Muwaiya as a Sahabi.

QUOTE: (Posts: 593 – Brother Hanafi_Student)
“… some " Sahaba" who deviated such as those who refused to pay Zakat and those rejected the Deen at the time of Abu Bakr (ra),…. “ – Refusing to pay zakat is violation of clear order of Quran and the person loses his sahabiyet.

“Hurqoos bin Zuhayr, who has accompanied the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, for a good amount of time and went with him to battles, yet he was among the leaders of Khawarej, and the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah denounce him.” – Kindly specify what specific act made him lose the status of sahabi.

“…. such as Busr bin Abi Ar'ta'a, who was covered by the definition of Sahaba …. he was the killer of the two young infant in cold blood of Hazrat obaid Allah bin Al- Abbas, the cousin of the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, and the brother of Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas.” – Killing an innocent Muslim in cold blood – again against the Quranic Laws of Allah (SWT).

(1)     Quran says "Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you".
Muwaiya did not only disobey this order of Quran. He acted against it by raising his sword against “those vested with authority from among you”.

Now brother, disobeying Quran in the area of “zakat” “killing innocent muslims” makes a companion non-sahabi. What about this above order (1). Is the order not clear?

I am not assuming Muwaiya’s niyet in anything. Quranic orders and laws apply on the apparent (actions) not niyet.  So I simply quoted what apparently happened:

(1)     Quran says "Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you".
Muwaiya did not only disobey this order of Quran. He acted against it by raising his sword against “those vested with authority from among you”.

(2)     Please bring forth from History one tiny event where Muwaiya asked his subjects (he was the ruler) to abandon such degradation of Sydna Ali (AS) and Family of the Prophet (SAW) or even expressed his sorrow/regret on such behavior of his subjects. His silence on such a grave atrocity shows what?
Slandering the family of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam hurts and offends the Prophet himself, and there is no doubt that whatever hurts and offends the Prophet (peace be upon him) is kufr, by consensus (ijmâ‘). (
http://www.sunnahonl...seerah/0026.htm)

Objecting to zakat and killing innocent Muslims, anyone who committed these actions did have a niyet before the action, whatever  that maybe, Quran is the ultimate law, apparently acting against it what ever the niyet constitutes as what? kindly clarify.

Lastly brother, from where you stand, you are defending the dignity of Sahaba and hence our Master (SAW).  However unfortunate it may be, I consider I am doing the same. Therefore, there is no hidden agenda.

Brother Mystic, what does the below highlighted text in your own quotation tells you. Unfortunately if he was a Sahabi then he is above awliya and janati as none in Ummah can reach the status of a sahabi. (I donno what they are trying to prove by it, but the hadeeth has been mentioned quite a lot in previous posts of this same topic).

"Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and he forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: he instructs you, that ye may recieve admonition." (Al-Nahl:90).

As far as i am concerned one thing is very clear brother mystic, if brothers here prove that despite voilating order of Allah (SWT) in quran, he still remains a sahabi and janati, my life would be easy ;), after all our Allah (SWT) is JUST. Otherwise, they have to come up with an explanation which clears him of this quiranic voilation or clears him from the list of sahaba.

 


- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 21 June 2009 - 06:44 AM (#93) User is offline   technocore 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 696
  • Joined: 15-February 09

QUOTE:
If the Khawarij are kaffir/monafiq for cursing the imam of the time then 12r shias are also monafiq for doing the same against the previous calipahs. Personally, I haven't seen Imam Ali (as) replying to them in a similar manner. At least it doesn't exist in history.

As for cursing calling someone a monafiq or kaffir is a curse itself. So let's avoid the harsh views.

Brother Mystic, 12er shias at the very least are munafiq's or what ever is the word for those who deny clear Quranic injunctions,  as they curse umul-momneen syda Aisha siddiqa (AS). Firstly quran calls her mother of believers (not muslims but believers - momins). Secondly Allah (SWT) has cleared her of charges they bring up here and there.

Secondly brother, I am not concerned weather he was good or bad. He could be the best muslim king ever. My problem is only with state of "Sahabiyet". This status brings him certain privillages, which belong to the people of highest ethics/actions/morals/belief. Where as his actions clearly state he was'nt worthy to sit in the feets of Masters like Ali,Usman,Omar,Abubakr, IbnAbbas, Bilal and other pious companions (RA). (apologies for the words).

Still I am not accusing him because of his deficiencies compared to other companions. I know our pious predecessors considered him to be a sahabi. There opinions are not binding on all. (May I remind you some of these predecessors also think yazeed deserves a (RA) after his name), they are entitled to hold this opinion.

I am simply stating that he voilate Quranic laws. Others who lived with the prophet (SAW) and did so were no longer considered Sahabi and mostly killed. I have repeated 2 points for 3-4 times and am only asking to clarify them and i will stop.

- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:34 PM (#94) User is offline   Zarb-e-Haidari 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 13-June 03

Quote

technocore (21.06.2009)
QUOTE:
If the Khawarij are kaffir/monafiq for cursing the imam of the time then 12r shias are also monafiq for doing the same against the previous calipahs. Personally, I haven't seen Imam Ali (as) replying to them in a similar manner. At least it doesn't exist in history.

As for cursing calling someone a monafiq or kaffir is a curse itself. So let's avoid the harsh views.

Brother Mystic, 12er shias at the very least are munafiq's or what ever is the word for those who deny clear Quranic injunctions,  as they curse umul-momneen syda Aisha siddiqa (AS). Firstly quran calls her mother of believers (not muslims but believers - momins). Secondly Allah (SWT) has cleared her of charges they bring up here and there.

Secondly brother, I am not concerned weather he was good or bad. He could be the best muslim king ever. My problem is only with state of "Sahabiyet". This status brings him certain privillages, which belong to the people of highest ethics/actions/morals/belief. Where as his actions clearly state he was'nt worthy to sit in the feets of Masters like Ali,Usman,Omar,Abubakr, IbnAbbas, Bilal and other pious companions (RA). (apologies for the words).

Still I am not accusing him because of his deficiencies compared to other companions. I know our pious predecessors considered him to be a sahabi. There opinions are not binding on all. (May I remind you some of these predecessors also think yazeed deserves a (RA) after his name), they are entitled to hold this opinion.

I am simply stating that he voilate Quranic laws. Others who lived with the prophet (SAW) and did so were no longer considered Sahabi and mostly killed. I have repeated 2 points for 3-4 times and am only asking to clarify them and i will stop.

 

Bismillairahmaaniraheem,

It is FARDZ to send darood upon the Ahle Baiet and Moula Ali (as) is a gem among them for HIS face has the KARAM of Allah (swt) upon it. 

Sending Lanat upon that person whom DAROOD and KARAM of Allah (swt) has been bestowed is like sending LANAT upon the Kaaba the Quran and Safa Marwa ! Its likened to sending LANAT upon Islam itself. Sending LANAT upon Moula Ali (as) is like sending LANAT upon Allah (swt) and the Holy Prophet (sawaw). There is a clear Hadieth whoever loves Ali loves ME whoever hates/hurts Ali hurts/hates ME. Whoever does sab (swears) at Ali swears/sab at ME. I and Ali are from the same Noor same Shajar.

Now what Imam Hassan (as) and Hussain (as) did by giving bayah was no more than a business contract with religious conditions. So at he is given a second chance to repent and come back to the fold of the followers of the Ahle Baiet. As per the orders of Allah (swt):

42:23. That is (the Bounty) whereof Allah gives Glad Tidings to His Servants who believe and do righteous deeds. Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin." And if any one earns any good, We shall give him an increase of good in respect thereof: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Ready to appreciate (service).

Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin." Is  not Hazrat Moula Ali (as) not near of kin ? Next Allah (swt) says "And if any one earns any good, we shall INCREASE OF GOOD in RESPECT THEREOF.

Those of us who are unaware of the meaning of the above ayah please let me explain in simple terms.

1) Holy Prophet (sawaw) is asked to tell them that he does not want any reward for giving them Islam and teaching them, meaning Salah Fasting Zakah Hajj and all other worships that they are doing is for Allah (swt) they do not need to do anything in return, ONLY (illal) apart from loving those who are near of KIN of the Holy Prophet (sawaw). 

2) All good that you do while loving the next of kin of Rasulullah (sawaw) will be increased. While loving the Holy Prophet (sawaw) and their progeny increases the value of good that you do.

From the words of Imam Sha3fi (ra) that if you remove the word Ahle from the darood of your Salah your Salah becomes void (rejected). Moula Ali (as) are included in the Ahle Baiet and Ahle e Muhammad (sawaw).

The Holy Prophet (sawaw) is with those who are with ALI (as).

Jazak Allah Khairan 

Ali (as) e Imam e manasto manum ghulaam e Ali (as)
1

Posted 21 June 2009 - 02:23 PM (#95) User is offline   technocore 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 696
  • Joined: 15-February 09

Salam Brother Zarb-e-Hadari,

Please do not be emotional. Problem with some people today, however learned they maybe, is that they cannot or out of some reason refuse to see the obvious.  Ok accepted that there is no historical evidence with strong enough chain of narrations that Muwaiya himself cursed the Prophet (SAW) and him Family (AS).

But history is full of facts that the practice started in Muwaiya’s rein. I do admit he was a very clever politician. In fact his own generals and closest family members were at the forefront of this campaign. He was totally aware of the situation. Yet he remained silent. One valid incident we do find in history is his conversation with a sahabi, where the leader of Muslims shows his concern as to why he was not cursing Ali (AS), instead of praising or accrediting his action. (if the questioner was a 4-5 years old kid asking why, I can believe its curiosity or to learn but attributing to him this justification is funny lolz J).

Besides numerous Sahaba and Muslims who opposed him ended up dead. Our brothers try to attribute all to coincidence, however, I think coincidence is something which occurs once or twice only but here the train goes on.

I guess they need a HD LCD TV replay of the events to infer the obvious.

Therefore I am not going into events that are weak. Let them explain two things which are without doubt, violation of Quranic Ayaat and not stopping the cursing:

 

(1)     Quran says "Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you".
"Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and he forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: he instructs you, that ye may recieve admonition." (Al-Nahl:90).

Muwaiya did not only disobey this order of Quran. He acted against it by raising his sword against “those vested with authority from among you” and “rebellion”.



(2)     Please bring forth from History one tiny event where Muwaiya asked his subjects (he was the ruler) to abandon such degradation of Sydna Ali (AS) and Family of the Prophet (SAW) or even expressed his sorrow/regret on such behavior of his subjects. His silence on such a grave atrocity shows what?
Slandering the family of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam hurts and offends the Prophet himself, and there is no doubt that whatever hurts and offends the Prophet (peace be upon him) is kufr, by consensus (ijmâ‘). (http://www.sunnahonl...seerah/0026.htm)


- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 21 June 2009 - 02:31 PM (#96) User is offline   technocore 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 696
  • Joined: 15-February 09

By the way I have heard wether reliable or not about these incidents of killing of Syda Aisha (AS) and Muhammad bin AbuBakr (RA). Can any brother who is well versed in history provide authentic details of their deaths ?
- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 21 June 2009 - 05:52 PM (#97) User is offline   technocore 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 696
  • Joined: 15-February 09

Brother Zarb e Hadari,

You have absolutely crossed the line man. Syda Aisha (AS) and Talha & Zubyer (RA) never fought against Moula Ali (AS). If I remind you your history. She came for reconciliation and some culprits started the fight at night. I don't know about Zubyer (RA) but Talha (RA) was killed for not fighting Imam Ali (AS).

Secondly being a lady even if we take your worst supposition, she could not have raised a sword in the battle. Yes the enemies were crushed and defeated and she(AS) was escorted with respect by our Master (AS) back to madina. I hope you mean this by what you said.

In either case, it shows their repentence. Where as our hero of the topic today made his final waisyet to Yazeed that do not take bayet from 3 people, which shows his stance even at death bed.

- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 21 June 2009 - 06:32 PM (#98) User is offline   Mystic 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2975
  • Joined: 06-August 04

Quote

technocore (21.06.2009)
By the way I have heard wether reliable or not about these incidents of killing of Syda Aisha (AS) and Muhammad bin AbuBakr (RA). Can any brother who is well versed in history provide authentic details of their deaths ?


Brother the incident of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (ra) being killed and stuffed in a donkey is true. Just read any history book on him and you will find it. However, I still don't know about Bibi Ayesha's (ra) incident.


For Bibi Ayesha's (ra) death it states in Istiab:

وتوفيت عائشة سنة سبع وخمسين وذكره المدايني عن سفيان بن عيينة عن هشام بن عروة عن وقال خليفة بن خياط وقد قيل‏:‏ إنها توفيت سنة ثمان وخمسين ليلة الثلاثاء لسبع عشرة ليلة خلت من رمضان أمرت أن تدفن ليلاً فدفنت بعد الوتر بالبقيع وصلى عليها أبو هريرة ونزل في قبرها خمسة‏:‏ عبد الله وعروة ابنا الزبير والقاسم بن محمد وعبد الله ابن محمد بن أبي بكر وعبد الله بن عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر فالله أعلم ذكر ذلك صالح بن الوجيه والزبير وجماعة من أهل السير والخبر‏.‏

"She was buried in Baqi and Abu Hurayra read the funeral prayer over her. Five people went down into her grave: Abdullah and Urwa bin Zubair, Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr (Grandfather of Imam Ja'far), Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abi bakr, and Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakr."
0

Posted 21 June 2009 - 06:55 PM (#99) User is offline   Mystic 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2975
  • Joined: 06-August 04

As for Talha (ra) and Zubair (ra), Imam Ali (as) paid homage to them when they died. I have Imam Ali's (as) speech on Hz Talha's (ra) .
Imam Ali (as) praised Hz Talha (ra) in his janazah.
He was one of the vanguards of Islam, and among the most pious companions of the Prophet . In the battle of Uhud he defended the Holy Prophet when he was surrounded by infidels. He shielded the Prophet by taking a shower of arrows and spears on his body, and as a result was seriously wounded. After the stoppage of war, the Prophet brought him to the camp on his shoulders and gave him the good news of his abode in paradise.


(Usudul Ghaba. Vol 3. P. 59)


Also, Imam Ali (as) was requested by Mughira ibn Shuba to give Talha (ra), Zubair (ra) and Muawiyah political position, and Imam Ali (as) replied by saying that he will consider this option for Talha (ra) and Zubair (ra).


Imam Ali (as) replies
I shall soon consider the case of Talha and Zubair. As regard to Muawiyah I swear my final decision is "May Allah not show me that day when I may seek his help in any matter. However, I am inviting him to accord allegiance to me. If he accepts, it is well good, otherwise I shall wage a war against him. "

When Hz Ali (ra) did not accept his advice for Muawiyah, Mughira became unhappy with the Imam and become aloof from the state of affairs.

(Mustadrik Hakim (3:450)


Lastly, even the shia sites admit that Imam Ali (as) mourned for Talha (ra) and Zubair (Ra) and attended their Janazah.

“Both Talha and Zubayr fell, and Imam `Ali magnanimously mourned the fallen and had them honourably buried”

http://www2.irib.ir/...m/speech/21.htm
0

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:42 PM (#100) User is offline   Zarb-e-Haidari 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 13-June 03

This question has NEVER been answered !
Ali (as) e Imam e manasto manum ghulaam e Ali (as)
0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options
  Or sign in with these services