[hoopoe]

I may ask as no one has answered me did the members of Ahle Bayt like Muaviuya Ibn Abu Sufya,un?

What have they taught us in this regard? Did they say (ra) upon him or curse him?

Any sayings?

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

I see no purpose of difaee Hz Amir Muaviya, I mean why would one choose to defend the greatness of a controverisal figure in Islamic history? I think it only goes to show where ones allegiances really lie. Where are we going to pluck out his great actions from? I think that in itself will be an academic struggle;may even involve head butting the reference books.

Better to leave him and his Iman to almighty God. Instead we should focus on those individuals whose excellence of character and actions is a means of guidance for us. Take the example of Imam Hassan, there is much to learn from his peaceful negotiations and of his noble character. Why then does Muzaffar Shah Sahab not focus on him, no action is without motive for todays self appointed Mullahs.

I think the Scholars need to teach people about Real Goodness so that we all can be inpsired by such people and spread love of people who truly deserve it.

[Mudassar-Rana]

Imran., on 17 July 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

There is ijmah within Ahle Sunna wal jamaah that Hadrat Muavyah(ra) was a sahabi',as were the other 2 names mentioned.

He may have been responsible for grave errors that have come to us through ahadith or history books(i do not defend that),but none of these take people out of islam therefore his sahabyat remains intact therefore tongues should be held against him for the sake of this "sharf" alone.

Sahabi's weren't infallible(some committed errors) but they were accepted as muslims by RasoolAllah(salalaahu Alayhi Wassallam) and imam Ali(Alayh Assalaam),therefore no little political group or movement can change their status.

Lets as sunnis show balance,neither get too much into the Nasbi camp that we lower the Status of Ali or Ahle Bayt(nor believe Ali was not the one on haq in these battles),nor get too much into the rafzi camp that we throw those that every bonafide sunni scholar/imam uptill now has accepted as sahaabi(although maybe disapproving of their actions at times)out of sahabiyat and into kufr(Maza'Allah)

to be honest dear br - we are at the mercy of history books. That is why i said before that I would love to see a defence of the allegations br oe repeated.

Which no one has done as of yet.

Ironically just watching a programme on ummah tv - its too painful to watch people brush under the carpet wrongdoings simply to differentiate themselves from shia. The call of the muslim should be to haq and haq only.

[Khalid_the_Warrior]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The excellence of a person’s Islam includes leaving what does not concern him.” [Tirmidhi] This is a valuable lesson for all of us

[hoopoe]

Khalid_the_Warrior, on 18 July 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The excellence of a person’s Islam includes leaving what does not concern him.” [Tirmidhi] This is a valuable lesson for all of us

The Holy Prophet (sawa) have also stated he who does not side with the truthful side rightious person sides with Shaitan!. Another place your iman is incomplete unless you can say to a tyrant ruler that he is wrong.

Today those who wish to shy away from learning the truth which does concern our Iman are wrong very wrong themselves. HEAR! HEAR! who ALI (as) is according to Holy Quran Ayah Moubala he is called the "Jaan" of Rasulullah (sawa) If swearing at the blessed slippers of Rasul e Pak (sawa) is Kufar swearing at their "Jaan" Body & Soul of the Holy Prophet is Kufar of the extreme.

It is best to know the truth and even then say nothing bad about them because they are called Sahabi of the Blessed Prophet (sawa). But relate to you a story of Shaitan Iblis who was great as a worshipper as a servant and student of Allah (swt). Like his greatness so was his punishment of great magnitude that his story re-told unlimited time forever. Despised is he by Muslims Jews Christians and all other religions.

If someone called Shaitan as an ex-servant friend of Allah (swt) It would be KUFR likewise by calling an evil person as Sahabi of Rasulullah would amount to disrespecting insulting Rasulullah (sawa). Go away and have a deep think about it would you call a prostitute or a thief or a liar as an companion of Rasulullah (sawa) It would be unthinkable unbearable. Out of the respect of the Holy Prophet (sawa) we do not have to call an evil person as a Sahabi. This is why the hush hush is applied to all wrong doings of the Sahabas to elevate them as "sinless" beings.

In this respect is it "valid" to hold such a stance out of love at the expense of the Ahle Bayt (as). This love thing can be abused by the enemies of the Ahle Bayt to protect themselves they have ommitted the "Ahle" from darood and included themselves in the Sahaba!. The cloak worn by some so called "Fake Sahabi" to cover their munafqat "the cloak of Sahabiyat" needs to be unveiled to expose their real nature. Why should we be included in their supporters list by saying may Allah (swt) be pleased with them, who swear and send lanat upon the Moula Ali (as) and their sons.



At 5:37 secs you can hear the status of Moula Ali (as).

Jazak Allah

[Fekay]

Quote

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The excellence of a person’s Islam includes leaving what does not concern him.” [Tirmidhi] This is a valuable lesson for all of us

Quote

The Holy Prophet (sawa) have also stated he who does not side with the truthful side rightious person sides with Shaitan!. Another place your iman is incomplete unless you can say to a tyrant ruler that he is wrong.

Instead of explaining the hadith, you counter with a slight contradiction to move your argument forward !?

[hoopoe]

FeKay, on 18 July 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

Instead of explaining the hadith, you counter with a slight contradiction to move your argument forward !?

The hadith is about that which does not concern us well the love of the Ahle Bayt does concern us. Take their name (Ahle) out of Salah, Salah becomes void (Imam Shafi). How right are those who respect the Ahle Bayt and say that they love them and offer the same to their enemies.

I know that my heart is clean free from the love of those who no doubt have hurt the blessed feelings of the Holy Prophet (sawa). Hurting in a such a way that forgiveness would be considered as unthinkable very much like the hurt yazeed gave.

The munfiqs attacked the next best to the Holy Prophet (sawa). This is evident upon ordering swearing and cursing of Moula Ali (as) and their sons. How could a Muslim do that? and read Salah at the same time.

[hoopoe]

Who is a real Sahabi and who is not? The one who does Kufr cannot be a Sahabi.

What is the Sunni definition of the word Sahabi "He who see's Rasulullah (sawa) with Iman and dies with Iman".
Seeing was done by Abu Lahab and Jahl but they did not accept Islam nor died with Islam. Marwan was a Munafiq he saw the Holy Prophet (sawa) then rejected and died as a Munafiq. Many others died cursing Moula Ali (as) did they die as Muslims?

Do we need more evidence than we have of millions of Muslims being misled by force are forced to swear alligence to Yazeed are forced to curse and swear at the Ahle Bayt. Come Muslim brothers our love for Rasulullah (sawa) comes first then the rest.

All bad amaal of any Sahabi are forgivable other than Kufr. Do we agree that it is Kufr to swear at Moula Ali (as). Last week a Shia called Ummah Channel and swore at Hz Abu Bakr (ra) and Hz Umar (ra) he was branded a Kafir and was told to re-do his nikah ! And recite the Kalima again! So a Muslim who swears at an Sahabi after 1400yrs loses his Iman but the one who swears at the Moula Ali (as) and curses him during their life time is hailed as an perfect Sahabi. What type of reasoning is this what type of justice is this?

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=9DZMZicpp2c

[The-Mughal-Sister]

Khalid_the_Warrior, on 18 July 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The excellence of a person’s Islam includes leaving what does not concern him.” [Tirmidhi] This is a valuable lesson for all of us

Dear brother,

Such gems and pearls of wisdom fall on deaf ears I'm afraid.

Very beautiful hadith SubhanAllah, if only people would ponder over it a minute they can save a lifetime of relentless argument.

JazakAllah Kheir for sharing.

[Fekay]

I read a particular quote from Hazrat Imam Gazali®.

Q: Yazid ke bare me aap ki kya ray hai?

A: "Aap ne farmaya 'Mutjhe zikr-e Hussain say fursad kahan, ke dekhun kisi Yazid ko!"

Alot wisdom behind this quote. Why can't we spend time in praise of great personalities instead of wasting time cursing?

[hoopoe]

FeKay, on 18 July 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

I read a particular quote from Hazrat Imam Gazali®.

Q: Yazid ke bare me aap ki kya ray hai?

A: "Aap ne farmaya 'Mutjhe zikr-e Hussain say fursad kahan, ke dekhun kisi Yazid ko!"

Alot wisdom behind this quote. Why can't we spend time in praise of great personalities instead of wasting time cursing?

Yes that quote of Imam Ghazali in exoneration of Yazeed is most famous indeed for which great tributes are being paid to Dr Zakir Naik check youtube. Saying Yazeed was a Muslim so he will be forgiveable is to let every enemy of the Holy Prophet's (sawa) family out of Hell. It all depends how much you love Rasulullah (sawa) its that simple.

Wasting time well that story about Karbala might have been a waste of time for Imam Ghazali but the story about the love of Zuleikha Bibi or the story about Shaitan being booted out was not.

Let truth prevail without cursing !

[technocore]

Interesting ... kinna reminds me about the downfall of jews, once the most favored nation of Allah (swt).
But when they started zulm ... creating divisions ... having one rule for a commoner and another for the elite .... that was their downfall...

Did our downfall start with a similar scenario .... something to think ...

Was Prophet Muhammad (saaw) a lier when he said who ever hurts Ali (as) hurts me (saaw) ? or was it a casual remark ? But if He (saaw) was truthful, than what is the ruling on a muslim person who hurts/attacks him .... Hypothetically speaking, If I go to madina and disrespect our Masters (saaw) grave in any way ... naozbillah .... would you all just turn and say ... its between him and the Master (saaw) .... if no than why not ?

IRONIC: the religion that claims to have come with message of equality, itself, starts by diving men into two casts.... lolz .... i dunno weather to laugh or cry ...

[Mudassar-Rana]

technocore, on 18 July 2011 - 07:10 PM, said:

Interesting ... kinna reminds me about the downfall of jews, once the most favored nation of Allah (swt).
But when they started zulm ... creating divisions ... having one rule for a commoner and another for the elite .... that was their downfall...

Did our downfall start with a similar scenario .... something to think ...

Was Prophet Muhammad (saaw) a lier when he said who ever hurts Ali (as) hurts me (saaw) ? or was it a casual remark ? But if He (saaw) was truthful, than what is the ruling on a muslim person who hurts/attacks him .... Hypothetically speaking, If I go to madina and disrespect our Masters (saaw) grave in any way ... naozbillah .... would you all just turn and say ... its between him and the Master (saaw) .... if no than why not ?

IRONIC: the religion that claims to have come with message of equality, itself, starts by diving men into two casts.... lolz .... i dunno weather to laugh or cry ...

I have never been a fan of these type of conferences regardless of who the personality is. The only winners are the career muslims who will make a name for themselves as defenders of a cause - when most times the cause never needed defending.

History long ago decided who the righteous was even if some muslims couldnt. Have a look in your families how many Ali's, hussein's and hassans are they!

[Imran.]

hoopoe, on 18 July 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

The one who does Kufr cannot be a Sahabi.

Didn't ,Ali , Hasan or Husayn(Alayhim Assalaam)know that, non of them called him kaafir,why not?.

Infact imam Husayn was alive when hadrat muavya passed away and accepted him as a muslim ruler of the time(prove it otherwise).

Btw what swears were used exactly(i would like to know the exact words),or was it just the custom of praying for the curse to be on the opponants?

[Mudassar-Rana]

Btw what swears were used exactly(i would like to know the exact words),or was it just the custom of praying for the curse to be on the opponants?[/size][/font]
[/quote]

Either way br. it is wrong and we shouldnt seek to defend it. If we after 1400 years know the status of syedna ali a.s surely they were well aware of it as well. As to the rights or the wrongs of it each individual muslim can ask himself whom he would align himself with if it was a matter of life and death?

Our present predicament, where we are dithering and trying to explain wrongdoing should be laid at the door of those who are supposed to guide us, in reality they have confused the issue even further. "Ijtihadi Galti" shoudnt be used so freely.

[Imran.]

Mudassar-Rana, on 18 July 2011 - 11:15 PM, said:

Either way br. it is wrong and we shouldnt seek to defend it.

Whos defending it,certainly not me?

People know my stance on the issue is that imam Ali's party were on absolute haq,those that fought against him were wrong and rebellious in conduct.

I am asking a mere question for a reason other than that to defend it,lets not jump the gun here please.

[Mudassar-Rana]

Imran., on 18 July 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

Whos defending it,certainly not me?

People know my stance on the issue is that imam Ali's party were on absolute haq,those that fought against him were wrong and rebellious in conduct.

I am asking a mere question for a reason other than that to defend it,lets not jump the gun here please.

br imran i said "we" - it wasnt referenced to you in particular it was a general comment aimed at those whose argument is that it was an error of ijtihad rather than calling a spade a spade - which is rebellion against a perfectly legitimate caliph at the very least and one of the best of creation in the opinion of many (incl.me). I would have hoped that my final sentence makes clear who I was referring to! So hopefully I havent jumped any gun's!

[objective-enquirer]

I was merely responding to a narrative advanced by maulana muzaffar shah sb about the Caliph Imam Ali and about anti-Caliph hazart Muawiya (the term anti-caliph is a historical term not dogmatic as some would think.) However, maulana sb 'created' a narrative which does not correspond to reality i.e. what happened and what was the judgement of ahl al-sunna about the whole episode. He decalred a prominent sunni scholar from pakistan as a kutta! and I thought that was out of order because he was only stating facts and did not disrespect.
It is the nature of internet perhaps that we are all ever-ready to pass value-judgements. there is the domain of inter-sectarian polemics and then there is what happened and how authentic is its transmission. The whole takfiri-game from either sunni or shia or wahabi side is counter productive for a start, and when there is ta'wil then there is no takfir.

those who swore at sahaba did it out of ta'wil hence cannot be regarded as non-muslims. There are many instances of such rulings such as hazrat umar ibn abd al-aziz's response when someone swore at hazrat Abu bakr al-siddiq® or when fath al-qadeer and others state ijma of fuqaha that khawarij cannot be ragarded as kafir though they called some sahaba kafir because of ta'wil. these are highly technical matters and cannot be pushed as black and white blanket takfir guarantee. Dont forget that a particular hadith, for example, may state something unequivocally but though it is definite in meaning; it is not definite in transmission unless it is mutawatir; which is not the case here. until, there is such a definite application of a text both in meaning and transmission which makes one a kafir, we cannot consider anyone kafir. when Ulama declared yazid(la) a kafir they stated the tawatur of his kufr such as the aqida Imam Taftazani. even if the swearing is mutawatir, it still cannot be considered as evidence of kufr. we only have Imaan upon the Prophet(s) and the sahaba with particular names do not form as part of our Imaan. As a category yes because it is in the Quran but as individuals No. therefore, takfir of a person based on cursing a sahabi cannot be done. Such a person would be a fasiq/sinner, etc but not a kafir. this is the judgement of Ulama of aqida and as for fuqaha (though I mentioned an example from fiqh for suggesting that even more likely people refrained from it) then aqida is not their domain and no one listens to them for takfir issues merely because it is not their field.

This post has been edited by objective-enquirer: 19 July 2011 - 01:11 AM

[Desert-Sheikh]

qadrimuslim, on 17 July 2011 - 05:57 PM, said:

We need to strike a balance


and YaNabi.com should have a charter and an official position on this topic like we have on many other topics

YaNabi.com is neither a Shaykh nor a disciple that needs to have an opinion on everything.

YaNabi.com is a community of people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Everyone is welcome here, and including their points of view and all opinions. It strongly encourages all users to post/share whatever that they want to discuss with others but only sensors provoking sectarian content, it doesn't allow anyone to use this place to promote hate.

YaNabi.com is a great information site about Islam and Muslims. Although it's management belongs to Ahle Sunnah wal Jama'h but it's users are truly free to make their own choice on any issue. And replies from a team member(s) do not represent the entire team nor does it can be official stance of YaNabi.com.

[qadrimuslim]

Sorry but you don't make sense

If this is a Muslim site and slandering of every day Scholars is not permitted nor sectarian 'content'
then slandering a Sahabi - Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) or any other - should not be permitted

(i) slandering of a Sahabi is much worse than slandering a modern day Scholar

(ii) insulting Sahaba (or attempt of) is one primary example of 'sectarian content' being 'provoked'

Quite simple to understand really and my suggestion stands, that this website should include this rule into its moderating duties


We should allow discussion on these topics but disallow any attempted slander