Spirit Of Islam: Difae Hazrat Ameer Muavia (radiallahuanh) - Spirit Of Islam

Jump to content



Icon Important Announcement!

Like us on facebook!


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Difae Hazrat Ameer Muavia (radiallahuanh) Radde Tafzeeli

Posted 19 July 2011 - 02:39 PM (#41) User is offline   Desert-Sheikh 

  • Administrator
  • View blog
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 5197
  • Joined: 12-May 04

View Postqadrimuslim, on 19 July 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

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





Registration Terms & Rules said:


Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser.

Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message.

The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.


Brother QadiriMuslim, as we do not read each and every post, we rely on you for help on reporting any abuse. If you see any posts that you think are problems like offensive or abusive - we need you to tell us about it. Just email/PM us and the issue will be deal with.
Administrator
YaNabi Team

-What is it to make you wonder, if I roam the desert waste?
Not all those who wander are lost!
0

Posted 19 July 2011 - 03:06 PM (#42) User is offline   Desert-Sheikh 

  • Administrator
  • View blog
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 5197
  • Joined: 12-May 04


Now back to the topic:

Sometimes the way in which history is perceived can be changed, but the actual events cannot, and this bit of history is not hidden from us. I don't belong to either camp but as a student of history, I have few questions for Truecolorsofislam who started this topic.

Weren’t Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib and Imam Hassan ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhum) Righteous Caliphs?

Didn’t Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu) challenged their rule and established his kingship against the righteous Caliphs and waged wars against the Righteous Caliphs?

What’s the position of Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu) after this? I know who and who were on his side and what are the common excuses but it’s not convincing at all. I do not accept these defensive clarifications because state within a state is not acceptable at all, at least for those who believe Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib and Imam Hassan ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhum) were on Haq, and when it comes to taking sides, entire Muslim Ummah stands by Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib and Imam Hassan ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhum)’s side because they were chosen one, 4rth and 5th Righteous Caliphs of Islam.

If Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah was really involved in slandering then Imam Hassan’s peace treaty with Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah doesn’t give him a clean chit on it nor does it make Imam Hassan a week leader. Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah was a blessed Companion; Prophet (Sallallahu Alieh Wassalam) even made a Treaty of Hudaybiyya with non-Muslim. If he was involved, no one should abuse Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah and leave this matter to Allah and the judgment day. No one should even judge Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah based on Yazid’s actions, though it gives an idea that what kind of views/feelings some top-level Umawi’s had about Ahle-Bayt.

These topics will not benefit anyone but whenever so-called defenders of Companions or Wakeel-e-Sahaba will try to twist the facts, we cannot turn a blind eye. I really don’t like these Defaa’ or Defense champions who twist the historical facts. Sipah-e-Sahaba started these conferences before anyone and their Imam-of-the-time (chief) is known as Wakeel-e-Sahaba and now few Barelvi Sunni’s are also following their footsteps. Once a top Sipah-e-Sahaba leader personally said to me, by refuting Shia we went too far and distanced us from Ahle-Bait that during last 15 years not a single child in our houses were named Ali, Hassan or Hussein...and i heard a Barelvi Alim changed his name from Zulfiqaar to xxxxx, if it's true he didnt refute Shia but actually pleased wahabia.

All Sahaba-Ikram, are very highly regarded and no one should use any abusive or insulting language/words.

Wo Jo Be-Zarf They Ab Sahib-e-May.Khana Huwey
Ab Ba.mushkil Koi Dastaar Salamat Deikhon!!

*** I couldn’t proofread it, please ask me for clarifications.

Administrator
YaNabi Team

-What is it to make you wonder, if I roam the desert waste?
Not all those who wander are lost!
3

Posted 19 July 2011 - 03:24 PM (#43) User is offline   Khalid_the_Warrior 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • PipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1774
  • Joined: 25-April 07

View PostDesert-Sheikh, on 19 July 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:


Now back to the topic:

Sometimes the way in which history is perceived can be changed, but the actual events cannot, and this bit of history is not hidden from us. I don't belong to either camp but as a student of history, I have few questions for Truecolorsofislam who started this topic.

Weren’t Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib and Imam Hassan ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhum) Righteous Caliphs?

Didn’t Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu) challenged their rule and established his kingship against the righteous Caliphs and waged wars against the Righteous Caliphs?

What’s the position of Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu) after this? I know who and who were on his side and what are the common excuses but it’s not convincing at all. I do not accept these defensive clarifications because state within a state is not acceptable at all, at least for those who believe Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib and Imam Hassan ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhum) were on Haq, and when it comes to taking sides, entire Muslim Ummah stands by Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib and Imam Hassan ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhum)’s side because they were chosen one, 4rth and 5th Righteous Caliphs of Islam.

If Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah was really involved in slandering then Imam Hassan’s peace treaty with Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah doesn’t give him a clean chit on it nor does it make Imam Hassan a week leader. Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah was a blessed Companion; Prophet (Sallallahu Alieh Wassalam) even made a Treaty of Hudaybiyya with non-Muslim. If he was involved, no one should abuse Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah and leave this matter to Allah and the judgment day. No one should even judge Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah based on Yazid’s actions, though it gives an idea that what kind of views/feelings some top-level Umawi’s had about Ahle-Bayt.

These topics will not benefit anyone but whenever so-called defenders of Companions or Wakeel-e-Sahaba will try to twist the facts, we cannot turn a blind eye. I really don’t like these Defaa’ or Defense champions who twist the historical facts. Sipah-e-Sahaba started these conferences before anyone and their Imam-of-the-time (chief) is known as Wakeel-e-Sahaba and now few Sunni’s are also on following their footsteps. Once a top Sipah-e-Sahaba leader personally said to me, by refuting Shia we went too far and distanced us from Ahle0Bait that during last 15 years not a single child in our houses were named Ali, Hassan or Hussein...and i heard a Barelvi Alim changed his name from Zulfiqaar to xxx, if it's true he didnt refute Shia but actually pleases wahabia.
Wo Jo Be-Zarf They Ab Sahib-e-May.Khana Huwey
Ab Ba.mushkil Koi Dastaar Salamat Deikhon!!

*** I couldn’t proofread it, please ask me for clarifications.



Well nicely put brother DS. I often feel that some people in trying to defend the status of one person do end up degrading the other person. As is the case with Ameer Muaiwiya radhillaho anho. What are we going to get out from all this. Its a matter between Allah and his servant and we should leave at that. Nobody can change historical facts thus mere mud sledging on each other will only make the matter at hand worse. We should sort out our priorities and leave out what's doesn't concern us.

When it comes to the companion of Prophet sallaho alhe waslam, one has be really cautious, we are not even comparable to the dust of their footsteps. I think brother OE gave a very detailed answer on this topic and that should be that.

Repentance is a strange mount -
it jumps towards heaven in a single moment from the lowest place
0

Posted 19 July 2011 - 03:58 PM (#44) User is offline   Mudassar-Rana 

  • Full Moon
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6237
  • Joined: 23-July 07

Beautifully written br ds.

Its a shame that we align ourselves to different groups and aqaids and then afterwards have to twist our knickers to justify wrong. The status of sahaba never needed defending - it is enshrined in quran and seerah. Status though is one thing and downright bad actions are another, if someone has committed them then why do we think defending them is part of iman - it isnt! the head bows to allah out of obligation and the heart should bow to rasool s.a.w out of ishq. both head and heart should never bow down before baatil regardless of whose hands caused it.
my brothers are those who will believe in me, without having seen me.” [Ahmad, Musnad]

Jaag Muslmaan Jaag Muslmaan ... kitna naacho gai ghairon ki dhun par?Jis ummat mein rab ne sher paida kiye aaj wohi gheedar ka libaas apna muqaddar samjh bethi
0

Posted 21 July 2011 - 05:00 PM (#45) User is offline   FSA 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 27-January 10

Salam

When Shias mention the name of Hazrat Ameer Muavia RadiAllahuanhu they spout out venomously 'Muaviah ibn Sufyan' putting emphasis on the 'ibn Sufyan' part. Hazrat Abu Sufyan were a Sahabi so I dont know what they think they are achieving.

Sunnis have to bear that in mind even though technically it is correct. However people may find it provocative and suspect the beliefs of someone who appears to be emphasizing the 'ibn Sufyan' part of the name.

Frankly, seeing that on this thread makes me sick.

Salam
FREE SYRIA ARMY- Khalid Bin al Walid Brigade. Homs. Homeland protectors.
0

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:02 PM (#46) User is offline   Fatema-the-resplendent 

  • Waxing Gibbous
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2080
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Quote

''When Shias mention the name of Hazrat Ameer Muavia RadiAllahuanhu they spout out venomously 'Muaviah ibn Sufyan' putting emphasis on the 'ibn Sufyan' part. Hazrat Abu Sufyan were a Sahabi so I dont know what they think they are achieving.

Sunnis have to bear that in mind even though technically it is correct. However people may find it provocative and suspect the beliefs of someone who appears to be emphasizing the 'ibn Sufyan' part of the name.

Frankly, seeing that on this thread makes me sick''


One can not change ones father. People refer to Ali Ibn Abi Talib as such, like Fatema Binte Mohammed. Infact everyone at time of RAsoolAllah was known as such. It is Yazid Ibn Muawiya, Amire Muawiyah can not NOT become the father of Yazid.

No one is putting emphasis on the father part of the name, it is the truth and comes with his name. Muaviyah ibn Sufyan, what is wrong with that? By omitting the name of the father one can't change ones lineage. Are you suggesting that Abu Sufyan was not a good Sahabi? otherwise why would it be a thing of shame?

Lutf-e-mai tujh se kya kahu’n zahid
Haae kambakht tu ne pi hi nahi’n
-Daagh Dehlvi
0

Posted 22 July 2011 - 02:08 AM (#47) User is offline   Mudassar-Rana 

  • Full Moon
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6237
  • Joined: 23-July 07

View PostWe_are_all_Hama, on 21 July 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

Salam

When Shias mention the name of Hazrat Ameer Muavia RadiAllahuanhu they spout out venomously 'Muaviah ibn Sufyan' putting emphasis on the 'ibn Sufyan' part. Hazrat Abu Sufyan were a Sahabi so I dont know what they think they are achieving.

Sunnis have to bear that in mind even though technically it is correct. However people may find it provocative and suspect the beliefs of someone who appears to be emphasizing the 'ibn Sufyan' part of the name.

Frankly, seeing that on this thread makes me sick.

Salam


Why it should make anyone sick that a man is referred to by his father's name? Many a time rasool e kareem s.a.w is referred to as muhammad bin abdullah s.a.w or umar ibn al khattab, khalid bin walid - if its going to cause sickness your going to have to stop reading!

A muslim is one who above all who bows to truth and there is no greater truth than rab and rasool s.a.w.

The allegations against amir muawiyah are severe hence in some there is animosity towards him. The "sunni" generally stay silent out of respect over his status as a sahaba, others such as the wahabi elevate him most probably as a response to the venomosity of the shia.

Me personally the discovery of the allegations against him were initially disturbing simply because of the way he was portrayed i.e as someone who was persuaded by his advisers to nominate his son as caliph, or that he fought syedna ali a.s because of the murder of syedna usman r.a.

though partially I agree with the middle path i.e. to remain silent I also feel it is terribly unfair to the household of the prophet a.s in that Syedna Ali and Hassan and then Hussein suffered immense hardship due to the actions of amir muawiyah and directly or indirectly it led to their untimely deaths. Imagine for one moment that these 3 towering personalities in human history had the opportunity to rule in a stable environment . the only way i come to terms with it is that allah allowed them to be martyred so they could remain alive for eternity and thus benefit us somehow from wherever they are stationed. The story that is related about imam ali a.s carrying his own funeral is awe inspiring. Perhaps it is best that we concentrate on the positives and investigate and learn from the lives of perhaps the greatest of creation after rasool s.a.w.

my brothers are those who will believe in me, without having seen me.” [Ahmad, Musnad]

Jaag Muslmaan Jaag Muslmaan ... kitna naacho gai ghairon ki dhun par?Jis ummat mein rab ne sher paida kiye aaj wohi gheedar ka libaas apna muqaddar samjh bethi
0

Posted 22 July 2011 - 04:48 AM (#48) User is offline   FSA 

  • First Quarter
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 27-January 10

View PostMudassar-Rana, on 22 July 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:



Why it should make anyone sick that a man is referred to by his father's name? Many a time rasool e kareem s.a.w is referred to as muhammad bin abdullah s.a.w or umar ibn al khattab, khalid bin walid - if its going to cause sickness your going to have to stop reading!

A muslim is one who above all who bows to truth and there is no greater truth than rab and rasool s.a.w.

The allegations against amir muawiyah are severe hence in some there is animosity towards him. The "sunni" generally stay silent out of respect over his status as a sahaba, others such as the wahabi elevate him most probably as a response to the venomosity of the shia.

Me personally the discovery of the allegations against him were initially disturbing simply because of the way he was portrayed i.e as someone who was persuaded by his advisers to nominate his son as caliph, or that he fought syedna ali a.s because of the murder of syedna usman r.a.

though partially I agree with the middle path i.e. to remain silent I also feel it is terribly unfair to the household of the prophet a.s in that Syedna Ali and Hassan and then Hussein suffered immense hardship due to the actions of amir muawiyah and directly or indirectly it led to their untimely deaths. Imagine for one moment that these 3 towering personalities in human history had the opportunity to rule in a stable environment . the only way i come to terms with it is that allah allowed them to be martyred so they could remain alive for eternity and thus benefit us somehow from wherever they are stationed. The story that is related about imam ali a.s carrying his own funeral is awe inspiring. Perhaps it is best that we concentrate on the positives and investigate and learn from the lives of perhaps the greatest of creation after rasool s.a.w.



Salam

I wrote what I felt. Like I said technically there is nothing wrong using the full name. However we dont tend to use the full name of Sahaba (ra). We tend to say Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Usman, Hazrat Ali (RA) etc on forums, in speeches etc. We know the Shia use the full name of Hazrat Ameer Muaviah (RA) to emphasize the lineage as it follows from their narrative of Shajra Maaluna etc. I dont think I have heard a Sunni scholar use the full name of Hazrat Ameer Muawiya (ra). It is always 'Ameer Muawiya' (RA).

I saw the references in posts along with the use of the full name of Hazrat Ameer Muaviah (RA). One cant know a persons intention so I just stated my feelings indirectly.

Quote

Why it should make anyone sick that a man is referred to by his father's name?


In general it wouldnt make anyone 'sick' but Hazrat Ameer Muawiya (RA) are an exception because of the history and we know Shia emphasize the Shajra Maaluna narrative. Also some Sunnis also hold animosity.

Anyway my post was a little emotional outburst and I may be over reacting. I dont know. Im a bit tired right now so forgive me if I sound incoherent.

Salam
FREE SYRIA ARMY- Khalid Bin al Walid Brigade. Homs. Homeland protectors.
0

Posted 22 July 2011 - 11:44 AM (#49) User is offline   Mudassar-Rana 

  • Full Moon
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6237
  • Joined: 23-July 07

View PostWe_are_all_Hama, on 22 July 2011 - 04:48 AM, said:

Salam

I wrote what I felt. Like I said technically there is nothing wrong using the full name. However we dont tend to use the full name of Sahaba (ra). We tend to say Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Usman, Hazrat Ali (RA) etc on forums, in speeches etc. We know the Shia use the full name of Hazrat Ameer Muaviah (RA) to emphasize the lineage as it follows from their narrative of Shajra Maaluna etc. I dont think I have heard a Sunni scholar use the full name of Hazrat Ameer Muawiya (ra). It is always 'Ameer Muawiya' (RA).

I saw the references in posts along with the use of the full name of Hazrat Ameer Muaviah (RA). One cant know a persons intention so I just stated my feelings indirectly.



In general it wouldnt make anyone 'sick' but Hazrat Ameer Muawiya (RA) are an exception because of the history and we know Shia emphasize the Shajra Maaluna narrative. Also some Sunnis also hold animosity.

Anyway my post was a little emotional outburst and I may be over reacting. I dont know. Im a bit tired right now so forgive me if I sound incoherent.

Salam


Its good to write what one feels, sometimes its appreciated other times it isnt but speaking from the heart is a virtue in itself.

Though I disagree wholeheartedly with you - as the problem isnt the name or how he is addressed but more what historians have written and how it is still painful for us to come to terms with it. Often we use "error of ijtihad" to cover these grave cock ups as if you know it was simply ijtihad over whether fish was halal and one of them got it wrong - so the right get 2 rewards and the wrong 1.
my brothers are those who will believe in me, without having seen me.” [Ahmad, Musnad]

Jaag Muslmaan Jaag Muslmaan ... kitna naacho gai ghairon ki dhun par?Jis ummat mein rab ne sher paida kiye aaj wohi gheedar ka libaas apna muqaddar samjh bethi
0

Posted 25 July 2011 - 01:52 PM (#50) User is offline   Qadri-Jilani 

  • Full Moon
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 6450
  • Joined: 05-July 03

I acknowledge the sensitivity of the topic.

The best way to deal with this topic is to split the historical reality from our belief that we maintain respect for all the companions without exception.

The problem with some of our Ulama is denying or twisting plain historical facts which are documented in all of OUR sources (not shia). This is simple dishonesty and does not help anyone. It will only further confuse our own people who read Islamic history. I have even seen some of our own ulama blatantly lying when it comes to some of these issues in order to present a concocted history that bears no resemblance with actual history. How will that help in refuting Shia? That's just giving them bonus points and you'll see another programme on a Shia TV channel reading from our books against a certain Sahabi...I blame our scholars for giving them that opportunity.

The way people can access information and spread information in today's age means that Ulama cannot fool people so easily as they might once have been able to do so they should be careful before making such claims. I've not heard the particular lecture above but I would not be surprised if a Shia TV channel did a program reading from Sunni sources about the very same issue and refuting his lecture. The Moulana Sahib needs to be told it's simply not the way to handle this issue.

Our people are not remaining true to our own sources which do not deny historical events and the legal implications that follow, but do at the same time say Hazrat Mu'awiya was a Sahabi and adab must be maintained.

Maslak-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat

jarahat al-sinani laha'l-tiyamu ma yaltamu jarahat al-lisani
ei biradar chu 'aqibat khakast, khaak shawesh az ankei khaak shawee
apni millat par qiyas aqwam-e-maghrib sei na kar, khas hei tarkeeb mein qawm-e-Rasool-e-Hashmi
0

Posted 25 July 2011 - 07:56 PM (#51) User is offline   technocore 

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

Slandering is the method of shaitan .... as for for love/emotions, one is not liable for what is not within his/her control.

By the way, can someone inform me why Marwan was no longer considered as a sahabi ? I mean what particular act got him out of the group ? information plz ... no debate.
- The most favorable friend to me is that who shows me my flaws -
0

Posted 31 July 2011 - 04:26 PM (#52) User is offline   hereandthere 

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

View PostJoeDacky, on 17 July 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

Salaam,

There is no doubt of the rank of Sayyiddina Muawiyah (r.a). He died with Imaan and was a Sahabi otherwise Sayyiddina Imam Hassan (a.s) would not have made peace with him. His rank is greater than any Ghawth, Abdaal, Qutb, or Pir etc

?



dude, where do you come up with such statements??? There is doubt??!! What, Allah SWT has given you His Knolwedge? or you know the knowledge of the hearts?? How do you know on what status did he die on???
Or whatever Huzoor Paak SAAW says doesn't matter, because you can simply throw his words behind your back and make up new deeni rulz.

dude, don't be blinded by the words of molvi's who are made to be idols again and who want to make new rules by rippin' Huzoor paaks words apart and destroying them.
Here is what Bukhari sharif said: عَمّارٍ تَقتُلهُ الفِئةُ الباغِيةُ يَدْعُوهُم إلى الجَنَّةِ ويَدْعونَهُ إلى النار
Huzoor paak SAAW is clear two in this sahi Hadis in two things: Ammar will be killed by the Baghi group (zalems, went out of the limits group). and two: he is calling them to jannah, and they are calling to Hellfire.
Either I take your words or Huzoor SAAW words. He calls them: Baghi's, and their leader is moawiya; i.e. according to the Prophetic words he is the Amir-e-Baghi's. Two: he is the leader of the: Callers to Hellfire.

Do you now dare to say the Sunna is to adopt Huzoor Paak SAAW words, and call the Amir-e-Baghi's as Huzoor called him, or you want to call him as Molvi' so and so wrote. Choice is yours.

You say there is no dout in his Iman, and Allah SWT tells us surat-e- tauba:
وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُمْ مِّنَ الأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُواْ عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لاَ تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَى عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ
And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites. And among the people of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not. We, We know them, and We shall chastise them twice; then they will be relegated to a painful doom.

Can you tell brother who those Munafiqin are, that were in Madina sharif when Huzoor Paak SAAW was there, and plural, so how many?

It doesn't have to do with Abu Said Khudri RA saying: we used to know the Munafiqin in Madina by their hatred towards Ali, does it?

and can you tell me the meaning of the Hadis in muslim sharif again:
قُلْتُ لِعَمَّارٍ: أَرَأَيْتُمْ صَنِيعَكُمْ هذَا الَّذِي صَنَعْتُمْ فِي أَمْرِ عَلِيَ، أَرَأْياً رَأَيْتُمُوهُ أَوْ شَيْئاً عَهِدَهُ إِلَيْكُمْ رَسُولُ اللّهِ ؟ فَقَالَ: مَا عَهِدَ إِلَيْنَا رَسُولُ اللّهِ شَيْئاً لَمْ يَعْهَدْهُ إِلَى النَّاسِ كَافَّةً. وَلكِنْ حُذَيْفَةُ أَخْبَرَنِي عَنِ النَّبِيِّ قَالَ: قَالَ النَّبِي صلى الله عليه وسلم: «فِي أَصْحَابِي اثْنَا عَشَرَ مُنَافِقاً. فِيهِمْ ثَمَانِيَةٌ لاَ يَدْخُلُونَ الْجَنَّةَ حَتَّى يَلِجَ الْجَمَلُ فِي سُمِّ الْخِيَاطِ ثَمَانِيَةٌ مِنْهُمْ تَكْفيكَهُمُ الدُّبَيْلَةُ وَأَرْبَعَةٌ» لَمْ أَحْفَظْ مَا قَالَ شُعْبَةُ فِيهِمْ
I asked Ammar: what about your stand with Ali, is it an opinion you came up with, or something from Rasulullah that he gave to you? He replied: Rasulullah did not give us something he didn't tell other people. Huzaifa told me, Rasulullah said: among my companions 12 munafiqs. among them 8 who will never enter Jannah until the camel enters the needle hole.. 8 of them will be taken care of by Dubaila.

What about this Hadis sir? can you tell me who the 12 "sahabi" who are munafiqs according to Huzoor Paak SAAW?? Note: he SAAW calls them Sahabi' (as'haabi) and calls them munafiqin at the same time. Who are those 12?

They don't happen to fall under his SAAW hadis: whoever hates Ali is Munafiq, do they?? and of course Moawiya did not hate Ali, he loved him, therfore he cursed him, then tried to kill him, and fought him, and split the ummah, declared war on the Khula fa Rashdin's governing style and exchanged it for father-son personal kingdom, and waged war on the sahaba and tabi'n killing in the 10's of 1000's of them. They: Allah curse them, but him Allah please him. All the Sahaba muawiya killed..no problem. a blessed deed indeed.!!!

Besides, what is Dubaila that will take care of the 8 most notrious of the munafiqin who pretended to be sahabi-e-Rasul?

A disease? Why don't you do some research on what is dubaila first, then do another research on how muawiya died, please.
hint:
Ibn Is'haq ( the famous Sirah scholar) said: moawiya died at 78 years with "hole driller" which is Dubaila).

just do some research and try to believe Huzoor Paak SAAW more than the words of the molvi's in the past 200-300 years, you will find a miracle of Huzoor SAAW fortelling the kind of painful death of muawiya and the torture he goes thru because of this flesh eating or flesh hole drilling disease. remember the quranic verse up: We shall chastise them twice.
Once here and once there.

Didn't Hazrat Umme Salama say: Huzoor Paak SAAW said: anyone who curses Ali, curses me and anyone who curses me curses Allah??
isn't this hadis sahih? How come the molvi's hide it and ripp Huzoor's words to protect moawiya? cursing Moula Ali is cursing Huzoor Paak, and that means cursing Allah SWT. What do you call someone who curses Allah?? Undoubtedly believer??
maybe but believer in what?? shaytan, idols, ?? either the molvi's words are lying are the hadis is forged, which?


dude, where do you get this notion that if he wasn't good, then Imam-e-Hasan would not have made peace with him??
Huzoor Paak made peace with the kuffar of Kuraysh and gave them rights that Muslims didn't have. what does that mean?. what is the legal implication of such an accord with moawiya? does it confer Iman on him? muslims made accords everyday with all kinds of kuffar to rule them as long as they are protected and have some rights when Muslims were weak... I mean don't you read history bro? Does that give any legal Shari rights to the moguls and tatars who ruled ruthlessly before they became muslims, etc..??
Imam-e-Hasan was left with no option, the mercenaries of moawiya and the assassins were everywhere, the whole state was collapsing, people who knew some Deen were being slaughtered. It was an emergency temporary measure, badly needed.

what about the hadis sahih where Huzoor Paak SAAW said:
يَطْلُعُ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ هَذَا الْفَجِّ رَجُلٌ يَمُوتُ عَلَى غَيْرِ مِلَّتِي. قَالَ: وَكُنْتُ تَرَكْتُ أَبِي قَدْ وُضِعَ لَهُ وَضُوءٌ، فَكُنْتُ كَحَابِسِ الْبَوْلِ مَخَافَةَ أَنْ يَجِيءَ. قَالَ: فَطَلَعَ مُعَاوِيَةُ، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ
هُوَ هَذَا
a man will come from this side who will not die on my Millat (deen). (abdullah son of amro ben aas) said: i had left my father preparing for wudu, and i was like someone who is holding his urgently needed urination out of fear that my father will come, but moawiya came first. Nabi said: is it him.


Or should we leave all the words of Huzoor paak to molvi's words?
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

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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