Topic: Why is this the judgement against M'uawwiyah?

[samsparky]

Again you showed your final wordings "your claim of consensus is false", i have said earlier that this is not mine but it is your own guessing. Request to change this tone

Who said it is by consensus? Imaam ash-Shaafi^iyy was certainly not part of it. Hence there could not possibly be a consensus as outlined by the proof below:

al-Bayhaqiyy said: "All who fought ^Aliyy were aggressors." Ash-Shaafi^iyy said the same.

al-Bayhaqiyy narrated this saying from ash-Shaafi^iyy in 2 books: al-I^tiqaad and Manaaqib ash-Shaafi^iyy.

1- You have not mentioned your school of thought,

I follow ash-Shaafi^iyy.

2- You dont have the right to show your final opinion (fatwa) being anyone, as much you can do, is that you can show us the chain (of important) personalities clearly to the readers, with minimum evidence (much will be requested if desire).

Well that is what I have been doing when I mention Hadeeths and sayings of the Companions. All YOU need to do is look them up - but do you?

first opinion is that the perception of those sayings are wrongly explained by you and i proved that,

Let me put them without explanation and let us see if they give the meaning on their own:

1) al-Bayhaqiyy said: "All who fought ^Aliyy were aggressors." Ash-Shaafi^iyy said the same.

2) ^ammaar ibn Yaasir said what means: "Do not say that the people of Sham blasphemed. Say they committed a major sin (fasaqoo) or were unjust (thalamoo)."

3) The Prophet said to al-Zubayr what means: <<You will fight Ali and you will be the one who is unjust to him.>>

4) Imaam Ali said what means: <<Bani umayya fight me thinking that i killed uthmaan - and they lied... If I knew that swearing by Allaah at the maqaam that I did not kill Uthmaan nor order his killing would stop them from what they are on, I would have done it but they want mulk.>>

5) A companion that got a wound in his head, asked other companions whether he should still perform the obligatory shower or not. They gave him a wrong fatwa and as a result he died. When the Prophet found out, he said what means: "they killed him, may Allaah punish them. It would have been enough if he did tayammum".

These prove that it is possible for a Companion to commit a sin - even a major sin. And that scholars of Hadeeth mentioned these for people to be warned of sins.

which you dont replied, Secondly in your total 2 or 4 basis of opinion most of them are prophesies

Of the 5 I mentioned above, there is only 1 prophecy (revelation about the future).

prophesies can be not be taken into account in the judgement of BELIEF & ORDER,

Who said that it can't be used? you?

That was mentioned to show you that it is possible for a Companion to be unjust:

3) The Prophet said to al-Zubayr what means: <<You will fight Ali and you will be the one who is unjust to him.>>

The Prophet's words are truthful whether it is about the past, present or the future. Because he speaks by revelation.

Surat an-Najm, Verses 3 & 4:

 ?? ? ? ?? {3} ? ? {4}

It means: {The Prophet does not speak from his inclinations, it is by a revelation revealed.}

show your "chains" whenever requested by the readers, and as we are doing so.

What do you think I have been doing when I put the Hadeeth I put who narrated it and when I say a scholar such as ash-Shaafi^iyy said something, I said where it can be found.

Dont understand why you highlight or bold "ALTOGETHER" word. 

Because to dispraise them altogether is blasphemy. But to dispraise 1 or some of them in one of his actions is done and I proved that already by the saying of the Prophet, the saying of the Companions and the saying of ash-Shaafi^iyy.

6. Do you agree that "1-Ameer Mauwiyah rza is a Muslim. And He is one of the companion of the Prophet peace be upon him,
 

YES! far out what have I been trying to say. The ahlussunah are between the 2 extremes. They do not say Mu^aawiyah is a blasphemer and at the same time they do not say that his sin was not a sin. He is a Muslim Companion who committed a sin. Since he is a Companion his word about the Prophet can be trusted.

do you also agree that the elderly Sahaba in that affliction (fitan) are all trust worthy, 

All Companions are trustworthy when it comes to relating something from the Prophet. But they are not clear of sins as outlined before in the 5 proofs.

7- I have mentioned the names of the books which are Sahih (highly correct after Quran), in which Ameer Mauwiya rza shown as one of thier narrators,
A-what is your opinion about these books (ref Bukhari, Muslim, Mauta, Tirmidhi, as quoted in earlier post),

All Companions are trustworthy when it comes to relating something from the Prophet. But they are not clear of sins as outlined before in the 5 proofs.

"some sect" dont acknowledge his narrations and so that all those books mentioned above, they have there own books of Ahadith.

You are talking about some shia now.

C- Please mention some of your books of Ahadith, which you feel are authentic.

Clear and simple, the 7 books:

SaHeeH Imaam al-Bukhaariyy

SaHeeH Imaam Muslim

As-sunan for Abu Daawood

Sunan of the Haafith at-tirmithiyy

Sunan of the Haafith an-Nasaa'iyy

Sunan of al-Haafith ibn Maajah

In addition to this, MuwaT-Ta' of Imaam Maalik is mentioned.

8- I hold that understanding, that until or otherwise not mentioned clearly, the names of such persons to whom Prophet peace be upon him declared them as non-muslim, untill then we should not hold any opinion of about any of the Sahaba and call them with bad names.

I did not say mu^aawiyah is not a Muslim. He is a Muslim. He is a Companion. He is trustworthy in narrating Hadeeth but I do not deny that he committed a sin. Ash-Shaafi^iyy said he was an agressor in that.

9- Women cannot be an Imam, ......... obviously as all know it is said that half of the knowledge of Shariyah is based on the saying of Ummul Mumineen rza, who can deny,

alHamdu lillaah you don't dare to say that a woman can't be a teacher of Religion or correct a man. Because the proofs are against you in that claim and your mentioning of this issue has made you stuck to say it is not part of the topic.

You brought it up to say to me I can't say you are wrong because I'm female, but clearly bringing it up did not prove that as I already outlined in previous posts.

The argument that does have everything to do with this discussion is that a woman can indeed corect a man.

a woman .....cannot issue the rulings of shariyah

The fact that a woman can be a mujtahid refutes you.

there are number of scholars who have different view and continues the chain after Ali rza, but majority is of the view to write first four only.

When they wrote the 5th rightly guided caliph, they wrote al-Hasan; not Mu^aawiyah.

11- There are many Sahaba who are not in that ten, what you want to say!
 

Imam Aliyy is in that 10 - so imagine the situation of the one that rebels against him.

[ottoman]

we should love all Ashab-al kiram(Muawiya included).we cannot blame him.

[omer]

AMEER MUAWIYA RZA

Allah, make him guided, a guider, and guide people through him.

Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Book of Virtues #3824 and Sahih Al-Tirmidhi #3018


LENTHY MAIL
(Please do reply all questions (request), if you don’t know any please do inform that too, hope this time you will not miss any of the question, thought me as a learned ignorant on the position you made, hence I do require knowledge from those who claimed that and you should disclose such, after knowing my questions)

Salam Alaykum
Peace unto All
Dear Sister

Thank you for your peaceful replies and Al-hamdulilah you are following the best. We don’t love them who give disrespect to anyone of our Imam, as Al’Shafi rh for instance. If you are not convincing at all with any of mine following findings still that makes no difference because adopting good path may lead to the truth whenever, where everyone is answerable to Allah, alone.  

But some points of which your remarks are not matching with other rulings are discussed (again) to show you that there are other Sahaba, Imams & Scholars who have the same view as I mentioned, but no one ever been reported to say that all those who have difference of opinion other those are not on the right path, in fact this is the unique quality of this Ummah that two persons can be right at the same time in reverse opinions may be. Investigating this factor is highly recommended in the path, otherwise one will lost his balance & control over all affairs.

Following are my proceedings, in good faith.

1- (You Quote) Who said it is by consensus? Imaam ash-Shaafi^iyy was certainly not part of it.
al-Bayhaqiyy said: "All who fought ^Aliyy were aggressors." Ash-Shaafi^iyy said the same.
al-Bayhaqiyy narrated this saying from ash-Shaafi^iyy in 2 books: al-I^tiqaad and Manaaqib ash-Shaafi^iyy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you have mentioned the names of 2 Imams (righteous), and we have posted so far (Including other names with reference), without sequence. To whom Ameer Mauwiyah was trustworthy.
  
1- Qadi `Iyad (d. 1149 CE) In al-Shifa ; 2- Imam an-Nasa'i, Cited in Tahdhib al-Kamal, vol. 1 p. 339 ; 3- Imam al-Ghazali, Ihya’ `ulum al-din; 4- Sayyid Sheikh Abdulqadir geylani'rahima-hullahu taala', Ghunya-t-ut-talibin; 5- Imam An'Nawawee said in at-Taqreeb ; 6- Imam As'Suyootee explained in his Tadreeb ur Raawee; 7- Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr said in al-Isaabah; 8- Imam TIRMIDHI, Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih Al-Tirmidhi ;9- Imam BUKHARI, Sahih Bukhari ;10- Ibn Kathir, Al Bidayah wal Nihayah ;11- IMAM TAHAAWEE, Aqida al-Tahaweyah ;12- Imam Muslim, SAHIH MUSLIM;13- Imam Malik, MAUTA IMAM MALIK etc.

- Any consensus in the Islam can be made by excluding any 1 or 2 Imams! It cannot be said that no consensus can be made without including such Imam, !!!
- if it is said that no consensus (Ijma) can be made without including one 1 or minority, then is that ruling according to the rule (Quran & Hadith), !
- if answer is in yes then what about the  period before him (such Imam) when he has not taken birth, do the Ummah was in shadow before him.
- Hence proved, that there can be a consensus (of majority) possible before the birth of such Imam, and so therefore, after the birth, from the same ruling.
- According to me it is not right to say anything for any of the rightly guided Imams, even he is alone in his utmost endeavor (Ijtehad) , neither there followers should be disrespected nor followers of such Imam should dis-respect other followers of such rightly guided Imams, without knowing or proving, if anyone one did so then he or she is not a knowledgeable person, and it is order upon us to turn face from the ignorant, those who become rigid and disrespectful.
- After understanding above that I am not at all challenging the opinion of any Imam, then please let us know also, what are opinion of majority of Sahaba & Imam, before Im'am Shafi & Bayhiqqi (at least 11 such personalities with evidence, repeat 11 elderly known Sahaba or Imams with evidence), reflecting the same as you say in the “wording” that Ameer Muawiyah rza was sinful etc.
- In the books mentioned above we also hold, the names of Sahaba, mentioned there in, who mentioned the name of Muawiya rha without hesitation.
- Please let us know the direct wordings of Imam Shafi also, as Imam Bayhaqi said that this is also said by Imam Shafi rha, also repeat your verdict about this quote that you are 100% satisfied from the book i.e. no mistake has been made during printing (this request is for record only, but if you don’t find any then along with your verdict please mention one more name who testify what Imam Bayhiqqi said above is right (forward chain), hope you will understand my point in good faith, repeat this is for record only).
- From where this quote, it reveals that aggressors are unjust also (I do agree it thought like that “AGGRESORS ARE SINFUL” but matter is religious therefore further analysis is allowed, if the reader has not perceived this accordingly). Please provide exact language in which this quote is, if this is the part of some para then please pass the full passage i.e. if not written separately (exact language of whole para is not required, just that quote), because this quote just means “attackers” if the word we take is “aggressors” or please let us know other meaning, and looks like to me informing that “it is those who attacks on Imam Ali rha, first”,  what else can be revealed from this sentence, idiomatically! Secondly quotes ends on aggressor, if this quote taken as it is no meaning of disrespect is used, yes there is an attack who did first is another case scnerio, and being follower how do I extend this quote myself! to sinful!
- Unjust, Sinful, Un-trusthy, rebellious or the words like this is not used in this quote, where that can be used easily keeping in mind the Status of those (rha), comment please!
- Is there any other quotes from Imam Shafi or Bayhaqi (rha), clearer then this or this is the only quote available from both.
- Reason of attacking never you discussed, which is known as point of Ijtehad, I will show this in last place.


--------------------------------------------
2- (You Quote) I  follow ash-Shaafi^iyy.

Noted, may Allah & his Rasul peace be upon him, be pleased with your selection, and make your path easier and ours too, because Islam is the easiest of all religions we made it difficult because of short knowledge & practice.


--------------------
3- (You Quote) Well that is what I have been doing when I mention Hadeeths and sayings of the Companions. All YOU need to do is look them up - but do you?

We have also provided references, and through out the postings we are just saying that to consider our evidences too (at any level), and do not avoid by repeating your remarks only, that is to say that there are thousands of proofs (in reverse) that shows even the most eminent Imams within the Shafi school of thought have the same opinion as shown by us.

And please see below your findings, and let us know how many “Companion(s)” are there, related to the topic.



---------------------
4- (You Quote) Let me put them without explanation and let us see if they give the meaning on their own:

1) al-Bayhaqiyy said: "All who fought ^Aliyy were aggressors." Ash-Shaafi^iyy said the same.

2) ^ammaar ibn Yaasir said what means: "Do not say that the people of Sham blasphemed. Say they committed a major sin (fasaqoo) or were unjust (thalamoo)."

3) The Prophet said to al-Zubayr what means: <<You will fight Ali and you will be the one who is unjust to him.>>

4) Imaam Ali said what means: <<Bani umayya fight me thinking that i killed uthmaan - and they lied... If I knew that swearing by Allaah at the maqaam that I did not kill Uthmaan nor order his killing would stop them from what they are on, I would have done it but they want mulk.>>

5) A companion that got a wound in his head, asked other companions whether he should still perform the obligatory shower or not. They gave him a wrong fatwa and as a result he died. When the Prophet found out, he said what means: "they killed him, may Allaah punish them. It would have been enough if he did tayammum". These prove that it is possible for a Companion to commit a sin - even a major sin. And those scholars of Hadeeth mentioned these for people to be warned of sins.

Point 1, discussed above.

Point 2, ammaar ibn Yaasir….. (In previous post I think you quote, Al-Bayhiqqi narrated this also, please confirm)
A)   Please let us know the (history &) position of Ammar bin Yaasir, position according to the knowledge of Hadith.
B)   Also mention the name of book from you quoted, I have not found so far in your previous mails,, any reference of that quote.
C)   Who else quote this narration other then Bayhaqqi.  
D)   Is “single narrator” is acceptable according to your fiqah (Jurisprudense), for making a decision.
E)   Could you please provide any other quote of any Imam you like, which narrates clearly “sinful” and “unjust” or like that, other then Bayhaqqi, or even from Imam Shafi rha.

I will comment after having these questions, because as you can see yourself this narration cannot be taken as proof, due to the un-availability of sound evidences, please correct if I am wrong. Therefore you should not also use any of the words used there in, due to this fact.

Point 3, Prophet (peace be upon him) said…..

Please see below, in the discussion of prophesies.


Point-4  Imaam Ali said what means.............. .See in the last

Please read last post for the real point of Ijtehad between Imam Ali rza & Ameer Muawiyah.


Point 5, (YOU QUOTE) Hadith…..

You quote this hadith because to prove a sin from a Sahabi. Firstly it is irrelevant to the topic, secondly my question is very simple, and who has not committed sin!


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

5 (You Quote) which you dont replied, Secondly in your total 2 or 4 basis of opinion most of them are prophesies, Of the 5 I mentioned above, there is only 1 prophecy (revelation about the future).

I admit that this is a very wrong assumption from my side and highly regret, nothing I can do much but to be more careful and precise.  Please forgive me for this attitude.

Yes you have posted 5 basis, but what about ours, alone I have posted more then 50 (safe) evidences, haven’t I !


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

6- (You Quote) prophesies can be not be taken into account in the judgement of BELIEF & ORDER,  Who said that it can't be used? you?
That was mentioned to show you that it is possible for a Companion to be unjust: The Prophet said to al-Zubayr what means: <<You will fight Ali and you will be the one who is unjust to him.>> The Prophet's words are truthful whether it is about the past, present or the future. Because he speaks by revelation.
Surat an-Najm, Verses 3 & 4:
 ?? ? ? ?? {3} ? ? {4}
It means: {The Prophet does not speak from his inclinations, it is by a revelation revealed.}

(in your previous posts your reference to this hadith was Narrated by al-Haakim who said it was SaHeeH, and ath-Thahabiyy agreed with him., please mention the hadith number, for readers and record)


In all my previous mails I requested if you are fair enough to teach the ignorant, you should answer his every question otherwise that will pinch him all the time, my second half (as usual missed, hopefully you will answer all the question in this post and don’t leave the half behind) i.e.

“can you tell me any fatwa of any expert (sahaba to uptill now) who used "prophesy (predictions) " as an evidence of there judgement in belief & order”

If you answer this half you don’t have to show me anything more. You know well, Quran is revealed in much wisdom, among them is order (Muhkamat), allegorical (Mutshabihat) & Stories (Qasas) etc. It is also said in Quran (which) means “Orders are clear” that is to say there is no doubt in the understanding of Orders. Suppose I have said this that prophesy cannot be taken as a proof for Judgement, then still, can you proof in any manual, there are trillions of opinions issued by the jurists from thousands of Sahaba, Imam and scholars, I have asked for one such proof.

These are not used because much of the time they are much closer to allegorical category before that time comes, secondly as warning, thirdly as a proof of Prophethood, fourthly as a miracle, fifthly as a divine wisdom, sixthly sometime as glad tiding, but never been said for the use in Shariyah (Fiqah, Shariyah, Law), this is another kind of revelation which have other types of wisdom & depth, another kind of knowledge.

For delivering the Orders, clear wordings are used by the Quran & Hadith, so that it can be understood easily to the ordinary person, easily and so that they can act immediately. I haven’t found single opinion so far in my studies of more then 20 years, against it, if you provide me such I will not hesitate to change my opinion at once, because our knowledge is limited.

Ayah you quote is comprehensive and covers all aspects of revelation and is an answer to those who says that Prophet peace be upon him wrote Quran by himself, whereas Allah said it is from him, and there are many ayahs alike that.    

Therefore it is not an order upon us to believe Sahaba (especially) as unjust, where in the light of prophecy even that truth is unveiled, is there an order in this hadith upon Muslims to follow, obviously not, because no “word of order” is mentioned in this Hadith, we cannot demand from all Muslims anything to which they are not being ordered, or do we! That is why Jurist never take the prophecy into their consideration and none have done this, due to the absence of “words of order”.

Lastly as the time passes this prophecy comes true, and as YOU SAID “The Prophet's words are truthful whether it is about the past, present or the future. Because he speaks by revelation. hence agreed in this way.

But you mixed prophecy with order, which makes the confusion, repeat in this hadith no order is given to belief as such, in the presence of thousands of hadith in which order is given that not to say anything bad to any of the sahaba (so one should adopt hadith bearing orders), here is such hadith in which ORDER is given with the “words of order”,

Muslim reported in Sahih from Abu Hurarirah rza that the Prophet saw said "Donot revile my companions! Donot revile my companions! For by the one whose Hand my soul is in , if one of you were to give away the size of mount uhud in gold for charity, it would not equal a mudd of one of them nor even half of it". Also stated same in Bukhari, except "donot revile my companions!" apear only one time, on the authority Abu Saed Al Khudree rza, hense can be termed as "Sahihein" the most authentic source of knowledge.

order is, dont revile my companions, simple, straight & clear in wordings, no further explanation is required by the reader because no allegorical or difficult word is used in this hadith, for which an explanation is required.

Which one you will adopt, a hadith with order or without order !! or give a new meaning to the hadith in which order is so clear, like a sun is.

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

7 (You Quote) What do you think I have been doing when I put the Hadeeth I put who narrated it and when I say a scholar such as ash-Shaafi^iyy said something, I said where it can be found.

Normally Hadith I mean in which there is a starting point “Prophet said”….

After you give the answers of above we calculate how many are such Ahadith which you mentioned, and for the sake of terminology you are right, here I have done another mistake, regret.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-Dont understand why you highlight or bold "ALTOGETHER" word. (YOU QUOTE) Because to dispraise them altogether is blasphemy. But to dispraise 1 or some of them in one of his actions is done and I proved that already by the saying of the Prophet, the saying of the Companions and the saying of ash-Shaafi^iyy.


As I have proved that such hadith contains “no words of order” (to which you are pointing at) so we cannot push all humanity to obey such command which is not given by the Prophet peace be upon him.

Secondly about the saying of Imam Shafi rha, all the inserts are mentioned above, an ignorant is waiting for those replies, this is third time I think I have posted my question from different angles.


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

9  Do you agree that "1-Ameer Mauwiyah rza is a Muslim. And He is one of the companion of the Prophet peace be upon him,
 (YOU QUOTE) YES! far out what have I been trying to say. The ahlussunah are between the 2 extremes. They do not say Mu^aawiyah is a blasphemer and at the same time they do not say that his sin was not a sin. He is a Muslim Companion who committed a sin. Since he is a Companion his word about the Prophet can be trusted.


Could you please tell us who has not committed a sin in this world! Why Ameer Muawiyah rza only! Why you are trying this in the presence of clear order from our  Prophet peace be upon him and Allah, those who were not right were mentioned clearly in ahadith, those who become controversial, is just because of force measures, it is you to decide whose quote is more important Prophets’ or Imam’s. You give another meanings to the Prophets quote whiling forcing me to stay as it is on the Imams quote! Why not try to give a good meaning to the quotes of our Imams in these two lights (Quran & Hadith), when there quotes are also not clear enough, and we have the Quran & the Sahih Hadith in hand!  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
10- (You Quote) All Companions are trustworthy when it comes to relating something from the Prophet. But they are not clear of sins as outlined before in the 5 proofs.


How could a simple man like me, can understand this, all companions are trustworthy and Ameer Muawiya rza and the companions with them are not!

And who has not committed a sin!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 (You Quote) All Companions are trustworthy when it comes to relating something from the Prophet. But they are not clear of sins as outlined before in the 5 proofs.

At times they were correct and at times they erred. But how much more were they correct as compare to others being correct, and how fewer were there errors as compared to the errors of others. And on top of this, they will recieve Allah's Forgiveness.

So far there are no 5 points, until you answered them clearly, those points were a base for you, but you have to prove that after answering my questions (if you wish)

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

13 C- Please mention some of your books of Ahadith, which you feel are authentic. (YOU QUOTE) Clear and simple, the 7 books:

SaHeeH Imaam al-Bukhaariyy, SaHeeH Imaam Muslim, As-sunan for Abu Daawood, Sunan of the Haafith at-tirmithiyy, Sunan of the Haafith an-Nasaa'iyy,
Sunan of al-Haafith ibn Maajah, In addition to this, MuwaT-Ta' of Imaam Maalik is mentioned.

Havent I quoted from those!


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

14   I hold that understanding, that until or otherwise not mentioned clearly, the names of such persons to whom Prophet peace be upon him declared them as non-muslim, untill then we should not hold any opinion of about any of the Sahaba and call them with bad names.
(You Quote) I did not say mu^aawiyah is not a Muslim. He is a Muslim. He is a Companion. He is trustworthy in narrating Hadeeth but I do not deny that he committed a sin. Ash-Shaafi^iyy said he was an agressor in that.


Who has not committed a sin!

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

15  Women cannot be an Imam, ......... obviously as all know it is said that half of the knowledge of Shariyah is based on the saying of Ummul Mumineen rza, who can deny,
(YOU QUOTE) alHamdu lillaah you don't dare to say that a woman can't be a teacher of Religion or correct a man. Because the proofs are against you in that claim and your mentioning of this issue has made you stuck to say it is not part of the topic. You brought it up to say to me I can't say you are wrong because I'm female, but clearly bringing it up did not prove that as I already outlined in previous posts. The argument that does have everything to do with this discussion is that a woman can indeed corect a man.


I confirmed again that she cannot be an Imam according to the Quran & Hadith, also provide hints in earlier post.

Women can be a teacher of religion, and correct a man, there is a difference between an Imam and teacher e.g Imam Shafi and you yourself as a teacher, if you say to me I am wrong and prove it to me also then it is my duty to correct myself otherwise I will be asked in the Judgement day that Samsparky told you that message why you not followed! This is how I read your mail you believe or not, and vice versa. Yes 100% correct that a women can correct the men indeed, I am agreed with you, all you said is right. But the post of Imam is with Men, very selected one and built for guidance and this is order of Allah swt, All wise. But as far as you & me are concern we are equal, I mean I am not equal to your knowledge but in a sense you can guide me and vice versa.

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

16 a woman .....cannot issue the rulings of shariyah. (You Quote) The fact that a woman can be a mujtahid refutes you.


explained above


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

17 there are number of scholars who have different view and continues the chain after Ali rza, but majority is of the view to write first four only.
(YOU QUOTE) When they wrote the 5th rightly guided caliph, they wrote al-Hasan; not Mu^aawiyah.

Imam Hassan, Not only Khalifa but one of the Imam (in its Absolute sense), and that the Khilafat of Muawiya affirmed and corrected when Imam Hasan has signed the treaty with Ameer Muawiya rza, Imam Hasan rza was the best Judge, his acceptance is our acceptance, he said nothing bad to him we are saying nothing to him.


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

18  There are many Sahaba who are not in that ten, what you want to say!  
 (YOU QUOTE) Imam Aliyy is in that 10 - so imagine the situation of the one that rebels against him.

Point-4 (YOU QUOTE) Imaam Ali said what means: <<Bani umayya fight me thinking that i killed uthmaan - and they lied... If I knew that swearing by Allaah at the maqaam that I did not kill Uthmaan nor order his killing would stop them from what they are on, I would have done it but they want mulk.>>

1.No reference is mentioned for this Quote. 2-In the presence of saying of Prophet peace be upon him, and which the history reveals truly, here bani ummayya means the successors of Jews (chiefly Adbdullah bin saba) who were converted to Islam to demolish its base, they have politicized the matter, killed Usman rza, spread dis-informations in states of Medina, Iraq and Sham, and at the time when forces were side by side they ignite the matter in night to start war, therefore they were seem to be Muslims but are not, hence the prophecy is about them they are unjust and real sinful in this matter and those who were with them they hide themselves in three heads shiane usman, shiane ali, and bani ummayiah, in this quote Imam Ali rza is pointing at them, the matter between Muawiya & Imam Ali rza was entirely different. That’s why I have said in my previous mail that you have misunderstood from this quote, if you link with full history, end you will reach to the point which summarized in the consensus posted earlier.

POINT OF IJTEHAD

Among many sources, Prophet peace be upon him appointed Ameer Muawiya rza as the writer of Quran (Katib Wahi) because he, among one of the literate persons and still I haven’t seen any example that someone called by Prophet peace be upon him so close and he not get freed from ego as other Sahaba shows, he was the clean man, preacher, soldier till the time of first 3 Caliphs, where Umer rza appointed him as the governor in sham, and when Usman rza was killed the point of Ijtehad comes between, and that was Muawiya believed the murderers should be hunted down immediately as the first order of business, whereas Imam 'Ali, saw this as impractical in the then prevailing conditions. It was a fiqh difference of opinion between two mujtahids who each felt it was their duty to uphold justice, even by fighting. It should be recalled that in a hadith, Rasulallah(s) said "If my daughter Fatima stole, I would cut her hand off." The war between these two great Companions was conducted in that same spirit of standing up for justice, even against people one loves and respects. Sayyiduna Muawiya's right to demand vengeance for the murder of Sayyiduna Uthman was not denied by Imam 'Ali (or anyone else), but Imam 'Ali seems to have thought that the most important thing was for everyone to give bayah to him, and for the pursuit of the murderers of Uthman to take place after he had been established as khalifa. Sayyiduna Muawiya refused to give bayah without a promise that the murderers of Uthman be handed over to him. Sayyiduna 'Ali felt that there should be no conditions attached to the bayah, just as there had been none for the earlier caliphs. Imam 'Ali seems to have felt it would be a violation of the established Sunna of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, of Sayyiduna Muawiya did not give bayah to him with no conditions attached. This situation ends on this war, between them, but the decision of Imam Ali rza was right at that time without doubt, at the end of war a committee was formed from both side to decide that who will be the next Caliph, and committee decides that the civilians will choose their leaders by them selves and then Iraqi choose Imam Ali rza, where Syrians (shami) choose Ameer Muawiyah rza, and ummah divided into two nations then at the time of Imam Hassan rza he resolved the matter by signing a treaty and accepted Ameer Muawiya rza as a Caliph. This is the short history which is twisted in many angles.

All that can be found from history books.

Main problem is that we are not willing to understand that is, among the Sahaba, all are Sahaba, no one is superior or inferior to anyone between them, but among us we have made the grading, this is the meaning of between the two extremes, and understanding of an order “do not revile my Sahaba”, which is highly difficult.


--------------------------
ALHAMDULILAH

[samsparky]

we should love all Ashab-al kiram(Muawiya included).we cannot blame him.

We love all Companions of course. And Mu^aawiyah  is one of the Companions.

But that doesn't mean that we should lie about his mistake.

[samsparky]

wa 3alaikom assalaam

But some points of which your remarks are not matching with other rulings are discussed (again) to show you that there are other Sahaba, Imams & Scholars who have the same view as I mentioned, but no one ever been reported to say that all those who have difference of opinion other those are not on the right path, in fact this is the unique quality of this Ummah that two persons can be right at the same time in reverse opinions may be.

A difference of opinion among mujtahids never is about something where the ruling was explicitly in the Qur'aan or Hadeeth.

The ruling of rebelling against the caliph in Islam is that it is a major sin.

Moreover, scholars and Companions and even the Prophet by Revelation mentioned the fight between Imaam ^aliyy and Mu^aawiyah's group and mentioned who was unjust.

Hence it is not possible for mu^aawiyah's rebellion to be a matter of ijtihaad because that is in clear contrast to the rulings in Islam about rebelling against the Caliph once he has been appointed by the pious Muslims.

The proof for this I have already mentioned but I will put it in again.

An Ayah in the Qur'aan:

{يأيها الذين ءامنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسولَ وأُولى الأمرِ منكم}

This shows that we must obey the caliph.

Hadeeth:

((من خرج من الطاعة قيد شبر فقد خلع رِبَقَة الإسلام حتى يراجعه))

The Prophet likened this person who leaves the obedience to a cow who leaves its "leash" and goes off on its own and puts itself in danger.

Following are my proceedings, in good faith.

1- (You Quote) Who said it is by consensus? Imaam ash-Shaafi^iyy was certainly not part of it.
al-Bayhaqiyy said: "All who fought ^Aliyy were aggressors." Ash-Shaafi^iyy said the same.
al-Bayhaqiyy narrated this saying from ash-Shaafi^iyy in 2 books: al-I^tiqaad and Manaaqib ash-Shaafi^iyy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you have mentioned the names of 2 Imams (righteous), and we have posted so far (Including other names with reference), without sequence. To whom Ameer Mauwiyah was trustworthy.
  
1- Qadi `Iyad (d. 1149 CE) In al-Shifa ; 2- Imam an-Nasa'i, Cited in Tahdhib al-Kamal, vol. 1 p. 339 ; 3- Imam al-Ghazali, Ihya’ `ulum al-din; 4- Sayyid Sheikh Abdulqadir geylani'rahima-hullahu taala', Ghunya-t-ut-talibin; 5- Imam An'Nawawee said in at-Taqreeb ; 6- Imam As'Suyootee explained in his Tadreeb ur Raawee; 7- Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr said in al-Isaabah; 8- Imam TIRMIDHI, Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih Al-Tirmidhi ;9- Imam BUKHARI, Sahih Bukhari ;10- Ibn Kathir, Al Bidayah wal Nihayah ;11- IMAM TAHAAWEE, Aqida al-Tahaweyah ;12- Imam Muslim, SAHIH MUSLIM;13- Imam Malik, MAUTA IMAM MALIK etc.

Please read carefully. I did not say there is no consensus that mu^aawiyah is trustworthy when narrating Hadeeth. I said that definitely he did a sin by rebelling against Imaam ^Aliyy as meant be "aggressor" by the words of Imaam ash-Shaafi^iyy. Imaam ash-Shaafi^iyy did not say he was untrustworthy in narrating the Prophet's words because everyone knows that no Companion will lie about the Prophet. What I was mentioning was that Mu^aawiyah commited a sin and ash-Shaafi^iyy and al-Bayhaqiyy mentioned that. We do not deny that rebelling against the rightful caliph is a major sin.

- Any consensus in the Islam can be made by excluding any 1 or 2 Imams! It cannot be said that no consensus can be made without including such Imam, !!!.

ok I will tell you what a consensus is.

Ijmaa^ is defined as the scholarly consensus of the mujtahids* on an Islamic matter in any era.

*Mujtahids refer to the top qualified scholars, such as ash-Shaafi^iyy, Maalik, AHmad Ibn Hambal, Abu Hanifah and the like. They are the ones who are qualified to deduce Islamic judgments from the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth.

So it is consensus when they all agree.

- if it is said that no consensus (Ijma) can be made without including one 1 or minority, then is that ruling according to the rule (Quran & Hadith), !!!!.

If that 1 that didn't agree was a mujtahid like ash-Shaafi^iyy then it is called a difference of opinion. Matters of ijtihaad are not about things which were clearly mentioned in the Qur'aan and Hadeeth like rebelling against the caliph and the matter of mu^aawiyah being sinful when he did this. All scholars are with the Qur'aan and Hadeeth for this. Matters of ijtihaad are for example when something is not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'aan, like how much of the head to wipe during wuDoo'. The scholars made a different ijtihaad about that.

 

- if answer is in yes then what about the  period before him (such Imam) when he has not taken birth, do the Ummah was in shadow before him.!!!!.

Consensus is the scholarly consensus of the mujtahids* on an Islamic matter in any era.
 That means for example all the scholars who are mujtahid during one era (time) agree about a matter. That is consensus. No mujtahid that comes after them is entitled to make a different ijtihaad to this consensus because the consensus is always correct.

No mujtahid ever says something contrary to the consensus. So if you see words of a mujtahid scholar in conflict with words of another mujtahid scholar, this means that there has not been consensus.

 

- Hence proved, that there can be a consensus (of majority) possible before the birth of such Imam, and so therefore, after the birth, from the same ruling..!!!!.

Once consensus has been made, no scholar at all will say against it even if they were a mujtahid who came later.So if you see words of a mujtahid scholar in conflict with words of another mujtahid scholar, this means that there has not been consensus.

 

- According to me it is not right to say anything for any of the rightly guided Imams, even he is alone in his utmost endeavor (Ijtehad) , neither there followers should be disrespected nor followers of such Imam should dis-respect other followers of such rightly guided Imams, without knowing or proving, if anyone one did so then he or she is not a knowledgeable person, and it is order upon us to turn face from the ignorant, those who become rigid and disrespectful...!!!!.

mu^aawiyah's sin was exactly that - a sin. And we do not bely the Qur'aan to say it is ok to rebel against the caliph. And we do not bely the Messenger of God who taught us to rebel against the rightful caliph is forbidden. We say about mu^aawiyah what the Companions said about him and what the scholars said about him. That is, he is Muslim, a Companion, he was sinful in rebelling against Imaam Aliyy.

 

- After understanding above that I am not at all challenging the opinion of any Imam, then please let us know also, what are opinion of majority of Sahaba & Imam, before Im'am Shafi & Bayhiqqi (at least 11 such personalities with evidence, repeat 11 elderly known Sahaba or Imams with evidence), reflecting the same as you say in the “wording” that Ameer Muawiyah rza was sinful etc....!!!!.

I gave you this already. The saying of the Companion Imaam Ali said what means: <<Bani umayya fight me thinking that i killed uthmaan - and they lied... If I knew that swearing by Allaah at the maqaam that I did not kill Uthmaan nor order his killing would stop them from what they are on, I would have done it but they want mulk.>>

^ammaar ibn Yaasir said what means: "Do not say that the people of Sham blasphemed. Say they committed a major sin (fasaqoo) or were unjust (thalamoo)."

The Prophet said to al-Zubayr what means: <<You will fight Ali and you will be the one who is unjust to him.>>

I do not need to reach 11 to prove that the Prophet is not a liar. The Prophet speaks by revelation and he told us by his Hadeeth what shows us that the group fighting Imaam ^Aliyy was sinful.

You will not even find 1 mujtahid scholar who said Mu^aawiyah was not sinful in this matter because no mujtahid goes against the Prophet's words.

I will continue later in shaa' Allaah

[samsparky]

- Please let us know the direct wordings of Imam Shafi also, as Imam Bayhaqi said that this is also said by Imam Shafi rha, also repeat your verdict about this quote that you are 100% satisfied from the book i.e. no mistake has been made during printing (this request is for record only, but if you don’t find any then along with your verdict please mention one more name who testify what Imam Bayhiqqi said above is right (forward chain), hope you will understand my point in good faith, repeat this is for record only).

Al-bayhaqiyy mentioned the saying of ash-Shafi^iyy in two of his books:  1)(the belief) and 2)(merits of ash-Shafi^iyy).

The saying was:  "All who fought ^Aliyy were aggressors."

This following proof testifies that al-Bayhaqiyy was right:

Imaam Ali said what means: <<Bani umayya fight me thinking that i killed uthmaan - and they lied... If I knew that swearing by Allaah at the maqaam that I did not kill Uthmaan nor order his killing would stop them from what they are on, I would have done it but they want mulk.>>

Related by al-Haafithu Musaddadun in his Musnad and related by al-Haafithu Sa^eedu bin Mansoor in his Sunan.

Also, Imaam Abul Hasan al-Ash^ariyy said:

"Those who fought ameer al-mu'mineen ^Aliyy sinned." He said also: "As for talHa and az-Zubayr, their sin is forgiven because of the good news of the Prophet to them that they will be in Paradise." He also said about ^A'isha: "Her sin is also forgiven because of the good news the Prophet gave her." He also said: "As for those who did not receive the good news from the ones who fought ^Aliyy, their sin might be forgiven."

This was narrated from him by his student's student the Imam المقدم MuHammad bin Foorak.

- From where this quote, it reveals that aggressors are unjust also (I do agree it thought like that “AGGRESORS ARE SINFUL” but matter is religious therefore further analysis is allowed, if the reader has not perceived this accordingly). Please provide exact language in which this quote is, if this is the part of some para then please pass the full passage i.e. if not written separately (exact language of whole para is not required, just that quote), because this quote just means “attackers” if the word we take is “aggressors” or please let us know other meaning, and looks like to me informing that “it is those who attacks on Imam Ali rha, first”,  what else can be revealed from this sentence, idiomatically! Secondly quotes ends on aggressor, if this quote taken as it is no meaning of disrespect is used, yes there is an attack who did first is another case scnerio, and being follower how do I extend this quote myself! to sinful!).

Well your confusion and questions should be solved now because Imaam al-Ash^ariyy explicitly said that those who fought ^Aliyy committed a sin and that agrees with the revelation of the Prophet in which he told us that az-Zubayr will be unjust.

- Unjust, Sinful, Un-trusthy, rebellious or the words like this is not used in this quote, where that can be used easily keeping in mind the Status of those (rha), comment please!!).

The Prophet used the word unjust. Imaam al Ash^ariyy used the word sinful as did the Companion ^Ammaar bin Yaasir. Untrustworthy is not used  because all Companions are trustworthy in narrating the Prophet's Hadeeth.

- Is there any other quotes from Imam Shafi or Bayhaqi (rha), clearer then this or this is the only quote available from both.!!).

Who narrated the saying of ^Ammaar ibn Yaasir? Which clearly mentions the word for sinful. al-Bayhaqiyy. Clear enough?

- Reason of attacking never you discussed, which is known as point of Ijtehad, I will show this in last place.

--------------------
3- (You Quote) Well that is what I have been doing when I mention Hadeeths and sayings of the Companions. All YOU need to do is look them up - but do you?

We have also provided references, and through out the postings we are just saying that to consider our evidences too (at any level), and do not avoid by repeating your remarks only, that is to say that there are thousands of proofs (in reverse) that shows even the most eminent Imams within the Shafi school of thought have the same opinion as shown by us. .!!).

The proofs you put up such as Hadeeth narrated by Mu^aawiyah - does not contradict me because I didn't say that he is not trustworthy in narrating Hadeeth. Hence all the scholars you mentioned saying Mu^aawiyah is trustworthy also do not contradict me because I did not say he wasn't.

I said as the Prophet said and as the Companions said and as the scholars said whether explicitly or implicitly. Mu^aawiyah committed a sin.

I will repeat what I said:

You will not even find 1 mujtahid scholar who said Mu^aawiyah was not sinful in this matter

Point 2, ammaar ibn Yaasir….. (In previous post I think you quote, Al-Bayhiqqi narrated this also, please confirm)

What do you mean please confirm. It is confirmed, you can check it in the books of al-Bayhaqiyy.

A)   Please let us know the (history &) position of Ammar bin Yaasir, position according to the knowledge of Hadith. )

The Prophet gave the good news to ^Ammaar ibn Yaasir that he would be in Paradise as he did to ^A'ishah. They were not of the 10 mentioned all at once by the Prophet. But he did give them this good news. I can get you the Hadeeth if you need it or you can't find it.

B)   Also mention the name of book from you quoted, I have not found so far in your previous mails,, any reference of that quote.

So you want the book al-Bayhaqiyy said it in? ok I can get that.

C)   Who else quote this narration other then Bayhaqqi.  
D)   Is “single narrator” is acceptable according to your fiqah (Jurisprudense), for making a decision.

Do you know who al-Bayhaqiyy is? Maybe this is the problem you need to fix. Anyway as a favour and because I'm in the holidays I will ask who else narrated it.

E)   Could you please provide any other quote of any Imam you like, which narrates clearly “sinful” and “unjust” or like that, other then Bayhaqqi, or even from Imam Shafi rha. .

Yes I did here:

Imaam Abul Hasan al-Ash^ariyy said:

"Those who fought ameer al-mu'mineen ^Aliyy sinned." He said also: "As for talHa and az-Zubayr, their sin is forgiven because of the good news of the Prophet to them that they will be in Paradise." He also said about ^A'isha: "Her sin is also forgiven because of the good news the Prophet gave her." He also said: "As for those who did not receive the good news from the ones who fought ^Aliyy, their sin might be forgiven."

This was narrated from him by his student's student the Imam المقدم MuHammad bin Foorak.

I will comment after having these questions, because as you can see yourself this narration cannot be taken as proof, due to the un-availability of sound evidences, please correct if I am wrong. .

Yes in fact you are wrong because Imaam alBayhaqiyy is well-known and if he narrates something then it is valid. If you can find it in his book then that means it is correct.

Point 5, (YOU QUOTE) Hadith…..

You quote this hadith because to prove a sin from a Sahabi. Firstly it is irrelevant to the topic, secondly my question is very simple, and who has not committed sin!.

Congratulations you have come 1 step closer to understanding.

It is possible for a Companion to commit a sin thank you for understanding me finally.

Please forgive me for this attitude.!.

Forgiven.

Yes you have posted 5 basis, but what about ours, alone I have posted more then 50 (safe) evidences, haven’t I !.!.

What you posted wasn't against me.

What you posted was proving that Mu^aawiyah is trustworthy in narrating the Hadeeth and that he is a Companion and a Muslim. I didn't ever say he was not trustworthy in narrating the Hadeeth and I didn't say he is not a companion and I didn't say he is not a Muslim.

That was mentioned to show you that it is possible for a Companion to be unjust: The Prophet said to al-Zubayr what means: <<You will fight Ali and you will be the one who is unjust to him.>> The Prophet's words are truthful whether it is about the past, present or the future. Because he speaks by revelation.
Surat an-Najm, Verses 3 & 4:
 وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى {3} إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ وَحْيٌ يُوحَى {4}
It means: {The Prophet does not speak from his inclinations, it is by a revelation revealed.}

(in your previous posts your reference to this hadith was Narrated by al-Haakim who said it was SaHeeH, and ath-Thahabiyy agreed with him., please mention the hadith number, for readers and record)!.!.

Sorry I don't go by Hadeeth numbers because they differ sometimes.

“can you tell me any fatwa of any expert (sahaba to uptill now) who used "prophesy (predictions) " as an evidence of there judgement in belief & order”

Many who spoke on the issue of the fight between Mu^aawiyah ad Imaam ^Aliyy used this Hadeeth of the Prophet as an evidence that Mu^aawiyah was wrong:

The Prophet said to al-Zubayr what means: <<You will fight Ali and you will be the one who is unjust to him.>>

az-Zubayr was standing with the fighters when Imaam ^Aliyy reminded him of this Hadeeth. Then az-Zubayr remembered and left the fight.

So Imaam ^Aliyy himself used this Revelation of the Prophet about the future to prove that Mu^aawiyah's fight with him was unjust.

If you answer this half you don’t have to show me anything more. You know well, Quran is revealed in much wisdom, among them is order (Muhkamat), allegorical (Mutshabihat) & Stories (Qasas) etc.

Let me make a clarification here.

Surat Al-^Imraan, Ayah 7 means: {Allaah is the One Who has sent down to the Prophet the Book that contains MuHkam Ayaat, which are the foundation of the Book, and other Ayaat which are mutashaabih.}

There are 2 types of Verses in the Qur'aan:

1) MuHkam: according to the Arabic language they have only 1 meaning or the meaning is clear.

2) Mutashaabih: according to the rules of the Arabic language they can have many meanings. Assigning acceptable meanings to these Verses requires proper Knowledge.

Here is a thread which explains this further:

http://talkaboutislam.com/forums/index.php/topic,3808.msg49966.html#new

then still, can you proof in any manual, there are trillions of opinions issued by the jurists from thousands of Sahaba, Imam and scholars, I have asked for one such proof. ”

And I have provided it. Imaam ^Aliyy himself used this Hadeeth to remind az-Zubayr.

The Prophet said to al-Zubayr what means: <<You will fight Ali and you will be the one who is unjust to him.>>

For delivering the Orders, clear wordings are used by the Quran & Hadith, so that it can be understood easily to the ordinary person, easily and so that they can act immediately. I haven’t found single opinion so far in my studies of more then 20 years, against it, if you provide me such I will not hesitate to change my opinion at once, because our knowledge is limited. ”

It is clear in the Qur'aan and Hadeeth that rebelling against he caliph once he has been chosen by the pious people is forbidden.

An Ayah in the Qur'aan:

{يأيها الذين ءامنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسولَ وأُولى الأمرِ منكم}

This shows that we must obey the caliph.

Hadeeth:

((من خرج من الطاعة قيد شبر فقد خلع رِبَقَة الإسلام حتى يراجعه))

The Prophet likened this person who leaves the obedience to a cow who leaves its "leash" and goes off on its own and puts itself in danger.

Therefore it is not an order upon us to believe Sahaba (especially) as unjust, where in the light of prophecy even that truth is unveiled, is there an order in this hadith upon Muslims to follow, obviously not, because no “word of order” is mentioned in this Hadith, we cannot demand from all Muslims anything to which they are not being ordered, or do we! That is why Jurist never take the prophecy into their consideration and none have done this, due to the absence of “words of order”.”

This is all just your words and opinion and it is different from the truth. All the Muslims believe in the Prophet's words. If he says something will be unjust that means he will be unjust. This is not a matter involving order. Imaam ^Aliyy used the Prophet's Hadeeth to tell az-Zubayr that what he was doing was unjust and az-Zubayr accepted that and left.

Lastly as the time passes this prophecy comes true, and as YOU SAID “The Prophet's words are truthful whether it is about the past, present or the future. Because he speaks by revelation. hence agreed in this way.

But you mixed prophecy with order, which makes the confusion, ”.”

The Prophet is truthful whether he is talking about an order or about a prophecy (something to happen in the future).

in the presence of thousands of hadith in which order is given that not to say anything bad to any of the sahaba (so one should adopt hadith bearing orders), here is such hadith in which ORDER is given with the “words of order”,”.”

You just mentioned one which actually does not give the meaning you want it to give because there are Hadeeths against you.

For example this Hadeeth:

A companion that got a wound in his head, asked other companions whether he should still perform the obligatory shower or not. They gave him a wrong fatwa and as a result he died. When the Prophet found out, he said what means: "they killed him, may Allaah punish them. It would have been enough if he did tayammum".

Muslim reported in Sahih from Abu Hurarirah rza that the Prophet saw said "Donot revile my companions! Donot revile my companions! For by the one whose Hand my soul is in , if one of you were to give away the size of mount uhud in gold for charity, it would not equal a mudd of one of them nor even half of it". Also stated same in Bukhari, except "donot revile my companions!" apear only one time, on the authority Abu Saed Al Khudree rza, hense can be termed as "Sahihein" the most authentic source of knowledge.

order is, dont revile my companions, simple, straight & clear in wordings, no further explanation is required by the reader because no allegorical or difficult word is used in this hadith, for which an explanation is required.”,”.”

Who was the Prophet talking to when he said that? A Companion or a person who was not a Companion?

The Prophet does not say words which contradict each other. Clearly if there are Hadeeths showing that it is possible for a Companion to do something unjust and hence be called unjust in that thing - then for sure the Prophet will not say in another Hadeeth that this is not allowed.

Which one you will adopt, a hadith with order or without order !! or give a new meaning to the hadith in which order is so clear, like a sun is..”,”.”

No one said that the Hadeeth without an order is unreliable. You got if from yourself. All of the words of the Prophet are true and say the same - whether it is an order or if it is about the future. The Prophet does not lie.

8-Dont understand why you highlight or bold "ALTOGETHER" word. (YOU QUOTE) Because to dispraise them altogether is blasphemy. But to dispraise 1 or some of them in one of his actions is done and I proved that already by the saying of the Prophet, the saying of the Companions and the saying of ash-Shaafi^iyy.

As I have proved that such hadith contains “no words of order” (to which you are pointing at) so we cannot push all humanity to obey such command which is not given by the Prophet peace be upon him...”,”.”

Tell me 1 mujtahid scholar like Imaam ash-Shaafi^iyy, Malik, Hanbaliyy or Hanafiyy who said what you are saying that only a Hadeeth with an order is practised or used as a proof.

9  Do you agree that "1-Ameer Mauwiyah rza is a Muslim. And He is one of the companion of the Prophet peace be upon him,
 (YOU QUOTE) YES! far out what have I been trying to say. The ahlussunah are between the 2 extremes. They do not say Mu^aawiyah is a blasphemer and at the same time they do not say that his sin was not a sin. He is a Muslim Companion who committed a sin. Since he is a Companion his word about the Prophet can be trusted.


Could you please tell us who has not committed a sin in this world! Why Ameer Muawiyah rza only! ...”,”.”

I am here saying this because you are the extreme that is saying his sin was not a sin. YOu have no right to do that because it's not true.

Why you are trying this in the presence of clear order from our  Prophet peace be upon him and Allah, those who were not right were mentioned clearly in ahadith, those who become controversial, is just because of force measures, it is you to decide whose quote is more important Prophets’ or Imam’s. You give another meanings to the Prophets quote whiling forcing me to stay as it is on the Imams quote! Why not try to give a good meaning to the quotes of our Imams in these two lights (Quran & Hadith), when there quotes are also not clear enough, and we have the Quran & the Sahih Hadith in hand!  ...”,”.”

The Qur'aan and Hadeeth are clear on the ruling of the one who rebels against the caliph. The words of the Imaams are in compliance with this ruling and in compliance with the methodology of the Prophet and the Companions.

How could a simple man like me, can understand this, all companions are trustworthy and Ameer Muawiya rza and the companions with them are not!
...”,”.”

PLease understand me! Mu^aawiyah and all other Companions are truthful in  narrating from the Prophet. I never said they weren't. What I said was that mu^aawiyah committed a sin and I said that because you were saying he didn't.

13 C- Please mention some of your books of Ahadith, which you feel are authentic. (YOU QUOTE) Clear and simple, the 7 books:

SaHeeH Imaam al-Bukhaariyy, SaHeeH Imaam Muslim, As-sunan for Abu Daawood, Sunan of the Haafith at-tirmithiyy, Sunan of the Haafith an-Nasaa'iyy,
Sunan of al-Haafith ibn Maajah, In addition to this, MuwaT-Ta' of Imaam Maalik is mentioned.

Havent I quoted from those!...”,”.”

What you quoted wasn't against me. It agrees with what I'm saying because when your proof is Hadeeth, there is no Hadeeth against you.

Who has not committed a sin!!...”,”.”

Then why do you try to say mu^aawiyah did not commit a sin?

Yes 100% correct that a women can correct the men indeed, I am agreed with you, all you said is right. !!...”,”.”

Thank you. That is what I wanted from that and you should correct yourself because initially you were saying to me my words are not valid because I'm female and that was the reason why we started that whole topic.

Point-4 (YOU QUOTE) Imaam Ali said what means: <<Bani umayya fight me thinking that i killed uthmaan - and they lied... If I knew that swearing by Allaah at the maqaam that I did not kill Uthmaan nor order his killing would stop them from what they are on, I would have done it but they want mulk.>>

1.No reference is mentioned for this Quote. !!...”,”.”

Imaam Ali said what means: <<Bani umayya fight me thinking that i killed uthmaan - and they lied... If I knew that swearing by Allaah at the maqaam that I did not kill Uthmaan nor order his killing would stop them from what they are on, I would have done it but they want mulk.>>

Related by al-Haafith Musaddad in his Musnad and by al-Haafith  Sa^eed bin Mansoor in his Sunan.

2-In the presence of saying of Prophet peace be upon him, and which the history reveals truly, here bani ummayya means the successors of Jews (chiefly Adbdullah bin saba) who were converted to Islam to demolish its base, they have politicized the matter, killed Usman rza, spread dis-informations in states of Medina, Iraq and Sham, and at the time when forces were side by side they ignite the matter in night to start war, !!...”,”.”

Who was fighting with ^Aliyy?

Imam ^Aliyy said bani umayya were fighting him. So your interpretation of bani umayya is incorrect because in fact it was mu^aawiyah and his group who were fighting.

hence the prophecy is about them they are unjust and real sinful in this matter !!...”,”.”

The Prophecy was about az-Zubayr.

in this quote Imam Ali rza is pointing at them, the matter between Muawiya & Imam Ali rza was entirely different. !!...”,”.”

Which mujtahid scholar did you get this definition of bani umayya from who said in this Hadeeth it is not mu^aawiyah and his group?

That’s why I have said in my previous mail that you have misunderstood from this quote, if you link with full history, end you will reach to the point which summarized in the consensus posted earlier.!!...”,”.”

So you are asking to look to the background now? Look to the background of the Hadeeth in which the Prophet said to a group of Companions about the earlier Companions "do not swear at my Companions".

And even if you look to the background of the saying of Imaam ^Aliyy, it is known that bani umayya is Mu^aawiyah and his group and you can not prove it otherwise.

POINT OF IJTEHAD.!!...”,”.”

So now you are back to zero - trying to say mu^aawiyah did not commit a sin. I withdraw my congratulations.

and when Usman rza was killed the point of Ijtehad comes between, and that was Muawiya believed the murderers should be hunted down immediately as the first order of business, whereas Imam 'Ali, saw this as impractical in the then prevailing conditions. .!!...”,”.”

Even if the caliph does not do something, it is forbidden to rebel against him as outlined explicitly in the Qur'an and Hadeeth as I have mentioned more than twice.

It should be recalled that in a hadith, Rasulallah(s) said "If my daughter Fatima stole, I would cut her hand off." .!!...”,”.”

The Caliph is not rebelled against even if he committed a sin. You can not find a mujtahid who said the opposite.

The war between these two great Companions was conducted in that same spirit of standing up for justice, even against people one loves and respects. Sayyiduna Muawiya's right to demand vengeance for the murder of Sayyiduna Uthman was not denied by Imam 'Ali (or anyone else), but Imam 'Ali seems to have thought that the most important thing was for everyone to give bayah to him, and for the pursuit of the murderers of Uthman to take place after he had been established as khalifa. Sayyiduna Muawiya refused to give bayah without a promise that the murderers of Uthman be handed over to him. .!!...”,”.”

Imaam Aliyy was appointed as the Caliph by the pious and hence his bay^a had occurred and he was the caliph and everyone is ordered to obey him. Even Mu^aawiyah.

This situation ends on this war, between them, but the decision of Imam Ali rza was right at that time without doubt, at the end of war a committee was formed from both side to decide that who will be the next Caliph, .!!...”,”.”

This is incorrect. The Caliphate was for Imaam ^Aliyy until he died. Those who did not want to obey him and rebelled were sinful. There is no such thing as splitting the nation into 2. Where did you get this from?

All that can be found from history books.

Who and where?

Main problem is that we are not willing to understand that is, among the Sahaba, all are Sahaba, no one is superior or inferior to anyone between them, .

That is also incorrect. Because among the companions were sinners like those who gave a Religious Judgement without knowledge, and so they would be lower in rank than the Companions who did not commit major sins.

Where did you get this from?

but among us we have made the grading, this is the meaning of between the two extremes, and understanding of an order “do not revile my Sahaba”, which is highly difficult.

The 2 extremes I have explained and you are the one you tries to deny that Mu^aawiyah committed a sin.

And again I pose the question to you - who was the Prophet talking to when he said that? Because indeed this is a case in which this answer shows the meaning of the Hadeeth and also shows its agreements with other Hadeeths in which the Prophet supplicated against Companions or said they will be in Hellfire.

[samsparky]

alHamdu lillaah I got what I said I would get:

al-Haafith Al-Bayhaqiyy in as-Sunan al-Kubraa,

and Ibn Abi Shaybah in his MuSannaf

and MuHammad bin Nasrin al-Marwaziyy in the book "Ta^theem qadr aS-Salaat"

narrated that ^ammaar ibn Yaasir said what means: "Do not say that the people of Sham blasphemed. Say they committed a major sin (fasaqoo) or were unjust (thalamoo)."

[omer]

Peace unto All
Salam Allaikum,

Thanks for the all efforts, as when this topic were started (wonder that member is off) not enough material was posted, and now many things have been posted from all of us, and now reader can decide themselves how they want to be, whenever someone opened this thread.

As you can see from yourself, especially till the last post, i have questioned to you at last "who have not committed a sin"! any muslim with a fare knowledge can answer this question easily so can i, but the difference is that you have written it about (some) sahaba as "sinful" with proof and i have not. Because of two big reasons. This leads to fiqah of respect, i am not blaming you remember, i.e. you have to follow the point you have reached today, i have to follow where i am, and reader can judge themselves there fiqah of respect.

To say, first is that to give them the respect from heart & soul and make Allah and his Prophet peace be upon him thier best judge, in those matters, secondly by not calling them from such names, there is no harm took place in the belief, otherwise by calling them with such names is doubtful, and we have to leave the doubts. Doubt is, suppose today at this time all of them will be forgiven by Allah and today we call them sinful, this will become very harmful to us, but as you are not sure about there current position in the heavens and besides Allah, so one has to be careful (no doubt to say, logic or justice is blind, it depends upon "material" evidence). And we have other evidences too but they can not come into the category of logics.

Have your or our parents have not commited sin or fought! what will you call them besides your relatives "sinful" but trustworthy (everytime you meet with relative do you repeat this sentence for them again & again), is that the right way to present our beloved to world!

Or is there any harm in belief took place if such word is avoided "sinful etc" as Subhan is only Allah, where agreed upon trustworthy, if answer is no, then whats the use of saying such and insist upon such!

Thats All, indeed, and nothing is personal.

[samsparky]

wa 3alaikom assalaam.

Thanks for the all efforts,

You're welcome.

As you can see from yourself, especially till the last post, i have questioned to you at last "who have not committed a sin"! any muslim with a fare knowledge can answer this question easily so can i, but the difference is that you have written it about (some) sahaba as "sinful" with proof and i have not. Because of two big reasons. This leads to fiqah of respect, i am not blaming you remember

When someone does a sin, it is called a sin. That is the Prophet's way, that is the Companions' way, that is the way of the scholars of ahlussunnah. None of them change history, rather they teach the history and say what is right and what is wrong and I have shown you many examples of that and the reader can see that too.

otherwise by calling them with such names is doubtful, and we have to leave the doubts.

The Prophet made du^aa' against Companions who sinned, Imaam ^Aliyy said they want mulk, ^Ammaar ibn Yaasir said "don't say they blasphemed, say they sinned", Imaam al-'Ash^ariyy said they were sinful. There is no doubt that teaching the people the true history and warning them of the bad things in it is the correct way recognised by all.

Doubt is, suppose today at this time all of them will be forgiven by Allah and today we call them sinful,

If you commit a sin, even if you repent or even if Allaah forgave you, it doesn't change history and it doesn't change the fact that what you did was a sin. What changes is that you will not be punished for it or it will be rubbed off your book if you repent.

We are not saying that those who committed the sin of rebelling against the caliph will definitely be punished. As Imaam al-'Ash^ariyy said we are saying:

Imaam Abul Hasan al-Ash^ariyy said:

"As for those who did not receive the good news from the ones who fought ^Aliyy, their sin might be forgiven."

Have your or our parents have not commited sin or fought! what will you call them besides your relatives "sinful" but trustworthy (everytime you meet with relative do you repeat this sentence for them again & again), is that the right way to present our beloved to world!

When we tell about the Companions we do not start off with the sins of the ones who committed them. But if someone tries to say that such and such was not a sin because the Companion did it, then we must defend the rules of the Religion in the Qur'aan and what the Prophet taught us, even if we need to say the Companion was sinful in that instance.

Or is there any harm in belief took place if such word is avoided "sinful etc"

As I said, the only reason we say sinful about a sinful Companion is when someone comes to us thinking that a certain act is ok because a Companion did it.

Thats All, indeed, and nothing is personal.

alHamdu lillaah