^
u cant speak good of the best man in Muhammad (saw) ummah, so how can i expect u to speak good of someone who joined Islam so late and was of much much lower rank....
[Quote]
*armughal wrote: *
u cant speak good of the best man in Muhammad (saw) ummah, so how can i expect u to speak good of someone who joined Islam so late and was of much much lower rank....
[/quote]
But i can expect this kind of answer from your side. Not all the people in Muslim Ummah are equal. as you said: *was of much much lower rank.*Muslim is a general term; applies on both Muslim and Munafiq.
I am speaking truth about Munafiqeen. Who struggled to destroy Islam and felt happy on lose of Islam. Abu Sufyan and Hind were from Tulaqa. Their activities against Islam proved that they never became Momin. They taught their sons to work against the will of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Those who gave them power were also part of Munafiqeen because Munafiqeen also comes in different shapes; sometime you cant even recognize them. So far it’s good that you accept the concept of ranking in Muslim Ummah but that ranking is only based on Taqwa which also include “policies in favor of Islam”. Would you not try to protect yourself from those people who are working against Islam?
Brother Gandalf said very well, Look at the dubious characters you Sunnis deem good. Bas, say La illla ha illal la, and the rest will all be overlooked, no matter that you are Hinda or Muwayah or Yazid.
You give equal importance to every person who claims to be a Muslim rather than seeing him carefully. It’s true that you should be good to them who are bad, but its not said that you should fallow them as Khalifa.
One born illegitimately can not be a Khalifa
Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi in his Hujjutul Balaghtha Volume 2 page 149 "Dhikr Khilafath" states:
*"To be a Khalifa one must satisfy the following six requirements, he must be
1 - wise
2 - mature
3 - Free
4 - a Man
5 - Brave
6 - Possess good ancestry*
Would you not verify the ancestry of Mawiyah and Yazid before accepting thim as Khalifa against Ali(A) and Hussain(A) who were pure in their ancestry. No blame on them til Prophet Adam(A)
I wonder why you people say grandmother of Yazid was a Muslim and great grandmother Hussain was a kafir. I wonder why you people say parents of Mawiyah were Muslims and parents of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and Ali(A) were kafir.
Whose policy is working behind this thought? Ummiyah's policy.
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,
let's make it very short:
[QUOTE]
Sunni reference: Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 114 Chapter 7
[/QUOTE]
Tadkirat al Khawwas was written by Ibn Sibt al-Jauwzi, a SHIITE scholar. I challenge you to bring me a single authentic chain for this narration. Anyway, class is over, go out and play.
wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda
It was armughal in the class before, but his period was finished. You just came and wanted to close your session very soon. It should be at least 35 minutes. Teacher before leaving please tell me about others, how many were shias. It looks there were more shias as compared to Sunnies in that time. When would you say that Bukhari and Muslims were also Shia?
When somebody writes books for the merits of Abu Sufyan and Yazid he is a Sunni .
When somebody writes books for the merits of Marwan and Ibn Ziyad he is a Sunni.
When somebody writes books for the merits of Sahaba, he is a Sunni .
When somebody writes books for the merits of Sahaba and Ahle Bait, he is a Sunni. But keep an eye on it.
When somebody writes books for the merits of Ahle Bait, he can be a Shia; no need to listen him.
You tell me what about those writers who wrote books in MERITS for both Sahaba and Ahle Bait, but in some of their writings they told the truth about those people who are considered as Sahaba as general definition of Muslims and they did bad in their lives.
For now to make it very simple for your understanding do research on the following example.
If you don’t know, Check chapter categories (Table of Contents) of Book Al Bukhari in which Imam Bukhari made the classification of Hadith in different chapters. He named each Chapter and topic to organize his work. Right! Now listen! Tell me if Imam Bukhari made chapters Merits of Abu Bakar, Umar, Uthman, Ali and some other companions and then why not he made chapter for Marits of Mawiyah. Why did he used the word Tazkara in his chapter heading for Mawiyah? Why did he differentiate it? Was Imam Bukhari a Shia?
For your convenience the book Al Bukhri is available online in Arabic version : http://hadith.al-islam.com/
What is your criteria to judge a person that he is a Shia? If a person talks against any Sahabi who belongs to any rank, that person is a Shia.
Cant we judge people that who is Sunni and who is Shia? If a person who disregards Ahle Bait and inclined more towards Sahaba as compared to Ahle Bait. He is a Sunni. Right?
You label about a person that he is a shia by reading one page of his writings and ignore all of his other writings which he wrote in favor of Sunni religions.
Actually you have no solution to protect Sunnism; if you don’t do this. Its not easy to become a teacher. Its not simply a playground.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,
let's make it very short:
Tadkirat al Khawwas was written by Ibn Sibt al-Jauwzi, a SHIITE scholar. I challenge you to bring me a single authentic chain for this narration. Anyway, class is over, go out and play.
wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda
[/QUOTE]
Here comes another defender of thier great great grand father, who happened to be a
Bas[edited out]
inuit! salute dude!! great work.
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,
inuit, you know I'm not going to argue with you about facts. It's as silly as debating about whether the sun exists. So if you have no clue about the man, then go read for instance Mizan Al-I'tidaal fi Naqd Al-Rijal, where you will in simple terms read that the man was a Rafidi. Try to get over it.
[QUOTE]
Teacher before leaving please tell me about others, how many were shias.
[/QUOTE]
Well surprisingly many of those whom you claim to be Sunnis like Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed who was mentioned in this thread as well. He was a Rafidi.
anyway, I repeat my challenge: Bring us a single authentic narration that confirms your claims about Hind (ra).
If you can't do that, then ponder over this verse:
And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever, they indeed are the Fasiqun (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allah). (4:4)
Finally as for the chapter of Sahih Bukhari, then really your matter is strange. One time your priests say, Imaam Bukhari included Ahadeeth to please Bani Umayyah and then suddenly in another discussion you argue he didn't even include a chapter "Merits of Muawiyya". The truth is in contrary to you, Ahl ul Sunnah are objective, we don't consider Muawiyya (ra) to be superior to Ali (ra), but at the same time, we don't rely on fabrications that slander Muawiyya (ra) but respect him as a companion of the Prophet (saws) and a Muslim! Whether there is a chapter that is explicitely titled with "merits of Muawiyya" or not, is irrelevant. Likewise I'm not aware of a chapter called "merits of Fatima", these are simply titles for chapters - nothing more!
wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,
still waiting for a single authentic narration that confirms your claims about Hind (ra) and of course four witnesses for that.
wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,
still waiting for a single authentic narration that confirms your claims about Hind (ra) and of course four witnesses for that.
wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda
[/QUOTE]
hello? Nobody there to answer anymore?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
umar (ra) wud let ppl sit in circles with the badari sahaaba closest and the new muslims at the outer end....
abu sufyan (ra) used to grumble when he too was made to sit at the outer end of the circle....
[/QUOTE]
And was it Some Sunnat of Prophet Mohammad P.B.U.H. he was following....????
Iqbal neh kiya khoob kaha heh
Eik heh Saf meh kharey hoh gaey Mehmood oh Ayaaz
Nah koi bunda raha nahk koi banda Nawaz
------x-------
All narrators and so Called Scholars except for those who choose Quraan as their medium, teachers and Maulanas except for those who choose Quraan and Prophets [pbuh] sunnah the days when He [pbuh]
was alive as their main tool for teachings, are all false/twisted/politicaley motivated and are deliberate as Allah’s test for us to avoid this centuries Old fitna if we know whats right for us,!!!
Thread after thread I see here that mentions scholars upon scholars who wrote God knows what and for what purpose , is the talk of the town today,what a waste. Instead of simplifying religion they give a poplitical twist. QURAAN doest not ask for any ones opnion ,period..
so who are these scholars and maulanas and narrators,
Prove - They also had Band Wagons on those days too for Tom Dick and Harry to ride on,
May some day after 200 years from today some one might say ,what a great scholar he was (Al-Muthanna - Crappy name but fitting for history archives) ..who was your teacher now mothhana sahab ? or may be Wanna guys flushed you out from hidding. ,Rest of others Chill out and Talk about Quraan and good things it brings us not controvercies other wise every step will weigh 1000 kg for you and the next generation
Be brave and stand up to the nonsence and speak out…
Allah-o-akbar
rain, go and play somewhere else.
Still waiting for 4 witnesses for what some Rafida here accused Hind (ra) of...
^^ ^^ Your types have removed and taken all the play grounds of the world and have converted them into mass graves , Children of today are denied their rights to play out side. because the evils of Jews/bush and the Islamic scholars such as yr self made,, are responsible for this demise ,,, May Allah swt deal with all of you in his [swt] own ways . Becsuse Allah knows all.. and I hope the days is not far,,, for Sunni's and shia's to carry this Fitna for ever....
why dont you do some thing constructive with life like then wasting your time on He said, They said issues.
In The Name of Allah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Kind
This in reply to Al-Muthanna
Well said: Diwana Desii, Ayaaz can only strand in a same Saf with Mehmood when he proves his loyalty to the Islamic state and works for it. If he is Munafiq like Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind he can’t possess those rights and value which Ayaaz had.
Al-Muthanna : The reference of Mizan Al-I’tidaal fi Naqd Al-Rijal is neither an authentic book nor it is not an evidence for me.
Who wrote Mizan Al-I’tidaal fi Naqd Al-Rijal? It’s writer was Shia or Sunni? If he is a Sunni; give evidence from shia resource as it’s a basic rule of debate that one have to provide the evidence from the opponent resources. I challenge you to prove it from any Shia Alim book in which he said that Ibn Sibt al-Jauwzi was a shia Scholar.
Ibn Sibt al-Jauwzi was a famous Sunni historian. No any authentic historian has denied it, not even any Prejudiced and narrow-minded history writer. All are agreed on it.
Ibn Sibt al-Jauwzi himself was against Shiite. Maula Moududi in his books Khalfat o Malukiyat haven’t written him a Shia even. If somebody has written in his book about Ibn Sibt al-Jauwzi that he is a shia; its his personal opinion which does not have any root and absolutely of no importance.
This is not a solution to the problem go and see what else he wrote and about which topic he is discussing in his book. What other books he wrote in his life. So you can find more about him. This is a habit of people like you, when they don’t find any answer, they label the reference as a Shia. They say this Narrator is a Shia, This writer is a Shia. This historian is a Shia.
Also tell me if a person is a Rafidi does this mean he is a liar. If he is a liar then why did Sunni Ullema took Hadith from them even after knowing about them that they are Shia. For more information you can review this website.
http://www.al-islam.org/nutshell/ and look at the file Rafidi Shi’ah narrators in Sahih al-Bukhari
I believe in the Ayat you pasted in your post:
- And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever, they indeed are the Fasiqun (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allah). (4:4) *
The reference number of the translation of an Ayat e Quran you posted above is not correct. Anyway it can be a human mistake. The correct reference of the Ayat is (4:15).
In view of the above Ayat what would you do to the following references? As per Sunnies, Hazrat Ayesha can’t tell a lie. The same story is written in many other books like:
(1) Massalab Ibn Saman Munkula Tabiya al Ansab page 87 —
(2) Ansay Kafiaya —
(3) Shara Ibn E Abi Al-hadeed V 4 Page 94 —
(4) Rabi Al Ibrar Chapter 28 —
(5) Tanziya Al Insaab Fi Qabail Al Aarab —
(6) Minhaj Al Sunna Vol 2 Page 115 Zikar E Muaviya —
(7) Kitaab Agazi Vol 8 Page 50 Zikr E Musafir Bin Umroo —
The Prophet(PBUH) said to Hind, "And, you shall not commit adultery."
A large crowd of the citizens of Makkah who had embraced Islam assembled. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) came to Mount Safa, where one after another, the Meccans moved up to take the oath of allegiance in the hands of the Prophet (Peace be upon him).
The men had pledged their faith in Allah and the Prophet (Peace be upon him), the women followed suit. Among them came the fury of Uhud, Hind b. 'Utba, who was the wife of Abu Sufyan. She came veiled because of what she had done to Hamza.
The Prophet(Peace be upon him) said to her, “Take your oath that you would not associate anything with God.”
“By God”, she replied, “You lay on us something that you have not laid on men.”
The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said again, “And you shall not steal.”
Hind acknowledged, “I used to take a little of Abu Sufyan’s money but I do not know if it was lawful or not.”
Abu Sufyan was present on the occasion. He intervened to say, "In so far as the past is concerned, there is no blame on you. It was lawful. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) now recognized Hind and said, “Ah! You are Hind bint 'Utba!”
Hind said in reply, “Yes, I am, forgive me of my past deeds and God will forgive you.”
The Prophet (Peace be upon him) again said to her, “And, you shall not commit adultery.”
"Does a woman of noble birth commit adultery?’ she inquired in reply. (Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, p. 603)
Ignoring her question, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) further said, “and you shall not kill your children.”
Hind answered back, “We brought them up when they were young and you killed them when they were grown up. Now you and they should know better.”
The Prophet (Peace be upon him) asked her again, “And you shall not utter slanderous remarks about any body.”
“By God”, replied Hind, “Slander is vile and shameful. It is better sometimes to ignore it.”
Finally, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said to her, “And you shall not disobey me.”
“Yes”, acknowledged Hind, but she added, “In matters virtuous.” (Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, pp. 602-3)
Hind spat out the bitter words: “A free woman does not commit adultery!”
Hind opposed Muhammad tooth and nail. She followed her husband to the battlefield and when Abu Sufyan surrendered Mecca to Muhammad without a fight she caught hold of him in the marketplace and cried:
“KILL this fat greasy bladder of lard! What a rotten protector of the people”
When Muhammad tried to baptise her & asked her not to commit adultery , She spat out the bitter words:
“A free woman does not commit adultery!”
How proud this woman was of the rights and privileges that her Vedic society had invested to her!
Musafir fell in love with Hinda
“Research has established that Musafir was a handsome and generous man, he fell in love with Hinda and fornicated with her, she was unmarried and became pregnant, this came to the knowledge of the Quraysh and Musafir ran away. Hinda’s father Utbah summoned Muaweyah’s father Abu Sufyan - bribing with a huge dowry, he married him to Hinda. Muaweyah was born three months after the marriage.”
Muasalib ibne Sa’man munkool uz thun’zeey al Nasab page 97
Is this not enough for you that four different people were thought to be the father of Muaweyah. You can see the scanned image of that Sunni book from the reference was taken.
Four people - Fathers of Muaweyah
Allamah Zamakhshari records the following in his Rabi’ul Abrar:
“There were four people who were thought to be Muaweyah’s father, Abi bin Umar bin Musaafir, Abi Umar bin Waleed, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and Sabah”
Rabi’ul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari Volume 3 page 551
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/rabi_ul_abrar2.jpg
Sunni scholar Ibn Abi al Hadeed in Sharh Nahjul Balagha notes the following:
“When Muaweyah was born, four people were thought to have been his father Abi bin Umar bin Musaafir, Abi Umar bin Waleed, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and Sabah the Ethiopian. 'Abu Sufyan was short and ugly whilst Sabah was young and handsome, Hinda offered him sex and amongst the Arabs there was also a view that 'Abu Sufyan’s other son Utbah was also a product of this union”.
Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Ibn Abi al Hadeed Volume 10 page 130
**Don’t say that Ibn Al Hadeed is a Shia. He is a well know Sunni Scholar, this is not a lie and don’t hide the fact from people. **
Muaweyah’s mother Hind was a prostitute:
“In relation to the birth of Muaweyah, four men were viewed to have been his father Umr bin Waleed bin Mugheera, Musaafir Abi Umar, 'Abu Sufyan and a forth individual was also involved. Hinda was a prostitute and had sex with black men, if any children were born from such a union she would kill them.”
Thanzeeya al Nasab fi Kubul al Arab
Muaweyah declared Ziyad (another of Abu Sufyan’s illigitimate sons) as his brother
“Muaweyah declaring that Ziyad was his brother, was the first act that was in open contradiction to the laws of Sharia because Rasulullah (s) said that the legitimate child is one born from wedlock”
Tarikh Kamil Volume 3 page 225
“Muaweyah declaring Ziyad to be the son of Abu Sufyan was the first act that contradicted an order of Rasulullah”.
Hafiz Jalaluddeen Suyuti in Tareekh ul Khulafa
Here is another evidence of it.
Abu al-Aala al-Mawdudi wrote in his book "Caliphate and Kingdom
Abu al-Aala al-Mawdudi wrote in his book “Caliphate and Kingdom”, p 106: Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: Muawiah had four features, and if he had only one of them, it would have been considered a great sin:
1.Making decisions without consulting the Companions, who were the light of virtues.
2.Designating his son as his successor. His son was a drunkard, corrupt and wore silk.
3.He claimed Ziyad [as his son], and the Messenger of Allah said, “There is offspring for the honourable woman, but there is nothing for the whore.”
4.His killing of Hijr and his followers. Woe unto him from Hijr and the followers of Hijr.
Continue …