Psyah bro, i honestly think u dont belong to this thread, now i feel bad from replying to ur post earlier.
Peace brother aqeel123
To clarify justified suspicion is if you see someone do something odd or what you consider to be wrong, but a righteous person still hold judgement on him until you learn about his intention ... But to hear something about someone doing something with no knowledge on the intent is not justified suspicion.
My point is suspicion is from the Shaitan ... We should avoid it.
Manner of Hassan a.s was same on treaty with Mu'awiya as Manner of Prophet s.a.w at treaty of Hudabia.
Y doesnt anyone put terms of treaty here so we can all benefit from it.
thats stuff of shiite zakirs
most of your relatively saner sources say Ali RA said they were upon the same religion
and dont forget to pull out the shiaism from this aswell. i mean wheres the shiaism? Ali RA is fourth Caliph, Hassan RA goes back to medinites. remember those who dragged Imam Ali bin abi talib (as) through the streets and didnt help him get his rights when he went knocking on their doors at night asking for his rights with his wife and kids.
I will hold from commenting on many of your points but just say one thing that I think is important. It is strange that you say that Hazrat Ali went to Syria to seek the allegiance of Muawiya. In Madina alone Abdullah ibn Umar, Saad ibn abi Waqas along with some others refused to pay allegiance to him. Hazrat Ali was not the one who went around seeking allegiances for his rule let alone shed Muslim blood for it.
i was expecting better then this. avoided what i wanted to know about shiites
saad ibn abi waqas RA was his governor
Imam abdullah bin umar RA pledged to him.
what Ali RA did is superior in our opinion, ie fought for Allegience and Unity
[quote]
You said that if somebody curses or badmouths Muawiya then he is a deviant and a kafir, right?
I asked you if Muawiya alone gets this privilege?
You said that this honour extends to the likes of Hazrat Usman, Talha, Zubayr (meaning, to the grand companions, right?)
I ask you now then what do you say about the one that constituted cursing Hazrat Ali as the part of official prayers. And furthermore went on to kill Ammar Yasir, Mohammad bin Abi Bakr, and Hujr bin Adi along with his companions?
[/QUOTE]
they all get the same prefential treatment from us as companions. we do not condone the cursing of any of these companions and we make takfir upon those from our later generations who do so. i was expecting this question
however we have DEENI reasons for this rule, if you can find a muslim who doubts it i'll be happy to discuss the references but its unlikely to be required
thats stuff of shiite zakirs
most of your relatively saner sources say Ali RA said they were upon the same religion
and dont forget to pull out the shiaism from this aswell. i mean wheres the shiaism? Ali RA is fourth Caliph, Hassan RA goes back to medinites. remember those who dragged Imam Ali bin abi talib (as) through the streets and didnt help him get his rights when he went knocking on their doors at night asking for his rights with his wife and kids.
come with your full religion
Come on man! Yes it is only Internet but this is not the way to talk.
i was expecting better then this. avoided what i wanted to know about shiites
saad ibn abi waqas RA was his governor
Imam abdullah bin umar RA pledged to him.
what Ali RA did is superior in our opinion, ie fought for Allegience and Unity
Please pick a history book of your choice and read if Saad paid allegiance to Hazrat Ali or not. Saad was made governor by Hazrat Umar. By the time of Hazrat Ali he had retired and living in his famous house on the outskirts of Madina. As for allegiance, there were more like Abdullah ibne Umar, Usamah ibn Zayd, Muhammad ibn Maslamah who did not pay allegiance to Hazrat Ali.
[quote]
they all get the same prefential treatment from us as companions. we do not condone the cursing of any of these companions and we make takfir upon those from our later generations who do so. i was expecting this question
however we have DEENI reasons for this rule, if you can find a muslim who doubts it i'll be happy to discuss the references but its unlikely to be required
[/QUOTE]
Ok, I think I have just lost what I had written. May be its a sign that I must say no more. :)
I have contributed enough but wanted to responsd to #81 which is a very interesting position, one which I used to to take before I pondered on the message of Quran and Rasool Allah.
Thankyou folks for responding in detail. I learned a lot about important part of Islamic history in this thread.
Sunni researcher and scholars deserve applaud for their sincere efforts of evaluating historical perspective on merit. Other schools of thought should follow the suit and try to give rest to assumptions.
Thankyou folks for responding in detail. I learned a lot about important part of Islamic history in this thread.
Sunni researcher and scholars deserve applaud for their sincere efforts of evaluating historical perspective on merit. Other schools of thought should follow the suit and try to give rest to assumptions.
its not assumptions that they base their opinions its verifiable lies
i shared with you the verse of fitnan earlier, and there exists a need to address another issue, of criticizing/cursing/talking against
Allah does not like that the evil should be uttered in public except by him who has been wronged. And Allah is Ever All-Hearer, All-Knower. 4:148
this means there is increased Mercy for people/groups who fall out and might have talked against each other. and the companions of the Messenger SAW were blessed by Allah SWT with eman
Sunni researcher and scholars deserve applaud for their sincere efforts of evaluating historical perspective on merit. Other schools of thought should follow the suit and try to give rest to assumptions.
Merit, yes, by the early historians such as Tabari who recorded great amount of data without even giving away his own political/sectarian tendencies (some later historians wrote, as always is the case, by pen and paper provided by the conquerors and the kings). Moreover later developed dogmatic ideas too tainted how the historic accounts were interpreted and defined. One of these ideas is of the absolute goodness of every Sahabi regardless of the idea being in contradiction with the Quran, hadith, tarikh, and intellect on the most elementary of levels. Yes, the idea sounds great but whatever sounds great is not necessarily the haq. History clearly shows that the notion even goes against the conduct of the companions towards each others themselves.
If you do want to study quality objective analysis of the early history of Islam then I would highly recommend 'The Succession to Muhammad' by the Oxford University professor, Wilfred Madelung.
All the best in your quest. May Allah help us increase in His knowledge.