Quite wrong the definition you have indeed.
The correct definition is: whoever saw Prophet:saw: while in the state of Islam is a sahabhi
^^ The definition of Sahabi is someone who saw the Prophet and believed in him *as well as died a Muslim. *
The Munafiqs and other disbelievers who were contemporaries of the Prophet in Madina and Mecca are not considered from the Sahabah (raa).
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ibn Sadique: *
^^ The definition of Sahabi is someone who saw the Prophet and believed in him **as well as died a Muslim. *
The Munafiqs and other disbelievers who were contemporaries of the Prophet in Madina and Mecca are not considered from the Sahabah (raa).
[/QUOTE]
correct!
You know, ravage, you make a number of very valid, very interesting points that have given me a lot to think about this morning. Indeed, as you mentioned, Khilafat back then was decided by majority vote amongst the leading personalities of the ummah (vote being "cast "through bayt).
In fact, this caused me to think deeply about what I, and others, have said about the fiftth khalif. I have said that he made the error of introduced the concept of dynasty, and even Anwaar Qureishi has said that an error "which was to make his son yazeed a wali-ehd thus building a foundation of "Malookiyat" instead of Khilafah...".
But ravage, after reading your words, I realise that may Allah forgive me, but I have slandered against Ameer Ul-Muslimeen and Khalif Hazrat Muawiyya Bin Abu Sufyan (ra) by accusing him of making an error of governance where in fact he did none!!!!!!!"
Muawiyya (ra) did not introduce Malookiyat to replace Khilafat!!! This accusation would only have held true if he had simply appointed Yazid as his successor. But Muawiyya (ra), instead, requested the eminent/prominent Muslims to support Yazid for Khalif upon the death of Muawiyya (ra). Yazid was never appointed to Khalifat... he was selected for the position!
There was nothing wrong with Muawiyya's (ra) action. All that he did was avoid the risk of civil war that would have endangered the nation that the Muslims had built with their blood, through ensuring that his succession was decided before his death. He proposed that his son, who was one of his leading generals, would be a suitable candidate to replace him, and most of the prominent Muslims gave their consent and agreement through their bayt. This succession was decided in exactly the same way in which Hazrats Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), Uthman (ra), and Ali (ra) were selected - by getting the bayt from the majority of eminent Muslims.
What this means is that not only do I believe Muawiyya (ra) to have commited to no legal error in getting his son selected as Khalif, but that Yazid's selection and ascession to Khilafat must have been done in a lawful manner, which means that, inititially, at least, Yazid was the lawful Khalif.
Of course, as you are no doubt aware, a Khalif's position as lawful Khalif is dependent on his ruling in accordance with Islam. Yazid's actions, such as having the grandsons of the Prophet (saws) murdered, his laying siege to and sacking of Medina, and his siege of Mecca leading to the damaging of the Kaaba, amongst other actions, make it very easy to question whether or not his actions as ruler were in accordance with Islam, and thus allows us to really question whether he remained the lawful khalif or not thorugh all of his rule.
Something I keep asking is..wasn't Imam Hasan Khalifah for a period of 6 months after Hazrat Ali?
Also..I am a sunni Muslim but I have a hard time with the comment Mu'awiyah was a Sahaba. His association with Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was very strained at times and so was his relationship with people like Hazrat Usman. I believe he was a competent King...but not neccessarily a good one..his rule triggered the events which polarised Muslims ever since.
MadScientist
:) well.. that was counterproductive !
The point I was trying to get across was that since it would be abhorrent for any Muslim to consider Yazid a Khalifatul Muslimeent (R.A) for a single moment, the fact that he was able to become a "proper" Khalifa indicated a fundamental weakness in the process that led to him becoming one.
Nevertheless, to take your position to the logical conclusion, does selection from eminent groups of people, entitling Yazid khalifateship, imply the fact that Imam Hussain's shahadat was infact a justified suppression of a criminal revolt against the Khaliftat ul Waqt?
You can either have two things, you can either admit that there is a fundamental flaw in that process of Khilafat that has its foundation in the 1st Kaliph, or you can say that the murder of the Prophet's aal was a justified step by the leader of the Muslims, in response to an unislamic revolt from Hussain.
Forget taraaji-e-madina, answer the above question. I sincerely hope its the former answer, and not the latter.
Hazrat Hasan had a peace treaty with Muawiya. It would interest you to actually read that treaty.. and the points they negotiated..
why waste your time talking about the dude? :o
Let's not forget Imam Hasan's poisoning...
So do sunnis believe that Muwiya was against Hazrat Ali(a.s.) and his followers?
Assalam o Alaikum
Seeing some of posts , i have some clarifications to make…
will not point out things…rather will try to write a on issues that were raised coupled with some other relavent facts… hadrat mauwiya 
**Appointing yazeed as wali-ahd **
Two issues are raised regarding the incident…
1-whether the decision was right or not…
Well we all agree that the decsion was wrong . so no need to discuss it…
2-Whether hadrat mauwiyah:razi: belived sicerly that the decison he is taking is in the overall benefit of ummah or not…or in other words it was an ijtihadi fault and had nothing to do with the personal interst of hadart mauwiyah
Wali ehd…
here i must clearfy that appointing a wali ehd is not like making him khalifah…making wali ehd is just equivelent to referring…which is condition to approval from ummah
Did hadart mauwiyah belived yazeed as being pious
hadrat mauwiyah is known to have belived that his son is very pious…it may be due to the reason that yazeed pretended to be like that in front of him …
hadrat muhammad bin hanfia (son of hadrat ali )
once said while refuting some ppl who came to him complaining about yazeed being made wali ehd …" i know yazeed ..he performs salah ..ask masail from ulema and is pious "
ibn-kathir
Apparently yazed was pious that is why hadrat abdullah ibn e abbas did not opposed him…
In no credible riwayah(sunni) it is proven that yazeed did any act of fisq during his fathers life time…
Sorry ifor leaving the post incomplete…will get back later at night to complete the post…and see what others have to say about the half post…
Wasalam
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ravage: *
**MadScientist*
:) well.. that was counterproductive !
[/QUOTE]
:D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
The point I was trying to get across was that since it would be abhorrent for any Muslim to consider Yazid a Khalifatul Muslimeent (R.A) for a single moment, the fact that he was able to become a "proper" Khalifa indicated a fundamental weakness in the process that led to him becoming one.
Nevertheless, to take your position to the logical conclusion, does selection from eminent groups of people, entitling Yazid khalifateship, imply the fact that Imam Hussain's shahadat was infact a justified suppression of a criminal revolt against the Khaliftat ul Waqt?
You can either have two things, you can either admit that there is a fundamental flaw in that process of Khilafat that has its foundation in the 1st Kaliph, or you can say that the murder of the Prophet's aal was a justified step by the leader of the Muslims, in response to an unislamic revolt from Hussain.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think that this reflects a flaw in the process of selecting the Khalif. I'd find it very hard to believe that the eminent Muslims would willingly select someone they knew to be a bad Muslim as their Khalif - rather, either they were unaware of Yazid's true nature or power corrupted him after he became Khalif.
The failure was of people to execute the check on his power once it became clear through his actions that Yazid was not ruling by Islam. Like I said, failing to rule by Islam is a criteria upon which one can be stripped of Khilafat, yet no one at Damascus had the courage call out Yazid's failings on this vital issue.
No-one, that is, except Hazrat Imam Al-Hussain (ra), who recognised Yazid for the tyrant that he had become, and tried to make people aware of the fact that Yazid was an evil-doer. I don't think you can seriously say that Imam Hussain (ra) led a revolt - he had a band of followers, true, but to say that he revolted would imply that he raised and led an army against Yazid.
Imam Hussain (ra) stood up for the truth, tried to wake the slumbering Muslims to the fact that a tyrant was towering over them, and was martyred at Karbala for defending what was good, true, and right. He never submitted to evil, even to save his own life, and in this he has created one of the finest role models for Muslims.
In short, the process the process that led to Yazid's Khilafat was not flawed. The flaw was on behalf of the Muslims who failed to call him an unlawful tyrant and press for his removal when his rule became tainted with evil. Imam Hussain (ra) addressed this flaw, through taking on the responsibility himself to point out what Yazid had become. For doing this great service, he was martyred by the tyrant.
sermon 199..in nahjul balagha..Imam Ali (a.s.) says:
SERMON 199
Treason and treachery of Muawiyah and the fate of those guilty of treason awiyah is not more cunning than I am, but he deceives and commits evil deeds. Had I not been hateful of deceit I would have been the most cunning of all men. But (the fact is that) every deceit is a sin and every sin is disobedience (of Allah), and every deceitful person will have a banner by which he will be recognised on the Day of Judgement. By Allah, I cannot be made forgetful by strategy, nor can I be overpowered by hardships.
By Allah, (1) Mu
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by little human: *
So do sunnis believe that Muwiya was against Hazrat Ali(a.s.) and his followers?
[/QUOTE]
In what context? You mean, in general, or at some specific point in time?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
In what context? You mean, in general, or at some specific point in time?
[/QUOTE]
all his life
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
I don't think that this reflects a flaw in the process of selecting the Khalif. I'd find it very hard to believe that the eminent Muslims would willingly select someone they knew to be a bad Muslim as their Khalif - rather, either they were unaware of Yazid's true nature or power corrupted him after he became Khalif.
The failure was of people to execute the check on his power once it became clear through his actions that Yazid was not ruling by Islam. Like I said, failing to rule by Islam is a criteria upon which one can be stripped of Khilafat, yet no one at Damascus had the courage call out Yazid's failings on this vital issue.
No-one, that is, except Hazrat Imam Al-Hussain (ra), who recognised Yazid for the tyrant that he had become, and tried to make people aware of the fact that Yazid was an evil-doer. I don't think you can seriously say that Imam Hussain (ra) led a revolt - he had a band of followers, true, but to say that he revolted would imply that he raised and led an army against Yazid.
Imam Hussain (ra) stood up for the truth, tried to wake the slumbering Muslims to the fact that a tyrant was towering over them, and was martyred at Karbala for defending what was good, true, and right. He never submitted to evil, even to save his own life, and in this he has created one of the finest role models for Muslims.
In short, the process the process that led to Yazid's Khilafat was not flawed. The flaw was on behalf of the Muslims who failed to call him an unlawful tyrant and press for his removal when his rule became tainted with evil. Imam Hussain (ra) addressed this flaw, through taking on the responsibility himself to point out what Yazid had become. For doing this great service, he was martyred by the tyrant.
[/QUOTE]
But you see, you contradict yourself when you saw that both there wasnt a flaw in the process and when you say that the group of eminent muslims, with the best of intentions, must have selected a tyrant by mistake.
My contention is, that even if you grant Muawiya the best of intentions in selecting the most unbiased and "eminent" eminent people, and even granting that those eminent people had no consideration in mind other than figuring out the best Caliph, fact that a tyrant did become the legitimate ruler reflects that there is a fundamental flaw in the process itself, that you say decides Khilafa.
Given that you have the benefit of hindsight, you might now say that Imam Husain was martyred for what was good, true etc. But you really dont. And neither did yazid. Anyone who lead a rebellion would say that this guy is not a good leader. Those who gave their bayt before didnt take it back. That makes Hussain a legitimate person to murder.
Once again, you're forced to choose between this process or the ahle bayt.
Great posts Mad_Scientist and ravage. Keep it going!
Here’s a very authoritative (and accepted by all sects) hadith which in my view makes Mauwiya’s position quite clear vis-a-vis Imam Ali. And its not just a so-called ‘Ijtihadi mistake’ as many would like to (wrongfully) claim.
Sahih al-Bukhari - Volume 4, Book 52, Number 67
Narrated 'Ikrima:
That Ibn 'Abbas told him and 'Ali bin 'Abdullah to go to Abu Said and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Said and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, "(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while 'Ammar used to carry two at a time. **The Prophet passed by 'Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. 'Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.” **
Hazrat Ammar Yassir was killed during Siffeen fighting for Imam Ali, against Muaviya.
Muawiyah killed Aiyasha, supposedly Prophet Muhammad's favorite wife. He is an example which all Muslims, like Saddam and Bin Laden should follow. God bless Muawiya, Saddam and Bin Laden.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by humhaipakistani: *
**The Prophet passed by 'Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. 'Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire." *
Hazrat Ammar Yassir was killed during Siffeen fighting for Imam Ali, against Muaviya.
[/QUOTE]
but my abbu ji said mawiya and yazeed were good muslims and mawiya was a sahaba so i can't say anything bad bout mawiya..i will respect him warna abbuji naraz na ho jayen..i dont care if this hadith is from sahih muslim..bus mainay keh diya hai na!!! tung nahi karo please
Such a good discussion on the historical events, being ruined by crass posts as above two. Tsk tsk. Guys, if you have nothing worth while to add to the discussion, why bother clicking on the "Add Reply" button. Just read and move on.