Ali ra did long for khilafah, there are hadiths in Bukhari that suggest that.
Hasan ra was wiser and feared Allah more than Ali ra in my opinion. Because he didn't do any bloodshed of Muslims the way Ali ra did.
And by the way Hasan ra received tributes (money) from Muawiya ra for not fighting him, Husain ra also received a sum of money.
If someone is from the family of Prophet s.a.w it doesn't mean they are angels.
This will go long back and don't want to indulge in such discussion.. but you should keep the decisions of Hazrat Uthman for giving high positions to his family and relatives (including Muawiya) that finally lead to his death.
As far as receiving gifts from Muawiya by Hasan and Hussain, that was not for not claiming caliphate.. There were family relationships between these families and its a norm in all cultures that when someone visit a relative, he offers some gifts to those relatives and thats still the dominant part of Arab culture. It was followed by Uthman (RA) too and probably he followed that beyond limits.
What about the policies of Uthma (RA) for keeping Muawiya governor of Syria for a long time that gave him chance to use his power? Didn't Muawiya (RA) fought against Ali? Can we only make responsible Ali (RA) for what happened to Jamal and Siffeen.
What would you say about the difference between lifestyle of first four caliphs and Muawiya and his successor Yazeed?
Syria was conquered by Muawiyah ra and his brother Yazid ra, so why shouldn't they have governed it?
Had Ali ra conquered some place like that he would also have been governing it.
In both Jamal and Siffeen, the aggressor was Ali ra. Neither Ummul Mumineen Aisha ra nor Muawiyah ra had attacked Ali ra. It was Ali ra who attacked both of them, but if you believe that everything happens by the will of Allah then Allah didn't support Ali ra, He swt supported Muawiyah ra.
Syria was conquered by Muawiyah ra and his brother Yazid ra, so why shouldn't they have governed it?
Had Ali ra conquered some place like that he would also have been governing it.
In both Jamal and Siffeen, the aggressor was Ali ra. Neither Ummul Mumineen Aisha ra nor Muawiyah ra had attacked Ali ra. It was Ali ra who attacked both of them, but if you believe that everything happens by the will of Allah then Allah didn't support Ali ra, He swt supported Muawiyah ra.
LOl, but who won in the end?
Islam zinda hota hay her karbala kay baad.
It was his progeny who spread islam to many countries including the subcontinent.
This will go long back and don't want to indulge in such discussion.. but you should keep the decisions of Hazrat Uthman for giving high positions to his family and relatives (including Muawiya) that finally lead to his death.
This is not a good logic that a Khalifah should be killed because he gives high posts to his relatives and people of his clan. By the way what is your opinion about Ali ra who did the same thing, i.e gave high posts to his relatives?
[QUOTE]
As far as receiving gifts from Muawiya by Hasan and Hussain, that was not for not claiming caliphate.. There were family relationships between these families and its a norm in all cultures that when someone visit a relative, he offers some gifts to those relatives and thats still the dominant part of Arab culture. It was followed by Uthman (RA) too and probably he followed that beyond limits.
[/QUOTE]
No, they were not gifts. They were sums of money for not going to war with Muawiyah ra.
**Syria was conquered by Muawiyah ra and his brother Yazid ra, so why shouldn't they have governed it? **Had Ali ra conquered some place like that he would also have been governing it.
By this logic, Muhammad Bin Qasim and Tariq Bin Ziyad had been made life time governors by the same Ummayads? But what happened to those conquerors is well known.
It was his progeny who spread islam to many countries including the subcontinent.
The progeny of Ali ra was mostly hijacked by the rebels of Islam; and there were around 50 rebellions against the Khilafah of Banu Umaiyah and Khilafah of Banu Abbas offered by the children of Ali radiyallahu anhu. They wanted power, but Allah didn't help them!
Islam spread far and wide because of the Jihad of the companions and those of the caliphs of Banu Umaiyah majorly. Read some history bro!
Muhammad bin Qasim rahimahullah was sent to Sindh by an Omaiyad ruler by the way!
By this logic, Muhammad Bin Qasim and Tariq Bin Ziyad had been made life time governors by the same Ummayads? But what happened to those conquerors is well known.
Because Muhammad bin Qasim and Tariq ibn Ziyad didn't fight under the khilafah of a companion.
For example, Sa'd bin Abi Waqas ra conquered Persia, he became the governor of Persia.
This is not a good logic that a Khalifah should be killed because he gives high posts to his relatives and people of his clan. By the way what is your opinion about Ali ra who did the same thing, i.e gave high posts to his relatives?
Its not my logic. This is the one of the major reason (as per historian) that arose rebels against Uthman (RA) and finally loss of his life. Tell us something about the extent of power that was exercised by Uthman and Ali during their respective times. Uthman (RA) succeeded peaceful era of Umar (RA) and was in better position to exercise his powers, whereas Ali (RA) had to face rebels and pressure from first day. In that situation, a person is naturally tilted towards appointing people whom he trust more.
[QUOTE]
No, they were not gifts. They were sums of money for not going to war with Muawiyah ra.
[/QUOTE]
How can you say all this with that authenticity. Bring basis for your claim
^ And what was the role of Ali Hajvery, Sachal Sarmast, Bahauddin Zikriya and countless others in the spread of Islam?
If you can covert people by conquering, the people of Central Asian Republics, Chechnya, Dagestan, Xinjiang province of China, Burma, Iraq, Afghanistan etc would have been converted to other religions.
You can spread the religion through love, compassion, patience and message of equality and thats exactly how Islam spread in the subcontinent. We can see that more closely in Malaysia where there was no invasion.
^ And what was the role of Ali Hajvery, Sachal Sarmast, Bahauddin Zikriya and countless others in the spread of Islam?
Well, it's the subcontinet; the land of ignorant fools!
Here if a donkey dies, an opportunist and corrupt guy buries him, posts a green flag over that and claims a great saint is buried there. After collecting money from people, he builds a small shrine there and later on the shrine transforms into a big shrine.
Allah knows the best what these people exactly were, if they really existed or not, or if they were also like fake peers of today or not. It's possible they were pious sufis, but I never see Sufis spreading Islam today. Sufism is about signing qawalis, sitting in a corner of shrine or masjid with a prayer beads in hands. They don't care if people are dying because of injustice and oppression!
Invaders came, looted this land and go back with war booties. We consider them as heroes and the people who came here, preached Islam with the lesson of tolerance, attracted people towards Islam require certificate of existence. :k:
Islam was spread by struggle, preaching and no doubt Qitaal (sword). The Messenger of Allah, s.a.w and his pious companions used the power of sword to weaken the forces of evil (kufr) in places like Middle East, North Africa, Persia, parts Europe and the rest of the world. Molvis of today are appologetic, they don’t speak the truth. If Sahabah hadn’t done Jihad in the way of Allah, using the power of sword, the so called sufis would be Hindu yogis or Zoroastrian or Buddhist monks.
I don’t trust the history written by Saba’ites because they are a party in this conflict. And they are confirmed liars!
Oh really? How many people are these sufis attracting to Islam today? Visit a shrine in the subcontinent and see how drugs and women are traded there.
If those invaders hadn’t come, people in Iran would be worshipping fire today and people in the subcontinent would be worshipping Buddha, or monkeys, rats or cow dung!
Well, it's the subcontinet; the land of ignorant fools!
Here if a donkey dies, an opportunist and corrupt guy buries him, posts a green flag over that and claims a great saint is buried there. After collecting money from people, he builds a small shrine there and later on the shrine transforms into a big shrine.
Allah knows the best what these people exactly were, if they really existed or not, or if they were also like fake peers of today or not. It's possible they were pious sufis, but I never see Sufis spreading Islam today. Sufism is about signing qawalis, sitting in a corner of shrine or masjid with a prayer beads in hands. They don't care if people are dying because of injustice and oppression!
Way to go! This proves the fact that most of our hindu friends also claim that Islam was indeed spread by force.
My dear friend during the muslim rule, most of North India remained part of successive islamic empires. Can you please explain as to why those areas became muslims where the sufis propagated the religion? Why Islam is present in Pakistan, and not the rest of North India? Why is Bangladesh an Islamic country although all areas surrounding it are non muslims? How did 25 % of Kerala in South India become muslims?
Oh really? How many people are these sufis attracting to Islam today? Visit a shrine in the subcontinent and see how drugs and women are traded there.
If those invaders hadn't come, people in Iran would be worshipping fire today and people in the subcontinent would be worshipping Buddha, or monkeys, rats or cow dung!
You really need to learn how to respect others religion. I'm right and all others are wrong is the ideology that leads people no where
Books written hundreds of years ago can’t be reliable. Scholars accept them as gospels; they don’t bother to do a research and compile what’s reliable.
As for Tarikh Al-Tabari, it’s unreliable. The person himself is a shia, but shias have fooled sunnis and sunnis say, there are two Tabaris, one is a shia and the other (the author of Tarikh Al-Tabari) is sunni. However, Tabari himself has written a disclaimer in his tareekh that the reports in it are not all authentic, as most of them are either from a weak/fabricated chain or without any chain.
Masudi was also a shia.
The author of siyar, Ibn Ishhaq was also a shia.
Lots of such people were shias, many of them were practising taqiyyah to fool sunnis.
Islam was spread by sword
BTW recommend some good books on history, you think are neutral.