Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
Suh christian excuses are not included in Islam. Sin is a sin. In islam we are not allowed to bring exuses for the sins that it was happened due to him or that... ! What if someone fights Rasool Allkah [swt] while knowing that he is Prophet of Allah yet in the end he bring excuse that it was not his fault rather someone brought misunderstandings?
And if those who slander Muawiyah bin Hinda are munafiq in your eyes then i dunno that fatwa you wud issue here:
We read in
Tadhkira ul Khawass page 62
Tar'ikh Ibn al Wardi Voume 1 page 245
Tarikh Kamil Volume 3 page 180
in connection with Mu'awiya's killing of Hadhrath Ayesha's brother as follows:
"Following the death of Muhammad bin 'Abu Bakr the people of Egypt gave bayya to Mu'awiya. It was following this (event) that Ummul Mu'mineen Ayesha would curse Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas after every Salaat".
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
l.
Yes Indeed infact Umar bin abdul aziz(ra) is considered the fifth pious caliph by sunni muslims and rightly so he proved that you can manage a big empire according to the standards set by the pious caliphate
Reason I think his contribution is so great is because he reversed a trend set by his predecessors in an age when it was becoming accepted amongst the ruling classes to live like byzantines and Sassanians
Also the name of Muawiyah ibn Yazid should be mentioned from some sources it seems that he repented for the actions for his forefethers but died shortly afterwards
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
Would you let go of Muawiyah already and worry about what you do and how you practice Islam? Every single post of yours is full of this crap... try to move beyond Muawiyah.
He is dead, other sahaba are dead. God will settle their affairs and you should worry about your affairs.
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
What? Thank to Allah [swt] that at last your Naasibi blood made you atack on ali bin Abi Talib [as]. And are you aware of the history or you just pay heed to what your Naasibi mullah feed you? It was Muawyah bin Hinda who fought Ali bin Abi Talib [as]. To make you facts straight just see what Sahabah deemed of the fight which Muwiyah bin Hinda waged against caliph of the time Ali bin Ai Talib [as].
Ibn Abd al-Barr in al-'Istiab narrates that Umm Habeeb ibne Abi Sabith (ra) heard Abdullah ibn`Umar say:
**“I regret that I did not join Ali and fight the rebellious group”. Abi Barr bin Abi Jaham (ra) narrates that he heard Abdullah ibneUmar say "I never regretted anything in my life other than the fact that I did not fight the rebels"** Al Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, Vol. 3, Page 83
Other Sunni Ulema have also recorded the regret of Abdullah ibn Umar in the same way.
Al Nisa al kaffiya page 19 Ummdatul Qari Sharh Sahih al Bukhari page 349 Volume 11
So Muawiyah bin Hinda was a clear cut rebel to everyone. Yet you want Iam Ali [as] to be cursed for he just gave the reply of the war which was put over him by Muawiyah bin Hinda? La Holwala Quwah!
One prominent Sahabi killed fighting under Maula 'Ali’s banner was Hashim ibne Utbah. We learn in Usdul Ghaba Volume 5 page 277 that when Hashim ibne Utbah was killed, Abu Tufail Amar ibne Waseela said:
“you are a martyr because you fought an enemy of the Sunnah”.
Usdul Ghaba vol. 5 page 277 by Allamah Ibn Atheer Jazri
Sahabi Hazrat Ammar Yasir [ra] faught alongside Ali bin Abi Talib [as] against Muawiyah bin Hinda. And see what Holy Prophet [s] had predicted about Hazrat Ammar [ra] and for his opponents. Sahih Bukhari Chapter, Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) Volume 4 hadith number 67 that Ikrima narrated:
"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.”
So from this hadith we learn
A rebellious group will kill Ammar
Ammar will invite this rebellious group to submit to the will of Allah
This rebellious group shall be inviting him to Hell Fire
case is clear!
Since you mean “Naasibi” by “WE” therefore it was not for you rather for those Ahle Sunnah who do not close their eyes when proofs are advanced to them without any clue.
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
As I clarified before, the one who curses Saiyidina Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu, Saiyidina 'Amr Ibn al 'Aas radhiyAllahu 'anhu and all the rest of Sahabah is a Kafir, according to Quran al Majeed.
Well, the above is not the answer to my question.
I simply asked why our shias don’t curse Imam 'Ali for he made Truce with Imam Mu’awiyah in Siffin and later on at the place of 'Azrah, Imam 'Ali agreed to accept Imam Mu’awiyah the Ruler of Sham (Syria).
All shias please note, this was a clear **Conspiracy **against Shias.
Imam 'Ali made peace with the one whom shias hate the most.
And as a rule, shias should curse Imam 'Ali the most as he stabbed at the back of shi’ism and didn’t fight with Imam Mu’awiyah after Siffin.
Then you didn’t reply to me why you lot don’t slander Imam Hasan (for his making peace with Imam Mu’awiyah and accepting him as his Khalifah) and why you don’t curse Imam Husain for his accepting Imam Mu’awiyah as his Khalifah and not fighting with him for the cause of shi’ism.
Now after this **interesting **fact of history, I wonder from when Boy-Nice would include his First 3 Infallibles in his Tabrra List.
Since you have proven that Imam Mu’awiyah was a Rebel to Imam 'Ali, it proves that Imam 'Ali was a **Rebel **to Allah (ma’athAllah) as he didn’t fight with this Rebel but made peace with him, not only this but he agreed upon dividing the caliphate between himself and Imam Mu’awiyah.
So why don’t you curse Imam 'Ali before cursing Imam Mu’awiyah?
And what is Imam 'Ali who made peace with the Enemy of Sunnah and his Sons stabbed at the back of shias by accepting Imam Mu’awiyah as their Khalifah…
I am simply impressed by the Sunnah of Imam 'Ali which is not to fight with a Rebel and the Sunnah of Imam Hasan and Imam Husain which is to give bai’ah to a Rebel…
Let’s say good bye to shi’ism and accept Islam…
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
There is nothing of the sort written in Quran that Cursing Muawiyah bin Hinda and Amr bin al Aas makes one Kaafir and if that so then i would like to know your fatwa for all those sahabah who used to curse/abuse eachother as there are number if such incidents in Saha Satta moreover killing some one is more grave thing than cursing, that mean according to your logic Muawyah and Co. who waged war against your 4rth caliph and killed number of muslims were clear cut Kaafirs!! decision lies with you.
Where are you? Have najis Naasibi mullahs started teaching partial history to their adherents now? Who told you that Maula Ali [as] made truce with Muawiah and that he was happy with him? Maula Ali [as] did his level ebst to avoid the bloodshed as long as he can rigt before the rebelion of Muaywah bin Hinda till right after the war. But When Muawyah and Co. disrespected Holy Quran and raised them on spear, the Iraqis said that they shal respond to them. But Maula Ali [as] said:
"O worshippers of Allah! Move towards right and keep fighting your enemy. No Doubt Muawyah, Amr bin al Aas, Ibn Abi Mueet, Habib bin Muslimah, Ibn Abi Sarah and Zuhak bin Qais do not have any connection with religion and Quran, and I know them better than you. I have been with them in childhood and yout. They have been bad children and bad youth. Woe to you! By Allah they read it but they do not act on the matter written in it. They have raised it only for duplicity and treachery
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 7 page 534-535
Same goes with Imam Hassan [as] that when Muaywah bin Hinda again over came by the usual power greed of Banu Ummayah and brought forces to wage a war, Imam Hassan [as] was left with no other choice than to make a treaty in order to avoid mass bloodshed among muslims. Following the steps of the Prophet of Islam [s], where He [s] made treaty with Kuffar of Hudaibyah rather than fighting with them, Imam Hassan [as] too did so. Now if Making treaty with your enemy is an act for which the part shal be Cursed than i dont know what intentions you will have for the Prophet of Allah [s].
“…Whoever causes pain to ‘Ali, causes pain to me”
[1] Musnad Ibn Hanbal, Volume page 383, [2] Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 page 131 [3] Majmal Zawaid, Vol 9 page 129 [4] Fadail Sahabah by Ahmed bin Habal, Vol 2 page 579 No. 981 [5] Tarikh al Kabeer by Bukhari, page vol 6
"Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those with whom you make war 1. Sunan Ibn Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81 2. Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350
3. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Vol.3, P149
These hadeeth specially the last one shows thay Holy Prophet [s] was also at war against Muawyah. Now i dont know whether you gonna spare the Prophet of Islam [s] from your fatwa in love of Muaywah bin Hinda or not.
Still waiting for clear cut answer:
If according to you cursing sahabi is kufr then killing someone or making an attempt to kill someone is even more grave thing. What is your fatwa for all those munafiqs who fought your 4th caliph killing number of muslims siding with him?
Does the fatwas comes only when theNawasib of Banu Ummayah are critisized or do you really have some regards forAli bin Ai Talib [as] who hapens to be your 4th caliph?
And if matter is so simple then no one have any right to say a single word if someone say anything bad agasint the first three caliph as well !!!
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
You do not need to put all blame on Maula Ali [as] in your love for Muawyah bin Hinda rather you should accept the words of Holy Prophet where he CLEARLY predicted Muawyah and Co. being the people of Hell Fire. Now if words of Holy Prophet [s] does not have any value for you in comparision with your love for Muaywah bin Hinda then human beings like me can not help you thats for sure!
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
I want to ask if you call Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu ‘Ali bin Fatimah or not, as you are calling Hadhrat Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu Mu’awiyah bin Hinda, though I know this is the reflection of Disbelief which has been caused by the **Hatred of Companions of Muhammad **sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam.
*Please note that the mother of Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu was Fatimah bint Asad radhiyAllahu ‘anha.
Now coming to the point, you are trying to justify the **Disbelief **because of cursing the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam through the mere nonsense.
Off course the Sahabah were Humans, and not angels. A Sahabi got the ability to curse or harm another Sahabi, may be some of them had done that, but their matter is for Allah to decide, after all we don’t have the knowledge of unseen.
For us Quran is sufficient which says that Allah is pleased with those who were with Muhammad sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam (his Companions) and this is an established fact amongst Muslims that Saiyidina Ameer Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu and Saiyidina ‘Amr bin Al ‘Aas radhiyAllahu ‘anhu both were the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam and if you and your cult get enraged by these great Companions then according to Quran this is the confirmed **Disbelief **(Kufr).
Then there is one more thing which needs to be clarified.
I know of a shia narration in which Hadhrat Fatimah radhiyAllahu ‘anha used very harsh words for Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu, and my question to shias is
**If they would use the same harsh words for their First Infallible and disrespect him following the Sunnah of his Infallible Wife **(ma’athAllah)?
We have traditions in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim in which we read that Hadhrat ‘Abbas radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (uncle of the Prophet) used very harsh words for Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu, so We are allowed to disrespect ‘Ali radhiyAllahu by using this lame excuse?
Sahabah’s opposing each other or harming each other doesn’t make it fit to oppose them all and curse them all, we don’t have any evidence that ‘Ali and Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhum hated each other owing to the difference of ‘aqeedah. Both of them shared the same faith and this was the reason why they both made peace in Siffin.
In Quran, Allah says when two groups of Muslims fight with each other the rest of the Muslims should make peace between them and if one of the groups transgresses then Allah commands to fight with them till there is left no fitnah.
Allah didn’t call either of the groups Kafir and your calling Ameer Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu and his supporters Kafir is simply your **Disbelief **and of your cultwhich is confirmed by Quran.
Interestingly you are running away from my questions giving lame excuses.
This is the established fact of history, even your Majoosi Historians agree that it was Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu who attacked Saiyidina Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu in Sham (Syria). So if you must blame someone for killing Muslims then you should blame Imam ‘Ali to prove that you are a perfect shia.
And just to clarify that Ameer Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu didn’t accept ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu as the Khalifah, in fact no one accepted the Khilafat of ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu except a few Companions against thousands of Companions who didn’t give bai’ah to Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu. Off course the Khilafat of ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu couldn’t be established, it was the Followers of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba Yahoodi who hijacked Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu and made him the Khalifah, and they forced the people of Madinah (non Sahabah) and a few Sahabah also to give bai’ah to Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu.
Well, you are trying to say that Imam ‘Ali didn’t make peace with Imam Mu’awiyah then who did so?
Was it your Imam Khomeni who made peace with Imam Mu’awiyah?
It makes me sick what kind of people you shias are. You people always talk rubbish. Off course it was Imam ‘Ali who made peace with Imam Mu’awiyah, whatever the reason was. Nothing can change the fact that he made peace with him and not even that but he agreed to give away Sham (Syria) in favour of Mu’awiyah. In other words Imam ‘Ali agreed to divide the Islamic State between himself and Imam Mu’awiyah.
What you have proven through the above quote proves a very important point.
It says that Imam ‘Ali was not the Imam of his shias but Shias of ‘Ali were the Infallible Imams of Imam ‘Ali.
Imam ‘Ali knew that Imam Mu’awiyah was wrong, Imam ‘Ali knew that Imam Mu’awiyah disrespected Quran (as Majoosi traditions claim), still Imam ‘Ali didn’t follow Quran and Sunnah but he followed his shias who were his Bosses, they dictated Imam ‘Ali what to do.
Imam ‘Ali was helpless, all stories about the miracles of Dulfiqar were mere fairy tales, Imam ‘Ali couldn’t show anything using his Dulfiqar, he was so weak that he couldn’t punish the Enemy of Islam (Imam Mu’awiyah), he was scared by his shias, he depended upon his shias so much that he couldn’t do anything without their help…** all stories about the miracles and magic of Infallible Imams are simply fabrications of Iranians**. Infallibles were so weak and helpless.
Then this proves a very interesting fact, this shows the character of shias of ‘Ali. Shias of ‘Ali didn’t obey their Infallible. Why? Because they didn’t read Usul Kafi and Jila al ‘Ayoun.
These shias of ‘Ali betrayed Imam ‘Ali the way Meer Sadiq of Dakkan (Mesur, India) betrayed Sultan Tipu and Meer Ja’far of Bengal betrayed Nawab Sirajud Daulah. Interestingly both Meer Sadiq and Meer Ja’far were shias.
A group of Shias of ‘Ali which wanted to fight with Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu left the Infallible and became Khawarij. The same Khawarij killed Imam ‘Ali.
The same Shias of ‘Ali (Shias of Hasan) betrayed Imam Hasan so Imam Hasan made peace with Imam Mu’awiyah.
The same Shias of ‘Ali (Shias of Husain) betrayed Imam Husain and murdered him in Karbala..
I suspect when their Last Infallible appears, his shias would betray him on the Sunnah of their Forefathers and the Infallible might go back to the hole of occultation.
There is a joke in the above quote that Imam ‘Ali agreed upon Truce with Imam Mu’awiyah because he didn’t want anymore blood shed but in the next lines it says that Imam ‘Ali wanted to fight with Mu’awiyah but his shias didn’t let him do that.
What a contradiction!
What a joke!
If Imam ‘Ali didn’t want blood shed they why he attacked Sham?
Just give a logical answer, not your Holy Tabarra.
SubhaanAllah!
One can see, a shia is making arguments (lol).
Rasoolullah sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam made peace with Kuffar because he didn’t want blood shed of who??
Bloodshed of Kuffar of Makkah?
What an Idiot!
Then why did Rasoolullah sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam waged war against Kuffar in Badr, Uhud, Ahzab and lots of battles?
Moreover the Treaty of Hudaybiyah and the Truce in Siffin cannot be compared with each other.
The Treaty of Hudaybiyah took place before any war could be fought while the Truce in Siffin was made after both parties struck each other in the battle field.
But these idiots don’t understand the difference.
Then after the treaty of Hudaybiyah, Muhammad sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam did take over Kuffar at the Conquest of Makkah… Did Imam ‘Ali or his Infallible sons ever overcome Imam Mu’awiyah?
Did they show the Miracles of Dulfiqar and Imamat?
We don’t believe in Fabrications of the Cult of ‘Abdullah ibn Sabah Yahoodi.
Quran doesn’t include Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu and his Family to Ahl-al-Bayt of Muhammad sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam.
I already have explained above that shias Enmity against Sahabah including Saiyidina Mu’awiyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu has been called **Kufr **in Quran and people didn’t accept Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu as the 4th Khalifah except a small minority.
May Allah burn you and all the Enemies of Sahabah along with your Majoosi Imams into the Hell Fire forever, for disrespecting and cursing the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam including those of Banu Umaiyah (Saiyidina ‘Uthman, Mu’awiyah, ‘Amr bin al ‘aas radhiyAllahu ‘anhum etc).
Mods, please take action against this **Disbeliever **who is cursing the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam based upon his Filthy ‘aqeedah.
And what about the First Infallible and Second and Third Infallibes who made peace with the people of Hell Fire?
Any justification for what your Infallibles did?
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
BOY-NICE and others: Incase you don't know yet, debater is a radical HINDU and is causing fitna here. He probably belongs to vishva hindu party. He is poisonous and full of hate against every muslim shia or sunni. just ignore him and he will go back to his idol worshipping. ;-)
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
o! Wasted lots of my precious time then :o Thats what i was thinking that how can a Sunni degrade Holy Prophet [sws] and Ali Bin Abi Talib [as] who is regarded as a 4th caliph in their sect while putting double standards by calling the rejectors of greedy people of Banu Ummayah as Kaafir but when it comes to the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib [as] then leaves the matter to Allah [swt] .
Thanx anyway.
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
I am sorry that you are indeed wrong.
Read my post again - this time rather slowly. Pay attention to the following hadith: I have highlighted subject matter for your attention.
Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman reported that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
“Prophethood (meaning Muhammad (SAW) himself) will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up whenever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive [The reign of Muslim kings who are partially unjust] rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood.”
Then Hudhaifah said, “The Prophet stopped speaking.” [As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5]
Re: Soldiers of Allah - the Companions of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam
So according to you and Sunnis' 'Ulama of the new era (beyond the age of Sahabah), all Sahabah were misguided because they didn't support the rightly guided 4th Khalifah but they supported the misguided king against Hadhrat Hasan radhiyAllahu 'anhu (ma'athAllah).
