brother faqir's post in arabic below translated: Hafiz ibn Hajar in his fat'H al-bari said: if one says that in the battle of Siffin, he [`ammar] was with `ali and fought for him, and those whom he fought were mu`awiyah and his companions, a party of saHabah among them. how is it possible that [this party] called towards hellfire? the answer is, that they supposed that they were calling towards paradise, and they were mujtahids - there is no blame on them for following their interpretation. the meaning of 'to call towards paradise' means to 'call towards the means of going to paradise' and that is obeidience of the rightful imam. [aH: this is about `uthman] similarly, `ammar called them towards the obeidience of `ali and he was the rightful imam at that time and obeying him was obligatory. the others were demanding something other than that, but they are excused for their interpretation. --- it is established that those who fought `ali were rebels and inspite of the acknowledgement that he [`ali] was right, none of the opponents will be vilified. rather it will be said that 'their interpretation was incorrect' [and hence the mistake.] fat'H al-bari sharH saHiH bukhari, Hadith no: 6692. --- imam al-Haramayn in his 'kitab al-irshad' said: `ali raDiyallahu `anhu was the rightful imam and ruler over his dominion; and those who fought him were rebels. [yet] it is necessary to have a good opinion about them because their intention was good even though they made a mistake. ---- imam nawawi in his explanation of muslim says: scholars have said that this Hadith is absolute proof that sayyiduna `ali raDiyallahu `anhu was in the right and correct in his interpretation. the other group [his opponents] were rebels but they were mujtahids - the made an interpretation [though it was an incorrect one.] therefore, there is no sin upon them because of [their incorrect interpretation] as we have said earlier concerning this matter.
because dear, you need a little intelligence. and i am afraid, you have failed amply to demonstrate its adequacy. see above. it is the other way round - the problem is that you don't understand a basic argument and keep hallucinating. why don't you argue with that antony fellow who seems to match your intellectual level? shame on you. and sayyiduna mu`awiyah did not? raDiyallahu `anhu. -- note: unfortunately, i will delete anything you write about the sahabah or on that subject now onwards. even if you answer br.faqir with your 'scholarship.'
Asalamu alaikum, go ahead brother, I am here to learn from you what exactly are you going to refute though - the statements of the ulema?
Brother Faqir, do you really want me to refute all your texts about Muawiyah (ra)? I think, if you start it, I will, and you will not be pleased. And you will end up with two choices: either believe the words of the Holy Prophet, or believe the words of men... And these words of Amjad and faraz rabbani are filled with errors and mis-presentations. Those people ought to learn before they address masses. Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiooon
Hafiz Abul Qasim ibn 'Asakir has documented in Tarikh Dimashq that Imam an-Nasa'i was asked about Hadhrat Mu'awiyah [RA]. His reply was: "Islam is like a house with a door. The door of Islam is the Sahaba. Whoever speaks ill of the Sahaba seeks but to harm Islam, just like one who knocks a door to enter a house. As for Mu'awiyah, whoever speaks ill of him seeks to find a way to speak ill of the Sahaba." [Cited in Tahdhib al-Kamal, vol. 1 p. 339] ------------------------------------------------- http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004329.aspx What do the scholars say about Mu`awiya? What do we say about one who deems him misguided or a disbeliever? In the name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate The position of our Imams of the Ash`ari school of Sunni beliefs is that Sayyiduna Mu`awiya (Allah be pleased with him) is from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). All the Companions of high rank in the Shariah, because of the honor of having met our Noble Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) died pleased with them all. It is true that the ranks of the Companions differ in virtue, depending on who entered Islam earlier and who served the religion with their person and wealth more. [See: Taftazani, Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya and its commentaries; Laqani, Jawharat al-Tawhid, and its commentaries by Bajuri, Sawi, Tattan, and others] The position of Sunni Islam is that the differences and disputes that took place between the Companions during their period of disagreement do not allow us to censure them nor to speak ill of them. This applies to both Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyiduna Mu`awiya (Allah be pleased with them both), and those who followed either of them. Even worse is to deem any of them to be misguided or (God forbid) a disbeliever—except those whose apostasy was legally established. What is entailed by having good opinion of the Noble Companions of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) is that if they sinned they hastened to repentance; and that through the blessing of their having been with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) they were honoured by death on Islam and in the best of states. There is scholarly consensus, as is the position of Sunni Islam, that Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) was correct in the differences that existed between him and Sayyiduna Mu`awiya (Allah be pleased with him), and that these differences did not occur due to selfish desires or caprice but rather through each exercising their independent judgment (ijtihad). Sayyiduna Mu`awiya (Allah be pleased with him) erred, and thus has the reward of his ijtihad, and he was not sinful for his error. This has been explicitly stated by the acknowledged imam of Sunni Islam in beliefs, Sayyiduna Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari (Allah be pleased with him), in his Maqalat, and was also the position of those after them. What some wrongfully attribute to Imam Ash`ari—that he deemed Mu`awiya to be a sinner and misguided—is simply a misattribution [f: and, as Shaykh Amjad proved in a treatise he wrote on the subject, a case of deliberate textual corruption on their part]. Our duty is to be silent regarding the dispute between the Companions (Allah be pleased with them), and to have a good opinion of them all. In fact, Imam Ghazali (Allah be pleased with him) counted careless talk (khawd) about these matters to be from careless sinful talk (khawd fi al-batil) and sinful, as mentioned in his Ihya’. As for some of the narrations in which some of them allegedly spoke ill of others, these are either very weak [f: or, in many cases, fabrications] or can be properly explained. Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (Allah be pleased with him) [f: the teacher of Imam Ghazali] said regarding proper explanation of these differences, “And no one of religion can fail to do so.” As for the one who declared Mu`awiya misguided or a disbeliever, such a person is an innovator (mubtadi`). Declaring him a disbeliever is much more dangerous: it could lead to falling into disbelief, for the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “If one of you declares their brother a disbeliever, then one of you is indeed a disbeliever.” And Allah alone gives success. Amjad Rasheed. (Translated by Faraz Rabbani)
245. The people of the Muhammadan Sunna owe it to Allah to believe that `Ali and Mu`awiya and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who were with them, were all people of the truth. They were sincere in that. Their disagreement was based on ijtihad just as mujtahids can disagree in any subject open to dispute. They are rewarded for being right and being wrong because of their sincerity in their ijtihad. The reward of the one who is right is many times greater than the reward of the one who is wrong. Apart from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, no human being is protected from error. Some of them err in some things and are right in others. It is like that with other people. Whoever renounced the truth by provoking the first sedition against `Uthman is not considered to be one of the two parties who had the truth, even if he fought with them and attached himself to them because those who stained their hands, intentions and hearts with the unjust attack on the Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman, whoever they were, deserved to have the Islamic hadd carried out on them. In the situation here, no one was able to do that, and their presence inflamed the fighting between the rightacting muslims. Whenever these men sensed the muslims’ resolve for peace and brotherhood, as they did in the Battle of the Camel, they decided to persist in criminality as long as they could. When we say that both parties were among the people of the truth, we mean the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who were with the two parties and those Tabi`un who went with them, and who were based on the sunna of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We think that `Ali, who was promised the Garden, had a higher station with Allah than Mu`awiya, the uncle of the believers and the Companion of the Messenger of the Lord of the Worlds. Both of them were people of excellence. When the parties of the people of evil infiltrated them, the one who did an atom’s weight of good will see it and the one who did an atom’s weight of evil will see it. Ibn Kathir said in ‘The Beginning and the End’ (7:277) that `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Ziyad b. An`am ash-Sha`bani, the Qadi of North Africa (d. in 156), who was a man of right action and one of those who commanded the correct, said when he mentioned the people of Siffin, "There were Arabs who knew each other in the Jahiliyya. They met in Islam with zeal and the sunna of Islam. They counselled each other to be steadfast and they were ashamed to flee. They brought out their dead and buried them." Ash-Sha`bi said, "They are the people of the Garden. They met each other and none of them fled from the other. [EXCERPTED FROM THE TRANSLATION OF "AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM" = DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER]
قال الحافظ إبن حجر في "فتح الباري": فإن قيل كان قتله بصفين وهو مع علي والذين قتلوه مع معاوية وكان معه جماعة من الصحابة فكيف يجوز عليهم الدعاء إلى النار؟ فالجواب أنهم كانوا ظانين أنهم يدعون إلى الجنة، وهم مجتهدون لا لوم عليهم في اتباع ظنونهم، فالمراد بالدعاء إلى الجنة الدعاء إلى سببها وهو طاعة الإمام، وكذلك كان عمار يدعوهم إلى طاعة علي وهو الإمام الواجب الطاعة إذ ذاك، وكانوا هم يدعون إلى خلاف ذلك لكنهم معذورون للتأويل الذي ظهر لهم. وقد ثبت أن من قاتل عليا كانوا بغاة، وهؤلاء مع هذا التصويب متفقون على أنه لا يذم واحد من هؤلاء بل يقولون اجتهدوا فأخطؤوا، مصدر: فتح الباري بشرح صحيح البخاري, في شرح الحديث رقم 6692 قال إمام الحرمين في "كتاب الإرشاد": وعلي رضي اللّه عنه كان إماماً حقاً في ولايته، ومقاتلوه بغاة، وحسن الظن بهم يقتضي أن يظن بهم قصد الخير، وإن أخطأوه قال الإمام النووي في شرحه على صحيح مسلم: قال العلماء: هذا الحديث حجة ظاهرة في أن علياً -رضي الله عنه- كان محقاً مصيباً، والطائفة الأخرى بغاة لكنهم مجتهدون فلا إثم عليهم لذلك كما قدمناه في مواضع منها هذا الباب
Imam Rabbani Mujaddîd Alf Thânî Shaikh Ahmad Fârûq Sirhendî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ - illustrating the standpoint of Islamic orthodoxy taken from the thirty-sixth letter of the second volume of the book Maktûbât : As the greatest ones of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat explain, the blessed Sahâba of our master the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ parted into three groups concerning the matters that caused the so-called wars: 1– The Sahâbîs in the first group ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ observed the events and reached the ijtihâd that those who were with Hadrat Alî were right. 2– According to the ijtihâd of the second group, the other party were right. 3– The third group were hesitant. Their ijtihâd did not show clearly which party was right. It was wâjib for the blessed Sahâbîs in the first group to act in accordance with their own ijtihâd and support Hadrat Alî. Likewise, it was necessary for the second group to follow their own ijtihâd and support the opposing party. And the third group was to support neither party. It would have been wrong for them to support either party. Each of the three groups acted in accordance with their own ijtihâd. All three of them did what was wâjib and necessary for them to do. Then, how could we ever blame them for having done so? And which one of them could we blame? Imâm Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ states: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has protected us from imbruing our hands with their blood. So we should protect our tongues from interfering with them.” ’Umar bin Abd-ul’azîz also is reported to have made an identical statement. That statement shows that we should not make comments on the events among them, neither favourable nor unfavourable; we should not pass judgments, for instance, on who was right and who was wrong. We should only speak in praise of them. A hadîth-i-sherîf commands us to do so. The hadîth-i-sherîf reads as follows: “Keep your tongues when my Sahâba are mentioned,” which means, “When people talk about my Sahâba and the wars among them, protect yourselves. Avoid expressing a predilection for some of them and blaming the others.” We have to obey this commandment. However, according to the understanding of most of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, the Sahâbîs who fought on Hadrat Alî’s side were right. The opposing party were erroneous. Yet they cannot be blamed, since theirs was an error of ijtihâd. An error of ijtihâd is not something open to criticism. Those (mujtahids) with erroneous ijtihâd, like the mujtahids whose ijtihâd was right, cannot be blamed or vilified. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is reported to have made the following explanation amidst the so-called wars: “Our brothers disagree with us. They are neither disbelievers nor sinners. For, their ijtihâd is what they understand, which would not make them disbelievers or sinners.” As is seen, the Sunnîs and the Shiites concur in that the Sahâbîs who fought with Hadrat Alî were wrong, and in that Hadrat Alî was right. They differ, however, inasmuch as the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat state that the erroneous party cannot be blamed because their error originated from their understanding and points of view. They hold that we should avoid criticizing and maligning those great people and that we should be considerate of the right and honour of the Best of Mankind ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Indeed, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “Fear Allâhu ta’âlâ lest you should fail to be considerate of my Sahâba’s rights. After me, do not speak ill of them!” He repeated the same statement twice in order to emphasize the importance of his commandment. It is stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf: “All my Sahâba are like the celestial stars. You will attain hidâyat and happiness if you follow any one of them!” There is many another hadîth-i-sherîf which commands that each and every Sahâbî must be held great and respected. Therefore, we have to hold them valuable and superior. As for the trivial mistakes ascribed to them; we should, at the most, believe that there were benevolent intentions behind those mistakes. This is the Sunnî credo.
Brother Ali, Sh'i'/Salafi..!! Why can't we, when discussing something argue like intellectuals, without pulling the sword and trying to kill each other. I didn't think there was a need for "tone change" as you call it, and a lot of false accusations, after all, I do bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.
Brother Maliki student, I don't think you can accuse Sidi Abu Hasan of being quick to judge people and insult them. If you read the other thread, he gives you the full benefit of the doubt and is very polite in his comments. It is only after he found out about your appreciation of Sayyid Hassan Saqqaf and your Shi'i/Salafi tendencies, that his tone of language started to change. I don't think anyone of us can really blame him for that.
Brother Abu Hasan, I don't know if this thread is meant to be refuting me about Muawiyah (ra), but if it is, you are already implicating yourself big time. Besides, I wonder if I should endulge in an academic conversation with you, as you are quick to judge the hearts, insult other muslims, and accuse them of deviance.
Ábdu’l Qāhir al-Baghdādi Al-Farq Bayna’l Firaq, pg 272. [The Ahlu’s Sunnah wa’l Jamāáh] say that Álī was the imām and the leader of all Muslims in his time. He was correct and true in all his battles – in Başrah, in Şiffīn and in Naharwān. They say, [The Ahlu’s Sunnah wa’l Jamāáh] that Ţalĥah and Zubayr repented [from opposing Álī] and renounced fighting Álī. But Ámr ibn al-Jurmuz killed Zubayr in the valley of Sibáá after he abandoned the battle. And when Ţalĥah was about to renounce the battle, Marwān ibn al-Ĥakam shot an arrow at him [though he was on the same side.] They say, Áāyishah rađiyAllāhu ánhā decided to make peace between the two warring groups, but the tribes of Banū Đabbah and Azd overruled her opinion and fought Álī without her permission. And that which was to happen came to pass. They say about Şiffīn: Truth was with Álī rađiyAllāhu ánhu and he was correct. Muáāwiyah and his companions rebelled against him, based on a wrong interpretation – they did not commit disbelief because of their mistake. [wa qālū fi’s şiffīn: inna’s şawāba kāna maá Álī rađiyAllāhu ánhu wa inna muáāwiyah wa aş-ĥābahu baghaw álayhi bi ta’awilin akhţa-u fīhi wa lam yakfarū bi khaţayihim] They say, Álī was correct in the judgment (taĥkīm) the other two judges made a mistake by abdicating Álī without any reason; one of the judges deceived the other. They say about the people of Naharwān that they are apostates, renegades because RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam named them ‘deserters’ or ‘apostates’ [māriqīn] because they did takfir of Álī, Úthmān, Áāyishah, Ibn Ábbās, Ţalĥah, Zubayr and many others who followed Álī after the judgement. And they ruled every sinning muslim to be a disbeliever; infact, whosoever makes takfir of Muslims and the best of the companions is himself a kafir instead of them.
Imām al-Ĥaramayn Abu’l Máālī al-Juwayni, Lumá al-Adillah, pg.129 …And Muáāwiyah – even though he fought Álī – he did not refuse the imamate of Álī. Nor did he claim it for himself (in Álī’s time) His demand was the punishment of Úthmān’s assassins, assuming that his interpretation was correct. But he was wrong and Álī – rađiyAllāhu ánhum wa ánhu – was correct and with the truth.
Abu’l Yusr al-Pazdawi, Usūl ad-Dīn, pg.203 Article 69. The Ahlu’s Sunnah wa’l Jamāáh say: Muáāwiyah was not the leader (imām) as long as Álī rađiyAllāhu ánhumā was alive. Álī was the rightful khalifah and leader of Muslims; he was in the right and Muáāwiyah was wrong – however, whatever he did was because of misinterpretation and therefore did not go out of belief for what he did. Rather he remained a Muslim. So also are those who followed him – they shall not be ruled disbelievers because they opposed Álī and fought him as we have already said. The proof that Muáāwiyah was not correct is the ĥadīth of ámmār ibn Yāsir where RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam told him: ‘you shall fight a party of rebels’ and indeed he fought the party of Muáāwiyah. The Karramiyyah say that both Álī and Muáāwiyah rađiyAllāhu ánhumā were correct and rightful leaders, but this is against the ĥadīth of RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam wherein he described them [opponents of Álī] as rebels, and the unanimity of the şaĥabah in that they chose Álī as the rightful khalifah after Úthmān.
Bismillāhi’r Raĥmāni’r Raĥīm Imām Qurţubī’s At-Tadhkirah. pg. 459- Abū Úmar ibn Ábdu’l Barr says in Al-Istīáāb in the biography of Ámmār: The reports about Ámmār are mutawātir that RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam said: ‘Ámmār will fight a group of rebels’ This is the most authentic ĥadīth [on this subject.] The fuqahā of Islām have said as described by Imām Ábdu’l Qāhir in his book Al-Imāmah: The scholars of Ĥijāz, Írāq – both in fiqh and ĥadith – among them Mālik, Shāfiýī, Abū Ĥanifah and Awzāýī; and an overwhelming majority said: that sayyiduna Álī and his followers were right and his opinion was correct in the battle of Şiffīn, just like they agree on his being right in the battle of Jamal [camel.] They also said that the ones they fought were transgressing rebels, but it is not permitted to do takfir because of their rebellion. Abū Manşūr al-Baghdadi in his Al-Farq fi Bayāni Áqīdati Ahli’s Sunnah said: It is unanimously agreed that Álī was right when he fought those in the battle of Jamal; that is Ţalĥa, Zubayr Áāyishah in Başrah and those in Şiffin – that is Muáāwiyah and his army. Imām Abu’l Máālī (al-Juwayni) said in his book Al-Irshād: Álī was the rightful imām, and the rightful ruler of his dominion. those whom he fought were rebels. But it is necessary to give them the benefit of doubt, to have a good opinion about them that their intention was [also] pure and good, even though they made a mistake…(until the end of the section with which the book ends.) ------ In the same book, on pages 466-468, Al-Qurţubī says: I say: the ĥadīth of Abū Bakrah refers to fighting for the sake of dunya [worldly gains] as it has been reported in other narrations by our teachers: ‘If you fight for dunya, the killer and the killed will be in fire’ [reported by al-Bazzār] And a report from Muslim strengthens this point from Abū Hurayrah that he said: RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam said: ‘By Him in whose hands my life rests, this world will not perish until that day comes when the killer will not know why he killed, and the killed does not know why he was killed’ he was asked ‘how is that possible’ he said: ‘al-haraj. Anarchy. The slayer and the slain will be in fire’ [Muslim, 2908] This proves that if the fighting is on account of ignorance and for worldly greed, or following one’s desire – the killer and the killed will be in fire. Concerning battles fought because of differing interpretation of religious matters, then it is not. The companions of Muĥammad şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam and rađiyAllāhu ánhum: it is obligatory on muslims to respect them and to withhold their tongues from discussing their mistakes and to speak about their goodness, because of the praise Allāh has heaped upon them in His book [yajibu ala’l muslimina tawqirihim wa’l imsak an dhikri zalalihim wa nashri maHasinihim li thanayillahi alayhim fi kitabih] Like He said: ‘And Allāh is pleased with the believers when they take pledge allegiance under the tree’ [Al-Fat’ĥ, v.18] And said: ‘Muĥammad is the messenger of Allāh. And those with him [his companions] are harsh on disbelievers and compassionate to each other...’ [Al-Fat’ĥ, v.29] until the end of the sūrah. ‘And those who spent in charity and fought [for islām] before the great victory and those after that are not equal’ [Al-Ĥadīd, v.10] Everyone who made an interpretation amongst them [şaĥābah] has a valid excuse, even though some amongst them are higher than others and many of them are from the ‘early muslims’ [sawābiq] It is also said: those who abstain from criticizing the sahabah say that the ĥadīth instructing one to withhold their tongues from sahabah is a generic one, which covers all matters of dispute and battles amongst them and calls for absolute restraint. It is [because] quite possible that some of them were sorry about the events, like Ábdullāh ibn Úmar who was were sorry for having not helped Álī ibn Abū Ţālib rađiyAllāhu ánhumā in his campaign, when he said on his deathbed: ‘Alas! I am not sorry for anything as much as I am sorry for having forsaken fighting the rebels (that is the army of Muáāwiyah)’ This is the correct position. If it is established that the opponents are rebels, they shall be fought. Abdu’r Raĥmān ibn al-Abzī said: ‘We witnessed Şiffīn with Álī and his army in which 800 were those present in the allegiance of riđwān [bayát ar-riđwān.] 67 from them including Ámmār ibn Yāsir were martyred.’ Abū Ábdu’r Raĥmān as-Sullami said: ‘We witnessed Şiffīn along with Álī and I saw Ámmār ibn Yāsir in the region of the Şiffīn valley, and the companions of Muĥammad şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam following him as if he was their standard bearer. He said, I heard him tell Hāshim ibn Útbah: ‘Hāshim, go forth. Paradise is under the shining [swords?] on this day. You shall meet beloved Muĥammad şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam and his group. By Allāh if they fight us until they [chase us] reach us at the top of the mountain, we would still know that we are in the right and they are wrong and then he said (in verse): We smote you earlier for that which was revealed [tanzīlah] And we smite you now for its interpretation [ta’awīlah] A knock that shall shock the heedless from their sleep And shall separate friend from friend, Or make them turn back towards truth And he said, ‘I have never seen the companions of Muĥammad şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam fight in one place like they did on that day.’ One of our elder scholars [mutaqaddimin] was asked about the bloodshed among the companions and he replied: ‘That is a nation that hath passed away; for them what they have earned and to you what you earn; you shall not be asked of what they did.’ [al-Baqarah, v.134] and we have discussed this matter at length in our book Al-Jāmiý li Aĥkāmi’l Qur’ān while discussing Sūrah al-Ĥujurat. But the correct position is what we [just] said above, and Allāh knows best. It is reported from RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam that he said: ‘There shall be a great discord among my companions; Allāh táālā will forgive them because of my company. And then there shall be people after them who pass judgement on them and enter hellfire.’ Allāh táālā knows best.
