Ameer Mu'awiya radiyallahu ta'ala anhu

Assalamua'laikum. I need that document linked to in the first post but it seems to be unavailable. It would be really nice if someone could upload it again. Some freethinker who goes by a muslim name has been teaching rubbish about Hazrat Mua'wiya and Hazrat Uthman (radhiallahuanhum) to high schoolers in a SUNNI (as against Shia) institute in my city for some time now. The scandal has only just come to light. I am therefore looking for relevent material in english. So long I have found just one book at katibewahi.com and it has Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah all over it. So . . . .

 

This is just a first edition copy, inshallah a cleaned out, comprehensive copy will be pasted on this forum:



The Hadith of Yassir Ibn Ammar radiallah tallah anh, in which it is stated that he will be matyred by a baaghi {rebel} group is reffering to KHAWARIJ and not as Misbah Al Hidaya Tafzeeli Shia is saying that it reffers to Ameer Muawiyah radiallah tallah anh {and Sahabah who sided with him}.

Prophet of Allah sallalahu alayhi was'salam foretold:

- Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Number 2327: "Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) that a group would emerge from the different parties, the group nearer the truth between the two would kill them."

- Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Number 2326: "Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would be two groups in my Ummah, and there would emerge another group, and the party nearer to the truth among the two would kill them."

- Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Number 2325: Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A group would secede itself (from Muslims) when there would be dissension among the Muslims. Out of the two groups who would be nearer the truth would kill them.

- Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Number 2324:Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a mention of a sect that would be among his Ummah which would emerge out of the dissension of the people. Their distinctive mark would be shaven heads. They would be the worst creatures or the worst of the creatures. The group who would be nearer to the truth out of the two would kill them. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) gave an example (to give their description) or he said: A man throws an arrow at the prey (or he said at the target), and sees at its iron head, but finds no sign (of blood there), or he sees at the lowest end, but would not see or find any sign (of blood there). He would then see into the grip but would not find (anything) sticking to it. Abu Sai'd then said: People of Iraq. it is you who have killed them.

* A group {i.e. Khawarij} will emerge from two parties {i.e. Amir Muawiyah, Hazrat Ali}
* Out of the two groups, the one nearer to truth {i.e. Hazrat Ali} will kill the new group {i.e. Khawarij}
* During dissention {i.e. war between Muawiyah, Ali} a group {i.e. Khawarij} would seperate it self from the Muslim.
* The new group would be a sect {i.e. Khawarij} which would emerge during dissension.
* This new sects mark of recognition is shaven heads {one of many signs to recognise Khawarij}

Now putting the above information in historical context, and analyzing it in the context of history. Hazrat Amir Muawiyah radiallah tallah anh, and Hazrat Ali radiallah tallah anh, both groups were at war with each other, over the issue of Khilafat, religiously both hand no differences:

- Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Number 805: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Day of (Judgment) will not be established till there is a war between two groups whose claims (or religion) will be the same."

- Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Number 806: Narrated Abu Huraira:The Prophet said, "The Hour will not be established till there is a war between two groups among whom there will be a great number of casualties, though the claims (or religion) of both of them will be one and the same.

Eventually both sides decided to come to discussion, and decided Hazrat Abu Musa Al Ashari will be arbitar between the two warring parties, a group of fallowers of Ali radiallah tallah anh, rebelled and left his army and accused Ali radiallah tallah of Shirk on the basis of verse that arbitration is right of Allah. Same happened in the side of Hazrat Amir Muawiyah radiallah tallah anh but on a lesser scale. A group of his army those who had Khariji beleives attacked the Hazrat Ali's army at night, to stall the peace talks.

Hazrat Ali radiallah tallah anh, later on lead a army against the Khawarij and defeated them, hence he was the fullfimment of the 'closest group to the truth', and he killed the dissenters. Thus the new sect which had different beleives from Hazrat Ali, and Hazrat Muawiyah was killed by Hazrat Ali.

It is now established that the KHAWARIJ were the group which were in both armies, and the dissension gave rise to new sect which we know as Khawarij. Prophet of Allah said about Hazrat Yassir bin Ammar that he will be inviting his killers toward paradise, and those who will kill him will be inviting him to hellfire:

Sahih Bukhari, Book 8, Number 438: "... reached. He said, "We were carrying one adobe at a time while 'Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to 'Ammar. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire." 'Ammar said, "I seek refuge with Allah from affliction."

This proves that there was religious difference between the killers and the killed, because only religious difference could result someone going hellfire, and paradise. We do no there was no religious difference between Ali radiallah tallah anh and Amir Muawiyah radiallah tallah anh.

It was the Khawarij sect's rebels which seperated from the main body of Muslims, and this rebel group is reffered in the Ahadith in which Prophet sallalahu alayhi was'salam stated that rebels will matyr Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir radiallah tallah anh:

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6966: "Abu Sa'id Khudri reported: One who Is better than I informed me, that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to 'Ammar as he was digging the ditch (on the ocasion of the Battle of the Ditch) wiping over his head: "O son of Summayya you will be involved in trouble and a group of the rebels would kill you."

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6968: "This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Umm Salama that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to 'Ammar: A group of rebels would kill you.”

On the basis of these two Ahadith to accuse Hazrat Amir Muawiyah of rebellion, and declare him and the Sahabah with him as rebels is nothing less then kuffr. Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir was matyred by Khawariji's while he was heading back home, the Khawariji's captured him and asked him to break the allegience to Ali radiallah tallah anh, and he reffused, they argued with him their point of veiw quoting and misrepresenting Quranic verses while he presented the correct interpretation of those verses, but they reffused to accept, then matyred him, his inviting them to paradise was rejected, and they invited him to hellfire which he rejected.

Muhammed Ali Razvi

 

Indeed, many Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah books are filled with mistakes due to sloppy Muhaqqiqun. Shaykh Muhammad said in the fourty Hadith Nawawi talk in Glasgow that if they know that there are mistakes and they sell the books, the money they earn may cease to be licit (paraphrasing). He mentioned a certain "Baydun Effendi" as a chief culprit.

 

hasnain is also a racist in my opinion. In Pakistan, locals, especially punjabis/pashtuns/baluch with tribal/political attitudes refer to Urdu speaking UP/Bihari Muslims in Sindh and those in India as "bhayyas" (to steretype them). Its akin to "Paki" for Paki people in the UK.

But innamal a'maalu bin niyati. I could be wrong.

 

Hasnayn aka OE aka Qambar aka Misbah alHidayah wrote:

Now it is quiet obvious he has taken that reference from his fathers spanking new library which is crammed with Dar alKutub alIlmiyya prints. Many of DKI books are tampered everyone knows this with the exception of the Tafdli's.

 

Salamun `ala man ittiba al-huda

Mr. Yasir Khan, then why is your own Shi`a leader, Ninowy, supporting the insulters of Sayyiduna Mu`awiya radhi Allahu `anhu (i.e. al-Ghumari)?

And do you have proof of what you claim Ninowy said? or is it just hearsay?

Because I have proof that Ninowy defends the insulters of Sayyiduna `Amir Mu`awiya radhi Allahu `anhum:

Noting what Imam al-Khafaji says:

ومن يكن يطعن فى معاوية​

فذاك كلب من كلاب الهاويه​

whoever talks badly about mu'awiya [radiyAllahu ta'ala anhu] is a dog from the dogs of hell

Defending the dogs of the hellfire makes you one of them!

Wa `iyadhbillah

May Allah save us from jahils like Ghumari and Ninowy.

Wassalamun `ala man ittiba al-huda

 

I'm glad ppl here are defending Hadhrat Muawiya.

 

actually mr.tautology nee captain red herring (who signs here with a pseudonym mis.Hidayah) keeps writing that i am uncivilized and he is accurate in his analysis etc. i delete those posts without a second thought.

me says: what a waste of time.

 

I think the point is very clear. I was myself confused about this a while ago, seeing different aspects of the whole scheme being presented from different sides (Sunni only). Obviously the Rawafed's side is not only unaccepted but not credible either. Once people legalize lying under whatever banner (Taqiyyah here), then nothing can hold water anymore.
Anyways, last month I asked the Shaykh of our Masjid (Syed Al-Ninowy) and he told me that all the sayings of Ahlus Sunnah Ulama, ultimately lead to the same thing.
All agree on accepting the authentic Ahadith in those unfortunate events, and all agree that NO ONE who was involved whether with Hadrat Ali or against him, can be degraded, cussed, or belittled. Especially hadrat Muawiyah or other Sahaba such as Abdullah bin Amru bin Aas, or others ( I forot the names now).
He also said that cussing hadrat Muawaiyah is the door the Rawafed use to access the Khulafa Ar-Rashidin and cuss them.
I actually agree with the Shaykh in the point he made that such topics should not be discussed by laymen and Fitnah mongerers, and should be kept to academic learning only.
May Allah be pleased with all the Sahaba. Ameen thumma Ameen.

 

i am sorry, but it is a honest mistake. and i own it. it was not intentional and not taHrif. [actually, it is sloth]

when i translated it, i was a bit surprised - because TalHah and zubayr raDiyallahu `anhu were mentioned as the nakithin and how could mu`awiyah raDiyallahu `anhu be mentioned as just. but anyway, i am glad that it is resolved. i won't hesitate in accepting it, and thank you for pointing it out.

i have corrected the mistake below.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

piyare bhayya, every time i sit down to reply to you, i find yet another blunder and it pains me that this discussion should head towards a conclusion, now that you have come around after the challenge but it seems like i am wasting my time with you because dear bhayya either you have no grounding in sarf nahv ma'ni etc or are deliberately trying to 'lie' your way out of it. I have serious reservations about your ability to comprehend usooli matters but that even comes after a grasp of the Arabic language...no wonder you could not understand Imam Jassas's text in the other thread because seemingly small errors lead to insufficient conclusions.

although i was not going to present tafatazani until we have gone through Ali qari, Imam raghib, ibn abdil barr, murghainani, muawiya bin yazid bin muawiya bin abi sufyaan etc but i have no gurantee that you will be honest with me. this post is to quote your words " is for the bystanders who might deceived by your likes"

the point is that to translate DEVIANT/UNJUST into RIGHTEOUS is tehreef, no wonder you were talking about it!!

Here is an example of the exactly same 'crucial' word which you translated into righteous from Quran al-kareem:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]

72:14 And there are among us some who have surrendered (to Allah) and there are among us some who are unjust. And whoso hath surrendered to Allah, such have taken the right path purposefully.

وَأَنَّا مِنَّا الْمُسْلِمُونَ وَمِنَّا الْقَاسِطُونَ فَمَنْ أَسْلَمَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ تَحَرَّوْا رَشَدًا (72:14) ​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]72:15 And as for those who are unjust, they are firewood for hell.

وَأَمَّا الْقَاسِطُونَ فَكَانُوا لِجَهَنَّمَ حَطَبًا (72:15) ​

[/FONT][/FONT]
Imagine you translating the Quran shareef, according to you righteous would be Firewood for hell!!!

furthermore, below are the examples from two dictionaries, one being your favourite Zubaidi both also mention the same hadith and both translate it as UNJUST/DEVIANT:

Ibn Manzur in Lisan al-mizan: وفي حَدِيثِ عَليٍّ رَضِي الله عنه: "أُمِرْتُ بقِتَال النّاكِثِينَ والقَاسِطِينَ والمارِقِينَ" النَّاكِثُون: أَهْلُ الجَمَلِ، لأَنَّهم نَكَثُوا بَيْعَتَهم، والقاسِطُون أَهْلُ صِفِّين، لأَنَّهُم جارُوا في الحُكْمِ وبَغَوْا عليه، والمارِقُون: الخَوَارِجُ، لأَنَّهُمْ مَرَقُوا من الدِّينِ، كما يَمْرُقُ السَّهْمُ من الرَّمِيَّة،

Murtaza zubaidi in taj al-urus:وفي الجَوْر لغة واحدة قسَطَ، بغيرِ الأَلف، ومصدره القُسُوطُ. وفي حديث عليّ، رضوان اللّه عليه: أُمِرْتُ بِقتالِ الناكثِينَ والقاسِطِينَ والمارِقِينَ؛ الناكِثُون: أَهلُ الجمَل لأَنهم نَكَثُوا بَيْعَتهم، والقاسِطُونَ: أَهلُ صِفَّينَ لأَنهم جارُوا في الحُكم وبَغَوْا عليه، والمارِقُون: الخوارِجُ لأَنهم مَرَقُوا من الدين كما يَمْرُق السَّهمُ من الرَّمِيَّةِ.

Here you have it piyare bhayya, Now I challenge you again, last time you conceded so we continued, please do the same again so we can continue. Wallahi, my only reason is that in the text of sharah mawaqif, it is your MIS-understanding that is a hurdle.

in the word taleem....there is ta in the begining and meem at the end, which leaves ALI in the middle....unless you have ALI in your silsila e taleem, modern standard arabic alone will not help.

 

actually, my correction of the transcript was right. but i reopened it on a newly installed ubuntu machine which messed up the arabic text [as it is obvious from the translation]. but that does not make any difference to you because you simply do not want to see any reason; and by the way, i never expected you to be convinced; it is for the bystanders who might deceived by your likes that i took the trouble to translate.

as for your 'challenges' and 'terminology' etc., the less said the better.

 

Piyare bhayya, atleast you dropped the thesis of tahreef i.e. the tafseeq statement in sharah mawaqif so the challenge that was made to you has managed to silence that part of the argument…if one thinks about it then it is obvious that for you to actually claim it was ADDED means that the interpretation you are trying to present now in actual fact was doubtful to yourself in the first place for you to deny it!!!


Now we are left with the ‘agreed upon’ text as quoted by both…...
---------------------------------------------
""i have taken the liberty to correct a few errors of transcription""

""إمامانفيحرم القتل و المخالفة قطعا""

and take the liberty here as well please in your text...see you when i have time.

 

that is slander. i did not support yazid.

may Allah ta'ala guide you. Haqq/truth is obvious for anyone to see - except for those who choose to be blind in their arrogance.

wa laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah. wa's salam `ala mani't taba'a al-hudaa.

 

----
i don't believe i have not quit already. yet..

sharH al-mawaqif is the explanation or a commentary on the original al-mawaqif by al-iji. the text you have quoted is partly from the original text and partly from the commentary. this might seem trivial until one sees the text. so i will mark the original text in brown and commentary in blue.

thus:

والذي عليه الجمهور من الأمة هو أن المخطئ قتلة عثمان و محاربو علي لأنهما إمامان فيحرم القتل و المخالفة قطعا إلا أن بعضهم كالقاضي أبي بكر ذهب إلى أن هذه التخطئة لا تبلغ إلى حد التفسيق و منهم من ذهب إلى التفسيق كالشيعة وكثيرمن أصحابنا
​

i have taken the liberty to correct a few errors of transcription. the translation is al-iji's text in bold and brown; al-jurjani's commentary in blue and my own minor notes to clarify the translation in brackets:

that which is the position of the majority of this nation is those who murdered `uthman and fought ali were in error, because both of these were rightful imams [rulers, leaders;] and it is absolutely forbidden to murder and to oppose [the rightful ruler]. except that some of them like qaDi abu bakr ruled that this kind of error is not to the degree of ruling it transgression or sin [tafsiq]; and there are those who ruled that it was sin [tafsiq] like the shi`ah and many among our companions.

----
as i said earlier, and you have noted it yourself [i saw it just now] that qaDi abu bakr is talking about the murderers of `uthman. thus the text in al-mawaqif is thus:

that which is the position of the majority those who murdered `uthman and fought ali were in error, because both of these were rightful imams [rulers, leaders;] and it is absolutely forbidden to murder and to oppose [the rightful ruler].

nowhere did he rule that jamhur ruled them fasiq. and obviously, you take the word jamhur from al-iji's text and adduce it to al-jurjani's closing comments.

-----
again, as i have said earlier, sharif al-jurjani's comments might have meant something else and if it is like you have said, it directly contradicts his own commentary in the previous pages.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

come on bahayya sahib, make your mind up! why now then? is it because you cannot handle the truth in the previous post? so lets stick to mawaqif now shall we. and for the honesty of translations-it is quite obvious that you were calling me a liar on account of sharah mawaqif that it does not say it....then you shift again when you got caught and you changed your tune from 'LIAR' to it has been 'ADDED' to it and now that the WHOLE text is in front of you with other satements that you cannot digest as well...here you shift again....

please remember, that there is CHALLENGE in my last post, is it because of that you are doing a runner? or is it the hadith of sahih bukhari which says the group that killed Ammar Yasir(R) will be CALLING TO HELL FIRE?...why do you dodge to what is at hand to what is not?

i know brother, in my original post i ONLY mentioned three references, sharah mawaqif, shah abd aziz dehlavi and Mulla Ali qari....so lets deal with them one by one..shall we?

please do not introduce lengthy translations like you did for sharah mawaqif, giving the impression that it was hunky-dory but it was not was it?

How strange that in support for YAZID you outright reject Taftazani but now---doobtay ko tinkay ka sahara---focus only on him to get out of the quagmire although, you seen what happened with mawaqif? i am sorry for being frank but i am merely returning the favour?

please deal with the previous post at hand rather than playing to the gallery!!!

 

as i said, in the very part you have quoted there are many possibilities because of the compound sentence and in no way is a summary statement of tafsiq of SaHabah being permitted. al-jurjani might be talking about only the murderers of sayyiduna `uthman in the latter part, but even if we assume that he certainly said so - that is not the jamhur position. the jamhur is that tafsiq of SaHabah is forbidden. we will talk about this later, inshaAllah

also the reason why i said that your so called servitude to sayyiduna `ali is lip-service is because, you don't heed his advice.

---
you quoted sharH al-maqaSid thus:

i won't call you a liar. it is true that taftazani said so in 'sixth objective, fourth part, seventh discussion' [my copy: vol.5 pg.309]

but as usual, you just choose that one off statement which sounds explosive and make it appear as if al-taftazani was opposed to mu`awiyah whereas from pg.303 to pg.309, he only clarifies this position. inshaAllah, if i can, i will try to translate the whole section to dispel aspersions cast on both the aS'Hab and the position of taftazani.

---
excerpts:
on pg.307:

ali raDiyallahu `anhu fought with three kinds of people among muslims as foretold by RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: "you shall fight the betrayers, the renegades and the unjust" [innaka tuqatil an-naakithin wa'l maariqin wa'l qaasiTin].
​

and then he explains on the pages 307-308:

and the unjust [qasiTun] are mu`awiyah and his followers who assembled against him [`ali karramallahu wajhah] and they transgressed the right path - that is, allegiance of `ali and joining his ranks and accepting his authority [bay`atu `ali raDiyallahu `anhu wa'd dukhul taHta Ta'atihi].

[mu`awiyah did not] and he went against `ali with the premise that `ali aided the murder[ers] of `uthman when he forsook `uthman's aid and included his murderers in his [`ali's] own army. [raDiyallahu `anhum]

these two parties [of `ali and mu`awiyah] converged in Siffin on the banks of euphrates and the outskirts of a roman city [today's syria]; the war went on for months - and it is known as the 'battle of Siffin'.
​

the righteous folk [ahl al-Haqq or ahl as-sunnah] contend that in all these engagements, `ali raDiyallahu `anhu was right and correct because his leadership [imamah] and allegiance was already established.

the conflicts [or battles] occurred against him [an established righteous ruler] and others [who are subjects] including mu`awiyah and his party. there are numerous reports that he [`ali] was in the right [al-Haqqu ma`ahu]; even his enemies acknowledge that he [`ali] was the highest in rank in his time [afDalu zamanih] and there was none more eligible for leadership than `ali raDiyallahu `anhu.

his opposers [mukhalifun] were rebels [bughat] because they rallied against a righteous and rightful leader [al-imam al-Haqq] on the basis of a doubt that he [`ali] did not exact punishment from the murderers of `uthman. and the foretelling of the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam to `ammar: "you will be killed by a rebel force" [taqtuluka al-fi'yah al-baghiyah]; and thus he was martyred on the day of Siffin by one from the syrian army [ahl ash-sham].

also is the saying of sayyiduna `ali radiyallahu `anhu: "our brothers have rebelled against us; yet, they are not disbelievers, nor sinners, nor tyrants" [ikhwanuna baghaw `alayna, wa laysuu kuffaaraa wa laa fasaqah wa laa DHalamah].

because they have [erred in] their interpretation; even though it was wrong and unjust [baTil], it was based on an erroneous interpretation [fa ghayatu'l amr annahum akhTa'u fi'l ijtihad]. and this does not merit ruling them as transgressors, leave alone ruling them as disbelievers [wa dhalika laa yujab at-tafsiq faDlan `ani't takfir].

therefore `ali raDiyallahu `anhu forbade his companions from cursing the syrians [ahl ash-sham, that is mu`awiyah's army] and said: 'our brothers have revolted against us.'

---
​

he says further down:

as for the opinion taken by the shi`ah that those who fought `ali were disbelievers and those who opposed him were sinners, transgressors [fasaqah] taking as proof, the saying of the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: 'warring with you `ali, is warring with me'; that is his authority was mandatory [at-Ta'ah wajibah] and forsaking a mandatory action is sin. this is among their audacity and their abject ignorance by which they do not differentiate between [disobeidience due to] an interpretation or extrapolation and [disobedience] without any reason.

yes, if we ruled that the khawarij became disbelievers because they decreed that `ali raDiyallahu `anhu was a disbeliever, it wouldn't be far fetched; but that is a different discussion altogether [so we won't talk about it]

​

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

Here are the concluding remarks of Sayyed Sharif Jurjani in sharah mawaqif:
والذى عليه الجمهور من الامة وهو ان المخطئ قتلة عثمان و محاربو علي فانهما امامان فيحرم القتل و المخالفة قطعا الا ان بعضهم كلقاضي ابي بكر ذهب الى ان هذه التخطية لاتبلغ حد التفسيق و منهم من ذهب الى التفسيق كلشيعة وكثيرمن اصحابنا

And the view of al- Jamhur from the Ummah is that the killers of Usman and fighters with Ali were in the wrong because both were Caliphs and it was absolutely haram to kill and oppose them except a few of them like Qadhi abu bakr held the view that this offence does not reach fisq, and the shia and most of our school of thought held the opinion that it was fisq.


(Note that qadhi abu bakr held the opinion that those who killed Hazrat Usman bin Affan(R) were not fasiq!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sharah mawaqif has been taught as part of darse nizami for centuries and has many commentaries like khayali etc but none have ever said what our piyare bhayya sahib is saying. I will concede this argument if bhayya jaan can prove that this text is muharraf from any of its shuruh . This is my challenge!!

and as for your information if you cannot comprehend the terminology of aqeeda and fiqh about 'ashabuna' then it is not my fault. for example, if in hanafi fiqh book 'ashabuna' then it means hanafis as opposed to say shafis etc ....kissi nay sach kaha hai key andhon mein kanay sardar hotey hain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, you may read the above in light of the following hadith from bukhari sharif about the shahadat of Hazrat Ammar Yasir(r), who died in the battle of siffeen on the side of Haider e Karrar Ghaira farrar(A):


‏‏حدثنا ‏ ‏مسدد ‏ ‏قال حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد العزيز بن مختار ‏ ‏قال حدثنا ‏ ‏خالد الحذاء ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عكرمة ‏ ‏قال لي ‏ ‏ابن عباس ‏ ‏ولابنه ‏ ‏علي ‏ ‏انطلقا إلى ‏ ‏أبي سعيد ‏
‏فاسمعا من حديثه فانطلقنا فإذا هو في حائط يصلحه فأخذ رداءه ‏ ‏فاحتبى ‏ ‏ثم أنشأ يحدثنا حتى أتى ذكر بناء المسجد فقال كنا نحمل لبنة لبنة ‏ ‏وعمار ‏ ‏لبنتين لبنتين فرآه النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فينفض التراب عنه ويقول ‏ ‏ويح ‏ ‏عمار ‏ ‏تقتله الفئة ‏ ‏الباغية ‏ ‏يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار قال يقول ‏ ‏عمار ‏ ‏أعوذ بالله من الفتن


Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Ibn 'Abbas said to me and to his son 'Ali, "Go to Abu Sa'id and listen to what he narrates." So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida', wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, "We were carrying one adobe at a time while 'Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and said woe! a relbellious group will kill Ammar and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to 'Ammar. He will be inviting them to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire." 'Ammar said, "I seek refuge with Allah from affliction."

--------------
which side was inviting to hell fire? this is bukhari sharif which you do not doubt so sharah mawaqif's verdict of most ahl al-sunna and in light of this hadith makes sense.
-------------

 

shi'a? is that a smell of orientalist writings?

love of ahl-e-bayt does not mean one is a shia. Why do sunni ulama always quote him then? I was recently reading Allama Shareef Ul Haqq Amjadi Sahib quoting him.
In fact, it is mentioned that Ala Hazrat visited his grave and had it decorated!

Do you have any sunnis scholars saying he was a shia? or any verses that degrade any of the companions?

On another note, i see the people are differing heavily, but I also see that both agree that Ameer Muaawiya should be respected and both say that he was baghi at the time of his reblillion as stated in Hidaya etc? So not much difference betweem you really?

 

it is sad that this new trend amongst 'sunnis' of a strong leaning towards proto-shia views is gaining currency.

btw, i love ghalib as a poet, but if you study him, as i have done, it is quite possible that he was a shia anyway. though scholars of ghalib are divided on the issue it is the view of the majority.

so quoting ghalib's lovely verse, 'mashghool e haqq hoon...' isn't evidence anyway. strange. a person questions bukhari on his own whims but uses an ambiguous line of poetry by a shia-leaning drunkard poet as evidence!