pir nasiruddin and tafzil

Discussion in 'General Topics' started by abu Hasan, Feb 8, 2016.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    in shamm, on p.46 qari says:

    shamm, p46.jpg

    abusing, disrespecting the Companions is the biggest sin.

    in summary and the result of researched opinion is that the abuse of the honourable Companions is the biggest of sins.
    rather, according to pious people, this is a collection of most sins - because [in this one thing] is the right of Allah, the right of man and the right of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. because he will not take it kindly when those who are close to him and attributed to him are disparaged.

    also, by ijma'a, it is settled that murder is the greatest of sins after polytheism. and murder [intentionally killing] a believer occurs by another believer in a state of intense anger and he loses his mind and etiquette, he become mad [in anger]. after this [anger subsides], there is no doubt that he will feel remorseful and sad. and he will repent, ask Forgiveness of Allah and beseeches him for pardon.

    contrary to the rafizis - who curse/disrespect/insult in a state, when they can choose [to do it or not] and at a time when they are in control; yet, they are obstinate upon this and they will never repent from such things, as they do not deem them ugly - rather they imagine that it is preferable to do so.

    can a person who wrote this, say disrespectful things about hazrat mu'awiyah?
    Harris786, AbdalQadir, Aqdas and 2 others like this.
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    there are two possibilities to explain this passage:

    1. this passage is most probably a fabrication inserted by a shiyi-leaning copyists [not unlike claimants of sunni-hanafi-barelwi in our time]

    2. allamah al-qari has truly said this.​

    the first possibility is most probable and there is overwhelming evidence in favour of the first possibility.however, if at all, hypothetically, the second possibility were true, there are two further possibilities for this case:

    2a: he said it to refute the implausible ta'wils attributed to hazrat muawiyah about mutawatir hadith that hazrat ammar would be killed by a rebel group. unfortunately, his choice of words were inappropriate - may Allah ta'ala forgive us and him.

    2b: he was indeed full of angst against hazrat mu'awiyah - as nawaz suggests - and this suppressed true feeling came to the fore in an unguarded moment. nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.​

    evidence in favour of possibility no.1; that the statement is an obvious forgery and falsely attributed to mulla ali al-qari:

    1. in the work mirqat al-mafatiH, there are numerous places where allamah ali al-qari explains the position of ahl al-sunnah (which we have been reporting so far) and deplores criticism of SaHabah.

    2. i will quote ali al-qari from his various works on aqidah, fiqh and sirah, in-sha'Allah. and that the quote from mirqat is clearly an aberration. in every other place he talks of respecting all the SaHabah and is strictly against those who disrespect EVERY ONE of them.

    3. besides he has written a separate work: shamm al-aWariD fi dhamm al-rawafiD in which he considers that cursing/insulting SaHabah is kufr by dalil zanni. it is impossible to believe that the author of such a work can say what is attributed to him in mirqat. see:

    shamm, p28.jpg

    and he who insults/curses anyone among the Companions - he is a transgressor [fasiq] and heretic by ijma'a, if he believes that it is permissible. as is the case of some shiah groups. or if he believes that it [cursing] merits a reward, as is the trait in their speech;

    or believes that the Companions or the ahl al-sunnah are kafir, according to their conclusive speech [i.e., the shiah]: that such a person a is kafir by ijma'a; and there is no need to bother about those who oppose this as a matter of dispute. after you have learned this, inevitably, you should also learn of the details. [update: small error corrected]

    this work shamm al-awariD, has an anecdote about his own teacher hafiz zaynuddin and the grandson of imam taftazani [just so you know qari calls those who insulted the Companions and those who wanted to hear such things as rafidi-dogs, kilab al-arfaaD] summarised [not verbatim]:

    mawlana muyinuddin hafiz zaynuddin, with whom i learned the recitation sciences was the first to be martyred after rafizi occupation of [persia]. this was because their sulTan sent a letter to khurasan to show that he had overcome and was triumphant, he mentioned insult and curses against prominent Companions.

    hafiz zaynuddin was a speaker [khaTib] in the main mosque in herat [now in afghanistan] and he was commanded to read this letter aloud in front of all the prominent scholars, shaykhs and aristocrats and among them was the waliy, the grandson of imam taftazani, shaykh al-islam sayfuddin ahmad al-harawi al-Hanafi [martyred in 916AH by rafizi dogs].

    so hafiz began to read the letter until he reached the part where there were curses against SaHabah, so out of adab, he skipped that [or said something else befitting adab]. the rafidi dogs were enraged and said: 'you have skipped the most important portion of the letter and the prominent objective. now read it again so that the letter is read completely, and in its entirety.' the shaykh stopped and shaykh al-islam [grandson of taftazani] suggested that he could read it as it was a matter of coercion [ikrah] and it would not be a sin to say this under duress. hafiz refused to read it and chose the stringent position and left the concessionary position.

    so [the rafidi dogs] dragged him down, and killed him and burned him.

    later, when the sulTan [another big shaytan and rafidi kalb] came to khurasan, and summoned shaykh al-islam [taftazani al-harawi] and other prominent elders of the time, he ordered the shaykh to say those curses in the same place. the shaykh refused to do so. when he was asked, why do you refuse now, but you asked the previous speaker [khatib] to read it - why do you oppose it now?

    the shaykh replied: "that was my fatwa; this is taqwa"

    aH: shaykh al-islam then challenged the rafidi dog to call all his rafidi minions to debate with him. the rafidi scoundrels told their king that it would not be possible to debate such a big scholar. so they finally killed him and he was martyred for this. when you read the crimes of the rafidi kilaab, your blood boils. and here we have their apologists expecting us to honour them and probably expect hosannas to be sung.

    the rafizis occupied persia and forced their fasid maz'hab on the inhabitants years ago. the rafizi scoundrel was named shah-ismayil and died in 931AH (1524 CE). the safavid conversion - for an idea of chronology even if you don't accept the details: here.

    now, you can call THIS as the judgement of ali al-qari. not one passage from a work which is most likely spurious, and aberration at any rate. let us count how many instances, in how many books has ali al-qari spoken

    shaykh ali al-qari was also from herat, and he migrated to makkah, probably in the backdrop of these events. anyone with common sense will know, that it is incredible that he would say such a thing. in fact, mawlana ali al-qari was AGAINST cursing yazid by name, which is the chosen position of ahl al-sunnah. and he even slightly criticised mawla taftazani for his passage in sharh al-aqayid; the below is from qari's Daw al-ma'ali sh. bad' al-amali.


    anyone with common sense can see that a person who doesn't agree with shakhsi la'anat [cursing him by name] on yazid, will he say about the SaHabi mu'awiyah raDiyallahu anhu what is attributed to him in mirqat?


    as for second possibility: that he indeed wrote that.

    1. it could be an aberration - he wrote with an intention to insist on the right of hazrat ali raDiyallahu anhu, which is undoubtedly true [that is hazrat ali was on Haqq in all the disputes with other SaHabah; and he was of the best judgement: aqDakum `ali].

    2. he wrote with the hate and indifference to SaHabi, which is what nawaz implies. even in this case, we know by documentary evidence that his position in the end of his life was the same as any other sunni.

    notice that mirqat al-mafatiH was completed in the year 1008 AH.
    and sharh al-shifa, was completed in the year 1011 AH. even nawaz knows; see this post.[#49]
    firstly, everyone accepts that the party of Hazrat mu'awiyah against hazrat ali were rebels and were incorrect. which is what qari says here:
    shrshfaqari, 2-552.jpg

    however, he repeatedly warns against insulting them for their errors. in the same sharh:
    shrshfaqari, 2-553.jpg brown:shifa text; blue: qari sharH.
    {abu muHammad ibn abi zayd [al-qayrawani] has cited from suHnun in which he said about abu bakr, umar, uthman and ali} that is all of them {were on deviance and disbelief, such a person is executed.}

    {and whoever insults [shatam] other than them} that is, the four khulafa'a {among the companions}such as mu'awiyah and others {similar to this} saying {he shall be severely reprimanded...}

    notice - nawaz told us that this above passage was more authentic in an earlier post because it doesn't include hazrat mu'awiyah, but ali al-qari includes him. the above passage was deemed more authentic by nawaz in post #39
    and as you have seen, nawaz has high opinion of this later work:
    in the same sharH, ali al-qari says, it is not permissible to discuss their faults and errors:

    shrshfaqari, 2-554.jpg

    malik said: whoever disparages ANY among the companions of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - [qari:] that is he mentions some of the faults and ignores their superiority [manaqib] and does not acknowledge/realise that they were the earliest muslims;

    would such a person say what is attributed to him in mirqat? and even [hypothetically] if he said it then, it is clear that it was not said 3 years later in his later work sharH al-shifa.

    may Allah ta'ala protect us from prejudice and fanaticism. and may Allah ta'ala destroy the rawafiD and their sympathisers.

    wAllahu a'alam.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2016
  3. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    syed Irfan Shah Mashhadi sahab decimates a hidden shia ( syeduna muawiyyah hater) on the same issue.

    one sentence is enough:
    our ulema have already seen all the evidences, studied and come to the conclusions, so there is nothing new for these syeduna muawiyyah haters to present.

    Last edited: Feb 8, 2016
    Ghulam Ali and Harris786 like this.
  4. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    Sorry! I ought to have translated the judgement proffered by al-Mulla Ali al-Qari. In his commentary on the muawatir Hadith about Hazrat Ammar Yasir (ra) being killed by the Rebellious group and its implications. Ali al-Qari says in conclusion:

    "I say: when it was wajib for him (muawiya) to repent from his rebellion by paying allegiance to the Caliph and abandon his opposition...it became evident that inwardly he was a rebel and outwardly hiding behind the demand for the blood of Usman. This hadith deplores him and his actions..."
  5. YaMustafa

    YaMustafa Well-Known Member

    Some of the points made by nawazuddin was answered on the website tafzilis.info. The site doesn't seem to be working now. Would be useful if someone still has the content
  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Nawaz, guys are asking questions. i cannot restrict you like SS because sidi abu Hasan is already answering your sophistry. If you really have ghayrah in your heart then you must make it necessary uopn yourself to answer AQ's questions first, if you don't then your answers will be assumed same as those of shias and padri followers.

    You are asking sidi abu Hasan to bring substance and stick to point, don't you have any better joke to tell?
    Ghulam Ali and Unbeknown like this.
  7. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    A REAL saheehun nasab Sayyid is never a beghayrat. khomeini and his cronies are.
  8. agent-x

    agent-x Well-Known Member

    Nawazuddin is full of nothing but hot air

    He's just trying to self promote the poor guy by sharing his own videos an nobody else will

    This issue was discussed many years ago on SunnaForum and Shah Saab confirmed Pir Naseer uD Din Naseer did ruju

    As far as Pir Sahibs family go are you talking about Pir Sahibs son? The respect he has for Shah Saab? If so I can upload a video for you where he shows nothing but love for Syed Irfan Shah Saab and that too on the same channel Muzzamal Shah did ruju

    Now I'm not sure if I should believe that sarcasm you're producing or the words from Pir Naseer ud Din Naseers son!
  9. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    To posers 3/4, I would add -
    "Is it permissible to abuse Hazrat Ameer Mu'awiya radiAllahu anhu? Do you condone Muzammil Jamaati & PAQ's abuse of Ameer Mu'awiya?"

    I suspect nawaz's answer is "yes", going by his recent "ijtihadi" posts. But worth getting depth of his shi'i views cleared or exposed.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the same ali al-qari, in the same mirqat, 11-380, under hadith no:6244

    RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam did du'a for mu'awiyah: "O Allah' make him guided and a guide; and give guidance through him"

    mirqat 11-380a.jpg

    qari says: verily, there is no doubt in the fact, that the du'a of the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is certainly accepted. when this is the state [asked] for him, how can one doubt about him?

    ...he was one of the scribes of RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam; it is also said that he did not write waHy, but it was letters that he wrote for him [nawaz will gloat on this, and ignore the 'qeel' preceding.]

    ibn abbas and abu sayid have reported from him.

    mirqat 11-380b.jpg
    Harris786 likes this.
  11. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    shaykh abu hasan, I have nothing further to add unless you bring some substance to the discussion and stick to the point rather than convolute the discussion with disanalogies. Playing to the gallery is not my forte, it is your style similar to displaying the bloodied shirt to the masses.
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    in another hadith, no. 6014, from the same mirqat [11/160]

    the hadith is: 'Allah Allah. Fear Allah about my companions. Allah Allah. Fear Allah about my companions. Do not make them an object of criticism after me....'

    qari says: [summarised for brevity hence consider it as a reworded version not a verbatim trans:]

    fear Allah ta'ala [and a repeat warning:] fear Allah ta'ala about my companions. it means, do not belittle them or fault them [tanqiS] nor insult/abuse them. or it means: i remind you and i give you an oath about the rights of my companions and about their respect and honour [ta'azim, tawqir] just as a benevolent father says: "Allah Allah the rights of my children.."

    or it means, "fear opposing them" or "fear the punishment for bearing enmity and animosity about my companions, who are close to my door and are flocked to my side."

    do not take them as targets meaning: do not make them target of your ugly speech or accuse them of disliked events.

    mirqat, 11-160.jpg
    Harris786 and Ghulam Ali like this.
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    ali al-qari, in mirqat, under hadith 6007:
    noting that this particular hadith, is related to the other hadith [mustafiD] in which a junior SaHabi was forbidden from abusing senior SaHabah:

    however, one can learn from this that forbidding [naHy] of disrespecting/abusing a SaHabi by a non-SaHabi is comparatively of more serious import [min bab al-awla]. because this is a reprimand to those who insults/disrespects those who preceded oneself in islam and hence superiority. therefore it is obligatory to respect them and honour them as Allah ta'ala has said:

    he further says:[asanid clipped; see the cited arabic text for reference]

    ...narrated from ibn umar: that he said: "do not curse/insult/abuse [sabb] the companions of Muhammad SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam; for their sleep of one hour is better than the good deeds of [non-Sahabi] others of their lifetime"

    ...a hadith reported from RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam that he said: 'when fitnah [strife, mischief, heresy] becomes prominent [comes to the fore, becomes apparent] or he said: 'when heresy and cursing my companions [becomes apparent] then every scholar should demonstrate his knowledge. whoever does not do so, the damnation [la'anat] of Allah and angels and all the people will be upon him. Allah ta'ala will not accept either his farD or nafl deeds".

    ...when heretics become prominent, Allah ta'ala will bring forth among them, proofs upon the tongue of whosoever He Wills among His creation.

    ... a marfu'u narration: verily Allah ta'ala has Chosen me and chosen my companions for me; and made for me among them, advisers, helpers and in-laws [aS'har]; whoever curses/abuses them - then the damnation [la'nat] of Allah and angels and all the men; Allah ta'ala will not accept from such a person on Judgement day, neither his obligatory deeds, nor supererogatory deeds."

    mirqat 11-153.jpg

    Harris786 and Ghulam Ali like this.
  14. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    i humbly suggest nawaz not be allowed to post anymore till he answers some questions clarifying where he's coming from, rather than just presenting quotes as supposed evidences for the implications he wishes to make.

    he should first take a stand and THEN present evidence for it, rather than cite the alleged evidence first and then only IMPLY his stance.
    some questions to ask him, in my opinion.

    mr. nawaz according to you:
    1. is Mawla Ali afzal to Shaykhayn radi Allahu 3anhum ajma3een? yes/no
    2. if yes, is this afzaliyat holistic (as opposed to partial, in some aspects)? yes/no
    3. is Ameer Mu3awiya radi Allahu 3anhu a sahabi of the Prophet 3laihis salam? yes/no
    4. is Ameer Mu3awiya's narration of hadith accepted or not? yes/no
    5. did the Shaykhayn transgress the rights of any member of the Ahle Bayt? yes/no
    6. give in one word the ruling on mut3ah as you know it - halal, haram, mandub, wajib etc.?
    7. give in one word the ruling on the 12'er shias?
    8. what is the ruling on people like khomeini and sistani?
    9. do you know of tahir jhangvi's wembley event (2011) and still consider him a shaykhul Islam? yes/no
    10. do you accept tahir jhangvi's explanation that the Prophet 3alaihis salam "invited" the christians to pray in his mosque according to their rituals? yes/no
    11. do you support tahir jhangvi in his endeavors? yes/no
    12. what is your opinion in one or two words on the status in Islam of tahir jhangvi - upright Muslim, wali, shaykhul Islam, fasiq (Sunni), zalim (Sunni), mubtadi3i, kafir, dajjal, murtad, etc.?

    DO NOT give any references, quotations or citations until you first state your stance. once you state your stance, please do bring all the daleels you see fit to bring in.


    maybe abu Hasan or others can come up with similar yes/no questions for nawaz that make his stance clear. i suggest to the admins that he not be allowed to proceed any further till he answer some simple questions such as these. if nawaz or anyone asked such questions to us, we would gladly oblige without any silence or taqiyya.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    nawaz you are jumping from one branch to another. never sticking to one argument or complete one issue. you praise the imam you think favours your position to the skies, and when the bigger picture is shown, you run to another argument. now you are raking up the Hujr ibn adi issue which is already discussed. then you jump from one issue to another - where required, a curt statement is sufficient for you from books hundreds of years later - and where it is conducive, even the explanation of people present right in that dispute and had more right to talk about it than you and i are either brushed away or discarded for what you deem 'more authentic'.

    clearly, you are obstinate and want to force the opinions of all the imams through your own viewpoint.

    your hatred and shiyi beliefs have clouded your mind. all we say is that hazrat mu'awiyah was a SaHabi - we should remain silent about what happened in the wars between SaHabah. men greater than us and with far more sincere love for the ahl al-bayt advised us to keep quiet. but you want to behave as if your farD is not accepted if you do not pass a judgement and criticise the SaHabah.

    i never expected you to accept sunni positions - why be a hypocrite, why don't you just call yourself an ayotallah-something and stop wasting your and our time?

    what a macabre accusation. it was you who wanted to spoon feed me a report from ibn abi shaybah's muSannaf (notice the deference with which you referred to him then) and all i did was show you the SAME report (alright, i hope you are not quibbling about the numbering :rolleyes:) and if my translation and explanation are incorrect, please spoon feed me. instead you trashed your own evidence:

    sub'HanAllah, so according to you hazrat's ammar's opinion [YOU cited that first remember?] and usage is to be discarded for marghinani's explanation? besides, you didn't tell us what ayni [apparently you have very high regard for him just a few posts below] said in his binayah, commentary of hidayah explaining this.

    so ammar ibn yasir's [raDiyallahu anhuma] explanation is not authentic enough as marghinani's usage as understood by nawaz.

    i couldn't help laughing at your helplessness and convoluted arguments.

    oh, wait. do you want to know the more authentic mulla ali qari's "judgement" about cursing SaHabah? and on mas'alah of tafDil? [poor helpless nawaz; where he cannot muster enough evidence, he tries to influence it, by qualifying it himself as the 'judgement'].
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2016
    Aqdas, Harris786, Ghulam Ali and 2 others like this.
  16. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    yes, that is why you are talking about designed dreams and with a sleight of hand avoided the two reports about ahl al-shaam at siffin being zaalims and faasiqs by the ruling of Hazrat Ammar Yasir (ra). As you also cite the third report in which Hazrat Ammar says that they are a people who have deviated and transgressed from the truth (haq). Jawr in hidaya is used opposite to adl. and for the instances of such jawr you just have to study killings of Hazrat Hujr ibn Addi, Hazrat Muhammad ibn abi bakr, etc. and who ordered busr ibn artat to kill even children in the lap of their mother. These are just some examples of deviating from the right opinion. strange. it is true that worser times came after during the reign of yazid ibn muawiya, marwan ibn hakam, Hajjaj ibn yusuf....

    I will leave you with al-Mulla Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi's judgement:

    قلت : فإذا كان الواجب عليه أن يرجع عن بغيه بإطاعته الخليفة ، ويترك المخالفة وطلب الخلافة المنيفة ، فتبين بهذا أنه كان في الباطن باغيا ، وفي الظاهر متسترا بدم عثمان مراعيا مرائيا ، فجاء هذا الحديث عليه ناعيا ، وعن عمله ناهيا ، لكن كان ذلك في الكتاب مسطورا ، فصار عنده كل من القرآن والحديث مهجورا ، فرحم الله من أنصف ولم يتعصب ولم يتعسف ، وتولى الاقتصاد في الاعتقاد ، لئلا يقع في جانبي سبيل الرشاد من الرفض والنصب بأن يحب جميع الآل والصحب

    Last edited: Feb 7, 2016
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    and in the same muSannaf, a little more further is the saying of mawla ali raDiyallahu anhu: 'people, do not dislike the leadership of mu'awiyah'
    musnf shb, 21-412.jpg
    Aqdas and Harris786 like this.
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    yes, i am not as smart as you are - and woefully unskilled in the art of not seeing something shoved right in your face.

    because you see, in the reference you gave us, it is clearly said by hazrat ammar: [i don't have the edition you have googled, so it is a slightly different number]
    musnf shb, 21-407.jpg

    riyaH ibn al-Harith says: i was by the side of ammar ibn yasir in Siffin, and [so close that] my knee was touching his knee.

    a man said: 'the people of shaam [levant] have committed kufr.'

    ammar said: 'don't say that. our prophet and their prophet is one. our qiblah and their qiblah is one. but they are a people who have deviated and they have transgressed the right [Haqq], so it is our right [or it is our duty] to fight them until they return towards it [Haqq].

    clearly, sayyiduna ammar is explaining the meaning of jawr or zulm in this context: that is transgressing from the right opinion. ajamis may use dictionaries and translate it as tyrants, but hazrat ammar explained it just as we are doing. when they say use the term jayir/jawr [note your reference from hidayah] is in this context.

    but as you are clearly a mindless quote hunter, you wouldn't have bothered to read the hadith in the same muSannaf, a little later:

    musnf shb, 21-408.jpg
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2016
    Aqdas, Harris786 and Noori like this.
  19. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    Towards the end of his splendid commentary Umdatulqari, Imam Badr al-Din al-ayni al-hanafi changes his opinion on ijtihadi thesis:

    قال الكرماني علي رضي الله تعالى عنه ومعاوية كلاهما كانا مجتهدين غاية ما في الباب أن معاوية كان مخطئا في اجتهاده ونحوه انتهى قلت كيف يقال كان معاوية مخطئا في اجتهاده فما كان الدليل في اجتهاده وقد بلغه الحديث الذي قال ويح ابن سمية تقتله الفئة الباغية وابن سمية هو عمار بن ياسر وقد قتله فئة معاوية أفلا يرضى معاوية سواء بسواء حتى يكون له أجر واحد

    "al-Kirmani said that Ali radi Allah anhu and Muawiya, both were mujtahids and Muawiya erred so he would get one reward. I say (al-ayni) that how can that be an ijtihadi mistake, whats the evidence for that? he knew about the hadith which states that Ammar Yasir will be killed by a rebellious group, wouldn't it be sufficient that muawiya be saved let alone receive a reward..."

    so what Imam al-ayni al-hanafi is saying that there is an explicit nass/text that those who killed Ammar Yasir were unjust rebels and even after the matter becoming clear after Hazrat Ammar's shahadat, he still did not concede and carried on opposing the Imam of Haq. So in the final analysis of Imam badr al-din al-ayni al-hanafi, it was not an ijtihadi mistake.

    see page 35/140, line 6:
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2016
  20. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    shaykh abu hasan, you cited ibn abi al-hadid al-mutazili to justify a point from hazrat ammar ibn yasir (ra) and I merely showed you from the earliest source with an authentic chain that Hazrat Ammar ibn Yasir called them faasiq and zaalim. It seems you want to be spoon fed. It is easy to locate. Anyway, here you are from al-Musannaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shayba (d. 235):

    Attached Files:

Share This Page