Print Page | Close Window

Mu’awiya as a Model of Islamic Governance

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Quran & Sunnah
Forum Discription: Understanding Quranic ayat and Sunnah
URL: http://www.readverse.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9999
Printed Date: 22 October 2018 at 4:37am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Mu’awiya as a Model of Islamic Governance
Posted By: Murabit
Subject: Mu’awiya as a Model of Islamic Governance
Date Posted: 12 August 2007 at 4:14am
Mu'awiya as a Model of Islamic Governance

I have been asked to speak on Mu'awiya and his governance. Mu'awiya was one of the Companions of the Prophet and one of his scribes who recorded the Revelation. He was appointed governor of greater Syria by 'Umar after the death of his brother Yazid who had been appointed by Abu Bakr, and remained governor under 'Uthman. As he was related to 'Uthman, he was a leading force in demanding that his murderers be brought to justice. Thus he and 'Ali came to be on opposite sides in the Fitna or Civil War. Eventually 'Ali was murdered by a Kharijite and his son Hasan declared khalif. When Hasan realised he could not control the situation, he handed over power to Mu'awiya which led to peace and re-unification of the Umma in 40/661, the year known as the Year of the Jama'a, or Community. There was no further major civil unrest - except for the odd Kharijite agitation - during his reign. When he died, another chapter of the Fitna ensued in the form of the war between his son Yazid and first Husayn, 'Ali's son, and then Ibn az-Zubayr in the Hijaz.

So what was it about Mu'awiya which made his rule so successful to such an extent that the famous historian, adh-Dhahabi, points out that after al-Hasan had surrendered his claim to the khalifate, "Mu'awiya reigned without a rival, and without losing any of the conquests of Islam. Neither 'Abdu'l-Malik, nor al-Mansur, nor Harun ar-Rashid earned this praise, unique in the annals of Islam"?

Before examining governance under Mu'awiya, it must first be pointed out that defining the nature of governance in an Islamic context is somewhat difficult, not least because it has been a long time since Islam formed the foundation of governance and Muslims have tended to base themselves on Western political theories and then to "Islamicise" these theories. Even the question of what an umma is causes problems. What precisely is the Muslim Umma? When it is translated as "nation", it is inevitable that some of the connotations of the modern nation-state creep in, or if "community" is used, it becomes a purely social concept, something like a undefined social unit without any real political role. So any attempt to deal with Islamic governance is often fraught either with tinges of historical romanticism and utopic idealism, or else a pragmatism devoid of any real Islamic content - and so we find ourselves like Odysseus trying to pass between the twin perils of Scylla and Charybdis without being destroyed by either one. It is with the hope of avoiding these twin perils that we will examine how Mu'awiya, one of the most successful of Muslim rulers, governed.

So what is the umma? The concept of umma was an entirely new one which superseded previous tribal and family allegiances, although these tendencies kept coming back, particularly in the case in the Ridda, or Revolt, which followed the death of the Prophet. We read in the Qur'an: "You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day who are loving to anyone who opposes Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers or their clan." (Qur'an 58:22) Acceptance of and allegiance to the umma, based on following Allah and His Prophet, became one's primary allegiance. This means that the umma is not a nation-state based on ethnicity or language. It is not surprising, then, that it left the Arabs of the time somewhat bemused. Like the revelation with its uncompromising statement of tawhid, the idea of a community whose central core of political cohesion was based on that same principle was entirely alien to them. In fact, it was probably alien to just about everyone of the time. And indeed, it kept being forgotten, and still is forgotten, in favour of 'asabiyya, or tribal solidarity.

The umma is further delineated in the Qur'an when Allah says, "You are the best umma brought forth to mankind - enjoining the correct and forbidding the incorrect and believing in Allah" (3:110) and "The believers, men and women, are protector-friends of each other, enjoining the correct and forbidding the incorrect." (9:71)

The Covenant of Madina stipulated that the Muslims "Constitute one umma" and "All believers shall rise as one man against whomsoever rebels or seeks to commit injustice, aggression, wrong action or spread mutual enmity between the believers, even though he be one of their sons. ... All believers are bonded together to the exclusion of other men."

This, then, is the polity of the Muslims, and it is clearly a political as well as a spiritual collective, the one being a logical consequence of the other. Being a Muslim necessarily entails certain political consequences.

Having defined what the polity is, the question becomes: how it is to be governed? Historically, there has been two basic forms of governance - and indeed fiqh - which seem to reflect an eastern/ western split - and we find the same split in the forms of governance in eastern and western Christendom. In the east, we find the imperial form, reflecting the Persian Sassanid and Soghdian traditions, and, on the other side, initially in the Hijaz and Syria, a more open form of governance based on amirate and shura, which moved to Spain when the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads. I leave the imperial form to others. From 138/756, the Umma is split because the Umayyads in Spain regarded the Abbasids as usurpers. From 316/929 there were two rulers with the title Amir al-Mu'minin, and in 334/945, the Buwayhids, the Persian military dynasty, assumed full power, and the khalif was a mere figurehead.

This brings up the question of leadership: how is a leader chosen?

When it comes to choosing the Khalif, in the early community there were four ways that the Khalif was chosen:

1. By the bay'a of the people of loosing and binding (ahl al-hal wa'l-'aqd) i.e. the 'ulama' (people of knowledge), leaders and army commanders, as happened with the first Khalif, Abu Bakr;

2. By the will and appointment of the preceding khalif as happened with the second Khalif, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab;

3. By a decision of the consultation (shura) of a certain group - as with 'Uthman and 'Ali, the third and fourth khalifs;

4. By the successful assumption of power of a man possessing the requisite qualities and qualifications to be khalif (sometimes in conjunction with 1 or 2).


When the khalif has been chosen, bay'a takes place. It is an act of validation by which the ruler accepts the duties of office and receives the power to discharge them, and the subjects undertake to obey him. It is usually translated as "allegiance" but this is somewhat unfortunate because rather than being one-sided, it is an agreement undertaken by two parties, like the conclusion of a sale from which the word is derived. As in any transaction, each side has an expectation of the other. In essence, the khalif makes an undertaking or covenant ('ahd) to act according to the Shari'a.

Hence the ruler has certain duties. He must respect and enforce the Shari'a and thus he must protect the interests of the umma, defend or expand the frontiers, carry out jihad, administer public property, dispense justice and maintain internal security.

The behaviour of the ruler vis-a-vis his subject is a trust and a matter of grave concern for him in this world and the Next. The ruler is empowered to implement the Shari'a and all that entails, but he is nevertheless a custodian, and he expects to be corrected by the people of knowledge if he errs. When Abu Bakr was given the bay'a as Khalif, he stood up and addressed people, saying:

O people! I have been put in charge over you, but I am not the best of you. If I act well, then help me, and if I act badly, then put me right. Truthfulness is a trust and lying is treachery. The weak among you is strong in my sight until I restore his right to him, Allah willing. The strong among you is weak in my sight until I take the right from him, Allah willing. People do not abandon jihad in the way of Allah but that Allah afflicts them with humiliation. Shamelessness does not spread in a people but that Allah envelops them in affliction. Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience. (Sira Ibn Hisham)

This clearly indicates the existence of a certain reciprocity in the relation between ruler and ruled. Abu Bakr's successor, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab was also concerned about overstepping his authority.

Salman said that 'Umar asked him, "Am I a king or a khalif?" Salman answered, "If you have taxed the lands of the Muslims one dirham, or more or less, and applied it to unlawful purposes, then you are a king, not a khalif." And 'Umar wept. (At-Tabari, Tarikh, p. 2754)

This view of leadership was also held by Mu'awiya. He came to Madina and spoke to the people, saying, "I desired the way followed by Abu Bakr and 'Umar, but I was unable to follow it, and so I have followed a course with you which contains fortune and benefits for you despite some bias, so be pleased with what comes to you from me even if it is little. When good is continuous, even if it is little, it enriches. Discontent makes life grim."

He also said in a khutba which he delivered to the people, "O people! By Allah, it is easier to move the firm mountains than to follow Abu Bakr and 'Umar in their behaviour. But I have followed their way of conduct falling short of those before me, but none after me will equal me in it."

The Greek historian Theophanus does not call Mu'awiya a king or an emperor, but rather a primus inter pares, or in Greek, a protosymboulos, "a first among equals". Theophanus also referred to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab as "primus inter pares", so there cannot have appeared to be much difference between the rule of 'Umar and that of Mu'awiya to an outside non-Muslim observer. We must attribute the later fixation on Mu'awiya as a king with the sense of an absolute monarch or despot to the backdating of things that happened later.

***

The role of Mu'awiya is interesting in modern terms because the rule of Mu'awiya and his immediate successors involves bringing disparate elements into a single unity - as there were really three power bases for a time: Syria and the Umayyads, Iraq where 'Ali based himself, and the Hijaz as represented by Ibn az-Zubayr. How did Mu'awiya manage to bring about a unity and prevent the fragmentation of the Umma into three states? Eventually the single unit broke up again under the Abbasids, and never again were the Muslims a single entity. During Mu'awiya's rule, he had no rivals, a situation which was never to prevail again. Even the Ottomans, the most successful in later times, did not encompass the entire community of Muslims.

The fitna itself was partially a reaction to the centralisation of power. As the provinces manifested a tendency towards autonomy, 'Uthman tried to counter this by appointing people who were loyal to him - who happened to be mostly from his family. Perhaps if 'Uthman had been of a less mild disposition, he might have succeeded. Of course, this raises the question: is it inevitable that such a large political unit will break up into smaller autonomous or semi-autonomous unit? Are 'nations' inevitable? Can this only be countered by an imperial form - which is not the original form of governance? What happens when the centre will not hold?

Looking at the course followed by Mu'awiya to re-establish the centre, once peace was established, Mu'awiya reconciled many of the Muslims who had been fighting each other by his generosity and fairness, not to mention the intrinsic power of his position, and resumed the conquests of Islam which had been interrupted by the fighting. Even the most stubborn of opponents would often melt under his generosity and diplomacy. He also managed through fine diplomacy to balance out the tribal rivalries which later destroyed Umayyad rule. The importance of jihad cannot be understated because without the external struggle against the unbelievers, almost without fail the struggle for power becomes internal.

We have an example of Mu'awiya's astuteness when he visited 'A'isha, the daughter of the murdered 'Uthman, who was lamenting and crying for her father. He said, "Cousin, our subjects have sworn to obey us. In return, we promised to pardon them. If our act of clemency is tarnished by the memory of the past, their submission is also not free of regret. Each, with his hand on his sword, searched the eyes of his comrades. If we were to now break our commitments, we would push them into being disloyal to us. That would open a spate of new difficulties whose end result cannot be foreseen. "

When his friends expressed surprise at the vastness of his gifts to his opponents, he said, "a war costs infinitely more." He said that he preferred to buy men than to cut off their heads, and he took the example of the Prophet, and the Book of Allah in this. This amounts to the Qur'anic category of ta'lif al-qulub, reconciling hearts (see Qur'an 9:60). This is gaining hearts rather than closing mouths, and it was a technique which was quite effective with the unruly Bedouins. Mu'awiya asked 'Amr b. al-'As, "How great is your cunning?" He replied, "I have never entered into anything but that I got out of it." Mu'awiya said, "And I have never entered into anything that I wanted to get out of!"

Mu'awiya was famous for both for his self-possession or hilm and for his political finesse, his daha'. To have daha' means to be a good orator, to have firm resolution in matters, a fertile imagination, an ability to foresee future turns of events, and an ability to manoeuvre people. Mu'awiya had the ability to single out enemies and turn them into allies. Ibn az-Zubayr said of him, "Truly the son of Hind deployed a dexterity and mental resourcefulness as one will never see after him. When we tried to impose something on him, an irritated lion with claws unsheathed would not show more audacity than him. He knew when to give into us, to even allow himself to be tricked when we tried to do that to him. He was the most artful of men, more crafty than a thief. I wished that we would never lose him, just as a rock remains on this summit," pointing to the mountain of Abu Qubays outside Makka.

An example of this is found in al-Baladhuri which involves his wife, Fakhita bint Quraza:

She said to him, "Amir al-Mu'minin, why do you flatter people when you know that they are treated fairly by you? If you were to take the upper hand, they would be the ones abased and you would have force over them." He said, "Bother you! There still is some force in the Arabs. If it were not for that, I would turn them upside down." She said, "By Allah, there is only you and you have power over them!" He said, "Would you like me to show you some of that on their part?" She said, "Yes."

So he put her in a room and lowered a curtain over it and then commanded his doorman to admit one of the nobles at the door.

He admitted a man from Qays called al-Harith. Mu'awiya said, "Little Harith! Is it you who attacks the khalifate and disparages its people? By Allah, I would like to make an example of you!" He replied, "Mu'awiya, have you summoned me for this? By Allah, my arm is strong and my spear is straight! My sword is sharp and my answer ready. If you do not take what I give with thanks, then you will be wrested from what we dislike with humiliation." He said, "Remove him from me." He was removed.

Fakhita said, "How bold this one is and how strong his heart!" Mu'awiya said, "That is only due to his pride in how his people obey him."

Then he ordered the doorman who admitted a man of Rabi'a called Jariya. Mu'awiya said to him, "Little Jariya, it has reached me that you cause disaffection in the army and show little gratitude." He said, "And what should we be grateful for? You only give to avert and you are only forbearing out of flattery. Strive your hardest! Rabi'a is behind me, a strong support! Their shields have not grown rusty since they polished them, and their swords have not become blunt since they sharpened them!" He said, "Remove him."

Then he commanded his doorman who brought in a man from Yemen called 'Abdullah. He said to him, "Little 'Abd! You have behaved badly to people and spoken freely. I have heard such evil things about you that I want to exile you! You will be a lesson for the people of Syria!" He said, "Mu'awiya! Did you summon me for this and then use the diminutive of my name without using my kunya? I call you Mu'awiya, the name of a female dog who barks at dogs! Restrain yourself! That would be better for you!" He said to his doorman, "Remove him."

Fakhita said, "Flatter people with your effort and some of your gentleness and forbearance. Allah will disgrace the one who censures you!"

As regards his hilm, or his forbearance, the quality of resorting to force only when absolutely necessary, Mu'awiya is known for his famous saying, "I do not apply my sword where my lash suffices, nor my lash where my tongue is enough. And even if there be one hair binding me to my fellow men, I do not let it break. When they pull, I loosen, and if they loosen, I pull."

Mu'awiya was welcoming to his subjects at every hour of the day, including mealtimes. He created the first postal system and put it at the disposition of his subjects to use. He was known for his impartiality and justice, even where his family was concerned. He did not make 'Uthman's mistake of putting his relatives into the limelight to the exclusion of others. He would often give judgement against the Umayyads in favour of the Hashimites, especially if it involved Hasan ibn 'Ali whom he was always eager to honour. He once imposed 100 lashes to 'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn al-Hakam, the brother of the governor, Marwan, and confiscated his property. He would have an incorrect punishment publicly rescinded on the minbar, no matter who had issued it.

One thing that is clear in Mu'awiya is his reliance on shura and openness to his subjects with some modifications because of the situation in Syria. Az-Zuhri said, "Mu'awiya acted for two years (in Syria) as 'Umar had acted without altering it." Mu'awiya himself said that he had done his best to follow the behaviour of Abu Bakr and 'Uthman. But when he realised that the environment and circumstances in Syria were different from those in Madina, and that the prevailing culture and people were different, he modified his style of governance accordingly. Mu'awiya himself used this excuse to 'Umar when he came to Syria in 18 AH and Mu'awiya met him with a great retinue. 'Umar disliked that, but Mu'awiya excused himself, saying, "We are in a land where there are many enemy spies. We must display the might of power in which the might of Islam and its people lie. We will frighten them by that." 'Umar was satisfied with that.

This use of pomp does not mean that Mu'awiya indulged himself in luxury, taking advantage of the excuse that he was impressing the Byzantines with his wealth. Mu'awiya could be seen speaking to the people on the minbar of Damascus wearing a patched garment. Yunus ibn Maysar al-Himyari said, "I saw Mu'awiya riding in the Damascus market with his servant behind him. He was wearing a shirt with a patched pocket, going along in the Damascus markets."

Although Mu'awiya is said to be the first king in Islam as he himself is credited, probably posthumously, as saying, "I am the first of the kings and the last of the khalifs," it was a rather strange sort of kingship. He continued to receive deputations from the provinces and the tribes and consulted these assemblies as much as possible, asking for their counsel, mixing with them, and accepting their criticisms. In fact, he knew just how to allow individualism scope without letting it run rampant. He did not worry about what they said about him, saying, "I do not trouble about words as long as they do not lead to deeds," certainly well anticipating the principle of free speech, but with responsibility for any actions to which such words might lead.

He also let people speak their piece and allowed malcontents to vent their bad temper. When informed of a vicious satire against him and another Arab, he said, "I know a more effective method – both of us should raise our hands to heaven to pray against our adversary!" This freedom of expression also provided a healthy brake on centralisation, as people knew that they would always have a hearing. They could always speak out against something and be assured of a hearing in the presence of the Khalif.

Deliberations between the khalif and the bedouins took place in the Community Mosque, where the speakers were free and unconstrained towards the khalif. It is reported about him: "If he wanted to do something, he 'had a look at the people,'" i.e. he consulted them. When he wanted to undertake a major decision, such as delegating Yazid as the next khalif, he summoned such a shura and the debate was unrestrained and very lively indeed.

On one occasion, Mu'awiya ascended the minbar and praised Allah. When he wanted to speak, a lad of the Ansar interrupted him and said, "Mu'awiya! What makes you and the people of your house more entitled to this wealth than us! Allah gave it as spoils to the Muslims by our swords and our spears. We have no wrong action against you that we know of other than our slaying of your uncle Walid, your grandfather 'Uqba, and your brother Hanzala." Mu'awiya said, "By Allah, nephew, you did not kill them. Rather Allah killed them with angels upon angels at the hands of the sons of their father. That was not a fault nor a loss." The Ansari said, "So where is the fault and loss then?" He said, "You spoke the truth. Do you need something?" He said, "Yes. I look after an old woman and sisters and things have been hard on us." Mu'awiya said, "Take what you can from the treasury." The boy took it and then Mu'awiya resumed his khutba.

Once in Madina, he visited a house he wanted to buy and the owner, whose wits were somewhat addled, got up and chased him with a stick. Mu'awiya was amused.

In another instance, Mu'awiya had sent 500 dinars to an Ansari who thought the amount paltry. He told his son to go and throw it in the khalif's face. The young man came and told Mu'awiya what he had been told to do by his father. Mu'awiya put his hand over his face and said, "Come on, obey your father, but do not be too hard on your uncle!" The man threw the money to the ground and Mu'awiya doubled the amount.

Once, losing his composure, he described a bedouin as lying in a report he was giving. The nomad retorted, 'By Allah, the liar is to be found in your shirt!" Surprised, Mu'awiya smiled and said, "Here is the repayment of precipitation!"

He said, "There is nothing I like better than anger I swallow by which I hope for the reward of Allah."

He said, "Intelligence and forbearance are the best things granted to mankind. If someone is reminded, he should remember. If someone is given something, he should be thankful. If someone is tested, he should be steadfast. If someone is angry, he should restrain it. If someone has power over another, he should forgive. If someone does wrong, he should ask forgiveness. If someone makes a promise, he should fulfil it."

Mu'awiya said to 'Amr ibn al-'As, "I free myself from there being a wrong action greater than my pardon, ignorance greater than my forbearance and a fault which I do not cover and evil greater than my charity (ihsan)."

He remarked about his fierce governor and half-brother, Ziyad, "Ziyad mastered Iraq with the sword and I mastered Iraq, Syria, the Hijaz and the Yemen with forbearance."

Once some people came to Mu'awiya and said that his governor had cut off someone's hand on simple suspicion without clear evidence, and Mu'awiya paid them the blood money for the hand and dismissed the governor in question, asking them whom they would like as governor instead.

Another important point was the answerability of the ruler to scholars. He appointed people as qadi who were known for their knowledge of the Shari'a. Mu'awiya himself was subject to judgement. We have the following story in the Ansab al-Ashraf of al-Baladhuri:

'Abdu'r-Rahman b. Zayd ibn al-Khattab owned some land which was next to the land of Mu'awiya. Mu'awiya's trustee in Madina, his client an-Nadir, took 'Abdu'r-Rahman's land and added it to Mu'awiya's land and informed him of this. 'Abdu'r-Rahman said, "I have evidence that Abu Bakr granted it to me on account of my father's participation in the fighting at Yamama." An-Nadir said, "This is the land-grant of the Amir al-Mu'minin."

He took the dispute to Marwan b. al-Hakam and he said, "Make peace between yourselves." He did not like to give a definitive judgement against Mu'awiya. So 'Abdu'r-Rahman b. Zayd went to Syria. When he reached Mu'awiya's door, the doorman met him at al-Khadra' in Damascus. He said to him, "Ask permission for me to visit the Amir al-Mu'minin! He put him off, so he raised his voice, saying, "I must see him! Our ties of kinship must be maintained and our property kept safe which we need more than having it taken from our possession!" Mu'awiya heard him and said, "Let him in."

He entered and greeted him and said, "Your trustee in Madina has gone too far and has taken my land grant received from the khalif of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, which was allowed me by 'Umar. He went to my land and claimed that he had a letter from 'Uthman that he had given it to you. How could 'Uthman give to you a right which was mine?" Mu'awiya said, "You left your land without cultivating it until I worked it. Then I planted 5000 palm-shoots in it. I said, 'It is the grant of Abu Bakr and it is related that 'Umar heard that some people sequestered some land and then left it idle and some other people came and cultivated it. He said that it belonged to the one who cultivated it.'" He said, "By Allah, you have not spoken the truth, Mu'awiya! Give me justice!" He said, "Then I must have the qadi, who is Fadala b. 'Ubayd al-Ansari az-Zuraqi."

The Qadi would not come to the khalif and stayed in his house, saying "One comes to the arbiter." So Mu'awiya and 'Abdu'r-Rahman went to him and he gave them a cushion and said, "Sit down on it."
'Abdu'r-Rahman made his previous statement and Mu'awiya made his previous statement. Fadala thought that the statement of 'Abdu'r-Rahman's was right and gave judgement in his favour.

Mu'awiya said, "We accept what you have said. What is your opinion about what we have planted in it?" He said, "That was undertaken by you. If 'Abdu'r-Rahman wishes, he can pay the price of your planting, and if he wishes, he can make you responsible for them in exchange for the price of the land." 'Abdu'r-Rahman said, "You have been fair!"

Then Fadala said, "Amir al-Mu'minin, is this being done to the like of the descendants of Zayd and 'Umar?" Mu'awiya said to his gardener, "Anything he takes a liking to in our land, is his by the connection of kinship," and he wrote to his trustee to that effect on his behalf and settled his debt and gave him the highest pension (sharaf al-'ata'). He said, "You deserve it, nephew of al-Faruq and son of the martyr." And he gave him some money.

When 'Abdu'r-Rahman had gone, Fadala said to Mu'awiya, "By Allah, if you had acted otherwise, he would have gone to the people of the City of Hijra and to the rest of the people and complained about you. Then what is neither good nor attractive would have occurred." Mu'awiya said, "May Allah repay you for helping me to the truth!" Ibn Zayd left and took his money.

There are various things to be seen in this story. First of all, when 'Abdu'r-Rahman b. Zayd considered he had been wronged by the governor, Marwan, he felt free to go straight to the Khalif and take up the matter. Although Mu'awiya's position was based on valid ijtihad, realising that it was a conflict between himself and someone else, Mu'awiya empowered the Qadi to judge over him. This means that the khalif was not above the judgement of the Shari'a. Indeed, the Qadi would not even go to the khalif. The khalif had to go to the qadi, which indicates that all were equal as far as the Shari'a was concerned, and Mu'awiya accepted this. He accepted it when the judgement went against him and even thanked the Qadi for ensuring that he did what was right. There is absolutely no sense of royal prerogative here and a complete admission that he was in the wrong and the willingness to be corrected and put right.

So in this early vision of leadership, the khalif has conditional rather than absolute authority as a despot would have. Once Mu'awiya said in a khutba, "'Umar appointed me over Syria and then 'Uthman did so after him. By Allah, I never swindled nor monopolised. Then Allah appointed me to command, and I did well sometimes and badly sometimes." Then a man stood up and said, "O Mu'awiya! Rather you monopolised and were bad and neither good nor just!" He said to the man, "Sit down. Why are you speaking?" They went on to exchange words with each other until Mu'awiya said, "Sit down or I will make you sit down." At which the man exclaimed, "I will not sit down! I will go as far from you as possible!" He made to leave and Mu'awiya said, "Bring him back." They brought him back and Mu'awiya said, "I ask Allah's forgiveness. I saw you when you came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and greeted him and he returned the greeting to you and you were guided to him and he accepted that from you. You became a good Muslim. We have spoken harshly to you. Tell us what you need and I will give to you and you will be satisfied."

The Companion, al-Miswar b. Makhrama visited Mu'awiya and said, "Peace be upon, you, O king!" He said, "I know better what you said. Why do you attack the amirs?" He replied, "I do not leave anything without criticising it." He said, 'Miswar! We are not innocent of wrong actions but we hope for the mercy of Allah. I am following a Shari'a of certainty in which Allah accepts the good and overlooks the evil. If I were to be given a choice between Allah and what is other than Him, I would chose Him, and then He would take care of my needs."

He once wrote to 'A'isha requesting some succinct advice and she wrote back, "I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'If anyone seeks the pleasure of people at the expense of the wrath of Allah, Allah will entrust him to them until the one who praised him becomes his critic. If anyone seeks the pleasure of Allah at the expense of people, Allah will be enough for him against them.'" He took this to heart and later said on the minbar of Damascus, "No one abandons fearfulness of Allah but that the one who praised him becomes his critic."

One of the instructions of Mu'awiya to a new governor was:

"Open your door to the people; thus you will have information from them. You and they are equal. When you decide on a matter, express it openly to the people, and no one will expect anything or make demands on you, and you will be able to carry it out. When you encounter your enemies, and they defeat you at the border of your territory, do not let them defeat you in its interior. If your companions need you to assist them personally, do so."

He also said, "Fear Allah and do not prefer anything to that, for there is a reward in fearing Him." He added, "Do not tempt anyone with that to which he has no right, and do not make anyone feel hopeless regarding his rights." This sense of duty to the people under one's authority was important.


Mu'awiya also said when he appointed someone, "The matters most proper to be hastened are the rights of Allah."

If you look closely at Mu'awiya and examine his behaviour, you will see that what he actually did was to take on the Sunna of the Prophet and try to embody it as much as possible in a real and constructive way. If one looks at his statements and behaviour, his inspiration always came from the Prophet, may Allah's blessings be upon him. He envisaged himself as following in the footsteps of his predecessors.

At this point, we should perhaps remark on what is perhaps the major criticism most people direct against Mu'awiya – the fact that he chose his son Yazid to succeed him, thereby instituting a dynasty. Mu'awiya had seen the effects of a civil war and was keen to avoid another one. There was more than one possible contender for leadership at that time. There was not only Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, but also 'Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, who had an even larger following in the Hijaz. 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar could also have made a claim, but he was only interested in matters of the deen. There were also various Kharijite groups waiting for an opportunity to assert themselves.

Mu'awiya, a great pragmatist, realised that Husayn certainly had better character than his son and Ibn az-Zubayr a wider following, but he realised also that Yazid had the army of Syria behind him, which could enforce peace and prevent civil war. He urged Yazid to avoid bloodshed as much as possible. When criticised for having people give their allegiance to Yazid in advance, Mu'awiya pointed out that Abu Bakr had named 'Umar as his successor before his death, and that the upheaval involved in an election could lead to another civil war, which would involve Muslim blood being shed and offer the enemies of the Muslims an opportunity to attack. It was not the desire for a dynasty which led Mu'awiya to have people offer allegiance to his son while he was still alive, but the desire to ensure peace and prevent civil war.

To repeat the judgement on Mu'awiya in a nutshell: The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

"The best of your Imams is the one you love and who loves you, who gives to you and you to him."

During Mu'awiya's rule he put into practice the advice that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant peace, had given him, "When you rule, do it well." He was scrupulous about justice and was generous and fair to people of all classes. He honoured people who possessed ability and talent and helped them to advance their talents, regardless of their tribe. He displayed great forbearance towards the rashness of ignorant men and great generosity towards the grasping. He made the judgements of the Shari'a binding on everyone with resolution, compassion and diligence. He led them in their prayers and directed them in their gatherings. He led them in their wars. In short, he proved to be a balanced and model ruler. 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas stated that he did not see a man more suited to rule than Mu'awiya.

There has been ample testimony to Mu'awiya's abilities. Ibn Taymiyya said, "The behaviour of Mu'awiya with the people was the best behaviour of any ruler. His people loved him," reflecting what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is recorded as having said in the Sahih of Muslim: "The best of your Imams is the one you love and who loves you, who gives to you and you to him." This was Mu'awiya's behaviour in a nutshell.

'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Do not mention Mu'awiya with anything but good. I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'O Allah, guide him!'" Abu Musa al-Ash'ari called him, "Aminu'llah," the trusty one of Allah."

Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, the conqueror of Iraq and Iran and one of the oldest Companions and one of the ten promised the Garden, said that after 'Uthman, he did not see anyone who judged by the truth more than Mu'awiya. He also said, " After 'Uthman I did not see anyone giving more judgement for what was right than Mu'awiya."

Source: http://bewley.virtualave.net/muawiya.html - http://bewley.virtualave.net/muawiya.html

-------------
"I am a slave. I eat as a slave eats and I sit as a slave sits.", Beloved, sallallahu alyhi wa-sallam.



Replies:
Posted By: Alwardah
Date Posted: 12 August 2007 at 5:20am

As Salamu Alaikum

Masha Allah! After reading so many negative article about this companion of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam), this article is like a breathe of fresh air.

Jazakallahu Khairan for sharing it with us.

Wa Alaikum Salam



-------------
“Verily your Lord is quick in punishment; yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (Surah Al-An’am 6:165)
"Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him is our return" (Surah Baqarah 2: 155)


Posted By: sulooni
Date Posted: 14 October 2007 at 8:54am
 http://www.insight-info.com/forum - The Messenger of Allah said:

"Loving Ali is the sign of belief, and hating Ali is the sign of
hypocrasy."
^^^^^^^^^

Sunni references:
- Sahih Muslim, v1, p48;
- Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643;
- Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142;
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128
- Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 1, p202
- Hilyatul Awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p185
- Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v14, p462

This tradition of Prophet was popular to the extent that some of the
companions used to say:

"We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali."

Sunni references:
- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition #1086
- al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47
- al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v3, p242
- Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p91


Also Muslim in his Sahih narrated on the authority of Zirr that:

Ali (RA) said: By him who split up the seed and created something
living, the Apostle (may peace and blessing be upon him) gave me a
promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a
hypocrite would nurse grudge against me.

- Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter XXXIV, p46, Tradition #141


Abu Huraira narrated:

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) looked toward Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husain, and
Fatimah, and said: "I am in the state of war with those who will fight
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you, and in the state of peace with those who are peaceful to you."
^^^

Sunni references:
(1) Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p699
(2) Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p52
(3) Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350
(4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149
(5) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p169
(6) al-Kabir, by Tabarani, v3, p30, also in al-Awsat
(7) Jamius Saghir, by al-Ibani, v2, p17
(8) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v7, p137
(9) Sawai'q al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p221
(10) Talkhis, by al-Dhahabi, v3, p149
(11) Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p25
(12) Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tdadition #6145
(13) Others such as Ibn Habban, etc.

It is the well-known fact in the history that Muawiyah fought Imam Ali
(AS). And based on the above tradition of the Prophet(PBUH&HF) the
Prophet has declared war on Muawiyah. How can we still love a person whom
the Prophet has declared war on him?

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever hurts Ali, has hurt me"

Sunni references:
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, p483
- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p580, Tradition #981
- Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p129
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p263
- Ibn Habban, Ibn Abd al-Barr, etc.

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever reviles/curses Ali, has reviled/cursed me"

Sunni reference:
- al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p121, who mentioned this tradition is
Authentic.
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p323
- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p594, Tradition #1011
- Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p130
- Mishkat al-Masabih, English version, Tradition #6092
- Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173
- and many others such as Tabarani, Abu Ya'la, etc.

===============================================
Muawiyah Instituting the curse of Imam Ali (AS)
===============================================
Muawiyah not only fought Imam Ali, he cursed Imam Ali as well. Furthermore,
he did force/make everybody to curse Ali (AS). To prove it, we begin with
Sahih Muslim:

Narrated Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas:

Muawiyah, the son of Abu Sufyan, give order to Sa'd, and told him:
"What prevents you that you are refraining from cursing Abu Turab
(nickname of Ali)?" Sa'd replied: "Don't you remember that the Prophet
said three things about (the virtue of) Ali? So I will never curse
Ali."

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of
Virtues of Ali, Arabic, v4, p1871, Tradition #32.

he above tradition, by the way, indicates that Muawiyah was surprised why
Sa'd does not follow his order of cursing Ali, like others do. This shows
that cursing Ali was a habit (Sunnah) for people at that time. Who made
this Sunnah? Was it Ali, or those who fought him? Now, who fought against
Ali? Wasn't he Muawiyah (the beloved companion of Wahhabis)? So this
implies that Muawiyah did innovate that habit (cursing Ali as Sunnah).

Below is more references in Sahih Muslim about Sunnah cursing Imam Ali
(AS), to prove that people were urged/forced to curse Ali in public,
otherwise they would face a costly sentence. It is narrated on the
authority of Abu Hazim that:

The Governor of Medina who was one of the members of the house of
Marwan called Sahl Ibn Sa'd, and ordered him to curse Ali. But Sahl
refused to do so. The governor said: "If you don't want to curse Ali,
just say God curse Abu Turab (the nickname of Ali)." Sahl said: "Ali
did not like any name for himself better than Abu Turab, and Ali used
to become very happy when somebody would call him Abu Turab."

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of

Cursing Imam Ali (AS) was an order from the beginning of Muawiyah's reign
for 65 years. He was Umar Ibn Abdil Aziz (may Allah be easy with him) who
canceled this order after more than half a century. Some historians even
believe that the Umayyah descendants themselves killed (poisoned) Umar Ibn
Abdil Aziz, because he changed their Sunnah, one of which was cursing Ali.
(See the Sunni book entitled "History of the Saracens," by Amir Ali,
Chapter X, pp 126-127).

One of the ugliest innovations that started during the reign of Muawiyah
was that Muawiyah himself, and through his order to his Governors, they
used to insult Imam Ali (AS) during the Sermons in the Mosques. This was
even done on the pulpit of the mosque of the Prophet in Medina in front of
the grave of the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah bless him and his Progeny),
so that even the dearest Companions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and Imam Ali
(AS), his family and his near relatives used to hear these swears with
their ears.

Sunni references :
- History of al-Tabari, v4, p188
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p234; v4, p154
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, p259; v9, p80

On insulting Ali Ibn Abi Talib and cursing him during the Umayah period
starting in Muawiyah's reign, it is reported that:

"Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) was cursed on the pulpits (manabir) of the
east and west...", during the time of Muawiyah.

Sunni reference: Mu'jam al-Buldan, al-Hamawi, v5, p38

In her letter, Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) wrote to
Muawiyah: "...You are cursing Allah and His messenger on your minbar,
and that is because you are cursing Ali Ibn Abi Talib and whomever
loves him, and I am a witness that Allah and His messengerloved him."
But no one paid any attention to what she said.

Sunni reference: al-Aqd al-Fareed, v2, p300

"That it was in the days of Bani Umayyah, more than seventy thousand
minbar (in mosques) upon which they cursed Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, in some
of what Muawiyah made a Sunnah for them."

Sunni references:
- Rabeea' al-Abrar, al-Zamakhshari
- al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti


al-Shaikh Ahmad al-Hafdhi al-Shafi'i, composed 9 verses of poetry expanding
on what al-Suyuti has reported in the previous quote, I translated the
first three verses:

And Shaikh al-Suyuti told:
That it was what they made into a "Sunnah".
Seventy thousand mibar plus ten
from the top of which they cursed Haydara (Ali).
And next to this the greatest (sins) look small,
but blame ought to be directed.

Let us now see the opinion of the son of Yazid about his father and
his grandfather, who was the witness from within the royal family!

...When (Yazid) offered the kingdom (throne) to his son, Muawiyah the
second, in order that the flag of caliphate continues to wave in the
house of Abi Sufyan!!

After his death, Muawiyah the second, gathered the people on a well
known day, he stood in them preaching, he said:

"My grandfather Muawiyah stripped the command from those who deserved
it, and from one who is more justified of it, for his relation to the
Messenger of Allah and his being first in Islam, and that is Ali Ibn
Abi Talib, he (Muawiyah) took over it by your help as you are fully
aware."

"Then following it my father Yazid wore the command after him, and he
did not deserve it. He quarreled with the son of the daughter of the
Messenger of Allah, and by that he shortened his own life... He rode
his whim and hope left him behind." Then he cried and continued:

"Surely, the greatest problems of us is our knowledge of his bad
behavior and his awful ending, and that he killed the progeny (Itrah)
of the Messenger of Allah, and he permitted drinking alcohol, and he
fought in the sanctuary of Mecca, and destroyed the Ka'ba."

"And I am not the one who is dressing up for your command, nor the one
to be responsible for your followers... You choose for yourselves..!!"

Sunni references:
- Khulafaa al-Rasool, by Khalid Mohammed Khalid, p531 (The above quote
includes author's punctuation.)
- Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of Ch. 11, pp 336


Muawiyah and Yazid murdering Imam al-Hasan Ibn Ali (AS) by poison,
reported by many, here are a few Sunni references:

1. Tathkarat al-Khawass, Sibt ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi, pp 191-194.
2. Ibn Abd al-Barr, in his "Seera"
3. al-Suddi
4. al-Sha'bi
5. Abu Nu'aym


No reference is required that Yazid and his gang murdered the other son of
Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the grandson of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH): Imam al-
Husain (AS) along with 70+ of his family members and loyals.

More Sunni references on the mischief of Muawiyah:

It is reported from Abdullah, son of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal saying:

I asked my father about Ali and Muawiyah. He (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
answered: "Know that Ali had a lot of enemies who tried hard to find a
fault in him, but they found it not. As such, they joined a man (i.e.,
Muawiyah, as given in the footnotes) who verily fought him battled
him, and they praised him (Muawiyah) extravagantly setting a snare for
themselves for him.

Sunni references:
- al-Toyuriyyat, by al-Salafi, from Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Hanbal
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 4, p197
- History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English version, p202

al-Tabari reported:

When Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan put al-Mughairah Ibn Shubah in charge of
Kufah in Jumada 41 (September 2- October 30, 661), he summoned him.
After praising and glorifying God, he said:

"Now then, indeed a forbearing person has been admonished in the
past... The wise might do what you want without instruction. Although
I have wanted to advise you about many things, I left them alone,
trusting in your discernment of what pleases me, what helps my regime
and what sets my subjects [raiyyah] on the right path. I would
continue to advise you about a quality of yours- do not refrain from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
abusing Ali and criticizing him, not from asking God's mercy upon
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uthman and His forgiveness for him. Continue to shame the companions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of Ali, keep at a distance, and don't listen to them. Praise the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
faction of Uthman, bring them near, and listen to them."

Sunni reference: History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH,
Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 122-123

Also:

The Messenger of Muawiyah then came to them with orders to release six
and to kill eight, telling them:
We have been ordered to let you disavow Ali and curse him. If you do
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
so, we shall release you, and if you refuse, we shall kill you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sunni reference: History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH,
v18, p149


More from Sahih Muslim:

Allah's messenger (PBUH) said to Ammar: "A group of rebels would kill
you."

- Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, Tradition #6968

Also:

Umm Salama narrated that Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him)
said: "A band of rebels would kill Ammar."

- Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, Tradition #6970

Do you know that Ammar, the great companion of the Prophet was martyred in
the battle of Siffin by Muawiyah soldiers, at the age of ninety-three? Is
it clear, now, that The gang of Muawiyah were rebels? Do you know what is
the sentence of rebels (Taghee) mentioned in Quran?

It is interesting to see that the English translator of Sahih Muslim (Abdul
Hamid Siddiqui) has written in the footnote of the above traditions that:

This narration is clearly indicative of the fact that in the conflict
between Hadrat Ali and his opponents, Hadrat Ali was on the right as
Ammar Ibn Yasir was killed in the Battle of Siffin fighting in the
camp of Hadrat Ali. (Footnote of Sahih Muslim, English version, v4,
p1508).

Do I need to comment?!

The very first head that was amputated from the body during the Islamic
period was of Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA). Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad
narrates a tradition which has also been mentioned in the
Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd, and is as follows:

"In the Battle of Sifin, when the head of Ammar Yasir (RA) was cut
off and taken to Muawiyya, two people were arguing over it, each one
claimed that he had killed Ammar."

Sunni references:
- Musnad Ahmad (Pub. in Dar al-Maarif, Egypt 1952), Tradition #6538, #6929
- Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v3, p253

Finally, I would like to finish this article by the following two
traditions:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: If one while praying between
the Rukn and Maqam (near Ka'bah) and fasting, dies but with the hate
of the family of Muhammad, he will enter the Fire. And he who abuses
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
my Ahlul-Bayt is verily an apostate and is driven out of Islam. And he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^
who inflicts pain on my progeny upon him is the curse of Allah. And he
who hurts me by hurting my progeny has verily hurt/angered Allah.
Certainly Allah has made Paradise forbidden to he who does injustice
to my Ahlul-Bayt, or kills them, or assists against them, or abuses
them.

Sunni reference: al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11,
p357 who said this tradition is authentic.
Also:

The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali,
he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed
Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into
the Hell-fire."

Sunni reference: Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33


Thus Muawiyah and his associates were, in fact, cursing the Prophet
(PBUH&HF), and by cursing the Prophet, they were cursing Allah (SWT), and
by cursing Allah, they shall enter the hellfire! By Allah, they will be
asked to account for what they've said! That is a promise by Allah (SWT)
which He shall not break!

"And do not think Allah to be heedless of what the unjust do; He only
respites them upto a day on which the eyes will be fixedly open."
(Quran 14:42)

Wassalam
Virtues of Ali, Arabic version, v4, p1874, Tradition #38.





-------------
www.insight-info.com/forum/default


Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 14 October 2007 at 10:30am

sulooni,

Sectarian theological matters only belong to intrafaith section. Please don't start such issues in this section. Please also read the guidelines in its entirety to follow.

 



-------------
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13


Posted By: sulooni
Date Posted: 16 October 2007 at 11:14am
 http://www.insight-info.com/forum -   Do me a favour peacemaker - read what was written. sectarian theology has nothing to do with historical facts especially when sources are cited. 
dont start such issues in this sections- i dont understand ?
dont reply to a topic? dont site references? dont post a view in response to a statement?
I Thought this was QURAN AND SUNNAH- all of this content is sunnah.
http://www.insight-info.com/forum -
make peace by being just. just means not being bias. if there is a problem with the reply then that means there is a problem with the original post.
if u dont like the content - feel free to move the post.
and join my forum sometime we need peacemakers.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - fi aman allah



http://www.insight-info.com/forum - More On Muawiyah

Here is more evidence on Muawiyah from the History and Hadith:

================
On his Character
================
al-Hasan al-Basri said:

Muawiyah had four flaws, and any one of them would have been a serious
offense:

1. His appointment of trouble makers for this community so that he
stole its rule without consultation with its members, while there
was a remnant of the Companions and possessors of virtue among
them.

2. His appointment of his son as his successor after him, a drunkard
and a winebibber who wears silk and plays tunburs.

3. His claim about Ziyad (as his son), while the Messenger of God
(PBUH&HF) has said: 'The child belongs to the bed, and the
adulterer should be stoned.'

4. His killing of Hujr and his companions. Woe unto him twice for Hujr
and his companions.

Sunni references :
- History of al-Tabari, English version, The Events of Year 51 AH, v8, p154
- History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p242
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v8, p130 who mentions the first
crime as: "His fighting Ali."
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p242
- Khilafat Mulukiyat, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, pp 165-166

Here is some background on the Tragedy of Hujr:

======================
Who was Hujr Ibn 'Adi?
======================
In an effort to eradicate freedom of expression, Muawiyah started off with
the killing of Hujr, who was a famous Tabi'i and the respected Sahabi of
Imam Ali (AS). During the time of Muawiyah when Imam Ali (AS) was being
cursed from the pulpits of the mosques, it caused a lot of pain and grief
to the Muslims, but people were patient. However Hujr in Kufah could not
further bear this and in resistance Hujr used to praise Imam Ali (AS) and
curse Muawiyah. Mughairah who was the Governor of Kufah at that time was
considerate towards Hujr. However, during the Governership of Ziyad, when
Basra was also included with Kufah, differences emerged between Ziyad and
Hujr. Ziyad used to swear (say bad words) and Hujr used to reply to Ziyad.
During this period Hujr also corrected Ziyad when he delayed the Friday
Prayer. Eventually Hujr along with his twelve companions were arrested on
the following charges

- Hujr had organized a group and he used to swear at Muawiyah
- He instigates people to fight against Muawiyah
- He claims that the Caliphate belongs to Imam Ali and his
progeny (AS)
- He supports Abu Turab (nickname of Imam Ali (AS))
- He sends his blessings on Imam Ali (AS)

So under these charges, these personalities were sent to Muawiyah, and
Muawiyah ordered their killing. Before their execution, the executors said
to them:

We have been ordered that if you show negative feelings towards Ali
and curse him you shall be free to go, otherwise you shall have to die
(shall be killed).

Upon hearing this Hujr and his companions refused to do what they were
asked to do, and Hujr replied:

I can't utter those words from my tongue that would anger my Lord!

Following this they were killed, with the exception of Abdurrahman Ibn
Hassaan who was sent by Muawiyah to Ziyad with the order that Ziyad himself
should brutally kill him, and thereby, he was buried alive.

Sunni references :
- Histroy of al-Tabari, v4, pp 190-206
- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v1, p135
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, pp 234-242
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, pp 50-55
- History of Ibn Khaldoon, v3


======================================
Reviving the Customs of the Jahiliyyah
======================================
Amputations of the head and moving the heads from one place to another,
the mistreatment of the dead bodies out of sheer passion of revenge, that
was prevalent during the days of ignorance (al-Jahiliyyah), started again
among the Muslims during this era.

Case 1:

The very first head that was amputated from the body during the
Islamic period was of Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA), the famous companion of
the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF). Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad
narrates a tradition as follows, that has also been mentioned in the
Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd that:

In the Battle of Siffin, when the head of Ammar Yasir (RA) was
cut off and was taken to Muawiyah, two people were arguing over
it, each one claiming that he had killed Ammar.

Sunni references:
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Traditions #6538, #6929 Printed in Dar al-
Maarif, Egypt 1952
- al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v3, p253

Case 2:

The second head that was amputated from the body was for Umro Ibn al-
Hamaq, who was among the companions of the prophet (Allah's blessings
on him and his cleansed progeny). Muawiyah alleged that he has
participated in the assassination of Uthman. When efforts were carried
out for his arrest, he hid in a cave, where a snake bit him. The
people who were in his pursuit cut off the head from the dead body and
took it to Ziyad. He then sent it to Muawiyah in Damascus, where the
head was roamed around the city and was finally presented to his wife
in her lap.

Sunni references:
- al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v6, p25
- al-Isti'ab, v2, p440
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, p48
- Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, v8, p24

Case 3:

The same atrocity was committed against Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr (RA) who
was the Governor for Imam Ali (AS) in Egypt. When Muawiyah captured
Egypt, he was arrested and was killed. His dead body was placed in a
belly of a dead donkey and then was brutally burnt.

Sunni references:
- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v1, p235
- History of al-Tabari, v4, p79
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p180
- History of Ibn Khaldoon, v2, p182

Case 4:

After this, it became a tradition for people who sought vengeance
after their enemies were killed. Imam Husain's (AS) head was
amputated, and was taken from Karbala to Kufah and from Kufah to
Damascus. The body of Imam Husain (AS) was brutally ruined by the
running of horses.

Sunni references
- History of al-Tabari, v4, pp 349-351,356
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, pp 296-298
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, pp 189-192


=======================
On Some of his Accounts
=======================
Jalaluddin al-Suyuti worte:

Ibn Asakir records on the authority of Hamid-b Hilal, that Akil the
son of Abu Talib begged of Ali and said , ' I am poor and needy,
therefore give unto me. ' He replied, ' wait untill my stipend cometh
with that of the other Muslims, and I will give unto thee with them,'
but he was importunate and Ali said to a man, ' take him by the hand
and go with him to the shops of the people of the market and say, '
break these locks and take what is in these shops, ' Akil said, ' dost
thou wish to make me a thief ?, ' Ali retorted, ' and dost thou wish
to make me a thief that I should take the property of the Muslims and
give it to thee, and not to them ?. ' He answered, ' I shall assuredly
go to Muawiya. ' He replied,' that as thou wilest, ' and he went to
Muawiya and begged of him, and he gave him a hundred thousand dirhams
and said, ' get up on the pulpit and mention what Ali hath given to
thee and what I have fiven thee.' Then he mounted, and praised God
and glorified him, and said,


O people I tell ye, verily I tempted Ali in regard to his
religion and he preferred his religion, and verily I tempted
^^^^^^^^^
Muawiyah in regard to his religion and he preferred me to his
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^
religion.
^^^^^^^^^

Sunni refernce: History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English
version, p208


al-Suyuti also recorded:

al-Sha'abi said that the first who preached seated to the people was
Muawiyah and that was when his flesh had increased and his stomach had
grown large. (Recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah). Az Zuhri states that
Muawiya was the first who introduced the discourse before prayers on
the Eid. (Abdur Razzaq in his Musannaf). And Said-b-ul Musayyab says
that he was the first who introduced the call to prayers on the Eid,
(Ibn Abi Shaybah), and he who diminished the number of Takbirs.

Sunni refernce: History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English
version, p204


======================
Raising Quran on Spear
======================
In addition to the atrocities commited by Muawiyah, perhaps his act of
raising the Quran on the spear against Imam Ali (AS) in the Battle of
Siffin undoubtedly reflects on his character as a ruler, a person that
would resort to any means to make his plan a success. He played with the
book of Allah in order to deceive the naive people. As a result of this
trick, al-Khawarij (those who believed Imam Ali is politheist and
unbeliever) emerged in the history of Islam.

Ibn Sa'd reports a tradition from al-Zuhri that:

At the eve of the Battle of Siffin when fight was at it's peak and
people had started to loose hope, Amr Ibn al-Aas said to Muawiyah:
Accept my proposal and order the people (i.e., army of Muawiyah) to
open the Quran (i.e., raise the Quran on spears) and say, O people of
Iraq, we call you towards the Quran, and we decide by virtue of what
is contained in it from al-Hamd to al-Naas.

This act will create dissension in the ranks and file of the Iraqis
and will create hopes for the people of Shaam. Thereby Muawiyah
accpeted his proposal. (to do as he said).

Sunni references:
- Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd, v4, p255 as per
- Khilafat Mulikiyat, Abul Ala Maududi, p345

The same fact has been mentioned in great detail by al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir,
Ibn al-Athir, and Ibn Khaldoon. The purpose behind the propsal was to
create dissension in the ranks and file of Imam Ali's (as) army, and even
if they accept the proposal (of calling towards the Quran), Muawiya's army
would manage to buy time to delay the battle.

Sunni references:
- History of al-Tabari, v4, p34
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Katir, v7, p272
- Histoty of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p160
- History of Ibn Khaldoon, v2, p174
- Khilafat Mulukiyat, Maududi, p345


================================================
Muawiyah and the Origin of the word "al-Jama'ah"
================================================
al-Tabari recorded that:

Sajah remained with Banu Taghlib untill Muawiya transferred them in
his days on the "year of the union (al-Jama'ah)". When the people of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Iraq agreed [to recognize] Muawiyah [as caliph] after Ali, Muawiyah
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
took to expelling from al-Kufa those who had been vehement in the
cause of Ali, and to settle in their homes those people of Syrai and
al-Basrah and the Jazirah who were most vehement in his own cause; it
was they who were called the "transfers" in the garrison towns.

[ The translator of the work writes in reference to the year of the
union as follows: ]

Aam al-Jama'ah the year 40 A.H/A.D 660-661, so called because the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Muslim Community came together in recognizing Muawiyah, ending the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
political division of the first civil war. Pace Caetani, 648; see Abu
Zahrah al-Dimashqi, Tarikh, 188 (no. 101) and 190 (no. 105)


Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v10, p97

Jalaluddin al-Suyuti mentions this very fact, with the utmost clarity in
his work, History of the Caliphs (Tarikhul Khulafa) with the following
words:

al-Dhahabi says that Ka'ab died before Muawiyah was made caliph, and
that Ka'ab was right in what he said, for Muawiyah continued for
twenty years, and none of the princess of the earth contended with
him, unlike others who came after him, for they had opponents and
portions of their dominions passed out of their sway. Muawiyah went
forth against Ali as has preceded, and assumed the title of Caliph.
Then he marched against al-Hasan, who abdicted in his favor. He
therefore became firmly eshtablished in his Caliphate from Rabi'iul
Akhir or Jumadal Awwal 41 AH. The year was therefore called the Year
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the Union (al-Jama'ah), on account of the gathering of the people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
under one Caliph. During this year Muawiyah appointed Marwan Ibn al-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hakam over Medina.

Sunni refernce: History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English
version, p204 (Chapter of Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan)

========================
The Scribe of Revelation
========================
A a pro-Umayad mentioned that:

Muawiyah was a scribe of the revelation. Is your character judgement
better then that of the Prophet?

In the previous parts, I have given the opinion of the Prophet (PBUH&HF)
about those who will fight Ahlul-Bayt based of the most authentic Sunni
collections of the traditions. According to the opinion of the Prophet,
such people were hypocrites and infidels.

Muawiyah and his father Abu Sufyan were among those who fought the Prophet
till last minutes and when they found that Mecca will be captured shortly
and their turn is over, they decided to go under the guise of Islam to save
their life and to destroy Islam from inside. This is what Abu Sufyan, his
son Muawiyah and his grandson Yazid were trying to achieve every day and
night. Now they suddenly became the Scribe of Revelation! Here is the
reason behind it:

>From the time the Caliphate fell into the hands of the Umayad, they strove
to distort the truth and turn everything head over heels. They, thus,
elevated to the zenith of power people who were, during the life of the
Prophet (PBUH&HF), ordinary, with no special standing, while they ignored
others who were at the peak of honor and nobility during the lifetime of
the Prophet (PBUH&HF).

Their sole criterion in for honor and dishonor, was their intense enmity
and excessive hatred for Muhammad (PBUH&HF) and the members of his
household, Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husain, peace be upon them. The
Umayad elevated the status, and fabricated false traditions, on the merits
of every person who opposed the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and his Ahlul-Bayt whom
Allah has purified and from whom He removed all abomination in Quran. They
sought nearness to those who opposed the Prophet, accorded them high
positions and grants so that they enjoyed favors and respect among the
populace. They sought to denigrate, fabricate defects, falsify reports that
denied the superiority and merits of anyone who used to love the Prophet
(PBUH&HF) and would defend him.

Thus Umar Ibn al-Khattab, who used to dispute every command of the Prophet
of Allah (PBUH&HF), even accusing the latter of hallucination in his last
days, became the hero of Islam amongst the Muslims during the time of the
Umayad dynasty.

On the other hand, Ali Ibn Abi Talib who was, to him, what Aaron was to
Moses, and who loved him, and who was loved by Allah and His Prophet, he
who was the guardian of every believer, was cursed from the pulpits for
eighty years. The effect of false propaganda reached to the point that when
the news of assassination of Imam Ali (AS) during the Fajr prayer in Mosque
reached to the people of Syria, they were surprised and asked if Ali used
to pray!

Similarly Aisha, who caused the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) much torment and
disobeyed his instructions and the instructions of her Lord, rose against
the successor of the Messenger of Allah and caused the worst strife known
to the Muslims, a strife which resulted in the death of thousands of
Muslims, became the most famous lady in Islam, with religious rulings being
accepted from her. But Fatimah al-Zahra, the leader of the women of this
world and the world after, she for whom the Lord gets angry if she becomes
angry, and she for whom the Lord is happy when she is happy, became a
forgotten woman, and was buried in the secrecy of the night, after they had
threatened to burn her, and after they forced the door of her house against
her stomach, causing her to lose her child. You can hardly find one amongst
Sunnis who knows a single Hadith which she reported from her father. This
is while their books are replete with the traditions of Aisha simply
because she was the only woman who fought Imam Ali (AS).

Similarly, Yazid Ibn Muawiyah, Ziyad, the son of his father, Ibn Marjanah,
Marwan, al-Hajjaj, Ibn al-Aas, and others from the accursed tree mentioned
in Quran, and who were cursed by the tongue of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), they
became the commanders of the believers and the guardians of their affairs.
As for al-Hasan and al-Husain, the masters of the youths of paradise, the
delights of the Prophet of this nation, the Imams from the progeny of the
Prophet (PBUH&HF), the custodians of this Ummah, they were banished,
imprisoned, murdered, and poisoned. In this way, Abu Sufyan the hypocrite,
the leader in every battle that was waged against the Prophet, came to be
praised and thanked. As for Abu Talib, the protector and defender of the
Prophet (PBUH&HF) with all that he had, who passed his life in hostility
with his people and relatives for the sake of his nephew's call, so much so
that he spent three years in the enclave with the Prophet in the valley of
Mecca, keeping his belief secret, for the benefit of Islam, that some
bridges remained still open with the Quraish and so that they would not
persecute the Muslims as they wished (he was like the believer from the
family of Pharaoh who hid his belief; see Quran 40:28), Abu Talib's alleged
reward turns out to be a pair of slippers in the hellfire, his feet placed
into it and his brain is popping out from the pain!!!

In this way, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, who was the freed man, son of the
freed man, the accursed one, and the son of an accursed one, he who used to
play with the injunctions of Allah and His Prophet, not attaching any
importance to it, he who used to murder the upright and innocent ones so as
to pursue his vile goals and would revile the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF)
while the Muslims would see and hear, became known as the scribe of
revelation!!! They say that Allah entrusted His revelation to Gabriel,
Muhammad and Muawiyah. He also came to be described as a man of wisdom,
political acumen and reflection.

As for Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, the earth did not carry nor the sky did put
its shadow on anyone more truthful in speech than him; he was treated as
a mischief monger. He was beaten, exiled and banished to Rabdha. Salman,
Miqdad, Ammar and Hudaifah and all the sincere companions who took Imam Ali
as their leader and followed him, they met with punishment, banishment and
murder.

Similarly, those who followed the school of the Caliphs, the followers of
Muawiyah and the companions of the schools founded by the tyrannical
rulers, they turned out to be Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'a and they represented
Islam. Whoever opposed them was judged to be a disbeliever.

As for those who followed the school of the Ahlul-Bayt and followed the
gate to the city of knowledge and the first one to accept Islam, he whom
the truth revolved around wherever he was, those who followed the Ahlul-
Bayt and the infallible Imams came to be considered as the people of
innovation and misguidance, and whoever opposed and fought against them
came to be seen as a Muslim.

Surely there is no power and no strength except with Allah, the Highest,
and the most Powerful. Allah surely spoke the truth when He said:

"If it is said to them; 'Make not any mischief on earth', they say:
'We are the righteous ones'. Certainly they are indeed the corrupt
ones but they do not realize it. And if it is said to them: 'Believe
as other people have believed' they say: 'Shall we believe as the
st**id ones believe'? They are the st**id ones, though they know it
not.'" (Quran 2:13)

************************************************************ **************
==============
A Side Comment
==============
A brother mentioned that one may kill another with good intention and with
love towrd each other and both (the killer and the killed one) would go to
Paradise. We have the example of Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) who recieved
commandment to kill his son, Ismail, though it was just a test and Allah
wanted to test both of them, and finally they slaughtered a ship by Allah's
command.

The above incedent is true. However, there is a falacy hiden in the above
argument. Abraham (AS) was a prophet and the order (to sacrifice his
son) was given by God through revelation. Also he did not FIGHT with
Isma'il, nor Ismail FOUGHT back. It was the order of Allah, and both father
and son were SUBMESSIVE to that. There was NO dispute between them.

But let me ask you this question: Did Talha and Zubair received revelation
from God to kill people? Did Quran tell them to fight against their
legitimate Caliph? If so, why not against the first three Caliphs?

Did Muawiyah and Marwan received revelation of ordering people to curse
Imam Ali (AS) and make it a popular habit of people? ... And finally, they
slaughtered the whole household of Prophet (PBUH&HF) including his beloved
son (grandson) in the same way. Do You believe when somebody is ready to
kill the whole house-hold of prophet, he refrains or is afraid of cursing
them? LA WALLAH ...

- Is cursing Imam Ali a sign of love and good intention?
- Is shedding the blood of thousands of innocent Muslims a sign of
affection and obedience to Allah?
- Is erdicating the houshold of the Prophet a sign of love toward them?


-------------
www.insight-info.com/forum/default


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 16 October 2007 at 11:45am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Only shia bother to say "Sunni refrences", if you are shia then no matter what the refrence your post belongs in Intrafaith since you are offering the shia interpretation of sunni ahadith.

The sunni view of muawiyah is that we leave the judgment up to allah.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: sulooni
Date Posted: 16 October 2007 at 7:56pm
http://www.insight-info.com/forum/ - personally i am not sunni or shia rather i am muslim what about u?

either way - oppressive governance is oppressive governance - and if this is about the sunnah of nabi rasullulah (pbuh) then since when did he not stand up to injustice and or oppression. this was the prophet's view - this was not the sunni or shia view.

case and point:
it is a fact that the saudia arabian government provided israeli troops with fuel for their planes for them to be able to go and bomb muslims.
so on one hand i can say that obviously they are wrong and i can go on about the numerous hadith of governance with ill-will - yet on the other hand i can shy away from this and say because i can not offer a logical rebuttle - allahu a'lam -that is always true.

and of course Allah is the best of judges, so stop being so judgmental...



-------------
www.insight-info.com/forum/default


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 16 October 2007 at 9:23pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Any person who says he is not a sunni or shia but simply a muslim has no clue about anything in there religion this is a simple fact.

You dont seem to able to follow instructions, you are posting in the wrong section that isnt to hard to understand now is it.

You may have started your own forum but you dont seem to know how to run one.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: sulooni
Date Posted: 17 October 2007 at 10:17pm
http://www.insight-info.com/forum - rami rami rami....



answer me  a few questions?

do u like mawiyah that much that u can't bear to read about his disgracefulness?

was the prophet sunni or shia?

how many sects of muslims are there?

are you a scholar?


and always remember to be kind in ur speech...don't u think that is how the prophet spoke to his daughter or to his companions?

take care my dear friend rami rami rami

and also rember this is quran and sunnah forum... try to stay within the topic please! thank you much
http://www.insight-info.com/forum -


-------------
www.insight-info.com/forum/default


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 18 October 2007 at 6:36am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem


do u like mawiyah that much that u can't bear to read about his disgracefulness?


You have an over simplistic view of the subject, it is not a matter of like or dislike if you would uphold a lie simply becouse you like it or hide a truth becouse you dislike it then this is despicable behavior. To simplify the subject to such a degree is an indication of your train of thought, i dont think like you so please dont use your reasoning to explain mine you will fall short.

was the prophet sunni or shia?

He was sunni by the definition of the word and according to his teachings.

But answering the question according to how you intended it, As Islam stands some 1400 years after the time of the prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] it is fard for you to practice what the He taught and what the Quran says, according to the Quran itself you are obliged, duty bound and will be held accountable if you do not follow expert opinion regarding the legal injuctions of the Quran unless you are qualafied to deduce your own legal rullings from the Quran and sunnah.

Why should we follow a madhhab [shia or sunni] instead of our own understanding of the religion?

After understanding what a madhhab actually is rather than some vague understanding based upon gossip the answer to this has to come from two sources The revealed guidance, whether the sunnah and/or the quran and our intalect, this is because the Quran and sunnah guides and validates our reasoning, while the intalect is needed to apply general principles found in the Quran to every day life.

"Ask those who recall if you know not" (Qur’an 16:43),

This verse indicates that Allah has people on earth who he has guided to know his religion, it also instructs us to ask them about the matter we don’t know thus giving people authority to say what is right and what is wrong after the prophets time. We also know from this verse ""and in Surat al-Nisa, " If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, then those of them whose task it is to find it out would have known the matter " (Qur'an 4:83), in which the phrase those of them whose task it is to find it out, expresses the words "alladhina yastanbitunahu minhum", referring to those possessing the capacity to draw inferences directly from the evidence, which is called in Arabic istinbat.

These and other verses and hadiths oblige the believer who is not at the level of istinbat or directly deriving rulings from the Qur'an and hadith to ask and follow someone in such rulings who is at this level. It is not difficult to see why Allah has obliged us to ask experts, for if each of us were personally responsible for evaluating all the primary texts relating to each question, a lifetime of study would hardly be enough for it, and one would either have to give up earning a living or give up ones din.""

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/madhhab.htm - http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/madhhab.htm

Also regarding the above verse ""Whoever makes ijtihad without this qualification is a criminal. The proof of this is the hadith that the Companion Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah said:

We went on a journey, and a stone struck one of us and opened a gash in his head. When he later had a wet-dream in his sleep, he then asked his companions, "Do you find any dispensation for me to perform dry ablution (tayammum)?" [Meaning instead of a full purificatory bath (ghusl).] They told him, "We don’t find any dispensation for you if you can use water."

So he performed the purificatory bath and his wound opened and he died. When we came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), he was told of this and he said: "They have killed him, may Allah kill them. Why did they not ask?—for they didn’t know. The only cure for someone who does not know what to say is to ask" (Abu Dawud, 1.93).

This hadith, which was related by Abu Dawud, is well authenticated (hasan), and every Muslim who has any taqwa should reflect on it carefully, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) indicated in it—in the strongest language possible—that to judge on a rule of Islam on the basis of insufficient knowledge is a crime. And like it is the well authenticated hadith "Whoever is given a legal opinion (fatwa) without knowledge, his sin is but upon the person who gave him the opinion" (Abu Dawud, 3.321).

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/madhhabstlk.htm - http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/madhhabstlk.htm


"Not all of the believers should go to fight. Of every section of them, why does not one part alone go forth, that the rest may gain understanding of the religion, and to admonish their people when they return, that perhaps they may take warning" (Qur’an 9:122)

""where the expression li yatafaqqahu fi al-din, "to gain understanding of the religion," is derived from precisely the same root (f-q-h) as the word fiqh or "jurisprudence," and is what Western students of Arabic would call a "fifth-form verb" (tafa‘‘ala), which indicates that the meaning contained in the root, understanding, is accomplished through careful, sustained effort.""

The verse indicates that a group of people in the ummah should
dedicate there lives to learning the religion and admonishing others which gives authority for the systematic scholarship we have and the ijazah system we currently implement.

A person can rationally conclude from this that what muslims have developed and refined in the madhhabs has authority in islam and is an indication of divine guidance for this ummah, so one must decide which legal scholars are on the truth, to deny that any exist would be to claim Allah did not preserve his religion or guide his people as he stated in the Quran.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum -
how many sects of muslims are there?

That depends on if you have invented a new meaning for the word or are following the islamic defanition. A religion can not be entirely comprised of sects, you have the orthodox understanding [sunni] and then you have the new [shia,mutazilli etc]. According to rasul allah's definition we will be split into 73 groups and only one will be on the right path.

Some simple question sister, are sufi's, wahhabi's, Habashis, deobandi's, berweli's a sect the same way shia are a sect in islam?

Do you consider ahmadi's to be an islamic sect what about nusairi's in syria?

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - are you a scholar?

No, i try as best i can to give the scholars opinion regarding matters rather than my own which is why i may seem stern in my words becouse it's not certainty in my research that i am portraying.



-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: sulooni
Date Posted: 18 October 2007 at 8:34pm
http://www.insight-info.com/forum - since the first question was over-simplistic -i'll rephrase: do you like muawiyah?

2- i think u are confusing the word sunni and the term sunni. in arabic sunni means traditional - of the sunnah (the way of the prophet). orthodox and traditional are not synonymous. also- what the prophet said was there is no god but allah and i am the last messenger. before the death of the prophet there were no sects or disputes. i wont get into some of the debateable hadith which u quoted- lets focus on something even more simple and clear. the quran. it says obey allah,obey the messenger and those of you who have authority/ who are vested with knowledge. again the interpretation can also be debated. if someone is like u - a hardcore sunni muslim you would interpret the last part of the ayat as being for example umar or maybe abu hurraira and if u are shia then u would interpret it as being ali.
my point is? - very simple : stop falling into the divide and conquer traps, and judging everyone. rest assure that unless you are infallible which u are definitely not, like all humans for that matter then beware of satans traps...this is the easiest one - ur right everyone else is wrong...adn going to hell.

3-in ur bias reply to how many sects there are u did not answer the question. u just again divided everything into sunni and non sunni. fyi shia is not a new sect. 73 groups? that is unclear. firstly where is that hadith and is it reliable. granted it is - is this ur own scholarly interpretation as to what "group" refers to? and whether or not that statement refered to religious sects?
and do u think that unity amongst muslims is better or division amongst various sects...and we can argue for an eternity about how many there are?

4-when u are not a scholar then like the ayat i quoted u should follow someone who is - a scholar, one vested with knoledge, a religious authority. and what scholar do u follow?

and seriously..lol..if u have no certainty in your research why should anyone else...


-------------
www.insight-info.com/forum/default


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 18 October 2007 at 10:24pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Take your own advice and reply in a cordial manner rather than an antagonistic one.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - since the first question was over-simplistic -i'll rephrase: do you like muawiyah?

Im indifferent, there are ahadith highlighting his bad qualities and there are others highlighting his good only shia like to make a point and judge in absolutes terms.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - 2- i think u are confusing the word sunni and the term sunni. in arabic sunni means traditional - of the sunnah (the way of the prophet). orthodox and traditional are not synonymous.

A term is a word and we are called sunni's specifically becouse of the meaning of that word i.e  those who follow the sunnah of the prophet.

Websters dictionary,

Orthodox:
1 a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion 

Tradition:

1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions4: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

They are inseparable in this context, unless you learn the meaning of words from journalists who cant write and routinely misuse and abuse the English language.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - also- what the prophet said was there is no god but allah and i am the last messenger.

Whats your point Sunni Islam is not a sect it is traditional islam, it is idiotic to label 90% of all muslims on earth a sect it is the main body of the religion not a small group in it. shia literaly means partisan and by that definition it is a group and or sect. Those who didnt side with them remained with the main body of muslims who followed the sunnah hence the term sunni.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - before the death of the prophet there were no sects or disputes.

How does that invalidate anything, you are obliged to follow the Quran and sunnah of the prophet do you derive legal rulings from the quran and sunnah yourself. How do you know what is or isnt part of Islam, by some simplistic cursory analysis of some verses and ahadith or by a comprehensive studies into each and every topic mentioned in the quran and sunnah.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - i wont get into some of the debateable hadith which u quoted-

Pleas do, unless you have hard evidence regarding the authenticity of the hadith you have committed a serious sin by labeling them false.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - lets focus on something even more simple and clear. the quran. it says obey allah,obey the messenger and those of you who have authority/ who are vested with knowledge. again the interpretation can also be debated. if someone is like u - a hardcore sunni muslim you would interpret the last part of the ayat as being for example umar or maybe abu hurraira and if u are shia then u would interpret it as being ali.

You havnt shown a different interpretation than the one i gave which is simply that allah has placed some people in authority and people are obliged to follow them, if you are confused about who these people are in our lifetime this does not negate the fact that they exist.

If you havdnt noticed Saydinah Umar, Abu hurayrah and Ali are all dead so no i am not reffering to them but people alive today, The Quran is for all time and so is Allahs commands if there isnt any person whom allah has guided then we couldnt follow this command can we. You may have also missed the fact that Sunni muslims follow Sayidinah Ali as much as Shia do, if you learnt about sunni islam from shia sources i can understand your confusion.

You need to take off your shia sunni glasses and look at what im saying without such preconceptions as you have misunderstood what i was saying.

In light of what i said ""Why should we follow a madhhab [shia or sunni] instead of our own understanding of the religion?"" it should have been clear that i wasnt passing judgment on who was right sunni's or shia but indicating the basic fact applicable to both sunni's and shia and agreed upon by both sunni and shia scholars that a person has to follow the legal rulings of an expert rather than try to come up with there own.

There is no disagreement on this basic point by any ulumah in any group you could name they all agree with this, despite our differences we agree with our shia brothers on many fundamental things they simply say these people can only come from ahl al bayt we say not
necessarily, neither disagree on the fact that these people exist.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - ur right everyone else is wrong...adn going to hell.

I never said that.
http://www.insight-info.com/forum -
3-in ur bias reply to how many sects there are u did not answer the question.

Actually i did 73, and that is the only number that counts.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - u just again divided everything into sunni and non sunni. fyi shia is not a new sect. 73 groups? that is unclear. firstly where is that hadith and is it reliable. granted it is - is this ur own scholarly interpretation as to what "group" refers to?

i said according to what rasul allah's definition of a group is we will divide into 73 sects and only one will be on the right path, i didnt pass judgment on who this was or how it was defined.

My Questions where to ascertain your understanding of what a sect is and to see if you are confusing labels, since you wont answer the question ill elaborate.

Wahhabi's and Habashi's are sects within sunni islam, there a sect based upon the diferant fiqh issues they have with the majority of muslims who adhere to the madhhabs.

Sufi's are not a sect there a people who practice tassawuf the science of ihsan [different from the science of fiqh], they can be both sunni or shia and they can adhere to differant schools of fiqh, so they can be a sunni, sufi and hanafi all at the same time. Though some Sufi groups have gone to far in there practice and can be called a sect.

Ahmadi's are a sect which came from Islam and are no longer considered muslims.

Most uneducated muslims who have a label fobia simply say there are to many groups and sects, you have sunni, shia, wahhabi, sufi, habashi, ahmadi thinking these are all groups by the same criteria and just reject everything without real knowledge of what is going on.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - and whether or not that statement refered to religious sects? and do u think that unity amongst muslims is better or division amongst various sects...and we can argue for an eternity about how many there are?

Are muslims separate from sunnis and shia now to differentiate the way you have?

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - 4-when u are not a scholar then like the ayat i quoted u should follow someone who is - a scholar, one vested with knoledge, a religious authority. and what scholar do u follow?

Why dont you follow your own advice and follow a scholar, first you have to decide if it is going to be a sunni scholar or a shia scholar you have no other alternative. you missed my Double quotes "" everything in these is a quote of a Ulama not my own words, i even gave you the links to the articles i took them from.

So no i dont understand you advice as i clearly am following the interpretation of a scholar.

http://www.insight-info.com/forum - and seriously..lol..if u have no certainty in your research why should anyone else...

I didnt say that at all, i said i had certainty in the Imams and that i wasnt presenting my own personnel views on the matter.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide - http://www.webwizguide.info