DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Allegations against Sayyadina Mu'awiyah (RA) and Ghurmis

**Yarikoff** · 05-27-2011, 03:40 PM

brother tripolysunni can you please help me out in this ..

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...in-translation

Originally Posted by omarashidwani
salam brother,
commonsense seems to be a rare commodity for you.
1/ virtuous according to you means a person can be wrong in some regard. so Ali was wrong according to moawia(ra) but ahl sunnah deem Ali right which you accept. so was muawiya ahl sunnah in this case? no.
If someone erred in a judgement then does that mean he is not from Ahlesunnah, lol what an idiot. By the way IMam Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul balagha that beliefs of Muawiya(ra) and his group and beliefs of Ali(ra) and his group were same. And he considered them as muslims.

or believe that Ali was wrong. but islam means submission to the will of Allah and following the saying of holy prophet(saw). according to PROPHET MUHAMMAD(SAW),
" whoever fights Ali fights me"
" whoever foul mouths ali foul mouths me"
" Ali is on haqq and haqq is with Ali"
"After me people shall experience fitna, you will split into groups, he then pointed at 'Ali and said Ali and his companions shall be on the right path" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 33016].
lol whe we present narrations regarding Muawiya(ra) you proudce some stupid arguments claiming that they are weak, but you present here weak narrations to back up your argument, strange double standards, btw there is another narration from Prophet(Saw) which states that o Allah make muawiya(ra) a Guide...

Btw way since you back up your argument on fabrications let me ask a question which will expose the dajjali face you are hiding. Since Ayesha(ra) fought Ali(ra), does it means that she fought Prophet(saw)? Please expose yourself mr undercover shia.

2/ as far as ur second piece of alegation is concerned.. see tarikh al tabari, tarikh ibn athir, tarikh ibn kathir albidayah wa alnihayah, tarikh ibn khaldun.....Ali sent emissary to muawia for peace on his return his emissary said. i have seen seventy thousand syrians with unsheathed swords following muawia to avenge the blood of Uthman from his murderer. ali asked against which person. suhail( emissary) replied..against you .
lol, again stupid rafidis like you could rely on books of history to accuse someone, though historians themselves said that whatever they are bringing in their books are to be checked.

Thus first prove that what you said is authentically reported. Secondly what suhail said was his view not of Ali(ra), Who is this suhail by the way, cant he be a sabai in the army of Ali(ra)? who used to lie openly?

in one of his letters to muawiya(ra) ,ali(ra) wrote

from the Servant of Allah, Ali ammerul momineen to Mu'awiya ibn abi sufyan. khaulani has brought your letter to me. You have claimed that I deserted Uthman and instigated people against him. In fact I did no such thing, when people got annoyed with the late Caliph some withdrew their support of him whilst others killed him. I chose to remain in my home keeping aloof from the matter.as regards to your demand that I hand over the killers of Uthman I shall not. I am fully aware that you wish to exploit this as a means to fulfil your own ambitions, which has no aim to avenge the blood of Uthman. By my life if you refuse to abandon your rebellion and opposition, this same chastisement will fall on you as has fallen on every tyrant, sinner and rebel.
imam abu hanifa dinawari, one of the earliset historians recorded it in al akhbar wa altiwal.
wow again a rafidi source, dinawari was a stauch fanatic shia.. great so you rely on shia books to accuse muawiya(ra), mashallah you exposed your self ya rafidi. But for us those are fabrications of Shiatu dajjal.

it is a tragedy that when amru bin aas was criticized by Uthman(ra) he supported the rebels against Uthman(ra) and we find him fighting alongside muawiya(ra) for avenging the murder of Uthman(ra) !!!
again a blatant lie to accuse sahaba.. NOW THIS MAN CLAIMING TO BE SUNNI, FIRST ATTACKS MUAWIYA(RA), AND NOW AMR BIN AAS(RA) IS BEING CRITICIZED BY THIS HYPOCRITE.

So listen shiatu dajjal that, again its a lie spread by your dajjali brothers, because Amr ibn al aas didnt help people in kiling Uthman(ra).

3/ as far as what you deem as tactics, tell me in all fairness a pact is made before battle of siffin that territory will be divided on lines as agreed by muawiya and amru ibn aas, why was territorial division their concern? they had gone to avenge the murder of hadrat Uthman(ra). remember...
well first i didnt knew that you are basing all your arguments from histroy books either written by shias or fabrications, so i dont bother of this unless you come up with any thing authentic.

Oh im sorry as for shiatu dajjal they dont knw what authentic is since whatever is agaisnt sahaba is authentic for them. But for ahlesunnah authentic is that which is reported by a authentic chain of connected narrators. So bring an evidence which fulfils this criteria. BECAUSE HISTORY BOOKS ARE FILLED WITH FABRICATIONS.

4/ hassan was the next legitimate caliph. if only the avenging of uthmans blood was concern why wasnt the first proposal in this regard sent to hassan. was muawiya asking to reconcile for caliphate or Uthmans murder.....
He tried hard to avenge it even in the initial stage of claiphate of hassan(ra), but when he saw that it will cause a greatloss to muslims then he demanded a thing which i consider it to be similar as blood money.

. in fact hazrat Uthmans son questioned muawiya in this regard.
Muawiya(ra) was brother of Uthman(ra) he wasnt some nobody to cliam the qisas for uthman. And again prove what you claim from AUTHENTIC reports, we dont take in account stories of shiatudajjal.

Even when ALi(ra) himself testified that the difference between Muawiya and Ali was NOT in regards to faith etc, but in regards to murder of Uthman(ra). So this throws your fabrications into the trash.

6/ even muhadditheen like imam muslim, tabarani, imam nisai among others have recorded thses events with correct chain of narrations. by the way muhaddiths collected hadith like historians collected history. in fact science of hadith evolved with history. it is actually history that highlights the works of muhaddiths. as i already mentioned sahabi Hujr ibn adi(ra) was killed for not cursing Ali(ra)
So produce before us those authentic chians..... please go ahead. SHOW us who called those narrations AUTHENTIC. Dont spread lies here...

7/
u better study ... hazrat uthman asked moawia for help in preventing the rebels in medina, which could have prevented their entry into medina and hence the bloodshed which hadrat Uthman didnt want.. check tabari, ibn kathir, al muntaqim fil tarikh by imam jauzi and more recently rashid rida imamati uzma..
hahaha shiism and brain damage have a very close relation. Uthman(ra) didnt even knew in the initial stage that there will be bloodshed , at that time they were in madina. So seems you need some histry lessons.

8/
political advisor is a key post. caliphate is a theocratic institution not secular. muawiya distanced himself from the qualified sahaba. imagine the governor of various provinces call Ali a qazab( deviant from truth) maazAllah and they are well rewarded. it was a bidah, an innovation unfounded in the sunnah of prophet (saw) and khulfai rashideen, may Allah rise our ranks with them.his political advisor sir john later instructed yazid about killing husain. imagine a non muslim directing a so called muslim in killing the grandson of prophet(saw)
well you didnt answer my question . if i have 10 advisors , all of them muslims except one. So whats wrong with it? btw advisor means they give advice, its doesnt mean that one neccessarily follows it.. even when there are other muslims advisors in majority.

9/when the Prophet(saw) himself said that a deviant group will kill ammar bin yasir(ra).. who are you or me to debate. besides the support of sahaba clearly distances muawiya(ra)
haha, its rebellious. but that doesnt mean that it effects their faith in any way. As it was testified by ALi(ra) himself in nahjul balagha.

Sorry i wil not entertain your self made and proof less and unauthentic(unless proved to be autnetic) accusations(mostly from rafidi books), we have much more important things to do.

salam well wisher,
let me correct you on various aspects which your conjectures are not ready to accept.

05-27-2011, 03:40 PM	#20
Yarikoff Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 415 Senior Member	brother tripolysunni can you please help me out in this .. http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...in-translation Originally Posted by omarashidwani salam brother, commonsense seems to be a rare commodity for you. 1/ virtuous according to you means a person can be wrong in some regard. so Ali was wrong according to moawia(ra) but ahl sunnah deem Ali right which you accept. so was muawiya ahl sunnah in this case? no. If someone erred in a judgement then does that mean he is not from Ahlesunnah, lol what an idiot. By the way IMam Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul balagha that beliefs of Muawiya(ra) and his group and beliefs of Ali(ra) and his group were same. And he considered them as muslims. or believe that Ali was wrong. but islam means submission to the will of Allah and following the saying of holy prophet(saw). according to PROPHET MUHAMMAD(SAW), " whoever fights Ali fights me" " whoever foul mouths ali foul mouths me" " Ali is on haqq and haqq is with Ali" "After me people shall experience fitna, you will split into groups, he then pointed at 'Ali and said Ali and his companions shall be on the right path" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 33016]. lol whe we present narrations regarding Muawiya(ra) you proudce some stupid arguments claiming that they are weak, but you present here weak narrations to back up your argument, strange double standards, btw there is another narration from Prophet(Saw) which states that o Allah make muawiya(ra) a Guide... Btw way since you back up your argument on fabrications let me ask a question which will expose the dajjali face you are hiding. Since Ayesha(ra) fought Ali(ra), does it means that she fought Prophet(saw)? Please expose yourself mr undercover shia. 2/ as far as ur second piece of alegation is concerned.. see tarikh al tabari, tarikh ibn athir, tarikh ibn kathir albidayah wa alnihayah, tarikh ibn khaldun.....Ali sent emissary to muawia for peace on his return his emissary said. i have seen seventy thousand syrians with unsheathed swords following muawia to avenge the blood of Uthman from his murderer. ali asked against which person. suhail( emissary) replied..against you . lol, again stupid rafidis like you could rely on books of history to accuse someone, though historians themselves said that whatever they are bringing in their books are to be checked. Thus first prove that what you said is authentically reported. Secondly what suhail said was his view not of Ali(ra), Who is this suhail by the way, cant he be a sabai in the army of Ali(ra)? who used to lie openly? in one of his letters to muawiya(ra) ,ali(ra) wrote from the Servant of Allah, Ali ammerul momineen to Mu'awiya ibn abi sufyan. khaulani has brought your letter to me. You have claimed that I deserted Uthman and instigated people against him. In fact I did no such thing, when people got annoyed with the late Caliph some withdrew their support of him whilst others killed him. I chose to remain in my home keeping aloof from the matter.as regards to your demand that I hand over the killers of Uthman I shall not. I am fully aware that you wish to exploit this as a means to fulfil your own ambitions, which has no aim to avenge the blood of Uthman. By my life if you refuse to abandon your rebellion and opposition, this same chastisement will fall on you as has fallen on every tyrant, sinner and rebel. imam abu hanifa dinawari, one of the earliset historians recorded it in al akhbar wa altiwal. wow again a rafidi source, dinawari was a stauch fanatic shia.. great so you rely on shia books to accuse muawiya(ra), mashallah you exposed your self ya rafidi. But for us those are fabrications of Shiatu dajjal. it is a tragedy that when amru bin aas was criticized by Uthman(ra) he supported the rebels against Uthman(ra) and we find him fighting alongside muawiya(ra) for avenging the murder of Uthman(ra) !!! again a blatant lie to accuse sahaba.. NOW THIS MAN CLAIMING TO BE SUNNI, FIRST ATTACKS MUAWIYA(RA), AND NOW AMR BIN AAS(RA) IS BEING CRITICIZED BY THIS HYPOCRITE. So listen shiatu dajjal that, again its a lie spread by your dajjali brothers, because Amr ibn al aas didnt help people in kiling Uthman(ra). 3/ as far as what you deem as tactics, tell me in all fairness a pact is made before battle of siffin that territory will be divided on lines as agreed by muawiya and amru ibn aas, why was territorial division their concern? they had gone to avenge the murder of hadrat Uthman(ra). remember... well first i didnt knew that you are basing all your arguments from histroy books either written by shias or fabrications, so i dont bother of this unless you come up with any thing authentic. Oh im sorry as for shiatu dajjal they dont knw what authentic is since whatever is agaisnt sahaba is authentic for them. But for ahlesunnah authentic is that which is reported by a authentic chain of connected narrators. So bring an evidence which fulfils this criteria. BECAUSE HISTORY BOOKS ARE FILLED WITH FABRICATIONS. 4/ hassan was the next legitimate caliph. if only the avenging of uthmans blood was concern why wasnt the first proposal in this regard sent to hassan. was muawiya asking to reconcile for caliphate or Uthmans murder..... He tried hard to avenge it even in the initial stage of claiphate of hassan(ra), but when he saw that it will cause a greatloss to muslims then he demanded a thing which i consider it to be similar as blood money. . in fact hazrat Uthmans son questioned muawiya in this regard. Muawiya(ra) was brother of Uthman(ra) he wasnt some nobody to cliam the qisas for uthman. And again prove what you claim from AUTHENTIC reports, we dont take in account stories of shiatudajjal. Even when ALi(ra) himself testified that the difference between Muawiya and Ali was NOT in regards to faith etc, but in regards to murder of Uthman(ra). So this throws your fabrications into the trash. 6/ even muhadditheen like imam muslim, tabarani, imam nisai among others have recorded thses events with correct chain of narrations. by the way muhaddiths collected hadith like historians collected history. in fact science of hadith evolved with history. it is actually history that highlights the works of muhaddiths. as i already mentioned sahabi Hujr ibn adi(ra) was killed for not cursing Ali(ra) So produce before us those authentic chians..... please go ahead. SHOW us who called those narrations AUTHENTIC. Dont spread lies here... 7/ u better study ... hazrat uthman asked moawia for help in preventing the rebels in medina, which could have prevented their entry into medina and hence the bloodshed which hadrat Uthman didnt want.. check tabari, ibn kathir, al muntaqim fil tarikh by imam jauzi and more recently rashid rida imamati uzma.. hahaha shiism and brain damage have a very close relation. Uthman(ra) didnt even knew in the initial stage that there will be bloodshed , at that time they were in madina. So seems you need some histry lessons. 8/ political advisor is a key post. caliphate is a theocratic institution not secular. muawiya distanced himself from the qualified sahaba. imagine the governor of various provinces call Ali a qazab( deviant from truth) maazAllah and they are well rewarded. it was a bidah, an innovation unfounded in the sunnah of prophet (saw) and khulfai rashideen, may Allah rise our ranks with them.his political advisor sir john later instructed yazid about killing husain. imagine a non muslim directing a so called muslim in killing the grandson of prophet(saw) well you didnt answer my question . if i have 10 advisors , all of them muslims except one. So whats wrong with it? btw advisor means they give advice, its doesnt mean that one neccessarily follows it.. even when there are other muslims advisors in majority. 9/when the Prophet(saw) himself said that a deviant group will kill ammar bin yasir(ra).. who are you or me to debate. besides the support of sahaba clearly distances muawiya(ra) haha, its rebellious. but that doesnt mean that it effects their faith in any way. As it was testified by ALi(ra) himself in nahjul balagha. Sorry i wil not entertain your self made and proof less and unauthentic(unless proved to be autnetic) accusations(mostly from rafidi books), we have much more important things to do. salam well wisher, let me correct you on various aspects which your conjectures are not ready to accept.
	Quote