[Kemapreedasse]

Assalamu'alaikum

Qouting Rafidhi site:

Baladhuri records:

وحدثني إسحاق وبكر بن الهيثم قالا حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام انبأنا معمر عن ابن طاوس عن أبيه عن عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص قال: كنت عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يطلع عليكم من هذا الفج رجل يموت على غير ملتي، قال: وكنت تركت أبي قد وضع له وضوء، فكنت كحابس البول مخافة أن يجيء، قال: فطلع معاوية فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : هو هذا

Ishaq and Bakr bin Haytham from Abdurazaq bin Hamam from Mu'amar from Ibn Taous from Taous bin Kisan from Abdullah Ibn Amr ibn Al-'as who stated: 'I was sitting with the Prophet of Allah (s) when He (s) said: 'A man will come out of this mountain pass, who will die and he will be outside my nation (Islam)'. I had left behind my father there for wudhu, and I feared, as if holding back my urine, that he would be the one to come, but Mu'awiyah came out. The Prophet (s) said: 'He is the one'.
Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 2 page 120

Ishaq bin Abi Israel: Ibn Hajar said: 'Seduq' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p79), Dahabi said: 'Thiqah' (Al-Kashif, v1 p234). Abdulrazaq bin Hamam: Ibn Hajar said: 'Thiqah' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599), Dahabi said: 'Thiqah' (Siar alam alnubala, v9 p563). Mu'amar bin Rashid: Ibn Hajar said: 'Thiqah Thabt' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p202), Dahabi said: 'Hujja' (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p190). Abdullah bin Taous: Ibn Hajar said: 'Thiqah' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p503), Dahabi said: 'Thiqah' (Siar alam alnubala, v6, p103). Taous bin Kisan: Ibn Hajar said: 'Thiqah' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p448), Dahabi said: 'He had a great magnificence' (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p90). Abdullah bin Amro bin al-Sas: A Sahabi. Moreover, Hafiz Ahmad bin al-Sidiq said about this tradition: 'Sahih according to Muslim's condition' (Jawnat al-Attar, v2 p154) This is the narration which the likes of Abu Bakr Ibn Shihab Al-Alawi Al-Hadhrami, and his student Ibn Aqeel Al-Alawi, and then Ahmed Al-Ghumari and his likes, which include Hasan As-Saqqaf, used to propogate their deviant view regarding Hz Mu'awiyah [RA]. Hasan As-Saqqaf mentioned this in his notes on "Al-Utb Al-Jameel" of Ibn Aqeel (pg.25), and qouted Ahmed Al-Ghumari where he declared this narration to be authentic based on the condition of Muslim (not Bukhari as someone mentioned here), and he also insulted scholars who reported this without mentioning the specific name in hadith, that they did so based on their Nasibi madhhab. It would be really interesting to know the view of Mahmud Sa'eed Mamduh, another shi'i tafdhili.

The first problem in the hadith is Abdur-Razzaq who, although a Imam and Hafiz, got confused in his later days, and anything which he narrated in his later life, and it doesn't exist in his book, then it is doubtful. Surely his book doesn't contain this report. I'll add some qoutes and other problem in narration some other time.

[bortycuz]

Dear Brother in Islam,

The title of your thread is extremely insulting and provocative.

Please change it.

Wasalaam.

[margoaroyo]

Assalamu'alaikum
that they did so based on their Nasibi madhhab. It would be really interesting to know the view of Mahmud Sa'eed Mamduh, another shi'i tafdhili.

why is he tafzili?

[TudareWQT]

Assalamu'alaikum

Qouting Rafidhi site:



This is the narration which the likes of Abu Bakr Ibn Shihab Al-Alawi Al-Hadhrami, and his student Ibn Aqeel Al-Alawi, and then Ahmed Al-Ghumari and his likes, which include Hasan As-Saqqaf, used to propogate their deviant view regarding Hz Mu'awiyah [RA]. Hasan As-Saqqaf mentioned this in his notes on "Al-Utb Al-Jameel" of Ibn Aqeel (pg.25), and qouted Ahmed Al-Ghumari where he declared this narration to be authentic based on the condition of Muslim (not Bukhari as someone mentioned here), and he also insulted scholars who reported this without mentioning the specific name in hadith, that they did so based on their Nasibi madhhab. It would be really interesting to know the view of Mahmud Sa'eed Mamduh, another shi'i tafdhili.

The first problem in the hadith is Abdur-Razzaq who, although a Imam and Hafiz, got confused in his later days, and anything which he narrated in his later life, and it doesn't exist in his book, then it is doubtful. Surely his book doesn't contain this report. I'll add some qoutes and other problem in narration some other time.

Aoothoo billahi Min ashaitan Ar Rajeem......This is exactly why the shias call the ppl of the sunnah "Enemies of the Ahlul-Bait" because of trying to downgrade the crimes of the Ummayyeds. Its well known that Muawiyya opposed the messengers family. He may not hav been as bad as Yazid and may Allah forgive him but this stuff is clear:

This hadith has been narrated. on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters. Amir b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa'd as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat 'Ali), whereupon he said: It is because of three things which I remember Allah's Messenger having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camel. I heard Allah's Messenger say to Ali as he left him behind in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). Ali said to Allah's Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah's Messenger said to him: Aren't you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with the exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call 'Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed:" Let us summon our children and your children." Allah's Messenger called 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family. (Bukhari and Muslim)

But we refrain of speaking ill of Muawiyya because of a tradition attributed to the messenger (May peace and blessings be upon him):

" Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109,

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175: (Sahih Bukhari – Translated by Muhsin Khan)
Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."

Muawiyya tok part in both of these campaigns. He organized them so we should refrain from speaking ill someone Allah may hav forgiven...but don't paint the illusion that certain events never took place just leave the subject alone and Allahu Alim.

[Kemapreedasse]

why is he tafzili?

He has written a book "Ghayat At-Tabjeel wa Tark Al-Qata' fi At-Tafdheel" on the topic. Although the book was written to prove that tafdheel issue comes under valid difference of opinion, but it also clarifies his own opinion on it i.e. he prefer Ali over Abu Bakr, RadhiyAllahu 'anhum. Nothing weird, he is one of staunch defender of Ghumaris.

[Kemapreedasse]

Aoothoo billahi Min ashaitan Ar Rajeem......This is exactly why the shias call the ppl of the sunnah "Enemies of the Ahlul-Bait" because of trying to downgrade the crimes of the Ummayyeds. Its well known that Muawiyya opposed the messengers family. He may not hav been as bad as Yazid and may Allah forgive him but this stuff is clear:

The topic is different...

[TudareWQT]

The topic is different...

lol yes i see now...once i reread the initial post....but my reply still stands. Allahu ALim

[infelconi]

Ahlussunnah As-salamu 'alaykum,

As far as Al-Hafeth Ahmad bin As-Siddiq(rah) he brought fourth more than one narration that I am aware of. According to his younger brother - who is also a Hafeth of Hadith - two of them are authentic according to the conditions of Al-Bukhariy(ra). However, his brother does not do Takfir of Amir Mu'awiyah(ra), nor does he allow anyone to speak ill of him.

There are different routes for at least some of these narrations. However - according to the conditions of other great scholars of Jarh wa Ta'dil - they have to be declared Da'eef due to several reasons - which I do not have time to get in to at the moment. Even if we take these asaneed to be reliable (and discard all matn criticism!): What strikes me as odd is the takfir of a known Sahabi based on isolated reports such as these.

What we have to keep in mind is that all 'ulama of the greatest learning will have some odd opinions - this includes Al-Hafeth Ahmad Bin As-Siddiq Al-Ghumariy(rah). We also need to keep in mind that he considered himself a Mujtahed and had memorised over 100.000 ahadith with their asaneed, biographies of narrators etc. He was an Imam in the field. However, we do not and should not follow these odd opinions, but it does not give us the right to resort to trash talking them on internet forums. Everyone makes mistakes. Like with all other scholars, take what is good, leave what is bad - And refrain from slandering.

May Allah forgive us all, Ulama and Awwam alike, may He shower us with His mercy and let us all die on Iman.

Ameen

[pipitous]

Al Salamu Aleykum,

From what i Know the Book that you have taken this narration out of "Ansab al Ashraf" by Balathree... This book is unacceptable and unreliable, Before you waste your time with the Sanad. The Book in itself is unauthentic and so is the Author. Not to mention that the Man appears to be an employee of the Abbasi caliphs and he used to compliment them to get money.

Al thahabi said the Hadith is Batil.

The Narrator Abdul Razzaq bin Hammam is a Shia and HATES anyone who opposes Ali RA or disagrees with him.

تذكرة الحفاظ ج1/ص364
قال احمد كان عبد الرزاق يحفظ حديث معمر قلت وثقه غير واحد وحديثه مخرج في الصحاح وله ما ينفرد به ونقموا عليه التشيع وماكان يغلو فيه بل كان يحب عليا رضي الله عنه ويبغض من قاتله.

Tathkirat al huffaz 1/364:
...What They Disliked about him is that he is a Shia and Loves Ali with ghulu and that he hates everyone who stood against him

ضعفاء العقيلي ج3/ص109
قال حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق بن يزيد البصري قال سمعت مخلد الشعيري يقول كنت عند عبد الرزاق فذكر رجل عند معاوية فقال لا تقذر مجلسنا بذكر ولد أبي سفيان

Duafa'a al Aqili 3/109:
Muhammad bin ishaq bin yazed al basri said: I heard Mukhallad al Sha'eree saying: I was with Abdul Razzaq and a Man mentioned Muawiyah So He said to him: Do not dirty our Majlis with the mention of Abu Suffiyan's Son.

تاريخ مدينة دمشق ج36/ص187
قال ونا العقيلي قال سمعت علي بن عبد الله بن المبارك الصنعاني يقول كان زيد بن المبارك لزم عبد الرزاق وأكثر عنه ثم خرق كتبه ولزم محمد بن ثور فقيل له في ذلك فقال كنا عند عبد الرزاق فحدثنا بحديث معمر عن الزهري عن مالك بن أوس بن الحدثان الحديث الطويل فلما قرأ قول عمر لعلي والعباس فجئت أنت تطلب ميراثك من ابن أخيك وجاء هذا يطلب ميراث امرأته من أبيها فقال عبد الرزاق انظروا إلى الأنوك يقول تطلب أنت ميراثك من ابن أخيك ويطلب هذا ميراث امرأته من أبيها ألا يقول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال زيد بن المبارك فقمت فلم أعد إليه ولا أروي عنه حديثا أبدا

Tareekh Madinat Dimashq 36/187:
...We were with Abdul Razzaq and he talked about the Hadith which was narrated by mua'ammar from al Zuhdi from...(in a long narration)...So he read what Umar RA said to Ali Ra and al Abbas RA "...So you came to ask for the inheritance of your nephew and he came to ask for the inheritance of his woman from her father..." Abdul Razzaq said: Look at this Fool! he says "from her father" he should say from Rassul Allah Peace be upon him. Zaid bin mubarak said: So I stood up and left and never returned to him and I never narrate anything from him.

الثقات ج8/ص412
عبد الرزاق بن همام بن نافع الحميري الصنعاني كنيته أبو بكر يروى عن معمر ومالك وعبيد الله بن عمر روى عنه أحمد بن حنبل ويحيى بن معين وإسحاق بن إبراهيم وعلى بن المديني كان مولده سنة ست وعشرين ومائة ومات بعد أن عمى سنة إحدى عشرة ومائتين وكان ممن جمع وصنف وحفظ وذاكر وكان ممن يخطىء إذا حدث من حفظه على تشيع فيه

Al thiqat 8/412:
...He was from those who made mistakes when narrating and he had Shiism inside him.

الرواة الثقات المتكلم فيهم بما لا يوجب ردهم ج1/ص125
عبد الرزاق بن همام إمام له ما ينكر وفيه تشيع معروف

Al Ruwat al thiqat al mutakalaam Fihum Bima La Youjib radduhum 1/125:
Abdul Razzaq bin Hammam, he is an imam, He has mistakes and He is famous for being Shia.

الضعفاء والمتروكين لابن الجوزي ج2/ص104
1922 عبد الرزاق بن همام قال النسائي فيه نظر لمن كتب عنه بأخرة كتبت عنه احاديث مناكير وقال عباس بن عبد العظيم لما قدم من صنعاء والله لقد تحشمت إلى عبد الرزاق وإنه لكذاب والواقدي أصدق منه قال ابن عدي حدث عبد الرزاق بأحاديث في الفضائل لم يوافقه أحد عليها ومثالب لغيرهم مناكير ونسبوه إلى التشيع

Al Du'afa wal Matrukin for Ibn al jawzi 2/104:
... Abbas bin abdul Azeem said when he came from Sana: By Allah Abdul Razzaq is a Liar and al Waqidi is is much more trustworthy. Ibn Uday said: Abdul razzaq narrated narrations in fada'el (virtues) which no one else agreed on ... They consider him a Shia.

he was also blinded at the end of his life and he took anything and narrated anything he heard.

Basically No one takes narrations from ghulat of the Shia about Muawiyah RA.





Maybe I'll continue this later, Allah knows best.

[margoaroyo]

He has written a book "Ghayat At-Tabjeel wa Tark Al-Qata' fi At-Tafdheel" on the topic. Although the book was written to prove that tafdheel issue comes under valid difference of opinion, but it also clarifies his own opinion on it i.e. he prefer Ali over Abu Bakr, RadhiyAllahu 'anhum. Nothing weird, he is one of staunch defender of Ghumaris.

thanks

i was not aware he is tafzili..
wil stay away from him and likes

ghumri is a dog of hellfire in the words of imam khaffaji

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post533479

[RooxiaNof]

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

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

[pipitous]

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

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

Salam aleykum,

this is NOT a simple text! This is pretty complicated text, I am sorry ask someone else like brother Abbe maybe or some other Arab speakers.

[RooxiaNof]

ok brother no problem, but can you atleast check that does any narration among those, sets a condition that the ones(general people) taking up mubahila should be infallible or purified?

[pipitous]

ok brother no problem, but can you atleast check that does any narration among those, sets a condition that the ones(general people) taking up mubahila should be infallible or purified?

Salam Aleykum,

No Anyone can Do mubahala, There was one on TV a few days ago between a Salafi sheikh and Yassir al Habib. In the Narrations the Imam is giving advice to his follower to make Mubahal with his opponents before Debate.

[Kemapreedasse]

السلام عليكم

As I said before, Abdur Razzaq got confused during his later age, and the narrations which he narrated duroing this time is to be considered weak.

Imam Ahmed said, "Abdur-Razzaq narrated to us two years before his eyes were lost. Hearing of those who heard from him after his eyesight were lost, is weak".
Nasai said, "He is to be looked upon. Those who wrote (narrations) from him during his old age, they wrote Munkar narrations".
Bukhari said, those narrations which he narrares from his books are authentic. Ahmed said similar thing.. [Refer to "Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb" (6/278), "Meezan Al-E'etedal" (2/609)]

So the narration under discussion remains unauthentic even based on its Isnad. As for matan, then it has even bigger problem, which anyone aware of Islamic history can realize.

From what i Know the Book that you have taken this narration out of "Ansab al Ashraf" by Balathree... This book is unacceptable and unreliable, Before you waste your time with the Sanad. The Book in itself is unauthentic and so is the Author. Not to mention that the Man appears to be an employee of the Abbasi caliphs and he used to compliment them to get money.

Although Al-Baladhuri wasn't famous as hadith scholar, but he was also not that bad. At least I am not aware of any valid criticism on him which serves the purpose here. The things like, him drinking Baladhur and loosing mind control, is not a criticism as this happened before his death. As for his service for Abbasid then again its not a criticism which serves our purpose here. You probably cannot say the same for Imam Malik and Imam Zuhri. The point is, this has nothing to do with the status of Baladhuri as a hadith narrator. And Allah knows best.


The Narrator Abdul Razzaq bin Hammam is a Shia and HATES anyone who opposes Ali RA or disagrees with him. Scholars have different approach when it comes to accepting the hadith of innovator. They accept the narration of innovator who is Thiqah and doesn't preach his wrong views. Many add to it the condition that the narration must not support his innovations. Scholars like Ahmed Al-Ghumari [in Fath Al-Malik Al-Aliyy] would reject this final rule by saying that it was formulated by Al-Jawzjani who was Nasibi, even though Ibn Hajar accepr it. The point is, not everyone accept the rule of rejecting the narrations of ''trustworthy'' innovator when it support his innovation. This is one.

Applying this rule to Imams like Abdur-Razzaq would be even more problematic. Like Ibn Mu'een said, "we will never leave narrations of Abdur-RAzzaq even if he becomes apostate". This shows his importance in hadith. So this would be difficult for the opponents to digest.

Thirdly, the report qouted by you, in which Abdur-Razzaq talks bad about Mu'awiyah, contains Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yazeed who was weak.

Fourthly, the report in which he talks bad of Umar, is mursal till Abdur-Razzaq, and this was said by Imam Dhahabi himself in "Al-Meezan" (2/611). This is besides the fact that Abdur-Razzaq preferred Shaykhain over Ali, as he himself stated this.

[MaraReenece]

Is this the same abdulrazzaq Alsan'ani, author of the musannaf?

[Kemapreedasse]

Is this the same abdulrazzaq Alsan'ani, author of the musannaf?

Yes he was the same Abdur-Razzaq bin Hammam As-San'ani. Whatever exists in his book is correct and other than that is doubtful and should be looked into.

[staisacic]

Assalamu'alaikum

Qouting Rafidhi site:



This is the narration which the likes of Abu Bakr Ibn Shihab Al-Alawi Al-Hadhrami, and his student Ibn Aqeel Al-Alawi, and then Ahmed Al-Ghumari and his likes, which include Hasan As-Saqqaf, used to propogate their deviant view regarding Hz Mu'awiyah [RA]. Hasan As-Saqqaf mentioned this in his notes on "Al-Utb Al-Jameel" of Ibn Aqeel (pg.25), and qouted Ahmed Al-Ghumari where he declared this narration to be authentic based on the condition of Muslim (not Bukhari as someone mentioned here), and he also insulted scholars who reported this without mentioning the specific name in hadith, that they did so based on their Nasibi madhhab. It would be really interesting to know the view of Mahmud Sa'eed Mamduh, another shi'i tafdhili.

The first problem in the hadith is Abdur-Razzaq who, although a Imam and Hafiz, got confused in his later days, and anything which he narrated in his later life, and it doesn't exist in his book, then it is doubtful. Surely his book doesn't contain this report. I'll add some qoutes and other problem in narration some other time.

There is a detailed reply regarding this forgery by shaykh Gibril which insha'Allah I will post up after I get his permission.

[staisacic]

Shaykh Gibril on the Forgery Cited in post 1 by Ahlussunnah via the Answering-Ansar Website

Hope some of you find the above useful... was-salam

[AnthonyKing]

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.