Mu'awiyahs Testimony On The Khalifahs

Muhammad Ibn Ismail: Narrated Ikrima bin Khalid:

Ibn Umar said, "I went to Hafsa while water was dribbling from her twined braids. I said, 'The condition of the people is as you see, and no authority has been given to me.' Hafsa said, (to me), 'Go to them, and as they (i.e. the people) are waiting for you, and I am afraid your absence from them will produce division amongst them.' " So Hafsa did not leave Ibn Umar till we went to them. When the people differed Mu'awiyah addressed the people saying, 'If anybody wants to say anything in this matter of the Caliphate, he should show up and not conceal himself, for we are more rightful to be a Caliph than he and his father." On that, Habib bin Masalama said (to Ibn Umar), "Why don't you reply to him (i.e. Mu'awiyah)?" `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "I untied my garment that was going round my back and legs while I was sitting and was about to say, 'He who fought against you and against your father for the sake of Islam, is more rightful to be a Caliph.' But I was afraid that my statement might produce differences amongst the people and cause bloodshed, and my statement might be interpreted not as I intended. (So I kept quiet) remembering what Allah has prepared in the Gardens of Paradise (for those who are patient and prefer the Hereafter to this worldly life)." Habib said, "You did what kept you safe and secure (i.e. you were wise in doing so).

Source: Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Pg. # 1009 - 1010, H. # 4108

Our Questions:

1 - Ibn Umar said, "The condition of the people is as you see, and no authority has been given to me." What does ibn Umar mean by no authority has been given to him by the people?

2 - Mu'awiyah said, "If anybody wants to say anything in this matter of the Caliphate, he should show up and not conceal himself, for we are more rightful to be a Caliph than he and his father." So what right and quality did Mu'awiyah possess that he was more eligible of leadership then Abdullah ibn Umar and his father 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab?

3 - Why was ibn Umar afraid to speak his mind?

4 - What was ibn Umar practicing when he concealed this matter?

5 - Why did ibn Umar choose to remain silent on the issue and why isn't the same rule applied for Ali (a.s) who did not oppose the usurpers? Was ibn Umar a coward?

6 - Ibn Umar said, "He who fought against you and against your father for the sake of Islam, is more rightful to be a Caliph." Who fought Mu'awiyah and his father for the sake of Islam?

7 - Is it not evident from the words of Mu'awiyah that Umar ibn Al-Khattab is not more eligible for this position than himself. Then who was more eligible?


8 - Does this narration not prove in itself that Mu'awiyah did not fight Imam Alee (a.s) to avenge the blood of Uthman ibn Affan but for the seat of leadership?

9 - Sunni books of faith attest that the Caliphate of the first 4 Caliphs were based on consecutive levels of superiority from amongst all the companions. Mu'awiyah certainly did concur with this point of view, hence his claim to a greater entitlement of leadership than Umar. So whose view is the correct one? Present day Ahl ul-Sunnah or the beloved son of Hinda.

^^^ albaqir, just the man I wanna see. How have you been bro? I've not seen Empiree around too lately.

Anyway, there's something bothering me about fasting Ashura. I learnt it was obligatory before Ramadhan was prescribed. Now, I don't understand why shias (albaqir, for one) are casting aspersions on that.

Hkana:
^^^ albaqir, just the man I wanna see. How have you been bro? I've not seen Empiree around too lately.

Anyway, there's something bothering me about fasting Ashura. I learnt it was obligatory before Ramadhan was prescribed. Now, I don't understand why shias (albaqir, for one) are casting aspersions on that.

Salam alaykum brother. Quite an age. It seems you are the one that went into hidding Empiree is a regular dude on NL.

To your question: Obviously there are long list of ahadith pertaining to fasting on Ashura (10th Muharram). On one hand, some ahadith claimed the fasting was an aged practice since the Jahiliyah period [even Aisha claimed the Prophet used to fast also] until Allah legislated Ramadhan, then it became optional.

In contrast, Ibn Abbas reported that the fasting of Ashura started when the Prophet entered Madina and saw the Jews fasting. Upon inquiry as to the fasting with its importance, the Jews told the Prophet that they used to practice that to thank Allah for saving Musa and Israelites from Pharaoh. Based on this verdict, prophet then enjoyed the fasting on the Muslim.

One of the companion said "O prophet! Are we going to be copying the Jews and the christians? Then Prophet legislated the 9th and 10th as against only 10th of the Jews. But Prophet died before the next year so he never fasted 9th.

My submissions are as follows:

1. Bring hundreds of ahadith that enjoyed fasting on Ashura, that hadith of Ibn Abbas will always sink them down!

2. What does the hadith highlights: That prophet entered Madina and saw the Jews fasting?

3. If the hadith meant "Entered Madina" as 1st Hijrah, then why the conclusion that prophet died the following year when he lived for 10years in Madina?

4. If the hadith meant "Entered Madinah" as 9th Hijrah (perhaps after one of his many expeditions), then upon Prophet's relationship with the Jews, among whom have converted, and he married their daughter; why it took him so looong for 9years before he could discover there is a fasting of the Jews called "Ashura fast?" Has he not gotten the dominance of Madina in 9Hijri ?!

5. Since when has it become a practice for the Prophet to consult the Jews on deen (religious) practice? Allah forbade him never to take from the Jews and the christians anything on religious practice. And Allah says His guidance is the best.[surah baqarah:120]

Has Allah not testified that His prophet only act based on inspirations from Him [surah Najm:1-5]?!

6. The month the Jews used to fast for Musa and Israelites safety is Abib (mentioned in the Torah/Old testament). It never synchronized with Muharram.

Whoever forged those two hadiths were not professional liars.

https://www.nairaland.com/2682556/why-fast-9th-10th-muharram

Hkana:
^^^ alba.qir, just the man I wanna see. How have you been bro? I've not seen Empi.ree around too lately.

Anyway, there's something bothering me about fasting Ashura. I learnt it was obligatory before Ramadhan was prescribed. Now, I don't understand why shias (albaqir, for one) are casting aspersions on that.

Yep, I dey around. You the one hiding as baqir rightly said....lol. Just taking break from daliy ahadith posting.

@albaqir, this sheikh seems to be talking about Ashura and Ramadan from 21:00 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJsVTYnhn_Q&index=49&list=WL

Lol.... You're both correct. I've been away a lil. Lol.

Albaqir, those your questions I've thought about them too.... Honestly, I have no concrete answers. I'm actually a bit confused about the Ashura fast.


Empiree resume your posting jooo

Hkana:
Lol.... You're both correct. I've been away a lil. Lol.

Albaqir, those your questions I've thought about them too.... Honestly, I have no concrete answers. I'm actually a bit confused about the Ashura fast.


Empiree resume your posting jooo

hopefully this might help. islamqa.info/en/128633

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8AdSuKKrwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk53PN6CygI

Documentry: Enemy of Enemies: The Rise of ISIL Part 1





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsHrULpYeFk

Enemy of Enemies (Part 2)




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yX6pKOd19Q

Empiree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8AdSuKKrwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk53PN6CygI

Although I haven't watched Sheik Hamza Yusuf's part but this Hanafi Sheik has just made my day fulfilled. Bark'Allahu Empiree for post this.
Joining feet and shoulder in salat is nothing but batil (falsehood). It is void. How do you even feel comfortable and focus when all of you pack yourselves like sardines in the name of "joining feet and shoulder"?! Do you know it was established by... Forget bro. So that I don't bring another argument into the fold.

Salam.

AlBaqir:
How do you even feel comfortable and focus when all of you pack yourselves like sardines in the name of "joining feet and shoulder"?! Salam.

^Talk about literal interpretation of ahadith. Anyway all the ahadith pertaining to joining feet and shoulders in salat are all Marfoo. None of them is from the Prophet. But those who have taken whatever sahabi did as Sunnah of the prophet will continue to argue that they are the best generation. Interestingly the one of the narrators of these ahadith was Numan ibn Bashir who was an eight year old at the demise of the Prophet.

What Prophet commanded was a proper standing and a straight-line during salat to the fact that even if an arrow is to be shot, it will go in a straight-line formed by the Saffu. Funny enough some will even argue that hadith says when we put our feet and shoulders together in salat, Shaitan will not find space to enter. Excuse me Smh! Since when was Shaitan became physical to physically romance in between the space left? He works by whispering! And if he were to stay between the lines, he will rather stay with the driver (Imam) to lead the ma'mun (followers) astray.

The best part of the video is the ayah: {those who are blind in this world will also be blind in the next world}. Ma sha Allah! Where are all the literalist on NL? People like Sino and co. Should this ayah be taken literal? Perhaps that's the way of the Salaf . This (ayah) is exactly what Ayatullah Hakim used to destroy Sheik Ibn Baz, once upon there time. Sheik Ibn Baz was a blind man. Ayatullah Hakim went for Hajj that year and as he was doing Tawaf of the holy Ka'aba, Sheik Ibn Baz, being led by some of his adherent was notified of the presence of a Rafidi Sheik. Sheik Ibn Baz instantly throwed the first punch: "The problem of you this Rafidi is trying to go in-depth into the meaning of the Quran". Ayatullah said: "My apology, Quran says {those who are blind in this world will also be blind in the next world}, are you going to be blind also in the Akhira?! Salam"

Sometimes, taking the metaphoric part of the Quran or ahadith as literal will always constitute huge problem.

^ word! That na drama btw the two shuyuk

Yea, it was narrated by 8yr old boy. smh

Royhingja Muslims facing prospective Genocide in Myanmar

Documentary: Genocide Agenda



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrQRYrpp2cI

vedaxcool:
Documentry: Enemy of Enemies: The Rise of ISIL Part 1





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsHrULpYeFk

Am afraid I do not believe half the claims in this documentary. See, I was not born yesterday. With or without the invasion of Iraq and execution of Saddam, ISIS would have emerged eventually. The Islamists, Salafists and opponent of the Baarth party would have given in to violence to eliminate a ruthless dictator. A nation or state can only endure dynasty rule for so long.

usermane:


Am afraid I do not believe half the claims in this documentary. See, I was not born yesterday. With or without the invasion of Iraq and execution of Saddam, ISIS would have emerged eventually. The Islamists, Salafists and opponent of the Baarth party would have given in to violence to eliminate a ruthless dictator. A nation or state can only endure dynasty rule for so long.

Unfortunately we have no crystal ball to determine what would have happened if Iraq was not invaded but we are living with the consequence of Iraq invasion which triggered several other factors like Assad supporting terrorist in Syria to attack the US in Iraq who eventually turned against him today, the Iraq minister in the documentary said Assad was severally warned about the deadly consequence of what he was doing but he paid no heed instead lied about his involvement like the psychopath that he, is despite the fact the people he supported killed civilians, another factor was that it eventually led to a the sectarian problems because the Shias had to remove Baarth Party loyalist from government, which in turn led to marginalizing the Sunnis, and other allied matters the invasion caused which regardless of whether you were born yesterday or not are clear to see. We can only address matters that have occurred not imagined scenarios. The US invasion was an unmitigated disaster on Iraq. I can only advise you have a second look at the documentary part 1 and 2, the so called Islamist were partnering with Barthist who had oppressed them and do not share their ideology like we see in Yemen where Houthis are partnering with Saleh despite his well documented role in oppressing them? Why are these because it is all politics of seeking power and in such politics every option is on the table. Even Blair thinks otherwise:


Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has apologized for “mistakes” made in the 2003 invasion of Iraq in an interview to be broadcast Monday.

Blair also acknowledged for the first time a link between the war and the rise of ISIL in the Middle East.

The former Labour prime minister’s comments in an interview with U.S. broadcaster CNN were widely interpreted as an attempt to head off the criticism expected in a report into the war by Sir John Chilcot.

Blair said there were “elements of truth” in the argument that the invasion was the principal cause of ISIL’s emergence. The group emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq, which thrived in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion.
Referring to the war that toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, he said: “Of course you can’t say that those who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015."

http://www.worldbulletin.net/headlines/165637/uks-blair-apologizes-for-iraq-war-mistakes

...., long beards and flowing robes aren't indicators of radicalisation; ultra-conservative or reactionary views don't automatically lead to violent acts. Muslims aren't all Islamists, Islamists aren't all jihadists and jihadists aren't all devout. To claim otherwise isn't only factually inaccurate; it could be fatal.
- Mehdi Hassan

Try watching a copy of Four Lions, it might help you and people who think like you, understand better the issue of terrorism!

@vedaxcool

Read and digest my post, it is not too long. I understand your point that the 2003 invasion played a huge role in this. What I disagree on is the claim that situation were all fine in Iraq before the invasion. No, the final clash between Baath party and their opponents was on its way. This is akin to what happened in Afghanistan in the '80s and Egypt several years ago. We have enough crystal balls to determine the outcome if things went differently.

usermane:
@vedaxcool

Read and digest my post, it is not too long. I understand your point that the 2003 invasion played a huge role in this. What I disagree on is the claim that situation were all fine in Iraq before the invasion. No, the final clash between Baath party and their opponents was on its way. This is akin to what happened in Afghanistan in the '80s and Egypt several years ago. We have enough crystal balls to determine the outcome if things went differently.

In the entire documentry no one ever said Iraq was fine before the invasion that is your own invention, furthermore the Baath Party had many oponents not only Islamists in fact there was no presence of al qaeda in Iraq before the invasion, like I indicated earlier we have no crystal ball to have decided what would had happened if there was no invasion rather what we are seeing here is you lack of understanding of the concept of crystal ball, which simply is taken to mean seeing into the future not the past, maybe you meant there are lots of examples based on Afghanistan or Egypt, once again you can only delve into the realm of what if scenario, which we could throw back to you as What if Saddam had voluntarily stepped down and allowed reforms to take place in Iraq or decided to reform Iraq? What if Saddam had died in power and another reform minded individual had change the way Iraq is being governed? What if the . . . are endless, Muslims do not all behave the same in different countries, Iraq is by far more less regid in its Interpretation of Islam compared to Afghanistan etc. In the documentry the guy who was the US adviser on something made a very import statement, that Iraq remains the country of Iraqis and people like Maliki made sure that state failed due to their narrow minded policies, so no one absolve current Iraqis for mismanaging an important opportunity to break from the past and design a shared future, Maliki was sectarian and was bent on revenge this caused incalculable damage to the unity of Iraq. So unless you felt like just opposing a video I posted, I cannot see what point you are laboring hard to make beside imagined scanerio when we have real facts on the grounds to assess.

vedaxcool:


In the entire documentry no one ever said Iraq was fine before the invasion that is your own invention, furthermore the Baath Party had many oponents not only Islamists in fact there was no presence of al qaeda in Iraq before the invasion, like I indicated earlier we have no crystal ball to have decided what would had happened if there was no invasion rather what we are seeing here is you lack of understanding of the concept of crystal ball, which simply is taken to mean seeing into the future not the past, maybe you meant there are lots of examples based on Afghanistan or Egypt, once again you can only delve into the realm of what if scenario, which we could throw back to you as What if Saddam had voluntarily stepped down and allowed reforms to take place in Iraq or decided to reform Iraq? What if Saddam had died in power and another reform minded individual had change the way Iraq is being governed? What if the . . . are endless, Muslims do not all behave the same in different countries, Iraq is by far more less regid in its Interpretation of Islam compared to Afghanistan etc. In the documentry the guy who was the US adviser on something made a very import statement, that Iraq remains the country of Iraqis and people like Maliki made sure that state failed de to their narrow minded policies, so no one absolve current Iraqis for mismanaging an important opportunity to break from the past and design a shared future, Maliki was sectarian and was bent on revenge this caused incalculable damage to the unity of Iraq. So unless you felt like just opposing a video I posted, I cannot see what point you are laboring hard to make beside imagined scanerio when we have real facts on the grounds to assess.

You know what? Beat it. I have been through this before. Too many false claims and I don't know where to begin. But trust me, this isn't over untill it is over.

usermane:


You know what? Beat it. I have been through this before. Too many false claims and I don't know where to begin. But trust me, this isn't over untill it is over.

AlBaqir:
Please where's lanrexlan? Its being a while. My Salam to him.

Wa alaykum salaam waramatulah wabarakatuh dear brother, alhamudulilah I am good. How are you?

Jazakumullah khairan for Remembering me

Who is behind the Syrian Crisis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XXIwDr4iGs

@ lanrexlan, welcome back.

vedaxcool:

Laughing? Since you think this is a joke, we will see who have the last laugh. In your own words;

vedaxcool:
Isis like thaba stated is an extremist group, the only reason they have so far succeeded is simply becos the locals have supported them out of desperation and sectarinism of the maliki govt. What the war on terror has so far succeeded in doing is creating more terrorism. One can only wonder what the end of all this will look like?

www.nairaland.com/1792564/caliphate-declaration-views

Here are the facts;

Before 2014, ISIS was not a formidable threat in the middle east. ISIS only declared their caliphate last year after exploiting the Syrian revolution, garnering enough firepower and manpower to cross over to Iraq where the Maliki government have long succeeded in suppressing them. This is over 10 years since the invasion and 3 years since US troops withdrew from Iraq, yet we are still repeatedly been fed with the same propaganda that US invasion precipitated the rise of ISIS.

I believe, US invasion did open a window for Al Qaida (from which ISIS emerged). However, ISIS rise, brutality, perseverance and success till date has nothing to do with US invasion. It is due to:

1. The sectarian divide in political and religious affairs of the Iraqi society. The bitter resentment of the Sunnis for the Maliki Administration especially when Iranian regime entered the picture.

2. Orthodox Islam in general which is the driving ideology of ISIS all radical Muslim groups. The belief in the obligation of a caliphate for Muslims and full implementation of Shariah.

3. The Syrian civil war. I mean, how many Iraqi town fall to ISIS before this? Even without a power vacuum from a US invasion, see how far ISIS have gone in Syria. Vedaxcool; doesnt this cement my opinion that there exist enough crystal balls to prove ISIS could have emerged in the future even without overthrow of Saddam Hussein?

AlBaqir:
http://www.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=_t_XnmH62L8

http://www.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=Uwb39jahdBA

Mr Sin.o, Lanr.exlan, Empir.ee, kazlaw.2000, Dem.mzy15, tbaba.1234, Abuam.am,

the links dont work

Calligraph Of The Day

Hadith of the day

Pictures of the day

Now that's what I'm talking about... Good job bro Em.piree