lack of information

[feelgud]

another point of view to see the old dispute.
My humble request to Porus and Anajmi to have their say on this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... TnD-vst_BQ

[anajmi]

A very good point made by the speaker. Shias keep reminding the Sunnis that they cursed Hazrat Ali for 70 years in their rule. What they fail to point out is that they realized their mistake in 70 years. They realized that either they were wrong or didn't have enough information to judge one way or another. So going by the honor given to the sahabas by the prophet (saw) and Allah himself, they decided to reform their act. Shias have been going on for 14 centuries now. I hope and pray to Allah that they stop this madness soon as they are playing into the hands of corrupt leaders like the Syedna.

[porus]

another point of view to see the old dispute.
My humble request to Porus and Anajmi to have their say on this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... TnD-vst_BQ

Sayyid Ghamadi's view is a scholar's view which can be summarized as follows:

"It is not easy to determine facts of dispute between Muawiya and Ali especially as so many centuries have gone by just as it is difficult to ascertain facts of happenings in the modern day despite availability of advanced communication technologies."

That is a reasonable point of view. He says that just as Ali had the responsibility to deal with Muawiya's rebellion, Muawiya also had the responsibility to bring to justice the killers of Usman. I do not agree with that view. Only Ali had that responsibility and the authority to deal with Usman's killer as Ali was the rightful Khalifa.

While we can agree that history is never very clear, we can certainly consider what most Muslims have authoritatively reported about the leadership as envisioned by the Quran and Prophet. This was that the authority over Muslims passed onto Ahlul Bayt after Muhammad.

Bearing that 'fact' in mind, Muawiya's actions in encouraging Aaisha to march against Ali in the War of Jamal, launching the war of Siffin against Ali, usurping Caliphate from Hasan (Ahlul Bayt) through superior arms, plotting Hasan's murder and finally appointing Yazid to Caliphate were all against the teachings of the Quran and Prophet. He has therefore earned enmity of Allah in accordance with Prophet's prayer that Allah should be the enemy of those who harbor enmity against Ali.

In summary, Sayyid Ghamadi, understandably, does not want to alienate many who consider Muawiya as Prophet's companion. However, being Prophet's companion does not mean much if you disobey him. After all, the person who poisoned Hasan was none other than his own wife, a companion indeed!

[anajmi]

That is the difference between the prophet's companion and the companions of others. The prophet's companions have a distinction not shared by others. One of them is the prophet (saw) himself.

[anajmi]

Consider this, the prophet (saw) once said referring to Hazrat Ali that anyone who annoys her, annoys me. Does that mean that we can now condemn Hazrat Ali as one who annoyed the prophet (saw)? The prophet (saw) even put his shoe on his face. A guy with mischief in his heart can take this incident, blow it out of proportion and create a new sect within Islam. Those with more sense, consider these incidents within their limited contexts.

[feelgud]

porus,
You must be aware of balanced comments from sunnis abt him as 'he is the one who transformed'khilafat'into'malookiyat' or hub e ali vs bughz etc.
Having said that,let say You were the governor of any of the area that time and you were recieving the information as;the new caliph is being supported by the killers of 'last caliph'. You ve oral communication as a medium to get news. what was your reaction?

[porus]

porus,
You must be aware of balanced comments from sunnis abt him as 'he is the one who transformed'khilafat'into'malookiyat' or hub e ali vs bughz etc.
Having said that,let say You were the governor of any of the area that time and you were recieving the information as;the new caliph is being supported by the killers of 'last caliph'. You ve oral communication as a medium to get news. what was your reaction?

That is a hypothetical question. Instead of asking me to comment on Muawiya's 'reasonableness', you should investigate history and come to a conclusion which satisfies you personally.

Ali had charged his own son Hasan to provide security for Usman and Hasan was wounded defending Usman. It wasn't so much that Muawiya received information that Ali was harboring Usman's killers; it was more that Muawiya manufactured the story to advance his own ambition to become a Caliph over Ali. Muawiya had anticipated Usman to nominate him because Usman was his relative and Usman had appointed corrupt governors from his clan to important posts in the Caliphate. That was the main reason for rebellion against Usman by pious Muslims.

As far as I am concerned, Ali had Allah's and Prophet's authority to be the Caliph which Muawiya knew about but challenged Ali regardless to advance his personal ambition against the teachings of Islam.

This is my last comment on this issue and I do not wish to engage in a debate with Muawiya-lovers on this forum or outside of it.

[feelgud]

That is a hypothetical question. Instead of asking me to comment on Muawiya's 'reasonableness', .

very true...and thanks for your views.

[anajmi]

This is my last comment on this issue and I do not wish to engage in a debate with Muawiya-lovers on this forum or outside of it.

That was a silly comment. Muawiya hasn't done anything to make people muawiya lovers and even if he had, people shouldn't become human lovers like some sects of muslims have chosen to. The entire point of this thread was to try and not become haters because no one truly knows what happened except Allah. Now, shias are Muawiya haters not because he went against the command of Allah and his prophet (saw) but because he went against Ali. Why is that you might ask? Well, I have answered this question many times before on this board. Because otherwise, they would have to hate Bush and Sharon with the same intensity as well, but do they? Of course they don't. Abu Lahab has been condemned in the Quran by Allah but even he is not hated as much as Muawiya. Why is that? You will never hear Mirza Muhammad Athar talk about the battle of Badr and Abu Jahl even though Badr is mentioned in the Quran. Why?

[asif786]

I have heard numerous times shia zakir give detail account of battle of Badr including Mirza Athar. Why should they not discuss? out of 70 kafirs 35 were killed by Ali a.s . Even Ali Zainul abedin a.s in his sermon in Yazid l.a darbar mentioned that i am the son of the man who fought in the battle of badr and hunain.

[anajmi]

Thank you asif. You just solidified the point that I am making.

out of 70 kafirs 35 were killed by Ali a.s .

Was Abu Jahl one of them?

[anajmi]

And by the way, I haven't been to Mirza Athar's lecture in around 15 years but before that, I was a regular. Never heard him talk about the battle of badr or maybe I wasn't paying attention. I still listen to him sometimes online, never heard about badr.

[asif786]

And by the way, I haven't been to Mirza Athar's lecture in around 15 years but before that, I was a regular. Never heard him talk about the battle of badr or maybe I wasn't paying attention. I still listen to him sometimes online, never heard about badr.

I dont remember the exact year when he discussed the battle of badr maybe in last 5 to 7 years

you can listen to Ammar Nakhswani lectures in english about battle of badr and lesson from the story of Abu lahab and many more ........

http://www.sayedammar.com/sayedammarnakshc.html

[anajmi]

The prophet (saw) said about Abu Jahl that - My Firaun is worst than Musa's Firaun. However, Abu Jahl deserves no space in shia stories. The greatest enemy of Islam in the words of prophet (saw) himself and no mention of him by the shias as regularly as Muawiya or Yazid. Why? Because he wasn't killed by Hazrat Ali. Do the shias even mention the names of the young boys who were responsible for defeating Abu Jahl in the battle of badr? No they don't. Shias aren't concerned with the enemies of Islam or Allah or the prophet (saw) unless they are in some way known to be in opposition to Hazrat Ali personally. What does all this tell you?

[anajmi]

He says that just as Ali had the responsibility to deal with Muawiya's rebellion, Muawiya also had the responsibility to bring to justice the killers of Usman.

I watched the video one more time to confirm this. The speaker doesn't say that Muawiya had the responsibility to bring the killers to justice. The speaker says that Muawiya decided to act when he heard about the killers of Hazrat Usman standing with Hazrat Ali when he assumed khilafat.

[anajmi]

Not related but a very good point of view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AszBlWWy ... re=related

[Muslim First]

porus
As far as I am concerned, Ali had Allah's and Prophet's authority to be the Caliph

I am waiting for express and clear Aya Allah saying Ali will be next Khalif and a Hadith where Prophet says After me its Ali. come on brother porus post it.

[anajmi]

He had the authority to be the 4th Caliph. As per his abdes, the Syedna has Allah's authority to be the Dai and the next one will have Allah's authority too.