TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: MuslimK on December 05, 2018, 08:27:30 PM
-
After heavily condemning his Shia in Kufa for their treachery, dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowardice, lies etc, Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) then mentions the example of the Companions of the Prophet (saw) to rebuke them.
-
After heavily condemning his Shia in Kufa for their treachery, dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowardice, lies etc, Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) then mentions the example of the Companions of the Prophet (saw) to rebuke them.
After heavily condemning the Muslims of Kufa for their treachery, dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowardice, lies etc, Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) then mentions the example of his Shia to rebuke them.
-
After heavily condemning the Muslims of Kufa for their treachery, dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowardice, lies etc, Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) then mentions the example of his Shia to rebuke them.
Where is the reference for this. You are playing with words.
-
He is probably dreaming.
-
Where is the reference for this. You are playing with words.
"After heavily condemning his Shia in Kufa for their treachery, dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowardice, lies etc, Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) then mentions the example of the Companions of the Prophet (saw) to rebuke them"
Where is the evidence for this. Don't you think we're all playing with words and clips.
-
He is probably dreaming.
You rely a lot on probabilities and assumptions 😊
-
"After heavily condemning his Shia in Kufa for their treachery, dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowardice, lies etc, Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) then mentions the example of the Companions of the Prophet (saw) to rebuke them"
Where is the evidence for this. Don't you think we're all playing with words and clips.
Seems like you didn't watch the clip properly. Anyways, read Sermon 97.
-
Seems like you didn't watch the clip properly. Anyways, read Sermon 97.
I read the sermon and I found it interesting. Especially this bit;
"O those whose bodies are present but whose wits are absent, whose wishes are scattered, and whose rulers are afflicted by them. Your leader obeys Allah but you disobey him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him. By Allah, I wish Mu’awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them"
Note this bit;
"Your leader obeys Allah but you disobey him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him"
So it sounds like this matter wasn't between Muawiya and Ali but was more complex. It was about obeying and disobeying Allah according to the words of Ali.
-
Wow, Great find! Sorry but as usual the Shia miss the bigger picture like you have done. Yes, that is what Ali may have thought about the other side's leader, likewise the other side thought something similar about Ali for not implementing justice in the case of Uthman. It was a Fitna between the believers.
More complex? Well, read this, Ali bin abi Talib himself answers you:
"The whole thing began thus that we and the Syrians met in an encounter although we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet, and our message in Islam is the same. We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger (Allah bless him and his descendants) nor did they want us to add any such thing. In fact, there was complete unity except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it." Letter 58
-
Wow, Great find! Sorry but as usual the Shia miss the bigger picture like you have done. Yes, that is what Ali may have thought about the other side's leader, likewise the other side thought something similar about Ali for not implementing justice in the case of Uthman. It was a Fitna between the believers.
More complex? Well, read this, Ali bin abi Talib himself answers you:
"The whole thing began thus that we and the Syrians met in an encounter although we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet, and our message in Islam is the same. We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger (Allah bless him and his descendants) nor did they want us to add any such thing. In fact, there was complete unity except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it." Letter 58
We don't miss the bigger picture, you disregard the bigger picture by putting forward bits and pieces that suit you and ignore the others.
The whole thing boils down to one thing, Ali was the rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Muawiyah disagreed with Ali over Usman's blood, in other words Muawiya wanted to dictate Ali in how to deal with the murder of Usman.
He put his demands forward and threatened the Islamic Republic, the Islamic Caliphate, the Islamic government that if his demands weren't met over the killing of Usman then he will use his influence and support and will turn towards violence which he eventually did.
According to the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah Muawiya was on the wrong and Ali was on the right and on Haq. You handful of people from a minor group claiming to be Ahle Sunnah can jump up and down all you want. You can't mess with reality and facts.
Ali was the rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Who ever opposed for what ever reason is batil.
-
According to us and the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah Ali was right and on HAQ, and Muawiyya was wrong and on BATIL. The rest can believe what they want to and muddy the waters as much as they want.