Salaam.
Just as a reminder, Allah سبحانه وتعالى says in Surat an-Nisaa':
When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or (at least) return it equally.
The very least is try to return my greeting with something similar بارك الله فيك.
I don't know how many times I need to address this. Muawiyah had influence and connections right from the very start. First as Mushrik and Kafirs of Mecca in the early days of Islam. Bani Ummayah and especially the Abu Sufyaan clan and family.
You didn't need to address this as this is well known.
After the demise of the Prophet s.a.w Muawiya served as govner under the first three Caliphs. That's a total of 25 years being part of Caliphate as a governor having areas and districts under his control. Here he build a considerable amount of wealth and influence. He had a lot of supporters.
That's actually not true as he wasn't a governor under Abu Bakr, but no problem, we still agree...
When Ali got into authority Muawiya refused to recognize him. Muawiyah knew the influence, wealth and support he had otherwise he never would have challenged Ali. The conflict with Ali turned into a war consisting of 72 battles. What, lasting 1 to 2 years. That's a long time and a very long conflict with a loss of a lot of lives.
No doubt he had a lot of support and influence, but not as much as Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه. But lets see where you're going with this...
When Hassan got into authority Muawiya even refused to recognize him. Why? The prime excuse against Ali was bringing the killers of Usman to justice by handing them over to Muawiya. But what was Muawiyah's excuse for not recognising Hassan?
Anyways the conflict continued moving on to Hassan. Theu slims got tired and exhausted. And people were thinking of when this conflict is going to end. Hassan examined the situation and did the right thing by ending the conflict. There were two things, either continue with the conflict or put an end to it.
This is why Imam Hassan عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه is considered one of the greatest Muslims off all-time without the need to even mention that he was a Sahabi, a member of Ahl al-Bayt and one of the Two Sayyids of Ahl Al-Jannah. This was even prophesied by the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم; that he would bring piece between two great groups of Muslims رضي الله عنه وأرضاه.
A arrogant and stubborn man would continue with the conflict regardless of the consequences. And Muawiyya did and still would. The wise and intelligent examined and analysed the situation and decided to end the conflict. Infallibility doesn't mean you are better so you should stick to your guns. It means doing what is right and necessary.
As far as Muawiya goes, money talks and wealth counts. He used it to his disposal.
Umm... I've read what you wrote several times, but how does it address ANYTHING that has been said to you by me or anyone else? So an infallible Imam gave up his infallible position to a fallible fasiq? The Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم went through the same, yet you never saw him give up his position as a Messenger to anyone else or even leave it as a matter of debate regardless of what might have happened. I'm afraid you haven't addressed anything and only dug yourself into a bigger hole, because there is no doubt Ali and al-Hassan رضي الله عنهما had WAY MORE support than al-Hussayn رضي الله عنه, and yet al-Hassan made peace and al-Hussayn fought. Care to address that? Or are you just going to go on an irrelevant rant?
"We do criticize them and consider them to be in error in this situation. The questions then become: 1) are they worthy of la'nah because of this? 2) Does this make Imam Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه as well as 11 of his progeny infallible imams?"
Do you know the meaning of la'nah? Is sending la'nah wrong and haraam? As far as infallibility is concerned why does the conflict restrict someone from being infallible? Or looking at the circumstances and analysing the situation and making a decision on a broader basis, why would this effect your infallibility?
As always, since you are not able to answer, you respond with questions. I know what la'nah means and I don't believe it is haraam (outright), there, I answered your question. Now answer mine, was what they did worthy of la'nah?
The second question again, I'll answer, no it does not effect their infallibility, but in what way does it prove it? People analyze situations all the time, how does that make someone infallible? That was my question. You knew what you said was irrelevant, so you decided to respond with a question to derail the discussion.
Muawiyah wasn't a Kafir. It was a conflict between the Muslims and caused by the Muslims. Making peace for the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims is no loss but gain.
Muawiyah wasn't a kafir according to 12er theology? He fought the Imam, took his position, changed Islam etc and he's still a Muslim? I guess somehow this peace treaty "saved" Islam by confirming for the overwhelming majority of Muslims from that time on that Imam Hassan رضي الله عنه was not an infallible Imam and allowed "Sunnis" to dominate the image of Islam, be the sole relayers of the Qur'an, Sunnah, Arabic language, Imam Ali رضي الله عنه's sermons. Amazing the length you'll go to to convince yourself.
😊😊😊 That's precisely and exactly what we're doing 😊😊😊 Take a look at around. Shias have never turned towards violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met or to overthrow a Sunni government. 😊
LOL, I can't believe you can say that with a straight (or smiley) face. This level of ignorance is almost hard to believe. He's sitting here arguing about Sunni/Shi'a theology and telling me that today, he is behaving like Imams Ali and Hassan رضي الله عنهما. The only thing more absurd about that, is that I'm sitting here taking time out of my day to respond to you.
97 Replies
14049 Views
November 22, 2015, 11:57:53 PM