Who were the Ghumaris and what did they really believe?

[confusedshia]

salam,

can someone tell me who the ghumari brothers were and how their views differed with each other specifically on muawiya? is it true ahmad al ghumari made takfir on muawiya? if so, do sunnis say this kufr the same way making takfir on abu bakr is? if not, why not?

thanks

[zaid_ibn_ali]

There were moroccan haditg scholars based around tangiers I think. They didn’t follow a madhab & were sufis.
What is also evident is they had a shia slant in terms of mauwiya but shia is a very broad term & many scholars right from the first generations were said to be shia in the sense they favoured Ali and/or had a negative view of mauwiya.
This is no where near the same as being a twelvee though.
The idrisid dynasty founder was a descendant of Hasan ibn Ali & some say they were Zaydi’s. So its no surprise when you see a pro sayyid/ahle bayt presence in morocco & also Egypt due to fatimid influence.

[confusedshia]

There were moroccan haditg scholars based around tangiers I think. They didn’t follow a madhab & were sufis.
What is also evident is they had a shia slant in terms of mauwiya but shia is a very broad term & many scholars right from the first generations were said to be shia in the sense they favoured Ali and/or had a negative view of mauwiya.
This is no where near the same as being a twelvee though.
The idrisid dynasty founder was a descendant of Hasan ibn Ali & some say they were Zaydi’s. So its no surprise when you see a pro sayyid/ahle bayt presence in morocco & also Egypt due to fatimid influence.

thanks, but did they all make takfir on muawiyah of just ahmad? and does that make them kuffar as well for making takfir on who sunnis consider to be a sahabi?

[confusedshia]

thanks, but did they all make takfir on muawiya or was it just ahmad who did that? and does that make them kuffar as well for making takfir on who sunnis consider to be a sahabi?

[Rationalist]

Zaydis also do takfir against Muawiyah so here is a reply to your question.


>   Bismillah,
>
>   We class anyone who says" La Ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul'Allah" as
>a Muslim, regardless of the sect he/she belongs to under the umbrella of
>Islam.
>   While we disagree with the Zaydi Shia sect about Muawiya, but that
>disagreement does not invalidate their Islam.
>   In fact, the Takfir of Muawiyah was done by some Sunni Ulama such as the
>late Hafeth Sayyed Ahmad bin Assiddiqq, and many other Shuyukh in the past.
>   We view that wrong, plain and simple.
>
>   Yet, all the Shia sects, 12'ers, Zaydi's and others, including the
>Khawarej, most of the Mutazilah view Muawiyah as non-Muslim, or at a red
>light.
>
>   The reason for Sidi Hafeth Ahmad bin Assiddiqq's view is a few Ahadith
>that are authentic in his opinion. Such Ahadith have been narrated and they
>explicitly and clearly declare Muawiyah as non-Muslim. Among the strongest
>narration is one by Imam Balathiri in his Tarikh, with a sanad all of which
>the narrators of Imam Muslim, hence Hafeth Ahmad declared him Kafer.
>   This hadith needs a Hafith to authenticate otherwise it is discarded.
>Obviously Hafeth Ahmad authenticated it, as all its narrators as the same
>narrators of Imam Muslim. Yet other scholars cast doubt on the whole
>narration, not the isnad.
>
>   Another reason Hafeth Ahmad and Zaydi's declared Muawiyah as Kafer is:
>the condirmed act of Muawiyah of cursing and ordering the cursing of Imam
>Ali. Such Ahadith are narrated in authetic isnaad in Sahih Muslim, and
>Sunun Ibn Majah, and almost every single Islamic history reference. If you
>add that fact to the hadith Al Hakem narrated which says: Who curses Ali
>curses me, and who curses me curses Allah", you would see clearly who
>Hafeth Ahmad and the Zaydi's and others went to such extent. There are many
>other Ahadith to that effect also and countering them as well.
>
>   While disagreeing with such result, we see it as wrong, as it is based
>on weak evidence, and the best judgment in this case should be more careful
>and giving the benefit of the doubt, and sticking with most of the
>narrations that are authentic that did not mention such thing, on the
>contrary.
>
>   Bottom line:
>   Since those groups and scholars depend on an explicit prophetic
>narration in their judgement, we cannot declare them anything because of
>this opinion specifically. Though we disagree and believe that such a
>narration cannot possibly be true, besides, confirming such thing or
>denying it, will not affect our own Iman, nor will it increase it
>personally, and Allah will not ask us about the Iman and deeds of Muawiayh.
>
>   The best and safest is to stick to Ahlus Sunnah's stands, and Allah
>knows best.
>   Our stand is to consider Muawiyah a Sahabi without overglorification,
>and avoid entirely the events or wrongs he did. Also we view that cussing
>him or calling him names in not permissible and sinful.
>
>   Shaykh Ahmad Husain Kamel

[confusedshia]

Zaydis also do takfir against Muawiyah so here is a reply to your question.


>   Bismillah,
>
>   We class anyone who says" La Ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul'Allah" as
>a Muslim, regardless of the sect he/she belongs to under the umbrella of
>Islam.
>   While we disagree with the Zaydi Shia sect about Muawiya, but that
>disagreement does not invalidate their Islam.
>   In fact, the Takfir of Muawiyah was done by some Sunni Ulama such as the
>late Hafeth Sayyed Ahmad bin Assiddiqq, and many other Shuyukh in the past.
>   We view that wrong, plain and simple.
>
>   Yet, all the Shia sects, 12'ers, Zaydi's and others, including the
>Khawarej, most of the Mutazilah view Muawiyah as non-Muslim, or at a red
>light.
>
>   The reason for Sidi Hafeth Ahmad bin Assiddiqq's view is a few Ahadith
>that are authentic in his opinion. Such Ahadith have been narrated and they
>explicitly and clearly declare Muawiyah as non-Muslim. Among the strongest
>narration is one by Imam Balathiri in his Tarikh, with a sanad all of which
>the narrators of Imam Muslim, hence Hafeth Ahmad declared him Kafer.
>   This hadith needs a Hafith to authenticate otherwise it is discarded.
>Obviously Hafeth Ahmad authenticated it, as all its narrators as the same
>narrators of Imam Muslim. Yet other scholars cast doubt on the whole
>narration, not the isnad.
>
>   Another reason Hafeth Ahmad and Zaydi's declared Muawiyah as Kafer is:
>the condirmed act of Muawiyah of cursing and ordering the cursing of Imam
>Ali. Such Ahadith are narrated in authetic isnaad in Sahih Muslim, and
>Sunun Ibn Majah, and almost every single Islamic history reference. If you
>add that fact to the hadith Al Hakem narrated which says: Who curses Ali
>curses me, and who curses me curses Allah", you would see clearly who
>Hafeth Ahmad and the Zaydi's and others went to such extent. There are many
>other Ahadith to that effect also and countering them as well.
>
>   While disagreeing with such result, we see it as wrong, as it is based
>on weak evidence, and the best judgment in this case should be more careful
>and giving the benefit of the doubt, and sticking with most of the
>narrations that are authentic that did not mention such thing, on the
>contrary.
>
>   Bottom line:
>   Since those groups and scholars depend on an explicit prophetic
>narration in their judgement, we cannot declare them anything because of
>this opinion specifically. Though we disagree and believe that such a
>narration cannot possibly be true, besides, confirming such thing or
>denying it, will not affect our own Iman, nor will it increase it
>personally, and Allah will not ask us about the Iman and deeds of Muawiayh.
>
>   The best and safest is to stick to Ahlus Sunnah's stands, and Allah
>knows best.
>   Our stand is to consider Muawiyah a Sahabi without overglorification,
>and avoid entirely the events or wrongs he did. Also we view that cussing
>him or calling him names in not permissible and sinful.
>
>   Shaykh Ahmad Husain Kamel

thanks.

can you tell me what narration is being referred to here:

"Ahadith have been narrated and they explicitly and clearly declare Muawiyah as non-Muslim. Among the strongest narration is one by Imam Balathiri in his Tarikh"

[iceman]

Zaydis also do takfir against Muawiyah so here is a reply to your question.


>   Bismillah,
>
>   We class anyone who says" La Ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul'Allah" as
>a Muslim, regardless of the sect he/she belongs to under the umbrella of
>Islam.
>   While we disagree with the Zaydi Shia sect about Muawiya, but that
>disagreement does not invalidate their Islam.
>   In fact, the Takfir of Muawiyah was done by some Sunni Ulama such as the
>late Hafeth Sayyed Ahmad bin Assiddiqq, and many other Shuyukh in the past.
>   We view that wrong, plain and simple.
>
>   Yet, all the Shia sects, 12'ers, Zaydi's and others, including the
>Khawarej, most of the Mutazilah view Muawiyah as non-Muslim, or at a red
>light.
>
>   The reason for Sidi Hafeth Ahmad bin Assiddiqq's view is a few Ahadith
>that are authentic in his opinion. Such Ahadith have been narrated and they
>explicitly and clearly declare Muawiyah as non-Muslim. Among the strongest
>narration is one by Imam Balathiri in his Tarikh, with a sanad all of which
>the narrators of Imam Muslim, hence Hafeth Ahmad declared him Kafer.
>   This hadith needs a Hafith to authenticate otherwise it is discarded.
>Obviously Hafeth Ahmad authenticated it, as all its narrators as the same
>narrators of Imam Muslim. Yet other scholars cast doubt on the whole
>narration, not the isnad.
>
>   Another reason Hafeth Ahmad and Zaydi's declared Muawiyah as Kafer is:
>the condirmed act of Muawiyah of cursing and ordering the cursing of Imam
>Ali. Such Ahadith are narrated in authetic isnaad in Sahih Muslim, and
>Sunun Ibn Majah, and almost every single Islamic history reference. If you
>add that fact to the hadith Al Hakem narrated which says: Who curses Ali
>curses me, and who curses me curses Allah", you would see clearly who
>Hafeth Ahmad and the Zaydi's and others went to such extent. There are many
>other Ahadith to that effect also and countering them as well.
>
>   While disagreeing with such result, we see it as wrong, as it is based
>on weak evidence, and the best judgment in this case should be more careful
>and giving the benefit of the doubt, and sticking with most of the
>narrations that are authentic that did not mention such thing, on the
>contrary.
>
>   Bottom line:
>   Since those groups and scholars depend on an explicit prophetic
>narration in their judgement, we cannot declare them anything because of
>this opinion specifically. Though we disagree and believe that such a
>narration cannot possibly be true, besides, confirming such thing or
>denying it, will not affect our own Iman, nor will it increase it
>personally, and Allah will not ask us about the Iman and deeds of Muawiayh.
>
>   The best and safest is to stick to Ahlus Sunnah's stands, and Allah
>knows best.
>   Our stand is to consider Muawiyah a Sahabi without overglorification,
>and avoid entirely the events or wrongs he did. Also we view that cussing
>him or calling him names in not permissible and sinful.
>
>   Shaykh Ahmad Husain Kamel

"Yet, all the Shia sects, 12'ers, Zaydi's and others, including the Khawarej, most of the Mutazilah view Muawiyah as non-Muslim, or at a red light."

Could you tell me why you think as such? Because I strongly disagree with this. Moawiyah was a Muslim ruler and that is how he is seen as.