Malik al Ashtar

[Ameen]

Also keep this fact in mind that Bani Umeya and Bani Abbas were in power for quite sometime, so Islamic history is what they've made of it. People do a lot to stay in power and keep the opposition low and out. So you won't find reliable information about many that these two (Umeyads and Abbasids) didn't get along with.

Quite a few Shia states were also in power for some time, in the time of bani Buwayh for instance the Imami Shia were on top of the world in terms of support from the state, then the Fatimi state, then the `Ubaydi state and the Shia who ruled Yaman and the Safiwiyyah to list some.

As for bani Umayyah "distorting history" you've done them injustice, rather if one reads history books he'd think banu Hashim were in charge of writing history as it only favors them and makes bani Umayyah look like evil tyrants all the time. Heck even banu al-`Abbas's leaders are not favored by the history books like Banu Hashim.

This isn't a matter of political history however, this is a matter of Hadith and the identity of a certain individual, was he a Sahabi or not? So please don't dive into your usual nonsense conspiracy theories and waste our time.

If you have evidence for his companionship, bring it forward, if not then not.

I've done Bani Umeya unjustice??? LOL! How they governed and what they did is right infront of you. The war of Safeen and the damage they caused, how someone like Yazeed was named and appointed as a succuessor, how the members of Ahlul Baith along with certain companions were oppressed, the list is endless.

As for Hadiths, well you clearly know that the Ummah was kept away from this treasure right from the very first Khalif.

Hadiths have clearly been altered and tampered with. And some are strong and some are weak, some are true and some are false.

Brother as far as wasting time is concerned, we do not waste peoples time with double standards like some. We are very clear in our faith and belief and also in our thought, opinion and point of view.

We do not yapp on about the Sahaba and then it's only a handful that we are interested in. Sahabiath for some just evolves around khilafath or Khulafa and that is it.

We never here a single word about Ammar, Salman, Abu Zarr, Miqdad, Habib etc and many more, from these protectors and defenders of Sahaba and Sahabiath.

The first Khalif is very important, his daughter is very imporatnt but when it comes to his son (Muhammad ibne Abu Bakar) then not a single word. Why?

[Farid]

Ameen, Malik Al-Ashtar was a Tabi'ee, not a Sahabi.

So where is the reference for this?? And what is the difference between the two???
 

Ibn Hibban mentions him as a Tabi'ee. There is no evidence of him being a Sahabi.

A Sahabi met the Prophet - peace be upon him, while a Tabi'ee did not.

[Moin]

Al-Ashtar is one of the evidence that sunni Jarh Ta'deel system is not based on whims. No doubt he, along with Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, were involved in Fitnah against 'Uthman (ra) but one can simply refer to their biographical entries in sunni books. There is no curse and abuse against them. They were not even weakened in hadith. Why? Because they were not bad in themselves but fell in satanic trap once in their life. That was the case with Marwan bin Hakam and people like them. They fell into mistake and they died. Our common approach with them is to avoid backbiting. May Allah forgive them. This is unlike Rawafidh whose madhhab itself is based on ridiculing personalities.

[Ameen]

Ameen, Malik Al-Ashtar was a Tabi'ee, not a Sahabi.

So where is the reference for this?? And what is the difference between the two???
 

Ibn Hibban mentions him as a Tabi'ee. There is no evidence of him being a Sahabi.

A Sahabi met the Prophet - peace be upon him, while a Tabi'ee did not.

He was older than Hazrath Ali (as) and was also the cousin of the Prophet (pbuh). But anyone who has been loyal to Hazrath Ali (as), be it Ammar, Abu Zarr, Miqdad, Salman, Abdullah ibn Masood, Malik Al Ashtar, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakar etc, my Sunni brothers have an issue.And when it comes to the likes of Waleed ibn Uqbah, Marwan ibn Hakam, Ameer Muavia, Umru ibn Al Ass etc, my Sunni brothers look up to such individuals.

I think it has all to do with taking sides. But the surprise is that Sunni brothers believe that one should obey the Ulul Amre (haqim e waqth) and must not rebel against him but here we have double standards that, those who rebelled against Hazrath Usman (ra) are considered bad but those who rebelled against Hazrath Ali (as), well... sssshhh. Lets keep quiet about this rebellion and look after both sides. Honestly speaking, it's these double standards and two faced policy that keeps me from certain Sunni brothers and their belief in certain matters.

[Husayn]

He was older than Hazrath Ali (as) and was also the cousin of the Prophet (pbuh). But anyone who has been loyal to Hazrath Ali (as), be it Ammar, Abu Zarr, Miqdad, Salman, Abdullah ibn Masood, Malik Al Ashtar, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakar etc, my Sunni brothers have an issue.And when it comes to the likes of Waleed ibn Uqbah, Marwan ibn Hakam, Ameer Muavia, Umru ibn Al Ass etc, my Sunni brothers look up to such individuals.

I think it has all to do with taking sides. But the surprise is that Sunni brothers believe that one should obey the Ulul Amre (haqim e waqth) and must not rebel against him but here we have double standards that, those who rebelled against Hazrath Usman (ra) are considered bad but those who rebelled against Hazrath Ali (as), well... sssshhh. Lets keep quiet about this rebellion and look after both sides. Honestly speaking, it's these double standards and two faced policy that keeps me from certain Sunni brothers and their belief in certain matters.

As Moin just explained to you, even though al-Ashtar and Muhammad bin Abu Bakr were involved in the fitna against 'Uthman - they are still highly praised by Ahlul Sunnah.

"Honestly speaking" - do you even read what people post?

I'm starting to think you are a bot.

[Ameen]

Al-Ashtar is one of the evidence that sunni Jarh Ta'deel system is not based on whims. No doubt he, along with Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, were involved in Fitnah against 'Uthman (ra) but one can simply refer to their biographical entries in sunni books. There is no curse and abuse against them. They were not even weakened in hadith. Why? Because they were not bad in themselves but fell in satanic trap once in their life. That was the case with Marwan bin Hakam and people like them. They fell into mistake and they died. Our common approach with them is to avoid backbiting. May Allah forgive them. This is unlike Rawafidh whose madhhab itself is based on ridiculing personalities.

If they were involved in fitna against Hazrath Usman (ra) then, what about those were not only involved in fitna against Hazrath Ali (as) but also went to battle and even went to war with him??? Why the double standards??? Why not be absolutely clear???

You rebel against the Khalif, the Ulul Amre (haqim e waqth) then that should be it. Nobody is saying curse him or slander her but just come clear and clean that, these individuals were clearly responsible for fitna and not only disobeyed the fourth rightly guided Khalif, the Ulul Amre but fought him. This is what terrorism is all about, having your demands met through threatening behaviour and means of violence.

And the Mazhab you mock is absolutely clean and clear about it's position and where and with whom they stand and why. If certain people curse and or slander then don't be sly and crafty, by holding the whole community to ransom and take the opportunity to paint a bad picture about Shiaisn and the Shias, just to cause suspicion and cast doubt in the mind of the average and common. This was and is exactly the way of Mushriks and or Kafirs about Islam and the Muslims.

[Furkan]

"Ammar, Abu Zarr, Miqdad, Salman, Abdullah ibn Masood, Malik Al Ashtar, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakar"

You say we have an issue with these personalities. Show your proof.

[Ameen]

He was older than Hazrath Ali (as) and was also the cousin of the Prophet (pbuh). But anyone who has been loyal to Hazrath Ali (as), be it Ammar, Abu Zarr, Miqdad, Salman, Abdullah ibn Masood, Malik Al Ashtar, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakar etc, my Sunni brothers have an issue.And when it comes to the likes of Waleed ibn Uqbah, Marwan ibn Hakam, Ameer Muavia, Umru ibn Al Ass etc, my Sunni brothers look up to such individuals.

I think it has all to do with taking sides. But the surprise is that Sunni brothers believe that one should obey the Ulul Amre (haqim e waqth) and must not rebel against him but here we have double standards that, those who rebelled against Hazrath Usman (ra) are considered bad but those who rebelled against Hazrath Ali (as), well... sssshhh. Lets keep quiet about this rebellion and look after both sides. Honestly speaking, it's these double standards and two faced policy that keeps me from certain Sunni brothers and their belief in certain matters.

As Moin just explained to you, even though al-Ashtar and Muhammad bin Abu Bakr were involved in the fitna against 'Uthman - they are still highly praised by Ahlul Sunnah.

"Honestly speaking" - do you even read what people post?

I'm starting to think you are a bot.

You can think what ever you like. I not only read your posts but also understand the mystery behind them.

"They are still highly praised by the Ahle Sunnah" LOL! Where??? give me one thread or post on this or any of your other forum/s where they are even mentioned, let alone praised??? LOL!

[Ameen]

"Ammar, Abu Zarr, Miqdad, Salman, Abdullah ibn Masood, Malik Al Ashtar, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakar"

You say we have an issue with these personalities. Show your proof.

My proof is give me one thread or post in their name and honour??? Just one??? Anything, anything at all, just a single thing about their merits, character, performance and achievements???

[Husayn]

You can think what ever you like. I not only read your posts but also understand the mystery behind them.

"They are still highly praised by the Ahle Sunnah" LOL! Where??? give me one thread or post on this or any of your other forum/s where they are even mentioned, let alone praised??? LOL!

Did you happen to see the beginning of this thread?

If you did, you would have seen lotfilms & Rationalist post several praises of him from the early scholars of Ahlul Sunnah.

Seriously, are you a human or some script-bot Ameen? I don't feel like I am talking to a sentient being.

[Ameen]

My dear brother Furkan, anything??? Any single thing??? You talk big bro!

[Furkan]

Go to page 1 and see post of Husayn.

[Ameen]

You can think what ever you like. I not only read your posts but also understand the mystery behind them.

"They are still highly praised by the Ahle Sunnah" LOL! Where??? give me one thread or post on this or any of your other forum/s where they are even mentioned, let alone praised??? LOL!

Did you happen to see the beginning of this thread?

If you did, you would have seen lotfilms & Rationalist post several praises of him from the early scholars of Ahlul Sunnah.

Seriously, are you a human or some script-bot Ameen? I don't feel like I am talking to a sentient being.

Lotfilms and Rationalist??? Where they say he was a loyalist of Ali (as) but was also involved in the fitna against Usman (ra). Why is it always a one sided argument when it comes to you gentlemen??? What about the other side of the argument recorded and mentioned by the Ahle Sunnah scholars about Waleed ibn Uqbah, Marwan ibn Hakam, Umru ibn Al ass???

One side of the argument is what you've put forward and the other side of the argument is that most governors appointed by the third Khalif (ra) were corrupt and up to no good. And the people and certain companions had a right to complain. I'm sure you're familiar with both sides of the argument but why mention and talk about just one side??? Come on! The audience/viewers deserve better. They would like to see your honesty and justice. They want to see how fair you are.

[Ameen]

Go to page 1 and see post of Husayn.

Gentlemen praise all companions of the Prophet (pbuh) since this is your faith and belief. Great job! Lets see more of balance the argument and put both and or all sides of the story, incident forward. And yes, Allah knows better!

[Furkan]

Do you even consider to think about why we don't curse Malik al ashtar?

[Ameen]

Do you even consider to think about why we don't curse Malik al ashtar?

Please do tell me. My question is, is slander and curse part of your lives???

[Furkan]

Is it yours??? Tell me?? If so, why? If not, why not?? How do you curse? When?? How long??

[Bolani Muslim]

Please do tell me. My question is, is slander and curse part of your lives???

It's part of your life.

[Hani]

Look who's talking about fairness and being one sided... They'll side against Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, Mu`awiyah etc... in everything. On the other hand they don't believe anything `Ali, Hasan or Husayn did was a mistake.


I'm just saying..

[Taha]

وجاء علي إلى إمرأة عثمان فقال لها من قتل عثمان؟

قالت لا أدري, دخل عليه رجلان لا أعرفهما ومعهما محمد بن أبي بكرو وأخبرت عليا والناس بما صنع محمد, فدعا علي محمدا فسأله عما ذكرت إمرأة عثمان؟

فقال محمد: لم تكذب, قد دخلت عليه وأنا أريد قتله فذكرني أبي فقمت عنه وأنا تائب إلى الله تعالى, والله ما قتلته ولا أمسكته فقالت إمرأته صدق ولكنه أدخلهما.

Don't have a source, unfortunately, but hopefully this can settle the matter on both sides in regards to Muhammad b. Abi Bakr (r.a)

Back to the topic, maybe?