TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Sahabah-AhlulBayt => Topic started by: Furkan on January 22, 2015, 05:28:33 PM
-
So a shiite asked me whether or not Malik al ashtar is good or bad. I did a bit research, but couldn't find much.
So Is Malik al Ashtar good or bad?
Did he lead the rebellion against Uthman (Ra)? If yes, what did he do after that (repent,...) ?
Did he die in the battle of siffeen ?
Some opinions of ulema could help In Sha Allah.
-
May Allah(swt) have mercy on him, he was a loyal Shia of Imam 'Ali عليه السلام and fought in his battles, however he also apparently took part in the Fitnah against 'Uthmaan. al-'Ijli says that he is thiqah. Here are some biographies written by the scholars of rijal that i am short on time to translate so maybe some of the other brothers can help out:
ibn Hajar's Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb:
مالك" بن الحارث بن عبد يغوث بن مسلمة بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن جذيمة بن مالك بن النخع النخعي الكوفي المعروف بالأشتر أدرك الجاهلية وروى عن عمر وعلي وخالد بن الوليد وأبي ذر وأم ذر وعنه ابنه إبراهيم وأبو حسان الأعرج وكنانة مولى صفية وعبد الرحمن بن يزيد وعلقمة بن قيس ومخرمة بن ربيعة النخعيون وعمرو بن غالب الهمداني وذكره بن سعد في الطبقة الأولى من تابعي أهل الكوفة قال وكان من أصحاب علي وشهد معه الجمل وصفين ومشاهده كلها قال وولاه على مصر فلما كان بالقلزم شرب شربة عسل فمات وقال العجلي كوفي تابعي ثقة وذكره بن حبان في الثقات قال شهد اليرموك فذهبت عينه يومئذ وكان رئيس قومه وكان ممن يسعى في الفتنة والب على عثمان وشهد حصره قال بن يونس ولاه علي مصر بعد قيس بن سعد بن عبادة فسار حتى بلغ القلزم فمات بها يقال مسموما في شهر رجب سنة سبع وثلاثين وروي أن عليا نعاه إلى قومه وأثنى عليه ثناه حسنا قلت وقال مهنأ سألت أحمد عن الأشتر يروي عنه الحديث قال لا انتهى ولم يرد أحمد بذاك تضعيفه وإنما نفى أن تكون له رواية وقد وقع له ذكر في ضمن أثر علقه البخاري في صلاة الخوف قال قال الوليد ذكرت للأوزاعي صلاة شرحبيل بن السمط وأصحابه على ظهر الدابة فقال كذلك الأمر عندنا إذا تخوف الفوت انتهى وهنا الأثر رواه عمرو بن أبي سلمة عند الأوزاعي قال قال شرحبيل بن السمط لأصحابه لا تصلوا صلاة الصبح إلا على ظهر فنزل الأشتر فصلى على الأرض فأنكر عليه شرحبيل وكان الأوزاعي يأخذ بهذا في طلب العدو.
Siyar 'Alaam al-Nubalaa by al-Dhahabi, where he calls him "The King of the Arabs" and "One of the Noble Ones and Heros":
الأشتر مالك بن الحارث النخعي *
ملك العرب، مالك بن الحارث النخعي، أحد الأشراف والأبطال المذكورين.
حدث عن: عمر، وخالد بن الوليد، وفقئت عينه يوم اليرموك.
وكان شهما، مطاعا، زعرا (1) ، ألب على عثمان، وقاتله، وكان ذا فصاحة وبلاغة.
شهد صفين (2) مع علي، وتميز يومئذ، وكاد أن يهزم معاوية، فحمل عليه أصحاب علي لما رأوا مصحف جند الشام على الأسنة يدعون إلى كتاب الله.
وما أمكنه مخالفة علي، فكف (3) .
قال عبد الله بن سلمة المرادي: نظر عمر إلى الأشتر، فصعد فيه النظر، وصوبه، ثم قال: إن للمسلمين من هذا يوما عصيبا.
ولما رجع علي من موقعة صفين، جهز الأشتر واليا على ديار مصر، فمات في الطريق مسموما.
فقيل: إن عبدا لعثمان عارضه، فسم له عسلا.
وقد كان علي يتبرم به، لأنه صعب المراس، فلما بلغه نعيه، قال:
إنا لله، مالك، وما مالك! وهل موجود مثل ذلك؟! لو كان حديدا لكان قيدا، ولو كان حجرا لكان صلدا، على مثله فلتبك البواكي
وقال بعضهم: قال علي: للمنخرين والفم (1) .
وسر بهلاكه عمرو بن العاص، وقال: إن لله جنودا من عسل.
وقيل: إن ابن الزبير بارز الأشتر، وطالت المحاولة بينهما حتى إن ابن الزبير قال:
اقتلوني ومالكا ... واقتلوا مالكا معي
-
Also it appears he caused quite some trouble for `Ali and greatly influenced `Ali's decisions. Wallahu A`lam.
-
Can someone translate it please.
-
Here's half a translation:
مالك" بن الحارث بن عبد يغوث بن مسلمة بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن جذيمة بن مالك بن النخع النخعي الكوفي المعروف بالأشتر أدرك الجاهلية وروى عن عمر وعلي وخالد بن الوليد وأبي ذر وأم ذر وعنه ابنه إبراهيم وأبو حسان الأعرج وكنانة مولى صفية وعبد الرحمن بن يزيد وعلقمة بن قيس ومخرمة بن ربيعة النخعيون وعمرو بن غالب الهمداني وذكره بن سعد في الطبقة الأولى من تابعي أهل الكوفة قال وكان من أصحاب علي وشهد معه الجمل وصفين ومشاهده كلها قال وولاه على مصر فلما كان بالقلزم شرب شربة عسل فمات وقال العجلي كوفي تابعي ثقة وذكره بن حبان في الثقات قال شهد اليرموك فذهبت عينه يومئذ وكان رئيس قومه وكان ممن يسعى في الفتنة والب على عثمان وشهد حصره قال بن يونس ولاه علي مصر بعد قيس بن سعد بن عبادة فسار حتى بلغ القلزم فمات بها يقال مسموما في شهر رجب سنة سبع وثلاثين وروي أن عليا نعاه إلى قومه وأثنى عليه ثناه حسنا قلت وقال مهنأ سألت أحمد عن الأشتر يروي عنه الحديث قال لا انتهى ولم يرد أحمد بذاك تضعيفه وإنما نفى أن تكون له رواية وقد وقع له ذكر في ضمن أثر علقه البخاري في صلاة الخوف قال قال الوليد ذكرت للأوزاعي صلاة شرحبيل بن السمط وأصحابه على ظهر الدابة فقال كذلك الأمر عندنا إذا تخوف الفوت انتهى وهنا الأثر رواه عمرو بن أبي سلمة عند الأوزاعي قال قال شرحبيل بن السمط لأصحابه لا تصلوا صلاة الصبح إلا على ظهر فنزل الأشتر فصلى على الأرض فأنكر عليه شرحبيل وكان الأوزاعي يأخذ بهذا في طلب العدو.
Maalik bin al Harith bin ‘Abd Yaguth bin Muslima bin Rabi’a bin al-Harith bin Khathima bin Maalik bin Al-Naqh’i al-Kufi who is known as al-Ashtar. He saw the days of ignorance (lived in them I’m guessing?) and narrated from ‘Amr, ‘Ali, Khalid bin al Waleed, Abu Dharr, Umm Dharr. His son Ibrahim narrated from him, and Abu Hassaan al-A’raj and Kinana the slave of Saffiya and ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Yazid and ‘Alqama bin Sa’id from the first generation of the followers of Ahlul Kufa who said “He was of the companions of ‘Ali and he fought with him in Jamal, Siffin” .He also said “’Ali made him governor of Egypt and when he was at al-Qalzam he drank poisoned honey and died”. And al-‘Ajli said “He was a Kufi, thiqah (truthful) and was a tabi’i”. And Ibn Habaan mentioned him amongst the thiqaat, and said “He saw Yarmuk and his eye fell out there (or was injured?) and he was the leader of his people and he was one of those who took part in the Fitna and turned against ‘Uthman and witnessed his (‘Uthman’s) imprisonment (in his house)”. Ibn Yunus said “’Ali made him governor of Egypt after Qais bin Sa’d bin ‘Adaada, and so he travelled there until he reached al-Qazm and died there, some say he was poisoned in the month of Rajab at the age of 37. It is narrated that ‘Ali eulogised him and praised him with a high praise infront of his people.
-
Was he also a companion or a "Shia" of the Prophet (SAW)?
-
Was he also a companion or a "Shia" of the Prophet (SAW)?
I think he was a tabi'i...
-
Imam Ali (as) loved this man, and when he was martyred Imam Ali (as) mourned a lot.
-
May Allah reward you brother husayn.
1/ 4 of translation is done. Who wants the rest of the reward? :)
-
Does Ibn Hajar list him as a companion ?
al-Isabah Ibn Hajr - الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة [Companion (RA), Id:8347. - pg:6/269,270]
مالك بن الحارث بن عبد يغوث بن مسلمة بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن جذيمة بن مالك بن النخع النخعي المعروف بالأشتر له إدراك قال وكان رئيس قومه وذكر البخاري أنه شهد خطبة عمر بالجابية وذكر بن حبان في ثقات التابعين أنه شهد اليرموك فذهبت عينه قال وكان رئيس قومه وقد روى عن عمر وخالد بن الويد وأبي ذر وعلي وصحبه وشهد معهالجمل وله فيها آثار وكذلك في صفين وولاه على مصر بعد صرف قيس بن سعد بن عبادة عنها فلما وصل إلى القلزم شرب شربة عسل فمات فقيل إنها كانت مسمومة وكان ذلك سنة ثمان وثلاثين بعد أن شهد مع علي الجمل ثم صفين وأبدى يومئذ عن شجاعة مفرطة روى عنه ابنه إبراهيم وأبو حسان الأعرج وكنانة مولى صفية وعبد الرحمن بن يزيد النخعي وعلقمة وغيرهم وذكر بن سعد في الطبقة الأولى من التابعين بالكوفة فقال وكان ممن ألب على عثمان وشهد حصره وله في ذلك أخبار وقال المرزباني في معجم الشعراء كان سبب تلقبه بالأشتر أنه ضربه رجل يوم اليرموك على رأسه فسالت الجراحة قيحا إلى عينه فشترتها وهو القائل % بقيت وفري وانحرفت عن العلا % ولقيت أضيافي بوجه عبوس % إن لم أشن على بن هند غارة % لم تخل يوما من ذهاب نفوس قال بعض المتأخرين من أهل الأدب لو قال إن لم أشن على بن حرب غارة كان أنسب قلت كلا بل بينهما فرق كبير نعم هو أنسب من جهة مراعاة النظير وبطرائق المتأخرين وأما فحول الشعراء فإنهم لا يعتنون بذلك بل نسبة خصمه إلى أمه أبلغ في نكايته وكان للأشتر مواقف في فتوح الشام مذكورة ذكرها سيف بن عمر وأبو حذيفة وغيرهما في مصنفاتهم في ذلك
Thiqat Ibn Hibban - ثقات ابن حبان [Follower (Tabi'), Id:5338. - pg:Vol:5]
مالك بن الحارث النخعي الأشتر ولاه علي علي مصر وهو مالك بن الحارث بن عبد يغوث بن مسلمة بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن جذيمة بن سعد بن مالك بن النخع
Tarikhul Kabir al-Bukhari - التاريخ الكبير [ Hadith Narrator, Id:10663. - pg:Vol:7]
مالك الأشتر قال لي عبد الله بن محمد نا عبد الرزاق قال أرنا معمر عن الزهري قال بعث علي الأشتر أميرا على مصر حتى بلغ قلزم فشرب شربة من عسل فكان فيها حتفه فقال عمرو بن العاص أن لله جنودا من عسل وبعث على محمد بن أبي بكر أميرا على مصر وخرج قيس بن سعد قبل المدينة قبل قتل محمد
Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd - الطبقات الكبرى ابن سعد [ Successor (Level 1), Id:3369. - pg:Vol:6]
الأشتر واسمه مالك بن الحارث بن عبد يغوث بن مسلمة بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن جذيمة بن سعد بن مالك بن النخع من مذحج روى عن خالد بن الوليد أنه كان يضرب الناس على الصلاة بعد العصر وكان الأشتر من أصحاب علي بن أبي طالب وشهد معه الجمل وصفين ومشاهده كلها وولاه علي عليه السلام مصر فخرج إليها فلما كان بالعريش شرب شربة عسل فمات
Siyar A'lam al-Dhahbi - سير أعلام النبلاء - الذهبي [ Successor level 1, Id:506. - pg:4/34-35]
الأشتر
ملك العرب مالك بن الحارث النخعي أحد الأشراف والأبطال المذكورين
حدث عن عمر وخالد بن الوليد وفقئت عينه يوم اليرموك وكان شهما مطاعا زعرا ألب على عثمان وقاتله وكان ذا فصاحة وبلاغة شهد صفين مع علي وتميز يومئذ وكاد أن يهزم معاوية فحمل عليه أصحاب علي لما رأوا مصحف جند الشام على الأسنة يدعون إلى كتاب الله وما أمكنه مخالفة علي فكف
قال عبد الله بن سلمة المرادي نظر عمر إلى الأشتر فصعد فيه النظر وصوبه ثم قال إن للمسلمين من هذا يوما عصيبا
ولما رجع علي من موقعة صفين جهز الأشتر واليا على ديار مصر فمات في الطريق مسموما فقيل إن عبد ا لعثمان عارضه فسم له عسلا وقد كان علي يتبرم به لأنه صعب المراس فلما بلغه نعيه قال إنا لله مالك وما مالك وهل موجود مثل ذلك لو كان حديدا لكان قيدا ولو كان حجرا لكان صلدا على مثله فلتبك البواكيوقال بعضهم قال علي للمنخرين والفم
وسر بهلاكه عمرو بن العاص وقال إن لله جنودا من عسل
وقيل إن ابن الزبير بارز الأشتر وطالت المحاولة بينهما حتى إن ابن الزبير قال
اقتلوني ومالكا * واقتلوا مالكا معي *
Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr - تهذيب التهذيب - ابن حجر [ Hadith Narrator, Id:637. - pg:Vol:1]
الأشتر اسمه مالك بن الحارث يأتي >> س النسائي
Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr - تهذيب التهذيب - ابن حجر [ Hadith Narrator, Id:9008. - pg:Vol:10]
مالك بن الحارث بن عبد يغوث بن مسلمة بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن جذيمة بن مالك بن النخع النخعي الكوفي المعروف بالأشتر أدرك الجاهلية وروى عن عمر وعلي وخالد بن الوليد وأبي ذر وأم ذر وعنه ابنه إبراهيم وأبو حسان الأعرج وكنانة مولى صفية وعبد الرحمن بن يزيد وعلقمة بن قيس ومخرمة بن ربيعة النخعيون وعمرو بن غالب الهمداني وذكره بن سعد في الطبقة الأولي من تابعي أهل الكوفة قال وكان من أصحاب علي وشهد معه الجمل وصفين ومشاهده كلها قال وولاه علي مصر فلما كان بالقلزم شرب شربة عسل فمات وقال العجلي كوفي تابعي ثقة وذكره بن حبان في الثقات قال شهد اليرموك فذهبت عينه يومئذ وكان رئيس قومه وكان ممن يسعي في الفتنة والب علي عثمان وشهد حصره قال بن يونس ولاه علي مصر بعد قيس بن سعد بن عبادة فسار حتي بلغ القلزم فمات بها يقال مسموما في شهر رجب سنة سبع وثلاثين وروى أن عليا نعاه إلي قومه وأثني عليه ثناه حسنا قلت وقال مهنأ سألت أحمد عن الأشتر يروى عنه الحديث قال لا انتهي ولم يرد أحمد بذاك تضعيفه وإنما نفي أن تكون له رواية وقد وقع له ذكر في ضمن أثر علقه البخاري في صلاة الخوف قال قال الوليد ذكرت للأوزاعي صلاة شرحبيل بن السمط وأصحابه علي ظهر الدابة فقال كذلك الأمر عندنا إذا تخوف الفوت انتهي وهنا الأثر رواه عمرو بن أبي سلمة عند الأوزاعي قال قال شرحبيل بن السمط لأصحابه لا تصلوا صلاة الصبح إلا علي ظهر فنزل الأشتر فصلي علي الأرض فأنكر عليه شرحبيل وكان الأوزاعي يأخذ بهذا في طلب العدو>>س النسائي
Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr - تهذيب التهذيب - ابن حجر [ Hadith Narrator, Id:13098. - pg:Vol:12]
الأشتر هو مالك بن الحارث
Taqrib al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr - تقريب التهذيب - ابن حجر العسقلاني [ Hadith Narrator, Id:10074. - pg:112]
الأشتر اسمه مالك بن الحارث
Taqrib al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr - تقريب التهذيب - ابن حجر العسقلاني [ Hadith Narrator, Id:6429. - pg:516]
مالك بن الحارث بن عبد يغوث بن سلمة النخعي الملقب بالأشتر بالمعجمة الساكنة والمثناة المفتوحة مخضرم [ ثقة من الثانية ] نزل الكوفة بعد أن شهد اليرموك وغيرها وولاه علي مصر فمات قبل أن يدخلها سنة سبع وثلاثين س
Taqrib al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr - تقريب التهذيب - ابن حجر العسقلاني [ Hadith Narrator, Id:12548. - pg:716]
الأشتر مالك بن الحارث
-
More arabic... yay.
Haha kidding, it's good to discuss this mather since there isn't really much to be found about him on the internet (in english).
-
Nothing reliable about him being a companion. Seems like Omar hated his guts from that Tahtheeb quote too.
-
Nothing reliable about him being a companion. Seems like Omar hated his guts from that Tahtheeb quote too.
Really??? So you've decided to remove him from the Sahaba list??? I thought you were a great defender of the Sahaba??? Or is it just pick and chose??? Do we have double standards here???
-
Nothing reliable about him being a companion. Seems like Omar hated his guts from that Tahtheeb quote too.
Really??? So you've decided to remove him from the Sahaba list??? I thought you were a great defender of the Sahaba??? Or is it just pick and chose??? Do we have double standards here???
He said NOTHING RELIABLE, do you understand English!? If there is NO RELIABLE PROOF for something, we don't believe in it, understood?
-
Nothing reliable about him being a companion. Seems like Omar hated his guts from that Tahtheeb quote too.
Really??? So you've decided to remove him from the Sahaba list??? I thought you were a great defender of the Sahaba??? Or is it just pick and chose??? Do we have double standards here???
He said NOTHING RELIABLE, do you understand English!? If there is NO RELIABLE PROOF for something, we don't believe in it, understood?
Oh I understand English very well. So who was Malik Al Ashtar???
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ameen, Malik Al-Ashtar was a Tabi'ee, not a Sahabi.
-
Nothing reliable about him being a companion. Seems like Omar hated his guts from that Tahtheeb quote too.
Really??? So you've decided to remove him from the Sahaba list??? I thought you were a great defender of the Sahaba??? Or is it just pick and chose??? Do we have double standards here???
That doesn't really remove his merits. To be a companion piety and knowledge was not a requirement.
-
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???
-
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????
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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!
-
"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???
-
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.
-
My dear brother Furkan, anything??? Any single thing??? You talk big bro!
-
Go to page 1 and see post of 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.
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.
-
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!
-
Do you even consider to think about why we don't curse Malik al ashtar?
-
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???
-
Is it yours??? Tell me?? If so, why? If not, why not?? How do you curse? When?? How long??
-
Please do tell me. My question is, is slander and curse part of your lives???
It's part of your life. ;)
-
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..
-
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?
-
Is it yours??? Tell me?? If so, why? If not, why not?? How do you curse? When?? How long??
I ask you a question and rather than answering you question back. Why are you so hesitant?? Answer and then by all means question.
-
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..
Look who's talking??? Exactly! Look who really is talking. We have people who claim to love the Sahaba and who are prepared to defend Sahabiath but the Sahaba were many and in thousands.
These people use Sahabiath to defend and protect just a handful of accused individuals. And then they go on to undermine the others.
They also claim to believe in Khilafath, uphold and defend it. But infact they use khilafath to justify and defend the status and position of the same accused individuals.
And when it comes to the Khilafath of others, they simply undermine them and bring those who rebelled against them to their level and see and hold them as equal.
This is the double standards, the two faced element and hypocritical stance of these individuals. And I do not hold anything with or against anyone.
Just making a valid point and this is what has alarmed and shocked me about certain brothers.
-
You have Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra), his daughter clearly went against the orders of Allah. She rebelled against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims, the Ulul Amre of the time, this goes against the Ahle Sunnah Aqeedah.
But never mind, the point is that as soon as you point a finger at her or want to discuss her severe errors and mistakes, these individuals run to her aid and defence and start to accuse others of Takfeer.
But when it comes to Hazrath Muhammad ibn Abu Bakar (ra), who happens to be the son and brother of the two, where does the loyalty towards Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) go here???
You run to the defence of his daughter who has serious errors and mistakes but the son has nothing against him compared to these errors and mistakes but lacks in praise and respect by and from these
individuals.
-
ugh... oh dear God.
-
Exactly. I don't even want to start quoting this guy's posts. He just keeps saying the same instead of researching some stuff.
-
Exactly. I don't even want to start quoting this guy's posts. He just keeps saying the same instead of researching some stuff.
The feeling is mutual. And what you've said fits your description. What more can I say.
-
ugh... oh dear God.
You cracked me up Hani. After all his posts and you're still surprised by his answer :D
-
Well what else can he say. Research and investigation is one thing but believing in something and then having it's and buts is another.
Shias believe in Imamath after the Messenger (pbuh), now imagine if they had its and buts about certain Imams down the line, how would this be and sound???
-
Shias believe in Imamath after the Messenger (pbuh), now imagine if they had its and buts about certain Imams down the line, how would this be and sound???
hahahaha you dont have to imagine kiddo. It happens everytime imam dies. Shia differed about who would be the next imam down the line for as long as its history. Who is the next imam??? Why him??? Why not that one?? What is this? Im confused. Aaaarrrgggh!!!!
-
Shias believe in Imamath after the Messenger (pbuh), now imagine if they had its and buts about certain Imams down the line, how would this be and sound???
hahahaha you dont have to imagine kiddo. It happens everytime imam dies. Shia differed about who would be the next imam down the line for as long as its history. Who is the next imam??? Why him??? Why not that one?? What is this? Im confused. Aaaarrrgggh!!!!
HAHAHAHA???? Imagine kiddo??? Aaaarrrgggh??? The Shias have differed and still differ but they are absolutely and completely clear and clean about that difference. They do not have double standards, two faced element and a hypocritical stance over it. They don't say "it doesn't matter who you join and follow, we are all fine and the same".
The Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah believe in Khilafath after the Messenger (pbuh) and they believe it through consensus of and by the Ummah. Now when questioned that why did Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) go against this by naming and appointing his successor and why did Hazrath Umar (ra) take even a different approach by naming and appointing a six man committee, then we have the it's and buts falling in to place. This is double standards!
The Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah believe that "Ulul Amre" means "Hakim e Waqth" leader of the time. They also believe that one must obey and should not go against (challenge/rebel) the Ulul Amre even if he is corrupt and or a sinner. The only way you can go against the Ulul Amre is if they try to alter/change the Shariath.
Now we have Ameer Muavia (ra) and Hazrath Aisha ( ra), being a companion and or wife has its own place but they not only went against the Ulul Amre of the time but one battled him and the other went to war with him. Here again we have double standards rather than looking at out basic belief and being honest.
On the other hand we have Hazrath Muhammad bin Abu Bakar (ra) being accused of fitna against the third Khalif (ra). Although this fitna was at a miner level and loss, where has his sister went against the fourth Khalif and the consequences were disastrous and severe. But we don't accuse her of fitna. Double standards again.
Dear audience/viewers here you have it. What keeps me from the Ahle Sunnah is not their belief and faith, not their principals or policies but their double standards, two faced element and hypocritical stance. What is so difficult to understand here??? What is there to be surprised about here??? What does this have to do with research????
-
It's "Ifs and buts" not "It's and buts".
-
Wallah this guy is funny.
Ameen go read some articles, or do matam to hasten the return of 12 th imam.
-
My dear brothers Furkan and Hani, absolutely wonderful. What a beautiful response. Bravo and well done. Dear audience/viewers there you have it.
-
My dear brothers Furkan and Hani, absolutely wonderful. What a beautiful response. Bravo and well done. Dear audience/viewers there you have it.
What audience/viewers are you talking about?
-
Ameen is an actor, entertaining geusts
-
Ameen is an actor, entertaining geusts
I know you're the kind who likes to get in to a slang match. Discussion and debate is not your thing. So you keep at it.
-
Any post with no substance after this post of mine will be deleted.
Ameen, please give us the definition of the Sahabee and the definition of the Tabi`ee. Then tell us why you think Malik al-Ashtar should belong to group A or B, with addition to legitimate evidence.
-
Sayyidina Malik al Ashtar رضى الله عنه was a great hero of Islam and the loyal general of Amir ul Mu'mineen رضى الله عنه. No doubt he was a valiant and brave warrior on the battlefield, the like of which is very rare in history. I respect him a lot and he seems to be such a figure that the Nasibiyya hate particularly. And likewise his son, Ibrahim, another brave soldier of Islam, who enacted revenge upon the cursed killers of Sayyidina Imam al Hussain رضى الله عنه. I am told that Ibrahim b. Malik al-Ashtar was the one who killed the cursed and evil Ubaidullah b. Ziyad.
And Ibrahim, like his noble father, attained martyrdom at the hands of the forces of the evil oppressor Abdal Malik b. Marwan.
Father and son were honorable men who died fighting for Islam. They were sincere Muslims and we should honor their memory and pray for their souls.