Moderators: Moderators, Junior Moderators
Sxb the book I read showed me a very different side of Muawiyyah, how he only pulled the Othman card while he himself was co-operating with the murderers to gain an advantage against Cali RH and to become a Caliph. Even though hes a good sahaba you cant say hes better than Abu Sufyan who died a shahiidWho are you to judge who is Muslim or not? Abu Sufyan ra is considered a sahabi by ahlussunah. When they cast aspersions upon him, they cast aspersions upon Abu bakr, Umar, Utham (and his clan the bani umayya). That's because all 3 guys accepted Abu Sufyan. You don't understand the political games they play bro. They start with characters like Abu Sufyan, then Uthman and then finally culminate with the shaykhayn.
And Nasrallah and his crew have insulted other sahabah, including Aisha ra.
Subhannlah. Mucaawiya was a sahabi. Your absolute dismissal of him is no characteristic of Ahlus-sunnah. The way of ahlussunah is to not speak of inter-saahabi wars, only to say who was right and who was right. Cali RA was most defs right. But never ever ever did Cali ever make aspersions about Mucaawiya. You can even check it out in their baatil shiica sources.HutuKing you idiot Abu Sufyan(R.A) may allah bless him with paradise he died as a shahiid and he was sahaba. You dont know how much trouble Muahwiya caused for Hadrat Ali, he whipped up so much propaganda, so much tension this guy was the divider of the Ummah. He and the kharijites were the downfall of Hadrat ALi (RH) the great rightly guided calipha went through many tests because of Muawiyah and his lavish style he loved and wanted to sustan during his cousin Hadrat Othman's reign. Ali liked muslims to follow the tradition of Rasullah and not love this world but Muawiyah wanted to live like the Babylons in Syria. God bless Hadrat Ali(RH) ahe fought with his heart to stop Muawiyah and fought for Allah. I cant believe you side with Muawiyah and you hate his father Abu sufyan who was good muslim at the end. Muawiyah was big time qabilist he wanted Ummayad reign over the holy Banu Hashim reign and he know the Hashimites were more superior and holier than Ummayad even through they were humble.
Mucaawiya and Bani umayya were very angry that the murders of Uthman were in Cali's ranks. Uthman RA was the rightful amir, and was murdered in COLD BLOOD at his residence while reading the quran. Cali RA sent his two sons to defend Uthman, but most of the sahabah thought it was a fitnah and stayed at home. Mucaawiya himself went to Uthman and asked him to go back to Syria to him, but again Uthman, knowing that his fate was coming, refused.
Mucaawiya and caaisha asked Ali to hand over the criminals, in which he refused. It was in honour of their fallen brother that they fought, and not some power rage. When the romans i think asked at the high of the Cali-Mucaawiya beef, whether they could bypass syria and attack Cali, Mucaawiya said to them that if they dared tried, he would turn his military against them.
Mucaawiya ra was a good amir, may allah swt bless him. The major Sahabahs all made bayca to him, and some were part of his advisory team. He still lead the salat, enforced shariica, and fought Jihaad. He was a true mujaahid in comparision to the Khaariji Al-shabaab you talk about.
majorty of muslims do not love yaziiid, even all 4 mad-habs in ahlu sunnah waljamaaca all of them said is allowed to curs yaziid ibn mucaawiya the killer of grandchildren of rasuul scw, BUT WAHAABIS love yazeeed ibn mucaawia listen this gran mufti sacuudi wahaabi sheikhYalaxow muslims dont love Yaziid at all,
The book is absolute propaganda. Mucaawiya ra was a good sahabi, who made mistakes, just like every other sahabi. We need to watch our mouths when we talk about the sahabah of the prophet, because as the prophet said, if you donated a mountain full of gold to charity, you would not reach their status.Sxb the book I read showed me a very different side of Muawiyyah, how he only pulled the Othman card while he himself was co-operating with the murderers to gain an advantage against Cali RH and to become a Caliph. Even though hes a good sahaba you cant say hes better than Abu Sufyan who died a shahiidWho are you to judge who is Muslim or not? Abu Sufyan ra is considered a sahabi by ahlussunah. When they cast aspersions upon him, they cast aspersions upon Abu bakr, Umar, Utham (and his clan the bani umayya). That's because all 3 guys accepted Abu Sufyan. You don't understand the political games they play bro. They start with characters like Abu Sufyan, then Uthman and then finally culminate with the shaykhayn.
And Nasrallah and his crew have insulted other sahabah, including Aisha ra.
Subhannlah. Mucaawiya was a sahabi. Your absolute dismissal of him is no characteristic of Ahlus-sunnah. The way of ahlussunah is to not speak of inter-saahabi wars, only to say who was right and who was right. Cali RA was most defs right. But never ever ever did Cali ever make aspersions about Mucaawiya. You can even check it out in their baatil shiica sources.HutuKing you idiot Abu Sufyan(R.A) may allah bless him with paradise he died as a shahiid and he was sahaba. You dont know how much trouble Muahwiya caused for Hadrat Ali, he whipped up so much propaganda, so much tension this guy was the divider of the Ummah. He and the kharijites were the downfall of Hadrat ALi (RH) the great rightly guided calipha went through many tests because of Muawiyah and his lavish style he loved and wanted to sustan during his cousin Hadrat Othman's reign. Ali liked muslims to follow the tradition of Rasullah and not love this world but Muawiyah wanted to live like the Babylons in Syria. God bless Hadrat Ali(RH) ahe fought with his heart to stop Muawiyah and fought for Allah. I cant believe you side with Muawiyah and you hate his father Abu sufyan who was good muslim at the end. Muawiyah was big time qabilist he wanted Ummayad reign over the holy Banu Hashim reign and he know the Hashimites were more superior and holier than Ummayad even through they were humble.
Mucaawiya and Bani umayya were very angry that the murders of Uthman were in Cali's ranks. Uthman RA was the rightful amir, and was murdered in COLD BLOOD at his residence while reading the quran. Cali RA sent his two sons to defend Uthman, but most of the sahabah thought it was a fitnah and stayed at home. Mucaawiya himself went to Uthman and asked him to go back to Syria to him, but again Uthman, knowing that his fate was coming, refused.
Mucaawiya and caaisha asked Ali to hand over the criminals, in which he refused. It was in honour of their fallen brother that they fought, and not some power rage. When the romans i think asked at the high of the Cali-Mucaawiya beef, whether they could bypass syria and attack Cali, Mucaawiya said to them that if they dared tried, he would turn his military against them.
Mucaawiya ra was a good amir, may allah swt bless him. The major Sahabahs all made bayca to him, and some were part of his advisory team. He still lead the salat, enforced shariica, and fought Jihaad. He was a true mujaahid in comparision to the Khaariji Al-shabaab you talk about.
There are two opinions on Yaziid (traditionally, before wahabis ever came across)majorty of muslims do not love yaziiid, even all 4 mad-habs in ahlu sunnah waljamaaca all of them said is allowed to curs yaziid ibn mucaawiya the killer of grandchildren of rasuul scw, BUT WAHAABIS love yazeeed ibn mucaawia listen this gran mufti sacuudi wahaabi sheikhYalaxow muslims dont love Yaziid at all,
listen how he degregate hussein rc and how he justified yazeeed actions and what yazeed done.
Code: Select all
arrin kale aan la yaabey. waxay tahay.
SHIICADA waxaa laga caayaa dhaqan foolxun one nigth stand MUTCAH la yiraahdo nin iyo naaag iyaga is nikaaxssada saacado ayna galmo sex sameeyaan, markii ay sameeyaana ninka naagta kala tagaan guurkii ku meel gaarka ahaa ee ku koobnaa 1 hours uu noqdo wax xalaal ah,
waxaan la yaabey inay sacuudiga sunnah wahabiyada ay iyaguna qabaaan arrin u eg mutcah taasoo la yiraahdo MISYAAAR, waa mutcadii magaca loo badaley.
marka shiiicada iyo sunnada farqiga u dhaxeeyo maaha.Faraz Rabbani is a sufi, ASHARI scholar. The total opposite of wahabi. This is a position of ahlussunah wal jamaca.If the conditions and integrals of a marriage are fulfilled, the marriage is valid.
However, the extra conditions of a misyar marriage--such as the wife forgoing certain Shariah-granted rights like the right to support or housing--go against the central goals (maqasid) and benefits of marriage. As such, it is a marriage that would generally be disliked and to be avoided. As for the specific ruling, it would depend on the specific case in question. This is what leading scholars--such as Shaykh Ali Jumuah, Shaykh Wahba Zuhayli, and Shaykh Bouti--have stated on this type of marriage.
Faraz Rabbani
THEY are not the sameQuestion:
As-Salam Alaykum,
What is the difference between “Mutah” of the Shia and “Misyar” of the Sunnis? I have heard many Shia defending Mutah by accusing Sunnis of believing in Misyar which they say is a very degrading institution. Can you please tell me what is the difference between the two, and how do we respond to a Shia person who says this?
Answer by Team Ahlel Bayt:
Firstly, the Shia scholars believe in the permissibility of Misyar. So all these silly e-Shia propagandists are making fools of themselves by demonizing Misyar. The permissibility of Misyar marriage has been stated on the official website of Grand Ayatollah Sistani. We read:
Question:
Is it permissible to do Misyar Marriage ? What is opinion of Sayed Sistani regarding this?
Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Assalamu Alaykum
The rules of the marriage are stated in the fatwaa books; hence, if the required conditions are satisfied then it is permissible.
Wa Alaykum Assalam
(source: The Official Website of Grand Ayatollah Sistani)
Secondly, Mutah is temporary and so it is like prostitution. Instead, Misyar is permanent and is therefore a marriage. So this is the fundamental and monumental difference between Mutah and Misyar. In Mutah, a Shia man pays a few dollars to have sex with a whore, and they are “married” for less than one hour. On the other hand, Misyar is permanent and lasts forever. In fact, it is Haram to contract Misyar if you have the intention of divorce. So it is the same as Nikah (i.e. it is Haram to have the intention to divorce when you marry that person).
So what is Misyar? Misyar is simply when the woman voids her right to be financially supported by her husband. This makes common sense: how many of university students today can relate to this? The man is still in university and can therefore not support a girl financially. Instead of getting into a life of sin, the two get married and the woman voids her right to maintenance so that they can get married.
That is all. That is it. Nothing at all similar to Mutah.
Mutah = temporary = prostitution
Misyar = permanent = marriage
This craze to equate Mutah with Misyar is one of the desperate attempts of the Shia propagandists to conflate simple issues, just like they conflate abrogation with Tahreef. This is to hide their embarrassment over their filthy religion which allows women to be rented by the hour.
Another major difference between Misyar and Mutah is that the Sunni scholars have stated that Misyar is discouraged whereas the Shia scholars actively encourage Mutah, claiming that a woman who whores herself out in Mutah to two men will be forgiven all her sins and enter Paradise.
Once again, there is absolutely no comparison between Misyar (which is permanent) to Mutah (which is temporary and can last for even one hour or one day).
your still making proboganda when your sayind under yazeeed he in controll some kind a islamic state? NO SXB YAZIIID was the leader of failed state and even hes father mucaawiya was too the leader of failed state because of muslims were in civil war killing eachotherThat video is absolute propaganda. Most of the sahaba alive, including ibn cumar )(or was it ibn cabbas, dont remember) pledged allegiance to Mucaawiya. Yaziid was personally a mujrim, but the state he controlled was still an islamic state. The shariica was still in tact. These rafaawid pledge allegiance to men who openly violate the shariica of allah.
The sheikh said NOTHING wrong in that video. Everything he said then is in line with Sunni Islamic thought.
SUFI VIEW ON YAZIID AND XUSSEIN FITNAH
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp? ... 2&CATE=164
In view of this statement, what is the Islamic verdict on Imam Hussain's (radiyAllahu-Anhu) rebellion against the corrupt leadership of Yazeed? Was this permissible according to the Shariah? Also, what view should Muslims hold of Yazeed. I notice Shia often curse him. Is this allowed?
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,
The answer to your question will be given in two parts. The first deals with Sayyiduna Husain�s (Allah be pleased with him) uprising against the leadership of Yazid, and the second deals with the opinion of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama�ah regarding Yazid.
As far as the first question is concerned, it is an accepted fact among the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama�ah that to challenge authority is generally not permissible
your blaiming the killings of hussein and hes children not yezeed but people of kuffa. 
Return to “General - General Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests