3 replies to this topic

[Ameen]

Assalaamo-Alaikum my dear brothers. [Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath] this term first came into use during Ameer Muavia's [ra] time. Everybody who had risen against Hazrath Ali [ra] during his Khilafath for example: people of jang-e-safeen, jang-e-jamal, jang-e-nehrwan etc were all brought together and were given the name Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath by Ameer Muavia [ra]. These days Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath are a group of people with different belief,opinion and faith. They are a group of people who have a different point of view on various issues. Members of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath call themselves sunnis. They all believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not name and nominate a successor. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not name and nominate someone to govern after him. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not point out towards a new form of leadership. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] left the leadership in the hands of the Ummah. Now the first person who came into power was Hazrath Abu- Bakar [ra]. A meeting took place in Sakeefa after the Prophet's [pbuh] death between the Muhajir and Ansar. Just to cut it short Hazrath Abu-Bakar [ra] was elected has the first Khalif. Hazrath Abu- Bakar [ra] named and nominated Hazrath Umar [ra] to govern after him. Basically Hazrath Abu-Bakar [ra] named Hazrath Umar [ra] as his successor. Hazrath Umar made a committee of six people. These people will chose one to govern after Hazrath Umar [ra]. So Hazrath Usman [ra] became the third Khalif. The first Khalif governed for two to three years and died. The second Khalif governed for ten years and was murdered. The third Khalif governed for twelve to thirteen years and was also murdered. Now the Islamic state was in tatters. No body wanted to take on the responsibility to govern. There was no contenders to the Khilafath. People turned towards Hazrath Ali [ra] and asked him to govern. Hazrath Ali [ra] refused and said look people did as they pleased and most of you went along with it. What and who is stopping you now to do as you please. After constant nagging by the people Hazrath Ali [ra] gave way having the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims at hand. Vast majority voted Hazrath Ali [ra] into power. There was no opposition, there was no contest. Hazrath Ali [ra] became the fourth Khalif of the Muslims. Now the majority of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath believe in [Khulafa-e-Rashidah] or [Haq-Char-Yaar] meaning the four rightly guided Khalifs. After this the majority of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath believe that the Khilafath went into the wrong hands. They do not accept anybody else as a rightly guided Khalif after Hazrath Ali [ra]. Some Sunnis take into account the very short Khilafath of Hazrath Hassan [ra] and accept him as the fifth rightly guided Khalif. After Hazrath Hassan [ra] they all believe that the Khilafath went into the wrong hands. A minority of the Muslims who also claim to be from Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath accept Ameer Muavia [ra] as the fifth rightly guided Khalif and Yazeed as the sixth rightly guided Khalif but under Thaqeya. Meaning they keep it very quiet because the vast majority of the Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath acuse Ameer Muavia [ra] of wrong doing by not doing [Baith], accepting Hazrath Ali [ra] as Khalif, objecting his Khilafath and rebelling against the fourth rightly guided Khalif. As far as Yazeed is concerned vast majority of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath call him Murtad for what he did. Some even regard him as Kafir with no interest in Islam. They do not accept him under any circumstances because he openly showed his hatred for Islam and the Muslims by killing the Family of the Prophet [pbuh] and the companions children. He also slaughtered Muslims and attacked the holy cities Madina and Mecca in the name of vengeance regarding his forefathers. The list goes on and is endless. The Sunnis came into being well after the Prophet's [pbuh] time. Infact well after the companion's and the Khulafaa's time. The Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath have four school of thoughts:1,Hanfi.2,Shafi.2,Malki.4,Hambali.  These four are known as [Aaimah-e-Arbaa] meaning the four Imams. These four Imams differ in thought and opinion even at a major or important scale. Never mind about a small or minor difference. For example the four Imams differ where the hands should be placed during prayers and one even differs how the hands should be. Three of the Imams agree that the hands should be folded during prayers but argue where the hands should be placed. The fourth claims the hands should be open during prayers like the Shias. All four Imams criticise and condemn the other way and claim that the prayers will not be valid if the other way is taken. There are many more differences as such. I will post an article about the back ground of the four Imams in detail. These four Imams have no link with the Prophet [pbuh]. Never mind about this they have no link with [Asshab-e-Rasool], [Azwaj-e-Rasool] or [Ahlule-Baithe-Rasool] as a matter of fact but still people take [Sunnath-e-Rasool] from these four Imams for some reason. Wassalaam for now.

Edited by Ameen, 05 May 2010 - 07:31 PM.

[Ali Shah Hussain]

@Ameen.
Good copy & paste work mate,You owe me anwsers to my questions at another tread,you know where.....

Anyhow i will answer you of this topic by the same way you pasted it here.

he label �Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jammah� appeared only after some sects had invented some beliefs and called them Islamic believes, as Al-Khawarij and Shia did.

At the time of Ali bin Abi Talib and Mu�awiyah bin Abi Sufyan, and some time after the latter, there had been no differences between the Shia and the Sunnis in the field of tenets of faith. The only difference was political. It is well known that the term �Shia� in the Arabic language means �Supporters�. History tells us that the two warring factions were the party of Ali (Shia of Ali) and party of Mu�awiyah (Shia of Mu�awiyah). The two parties used the term Shia. Hence, anyone who supported Ali was among his Shia, and anyone who supported Mu�awiyah was among his Shia.

Then things evolved bit by bit through the acts of some insiders. Therefore, Shiasim became something that had unique religions faiths like the imamate, mut�ah, and others. And before Shiasim, the Khawarij were also known for their own unique faith. Hence, the majority of the Muslims needed a special name to distinguish themselves from the deviant sects. They called themselves Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jammah, i.e. the people of Sunnah and Community.

The founder of Ahl Al-Sunnah is no one but the Prophet himself. Ahl Al-Sunnah derive their faith from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah (tradition) of the Prophet peace be upon him not from the historical disagreements between them and the Ummayads for example just like the Shia Rafadis. We do not get our religion through the disagreements on the concept of leadership as with the Khawarij, or through personal hatreds and wars as with the Nasebites.

However, if we assumed a sane man would claim that Mu�awiyah had founded Ahl Al-Sunnah, then Ahl Al-Sunnah would not revere Ali much more than they revere Mu�awiyah. Again, if Mu�awiyah was the founder, then Ahl Al-Sunnah would not agree that Ali is the fourth rightly guided caliph or that Ali was on the right side of the battle against Mu�awiyah.

The four Imams of Ahlel Sunnah have codified Shairiah according to Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Mohammadصلي الله عليه و سلم.

Niether they are infalliable nor knower of the unseen like you Shias cliam for yours Masoom Imams.

Nor we blindly fallow them as you claim to fallow yours Imams,which in matter of fact you never.

Irani Darling its not obligatory upon Muslims that will have to fallow them whatever they say or quoted like you claim and have given Prophet status to the Imams,
You know Akhbariyon? if not go their and www.akhbari.org
they are not doing Taqqiya like you anymore they say Taqqiya Period is gone,but some of yours Aytullahs say you need to do Taqqiya more to hasten the 12th Imam emerge.

Here you go to know Shias origion............Enjoy Poppy..

[Efendi]

Quote

These days Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath are a group of people with different belief,opinion and faith. They are a group of people who have a different point of view on various issues. Members of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath call themselves sunnis. They all believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not name and nominate a successor. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not name and nominate someone to govern after him. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not point out towards a new form of leadership. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] left the leadership in the hands of the Umma

This is another lie from this deceiver. There is no agreed opinion on this between ahlesunnah. Part said no one was nominated, other part belief that Abu Bakr was nominated by hints.

Quote

[Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath] this term first came into use during Ameer Muavia's [ra] time.

Even if that is true, there could be pretty good explanation of that. When heresies wide spread, Muslims have to distinguish themselves from innovators. So we have to note that we are Muslims which stick to sunnah (ahle-sunnah) and to people (al-jamaat).

Quote

Basically Hazrath Abu-Bakar [ra] named Hazrath Umar [ra] as his successor. Hazrath Umar made a committee of six people. These people will chose one to govern after Hazrath Umar [ra]. So Hazrath Usman [ra] became the third Khalif

Again wrong. When two candidates left (Uthman and Ali), they both gave a right to make a choice for Abdurrahman ibn Auf, and after consultation with companions, he named Uthman.

Quote

There was no contenders to the Khilafath. People turned towards Hazrath Ali [ra] and asked him to govern. Hazrath Ali [ra] refused and said look people did as they pleased and most of you went along with it. What and who is stopping you now to do as you please. After constant nagging by the people Hazrath Ali [ra] gave way having the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims at hand.

Praise to Allah. So that's apparent that Ali (r.a) wasn't nominated by prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), or chosen by Allah. In other way we have to say that he was nominated and chosen, but he refused to obey, when people agreed with that.

Quote

Now the majority of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath believe in [Khulafa-e-Rashidah] or [Haq-Char-Yaar] meaning the four rightly guided Khalifs. After this the majority of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath believe that the Khilafath went into the wrong hands.They do not accept anybody else as a rightly guided Khalif after Hazrath Ali [ra]. Some Sunnis take into account the very short Khilafath of Hazrath Hassan [ra] and accept him as the fifth rightly guided Khalif.

That's obvious lie or ignorance. We do believe that hz Hazan also was prophetic caliph. We don't say that when caliphate came to Muawiya, it's came to wrong hands.

Quote

As far as Yazeed is concerned vast majority of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath call him Murtad for what he did. Some even regard him as Kafir with no interest in Islam. They do not accept him under any circumstances because he openly showed his hatred for Islam and the Muslims by killing the Family of the Prophet [pbuh] and the companions children. He also slaughtered Muslims and attacked the holy cities Madina and Mecca in the name of vengeance regarding his forefathers. The list goes on and is endless.

List of your lies indeed endless. Vast of ahle-sunnah said that Yazeed was murtad? That's blatant lie. I am not discussing him, or defending him, or his deeds. I said many time, I believe he deserve to be hated. But you lied when said that majority of ahle-sunnah believe he was murtad. Present proof for your words, if you are truthful.

Quote

The Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath have four school of thoughts:1,Hanfi.2,Shafi.2,Malki.4,Hambali. These four are known as [Aaimah-e-Arbaa] meaning the four Imams. These four Imams differ in thought and opinion even at a major or important scale.

It's also not true. The single major point that scholars differed, was is deeds from faith or not. And only Abu Haneefa ® opposed to majority.
If you have a proofs, ya Allah! Give us quotes from books of scholars, each one of them, or from books of their school, and show quotes on similar issues from books of other school.
If you are talking about fiqh differences between 4 schools, believe me I can list here some good examples where your rabies mujtahids differed between themselves in fiqh issues.

Quote

For example the four Imams differ where the hands should be placed during prayers and one even differs how the hands should be. Three of the Imams agree that the hands should be folded during prayers but argue where the hands should be placed. The fourth claims the hands should be open during prayers like the Shias. All four Imams criticise and condemn the other way and claim that the prayers will not be valid if the other way is taken.

Underlined is obvious lie. Ibn Rushd al-Maliki in "Bidayatul mujtahid" (1/291, darul Bayan) said: "Majority said that closing hands is from sunnah of prays".
Sheikh Fawzan in "Mulakhasatul fiqhiya" (1/126) also noted that putting hand on other is sunnah.

Quote

These four Imams have no link with the Prophet [pbuh]. Never mind about this they have no link with [Asshab-e-Rasool], [Azwaj-e-Rasool] or [Ahlule-Baithe-Rasool] as a matter of fact but still people take [Sunnath-e-Rasool] from these four Imams for some reason. Wassalaam for now.

What do you mean by link? Family relations?

PS. People don't forget this Ameen very same man, who claims that he's sunni)))

Edited by Efendi, 07 May 2010 - 01:25 AM.

[Efendi]

Ameen, on 05 May 2010 - 07:23 PM, said:

These days Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath are a group of people with different belief,opinion and faith. They are a group of people who have a different point of view on various issues. Members of Ahle-Sunnath-Wal-Jamaath call themselves sunnis. They all believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not name and nominate a successor. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not name and nominate someone to govern after him. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] did not point out towards a new form of leadership. They believe that the Prophet [pbuh] left the leadership in the hands of the Ummah.

Just want to add quote from ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafi, to proof once more that this Ameen has no idea what he's talking about, and most likely if not per 101% he is another shia under taqiyah, who doing his best to deceive Muslims.

Ibn Abil-Izz (rahimuhullah) said:

We affirm that the caliphate after the Prophet was, first and foremost, deserving of Abu Bakr, believing in his superiority and seniority over the rest of the Ummah.
This is our opinion. However, the Ummah disagreed over the nature of Abu Bakr's succession. Was it by the Prophet's command, or was it simply a choice? Hasan al-Basri and a group of people from the Ahl al-Hadith believe it was by dint of command, although subtle and indirect, coming from the Prophet (saws). Some of them in fact have said that it is proven by the texts. However, some others of the Ahl al-Hadith. the Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah have said that it was established by choice and consent.
As a matter of fact, we have some reports that suggest that the caliphate of Abu Bakr was by the dint of a command from the Prophet (saws). One of them is in Bukhari, narrated by Jubayr b. Mut'im who said: "A woman came up to the Prophet (saws). He told her to come back to him later. She asked, 'What if I came and didn't find you?' (She meant, if he was dead). He replied, 'If you didn't find me, go to Abu Bakr.'" There are other reports supporting this one which can be said to be the text in support of his succession.
Then there is the hadith of Hudhayfah b. al-Yaman who reports that the Prophet (saws) said: "Follow the two that will come after me: Abu Bakr and 'Umar." The traditionalists have preserved this report.
The Sahihayn also have reports narrated by 'A'isha about her father. She says: "The day the Messenger of Allah took ill, he entered into my house and said, 'Call in your father and brother so that I write down in favor of Abu Bakr, for Allah and the Muslims will not accept anyone but Abu Bakr."
Reports about the Prophet preferring Abu Bakr over others are well known. In one of them he said: "Ask Abu Bakr to lead in the Prayers."
Trustworthy compilations also have another report recording the Prophet as having said from his pulpit: "Were I to take someone a Friend from among the people of the earth, I would have taken Abu Bakr as the Friend. Let there not be a door opening into the (Grand) mosque. Close them all, except for Abu Bakr's door."
As for those who held the view that the Prophet did not appoint Abu Bakr as his caliph, not at least through a proven hadlth, they have argued with the report of Ibn 'Umar who reported 'Umar ibn al-Khattab as saying: "If I nominate a successor after me, then one who was better than me, that is, Abu Bakr, nominated a successor after him. But if I don't nominate, then one who was better than me, that is, the Prophet (saws), did not name a successor after himself." 'Abdullah Ibn 'Umar adds: "When he mentioned the Prophet, I knew that he was not going to nominate his own successor."
What seems likely, although Allah knows best, is that the Prophet (saws) did not issue a written edict to the effect that Abu Bakr would be the caliph after him. He did intend to do that, but changed his mind, saying, "Allah and the Muslims will accept none but Abu Bakr." This indeed was a stronger manner of appointing him his successor, the Prophet (saws) let know the believers his own preference of Abu Bakr as his successor, and led them to accepting his preference through his various words and deeds. He also spoke of his appointment in favorable terms, expressing his own satisfaction. Were his hints insufficient to announce where his choice lay, he would have spoken out more explicitly, leaving no room for excuses and doubts�

http://www.islaam.co...cle.aspx?id=566