17 replies to this topic

[shiningstar]

The Companions in Hadith*

By Fethullah Gulen**



The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praised the Companions and warned Muslims against attacking or insulting them. For example, Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and other traditionalists relate from Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri that Allah’ s Messenger warned

Do not curse my Companions! Do not curse my Companions! I swear by Him in Whose Hand my life is, that even if one among you had as much gold as Mount Uhud and spent it in the way of Allah, this would not be equal in reward to a handful spent by them or even to its half.

This is certainly so, because they accepted Islam and preached and protected it when circumstances were most severe. Besides, according to the rule “the cause is like the doer,” the reward gained by all Muslims until the Last Day has been, and will be, added to the record of the Companions, without, of course, diminishing anything from the reward of the doers themselves. Had it not been for the efforts of the Companions to spread Islam, to convey it to the peoples of the world, no one could possibly have known of Islam or, therefore, of being Muslim. So, all the Muslims coming after the Companions should feel indebted to the Companions and rather than thinking of criticizing them, should pray for them as the Qur’an teaches us to.

(As for those who came after them, they say, Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in belief, and put not into our hearts any rancor towards those who believe. Our Lord, surely You are the All-Gentle, the All-Compassionate) (Al-Hashr 59:10).

At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Hibban quoted ‘Abdullah ibn Mughaffal that Allah’s Messenger warned

Fear Allah; fear Allah and (Refrain from using bad language) about my Companions! (he said it twice) Do not make them the target of your attacks after me! Whoever loves them, loves them on account of his love of me; whoever hates them, hates them on account of his hatred of me. He who maligns them, has maligned me, and he who maligns me, has maligned Allah, and it is embedment that Allah punishes those who malign him.

As recorded in authentic books of tradition, including Al-Bukhari and Muslim, Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) declared

The best of people are those living in my time. Then come those who follow them, and then come those who follow them.

The time of the Companions and the two succeeding generations, was the time of truthfulness. People of great righteousness and scholars of utmost exactitude appeared among those first three generations of Islam. Among the later generations were many who told lies and perjured themselves in order to reinforce false beliefs or for worldly aims.

[shiningstar]

In his Hilyat al-Awliya’, Abu Nu`aym quotes ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar as saying

Whoever desires to follow a straight path, should follow the path of those who passed away. They are the Companions of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). They are the best among his Ummah, the purest in heart, the deepest in knowledge, and the farthest from false display of piety. They are a community whom Allah chose for the company of His Prophet and the conveyance of His religion. Try to be like them in conduct and follow their way. I swear by Allah, the Lord of the Ka`bah, that they were on true guidance.

As recorded by At-Tabarani and Ibn Al-Athir, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, who was among the first to embrace Islam in Makkah and sent to Kufah as a teacher by ‘Umar, said

Allah looked at the hearts of His true servants and chose Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to send to His creatures as a Messenger. Then, He looked at the hearts of people and chose Muhammad’s Companions as the helpers of His religion and the viziers of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Concerning the Companions, Ibn Mas`ud also said

You may excel the Companions in fasting, praying and in striving to worship Allah better. Yet they are better than you. For they give no heed to the world and are most desirous of the Hereafter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Excerpted with some changes from Prophet Muhammad: The Infinite Light, here cited from: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.ymofmd(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/books/infinitelight/infcontents.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.ymofmd(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/books/infinitelight/infcontents.html[/url]

**Fethullah Gulen is an influential Turkish Muslim intellectual who inspired a series of social activities, including a transnational education and business network, inter-faith dialogue forums, and multi-cultural encounters. His official website is: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.fgulen(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.fgulen(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/[/url]

[EasternQibla]

One thing I noticed while reading through Bukhari is how opposed the Companions of Muhammad (God rest his soul) were to him. For example, Abu Bakr complained, "Musical instruments of Satan near the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ?" (follow link below for full hadith), about which I wrote

Yet is it clear that to refer to musical instruments as being "of Satan" (as Abu Bakr said in the hadith quoted in my post #174 above) is absolutely a delusion. Our Prophet (God rest his soul) would not have referred to David's family in such a way if he too believed that musical instruments were of Satan. I cannot shake my opinion that the spirituality of Abu Bakr - that musical instruments are of Satan - is against that of the Prophet (God rest his soul).

Abu Bakr not only called musical instruments as being of Satan when this is to insult the family of the prophet David, but also meant that he was trying to impose his own spiritual understanding in place of the Prophet. He should have seen that Muhammad (God rest his soul) was perfectly at ease with the music and should have humbled himself and changed his opinion.

I mention this because of this hadith I also read (and there are others):

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 428:

Narrated 'Uqba bin 'Amir:

One day the Prophet went out and offered the funeral prayers of the martyrs of Uhud and then went up the pulpit and said, "I will pave the way for you as your predecessor and will be a witness on you. By Allah! I see my Fount (Kauthar) just now and I have been given the keys of all the treasures of the earth (or the keys of the earth). By Allah! I am not afraid that you will worship others along with Allah after my death, but I am afraid that you will fight with one another for the worldly things."

"you will fight with one another for the worldly things.": this is exactly what the Companions did. As such, it seems to me that they became worldly and higher spiritual matters were subjected to their lower emotions and passions.

What am I missing?


Thank you for your help in enlightening me,
Peace,

Richard

[Younes]

One thing I noticed while reading through Bukhari is how opposed the Companions of Muhammad (God rest his soul) were to him. For example, Abu Bakr complained, "Musical instruments of Satan near the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ?" (follow link below for full hadith), about which I wrote
Abu Bakr not only called musical instruments as being of Satan when this is to insult the family of the prophet David, but also meant that he was trying to impose his own spiritual understanding in place of the Prophet. He should have seen that Muhammad (God rest his soul) was perfectly at ease with the music and should have humbled himself and changed his opinion.

I mention this because of this hadith I also read (and there are others):
"you will fight with one another for the worldly things.": this is exactly what the Companions did. As such, it seems to me that they became worldly and higher spiritual matters were subjected to their lower emotions and passions.

What am I missing?
Thank you for your help in enlightening me,
Peace,

Richard

I suggest you speak with a little bit more respect about the Companions (ra) of the Prophet (pbuh), especially Abu Bakr (ra) who was the most devoted to him throughout his life. Only a person with a sick heart would suggest that the Companions (ra), least of all Abu Bakr (ra), would try to impose their understanding on the Prophet (pbuh) or that they actually opposed him. You should actually humble yourself and realise that it wasn't a big deal instead of ascribing sinister motives to people with a highly meritous track record like Abu Bakr (ra).

Music is forbidden. It was forbidden by the Prophet (pbuh), that's why Abu Bakr (ra) got angry. But the Prophet (pbuh) explained to him that it was an exception, namely because it was Id and the girls were young. As for David (pbuh), the laws of the previous Prophets (pbuh) don't matter. The Qur'an also calls wine the work of Satan. Would that be an insult to the previous Prophets (pbut) and their Laws? Absolutely not. Keep things in context.

The Companions (ra) fought one another on account of Uthman's (ra) blood. Uthman (ra), the third Caliph, was murdered in cold blood. One camp wanted the murderers punished and one wanted the same excact thing, i.e. punishment, but wanted to delay the punishment because the political situation was extremely unstable. The Companions (ra) didn't fight one another on account of wordly matters, i.e. wealth, of which the hadith speaks.

I think you need to take look at the Qur'an, which you claim to believe in, and see how it speaks of the Companions (ra).

[EasternQibla]

I suggest you speak with a little bit more respect about the Companions (ra) of the Prophet (pbuh), especially Abu Bakr (ra) who was the most devoted to him throughout his life. Only a person with a sick heart would suggest that the Companions (ra), least of all Abu Bakr (ra), would try to impose their understanding on the Prophet (pbuh) or that they actually opposed him. You should actually humble yourself and realise that it wasn't a big deal instead of ascribing sinister motives to people with a highly meritous track record like Abu Bakr (ra).

I did not mean to be disrespectful, but surely you can see how finding such things makes me doubt. Having read a lot of hadiths, I need clarification. Hence I have to quote and state my opinion. I did ask "What am I missing?".

Music is forbidden. It was forbidden by the Prophet (pbuh), that's why Abu Bakr (ra) got angry. But the Prophet (pbuh) explained to him that it was an exception, namely because it was Id and the girls were young. As for David (pbuh), the laws of the previous Prophets (pbuh) don't matter. The Qur'an also calls wine the work of Satan. Would that be an insult to the previous Prophets (pbut) and their Laws? Absolutely not. Keep things in context.

Ok, I see now where you are coming from. Thank you - without asking I'll never learn ...

I think you need to take look at the Qur'an, which you claim to believe in, and see how it speaks of the Companions (ra).

Based on my memory, I thought I could accept 98% of the Quran, but now think it could be less, and so spoke openly about my doubts, trying to be honest.

"it speaks of the Companions (ra)": The thing is, is that in the hadith quoted above Muhammad (God rest his soul) stated he feared that the companions would "will fight with one another for the worldly things". So an excellent character during Muhammad's lifetime need not imply such a good character afterwards ...

Trying to learn,

Richard

[EasternQibla]

The Companions (ra) fought one another on account of Uthman's (ra) blood. Uthman (ra), the third Caliph, was murdered in cold blood. One camp wanted the murderers punished and one wanted the same excact thing, i.e. punishment, but wanted to delay the punishment because the political situation was extremely unstable. The Companions (ra) didn't fight one another on account of wordly matters, i.e. wealth, of which the hadith speaks.

Nevertheless, the hadith below is even stronger:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 685:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

We were talking about Hajjat-ul-Wada, while the Prophet was amongst us. We did not know what Hajjat-ul-Wada' signified. The Prophet praised Allah and then mentioned Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal and described him extensively, saying, "Allah did not send any prophet but that prophet warned his nation of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. Noah and the prophets following him warned (their people) of him. He will appear amongst you (O Muhammad's followers), and if it happens that some of his qualities may be hidden from you, but your Lord's State is clear to you and not hidden from you. The Prophet said it thrice. Verily, your Lord is not blind in one eye, while he (i.e. Ad-Dajjal) is blind in the right eye which looks like a grape bulging out (of its cluster). No doubt,! Allah has made your blood and your properties sacred to one another like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this town of yours, in this month of yours." The Prophet added: No doubt! Haven't I conveyed Allah's Message to you? " They replied, "Yes," The Prophet said thrice, "O Allah! Be witness for it." The Prophet added, "Woe to you!" (or said), "May Allah be merciful to you! Do not become infidels after me (i.e. my death) by cutting the necks (throats) of one another."

It is not me using the word 'infidels' because they fought each other ...

Richard

[Wesley]

But once the one camp came to power, the same camp that wanted the punishment, that camp never carried out the punishment. The Muslim Community became split over a political matter which in the end, didn't even seem to matter. If this is the best example to live by, then one can easily understand why there are so many divisions in Islam today. Take for example Afghanistan. What is the best way for Islam to be lived by there? The Hanafi school which most Afghans belong to? The Deobandi school which the Taliban promotes. Or perhaps the Hanbali school which Saudi Arabia promotes? The Hanafi school is much different than the latter 2, with different rules for jurisprudence, meaning different rules for how Islam relates to the government and other people's lives. Music is one of those issues. I think Muslims should be seeking a better example than that which led to sectarian violence.

Here is a Wikipedia article about the Barelvi take of the Hanafi school. A majority of the Afghan population are Barelvi's.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Barelvi"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Barelvi[/url]

Note their aversion to the Deobandi school. Saying that both follow the Hanafi jurisprudence, and thus, both are best for Afghanistan is not logical. Each may say Hanafi, but there are clear differences in the jurisprudence between the Deobandi's and the Barelvi's. A Barelvi will liken a Deobandi as more in line with the Wahhabi and Salafi movements within the Hanbali school of thought, as seen in practice with the Taliban.

I can't imagine the Deobandi pathway is what the majority of Afghans desire. This is why I differentiate Deobandi school from that of the majority of the Hanafi, because the Barelvi, who are the majority of the Hanafi, are against the Deobandi way. Its similitude is that of the Shi'a and Sunni overall. Each believed that Ali, a family member of the Seal of the Prophets, was their leader at some point. Yet, their expression over that leadership changed things. Now the Sunni, who claim a majority, are not very fond of the Shi'a. Both cases, the majority treated the minority belief as being so fundamentally different, the minority could not be accepted.

I see these have been reported. Discussing the Deobandi, Barelvi does not violate any rules as they are part of the Hanafi school, which is accepted by the Sunni. The Wahhabi and Salafi movements are also within the Sunni fold. None are listed as prohibited Sects or Cults. The Salafi movement is considered controversial. I definitely did not promote any Salafi teaching. Is supporting the Barelvi form of Hanafi school, a current majority in Afghanistan, to be represented according to their belief a violation of the rules? Is restating a negative, but true history of Islam against the rules. I definitely stated I do not support sectarian violence.

Did I insult Islam, or the Prophet, or the Companions by stating the Companions were split over a political matter which went unfulfilled by both sides? That violence happened between the Companions? It happened. It is true. I don't support the violence. I don't support the fitna. I don't support sectarianism. I think there are lessons to be learned in the history so that history does not repeat itself. If Islam wants to be truly united, the ways which led to the original sectarian violence should not be ignored or supported. The Unity of the Muslim community is important to God.

What am I being reported for?

Edited by Wesley, 28 January 2012 - 01:11 AM.

[Wesley]

The Companions in Hadith*


Do not curse my Companions! Do not curse my Companions! I swear by Him in Whose Hand my life is, that even if one among you had as much gold as Mount Uhud and spent it in the way of Allah, this would not be equal in reward to a handful spent by them or even to its half.

Volume 1, Book 10, Number 576:

Narrated Abu 'Uthman:

'Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr said, "The Suffa Companions were poor people and the Prophet said, 'Whoever has food for two persons should take a third one from them (Suffa companions). And whosoever has food for four persons he should take one or two from them' Abu Bakr took three men and the Prophet took ten of them."

'Abdur Rahman added, my father my mother and I were there (in the house). (The sub-narrator is in doubt whether 'Abdur Rahman also said, 'My wife and our servant who was common for both my house and Abu Bakr's house). Abu Bakr took his supper with the Prophet and remained there till the 'Isha' prayer was offered. Abu Bakr went back and stayed with the Prophet till the Prophet took his meal and then Abu Bakr returned to his house after a long portion of the night had passed. Abu Bakr's wife said, 'What detained you from your guests (or guest)?' He said, 'Have you not served them yet?' She said, 'They refused to eat until you come. The food was served for them but they refused." 'Abdur Rahman added, "I went away and hid myself (being afraid of Abu Bakr) and in the meantime he (Abu Bakr) called me, 'O Ghunthar (a harsh word)!' and also called me bad names and abused me and then said (to his family), 'Eat. No welcome for you.' Then (the supper was served). Abu Bakr took an oath that he would not eat that food. The narrator added: By Allah, whenever any one of us (myself and the guests of Suffa companions) took anything from the food, it increased from underneath. We all ate to our fill and the food was more than it was before its serving.

Abu Bakr looked at it (the food) and found it as it was before serving or even more than that. He addressed his wife (saying) 'O the sister of Bani Firas! What is this?' She said, 'O the pleasure of my eyes! The food is now three times more than it was before.' Abu Bakr ate from it, and said, 'That (oath) was from Satan' meaning his oath (not to eat). Then he again took a morsel (mouthful) from it and then took the rest of it to the Prophet. So that meal was with the Prophet. There was a treaty between us and some people, and when the period of that treaty had elapsed the Prophet divided us into twelve (groups) (the Prophet's companions) each being headed by a man. Allah knows how many men were under the command of each (leader). So all of them (12 groups of men) ate of that meal."

Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 5915:

This hadith has been narrated.on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters. Amir b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa'd as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat 'Ali), whereupon be said : It is because of three things which I remember Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camelg. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) say about 'Ali as he left behind hrin in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). 'All said to him: Allah's Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: Aren't you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call 'Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed: "Let us summon our children and your children." Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called 'Ali, Fitima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family.

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6968:

This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Umm Salama that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to 'Ammar: A group of rebels would kill you.

Who ended up killing 'Ammar ibn Yasir? Who asked why a Companion was not abusing Ali bin Talib? Who opposed Ali bin Talib in the first fitna?
Who did Abu Bakr abuse verbally?

[Younes]

Nevertheless, the hadith below is even stronger:
It is not me using the word 'infidels' because they fought each other ...

I know it is not your words. However, I hope you are not implying that the Companions (ra) were infidels. The fact is that they had a valid disagreement over something and they fought over it. This does not make them disbelievers. I have seen you complain a lot about Muslims taking the NT/Biblical text out of context and quoting haphazardly. In fact, I agree with you that a lot of the times the thinking is quite superficial and lacking in profoundness. Don't be a simpleton and go like this: "The Prophet condemned fighting for riches, the Prophet even called those that fight infidels, the Companions fought, therefore, they were condemned by the Prophet himself". You should realize that the matter is a bit more complicated than that. In fact, the Qur'an says that you can go to war over certain matters and still be believers and brothers.:

(49:9) And if two parties among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both. But if one of them outrages against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which outrages till it complies with the command of Allah. Then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily, Allah loves those who are the equitable.)

As I said, the situation is a bit more complex. I'll give a quick summary. Uthman (ra) gets his house surrounded by rebels. Uthman (ra) orders that the rebels not be harmed because he doesn't want Muslim blood spilt over him. The rebels murder Uthman (ra). Ali (ra) is asked to be Caliph. However, Ali (ra) doesn't want at first. He finally decides to become Caliph. The murderers of Uthman (ra) are in his army, among his ranks. Muawiyah (ra), the governor of Syria and his blood-relative, and others want the rebels executed, a right given to him in the Qur'an. Ali (ra) wants to delay the punishment because the political situation is extremely unstable and going after his own men during such a crisis would not be the smartest thing for any man in office to do. The two parties eventually go to war. However, in the end they opt for peace talks. Add into the mix Byzantium. Thus as you can hopefully see the situation was complex and delicate. It wasn't fought over riches and such. It was fought over a legitimate issue, over justice. Quoting a hadith here or a hadith there without looking at the situation in-depth is no way to go.

[Younes]

Who ended up killing 'Ammar ibn Yasir? Who asked why a Companion was not abusing Ali bin Talib? Who opposed Ali bin Talib in the first fitna?
Who did Abu Bakr abuse verbally?

The army of Muawiayh (ra) killled Ammar (ra). Muawiah (ra) was in the wrong when he didn't obey Ali (ra). Muawiah (ra) said that he would obey Ali (ra) if the murderers of Uthman (ra) were given to him; that was his right as a relative of Uthman's (ra) to demand justice. However, Ali (ra) refused. Muawiayh (ra) waited for a year. But it was Muawiyah's (ra) duty to obey Ali (ra), therefore, he was in the wrong but it was over valid difference of opinion. Muawiayh (ra) was the one asked a Companion why he didn't curse Ali (ra). Note, that doesn't translate into "Muawiayh ordered him to curse Ali", as I'm sure that's probably what you are thinking. Abu Bakr (ra) abused his son verbally.

[Wesley]

As I said, the situation is a bit more complex. I'll give a quick summary. Uthman (ra) gets his house surrounded by rebels. Uthman (ra) orders that the rebels not be harmed because he doesn't want Muslim blood spilt over him. The rebels murder Uthman (ra). Ali (ra) is asked to be Caliph. However, Ali (ra) doesn't want at first. He finally decides to become Caliph. The murderers of Uthman (ra) are in his army, among his ranks. Muawiyah (ra), the governor of Syria and his blood-relative, and others want the rebels executed, a right given to him in the Qur'an. Ali (ra) wants to delay the punishment because the political situation is extremely unstable and going after his own men during such a crisis would not be the smartest thing for any man in office to do. The two parties eventually go to war. However, in the end they opt for peace talks. Add into the mix Byzantium. Thus as you can hopefully see the situation was complex and delicate. It wasn't fought over riches and such. It was fought over a legitimate issue, over justice. Quoting a hadith here or a hadith there without looking at the situation in-depth is no way to go.

They opt for peace talks. What was the situation at the Battle of Siffin? During the Battle, how did Ali and Muawiyah determine to stop fighting and opt for peace? Did someone raise a white flag or something?

Muawiyah wanted the rebels executed. Once Muawiyah came to power, did those rebels become executed? If not, why?

The army of Muawiayh (ra) killled Ammar (ra). Muawiah (ra) was in the wrong when he didn't obey Ali (ra). Muawiah (ra) said that he would obey Ali (ra) if the murderers of Uthman (ra) were given to him; that was his right as a relative of Uthman's (ra) to demand justice. However, Ali (ra) refused. Muawiayh (ra) waited for a year. But it was Muawiyah's (ra) duty to obey Ali (ra), therefore, he was in the wrong but it was over valid difference of opinion. Muawiayh (ra) was the one asked a Companion why he didn't curse Ali (ra). Note, that doesn't translate into "Muawiayh ordered him to curse Ali", as I'm sure that's probably what you are thinking. Abu Bakr (ra) abused his son verbally.

If the army of Muawiyah killed Ammar, wouldn't the army of Muawiyah be considered the rebels according to the Hadith? About the cursing, a question would not be asked unless there was some prior expectation. Otherwise the question would be "Why do you praise Ali?" Cursing Ali must have existed in some form that both Muawiyah was aware of, and expected Sa'ad to be aware of, too.

Given the circumstances of Muawiyah, why is he praised? Are there any traditions which praise his religious character or practice of his religion?

Opposing the station of Caliphate, which you, Younes, had prior argued is Divine and from the Qur'an, would seem to go against the Qur'an. Either the Caliphate is perfect or imperfect, not both. Was the Caliphate perfect and divine, whereupon Muawiyah transgressed the boundaries of the Qur'an (disbelief), or was the Caliphate imperfect, not a Divine authority?

[Younes]

They opt for peace talks. What was the situation at the Battle of Siffin? During the Battle, how did Ali and Muawiyah determine to stop fighting and opt for peace? Did someone raise a white flag or something?

Nobody raised a white flag. The army of Muawiyah (ra) put Qur'ans on their spears because they were loosing. The army of Ali (ra) didn't want to harm the Qur'an so they stopped fighting. Then Ali and Muawiah (ra) agreed to have peace talks. This enraged some of the followers Ali (ra), most likely the rebels, and they assasinated Ali (ra).

Muawiyah wanted the rebels executed. Once Muawiyah came to power, did those rebels become executed? If not, why?

I think the rebels became the Khawarij, so they could never be dealt with properly, as in be executed in a legal manner. However, the Khawarij were fought by Muawiah (ra).

If the army of Muawiyah killed Ammar, wouldn't the army of Muawiyah be considered the rebels according to the Hadith? About the cursing, a question would not be asked unless there was some prior expectation. Otherwise the question would be "Why do you praise Ali?" Cursing Ali must have existed in some form that both Muawiyah was aware of, and expected Sa'ad to be aware of, too.

I already said that Muawiayh's (ra) army was the transgressing army. Yes, cursing Ali (ra) existed in that time and both were aware. You are correct. However, I have seen people claim that this means that Muawiah (ra) ordered the cursing Ali (ra) which is not the case.

Given the circumstances of Muawiyah, why is he praised? Are there any traditions which praise his religious character or practice of his religion?

Yes, there are traditions. However, I don't see why any of that should really matter because you will always fall back on arguements like "these are fabricated", "someone from Damascus reported this".

The fact is that Muawiyah (ra) had a rightful cause. He was the relative of Uthman (ra) who got murdered and he had the Divine right to seek retribution. This right is given in the Qur'an. Muawiyah (ra) waited over a year. Finally he decided that he would fight those who murdered Uthman (ra).

The only reason why you don't agree with this is because you are partisan. Imagine if Ali (ra) was the one killed instead of Uthman (ra) and Uthman (ra) rose to power and say Ibn 'Abbas (ra), from the family of the Prophet (pbuh), wanted to seek the killers of Ali (ra) but Uthman (ra) delayed this. You and the members who follow the religion your two prophets used to follow would be singing a totally different tune.

Opposing the station of Caliphate, which you, Younes, had prior argued is Divine and from the Qur'an, would seem to go against the Qur'an. Either the Caliphate is perfect or imperfect, not both. Was the Caliphate perfect and divine, whereupon Muawiyah transgressed the boundaries of the Qur'an (disbelief), or was the Caliphate imperfect, not a Divine authority?

Transgressing doesn't make you a disbeliever. I am sorry. I already said Muawiayh (ra) was in the wrong. However, that doesn't mean that he was a disbeliever. He made an error in judgement. He had a righteous cause, but he still made an error. That might be hard for partisans like you to accept.

The Caliph does have Divine authority. However, this does not mean that he is necessarily perfect or free from all errors. For example, even David (pbuh) committed an error in judgement. For example, the Torah says that the Jews should elect a king. It is a Divine institution, but it does not mean that the king was immune from error. The Jews had judges and kings, but it does not mean they committed no error. You are using very simplistic logic here.

[Wesley]

Nobody raised a white flag. The army of Muawiyah (ra) put Qur'ans on their spears because they were loosing. The army of Ali (ra) didn't want to harm the Qur'an so they stopped fighting. Then Ali and Muawiah (ra) agreed to have peace talks. This enraged some of the followers Ali (ra), most likely the rebels, and they assasinated Ali (ra).

Isn't that desecrating the Qur'an?

[Younes]

Isn't that desecrating the Qur'an?

No.

[Wesley]

23. But when He delivereth them, Behold! they transgress insolently through the earth in defiance of right! O mankind! your insolence is against your own souls -- an enjoyment of the life of the Present: in the end, to Us is your return, and We shall show you the truth of all that ye did.

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 10)

190. Fight in the Cause of Allah, those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)

[Younes]

49:9 And if two parties among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both. But if one of them outrages against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which outrages till it complies with the command of Allah. Then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily, Allah loves those who are the equitable.

You are taking things way out of context, quoting a verse which concerns people who have been saved by God from a raging sea. The above verse I have quoted explains the Islamic position.

[Wesley]

I think the rebels became the Khawarij, so they could never be dealt with properly, as in be executed in a legal manner. However, the Khawarij were fought by Muawiah (ra).

The Khawarij were started by those who opposed Ali by wanting to continue to fight Muawiyah. It was not the same people who killed Uthman. Do you know why the assassins were never killed? Because no one could prove who killed Uthman. Ali was not going to kill someone unjustly. If history is certain of who killed Uthman, surely there must be a tradition somewhere which states "So and So killed Uthman." Two people were incarcerated for the murder and those people did not serve with Ali at the Battle of Siffin.

Khawarij cannot be blamed for everything which happened. I believe we can determine the character of Muawiyah by his rule and lack of traditions by authentic sources which state his religious attributes.

You mentioned I reject positive Hadith about Aisha. I never have in any post on this website. If so, prove it. I never asked for any evidence of her character. I have stated she is not free from error and was jealous of Khadija. I also said there are no histories of positive actions towards Fatima and other members of the Prophet's family. She restated some positive narratives, that is all. You never shown any tradition which shows positive action towards anyone related to Khadija. All traditions of Aisha which show positive actions towards people include those in Aisha's family and those of the Umayyad leaders (not just Caliphs).

Why does the Hanifa school of Sunni Islam oppose Muawiyah?

[Younes]

The Khawarij were started by those who opposed Ali by wanting to continue to fight Muawiyah. It was not the same people who killed Uthman.

I think it is. Who had the most to lose if Ali (ra) stopped fighting? Who were the ones who weren't ashamed of murdering Caliphs?

Khawarij cannot be blamed for everything which happened. I believe we can determine the character of Muawiyah by his rule and lack of traditions by authentic sources which state his religious attributes.

There are authentic hadiths. Muawiyah (ra) actually had a good rule. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_bewley.virtualave(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/muawiya.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_bewley.virtualave(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/muawiya.html[/url]

We have an example of Mu'awiya's astuteness when he visited 'A'isha, the daughter of the murdered 'Uthman, who was lamenting and crying for her father. He said, "Cousin, our subjects have sworn to obey us. In return, we promised to pardon them. If our act of clemency is tarnished by the memory of the past, their submission is also not free of regret. Each, with his hand on his sword, searched the eyes of his comrades. If we were to now break our commitments, we would push them into being disloyal to us. That would open a spate of new difficulties whose end result cannot be foreseen. "

She restated some positive narratives, that is all. You never shown any tradition which shows positive action towards anyone related to Khadija. All traditions of Aisha which show positive actions towards people include those in Aisha's family and those of the Umayyad leaders (not just Caliphs).

Like I said, her narrating about Khadija (ra) and Fatimah (ra) is an extremely good action. It is not true that Aisha (ra) just showed positive actions towards her family or Umayyad leaders. For example, she helped the poor and taught knowledge to Muslims who became great scholars.

Why does the Hanifa school of Sunni Islam oppose Muawiyah?

Proof?