Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Refuting Arguments Made by Shias Against Muawiya

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Refuting Arguments Made by Shias Against Muawiya

    The Shias said:

    Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' declared Ziyad, the bastard son of Abu Sufiyan as his real brother contradicting the Sharia


    Regarding the acts committed by Muawiyah contradicting to the Islamic Shariya, let us begin with his first open violation of Quraninc injunctions by declaring Ziyad, the bastered son of Abu Sufiyan as his real brothther. He did so at the time of appointintg Ziyad. Imam Jalaluddeen Suyuti also acknowledges this in his book 'Al-Debaj ala Muslim' volume 1 page 84:

    "When Zyiad was attributed, as Mu'awiya attributed him to his father Abu Sufyan while he (Zyiad) was known as Zyiad bin Abih because his mother had given birth to him on Ubaid's bed, and this was the first Sharia law that was changed in Islam."
    Al-Debaj ala Muslim, Volume 1 page 84

    Imam Suyuti also records in Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 185:

    "Mu'awiya's appointed Ziyad bin Abih and it was the first act that contradicted an order of Rasulullah as al-Thalabi and others narrated it".

    We read in Tarikh Kamil Volume 3 page 68:

    "They rejected the law of Rasulullah because Rasulullah (s) said that the legitimate child is one born from wedlock"

    Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr records in his esteem work 'al-Estidkar' volume 7 page 169:

    Saeed bin al-Musayab said: 'The first law of messenger of Allah that was rejected is the case of Ziyad'

    Let us also read the views of Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ahmed bin Hanbal:

    Ahmad (bin Hanbal) said: 'The first law of the Holy Prophet [s] that was rejected is the case of Ziyad'
    Masael Ahmad bin Hanbal, page 89

    Let us now cite the words of one of the beloved scholars by Salafies Sheikh Hasan Farhan al-Maliki who was born in 1390 H and graduated from Imam Muhammad bin Saud University in year 1412 H. He records in 'Naho Inqad al-Tarikh' page 31:

    "During the reign of Mu'awiya, a group testified that Abu Sufyan confessed that Ziad to be his son, so according to that Mu'awiya attributed him (to Abu Sufyan) and contradicted the correct hadith which is boy belongs to the bed (where he was born), and for the adulterer is the stone! And that was for worldly benefit. Those who condemn Mu'awiya's deed had declared it. And the scholars agreed on the illegality of his attribution to Abu Sufyan, and what happened (of silence) from the scholars during the reign of Bani Umaya was Taqyia."

    This action of Mu'awiya contravened the Qur'an, as we raed in Surah Ahzab verses 4-5:

    YUSUFALI: Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way.

    Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father's (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
    Answer is attached.

    Hanbali you know the deal.
    Attached Files
    www.call-to-monotheism.com

  • #2
    Did Mu'awiya Make decisions that contradicted the Shar'ia on inheritance?

    The Shias said:

    Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' made decisions that contradicted the Shar'ia on inheritance


    Ibn Kathir in his esteemed work Al-Bidayah (Urdu), vol 8 page 989-990 (Nafees Academy Karachi) while recording the 'merits' of Muawiya bin Hinda, records:

    The Sunnah is that that neither could a kaafir inherit from a Muslim, nor a Muslim inherit from a kaafir. The first person to allow a Muslim to inherit from Kafir, whilst Kafir could not inherit from a Muslim was Muawiya, and Bani Umaya did the same after him till Umar bin Abdulaziz came and revived the Sunnah, but then Hisham returned back to what Mu'awiya and Bani Umatya used to do.

    Al Bidayah (Arabic), Volume 8 page 141
    Al Bidayah (Arabic), Volume 8 page 149

    Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Qudamah records in his esteemed work 'Al-Mughni':

    "The scholars are unanimous that the non Muslim does not inherit the Muslim, the majority of companions and jurists said: 'The muslim do not inherit the non Muslim'. That is what narrated from Abu bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Usama bin Zaid, Jaber bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with them), and so was said by Amro bin Uthman, Arwa, al-Zuheri, Atta, Tawous, al-Hasan, Amro bin Abdulaziz, Amro bin Dinar, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and his companions, Malik, Shafeei and the rest of the jurists, and that is what we follow. It is narrated about Amr, Mu'ath and Mu'awiya (may Allah be pleased with them) that they allowed Muslim to inherit the non Muslim, but they didn't allow Non-Muslim to inherit a Muslim"

    Al-Mughni, Volume 7 page 166- Kitab al-Faraiz

    Mu'awiya's introduction of this practice was an open violation to the teachings of Islam and we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 8 hadith number 756 that Rasulullah (s) said, "A Muslim cannot be the heir of a disbeliever, nor can a disbeliever be the heir of a Muslim".
    There was a valid difference of opinion amongst the Salaf regarding this point. It wasn't only Muawiya who held this view, but also Muadh ibn Jabal (well known companion of the Prophet), Muhammad ibn Al Hanafiyah, Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Al Husayn, Saeed ibn al Museeb, Masrooq ibn Al Ajda' and even Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah.


    Some have understood the hadith "A Muslim cannot be the heir of a disbeliever" to only refer to the muhaaarib kaafir.


    Now pesonally I go with the majority view that the Muslim does not inherit from any kaafir, however this is an ikhtilaaf amongst the scholars and we can't condemn Muawiya for his ijitaaad.

    Recommended Reading

    http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1122528607606
    www.call-to-monotheism.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Did Muawiya Wear Silk, Gold and Animal Skin?

      The Shias said:

      Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' wore prohibited items despite the fact that he was aware that Rasulullah (s) deemed them haraam


      We read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 32, hadith Number 4119:

      Narrated Al-Miqdam ibn Ma'dikarib: "Khalid said: Al-Miqdam ibn Ma'dikarib and a man of Banu Asad from the people of Qinnisrin went to Mu'awiyah ibn AbuSufyan.

      Mu'awiyah said to al-Miqdam: Do you know that al-Hasan ibn Ali has died? Al-Miqdam recited the Qur'anic verse "We belong to Allah and to Him we shall return."

      A man asked him: Do you think it a calamity? He replied: Why should I not consider it a calamity when it is a fact that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to take him on his lap, saying: This belongs to me and Husayn belongs to Ali?

      The man of Banu Asad said: (He was) a live coal which Allah has extinguished. Al-Miqdam said: Today I shall continue to make you angry and make you hear what you dislike. He then said: Mu'awiyah, if I speak the truth, declare me true, and if I tell a lie, declare me false.

      He said: Do so. He said: I adjure you by Allah, did you hear the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) forbidding use to wear gold?

      He replied: Yes. He said: I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) prohibited the wearing of silk?

      He replied: Yes. He said: I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) prohibited the wearing of the skins of beasts of prey and riding on them?

      He said: Yes. He said: I swear by Allah, I saw all this in your house, O Mu'awiyah.

      Mu'awiyah said: I know that I cannot be saved from you, O Miqdam.

      Khalid said: Mu'awiyah then ordered to give him what he did not order to give to his two companions, and gave a stipend of two hundred (dirhams) to his son. Al-Miqdam then divided it among his companions, and the man of Banu Asad did not give anything to anyone from the property he received. When Mu'awiyah was informed about it, he said: Al-Miqdam is a generous man; he has an open hand (for generosity). The man of Banu Asad withholds his things in a good manner".

      So here we learn that Mu'awiya the Hadi:

      Was asked whether he was aware that Rasulullah (s) had prohibited the wearing of gold, silk and animal skin.
      Mu'awiya confirmed that he knew this to be the position
      The man testified that he had witnessed all three prohibited items being worn in his house

      What a wonderful Hadi! One that is fully aware that a matter has been prohibited by Rasulullah (s) but openly violates this order. Can we define a Hadi as an individual that knowingly violates an order of Rasulullah (s)?
      This hadith no where shows that Muawiya continued to wear silk, gold and animal skin after its prohibition. The narration only shows that they were still in his house and as far as I know, this is not haram.

      Also, when Muawiya said "I know that I cannot be saved from you, O Miqdam" this was complimenting Miqdam in a lighthearted way for trying to advise him.

      For example, imagine you have bad English grammar and your father keeps correcting it for you. You then tell your dad "Oh daadd, I know I can never escape from you with my bad grammar!". You are pointing out the fact that your dad continuously corrects you in a light hearted way.

      The same thing appears to be going on with Muawiya and Al-Miqdam.
      www.call-to-monotheism.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Did Muawiyah (R) Drink a Prohibitive Substance?

        The Shias said:

        Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' drank a prohibited substance


        Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Ibn Hanbal records in his Musnad Volume 5 page 347:

        "Abdullah bin Buraida said: 'I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu'awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought drink to us, Muawiya drank and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said: 'I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it Haram'...."

        Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 5 page 347 Hadith: 22991
        Screen shot of the Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal with the correction of Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut

        The very tradition at another popular Salafi library www.al-eman.com is at no. 21863
        http://www.al-eman.com/hadeeth/viewc...?BID=3&CID=126

        Several children of Muaiywah i.e. the hardline Nawasib have sought their utmost to find flaws in the chain of this narration but the fact is that the tradition at maximum is 'Sahih' and minimum is 'Hasan' as late Salafi scholar from Yemen Sheikh Muqbel al-Wadei decalred it 'Hasan' (al-Musnad al-Sahih, page 185). Allamah Hasan bin Ali al-Saqqaf (born in 1961) is a contemporary Sunni scholar of modern day, he is the chief of Imam Nawawi center in Jordon, he has been a student of some esteemed Sunni scholars such as al-Azeemi (the margin writter of the book Sahih Ibn Khuzaima), Hafiz Ghemari and Sheikh Bouti. Allamah Saqqaf has written a margin for the book "Dafu Shubah al-Tashbih" by Imam Abu al-Faraj bin al-Jawzi al-Hanbali in which Allamah Saqqaf wrote about this tradition: "The narrators are the narrators of Sahih Muslim". And the version of Musnad Ahmad available at the above cited link is compiled by Shaykh Shoaib Al-Arnaut who stated about that tradition: "The chain is strong". But if still the fact that the father of Nawasib drank a Haram substance is frustrating them and they are dying to prove it a weak narration, then let us hit the final nail in the coffin of Nasibism by presenting the comments of great Sunni Imam, Hafid Abi Bakar al-Hathami who has also recorded this tradition in his esteemed work 'Majma al Zawaid' and then stated:

        رواه أحمد ورجاله رجال الصحيح

        "Ahmad narrated it and the narrators are the narrators of Sahih"
        Majma ul Zawaid, Volume 5 page 554 Hadith 8022

        Taken from www.du3at.com/du3at11/alrafedhah/sh27.htm...

        أما الرواية عند ابن أبي شيبة في المصنف فلا إشكال ولا خطأ فيها.
        « حدثنا زيد بن الحباب عن الحسين بن واقد قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن بريدة قال دخلت أنا وأبي على معاوية فأجلس أبي على السرير وأتى بالطعام فأطعمنا وأتى بشراب فشرب فقال معاوية ما شيء كنت استلذه وأنا شاب فآخذه اللبن إلا اللبن فإني آخذه كما كنت آخذه قبل اليوم والحديث الحسن» (11/94-9).

        دراية الأثر:

        قوله (ما شربته منذ..) هذا من كلام معاوية وليس من كلام عبد الله بن بريدة وهكذا جعله جميع الحفاظ في مسند معاوية مثل ابن كثير في جامع المسانيد والإمام أحمد في المسند في مسند معاوية.
        وقوله (ما شربته) يعني المسكر. قلت: وهذا استطراد من معاوية لا علاقة له بما قبله وما بعده. مما يدل على سقوط كلام متعلق بالشراب المحرم.

        ويستفاد من الخبر بيان إكرام معاوية لإخوانه الصحابة ووفادتهم عليه رضي الله عنهم أجمعين كما قصدت دفع الإيهام الذي قد يثيره بعض أهل الهوى ممن تنقلب الفضائل في مخيلتهم إلى مثالب وأطلت قليلا في هذا لأني وجدت بعض محدثي الرافضة النوكى يحرف معنى الخبر ويحمله ما لا يحتمل مما هو ومشايخه أولى به.
        قال المعلق على المسند (38/26 طبعة الرسالة) « ولعله قال ذلك لما رأى من الكراهة والإنكار في وجه بريدة. لظنه أنه شراب محرم. والله أعلم.

        قلت: هذا تجويز من قائله ولم يرد في شيء من مصادر الخبر نقل كراهية بريدة أو إنكاره فضلا عن رده وامتناعه عما ناوله معاوية. ولو كان بريدة رضي الله عنه يظن ذلك لما جلس هذا المجلس ولنقل ابنه استفهامه على أقل تقدير. وقد قال رسول الله  « من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر فلا يجلس على مائدة يدار عليها الخمر».

        ثم إن مما يتبادر للذهن أن الشراب هو اللبن بدليل أن معاوية في سنه هذه لا يفضل عليه غيره كما في آخر الخبر. والله أعلم
        ولا يعقل أن لا تتضمن الرواية عدم كرهية بريدة أو إنكاره ذلك لو خمرا كما يزعمون. وإن آخر ما يمكن أن يفهم هو أن معاوية شرب الخمر. كيف وهو ينص في الخبر ذاته على أنه لم يشربها قط منذ أن حرمها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.
        ومعاوية هو راو حديث جلد الشارب ثلاثا ثم قتله في الرابعة.
        ومن شدته في مسألة المسكر أنه أمر بقتل السكران إذا قتل مع أن بعضهم لا يوقعه.

        والإشكال هو أن معاوية لما ناول بريدة الشراب، قال: ما شربته منذ حرمه النبي.
        فظن بعضهم أن الضمير هنا يعود على الشراب الذي ناوله لبريدة وهذا غلط شديد جدا لأن الضمير هنا لا يعود على ذلك الشراب بل هو ضمير في مكان شيء ظاهر يقول فيه النحويون: أضمر في مقام الإظهار أي أنه جاء بالضمير عوض أن يأتي بالاسم الظاهر، والعرب تستعمل هذا كثيرا، إذا أرادت أن تتكلم عن شيء تستشنعه وتستقذره وتستحيي من التلفظ به، تأتي بالضمير ولا تأتي بالظاهر وهذا من جمال لغة العرب.

        وضع معاوية الشراب في يد بريدة ثم قال: ما شربته، أي الخمر منذ حرمه النبي وكان حقه أن يقول: ما شربت الخمر منذ حرمه النبي ولكنه جاء بالضمير عوض الظاهر استشناعا للنطق باسم الخمر.

        وهذا دليل على فضله ومبالغته في التحرز من الخمر فالذي يستشنع مجرد النطق باسم الخمر، كيف يشربه؟
        وقد ابلغ في الغلط من تصور أن الضمير في قوله (ما شربته) يرجع إلى الشراب الذي بين أيديهم.

        ويقال هنا: كيف ذكر الخمر؟ وما وجه الحديث عنه؟
        فالجواب: أن هذا من باب الاستطراد وهذا جار على عادة العرب
        فالاستطراد: هو ذكر الشيء في غير محله لمناسبة داعية إلى ذلك.

        مثاله : أن النبي سئل عن طهارة ماء البحر فأجاب عن ذلك، واستطرد لذكر حكم الميتة التي لم يسأل عنها. وهذا من الاستطراد المحمود. ولذلك يقولون: الشيء بالشيء يذكر.
        فمعاوية لما رأى شرابا على مائدته، ذكره ذلك بالشراب الذي كانوا عليه في الجاهلية لا يفارق موائدهم ألا وهو الخمر وكيف أنهم استبدلوه باللبن فالمناسبة قوية للغاية

        وهذا هو الدليل من (مصنف ابن أبي شيبة6/188):
        30560حدثنا زيد بن الحباب عن حسين بن واقد قال حدثنا عبد الله بن بريدة قال قال دخلت أنا وأبي على معاوية فأجلس أبي على السرير وأتى بالطعام فأطعمنا وأتى بشراب فشرب فقال معاوية ما شيء وأنا شاب فآخذه اليوم إلا اللبن فأني آخذه كما كنت آخذه قبل اليوم والحديث الحسن
        هذه الرواية لا تترك شكا لأحد. فإن معاوية يقول إنه لا يشرب في يومه ذاك إلا اللبن. فالشراب كان لبنا لا غير. فلو نظر الناظر في الروايتين، تبين له صدق ما قلت

        Please ignore how in the same link they try to weaken the isnaad, because the argument seems very weak. Rather, see how they analyze the matn and that is the part I posted.
        www.call-to-monotheism.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Did Muawiyah (R) Order People to Consume Haram Wealth and Kill Each Other?

          The Shias said:

          Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' tells the people to consume haraam items and kill each other


          We read in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Imara Book 020, Number 4546:

          It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka'ba who said: I entered the mosque when 'Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As was sitting in the shade of the Ka'ba and the people had gathered around him. I betook myself to them and sat near him. (Now) Abdullah said: I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on a journey. We halted at a place. Some of us began to set right their tents, others began to compete with one another in shooting, and others began to graze their beasts, when an announcer of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) announced that the people should gather together for prayer, so we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them; but this Umma of yours has its days of peace and (security) in the beginning of its career, and in the last phase of its existence it will be afflicted with trials and with things disagreeable to you. (In this phase of the Umma), there will be tremendous trials one after the other, each making the previous one dwindle into insignificance. When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the piedge of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. The narrator says: I came close to him ('Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu'awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:" O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you" (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and diqobey him in matters involving disobedience to God.

          The role of a caliphs is to tell people to refrain from consuming ujust wealth and killing eachother, yet Mu'awiya was telling his subjects to do just that. Who forced people to break the Shariah.

          Sheikh Dimashqia responds:


          فسكت عبد الله بن عمرو ساعة ثم قال: أطِعه في طاعة الله واعصه في معصية الله » [مسلم (1844)]
          وقد أحكم النووي الجواب عن هذه الشبهة فقال: « المقصود بهذا الكلام أن هذا القائل لما سمع كلام عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص وذكر الحديث في تحريم منازعة الخليفة الأول وأن الثاني يُقتَل: فاعتقد هذا القائل أن هذا الوصف [صار لازمًا] في معاوية لمنازعته عليًّا رضي الله عنه وكانت قد سبقت بيعةُ علي، فرأى هذا أن نفقة معاوية على أجناده وأتْبَاعه في حرب علي ومنازعته ومقاتلته إياه من أكل المال بالباطل ومن قتل النفس لأنه قتالٌ بغير حق، فلا يستحق أحدٌ مالاً في مقاتلته » (شرح النووي على مسلم 12/476)..
          وهذا الجواب منه صحيح ولا غبار عليه، ويؤيده أن مسلمًا جعل هذا الأثر في كتاب الإمارة وضمن باب وجوب الوفاء ببيعة الخليفة الأول فالأول: فأسأل الله أن ينفّس عنه بذلك كربةً من كُرَب يوم القيامة.
          www.call-to-monotheism.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Did Muawiyah (R) Take Interest?

            The Shias said:

            Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' took interest


            We read in Muwatta Book 31, Number 31.16.33 under the chapter "Selling Gold for Silver, Minted and Unminted":

            Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from Ata ibn Yasar that Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan sold a gold or silver drinking-vessel for more than its weight. Abu'dDarda said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbidding such sales except like for like." Muawiya said to him, "I don't see any harm in it." Abu'd-Darda said to him, "Who will excuse me from Muawiya? I tell him something from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he gives me his own opinion! I will not live in the same land as you!" Then Abu'd-Darda went to Umar ibn al-Khattab and mentioned that to him. Umar ibn al-Khattab therefore wrote to Muawiya, "Do not sell it except like for like, weight for weight."
            Muwatta Book 31, Number 31.16.33

            Just contemplate the significance of this narration. Mu'awiya had entered in to a profit making transaction that was haraam. Abu'd-Darda corrected him and told him of the verdict of Rasulullah (s) on the matter only permitting such transactions on a 'like for like' basis. Rather than concede that he was wrong, Abu Sulaiman's Hadi replies "I don't see any harm in it" - thus justifying his opinion over that of Rasulullah (s). We congratulate Abu Sulaiman for grasping a Hadi who has no shame in holding an opinion different to that of Rasulullah (s)!

            One would think that the natural response would be for Mu'awiya to desist from such actions in the future, Mu'awiya had been told clearly by Abu'd Darda and Umar that an individual can only sell a like for like item i.e. Gold for Gold. The position under the Sharia had been made clear and yet as Khalifa, Abu Sulaiman's Hadi Imam continued to ignore the order of Rasulullah (s) on the matter. We read in Sahih Muslim Book 010, Number 3852:

            "Abil Qiliba reported: I was in Syria (having) a circle (of friends). in which was Muslim b. Yasir. There came Abu'l-Ash'ath. He (the narrator) said that they (the friends) called him: Abu'l-Ash'ath, Abu'l-Ash'ath, and he sat down. I said to him: Narrate to our brother the hadith of Ubada b. Samit. He said: Yes. We went out on an expedition, Mu'awiya being the leader of the people, and we gained a lot of spoils of war. And there was one silver utensil in what we took as spoils. Mu'awiya ordered a person to sell it for payment to the people (soldiers). The people made haste in getting that. The news of (this state of affairs) reached 'Ubada b. Samit, and he stood up and said: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) forbidding the sale of gold by gold, and silver by silver, and wheat by wheat, and barley by barley, and dates by dates, and salt by salt, except like for like and equal for equal. So he who made an addition or who accepted an addition (committed the sin of taking) interest. So the people returned what they had got. This reached Mu'awiya. and he stood up to deliver an address. He said: What is the matter with people that they narrate from the Messenger (may peace be upon him) such tradition which we did not hear though we saw him (the Holy Prophet) and lived in his company? Thereupon, Ubida b. Samit stood up and repeated that narration, and then said: We will definitely narrate what we heard from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) though it may be unpleasant to Mu'awiya (or he said: Even if it is against his will). I do not mind if I do not remain in his troop in the dark night. Hammad said this or something like this".
            Sahih Muslim Book 010, Number 3852

            Yet again Mu'awiya allowed a transaction that was not based on the 'like for like principle' as stipulated by Rasulullah (s). It is interesting to see Mu'awiya's denial of this matter declaring "they narrate from the Messenger (may peace be upon him) such tradition which we did not hear though we saw him". How can Mu'awiya deny knowledge of this matter when it is proven from the previous narration in Muwatta that as Governor of Syria under Umar this issue was brought to his attention by Abu'd Darda and then confirmed in writing to him by the Khalifa himself?

            I have pasted the commentary for Malik's Muwatta's hadith below, which clarifies the ordeal

            ( ش ) : ما ذهب إليه معاوية من بيع سقاية الذهب بأكثر من وزنها يحتمل أن يرى في ذلك ما رآه ابن عباس من تجويز التفاضل في الذهب نقدا ويحتمل أن يكون لا يرى ذلك ولكنه جوز التفاضل بين المصوغ منه وغيره لمعنى الصياغة وقول أبي الدرداء سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ينهى عن مثل هذا أنكر عليه فعله من تجويزه التفاضل في الذهب واحتاج إلى الاحتجاج بنهي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن مثل ذلك ; لأن معاوية من أهل الفقه والاجتهاد فليس لأبي الدرداء صرفه عن رأيه الذي روي إلا بدليل وحجة بينة وقد روى ابن أبي مليكة قيل لابن عباس هل لك في أمير المؤمنين معاوية ما أوتر إلا بواحدة قال أصاب إنه فقيه . ‏

            ‏( فصل ) وقول معاوية ما أرى بمثل هذا بأسا يحتمل أن يرى القياس مقدما على أخبار الآحاد على ما روي عن مالك وذلك لما يجوز على الراوي من السهو والغلط والصواب تقديم خبر الواحد العدل ; لأن السهو والغلط يجوز فيه على الناظر المجتهد أكثر مما يجوز على الناقل الحافظ الفقيه وقد بينت ذلك في أحكام الفصول ويحتمل أن يرى تقديم أخبار الآحاد إلا أنه حمل النهي على المضروب بالمضروب دون المصوغ بالمضروب ورأى أن الصياغة معنى زائد ويجوز أن يكون عوضا للفضل على حسب ما يقول أبو حنيفة فيمن باع مائة دينار في قرطاس بمائتي دينار أن ذلك جائز ويجعل القرطاس عوضا للمائة الأخرى . ‏

            ‏( فصل ) وقول أبي الدرداء من يعذرني من معاوية أنا أخبره عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ويخبرني عن رأيه أنكار منه على معاوية التعلق برأي يخالف النص ولم يحمل ذلك من معاوية على التأويل وإنما حمله منه على رد الحديث بالرأي إما ; لأنه لم يرد بقوله عن مثل هذا إلا المصوغ بالمضروب وفيه نقل النهي فيمتنع التأويل والتخصيص وإما ; لأنه حمل قول معاوية ما أرى بمثل هذا بأسا على تجويز التفاضل بين الذهبين في الجملة دون تفصيل . وأما التأويل فلا خلاف في جوازه وفيما قاله أبو الدرداء تصريح بأن أخبار الآحاد مقدمة على القياس والرأي وقوله لا أساكنك بأرض أنت فيها مبالغة في الإنكار على معاوية واظهار لهجره والبعد عنه حين لم يأخذ بما نقل إليه من نهي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ويظهر الرجوع عما خالفه . ‏

            ‏( فصل ) وقوله ثم قدم أبو الدرداء على عمر بن الخطاب فذكر ذلك له على معنى رفع ما ينكر إلى الإمام إذا لم يستطع على تغيير المنكر عنده فكتب عمر بن الخطاب إلى معاوية أن لا يبيع ذلك إلا وزنا بوزن على حسب ما يجب على الإمام من أمر حكامه بالحكم بالحق والتبصير لهم بصواب الأحكام وقوله إلا وزنا بوزن يقتضي المنع من الجزاف في ذلك ; لأن ما حرم فيه التفاضل يحرم فيه الجزاف ; لأنه لا يعلم معه التساوي والجهل فالتساوي كالعلم بالتفاضل في التحريم والمنع من صحة العقد ولا يجوز التحري في هذا لما جرت العادة من قلة التسامح بيسيره ولم ينكر عمر رضى الله عنهعلى معاوية ما راجع به أبو الدرداء لما احتمل من التأويل على ما قدمناه والله أعلم وأحكم .
            www.call-to-monotheism.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Did Muawiyah (R) Undress and Inspect the Body of a Naked Woman?

              The Shias said:

              Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' undresses and inspects the body of a naked woman


              Ibn Katheer proudly records:

              Ibn Asakir has narrated under the events of Mu'awiya's slave Khadij al Hazi that Mu'awiya bought a fair complexioned and beautiful slave girl and he (Khadij) undressed her and brought her before Mu'awiya while he was having a stick in his hand and he started bowing towards her vagina and said: " I wish this vagina were for me; take her to Yazeed bin Muawyah." And then said "No! Call Rabi` bin Umro al Qarshi". He (Rabi) was a Faqih. When he came, Muawyah asked him: "This slave girl has been brought before me in naked condition and I have seen her here and there and I wished to send her to Yazeed". He said: "O commander of faithful! Don't do this. This is not appropriate". Mu'awiya said: "Your suggestion is correct". Narrator says that Mu'awiya then gifted her to the servant of Fatima daughter of Holy Prophet [s] namely Abdullah bin Mas`adat Fazari who was black and Muaywah told him: "Make your children white through her".
              And this shows the cleverness and intelligence of Muawyah because he had seen her with lustful intention and felt weak in front of her, and then he was also scared of gifting her to Yazeed due to the verse of Holy Quran, and Faqih Rabi` bin Umro al Jarshi al Damashqi also agreed with him"
              Al Badayah wal Niahayh (Urdu), Vol 8 page 992, Topic- Wives and sons of Muawyah (published by Nafees Academy Karachi).

              We don't understand how the children of Mu'awiya such as Ibn Kathir can praise their father for mocking with the honor of a woman. According to the supposed hadith Nasibis deem Mu'awiya to be their "guide". We can deduce the horrible guidance they obtained from their beloved guide. How can a religious guide allow a man to undress a woman and not only that but then pass disparaging comments about her in the presence of another person and in effect treat her like a toy ball that can be thrown from one hand into another in the very naked condition.
              Ibn Kathir took this narration from Ibn Asakir's Tareekh Dimashq, Volume 12, page 238, Source: http://www.islamww.com/booksww/book_...d=1900&id=5390

              The Arabic goes like this (notice the huge chain of transmission):

              فلا تجزعي ( 1 ) يا قيس عيلان واصبري * رويدك أنا سوف نتعب بالصبر ستأتيكم مثل الأسود مغيرة * على كل طيار يزيد على الزجر فان بك فتياني نبوا عن قتالهم * بجانب حرلان ( 2 ) وخاموا على النصر فرب حسام قد نبا وهو قاطع * ويثكل أحيانا لدى مخلب الصقر * ( 3 ) 1225 حديج ووجدته في كتاب من كتب إسحاق بن إبراهيم الموصلي خديج وهو خصي ( 4 ) وكان لمعاوية بن أبي سفيان حكى عنه وعن أبي الاعور السلمي وربيعة الجرشي ( 5 ) وروى عنه عوانة بن الحكم وعبد الملك بن عمير وكان مع معاوية بالجابية اخبرنا أبو بكر محمد بن محمد بن محمد بن كرتيلا أنبأنا أبو بكر محمد بن علي بن محمد الخياط أنبأنا أبو الحسين احمد بن عبد الله السوسي أنبأنا أبو جعفر احمد بن أبي طالب علي بن محمد الكاتب نبأنا أبي نبأنا محمد بن مروان ابن عم الشعبي حدثني محمد بن احمد أبو بكر الخزاعي حدثني جدي يعني سليمان بن أبي شيخ نبأنا محمد بن الحكم عن عوانة حدثني حديج خصي لمعاوية رأيته زمن يزيد بن عبد الملك في ألفين من العطاء قال اشترى لمعاوية جارية ( 6 ) بيضاء جميلة فأدخلتها عليه مجردة وبيده قضيب فجعل يهوي به إلى متاعها ويقول هذا المتاع لو كان له متاع اذهب بها إلى يزيد بن معاوية ثم قال لا ادع لي ربيعة بن عمرو الجرشي وكان فقيها فلما دخل عليه قال أن هذه اتيت بها مجردة فرأيت فيها ذاك وذاك ( 7 ) واني اردت أن ابعث بها إلى يزيد قال لا تفعل يا أمير المؤمنين فإنها لا تصلح له



              As you see, the narrator Hadeej is also known as Khadeej. After searching through the books of 'Ilm al Rijaal, we see that Hadeej ibn Muawiyah is not that reliable according to Ibn Hajar's Al Tahzheeb. Also, when searching for Khadeej ibn Uwais, we see that he is majhool according to Ibn Hajar in Al Mizan.

              Thus, this narration is not reliable.


              Acknowledgement: Thanks to brother Farid al Khajah.
              www.call-to-monotheism.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Muawiyah (R) and Reduction of Number of Takbeers

                The Shias said:

                Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' reduced the number of Takbeers from daily prayers

                Muawiya not only made changes to the Eid prayers but he also had the audacity to make changes in the daily prayers by reducing the Takbeer. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al Ayyni records in 'Umadatul Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari' Volume 6 page 58:
                وقال الطبري إن أبا هريرة سئل من أول من ترك التكبير إذا رفع رأسه وإذا وضعه قال معاوية

                Al-Tabari said: 'Abu Huraira was asked about the first one who abandoned Takbir during raising the head and prostration, he replied: 'Muawiya'.

                Imam Jalaluddin Syuti likewise recorded:
                أول من نقص التكبير معاوية

                "The first who reduced Takbir is Mu'awiya".
                al-Wasael ela al-Musamerah, page 164

                We read in the Sharah of 'Muawtta Imam Malik' written by Allamah Ashfaq al-Rahman al-Sindi:

                "Al-Tabarani recorded in authority of Abu Huraira that the first one who abandon it (Takbir) is Mu'awiya"
                Muawtta of Imam Malik, page 61

                One of the favorite scholar of Salafies Qadhi Showkani also discloses some more prominent Sunni names while recording about those who abandoned Takbeer, as he records in his authority work 'Nail al-Awtar' Volume 2 page 265:

                Tabari narrated from Abu Huraira that the first one who abandoned takbir is Mu'awiya. It has been narrated from Abu Ubaid that the first one who abandon it is Ziyad. Such traditions are not contradictory because Ziyad abandoned it because Mu'awiya had abandoned it, and Mu'awiya abandoned it because Uthman had abandoned it"
                Nail al-Awtar, Volume 2 page 265

                Shawkani in the same page has also quoted the comments of the Imam of Ahle Sunnah Tahawi who without mentioning the name of Muawiya, stated:

                "Al-Tahawi said that Bani Umaya abandoned Takbir during prostration but not during raising, and that is not the first Sunnah they abandoned."
                Ibn Hajar states:

                من أول من ترك التكبير ؟ قال : عثمان بن عفان حين كبر وضعف صوته . وهذا يحتمل إرادة ترك الجهر . وروى الطبراني عن أبي هريرة أن أول من ترك التكبير معاوية . وروى أبو عبيد أن أول من تركه زياد . وهذا لا ينافي الذي قبله لأن زيادا تركه بترك معاوية , وكأن معاوية تركه بترك عثمان . وقد حمل ذلك جماعة من أهل العلم على الإخفاء , ويرشحه حديث أبي سعيد الآتي في " باب يكبر وهو ينهض من السجدتين " , لكن حكى الطحاوي أن قوما كانوا يتركون التكبير في الخفض دون الرفع , قال : وكذلك كانت بنو أمية تفعل , وروى ابن المنذر نحوه عن ابن عمر وعن بعض السلف أنه كان لا يكبر سوى تكبيرة الإحرام , وفرق بعضهم بين المنفرد وغيره , ووجهه بأن التكبير شرع للإيذان بحركة الإمام فلا يحتاج إليه المنفرد , لكن استقر الأمر على مشروعية التكبير في الخفض والرفع لكل مصل , فالجمهور على ندبية ما عدا تكبيرة الإحرام . وعن أحمد وبعض أهل العلم بالظاهر يجب كله قال ناصر الدين ابن المنير : الحكمة في مشروعية التكبير في الخفض والرفع أن المكلف أمر بالنية أول الصلاة مقرونة بالتكبير , وكان من حقه أن يستصحب النية إلى آخر الصلاة , فأمر أن يجدد العهد في أثنائها بالتكبير الذي هو شعار النية .


                Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...E1%CD%CF%ED%CB
                www.call-to-monotheism.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Muawiya (R) and His Changes to the Eid Salah

                  The Shias said:

                  Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' made changes to the Eid Salat

                  Suyuti in Tarikh ul Khulafa page 200 notes that:

                  "Zuhri narrates in relation to the Salat of Eid, the first to deliver the Khutba before the Salat was Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan".

                  We read the following in al 'Al-Uam' volume 1 page 392 by Imam al-Shafi'ee:

                  Shafi'ee stated that Abdullah bin Yazid al-Khutmi said: 'The prophet (pbuh), Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman used to start by praying before the sermon till Muwiyah came and made the sermon before (the prayer)'
                  Al-Uam, volume 1 page 392

                  Ibn Kathir records:
                  وقال قتادة‏:‏ عن سعيد بن المسيب‏:‏ أول من أذن وأقام يوم الفطر والنحر معاوية‏.‏

                  Qatadah narrated from Saeed bin al-Musiyib: 'Muawiya was the first person to recite Adhan and Iqamah during Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha"
                  Al Bidayah Volume 8 page 139

                  We read in Kitab al Ilm Volume 1 page 229 that:

                  "Imam Zuhri narrates that Rasulullah (s), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman lead the Eid Salat without Adhan, but Mu'awiya introduced the Adhan in the Eid prayer".

                  Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fathul Bari Volume 2 page 529 expands on this matter yet further:

                  "There is a difference of opinion over who introduced the Adhan in Eid Salat. Ibn Sheba has a tradition with a Sahih Isnad attributing this to Mu'awiya, whilst Shaafi states Ibn Ziyad introduced this in Basra, Daud claims that Marwan introduced this - but the vast bulk of traditions do not support this. Mu'awiya introduced this in the same way that he introduced the khutba of Eid before Salat".

                  Once again Abu Sulaiman's Hadi Imam is shown to have changed the Sharia, this time in connection with Eid prayers, in that there is no doubt, for we read in Sahih Muslim Book 004, Hadith Number 1926 Chapter 164: The prayer of the two Ids:

                  Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: I observed prayer with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the 'Id day. He commenced with prayer before the sermon without Adhan and Iqama.

                  In addition to this clear proof we also present the fatwa of Imam Malik taken from the English translation of his Muwatta under the chapter "The Ghusl of the Two Ids, the Call to Prayer for The prayer, and the Iqama" Book 10, Number 10.1.1:

                  "Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard more than one of their men of knowledge say, "There has been no call to prayer or iqama for the id al-Fitr or the id al-Adha since the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace." Malik said, "That is the sunna about which there is no disagreement among us."
                  Yes, Muawiyah (R) made a mistake, but this is not a reason to treat him the way Shias do. Apparently he made false Qiyas with the esclipse prayer.

                  Recommended Reading:


                  http://islamweb.net/ver2/library/Boo..._no=14&ID=1770

                  http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/library...kid=47&start=2
                  www.call-to-monotheism.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Did Muawiyah (R) Contradict the Shariah on Blood Money?

                    The Shias said:

                    Mu'awiya 'the Hadi' contradicted the Shar'ia on Blood money


                    Ibn Katheer records in Al-Bidayah (Urdu), vol 8 page 989-990 (Nafees Academy Karachi):
                    ومضت السنة‏:‏ أن دية المعاهد كدية المسلم، وكان معاوية أول من قصرها إلى النصف، وأخذ النصف لنفسه‏.‏

                    "Another Sunnah that was ablolished was the blood money of non-Muslim being equal to the blood money of a Muslim, but Muawiya was the first person who reduced it to half, and kept the remaining half for himself"
                    Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Arabic), Volume 8 page 139
                    Again, they will point to anything to criticize Muawiyah (R). He did ijtihaaad and he has a valid point of view by appealing to hadith to justify his position. There is a difference of opinion amongst our scholars regarding this topic and it appears to me that most scholars today would take Muawiyah's position.

                    Recommended Reading

                    http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/library...bk_no=9&ID=589

                    http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/library...kid=15&start=1
                    www.call-to-monotheism.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Did Muawiyah (R) Give a Fatwa Saying it is Okay For One To Marry Two Sisters At One Time? http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showt...9247#post19247

                      Did Ali Used to Curse Muawiyah? http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showt...5103#post35103
                      www.call-to-monotheism.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        عبدالله بن فهد الخليفي in his book تسفيه أدعياء التنزيه refutes 48 arguments put forth against Muawiyah. Very useful read. I have attached the relevant section.
                        Attached Files
                        www.call-to-monotheism.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Asalamalaikum,

                          Is there any translation of the responses and document into English? It would be a very useful document....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Refuting the Shia Argument That Imam Al Nisaa'ee Insulted Muawiyah

                            Taken from http://www.al-inaam.com/library/shia-nawawiy.htm...

                            Q: Muhtaram; Kindly advise. Abdur-Razzaaq as-San'aani was a Muhaddith and he insulted the Sahaaba. Also Imaam Nasaa'ie was a Shi'a and insulted the Mu'awiyah [radhiallaahu anhu].

                            A: 'Abd ar-Razzaq as-San'ani was admittedly a most trustworthy and expert muhaddith. However, it is also a fact that he had certain Shi'i proclivities founded upon an excessive partiality for Sayyiduna 'Ali radiyallahu 'anhu that manifested itself in a certain degree of opposition to his political opponents. This opposition was expressed in certain disparaging remarks made by 'Abd ar-Razzaq about persons like Mu'awiyah. These remarks, instead of being a blemish upon Mu'awiyah, came to taint 'Abd ar-Razzaq himself.

                            As for Imam an-Nasa'i, towards the end of his life he traveled to Damascus where he found a lot of partiality against Sayyiduna 'Ali. He therefore compiled a booklet comprising of ahadith on the merits of Sayyiduna 'Ali and read this book in his hadith sessions, intending thereby to bring the people back to the way of the Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. Anti-'Ali sentiments in the city incited some of its denizens to request from him a similar book on the merits of Mu'awiyah, which he refused, citing the the paucity of such hadith material in comparison with the merits of Sayyiduna 'Ali. This led to him being physically manhandled with such a degree of violence that it led to his death.

                            It is from here that some opportunists would infer that Imam an-Nasa'i held anti-Mu'awiyah sentiments. The ridiculousness of such an inference will be evident to anyone who considers the following:

                            1. Mu'awiyah is credited with having narrated about 50 ahadith (roughly 10 repetitions included) in the Sihah Sittah. At least 29 of these ahadith are included by Imam an-Nasa'i into his works. At least 13 of these are narrated only by Imam an-Nasa'i, to the exclusion of the rest of the authors of the Sihah Sittah. (See al-Mizzi: Tuhfat al-Ashraf, vol. 8 p. 434-455) Had Imam an-Nasa'i been possessed of anti-Mu'awiyah sentiments he would have avoided the inclusion of any ahadith narrated by Mu'awiyah at all costs.

                            2. Hafiz Abul Qasim ibn 'Asakir has documented in Tarikh Dimashq that Imam an-Nasa'i was asked about Mu'awiyah. His reply was: "Islam is like a house with a door. The door of Islam is the Sahabah. Whoever speaks ill of the Sahabah seeks but to harm Islam, just like one who knocks a door to enter a house. As for Mu'awiyah, whoever speaks ill of him seeks to find a way to speak ill of the Sahabah." (Cited in Tahdhib al-Kamal, vol. 1 p. 339)

                            and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
                            www.call-to-monotheism.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Brother ABssam,

                              heres another in defense of Abdur-Razzaaq as-San'aani from the claim of him being upon the Shiah aqeeedah

                              [FONT='Lucida Sans Unicode', Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif]
                              In Defence of The Imaam, The Haafidh
                              Muhaddith Abdur-Razzaaq
                              (Rahimahullah)
                              By

                              Shaikh Irshad ul-Haqq Atharee (Haafidhahullah)
                              Series compilers and Trans: Abu Hibbaan & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari

                              The hanafee’s say Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq, the author Musannaf of Abur-Razzaaq was a shee’ah just because narrated a weak hadeeth of Jaabir (Radhiallaahu Anhu) in which he mentioned the Messenger if Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) was created from light.
                              Shaikh Irshaad ul-Haqq said,
                              We need to look at what shee’ah means in the terminology of the Salaf as according to the Mutaqaddimeen (earlier scholars) shee’aism meant just giving precedence to Alee over Uthmaan and Alee was correct in his wars and those who opposed him were wrong and according to the terminology of the mutakhireen (later scholars) shee’aism is pure and clear rafdh (ie rejection of the companions). (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/94).
                              The scholars of hadeeth have also mentioned the period the time of the earlier scholars (the mutadaqqimeen) finished in 300H and Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq died in 211H (Tahdheeb (6/314) so he was from amongst the earlier scholars. The shee’ism according to scholars of this period was understood to mean giving precedence to Alee over Uthmaan (Radhiallaahu Anhuma) and the details of this can be seen in Tahdheeb, as-Siyar, Meezaan and Tadhkirratul-Huffaadh.
                              This type of shee’ism was found amongst the earlier scholars. Allaamah Dhahabee has mentioned from Haafidh Abul-Fadhal Suleimaanee that the people who considered Alee to be more superior, were from the likes of Imaam A’mash, Imaam Abu Haneefah, Imaam Shu’bah, Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq, Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan bin Abee Haatim the author of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel and also Ubaidullaah bin Moosaa. (Meezaan (2/588),
                              Furthermore, the reality of the affair is that Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq retracted from this earlier form of Shee’ism (of just giving Alee superiority over Uthmaan). Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal did not accept the narrations of Ubaidullaah bin Moosaa al-Absee who was a narrator of the six books of hadeeth and who was also trustworthy (see Taqreeb (pg.227) on the basis of this shee’ism. So when Imaam Ahmad was asked, ”Why do you take narrations from Abdur-Razzaaq yet to do not take narrations from Ubaidullaah bin Moosaa?” So Imaam Ahmad replied,
                              “Abdur-Razzaaq retracted from this (ie. This shee’ism) (See Tahdheeb (7/53) as narrated by Haafidh Abu Muslim Baghdaadee)
                              From this we find Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq retracted from this earlier form of shee’ism. For further details see Kitaab al-Ellal Wa Ma’arifatur-Rijaal (1/256) of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal. (TN:- This book has been checked and printed by Shaikh Waseeullaah Abbaas.)
                              Haafidh Dhahabee addressed Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq as Haafidh al-Kabeer (the Major Preserver).
                              Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een said, “Even if Abdur-Razzaaq was to apostate, I would not abandon taking ahadeeth from him.” (Tahdheeb (6/314)
                              Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq himself said, “Ar-Raafidhee Kaafir (The Raafidhee’s are disbelievers) and my heart has ever been satisfied or inclined to give Alee precedence over Abu Bakr and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhuma).” (see Tahdheeb and Meezaan)
                              Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq after narrating a hadeeth of Mu’awiyyah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) said, “And we act upon this.” (Musannaf Abdur-Razzaaq (3/249)
                              The hanafee scholar Dhafar Ahmad Uthmaanee mentions the following chapter heading in his book Inhaa as-Sakan also known as Qawaa’id Uloom al-Hadeeth, “The shee’ism of Abdur-Razzaaq and his retraction from it.” (Qawaa’id (pg.385)
                              To bury this false claim of Imaam Abdur-Razzaaq being shee’ah The Imaam himself said,
                              “I swear by Allaah my heart has never been satisfied in giving Alee precedence over Abu Bakr and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhuma). May the mercy of Allaah be upon Abu Bakr, May the mercy of Allaah be upon Umar, May the mercy of Allaah be upon Uthmaan and May the mercy of Allaah be upon Alee (Radhiallaahu Anhuma). The one who does not love them is not a believer and I in action, love all of them.” (al-Ellal Wa Ma’rifatur-Rijaal (1/256) (NOTE:- the Imaam swore by Allaah)
                              [/FONT]
                              ...you counted it a little thing, while with Allâh (SWT) it was very great. [24:15]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X