Whatever

[The Sandman]

lmao

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Ahl e Sunnat Wa Jamat is the same Barelvi group which claims to have followers from all over the world
This mosque does not belong to the Deoband ASWJ.

What I mean when I say Ahlus Sunnah wa al jamat is not the barelvis or deobandis, but Sunni Islam of the 4 mazhabs (Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanafi.) Hanafi includes both deobandis and barelvis.

Our masajid don’t have those types of signs.

 

[M. Sarmad]

What I mean when I say Ahlus Sunnah wa al jamat is not the barelvis or deobandis, but Sunni Islam of the 4 mazhabs (Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanafi.) Hanafi includes both deobandis and barelvis.

Our masajid don’t have those types of signs.

So your definition/understanding of 'Ahlus Sunnah wa al jamat' includes Barelvis, Deobandis, Tableeghi, Jamat e Islami etc. but not other/heterodox Sunni sects like Ahl e Hadith, Wahhabis, Salafis, Qadianis etc. ?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Cursing Yazeed while simultaneously following the official religion of his successors (and other enemies of Ahl e Bait) doesn't make you a 'lover' of Ahl e Bait, in my opinion... The persecution of the progeny of Muhammad PBUH did not end with the martyrdom of Imam Hussain A.S and most of his family members in Kerbala, it continued for centuries that followed. Read up on it

We don’t need your rubber stamp, brother. We love Ahlul Bayt, it is not the sole property of Shias. Many of us also are sayyid and descendants of Banu Hashim too.

Muawiyya, although still sahabi, was a usurper and wrong, while Yazid was a vile creature. Hazrat Ali was the proper 4th Khalifah and Hassan and Hussain RAA were the shuhada. Our version of history is not much different than Shias in the regards.

 

[M. Sarmad]

We don’t need your rubber stamp, brother. We love Ahlul Bayt, it is not the sole property of Shias. Many of us also are sayyid and descendants of Banu Hashim too.

Muawiyya, although still sahabi, was a usurper and wrong, while Yazid was a vile creature. Hazrat Ali was the proper 4th Khalifah and Hassan and Hussain RAA were the shuhada. Our version of history is not much different than Shias in the regards.

I know that you too 'claim' to love Ahlul Bayt, but no serious/neutral student of history would agree with you on this, bro.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

So your definition/understanding of 'Ahlus Sunnah wa al jamat' includes Barelvis, Deobandis, Tableeghi, Jamat e Islami etc. but not other Sunnis/heterodox sects like Ahl e Hadith, Wahhabis, Salafis, Qadianis etc. ?

It includes all those other groups as well.

Ahmadiyyas differ on the second part of the Shahadah, just like Quranists.

Not my definition, but the one of the scholars of Sunni Islam.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It includes all those other groups as well.

Ahmadiyyas differ on the second part of the Shahadah, just like Quranists.

Not my definition, but the one of the scholars of Sunni Islam.

No matter how much you want to deny it, the fact remains that Qadianis are considered Sunni Muslims around the world.

As for Quranists, they don't have a different Shahada, that's just plain stupid lying.

And as for your scholars and Mullahs, they have declared each other Kafir, For Barelvis, Deoband are kafir, for Deobandis, Barelvis are Kafir, so on and so forth.
Declaring Muslims of other sects Kafir is no big deal.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I know that you too 'claim' to love Ahlul Bayt, but no serious/neutral student of history would agree with you on this, bro.

Ok, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Itachi]

For starters, let me post what a few 'neutral' historians have to say on this matter:


No event in the history of Islam was of more importance than this battle (Badr); Koran rightly calls it the Day of Deliverance, the day before which the Moslems were weak, after which they were strong. Wealth, fame, honor, power, all of them were secured or at any rate brought within reach by the Day of Deliverance. (Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London, 1931)

One lamentable outcome of the battle of Badr, however, was that Islam's victory kindled new and fiercer fires of hatred and hostility in the breasts of the Banu Umayya against Muhammad Mustafa and Ali ibn Abi Talib. Their hatred and jealousy of Banu Hashim had spanned many generations. But after the battle of Badr, their hostility was focused on Ali and on the children of Muhammad Mustafa.

If to the Muslims, Ali was the symbol of the triumph of Islam, to the Banu Umayya, he was the symbol of the destruction of their polytheism and their privileges. Therefore, they, their generations to come, and their friends and their supporters, never forgave Ali for the role he played before, during and after the battle of Badr. Their hatred is understandable. It was Ali, and Ali alone who had struck, not only at Badr, but in every encounter, at the massive, coordinated and concentrated power of heathendom, and had destroyed it (David Samuel Margoliouth)

================


The persecutors of Mohammed usurped the inheritance of his children; and the champions of idolatry became the supreme heads of his religion and empire. The opposition of Abu Sophian had been fierce and obstinate; his conversion was tardy and reluctant; his new faith was fortified by necessity and interest; he served, he fought, perhaps he believed; and the sins of the time of ignorance were expiated by the recent merits of the family of Ommayyah. Muawiya, the son of Abu Sophian, and of the cruel Hinda, was dignified in his early youth with the office or title of the secretary of the Prophet; the judgment of Omar entrusted him with the government of Syria; and he administered that province above forty years, either in a subordinate or supreme rank. The sacred duty of pursuing the assassins of Othman was the engine and pretense of his ambition. (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon)

===============

The caliphate might conceivably be allotted to the worthiest of the faithful; it might conceivably be hereditary in the family of the apostle; but Mohammed could never have imagined that it would become hereditary in the family of his bitterest enemies. (History of the Saracens, E. A. Freeman)


===============

When the Meccan aristocrats accepted Islam, they only yielded to the inevitable. They were now to have an opportunity to revenging themselves. Uthman b. Affan, who succeeded Umar as Caliph, belonged to a distinguished Meccan family, the Umayyads or descendants of Umayya, which had always taken a leading part in the opposition to Mohammed, though Uthman himself was among the Prophet's first disciples. He was a pious, well-meaning old man - an easy tool in the hands of his ambitious kinsfolk. They soon climbed into all the most lucrative and important offices and lived on the fat of the land, while too often their ungodly behavior gave point to the question whether these converts of the eleventh hour were not still heathens at heart. Other causes contributed to excite a general discontent. The rapid growth of luxury and immorality in the Holy Cities as well as in the new settlements was an eyesore to the devout Moslems. The true Islamic aristocracy, the Companions of the Prophet, headed by Ali, Talha and Zubayr, strove to undermine the rival nobility which threatened them with destruction. The factious soldiery were ripe for revolt against Umayyad arrogance and greed. Rebellion broke out, and finally, the aged caliph, after enduring a siege of seven weeks, was murdered in his own house. (A Literary History of the Arabs, p. 190, 1969, R. A. Nicholson)

======


One of the greatest ironies of all history is the fate of the house that Mohammed built. Mohammed had a great fall. The unsuccessful prophet succumbed to the temptation to succeed as a statesman and a strategist. Yet, in seeking and winning worldly success in Medina, Mohammed was unwittingly working for his adversaries in Mecca. When it came to a competition in Realpolitik, the merchant princes of Mecca were more than a match for their queer fellow-townsman, and far more than a match for Mohammed's gallant but incompetent cousin and son-in-law, Ali. After Mohammed had successfully cut Mecca's trade route to Syria, the Meccans capitulated on the easy terms that the sentimental Meccan exile offered them; but in outwardly submitting to Mohammed and to Islam, the Beni Umayya had their tongues in their cheeks. They had no intention of being permanently deposed from power. Now that they had failed first to suppress Islam and then to repel it, their only alternative was to run away with it after capturing it by the stratagem of a nominal conversion. They bided their time till in Ali they found their victim and in Muawiya their man of destiny (Arnold J. Toynbee)

That's all fine & dandy, I actually already knew most of what you posted already except for a couple of sentences here & there.

The matter of the fact is that the rivalry of the Banu Ummaya against the Prophet SAW was/is well-known but it simmered down greatly after their conversion to Islam & the conquest of Makkah, where the Prophet SAW forgave all Kafir/Mushriks/Meccans.

Whether the progeny of Prophet Muhammad SAW ruled or that of any other Muslim, in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter since what mattered was the spread of Islam, the conquests, the conversion, the land gain, the gain in knowledge & the spread of our religion. This all would have been achieved no matter who ruled. I'm satisfied with the Will of Allah since it is He who wrote what will/should happen.

Also, these Western historians are looking at everything through a secular & non-Muslim pov & are prone of exaggeration since it would not bode them well to further the cause of Islam, no matter how "neutral" they might seem.

They see a bit too many flies in the pudding, in a more simpler manner.

Muslims need to own our own history, and educate ourselves from our own sources

I support this whole heartedly. Too much misinformation & lies out there like you said. And these "neutral" sources are just a bit less maligning than the normal stuff that comes out of Western institutions but dangerous the same.

 

[M. Sarmad]

This is why I try to avoid reading Islamic history from a Western perspective, it is filled with lies and manipulations.

@Itachi They have a vested interest in furthering divisions and misinformation about our history.

History is power, identity, and everything.

Muslims need to own our own history, and educate ourselves from our own sources.

Quite the contrary, the Orientalists are supposedly objective, non-partisan, and in no way emotionally involved. And whatever they have written is definitely more credible than what the Muslim Court historians had written. However, as there is no Non-Sunni history available from the early times of Islam, the Orientalists too had to depend primarily on what the 'conquerors' and the successful parties(Banu Umayya for example) had written.

The matter of the fact is that the rivalry of the Banu Ummaya against the Prophet SAW was/is well-known but it simmered down greatly after their conversion to Islam & the conquest of Makkah, where the Prophet SAW forgave all Kafir/Mushriks/Meccans.

^^ That purely is an assumption based on the reading of partisan historical accounts and propaganda

Both the Umayyads & the Abbasids were Sunni. I have never heard of them supporting any sect ...

You have claimed, again and again, that you have read a lot about Islamic history, but assertions like ^^this one prove that you haven't, not even a little bit

 

[Itachi]

whatever they have written is definitely more credible what Muslim Court historians had written

lol so you trust outsider version of history more than the one written by your own people or the people that "lived" it rather than wrote about it multiple centuries later?

That purely is an assumption based on the reading of partisan historical accounts and propaganda

Again, we don't see eye to eye so I'll stop debating with you since it'll just be pointless.

You have claimed, again and again, that you have read a lot about Islamic history, but assertions like this^^ one prove that you haven't.

Sure, provide evidence to support your arguments please. Which sect was supported by which group? For starters.

I can bash your character too but would not like to go down that road...

 

[M. Sarmad]

lol so you trust outsider version of history more than the one written by your own people or the people that "lived" it rather than wrote about it multiple centuries later?

Did you miss this:

"Quite the contrary, the Orientalists are supposedly objective, non-partisan, and in no way emotionally involved. And whatever they have written is definitely more credible than what the Muslim Court historians had written. However, as there is no Non-Sunni history available from the early times of Islam, the Orientalists too had to depend primarily on what the 'conquerors' and the successful parties(Banu Umayya for example) had written."

No, Umayyads and other Court historians were not my 'own' people.
And I, unlike you, refuse to accept the "Sarkari" distorted versions of history and state propaganda, either Pakistani, Indian, American etc. or Umayyad/Abbasid/Safavid etc.

Sure, provide evidence to support your arguments please.

Your own posts have already proved it

 

[Signalian]

What exactly is “Peeri faqeeri”?

A very difficult process to adopt. Generally people dont listen to their parents and teachers, expecting them to listen to spiritual teacher/father (peer) seems far fetched then. It depends upon the individual though, how much does the heart get excited on viewing, visualizing and thinking of the teacher.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Just ending Islamic ignorance one post at a time.

Many of the so-called “known facts” in the history of nascent Islam are little more than pious assumptions or even pious wishes which through persistent repetition by the long chain of the generations of Muslims, have acquired the “patina” if not the status of the “articles of faith”.

To end ignorance, you will have to first educate yourself, bro
Start reading historical texts objectively, with a historical-critical approach
Best of Luck..

It was nice talking to you.
Have a nice day

 

[Itachi]

Quite the contrary, the Orientalists are supposedly objective

There, I bolded the part that made the whole sentence fall apart for you

I would rather take an actual M.E or Asian historians word before I believe any "Orientalists". Just like I would not take any Asian/outside historians word above a European's if I was reading about Roman history....simple logical argument....since the people of the land know more about themselves than outsiders, especially those outsiders that are writing history many many centuries later...

Didn't you discard the authenticity/authority of the Hadiths because they were written 200-300 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad SAW? So how come you're supporting the Orientalists now?

This seems like a paradox.

And I, unlike you, refuse to accept the "Sarkari" distorted versions of history and state propaganda, either Pakistani, Indian, American etc. or Umayyad/Abbasid/Safavid etc.

lol I have read Islamic history from every pov. From Indian, Pakistani, Arab & European, I'm sure you have done so too & out of them all, I find the native pov the most correct. Again, we can agree to disagree on that.

Many of the so-called “known facts” in the history of nascent Islam are little more than pious assumptions or even pious wishes which through persistent repetition by the long chain of the generations of Muslims, have acquired the “patina” if not the status of the “articles of faith”.

Says who? you? the orientalists? The "rationalists"? Please provide evidence to backup your arguments. Links to websites, sources etc

What are "facts"? How do we describe anything as a "fact"? Whose the authority that says that a fact is a fact while another is not?

Facts are not "pious assumptions" or wishful/imaginary thinking if everyone agrees on them along with a detailed set of proofs, evidence & a list of narrators.

To end ignorance, you will have to first educate yourself, bro

I have taken history classes in college and been bored in them. Can you provide me some "education" by providing links?

Start reading historical texts objectively, with a historical-critical approach

I already have, please point me to where I haven't.

It was nice talking to you.
Have a nice day

Yes, it was nice talking with you too. Good day.

On the topic of Muawiyah R.A. & his friction with Ali R.A.: