Grand Saudi Mufti Flees From Shia Caller on Live TV!

Within this series we will be showing the contradictions and inconsistences of the Salafi/Omari scholars and propagandists who try to portray that all companions were trustworthy, just and guaranteed jannah. Join us where we see how the concept of Adalah tus-Sahaba is something refuted by both the Quran and ahadith.
In the following clip we see how the well-known Saudi Wahabi Sheikh, Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, flees from a Shia caller who exposes that Muawiyah (la) killed another companion.
Like & Follow our pages on Facebook:
/ tawhidalitra
/ seyedalishobayri
#Ep1AreAllSahabaJust? #Zulfigar #AlMaghribi

[@muzammilhamas6488]

Lanatullah on the murderers of Ahle Bait

[@ue3415]

It were your rafidi brothers that did it mate

[@walialamriki1060]

LanaatAllah alaikum rafidah ijmaeen ibn sharmuta.

[@mays071]

@@walialamriki1060 answer the question?who killed Ammar ?

[@GodIsIndeedgreat]

May allah curse those who say imam ali was a coward because he couldn't protect his wife

[@singhay_of_the_north]

Whi.killed ammar?

[@user-gx7ol7bc4f]

imagine praying to a man and giiving your imams attributes of allah swt

[@loverofahlulbayt7268]

Yes, keep posting

[@salmaansari2057]

Is this the mufti e azam of Saudi, give direct answer of killer group of Ammar ibn yaasir radiallahu tala anhu

[@dilshadmotivates]

Question should have been replied directly that who killed Ammar Ibn Yasir ?

[@amirhayat4249]

He was killed by a rebellious group, they rebelled from their leader Muawiyah (R.A).

[@rickyalfred9710]

He was killed by the group calling to the fire 🔥 the army of muawiyah. And this is known and only liar Denys it

[@palestinianmaytr48]

what's the nasheed in the bgeinning?

[@ammaralnashed]

The ultimate humiliation is for a nation to call this their leader. When you leave the path of Imam Ali this is what you are left with

[@abdullahtarakji]

Shia ☕️

[@user-df8fd5vl3t]

البغي لا يخرج صاحبه عن دائرة الإيمان بنص القرآن الكريم قال الله تعالى : (وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَى فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّى تَفِيءَ إِلَى أَمْرِ اللَّهِ فَإِن فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ ، إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ ) الحجرات ( 9-10 ) فسمّاهم مؤمنين وجعلهم إخوة ، مع وجود الاقتتال والبغي . قال زياد بن الحارث : " كنت الى جانب عمار بن ياسر بصفِّينَ ، وركبتي تمس ركبته . فقال رجل : كفر أهل الشام . فقال عمار: لا تقولوا ذلك ؛ نبينا ونبيهم واحد ، وقبلتنا وقبلتهم واحدة ؛ ولكنهم قوم مفتونون جاروا عن الحق ، فحق علينا أن نقاتلهم حتى يرجعوا اليه " رواه ابن أبي شيبة (37841 ). وعند محمد بن نصر بسنده عن مكحول : " أن أصحاب علي سألوه عمن قتل من أصحاب معاوية ماهم ؟ قال : هم مؤمنون ". " منهاج السنة " ( 5/245 ). وعن أبي بكرة رضي الله عنه قال سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ وَالْحَسَنُ إِلَى جَنْبِهِ، يَنْظُرُ إِلَى النَّاسِ مَرَّةً وَإِلَيْهِ مَرَّةً وَيَقُولُ: ( ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ ، وَلَعَلَّ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِهِ بَيْنَ فِئَتَيْنِ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ) رواه البخاري (3746) . والصلح الذي قام به الحسن رضي الله عنه كان بين أصحابه وأصحاب أبيه علي رضي الله عنه ، وأصحاب معاوية ، فيكون هذا الحديث نصا في إثبات الإسلام للطائفتين .

[@jhalcricket2376]

At least salafis are better than Shias and Sufis salafis ask Allah for help they don't ask Prophet or any human being for help at least they believe Prophet Muhammad pbuh Was a human being created from dust unlike Sufis Shias who believe Prophet Muhammad pbuh is watching us and is present just like Allah is present.these aqeedah are more important than anything on day of judgement you won't be asked about muawiayah may Allah be pleased with him but you definitely will be asked about those you used to ask for help other than Allah the greatest

[@Saber23]

Lol more deflections from the so called “Sunnis” you’re so desperate it’s pathetic, what kind of man are you wallahi?

[@titangamer1790]

Tawassul (Resorting to Intermediary) بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ Some people claim that asking for help to other than god is polytheism. Such people should never go to doctor when they becomes sick because this is polytheism (shirk)! Their going to doctor is a type of seeking a help from a specialist even though they do not say by their tongue that they are getting help from the doctor. Acting shirk is enough. Also they should not ask any question from anyone or request anything from any one because all these are shirk. Furthermore, they shouldn’t eat any food because they should not help themselves by any other than God! If they say that we do all these because Allah told us to do so, then based on their own doctrine Allah is also polytheist (Mushrik). Na’udhu Billah! Here is what they are missing: If we get help from any body, we do it with the understanding that he by his own can not help us. He can not benefit us unless Allah wishes to. If one calls Prophet Muhammad (S) or Imam ‘Ali (as) for help, he is, in fact, calling Allah for help through intermediary of the Prophet or the Imams, and he does that with the understanding that the Prophet or the Imams doe not have any independent power, but rather what they have (which many others lack) is that they have credit in front of Allah and that Allah does not put down their requests if they pray to Allah on my behalf. Imam ‘Ali and all the martyrs are alive as Qur’an clearly testifies, though they are not on the earth. So please do not treat them as dead. Allah states in Qur’an: Think not of those who are martyred in the way of Allah as dead. Nay! They are living, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.”(Qur’an 3:169)

[@thecominglightofgood583]

Salafis worship an idol with hands and feet!

[@abdimalikosman9002]

@@titangamer1790 It was narrated from an-Nu‘maan ibn Basheer (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Du`a is worship.” Then he recited the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “And your Lord says, ‘Call upon Me; I will respond to you.’ Indeed, those who disdain My worship will enter Hell [rendered] contemptible.” [Ghaafir 40:60]. Narrated by Ahmad in al-Musnad (18352) and al-Bukhaari in al-Adab al-Mufrad (714). Hence making dua to a dead man is worship as it is only a right exclusive to Allah. You commit major shirk committing this act. May Allah guide as all.

[@titangamer1790]

@@abdimalikosman9002 The meaning of Tawassul is: To ask Allah Almighty through the medium and intercession of another person. For example, one says: “O Allah! I ask forgiveness for my sins through the Wasila (intercession) of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace)”. Tawassul can be carried out through one’s own righteous deeds, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), righteous people who have passed away and those who are still alive. All these types of Tawassul are permitted and acceptable. The permissibility of Tawassul is proven from the Qur’an, Sunnah, continued practice of the Ummah and reason. Some of the proofs on the validity of Tawassul: 1) Allah Most High says: “O you who believe! Fear Allah and seek a means (wasila) to him” (Surah al-Ma’ida, V: 35) The word “Wasila” (a means of approach) in its general indication includes Tawassul (intercession) by persons, and through actions. 2) Allah Almighty says: “If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come to you (O Muhammad, Allah bless him & give him peace) and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger of Allah had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed forgiving and Most Merciful”. (Surah al-Nisa, V: 64) These two verses are clear on the permissibility and recommendation of Tawassul. The distinction made by some, between the living and the dead in this matter only comes from one who believes in the perishing of souls upon death, which would lead to denying resurrection. Also, when one uses Tawassul in supplication, one does not ask and seek from other than Allah Almighty. Only the high position, status and rank of the person through whom Wasila is carried out is used as intercession. In other words, the servant is saying: “O Allah! This certain Prophet or servant of yours is very close to you. I do not possess any good deeds, but I have love for the pious. O Allah! Pardon me and forgive my sins due to this love and connection I have with this pious servant of yours”. Now, every person with a sound mind will determine that there is no reason to distinguish and differentiate between the living and the dead. This is the reason why scholars such as Imam Subki, Hafidh Ibn Kathir, Imam an-Nawawi (Allah have mercy on them all) and many others have declared the permissibility of Tawassul through the righteous, whether alive or passed away to the Mercy of Allah. 3) Imam al-Tirmidhi (Allah have Mercy on him) and others relate from Uthman ibn Hunaif (Allah be pleased with him): “A blind man came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and said: “I’ve been afflicted in my eyesight, so pray to Allah for me”. The Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Go perform ablution (Wudu), perform two Rak’at Salat and then say: “O Allah! I ask you and turn to you through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad! I seek your intercession with my lord for the return of my eyesight, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah! Grant him intercession for me”. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) then said: “and if there is some other need, do the same”. (Recorded by Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i, Tabrani and others, with a sound chain of narrators). The express content of this Hadith proves the legal validity of Tawassul through a living person. It implicitly proves the validity of Tawassul through a deceased person, as Tawassul through a living or dead person is not through a physical body or through life or death, rather, through the positive meaning attached to the person in both life and death. 4) Moreover, Imam Tabrani relates in his al-Mu’jam al-Kabir reporting from the same Uthman ibn Hunaif (Allah be pleased with him) that a person repeatedly visited him concerning something he needed, but Uthman paid no attention to him. The man met his son and complained to him about the matter- this was after the death of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and after the eras of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna Umar (Allah be pleased with them)- so Uthman (who collected Hadith and was from the learned) said : “Go to the place of Wudu, then come to the Masjid, perform two Rak’ats and then say : “O Allah!, I ask you and turn to you through our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad! I turn through you to my lord, that He fulfil my need”……. until the end of the Hadith.

[@nihatkaradag5387]

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[@Warlock786]

Can you believe these Sunnis. He said it is IMPERMISSABLE to hate Muawiya and Yazid. They run from the truth, they run from Ahlul Bayth and go against the commandments of the Prophet PBUH

[@user-df8fd5vl3t]

قال الإمام النووي رحمه الله تعالى : " واعلم أن الدماء التي جرت بين الصحابة رضي الله عنهم ليست بداخلة في هذا الوعيد - يعني قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : إذا التقى المسلمان بسيفيهما فالقاتل والمقتول في النار - ، ومذهب أهل السنة والحق إحسان الظن بهم ، والإمساك عما شجر بينهم ، وتأويل قتالهم ، وأنهم مجتهدون متأولون لم يقصدوا معصية ، ولا محض الدنيا ، بل اعتقد كل فريق أنه المحق ، ومخالفه باغ ، فوجب عليه قتاله ليرجع إلى أمر الله ، وكان بعضهم مصيبا وبعضهم مخطئا معذورا في الخطأ ، لأنه لاجتهادٍ ، والمجتهد إذا أخطأ لا إثم عليه " انتهى من " المنهاج شرح صحيح مسلم بن الحجاج " ( 18/11).

[@ahadather1314]

The saudi najdi dynasty is filled wd nasbi ulama...🤣🤣😂

[@ihsanamsal2947]

Those people indeed inherit the merits of khariji just like what prophet Muhammad PBUH had prophecised

[@Saber23]

@@ihsanamsal2947 the worst people will come out of Najd and certain places in Iran in the end times, may Allah protect us and it’s painful to see because my clan originally comes from najd

[@islamendtimes4813]

they work together from beginning. This wahhabi scholar is reading script to purposely divide stir up muslims. what Prophet ﷺ and companions and ahlul bayt عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ actually believe are same thing. ON same team. just disagreed to keep fighting muawiyah bc incurred heavy losses from battle jamal. No doubt muawiyah is usurper and terrorist of Islam who started tradition of cursing companions and created first sects or khawarij who are same as shia@@Saber23

[@moazaliakhtar9215]

​@@Saber23No it's from Iran

[@Saber23]

@@moazaliakhtar9215 lol so it’s your word against the words of the Prophet

[@saifalbaghdady1855]

اللهم صل على محمد وال محمد وعجل فرجهم والعن اعداءهم اجمعين 🌹

[@zRipple96]

The enemies of imam Hussain ra and those who betray them in kufa like the kufi shia

[@syedhassanzaidi9190]

No Answer Of A Simple Question Gives Us Answer....

[@amirhayat4249]

They were a rebellious group, they rebelled from their leader Muawiyah (R.A).

[@jjohn408]

@@amirhayat4249so how to reconcile this with the Hadith that said whoever killed Ammar is the transgressing group? Team muawiyah killed Ammar

[@hafoothalmuflahi9784]

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If it is said: “He was killed at Siffeen, when he was with ‘Ali, and those who killed him were with Mu‘aawiyah, with whom were some of the Sahaabah, so how can it be said that they were calling to Hell?” The answer to that is that they thought that they were calling to Paradise, and their action was based on ijtihaad, so there is no blame on them for following what they thought was best. What is meant by calling people to Paradise is calling them to that which leads to it, which is obeying the ruler. This was the stance of ‘Ammaar, who was calling them to obey ‘Ali, who was the ruler whom it was obligatory to obey at that time, whereas they (Mu‘aawiyah and his followers) were calling people to something other than that, but they are excused for the wrong conclusion they reached, which was based on misinterpretation of the texts.

[@Abusultan02]

They’ll never answer the question. It is crystal clear to every Muslim. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) has said whoever fights Imam Ali, that person is a zalim ie. unjust, tyrant. They cannot refute the Hadith of ammar’s killer.

[@RevealingTheTruth.]

give the narration

[@GilesHartop]

Then why did Ali name his sons abu bakr lol Shia are lost

[@RevealingTheTruth.]

Fr, and why did Ali woman descendant married to the Umayyad regimes and Muawiya's niece married to Hussayn @@GilesHartop

[@-respxct1557]

@@GilesHartop abu bakr is a kunya the son of imam ali as is reported to be mohammad,

[@-respxct1557]

@@RevealingTheTruth. just because a person is wicked doesnt mean their descendants are wicked too. a great example is abu bakr's son mohammad ibn abu bakr that is highly respected by the shias because of his actions

[@sk-Muhammadi]

Those Sunnis who speak in favor of Muavia actually they are against the Ahadith of RasoolAllah in Bukhari and Muslim. I'm not Shia but if I was present at that time I would fight against the rebels and I would support Ali ibne Talib AlehSalam

[@ue3415]

Dont hide yourself, rafidah. Everyone knows your taqiyya

[@sk-Muhammadi]

@@ue3415 Sorry brother I am deleting this Actually I was misguided by Engineer Mirza. Now I have changed.

[@abu_muawwiya_bin_ali]

​@@sk-Muhammadialhamdulillah brother. I'm happy to see you left Mirza and his false toxic dawah. Thank Allah, and may Allah guide us all to the Qur'an and Sunnah, the way the sahabbah (Ra) understood them.

[@faizansabir1809]

The damage has been done ✔ 😆

[@syedhassanzaidi9190]

Respect to engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza

[@GilesHartop]

@@syedhassanzaidi9190 shia killed hussai n then blamed the world lol how stupid

[@falahmunawar]

Muawiya R.A didn't himself k*lled Ammar ibn Yasser R.A, there were munafiqeen in his army who did that. So the hadith goes for those munafiqeen not for Muawaiya R.A

[@abu_muawwiya_bin_ali]

​@@falahmunawaryes your right. But for some reason these Mirza followers are hell bent of peddling their false narrative. It's quite clear who killed Ammar from *_Mustadrak Hakim 2653_* but these guys are just lost

[@aqsa005]

Its not called fleeing its called leaving the juhalaa and acting upon the following verse واذ خاتبھم الجاھلون قالو سلاما۔

[@Umi20244]

What they have done is truly Unbeneficial noise, we can see his juhalaa upon the act or verbal . No shame while dumping the companions (r.h). Lack knowledge , lost sabr.

[@Prisondboy]

The dirty aura of this socalled «mufti» tells us everything about his school and ideology. May he be raised with Yazid (LA’NATOLLAH ALAYH)

[@user-ic8wu4ku3c]

: (وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ، تَقْتُلُهُ الفِئَةُ البَاغِيَةُ، يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الجَنَّةِ، وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ البخاري ج١ ص١١٥ البخاري ج٣ ص٢٠٧ صحيح مسلم ج٨ ص ١٨٦

[@user-kf5gy1li5x]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@shoaibriz]

I don't understand why the saudi appointed a blind many to mufti position. Now I understand, he's not just blind in the eyes, Allah SWT has closed his heart as well

[@thesalafislav]

May Allah 'azza wa jal forgive and bless the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ.

[@thecominglightofgood583]

He won't.

[@kebab7023]

The righteous ones, inshallah. Not the hypocrites.

[@thecominglightofgood583]

@@kebab7023 Who were right ones?

[@thesalafislav]

@@thecominglightofgood583 The Companions sacrificed their lives, comfort, and wealth to establish the Deen for Allah's sake while you, Rafidhi, sit there doing nothing but cursing them. لعنة الله على الرافضة

[@abuzarabedi5380]

Read Bukhari nd other sihah sittah books about a group of sahabas who would be dragged towards hell fire

[@indianrational6887]

Lol. Speechless.

[@existenceofgod.1927]

sheikh hidding truth... Allah will ask Inshallah....he just ask who killed ammar

[@user-ic8wu4ku3c]

لعن الله معاوية

[@loverofahlulbayt7268]

🏃💨

[@rickyalfred9710]

What a religion we show people. Use your intellect to come to Islam and when you get there turn it off. Muawiyyah was adool ? He engaged in riba , he sold wine in his territory, he killed Ammar and others, he changed the prayer and was told by the ansar and muhajiroon “you have stolen from the prayer” he gave Adhan for eid prayers, he gave the khutba before the prayer in eid. He started kingship, he enforced his son on the umma. Imam shafi called muawiyah a bhagi and this is the least anyone honest and fair can say.

[@starnutron6147]

Bukhari 2812, saheeh muslim 6220 to 6229. please explain these

[@gayatrisardana6076]

❤

[@abuzarmohsin5259]

Ammar Bin Yasir R.A❤️ ALI R.A was on haq the one opposing him was against Haq. But we don't abuse we don't have right to. Allah will decide the their fate on the day of judgement.

[@t96zafar]

omg

[@redkakkarot]

Alhamdulillah for Sunni, we don't insult the companions of the prophet peace and blessings be upon him and his Ahlul bayt. We love the companions and we love Ahlul bayt, what happen in the past, Allah will be the judge, and Allah is most merciful and most forgiving.

[@user-ic8wu4ku3c]

صعسلم

[@nasirrizvi2816]

but who was the rebellion who killed Ammar raziallhahoanhu

[@redkakkarot]

@@nasirrizvi2816 even if you know who did it, can you do anything about the past? No, so learned from reputable scholars about the history, and learned to let go, we send peace and blessings to all the sahaba, those who side with Ali radiallahu'an and those sahaba who with mother Aisha radiallahu'anha and also Marwan radiallahu'an. The conflict between these sahaba will be peacefully resolved by Allah in the Qiyamah, insha'Allah, as it was mentioned in the Qur'an, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Allah, Allah will remove any ill feelings between the brothers and let them enter Jannah. We as Sunni we aim for the best for these pioneers Muslim brothers of ours that is why we don't take the path of cursing one another. Unless that person who so called a Muslim by Identity but then started calling our Ya Ali, Ya Hussein, Ya Jilani, Ya sheikh or Ya wali Allah.. these is shirk calling help from others than Allah foremost.

[@nasirrizvi2816]

@@redkakkarot In the battle between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and hypocracy, self sacrifice and tyranny, you stand for both. ok. All right. Good luck with that :/

[@Saber23]

You can’t even spell properly 😂

[@AYAZSAYYED000]

Ali رضي الله عنه and muawiyah رضي الله عنه s topic is very broad. That shia cant expect mufti to explain him flipping books on this matter on live call. He should go and learn the whole matter and read books, he will find the truth. I can say he wont go to a debate with even a student of our salafi scholar.😂😂

[@user-mc5ym7ey3k]

Bhai jaan in ka naam to batadu

[@alimehdi136]

Mohammad Hijāb doesn't take deen from him. Nor do his buddies. Recently Hijāb have made a channel "SP Files" to confront Salafī extremism within their hardcore hertic Fīqh rulings or takfirī tendencies. This Mufī was a topic of discussion.

[@rafidhih5103]

🐧

[@Saber23]

Yet he is still equally as idiotic as the extreme Salafis 🤦‍♂️

[@Polster-lx5ph]

Filthy Rafidhi

[@assalafiah4026]

These issues r discussed between scholar's not with ignorants, if an aalim starts discussing with a jaahil ummah will split further and killings would occur and hearts will be seperated as u see these days is all because of this. shaykhs reply is amazing he showed manners and utmost recpect towards the companion of prophet mohammad pbuh

[@iamfkhn]

Not able to answer a jahil, but will be able to sit with scholar. Nice chronology

[@Saber23]

Wallahi you’re so blinded by your own stupidity it’s absurd, he couldn’t answer a simple question that was supposedly put for by a so called “Jahil” and on top of that he’s praising the man who rebelled against Imam Ali and killed him 🤦‍♂️

[@solotrue45]

Grand mufti is ok with alcohol in Riyadh.

[@user-eh2pv4sc7h]

True

[@alimurtuzasulaman18]

No Answer! One More Question Those Who Led Army Against My Maula Ali Janam A.S. Are Righteous Or Rebels. Any Answers? May My Fate Hereafter Be With My Maula Ali Janam And His Father Best Muslim And Guardian Of Prophet Muhammad PBUH And Anyone Dislike Them Be With Their Leaders. Allah Bless You Always.

[@Ibrahim.l20]

He made ijtihad And this caller might think he is smart but there are narrations about Muawiyah that he is promised jannah So Muawiyah made ijtihad he wanted revenge for Uthman As is his right as per an aya in the quran So he wanted to take his right

[@thecominglightofgood583]

@@Ibrahim.l20 There is no ijtihaad when there are clear verses and ahadith of Prophet SAWW against fighting Imam Ali AS. Just don't spread nonsense here.

[@thecominglightofgood583]

@@Ibrahim.l20 By which right? He was promised hell and will get it.

[@Ibrahim.l20]

@@thecominglightofgood583 By Rasullallah ﷺ And you will enter hell if you stay upon what you are upon

[@Ibrahim.l20]

@@thecominglightofgood583 neither can be found. But there are verses about avenging family members and guess what Muawiyah is Uthman's cousin.

[@Qamar_e_BaniHashim]

😂

[@MBM1260]

Rafidi nonsense. 341 likes! Is that the best you can do? The question was answered, the rafidi didn't like the answer. It doesn't matter who killed him, the exact circumstances weren't known so why do you speculate?

[@titangamer1790]

Another misguided child flods the comment section. You Wahabbi's manaj are the fitnah of the Muslim ummah. You people just just afraid of us "Rafida", that's why you constantly target us, and you can never beat us in a serious debate. You wanna have a proper debate, I (as a Shia of Ahlulbayt) am more than ready to discuss everything with you.

[@TitaniumSlayerNinjaCopper]

The question was not answered at all.

[@user-eh2pv4sc7h]

The Rafidhi are the sahaba who turned back to idol worship after their false pretense of islam. See in Bukhari. They are not the shia. They do everything according to.the quran. Sunni open fast at sunset. Shia open accrording to quran black thread of night.

[@TrueBeliever31]

ahsant

[@edkaczynskitheunabummer6897]

Surah Balad

[@edkaczynskitheunabummer6897]

You have not attempted the Steep Path.

[@user-ms5nf5ck3t]

Saudi mufti was a nasbi i think as ale sunnah person ,i know the value of Hazrat Ali ale salam as these nasbi always try to hide ,scholar for dollar

[@Saber23]

No, you’re either a Shia or you’re against Ali (AS) now choose your side wisely

[@abdulrahmanmalik8650]

Allah praises muhajireen and ansar in Quran and placed them in paradise, so Shia believes this?

[@adamalmir5214]

Thank God for the blessing of Shiism. Thank you brother for spreading this video to expose this blasphemous sheikh. We follow Ahlulbayt (as) and what an amazing thing that is. Whereas, these bakris and umeris follow the sahabah who were polytheists. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

[@abuhamzaismail4856]

Astaghfirullah

[@yapawnyawng7163]

You rafidah and wahabi are same thing. What you both can do is only insulting and takfiri. I am lucky that I never taught to insult anyone

[@Saber23]

@@abuhamzaismail4856 alhamdulillah

[@Rajeev_kumar991]

Something you achieved sheikh its a reward May your knowledge spread enlightment to the world

[@world_News37]

by Running away and defending Muawiya

[@mohammedjafer9265]

@@world_News37 the topic has many factor's into play do not become arrogant about it someone in the comment section as told the answer

[@raorehman9194]

Bukhari 2810 is a gallows for all Nawasibs

[@alial-yunani]

Yazeed is one of those whom we neither curse nor love Shaykh al-Islam described people’s attitudes towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah, and said: The people differed concerning Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, splitting into three groups, two extreme and one moderate. One of the two extremes said that he was a kaafir and a munaafiq, that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to spite the Messenger of Allaah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather ‘Utbah, his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle al-Waleed ibn ‘Utbah and others who were killed by the companions of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and others on the day of Badr and in other battles - and things of that nature. To have such a view is easy for the Raafidis who regard Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan as kaafirs, so it is much easier for them to regard Yazeed as a kaafir. The second extreme group think that he was a righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahaabah who were born during the time of the Prophet and were carried and blessed by him. Some of them give him a higher status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and some of them regard him as a prophet. Both views are obviously false to one who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the earliest Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the Sunnah or to any intelligent person who has reason and experience. The third view is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. Then they divided into three groups, one which cursed him, one which loved him and one which neither cursed him nor loved him. This is what was reported from Imaam Ahmad, and this is the view of the fair-minded among his companions and others among the Muslims. Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody? Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed: according to what I have heard he is neither to be cursed nor to be loved. He said, I also heard that our grandfather Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed and he said: we do not deny his good qualities or exaggerate about them. This is the fairest opinion. Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, part 4, p. 481-484

[@titangamer1790]

The animosity of Yazid towards Imam Husayn was because of his inherent character and his denial of Islam, a religion ostensibly professed for political gain and just to stay in power. Yazid openly derided the Holy Prophet (S) and Islam. He was a debauch and a drunkard of vile nature. Yazid, by descent or by himself, never possessed any noble qualities. His grandfather was Abu Sufyan who plotted and carried out several plots to kill the Prophet (S). His grandmother was Hind who chewed the martyr Hamza’s liver. His mother was Maysoon, a Christian planted by the Christians to avenge the defeat conceded by them when they were confronted by the Prophet (S) at the event of Mubahala. He had no pity or mercy for anyone. He killed people in thousands even before the battle of Karbala. Like his grandfather Abu Sufyan, Yazid also believed that there would be no life other than this and that there would be no heaven or hell and no accountability for one’s evil and sinful acts. Nicholson wrote, “The slaughter of Husayn does not complete the tale of Yazid’s enormities. Medina, the Prophet’s city, having expelled its Umayyad governor, was sacked by the Syrian army, while Mecca itself, where Abdullah bin az-Zubayr had set up as rival Caliph was besieged, and the Kaaba laid in ruins’.6 Allama Sayyid Zeeshan Haider Jawadi writes, “The evil personality and character of Yazid was never in dispute among Muslims, but his faith and the nature of Islam was always in dispute. Above all is the dispute whether Yazid deserves to be cursed or not. However, it is well established and acknowledged by every unprejudiced scholar that Yazid’s Islam was never the real Islam and that his character was such that he deserved to be cursed.” 7 The following renowned Sunni scholars of merit approve of cursing Yazid:8 [a] Allama al-Barazanji in his book ‘Al-Isha’ah’ and Ibn Hajar in as-Sawa’iq record that when Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s9 son asked his father about cursing Yazid, he replied, “How can Yazid not be cursed when God himself has cursed him.” He then quoted the Qur’anic verse in which those who create chaos and bloodshed are cursed. [b] Ibn Khaldun says that Judge Abu Bakr bin al-Arabi al-Maliki wrote in his book ‘Al-Awasim wel Qawasim’ that it would be absolutely wrong to say that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was slain by the sword of his grandfather. Yazid was never an Islamic ruler. The fundamental requisite of Islamic rule is justice and equity and there was never a person more just than Imam Husayn (a.s.). [c] At page 254 of Preface to History (Muqaddimat at-Tareekh) is mentioned, ‘the fact that the Islamic scholars are united in admitting the irreligiousness of Yazid and they hold that such a person can not be an Islamic ruler and that any action taken against him can not be construed as impermissible. [d] The silent endurance by the companions of the Prophet (S) and the next generation (Tabi’een),10 was not on account of their approval of Yazid’s evil character, but because they did not like bloodshed and therefore they did not consider it proper to assist him. [e] Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali says that in the eyes of ibn Aqeel and ibnul Jowzi, it is permissible to oppose an unjust ruler, just as Imam Husayn (a.s.) stood up to oppose Yazid’s tyranny. Assuming for a moment, if Yazid’s rule in its initial stage, is considered as that of a lawful ruler, his rule automatically forfeits its legality and validity after he had killed Imam Husayn (a.s.), desecrated the Kaaba, and disgraced Medina.

[@thecominglightofgood583]

It goes on to show your double standards. Those who hate the evil sahaba are apostates and those who kill Ahlul Bayt you don't hate them..... The Prophet SAWW said aptly, only a momin will love Ali AS and a munafiq will hate him.

[@thecominglightofgood583]

​@@titangamer1790They are hypocrites.

[@user-eh2pv4sc7h]

​@@thecominglightofgood583well said. They are brainwashed by their mufi menk.

[@alial-yunani]

The Saba’iyyah killed ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu Let us look at what these rebels have done so far: ~In their secret meeting before the Battle of Jamal, Ashtar al Nakha’i forwards his opinion that ‘Ali and Talhah should be killed. ~Once the agreement for reconciliation was reached, it was they who instigated and caused the fighting to break out. ~Prior to Siffin, they prevented discussions and dialogue to take place, which could of led to reconciliation. ~Whenever the Syrians demanded the killers of ‘Uthman be brought to justice, they would shout: “We are all the killers of ‘Uthman. Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu should bring us all to justice.” `They threatened to kill ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as well. ~They then separated from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and became the Khawarij, and fought against ‘Ali. `Eventually the wretched ‘Abd al Rahman ibn Muljam murdered ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. ~According to reports from Tarikh al Tabri, when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu intended to search for the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, demanding they be handed over; they immediately threatened to kill him. There are numerous incidents which point to the fact that the killers of ‘Uthman were the rebels, and the killers of ‘Ali also the same. Thus, according to the words of the hadith, if they are proven to also be the killers of ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then there is no sort of proof, not aqli (rational), nor naqli (traditional) or even nafsi (psychological), which could prove them otherwise. Seriously ponder over this for a while, we have a strong indicator to the fact that they killed ‘Ammar. When according to the Shia scholar, Jafar Hussain, the Battle of Siffin was dragging on such that some tired and stopped fighting, and were searching for a strategy to end the battle and still be able to claim victory. Thus, they conceived to kill ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and then mourn his death. The blame would then fall squarely on the shoulders of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, thus the label of rebel would shift to him, since the hadith, which was known to all and sundry, mentions that ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu will be killed by a group of rebels.

[@alial-yunani]

The explanation of the hadith: “You will invite them to Jannah and they will invite you to Jahannam.” Sayyidina ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was never the killer of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and neither did he assist the rebels in any way. In the year 35 A.H. - the year in which ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was martyred - he sent his special and most trustworthy companions to various parts of the Islamic world, to investigate the allegations made against his governors and the activities of the Sabaʼiyyah movement. ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was sent to Egypt, which was the headquarters of ‘Abdullah ibn Sabaʼ. All others returned with a detailed report of what was transpiring, except for ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu who was held back by the Sabaʼiyyah. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote to the governor of Egypt, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh, enquiring the reason for ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu not returning with his report. The governor wrote back informing him that the Egyptians have put pressure on him and have surrounded him. Amongst them were ‘Abdullah ibn Sabaʼ, Khalid ibn Muljam (the brother of the one who killed ‘Ali), Sowdan ibn Hamdan, Kinanah ibn Bishr (all historical narrations are unanimous on the fact that they were the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Kinanah was extremely brave and was a general of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu army. He had killed many Syrians in the battle for Egypt. Finally, Muawiyah ibn Khadij gained the upper hand in the battle and killed him. Muawiyah ibn Khadij was also responsible for the execution of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh, the governor of Egypt, continued: “They are trying to influence ‘Ammar to accept their views. They believe that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam will return to the world. They are also trying to influence ‘Ammar to disassociate himself from ‘Uthman. They also claim that the people of Madinah have the same beliefs as them.”[7] The governor of Egypt enquired from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu whether he should execute these Sabaʼiyyah heretics but ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied that he should not kill them, Allah Ta’ala will deal with them.[8] Thus, it was these kuffar masquerading as Muslims who took undue advantage of the gentle nature, nobility and modesty of ‘Uthman and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and created dissension in the ummah. It was they who drove a wedge into this ummah which led to such senseless loss of life. We come to know from the above narration that it was these very Sabaʼiyyah who took advantage of ‘Ammar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu old age and held him back. They even invited him to rebel against and kill ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu; in other words: “They were inviting him to Jahannam.” Despite the temptation of their speech, the likes of which is described in the Qurʼan: وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ یُّعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهفِی الْحَیٰوةِ الدُّنْیَا وَ یُشْهِدُ اللّٰهَ عَلٰی مَا فِیْ قَلْبِهٖ وَهُوَ اَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ There are some whose speech captivates you in this worldly life, and he even makes Allah a witness to (the truth of) what is in his heart, whereas he is the greatest mischief-monger. Sayyidina ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not accept their beliefs, which contradicts the fundamental tenets of iman, neither did he join them in their sinister activities. In fact, ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu admonished them for what they were doing and after the ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was martyred, he rebuked them and in so doing “‘Ammar invited them to Jannah.” Sayyidina ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu would say to those who rebelled against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu: “We had pledged allegiance to ‘Uthman and we were pleased with him. Why did you people then kill him?”[9]

[@alial-yunani]

Conclusion We terminate this booklet with mention of the ‘aqaʼid (beliefs) of a Muslim and the virtues of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah believe that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the fourth rightful khalifah and the Amir al Muʼminin. The majority of the Sahabah and Tabi’in of Madinah Munawwarah pledged allegiance to him, just as they had pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum. This was also the proof that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu presented to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as proof for the legitimacy of his Caliphate.[10]‘ There are innumerable ahadith mentioning the virtues of ‘Ali, hereunder we make mention of but a few: 1. Sayyidina Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instructed ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to remain in Madinah during the expedition of Tabuk, on which ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked: “Will you leave me behind with the women and children?” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam consoled him saying: “Are you not pleased that you are to me as Harun ‘alayh al Salam was to Musa ‘alayh al Salam, except that there is no nabi after me.”[11] 2. Sayyidina Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mentioned with regards to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Khaybar: “I will give the flag tomorrow to one at whose hand Allah will grant victory. He loves Allah and His Rasul and Allah and His Rasul love him.”[12] 3. Sayyidina Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam included ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu among his Ahlul Bayt and had the honour of being his son-in-law.[13] 4. Sayyidina Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “Whoever is my close friend then ‘Ali is also his close friend.”[14] 5. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu came in tears to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam after migrating to Madinah and said: “O Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam! You have created bonds of brotherhood between your Sahabah (amongst the Muhajirin and Ansar) but have not appointed a brother for me.” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied: “I am your brother in this world and the next.” In light of the many narrations regarding the virtues and merits of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, it is impossible for any Muslim to harbour hatred or malice for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu or to reject his Caliphate. During his lifetime, not a single person claimed to have a greater right to the Caliphate, neither did anybody reject his worthiness of it. Even a staunch extremist Shia like Baqir al Majlisi has written: “Even Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu acknowledged the virtues of ‘Ali. All he desired was for ‘Ali to retain him as the governor of Syria, and he would pledge allegiance to him.”[15] If you were to ask: “What is this painful heart rendering historical account you have presented before us?” My response is: “This is actually an explanation of the statement of ‘Ali, “They (the rebels) control us but we do not control them.”[16] In other words, they are enforcing their policies through us, but we cannot get them to do what we want. This explanation could never be given by the Sabaʼiyyah commentators of Nahj al Balaghah . While we Muslims, out of respect for the Sahabah, remained silent regarding their disputes, these hypocrites, under the guise of taqiyyah (dissimulation) were painting a dark image of the Sahabah and Tabi’in being the rebels. They were the very same people who conspired with the Tatars in the seventh century to destroy Baghdad. They attacked Egypt and misled the Muslims with deviant rituals and practices of polytheism and innovation, to such an extent that its stench even crept into some books of belief and fiqh. There are abundant proofs for the nobility and piety of the Sahabah, which also prove that not one amongst them was fasiq (a flagrant transgressor). The following verse applies to each one of them: رضي الله هنهم و رضوا عنه و اعد لهم جنات Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens of Jannah… (Quran, 9:100) We will not deride or degrade any of them; rather we will mention only their virtue and nobility. Imam al Bukhari rahimahu Llah said: "Whoever finds fault and criticises Muawiyah and ‘Amr ibn al ’As (as well as Talhah, Zubair, ‘Aisha and Mughirah ibn Shu’bah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, who are superior than them in rank), his heart is sick and he is classified as a Rafidi."[17] It was the Sabaʼiyyah who forced the hand ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu at every juncture, and separated from him when he attempted to reconcile and end the fighting by accepting the arbitration. It was there insistence that prompted him to leave Madinah and confront Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, it was they who urged him to march on the Syrians, thus leaving the ummah in disarray within a short period of eight months, wherein it was only Muslim lives that were lost. This was the ‘fruit’ which these Saba’i conspirators were able to yield. O My fellow Muslims! Regard ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to be absolved from all of this and his hands unstained by the blood that was spilt. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarded those who were demanding the qisas of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to be excused and would say: “O people! Do not speak evil of them. We thought they were wrong and they thought we were wrong.”[18] In the end, we all desire that our mistakes should be forgiven… وَ الَّذِیْنَ جَآءُوْ مِنْۢ بَعْدِهِمْ یَقُوْلُوْنَ رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْلَنَا وَ لِاِخْوَانِنَا الَّذِیْنَ سَبَقُوْنَا بِالْاِیْمَانِ وَ لَا تَجْعَلْ فِیْ قُلُوْبِنَا غِلًّا لِّلَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا رَبَّنَآ اِنَّكَ رَءُوْفٌ رَّحِیْمٌ And for those who came after them, saying: “O our Rabb, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts (any) resentment toward those who have believed. O our Rabb, indeed You are Kind and Merciful.” (Quran, 59:10) وصلى الله على حبيبه محمد وآله و اصحابه و الخلفاء الراشدين اجمعين

[@alial-yunani]

[1]Kanz al ’Ummal vol. 11 pg. 725 [2]Mustadrak vol. 3 pg. 378 [3]Adapted from the booklet: Some important discussions regarding certain chapters of Bukhari pg. 7, 8 [4] Tarikh al Tabri vol. 4 pg. 29 [5] Tarikh al Tabri vol. 4 pg. 13 [6] Taqrib al Tahdhib vol. 1 pg. 411 [7] Tarikh Dimashq of Ibn al=‘Asakir vol. 7 pg. 433 [8] ibid [9] Tarikh al Islam - Nadwi vol. 2 pg. 233 [10] Nahj al Balaghah [11] BukharI [12] ibid [13] Muslim [14] Tirmidhi [15] Haqq al Yaqin [16] Nahj al Balaghah, Tarikh al Tabri vol. 3 pg. 458 [17] Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah vol. 8 pg. 139 [18] Tarikh

[@titangamer1790]

​​@@alial-yunani Muwaiyah's Crimes One of Muawiyah's most controversial and enduring legacies was his decision to designate his son Yazid(la) as his successor. This was a clear violation of the treaty he made with Imam Hasan ibn Ali (as) , in which Muawiyah said he would not make his son his successor. Yazid ibn Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufyan was regarded by many Muslims of the time as a moral degenerate, a sadist and a hedonist, and in many accounts his beliefs hovered between polytheism and atheism. His ruthlessness in pursuing Imam Hussain (as), and his rather weak rule has made him the most despised person in Islamic History. A brief look into history When Abu Sufyan saw that Abu Bakr had been installed as the Caliph, he went to Imam Ali (a.s) and said, “You have been deprived of your right by those who do not deserve the post of caliph. If only you assent, I will fill Medina with cavalry and soldiers to unseat the usurpers of the seat of caliphate.” Imam Ali (a.s] was fully aware that Abu Sufyan, who fought the Prophet (s) all his life, was a hypocrite and that all he wanted was dissension and discord in Islam. Imam Ali (a.s) refused to be dragged into the trap. Rebuked and rebutted by Imam Ali (a.s), Abu Sufyan planned to join the opponents of Ali. Umar, who received the news of what transpired between Abu Sufyan and Ali, realized that if left to himself, Abu Sufyan would cause great mischief. Umar thought it best to purchase Abu Sufyan’s loyalty rather than to face his mischief. Umar sent for Abu Sufyan and told him that he and Abu Bakr had decided to appoint his (Abu Sufyan) son Yazid as the governor of Syria. Abu Sufyan was immensely pleased. In the year 11 AH, Yazid bin Abu Sufyan became the governor of Syria. Very soon, he died and in his place, the caliph appointed Mu’awiya as the governor of Syria and Iraq. Though, on becoming the second caliph, Umar removed several governors on various charges, Mu’awiya was not disturbed from his post in spite that his misrule was the cause of the uprising and the ultimate assassination of Uthman. In his letter to Mohammad bin Abu Bakr, Mu’awiya wrote, “Even during the lifetime of the messenger of Allah, we (the Umayyads) were together with your father in contesting against Ali’s right (of leadership). We were certainly aware of his superiority and supremacy over all others. But, when God chose to take away the messenger of Allah from this world, it was your father and his friend Umar who were the foremost in snatching the caliphate from Ali by opposing him at all costs. In this, both of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) were in perfect consonance with each other." Mu’awiya’s rule of Syria, Egypt, and Palestine actually commenced from the year 11 AH, and lasted for fifty years, when he died in 60 AH. Thus, the areas under his domain were far away from Mecca and Medina, the centers of Islam, and the population there believed only what was taught to them by Mu’awiya’s henchmen. The public had no idea who were the relatives of the Prophet (s) or who were his companions. Mu’awiya made the people there believe that he alone was the heir of the Prophet (s), that Ali was a dacoit, and Husain a reactionary opposed to Islam. People were made to believe that anybody who praised Ali must himself be a dacoit or at least of low morality, and that anybody who praised Husain in fact sowed the seeds of sedition. Fifty years were more than enough to achieve this goal. From the year 11 to 35 AH, Mu’awiya apprehended no danger from the ruling caliph. He had Syria, Iraq, and Egypt under his control. These areas were far away from Medina, the then capital of Islam. Except for the essentials, the public had no idea about the thought and philosophy of Islam. In fact, Mu’awiya wanted the people to be ignorant of Islam so that nobody might point out that Mu’awiya himself was acting against Islam in his daily life. In order to win over the public, he allowed them to lead a life without any reference to the prohibitions and recommendations made in Islam. The public found that their rulers provided them jobs and food. Beyond that, they had no need or desire to consider any aspect of Islam or its true proponents. As a result, al-Hajjaj bin Yousuf asked people from on the pulpit, “Who provides you food and jobs?” People replied, “The Caliph.” He then asked, “Who is better, the Prophet or the Caliph?” The foundation for the thought that the Caliph, in the least, was next only to God was strongly and truly laid by Mu’awiya. Because of this, in the year 96 AH When al-Waleed bin Abdul Melik bin Marwan became the king, he contended that the caliph was superior to past Prophets. Ibnul Athir records that in 98 AH, al-Waleed bin Abdul Malik asked while giving a sermon in Mecca, “Who is more important for you; the Caliph or Abraham the Prophet? How I wish you realized the superiority of your caliph who provided sweet drinking water for you whereas Abraham the Prophet only provided brackish water (Zamzam). By God, al-Waleed is dearer in the eyes of God than any Prophet.” Al-Waleed was referring to the well he had dug up in Mecca, which provided sweet water for some time, but later it dried up. Initially, Mu’awiya was engaged in consolidating his own position by lavishly bribing amenable persons and killing or at least confiscating the properties of those who were even suspected to sympathise with Ali. But, from 11 to 30 AH, we do not find any interference by Mu’awiya with the Caliph. When Uthman was killed, Mu’awiya apprehended a contender and feared that he might lose power, and therefore, he took these steps

[@titangamer1790]

​​@@alial-yunani [i] He sent his army commander Bisr bin Artat who killed 30,000 Shia and slaughtered two young sons of Abdullah Ibn Abbas in their mother’s lap. [ii] He sent Sufyan bin Ouf whose contingent of six thousand strong men created terror by looting and destructing the houses of the Shia in al-Mada’in. [iii] He sent Abdullah bin Sa’dah al-Fazari with a contingent to loot and harass the people who sympathized with Imam Ali (a.s.). [iv] He sent ad-Dhahhak bin Qais with 30000 men to loot, terrorize, and kill Ali’s adherents in Waqisa, Thalabiya, and Qatqat. [v] He sent an-No’man bin Basheer to eliminate Ali’s adherents in Ayn at-Tamr. [vi] He removed the names of the Shia from the citizenship registers. [vi] He stopped the state pensions to any one suspected to be a Shia. [vii] He ordered that the testimony of anyone suspected to be a Shia should not be admitted in evidence. In his rule of about half a century, Mu’awiya laid a solid foundation for the extreme hatred toward Imam Ali (a.s) and anybody even remotely linked or sympathetic to him. In the course of time, the Shia along with their Imams inherited the legacy of blind persecution by their opponents. Some other crimes of Muawiya Mu’awiya appointed the following governors who were notorious for committing cruelty and torture: [1] al-Mugheera bin Shu’ba [2] Ziyad bin Sumayya (bin Abeeh) [3] Samura bin Jundab [4] Amr bin al-Aas [5] Muslim bin Uqba [6] Ubaidullah bin Ziyad who was the commander in chief of the army that fought against Imam Husain and [7] Hussayn bin Numair who guarded the banks of the Euphrates and prevented Imam Husain (a.s.) from getting any water...etc. The following persons were friends of Imam Ali. They were killed when they refused to curse the Imam in Mu’awiya’s presence: [1] Hujr bin Adiy [2] Mohammad bin abi Huthaifa [3] Shaddad bin Aws [4] Sa’sa’a bin Souhan al-Abdi [5] Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [6] Abdullah bin Hashim bin Utba bin Abi Waqqas [7] Jameel bin Ka’b ath-Tha’labi [8] Malik al Ashtar [9] Jariya bin Qudama at-Tamimi [10] Shareek bin Shaddad al-Hadhrami [11] Saifi bin Faseel ash-Shaibani [12] Qabeesa bin Dhubay’ah al-Absi [13] Kiram bin Habban al-Anzi [14] Muhriz bin Shihab at-Tamimi [15] Abdurrahman bin Hassan al-Anzi [16] Amr bin al-Humq al-Khuza’iy [17] Juwairiya ibn Musshir al-Abdi… etc. And Most Importantly, Ammar bin Yasir (ra), one of the greatest sahaba of the Prophet (SAWS), who stood by Rasulallah since the early days. The Prophet foretold "he will be killed by a deviant group." Sumara bin Jundab killed eight thousand innocent persons.Ziyad bin Sumayya (bin Abeeh) was a bastard appointed by Mu’awiya as governor of Basra. Ziyad knew every Shia and every one from Imam Ali’s progeny in Basra. He killed over a hundred thousand of them. Al-Mughira bin Shu’ba cunningly told Shareek bin al-A’war al-Harithi to collect people in order to fight against the Kharijites. Shareek collected about three thousand Shia from the tribe of Rabi’a. When they gathered outside Basra, al-Mughira surrounded and killed them all. Ibn Ziyad, as the governor of Basra first and later as the governor of Basra and Kufa, killed hundreds of thousands of Shia from the two cities. The cunning Mu’awiya made use of the murder of Uthman into a political weapon to oppose Imam Ali (a.s). He enlisted the help of Talha and az-Zobair and convinced Aa’isha to join him in the battle of al-Jamal against Imam Ali (a.s). The circumstances that led to Uthman’s murder were as the following:Muslims, particularly of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq were vexed with the tyranny and misrule of Mu’awiya. In Medina, Muslims found that Uthman had filled the entire government with his kin and clansmen who were inefficient, impious, and avaricious. The well known case of al-Walid bin Uqba, who fully drunk led the Morning Prayer and instead of the mandatory two rak’as, he performed four rak’as, and turning to the congregation, he said, “If you like, I would add more.” Muslims gave a memorandum to Uthman complaining that he had deviated from the Prophet’s Sunna and the precedents set up by his predecessor Caliphs. According to Shahr Ashub, there were twenty thousand men in Imam Ali’s army, out of whom eighty were companions who had fought in the battle of Badr, fifteen hundred companions of the Prophet (s), and two hundred and fifty were participants in the Homage of the Tree (Bay’at ash-Shajara) The total number of martyrs on Imam Ali’s side was one thousand and seventy. Notable martyrs among the companions of Imam Ali (a.s) were Zaid bin Souhan, Hind al-Jamali, Abu Abdullah al-Abdi, Abdullah bin Ruqayya, Thumama, Hind ibn Amr, Ghaniyya bin Haytham, and Makhdooj

[@MC-zq2gn]

Hahahah booooooom your mufti has no knowledge, sala3 wasalam

[@sbtvbd2]

কোন একদিন এদেশের আকাশে কালেমার পতাকা উড়বে

[@GilesHartop]

Liars haha half clip put the full clip where the mufti refutes him typical shia

[@Qamar_e_BaniHashim]

So incompetent Sheikh can't even answer a simple question. Who killed Ammar😅😅 He's be like muavia sahabi jalil😅😅😅

[@user-de9mp4im3o]

😂✊🏻

[@falahmunawar]

Muawiya R.A didn't himself k*lled Ammar ibn Yasser R.A, there were munafiqeen in his army who did that. So the hadith goes for those munafiqeen not for Muawaiya R.A

[@titangamer1790]

He was leader of the Munafiqeen, making him the biggest Munafiq ever. And before you say, "Muwaiyah didn't intend for Ammar's death." Madelung quotes Al-Tabari by reporting what Muʿāwiya said to his followers after killing Imam Ali's other loyal companion, Malik al-Ashtar: "Ali b. Abi Talib had two right hands. One of them was cut at Siffin', meaning ʻAmmār b. Yasir, 'and the other today', meaning al-Ashtar". Muwaiyah ibn Abu Sufyan said this after having al-Ashtar successfully poisoned.

[@naveedahmedkhan2695]

@@titangamer1790 There were Munafiqeen present in the Hazrat Aliؓ group as well (those who killed Hazrat Usmanؓ). So does that mean that Hazrat Aliؓ was also a "leader of the Munafiqee, making him the biggest Munafiq ever"?!

[@titangamer1790]

@@naveedahmedkhan2695 Apparently, you haven't gotten the main point. Yes there were hypocrites in Imam Ali's army as well, but you neglect the hadith of Rasulallah, "Of whomever fights Ali, fights me." I can also proclaim that nobody significant in Ali's army were involved in the direct killing of Uthman. In fact, one person who turned against Uthman and was involved In his besigement was Amir ibn Al As, and he was Muwaiyah's second in command in the Battle of Siffin (again making Muwaiyah the bigger hypocrite).

[@naveedahmedkhan2695]

@@titangamer1790 I'm trying to get the main point; so، firstly, provide the reference of this hadith which you quoted as "Of whomever fights Ali, fights me." Secondly, Ashter Nakhi was directly involved in the martyrdom of Syedna Usmanؓ and he was a major position holder in the govt. of Syedna Aliؓ, so my argument still stands. Lastly, what is the proof that Amir ibn Al Asؓ was involved in the besigement? Any reference? To me neither Aliؓ nor Muwaiyahؓ were among the hypocrites, but those who say anything against them are definitely hypocrites.

[@titangamer1790]

@@naveedahmedkhan2695 For the first point I made, there are plenty of hadiths ro support my point: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: "Loving ‘Ali is the sign of belief, and hating ‘Ali is the sign of hypocrisy." Sunni references: - Sahih Muslim, v1, p48; - Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643; - Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142; - Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128 - Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 1, p202 - Hilyatul Awliya’, by Abu Nu’aym, v4, p185 - Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v14, p462 This tradition of Prophet was popular to the extent that some of the companions used to say: "We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of ‘Ali." Sunni references: - Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition #1086 - al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47 - al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v3, p242 - Dhakha’ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p91 Also Muslim in his Sahih narrated on the authority of Zirr that: ‘Ali (ra) said: By him who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessing be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me. - Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter XXXIV, p46, Tradition #141 Abu Huraira narrated: The Prophet (S) looked toward ‘Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, and Fatimah, and said: "I am in the state of war with those who will fight you, and in the state of peace with those who are peaceful to you.” Sunni references: (1) Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p699 (2) Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p52 (3) Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350 (4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149 (5) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p169 (6) al-Kabir, by Tabarani, v3, p30, also in al-Awsat (7) Jamius Saghir, by al-Ibani, v2, p17 (8) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v7, p137 (9) Sawai’q al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p221 (10) Talkhis, by al-Dhahabi, v3, p149 (11) Dhakha’ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p25 (12) Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tdadition #6145 (13) Others such as Ibn Habban, etc. It is the well-known fact in the history that Muawiyah fought Imam ‘Ali (as). And based on the above tradition of the Prophet(S) the Prophet has declared war on Muawiyah. How can we still love a person whom the Prophet has declared war on him? The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever hurts ‘Ali, has hurt me" Sunni references: - Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, p483 - Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p580, Tradition #981 - Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p129 - al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p263 - Ibn Habban, Ibn Abd al-Barr, etc. The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever reviles/curses ‘Ali, has reviled/cursed me" Sunni reference: - al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p121, who mentioned this tradition is Authentic. - Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p323 - Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p594, Tradition #1011 - Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p130 - Mishkat al-Masabih, English version, Tradition #6092 - Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173 - and many others such as Tabarani, Abu Ya’la, etc

[@bosnino420]

Authubilah may Allah keep this disbelief out away from me ameen i couldn't help but laugh when the host jumped on him he's finished 🤣 walahi he's finished lol he got cooked by the sheikh peacefully then got fried by the host

[@TawhidalItra]

Don't know what video you are watching but the only one who was 'cooked' was the wahabi cleric who deflected

[@mkude]

@@TawhidalItra ohhhh you are rafidha too

[@StevenMiller]

@@TawhidalItra He didn't deflect. The actual name of the killer is unknown and everything he said about Muawiyah is 100% correct and based on the Quran and Sahih A-Hadith.

[@icy_avxry8357]

Lmao what video are u watching?

[@Saber23]

@@mkude are you on drugs?

[@nasirabdiwahid2942]

I didn’t know Shia had a channel called taweed.😂😂😂.it’s funny.

[@Saber23]

Yeah the concept of pure tawhid may be funny to a munafiq such as yourself but it’s a compelling concept I assure you

[@theamirbarismillworks2253]

Dirty nasibi

[@usamagujjar7657]

bukhari 2812.

[@GameboyMufti]

صحيح بخاري ٢٨١٢

[@mredwardgibbon]

A bigger question is who killed Yassir Qadi?

[@Saber23]

The liberal Yassir Qadi?

[@niceguy1197]

So Sir, I believe that this has not correlation due to the fact that Moslem sources state that alcohol was originally permissible and that God is pleased with all of the companions.

[@staldani]

Don't identify as Sunni or Shia, just a muslim

[@AmeerMuawiyahAS]

Which hadith do u follow

[@abasbashir852]

This is an innovation as we are commanded to follow the Sahaba. The Prophet Sallahu alayhi wa Salam said, "The best people are those of my generation, and then those who will come after them (the next generation), and then those who will come after them (i.e. the next generation), and then after them, there will come people whose witness will precede their oaths, and whose oaths will precede their witness."

[@user-mq6sd4bf1t]

you cant mix falsehood with the truth

[@staldani]

@@user-mq6sd4bf1t what's the purpose of your quote with no context

[@Saber23]

@@abasbashir852 and so you’re a Sunni and you follow a false religion

[@ShamsulHaq313]

Wait, Rafidah have a channel with name Tawhīd? No No.. This is injustice 😂

[@TawhidalItra]

Yes true Tawhid of Ahlul Bayt (as) and not your beardless, curly haired sky god according to your sahih narrations

[@ShamsulHaq313]

@@TawhidalItra Hahahaha. Ok one more joke please?

[@Saber23]

@@ShamsulHaq313 ok: Abu Bakr and Umar being righteous, that’s the biggest joke of all

[@Saber23]

@@huseyinsoysal924 it’s what Bakriism does to you

[@Saber23]

And you literally have an ISIS pfp so you really aren’t one to talk pal

[@shafiqul9160]

Firstly: What is required is to think positively of those whom Allah chose to accompany His Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): for they are the best companions of the best Prophet, and it is not permissible to say anything of them but the highest words of praise; if anyone criticises them, then this gives rise to suspicion about the sincerity of his religious commitment. Abu Zar‘ah ar-Raazi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If you see a man criticising any of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then know that he is a heretic. That is because in our view, the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is true, and the Qur’an is true. No one transmitted this Qur’an and the Sunnah to us except the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). They only seek to undermine our witnesses (to the authenticity of the texts) in order to declare the Qur’an and Sunnah false, but these people are more deserving of criticism, for they are heretics. End quote from al-Kifaayah fi ‘Ilm ar-Riwaayah by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi (p. 49).

[@shafiqul9160]

Secondly: The Companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) fought one another ,and each party had a reason to fight, which was based on their own understanding of the texts and on their own ijtihaad, whereby each party believed it was in the right. Hence when it became clear to some of them that they were mistaken, they regretted going out and fighting, and regret is repentance, and repentance erases what comes before it, especially in the case of the noblest of mankind, and the highest in status and most respected of them after the Prophets and Messengers of Allah. Whoever examines this matter properly will realise that this fighting was caused by those who sought to spread discord by spreading rumours and false ideas. Many of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) went out during this fighting seeking to reconcile between the people. Fighting was the most hateful thing to them, but the decree of Allah inevitably came to pass.

[@shafiqul9160]

Thirdly: Al-Bukhaari (447) narrated from Abu Sa ‘eed al-Khudri, in the report about the building of the mosque (in Madinah), that he said: We would carry one brick at a time, but ‘Ammaar would carry two bricks at a time. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) saw him and brushed the dust from him, saying: “Woe to ‘Ammaar; he will be killed by the transgressing group; he will be calling them to Paradise and they will be calling him to Hell”. ‘Ammaar said: I seek refuge with Allah from tribulation. What is meant by calling to Paradise in this hadith is calling to the means of attaining it, which is obedience to the caliph (Ameer al-Mu’mineen), and what is meant by calling to Hell is calling to that which leads to it, which is opposing the caliph and rebelling against him. But whoever did that on the basis of ijtihaad and valid interpretation is excused. Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This hadith is one of the signs of Prophethood, as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) foretold to ‘Ammaar that he would be killed by the transgressing group, and he was killed by the people of ash-Shaam (greater Syria) in the battle of Siffeen, when ‘Ammaar was with ‘Ali and the people of Iraq, as will be explained in detail below. ‘Ali had more right to rulership than Mu‘aawiyah did. The fact that the companions of Mu‘aawiyah are described as transgressors does not imply that they were disbelievers, as the ignorant followers of the misguided sects, such as the Shi‘ah and others, try to claim. That is because their decision to fight was based on their own ijtihaad and interpretation of the texts, and not everyone who engages in ijtihaad gets its right; rather the one who gets it right will have a twofold reward and the one who gets it wrong will have a single reward. Those who added to this hadith after the phrase “you will be killed by the transgressing group” the words “Allah will not grant them my intercession on the Day of Resurrection” fabricated this additional material, falsely attributing it to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), for he did not say it, as it was not narrated via any acceptable chain of narration. And Allah knows best. With regard to the words “he will be calling them to Paradise and they will be calling him to Hell”, ‘Ammaar and his companions were calling the people of greater Syria to reconciliation and unity, whereas the people of greater Syria wanted to seize power from one who was more entitled to it, and they wanted the people to be divided, with each part of the Muslim lands having its own ruler, which would lead to disunity and division of the ummah, for this was the implication of their view and the consequences to which it would lead, even if they did not intend that. And Allah knows best. End quote from al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (4/538) Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If it is said: “He was killed at Siffeen, when he was with ‘Ali, and those who killed him were with Mu‘aawiyah, with whom were some of the Sahaabah, so how can it be said that they were calling to Hell?” The answer to that is that they thought that they were calling to Paradise, and their action was based on ijtihaad, so there is no blame on them for following what they thought was best. What is meant by calling people to Paradise is calling them to that which leads to it, which is obeying the ruler. This was the stance of ‘Ammaar, who was calling them to obey ‘Ali, who was the ruler whom it was obligatory to obey at that time, whereas they (Mu‘aawiyah and his followers) were calling people to something other than that, but they are excused for the wrong conclusion they reached, which was based on misinterpretation of the texts. End quote from Fath al-Baari (1/542). See also: Majmoo‘ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam (4/437)

[@shafiqul9160]

So it is essential to differentiate between the one who tries to work it out but reaches a wrong conclusion, and the one who deliberately causes mischief and turmoil. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels 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 equitable. The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islamic religion). So make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allah, that you may receive mercy” [al-Hujuraat 49:9-10]. This indicates that it is possible for fighting to occur among the believers, without that meaning that one of the groups is regarded as no longer being believers because of their fighting the other group. Then Allah, may He be exalted, says: “The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islamic religion). So make reconciliation between your brothers” [al-Hujuraat 49:9-10]. So Allah described them as being brothers, despite their fighting, and He commanded the Muslims to reconcile between them.

[@shafiqul9160]

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, explains that despite their fighting and transgression against one another, they are still believers and brothers, and He enjoined reconciling between them. But if one of them transgresses after that, then the transgressing group is to be fought, but He did not enjoin fighting from the outset. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated that the groups that would pass out of the faith [the Khawaarij or Khaarijis] would be killed by the closer of the two groups to the truth, and ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and those who were with him were the ones who fought them. The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) indicate that they were closer to the truth than Mu‘aawiyah and those who were with him, although both groups were believers. End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (25/305-306) It was narrated that Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “A group will secede from my ummah at a time of division among the Muslims, and they will be killed by the group that is closer to the truth.” Narrated by Muslim (1064). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This saheeh hadeeth indicates that both of the groups who engaged in fighting - ‘Ali and his companions, and Mu‘aawiyah and his companions - were following the truth, and that ‘Ali and his companions were closer to the truth than Mu‘aawiyah and his companions. End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/467). See also: Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/437-438).

[@shafiqul9160]

To sum up: The words “they will be calling him to Hell” do not imply disbelief - Allah forbid. The one who says that is only highlighting his extreme ignorance. Rather these hadiths come under the heading of the hadiths of warning, like those hadiths which say that the one who consumes riba will be in the fire, and the one who consumes the orphan’s wealth will be in the fire, and other hadiths that contain warnings; they do not necessarily imply that the person who does that is a disbeliever, although they do indicate that his deed is haraam and is in fact a major sin. In fact some of the scholars interpreted the words “they will be calling him to Hell” as referring to the Khawaarij (Kharijites). Ibn Battaal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The words “he will be calling them to Paradise and they will be calling him to Hell” can only be correctly applied to the Khawaarij to whom ‘Ali sent ‘Ammaar to call them to join the jamaa‘ah (main body of the Muslims); they cannot be correctly applied to any of the Sahaabah, because it is not possible for any of the Muslims to interpret any of their actions except in the best manner, because they were the companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), whom Allah praised and testified to their virtue, and said (interpretation of the meaning): “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110]. The commentators said: This refers to the Companions of the Messenger of Allah. It is narrated in a saheeh report that ‘Ali sent ‘Ammaar to the Khawaarij to call them to join the jamaa‘ah (main body of the Muslims), with whom there is protection from error. End quote from Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari (2/98-99)

[@user-kg7rs2wv6k]

متناقضين جدا😂

[@omanhakimi3321]

Eww shia misguidance

[@sayed129]

Ew salafilth guidance I remember you on tik tok you blocked me for exposing you and your salafist ideas lol

[@omanhakimi3321]

@@sayed129 idc, ill block u here as well, may Allah guide you

[@sayed129]

@@omanhakimi3321 ameen may Allah guide you to the right path inshAllah

[@omanhakimi3321]

@@sayed129 the prophet said not to say insya Allah after du'a, May Allah guide you Amin.

[@sayed129]

@@omanhakimi3321 what hadith ? And may Allah guide you

[@StevenMiller]

Muawiyah did not directly kill Ammar Ibn Yasir (May Allah SWT be Pleased with Both) obviously. He was killed in battle by a member of the opposing army. Further, the Grand Mufti couldn't be more correct. As Allah SWT explicitly told his slaves through the Noble Quran and the words of the Nabi (PBUH) that the Sahaba were pleased with him and *he* was was pleased with the Sahaba of which Muawiyah (RA) (Surah At-Tawbah Verse 100 amongst several others) was one.

[@ali9200]

Muawiyah was not from the muhajirun and ansar its either your lying or you dont know what your talking about he was 1 of the last people to convert to islam and read surah tawbah verse 101 the one straight after it

[@ali9200]

Al-Jam’e al-Saghir, Volume 2 page 608 Hadith 8736 hadith is authentic according to Hafiz Jalaluddin Syuti Prophet said: ‘Whoever curses Ali has cursed me and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah’ Shaykh Al-albaani graded the cited Hadith as ‘Sahih’, see Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah by Albani, Volume 1 page 26 On his way to Hajj, Sa’d met Mu’awiya and his companions mentioned Ali upon which Mu’awiya cursed him, Sa’d got angry and asked ‘why do you say such things?

[@ali9200]

Now before praising muawiyah do your research your praising the 1 who curses imam ali a.s the prophet s.a.w and allah s.w.t

[@ali9200]

Surah at tawbah ayah 101 And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment.

[@alimurtuzasulaman18]

Insha Allah U Will Surely Spend Life Hereafter With Your Mauwiya Maloon LAANATI And We Spend With Ahlul Bayt A.S. Allah Bless You Always.

[@assalafiah4026]

Shaykh abdul aziz just followed the principle واذا خاتبھم الجاہلون قالو سلاما۔

[@user-ms5nf5ck3t]

No he escaped the Question you people are nasbi not salafi ,salafi are most lovely people to mola Ali Ale Salam and Hussain ale Salam .

[@assalafiah4026]

@@user-ms5nf5ck3t 😁 I.e why Allah revealed the Aayah واذا خاتبھم الجاہلون قالو سلاما May be u are of the same group who used to promise hussain rad of giving bayah buy at the end betrayed al kufi la yufi In that case i seek refuge in Allah from debating ahlul biddah wa dalalah...

[@Saber23]

@@assalafiah4026 so in short you’re making excuses

[@Saber23]

Lol so now running away from questions ON A QUESTION AND ANSWER SHOW is supposedly a principle? 🤦‍♂️

[@assalafiah4026]

@@Saber23 واذا خاتبھم الجاہلون قالو سلاما۔۔

[@abuhamzaismail4856]

The real way is the the way of the Salafiyaah. Shi'ism is not Islam.

[@nasirrizvi2816]

who killed Ammar ibn Yasir ? 😂😂😂😂😂

[@aa-xv7tb]

@@nasirrizvi2816 A Group of people AMONGST Mauwia RA, not Mauwia himself. Every sunni agrees Mauwia RA and his followers were in the wrong, and the ones who killed Ammar ibn Yasir were in major sin, Allah will deal with it on the day of judgment. Cursing a Sahaba is no way too go about it.

[@nasirrizvi2816]

@@aa-xv7tb Let me remove your misconception and I understand it's not actually your fault, this is what you are taught. We don't curse all Sahabas. We actually love them but with a condition that they were kind to the Ahylebait, if not they are straight up hypocrates. It's impossible for me to claim that i love you when I hate your family.

[@nasirrizvi2816]

@@aa-xv7tb Muawiya's soldiers not Muawiya himself ??!!??😂 well then it was German soldiers who killed millions of Jews, not Hitler himself. He absolutely loved Jews. 😂😂 just to save Muawiya's wicked ass some guys overstep every line of reason and logic. Please introspect brother. Nothing personal. May the almighty guide us.

[@aa-xv7tb]

@@nasirrizvi2816 Yet most shia curse abu Bakr ra, Umar RA and so on. Further more creating fake scenarios too go with it. I was raised in my family being very pro ahlul bayt especially my mother and that has always stayed with me. I'll admit I probably have a much higher view of the Ahlul Bayt like Imam Hussain, Imam Ali, Imam Jafar etc in comparison too most Muslims who are also Sunni. I don't agree with Shaykh Bin Baz's opinion on Yazeed being correct and Husayn being wrong at all. I'll always support Imam Husayn, and regardless of what ever view that the Shia or the Sunnis have on Yazeed it boils down too he should have never ever sent an army too the grandson of the prophet Muhammad SAW and son Imam Ali RA, that in and of itself says alot about yazeed too me and who he really was. And I do personally believe AFTER the death of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthamn RA may Allah be pleased with them, that Imam Ali and his descendants should have / were the most rightful too rule the Muslims. Not the Ummayads who I don't even really agree were even Muslims except from Mauwia RA himself and Umar Aziz. Unlike most other sunnis I don't downplay that the Prophets offspring were persecuted and hunted down during the ummayads and even abbasids too an extent. They were 100% oppressed as they knew the prophets offspring were the most worthy and rightful too rule. But the companions are free from all of that. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman RA etc were some of the best people too ever walk the face of the earth. They have a special position in Islam, just just Imam Ali and his family also have there special position. Sure politically Uthman and Ali, and uthamn and Ammar ibn Yasir didn't see eye too eye, but they didn't make takfeer of eachother or even have a atoms weight of hate for eachother. They loved eachother and Imam Ali even sent His sons Imam Husayn and Imam Hasan too protect uthman. These ideas of sahabas and ahlul bayt hating eachother came after from extremists and kaffirs from both the "sunni" side in Syria who used too curse Imam Ali and the "Shia" side in Iraq who cursed the Sahaba. Even Imam Zaid RA who personally thought his family should have been the rulers refused too curse Abu Bakr etc and said they were upright rulers and righteous etc

[@user-wr9dh6yv1o]

Ahh the shia fitna 🤚🏻

[@thepr1ntgnome430]

Was muawiya a rebel?

[@dunno8805]

@@thepr1ntgnome430 YES HE IS A REBEL

[@thepr1ntgnome430]

@@dunno8805 jahanam awaits him

[@dunno8805]

@@thepr1ntgnome430 it really does.

[@thepr1ntgnome430]

@@shohaim fire is made for bakries

[@Saber23]

Mohammed Hijab’s intelligence suddenly goes out of the window when speaking to the Shia 🤦‍♂️ he’s such a hypocrite

[@laurita28061]

La hawla wa la quwatta illa billah