Jump to content


- - -


Photo
- - - - -

Wiladats & Wafats Of Nabih Muhammad Wa Aal-i-muhammad


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
276 replies to this topic

#26 macisaac

macisaac

    واقفي

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,701 posts
  • Location:The City of Champions
  • Religion:الإسلام
  • Interests:Loving my Queen

Posted 01 August 2008 - 11:15 AM

That's just plain ignorant of our history and works. The core Imami works do not date from the Safawid period. The most important work that did come from then was the re-compilations of existing earlier works, such as Wasa'il ash-Shi'a. Plus, most of the scholarship that dates from the Safawid period (at least early on) is not from native Iranian scholars, but rather from the 'ulama of Jabal 'Amul, most of which did not apparently migrate to Iran after the Safawids rose to power (Muhaqqiq Karaki being a notable exception).

The core Imami works which have survived come from Qum during the 'Abbasid time (at which time Qum was largely an autonomous Shi'i city-state only under a nominal and weak 'Abbasid rule), and Baghdad under the pro-Shi'a Buyid period (whether the Buyids themselves were Zaydi or Imami is somewhat unclear). Later, though again this is prior to the Safawids, you find important scholarly work coming from Hilla and the aforementioned Jabal 'Amul. By the time the Safawids came into power, Imami doctrines and practices had already solidified. Sure, after Iran's conversion to the Imami faith there was further development that did occur there and in Najaf and Karbala, such as with the later development of usooli principles of fiqh, but still the core source material dates from prior to this time. To try and lump in scholars like Shaykh Mufid, Shaykh Saduq, Sharif Murtadha, Sallar ad-Daylami, Shaykh Tusi, Sayyid Radhi, Shaykh Kulayni, Ibn Idris al-Hilli, Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, 'Allama Hilli and many, many others as all being somehow "Safawid" Shi'ism is just plain nonsense, especially considering they all predate them.

As to the Fatimids though, their doctrine was of a cultish pseudo-esoteric one, where the "truth" would be reserved from select initiates who had passed through their grades. If you actually study Fatimid intra politics though, they were highly corrupt and when they fell most of the native Egyptian population seemed not to care too much about them. In terms of the supposedly spectular work that occured under them, have you actually read any of this for yourself? I have a number of their works, and other than a rather well written short treatise on the logical necessity of Imama, and some of Da'aim al-Islam (though again, that work was simply culled from earlier Imami and Zaydi books), I'm not terribly impressed. The theology is higly neo-platonic, filled with all sort of strange speculations and weird doctrines. The history is a mess too, if I remember right the Ismai'ilis can't even seem to get a consistent line of who their Imams were during the period between Muhammad b. Isma'il and the rise of Sa'id b. Husayn (the so-called 'Ubaydullah al-Mahdi). Even in terms of the Mahdi, the earlier "Isma'ili" doctrine seemed to be that Muhammad b. Isma'il was the Mahdi, and that he was in ghayba (hence the term "Seveners", since they skip over Imam al-Hasan b. `Ali (as)). Sa'id himself had been a da'i prior to claiming to apparently be the Imam, a claim a number of the pre-Fatimids "Isma'ilis" rejected.

#27 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 01 August 2008 - 01:41 PM

That's just plain ignorant of our history and works. The core Imami works do not date from the Safawid period. The most important work that did come from then was the re-compilations of existing earlier works, such as Wasa'il ash-Shi'a. Plus, most of the scholarship that dates from the Safawid period (at least early on) is not from native Iranian scholars, but rather from the 'ulama of Jabal 'Amul, most of which did not apparently migrate to Iran after the Safawids rose to power (Muhaqqiq Karaki being a notable exception).

The core Imami works which have survived come from Qum during the 'Abbasid time (at which time Qum was largely an autonomous Shi'i city-state only under a nominal and weak 'Abbasid rule), and Baghdad under the pro-Shi'a Buyid period (whether the Buyids themselves were Zaydi or Imami is somewhat unclear). Later, though again this is prior to the Safawids, you find important scholarly work coming from Hilla and the aforementioned Jabal 'Amul. By the time the Safawids came into power, Imami doctrines and practices had already solidified. Sure, after Iran's conversion to the Imami faith there was further development that did occur there and in Najaf and Karbala, such as with the later development of usooli principles of fiqh, but still the core source material dates from prior to this time. To try and lump in scholars like Shaykh Mufid, Shaykh Saduq, Sharif Murtadha, Sallar ad-Daylami, Shaykh Tusi, Sayyid Radhi, Shaykh Kulayni, Ibn Idris al-Hilli, Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, 'Allama Hilli and many, many others as all being somehow "Safawid" Shi'ism is just plain nonsense, especially considering they all predate them.

As to the Fatimids though, their doctrine was of a cultish pseudo-esoteric one, where the "truth" would be reserved from select initiates who had passed through their grades. If you actually study Fatimid intra politics though, they were highly corrupt and when they fell most of the native Egyptian population seemed not to care too much about them. In terms of the supposedly spectular work that occured under them, have you actually read any of this for yourself? I have a number of their works, and other than a rather well written short treatise on the logical necessity of Imama, and some of Da'aim al-Islam (though again, that work was simply culled from earlier Imami and Zaydi books), I'm not terribly impressed. The theology is higly neo-platonic, filled with all sort of strange speculations and weird doctrines. The history is a mess too, if I remember right the Ismai'ilis can't even seem to get a consistent line of who their Imams were during the period between Muhammad b. Isma'il and the rise of Sa'id b. Husayn (the so-called 'Ubaydullah al-Mahdi). Even in terms of the Mahdi, the earlier "Isma'ili" doctrine seemed to be that Muhammad b. Isma'il was the Mahdi, and that he was in ghayba (hence the term "Seveners", since they skip over Imam al-Hasan b. `Ali (as) ). Sa'id himself had been a da'i prior to claiming to apparently be the Imam, a claim a number of the pre-Fatimids "Isma'ilis" rejected.



Salam...

With all that, you missed the key point I had made :

The SOURCES for the Safawi works were from the ABBASID Caliphate scholarship...

The Safawis took it to another level, however...The Safawis are the ones who brought present-day "SHIA'ISM" to the "cultish" level it has become.

Current "Shi'ism" is really the CULT OF KARBALA...With "Institutionalized Azadari" replacing the Qur'anic Traditions and the esoteric(batini) and exoteric(zahiri) TAFSEER of the Holy Qur'an as presented in the AUTHENTIC works of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma :
From Imam Sajjad to Imam Sadiq and Imam Raza...

I noticed you mentioned NOTHING of their LANDMARK, PIVOTAL theological works AT ALL...Which I mentioned and even provided website links to here on ShiaChat in past postings...

Typical of a Safawi Shia...Rant and rave about the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma but HAVE NOT READ or expounded on their ACTUAL literary works...Too busy reciting Marsias and Nauhas probably...

Again, have you actually READ Imam Sadiq's TAWHID AL-MUFADHFDHAL ??

or Imam Sajjad's RISALAT-UL-HAQQ ??

You will NEVER hear a Safawi Shia DISCUSS these MASTERWORKS of Islamic Theology...ALL you will mostly hear are the "Mufids" or the "Hillis" or "Radhis" or "Saduqs"...

Granted, these Uleyma provided tafseers of some of these works...But who wants tafseers by them of a what is already a tafseer ??

For instance, Risalatul Huquq really came about as a result of some Muminin who repeatedly questioned Imam Zayn al-Abidin : "What EXACTLY does Allah swt mean by Islam being DIN-UL-HAQQ ??"

What nonsense are you talking about ??

Speak of ignorance...What you have in terms of the more modern Fatimid doctrines are EXACTLY what I stated : That they follow the same sources as the Safawis...

You missed that point I made as well...

It would do well if you READ thoroughly what I have posted before giving out a diatribe of a rebuttal...

Ilahi Amin.

Could you recommend some good works by the Academia on the Islamic/Shia History. I've looked at Succession to Mohammad (I forget the author, it was a German-sounding name). I'm not entirely sure what to say about it.



Salam..

Are you thinking of Dr. Anne-Marie Schimmel ??

Edited by Al-Afza, 01 August 2008 - 02:04 PM.


#28 macisaac

macisaac

    واقفي

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,701 posts
  • Location:The City of Champions
  • Religion:الإسلام
  • Interests:Loving my Queen

Posted 01 August 2008 - 02:46 PM

Salaam,

Actually, yes, I have studied and continue to study the early works in terms of what is available to me...

http://www.shiachat....topic=234944204

I notice the works you've listed are ones that are available in English translation. Does this mean you can't read Arabic as such? Strange you'd be criticizing someone else for not referring to the actual source material then. Where in your list are such early texts such as al-Himyari's Qurb al-Isnad, or the collection of thirteen Usool, or the extracts of the Usool at the end of Ibn Idris' Kitab as-Sara'ir, or Basa'ir ad-Darajat of as-Saffar, or the Nawadir of Ahmad b. `Isa al-Ash`ari?

And in terms of Fatimid works, again I'd ask what have you actually read, or least what do you possess? And please do not presume to know what my beliefs and practices are (you may presume me to be "Imami" though), including me with what you're referring to as "cultish" behaviour.

As to the Risalat al-Huquq, perhaps you've not seen a Shi`i scholar expound on it because you can't read Arabic? Myself, I have two thick volumes of commentary that have been written on it by one such scholar. As to Tawhid al-Mufadhdhal, you obviously know nothing about the question over Mufadhdhal b. `Umar's status, nor that this same work can be found in other recensions that are not at all in the context with the one you're familiar with. I have one work for instance which a translation of a work ascribed to al-Jahiz. Guess what, it's the same book, minus the intro. You ever wonder why it makes reference to Manicheans, or to the Greek word for cosmos, or to Aristotle? Well (though I regret I didn't copy down the book information when I saw it) I once found a translation of a work from Greek, written sometime prior to the Islamic period apparently, and it was the very same work (though obviously without any reference to Imam Sadiq (as) in it), which would explain those references. I don't want to categorically state the work is not authentic without having full information, but these are matters to be considered.

Are you thinking of Dr. Anne-Marie Schimmel ??


I'd guess he's referring to Wilfred Madelung's work.

Edited by macisaac, 01 August 2008 - 10:53 PM.


#29 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 02 August 2008 - 02:46 AM

Salaam,

Actually, yes, I have studied and continue to study the early works in terms of what is available to me...

http://www.shiachat....topic=234944204

I notice the works you've listed are ones that are available in English translation. Does this mean you can't read Arabic as such? Strange you'd be criticizing someone else for not referring to the actual source material then. Where in your list are such early texts such as al-Himyari's Qurb al-Isnad, or the collection of thirteen Usool, or the extracts of the Usool at the end of Ibn Idris' Kitab as-Sara'ir, or Basa'ir ad-Darajat of as-Saffar, or the Nawadir of Ahmad b. `Isa al-Ash`ari?

And in terms of Fatimid works, again I'd ask what have you actually read, or least what do you possess? And please do not presume to know what my beliefs and practices are (you may presume me to be "Imami" though), including me with what you're referring to as "cultish" behaviour.

As to the Risalat al-Huquq, perhaps you've not seen a Shi`i scholar expound on it because you can't read Arabic? Myself, I have two thick volumes of commentary that have been written on it by one such scholar. As to Tawhid al-Mufadhdhal, you obviously know nothing about the question over Mufadhdhal b. `Umar's status, nor that this same work can be found in other recensions that are not at all in the context with the one you're familiar with. I have one work for instance which a translation of a work ascribed to al-Jahiz. Guess what, it's the same book, minus the intro. You ever wonder why it makes reference to Manicheans, or to the Greek word for cosmos, or to Aristotle? Well (though I regret I didn't copy down the book information when I saw it) I once found a translation of a work from Greek, written sometime prior to the Islamic period apparently, and it was the very same work (though obviously without any reference to Imam Sadiq (as) in it), which would explain those references. I don't want to categorically state the work is not authentic without having full information, but these are matters to be considered.



I'd guess he's referring to Wilfred Madelung's work.



Salam...

With all your pseudo-intellectual nonsense, do you really need commentaries for you to understand the works...??

That was my whole point from the beginning...

You can possess the thickest volumes of Tawhid al-Mufadhdhal or Risalatul Huquq...Almost as thick as your head...But do you need to have commentaries for you to understand its basic and direct meanings ??

Without Shaykh Saduq's commentary, mr. macisaac cannot understand what he reads...Is that it ?

What makes you think I don't know Arabic ??

I just prefer the English translation, because most of the people I deal with are of the West...English-speakers...

Yes, I'm no professor in Arabic but I can get along alright with it. And I study the syntax and vocabulary THRICE as hard as a fluent Arabic-speaker so as I won't mistake the meanings...and semantics.

And according to the earliest traditions, our Nabihullah Muhammad al-Mustafa didn't know how to read or write Arabic...And yet the Qur'an was revealed to him via Al-Jibril by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì...And I can pull a 'macisaac' and drop dozens of established names that have vouched for this generally held tradition...

And what point are you trying to make, anyway ???

My points are direct and to the point...

You are just rambling on trying to prove what exactly ??

You have not really answered any of the observances I made...You know damn well that Safawi Shi'ism IS a cult and has been from the very start. It has nothing to do with Islam.

Risalatul Huquq has to be expounded VERBALLY or ORALLY...In qutbas...What are you talking about ??

And more importantly, the average Mumin should read it for themselves and be as familiar with its contents as they can. Not for Uleyma to expound on it...That's where INTERPRETATION substitutes UNDERSTANDING. When the Uleyma "expound" on already self-explanatory theological works by the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma. Imam Sajjad's work doesn't need anyone to expound on it anyway...

All you do is keep dropping names of scholars...But what POINT are you trying to make ??

When I make observances and analyses, I have made very specific points...All you have done is ramble on without any semblance to coherence or continuity...

Since when did you become a 'moderator'...? You're not that moderate in your understanding ... Or what you are actually trying to convey ...

Edited by Al-Afza, 02 August 2008 - 03:07 AM.


#30 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 02 August 2008 - 03:16 AM

Salaam,

Actually, yes, I have studied and continue to study the early works in terms of what is available to me...

http://www.shiachat....topic=234944204

I notice the works you've listed are ones that are available in English translation. Does this mean you can't read Arabic as such? Strange you'd be criticizing someone else for not referring to the actual source material then. Where in your list are such early texts such as al-Himyari's Qurb al-Isnad, or the collection of thirteen Usool, or the extracts of the Usool at the end of Ibn Idris' Kitab as-Sara'ir, or Basa'ir ad-Darajat of as-Saffar, or the Nawadir of Ahmad b. `Isa al-Ash`ari?

And in terms of Fatimid works, again I'd ask what have you actually read, or least what do you possess? And please do not presume to know what my beliefs and practices are (you may presume me to be "Imami" though), including me with what you're referring to as "cultish" behaviour.

As to the Risalat al-Huquq, perhaps you've not seen a Shi`i scholar expound on it because you can't read Arabic? Myself, I have two thick volumes of commentary that have been written on it by one such scholar. As to Tawhid al-Mufadhdhal, you obviously know nothing about the question over Mufadhdhal b. `Umar's status, nor that this same work can be found in other recensions that are not at all in the context with the one you're familiar with. I have one work for instance which a translation of a work ascribed to al-Jahiz. Guess what, it's the same book, minus the intro. You ever wonder why it makes reference to Manicheans, or to the Greek word for cosmos, or to Aristotle? Well (though I regret I didn't copy down the book information when I saw it) I once found a translation of a work from Greek, written sometime prior to the Islamic period apparently, and it was the very same work (though obviously without any reference to Imam Sadiq (as) in it), which would explain those references. I don't want to categorically state the work is not authentic without having full information, but these are matters to be considered.



I'd guess he's referring to Wilfred Madelung's work.


Salam...

Let's see your knowledge of Arabic and the Qur'an...

From Ayat 75 of Surah Suad :

He said: O Iblis! what prevented you that you should do obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands? Are you proud or are you of the exalted ones?

[Qala ya ibleesu ma manaAAaka an tasjuda lima khalaqtu biyadayya astakbarta am kunta mina alAAaleena]

Do you uphold the general Shia belief that those 'Al Aaleena' or "The High Ones" are Prophet Muhammad; Imam Ali; Bibi Fatima; Imams Hasan & Husayn ?

Edited by Al-Afza, 02 August 2008 - 03:17 AM.


#31 Socrates

Socrates

    Islam is Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt (as)

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,771 posts
  • Location:Iraq
  • Religion:Shi'a Imamiyyah
  • Interests:Tawalla and Tabarra

Posted 02 August 2008 - 09:41 AM

Do you uphold the general Shia belief that those 'Al Aaleena' or "The High Ones" are Prophet Muhammad; Imam Ali; Bibi Fatima; Imams Hasan & Husayn ?

I'm assuming that you reject this view, and if indeed you do, then who are "The High Ones" according to your original tafaseer?

#32 macisaac

macisaac

    واقفي

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,701 posts
  • Location:The City of Champions
  • Religion:الإسلام
  • Interests:Loving my Queen

Posted 02 August 2008 - 10:05 AM

And what point are you trying to make, anyway ???



My original point was asking why you were putting stock in Fatimid Isma`ili works. However the conversation seems to have extended itself to this construct you've invented and are railing against of "Safawid Shi`ism", when I've pointed out that our most important works and scholars largely date from well before the Safawid period. So what you're going on about is a historical anachronism. What I think has happened with you is that you have a problem with populist Iranian religious expression. Fine, that's you're prerogative, and as I'm not Iranian nor do I feel any particular need to observe Persian customs (nor Indo-Pakistani nor Arab), so I don't have an argument with that. In fact, a number of the populist expressions I find questionable myself. When you conflate Imamism itself though, including all the works of our great scholars, with this populism then I have a big issue with that, and it only betrays your ignorance of those works and sources. Also, you seem to have arrogated to yourself the right to interpret the Quran according to your personal opinions. With that I have a huge problem.


All you do is keep dropping names of scholars...But what POINT are you trying to make ??



If you had some clue into the references I am making, you'd know that I'm not just dropping names of scholars, but rather am referring to early Shi`i collections of the teachings of the A'imma (as), including some that predate the ghayba. In terms of the ones you've listed, what, do you think we have handwritten copies from the Imams somewhere in a library? No, of course not, at least not in most cases. Rather we have such works from the compilations of the muhaddithun, so it's to those works we must refer to if we want to learn about those teachings (other than possible referral to early ijma` as being a reflection of the practice of the ta'ifa originating from the teachings of the Imams (as), but that's a big topic in itself).

#33 macisaac

macisaac

    واقفي

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,701 posts
  • Location:The City of Champions
  • Religion:الإسلام
  • Interests:Loving my Queen

Posted 02 August 2008 - 10:27 AM

Salam...

Let's see your knowledge of Arabic and the Qur'an...

From Ayat 75 of Surah Suad :

He said: O Iblis! what prevented you that you should do obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands? Are you proud or are you of the exalted ones?

[Qala ya ibleesu ma manaAAaka an tasjuda lima khalaqtu biyadayya astakbarta am kunta mina alAAaleena]

Do you uphold the general Shia belief that those 'Al Aaleena' or "The High Ones" are Prophet Muhammad; Imam Ali; Bibi Fatima; Imams Hasan & Husayn ?



The only hadith I've been able to find (so far at least) on this is one that is found in the book Fadha'il ash-Shi`a of Shaykh Saduq (ar):


ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÙÈíÇä Úä ÃÈí ÓÚíÏ ÇáÎÏÑí ÞÇá ßäÇ ÌáæÓÇ ãÚ ÑÓæá Çááå(Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáøã) ÅÐ ÃÞÈá Åáíå ÑÌá ÝÞÇá íÇ ÑÓæá Çááå ÃÎÈÑäí Úä Þæáå ÚÒ æ Ìá áÅÈáíÓ ÃóÓúÊóßúÈóÑúÊó Ãóãú ßõäúÊó ãöäó ÇáúÚÇáöíäó Ýãä åæ íÇ ÑÓæá Çááå ÇáÐí åæ ÃÚáì ãä ÇáãáÇÆßÉ ÝÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáøã) ÃäÇ æ Úáí æ ÝÇØãÉ æ ÇáÍÓä æ ÇáÍÓíä ßäÇ Ýí ÓÑÇÏÞ ÇáÚÑÔ äÓÈÍ Çááå æ ÊÓÈÍ ÇáãáÇÆßÉ ÈÊÓÈíÍäÇ ÞÈá Ãä íÎáÞ Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá ÂÏã ÈÃáÝí ÚÇã ÝáãÇ ÎáÞ Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá ÂÏã ÃãÑ ÇáãáÇÆßÉ Ãä íÓÌÏæÇ áå æ áã íÃãÑäÇ ÈÇáÓÌæÏ ÝÓÌÏ ÇáãáÇÆßÉ ßáåã ÅáÇ ÅÈáíÓ ÝÅäå ÃÈì æ áã íÓÌÏ ÝÞÇá Çááå ÊÈÇÑß æ ÊÚÇáì ÃóÓúÊóßúÈóÑúÊó Ãóãú ßõäúÊó ãöäó ÇáúÚÇáöíäó Úäì ãä åÄáÇÁ ÇáÎãÓÉ ÇáãßÊæÈÉ ÃÓãÇÄåã Ýí ÓÑÇÏÞ
ÇáÚÑÔ ÝäÍä ÈÇÈ Çááå ÇáÐí íÄÊì ãäå ÈäÇ íåÊÏí ÇáãåÊÏí Ýãä ÃÍÈäÇ ÃÍÈå Çááå æ ÃÓßäå ÌäÊå æ ãä ÃÈÛÖäÇ ÃÈÛÖå Çááå æ ÃÓßäå äÇÑå æ áÇ íÍÈäÇ ÅáÇ ãä ØÇÈ ãæáÏå


Which explains it to be referring to the Prophet, 'Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (as). The narration is related on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and narrated from 'Abdullah b. Muhammad b. Dhibyan. That said though, I have found no reference to the latter so I cannot yet confirm (or deny) his being thiqqa, or dha'if. The hadith says hadathna from that same, but this has me wondering if there's either a (or some) missing links here, or if the Shaykh is quoting from a pre-existing work before him, as I doubt a narrator would have lived from the time to hear a hadith from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri up to the time of Shaykh Saduq.


Apart from that, it seems the term al-'aaleen has been variously interpreted, such as that it refers to the angels of heaven as opposed to the angels of the Earth (i.e. that only the latter had been commanded to do sujud, not the former), or that it refers to a creation that was continuously in tajjuh to their Lord and who could not thereby be aware of other than Him, or that it refers to istikbar as the Quran says of Fir'awn in Sura Yunus æÅä ÝÑÚæä áÚÇá Ýí ÇáÇÑÖ , but, without clear proof of any of these (if there isn't) I wouldn't want to definitively say it's this one or that, or another.

So, for me I am unclear as to what it definitively means, and I do not want to engage in personal speculation.

#34 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 02 August 2008 - 11:09 AM

My original point was asking why you were putting stock in Fatimid Isma`ili works. However the conversation seems to have extended itself to this construct you've invented and are railing against of "Safawid Shi`ism", when I've pointed out that our most important works and scholars largely date from well before the Safawid period.


Also, you seem to have arrogated to yourself the right to interpret the Quran according to your personal opinions. With that I have a huge problem.


If you had some clue into the references I am making, you'd know that I'm not just dropping names of scholars, but rather am referring to early Shi`i collections of the teachings of the A'imma (as) , including some that predate the ghayba.


Salam...

Again, you missed what I had said about Safawi Shi'ism...That works such Bihar ul-Anwar, etc... Have their SOURCES from earlier ABBASID CALIPHATE works...

What part of that did you not understand ??

And I have NOT arrogated myself as the right to INTERPRET the Qur'an...
The Qur'an is FOR all to read, absorb and assimilate...

Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì Himself has made this clear in more than a one place in the Holy Qur'an...

I speak of INTERPRETATION not UNDERSTANDING...Most Uleyma are trying to INTERPRET the Kitabullah, not understand it...

That is probably your issue with me or anyone advocating this position...

I have more than a clue as to who those scholars are you are mentioning as I have their commentaries too...I don't give that much credence to them for one reason :

All they did was collect and add their own commentaries to established works of some of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma...So they could have their names handed down in history along with the established masterworks of Islamic theology.

What were Saduq, Saduq's pupil Shaykh Mufid, Hilli, Radhi ?? Translators of Arabic ?? Hardly, it was all the same language ...

You missed that crucial point...

Saduq's own bio has all the makings of folklore and cannot be confirmed as historical fact from an academic perspective :

Take this article excerpt for instance :

Sheikh As-Saduq was born in Qom. Although it was impossible to define the very year in which he was born, it is well known that he was born after the death of Mohammed bin Othman al-Omari (the second representative), which was in the year 305 A.H. That was the opening year of the representation of Abu al-Qasim al-Hussein bin Rawh (the third representative), who died in 326 A.H. As confirmation of this estimation, we provide the words of Sheikh As-Saduq himself in his book titled Kamal ud-Din wa Tamam un-Ni'ma:

Abu Ja'far Mohammed bin Ali al-Aswad related to us: After the death of Mohammed bin Othman al-Omari, Ali bin al-Hussein bin Musa bin Babawayh (i.e. As-Saduq's father) asked me to tell Abu al-Qasim Ar-Rawhi -i.e. bin Rawh- to ask our master Sahib uz-Zaman to pray to Allah for giving him a male baby. Abu al-Qasim informed that he asked the Imam, who rejected. Three days later, Abu al-Qasim informed that the Imam had prayed to Allah for Ali bin al-Hussein and he would be given a blessed male baby who would be the means by which Allah, would benefit (many people). Moreover, many boys would come after that baby.

(Abu Ja'far Mohammed bin Ali al-Aswad said) After a period, Ali bin al-Hussein was given Mohammed (i.e. As-Saduq) followed by many other boys.

(Another Narrative) Sheikh At-Tusi said that some people narrated from Abu Ja'far Mohammed bin Ali bin al-Hussein bin Musa bin Babawayh and Abu Abdullah al-Hussein bin Ali bin Musa bin Babawayh (his brother) that Abu Ja'far Mohammed bin Ali al-Aswad related to us: After the death of Mohammed bin Othman al-Omari, Ali bin al-Hussein bin Musa bin Babawayh (i.e. As-Saduq's father) asked me to tell Abu al-Qasim Ar-Rawhi to ask Imam Mahdi to pray to Allah for giving him a male baby. Abu al-Qasim informed that he asked the Imam, who rejected. Three days later, Abu al-Qasim informed that Imam Mahdi had prayed to Allah for Ali bin al-Hussein and he would be given a blessed male baby who would be the means by which Allah would benefit (many people). Moreover, many boys would come after that baby.

(Abu Ja'far Mohammed bin Ali al-Aswad said) I asked him to pray to Allah to give me a male baby, but he did not answer. He said: This is impossible.

After a period, Ali bin al-Hussein was given Mohammed (i.e. As-Saduq) followed by many other boys. For me, I was not given anything. Abu Ja'far bin Babawayh commented: As he noticed me attending the classes of our master Mohammed bin al-Hussein bin al-Waleed frequently while I was interested in recording and retaining the items of knowledge, Abu Ja'far Mohammed bin Ali al-Aswad used to say to me, 'It is not strange for you to have such an insistent desire for learning since you came to this world by the supplication of the Imam, .

Ar-Rawandi, in his al-Kharaa'ij, related the like of the previous narrative, yet brief. Besides, At-Tabirsi, in his book titled A'lam ul-Wara, Sayyid Hashim al-Bahrani, in his Tabssirat ul-Wali, and Sayyid Ali bin Abdul-Karim An-Najafi, in his Muntakhab ul-Anwar il-Mudhee'a, referred to the same narrative.

Imaduddin Mohammed bin Ali Al-Tusi, in his Thaqib ul-Manaqib, referred to a part of that narrative. In his reference to the biography of Ali bin al-Hussein bin Musa; As-Saduq's father, An-Nejashi said that the man was in Iraq when he met Abu al-Qasim al-Hussein bin Rawh and asked him many questions. After that, As-Saduq's father corresponded with Abu al-Qasim at the hands of Ali bin Ja'far bin al-Aswad and asked him to deliver a paper to Imam Mahdi in which he asked for a male baby.

The answer was, We have prayed to Allah for you and you will be given two virtuous male babies.

Hence, Abu Ja'far and Abu Abdullah, whose mother was a bondwoman, were born.

From the previous we can conclude that Sheikh As-Saduq had come to this world out of the prayer of Imam Mahdi after the death of Mohammed bin Othman al-Omari; after the year 305 A.H., when his father Sheikh Ali bin al-Hussein traveled to Iraq and met Abu al-Qasim al-Hussein bin Rawh and asked him some questions… etc. Hence, Sheikh As-Saduq was born in about 306 A.H.

Sheikh As-Saduq used to take pride in such a birth and say, 'I was born due to the prayer of Imam Mahdi ..

-------

Edited by Al-Afza, 02 August 2008 - 11:35 AM.


#35 macisaac

macisaac

    واقفي

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,701 posts
  • Location:The City of Champions
  • Religion:الإسلام
  • Interests:Loving my Queen

Posted 02 August 2008 - 11:24 AM

Salam...

Again, you missed what I had said about Safawi Shi'ism...That works such Bihar ul-Anwar, etc... Have their SOURCES from earlier ABBASID CALIPHATE works...

What part of that did you not understand ??



And were exactly have you come up with this assertion from? What, do you think as-Saffar, al-Himyari, al-Kulayni, as-Saduq, al-Mufid, and so on were working for the Sunni, anti-Shi`i Abbasids?? Or is that because they lived contemporaneously with them, that this somehow paints them with their brush?? If so, you'd have to reject everything written from between the years 750 CE to their downfall in 1258 CE, which would be absurd.

#36 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 02 August 2008 - 11:40 AM

The only hadith I've been able to find (so far at least) on this is one that is found in the book Fadha'il ash-Shi`a of Shaykh Saduq (ar):


�������� ��� �� � ������� ����� �������� ��������� ��������������� ��� ���� ������� ��������� ���������� ���������� ����(��� ��������������� ������ ����������������������������� ��� �� ��� ����� ��� ������� �������������� ���������� ���� ����� ��������������� ��������� ����� ��� ��� ���� �������� ������ ������� ��� ������ ������� ��������� ����� ����������


Which explains it to be referring to the Prophet, 'Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (as) . The narration is related on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and narrated from 'Abdullah b. Muhammad b. Dhibyan. That said though, I have found no reference to the latter so I cannot yet confirm (or deny) his being thiqqa, or dha'if. The hadith says hadathna from that same, but this has me wondering if there's either a (or some) missing links here, or if the Shaykh is quoting from a pre-existing work before him, as I doubt a narrator would have lived from the time to hear a hadith from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri up to the time of Shaykh Saduq.


Apart from that, it seems the term al-'aaleen has been variously interpreted, such as that it refers to the angels of heaven as opposed to the angels of the Earth (i.e. that only the latter had been commanded to do sujud, not the former), or that it refers to a creation that was continuously in tajjuh to their Lord and who could not thereby be aware of other than Him, or that it refers to istikbar as the Quran says of Fir'awn in Sura Yunus � ��������, but, without clear proof of any of these (if there isn't) I wouldn't want to definitively say it's this one or that, or another.

So, for me I am unclear as to what it definitively means, and I do not want to engage in personal speculation.


Salam...

Then allow me to enlighten you...And I don't need Shaykh Saduqs or Mufids to do this :

38:75 [Suad; Ayat 75]
He said: O Iblis! what prevented you that you should do obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands? Are you proud or are you of the exalted ones?

(Qala ya ibleesu ma manaAAaka an tasjuda lima khalaqtu biyadayya astakbarta am kunta mina alAAaleena)

--------


In the earlier Ayat 69 of Surah Suad, those EXALTED ONES are IDENTIFIED by Allah Taala...

38:69 [Suad; Ayat 69]
I had no knowledge of the exalted chiefs when they contended:

(Ma kana liya min AAilmin bialmala-i al-aAAla ith yakhtasimoona)

---------

Those EXALTED chiefs are the ARCHANGELS : Jibril; Mikaeel; Israfil; Izrail...

These FOUR were the topmost of the Malaa'ika [Angels]...

Before the creation of INSANIYAT [Mankind or Humankind], these FOUR had other functions...After the creation of Nabih Adam (as) and the Bani Adam [Children of Adam], their respective functions became :

Jibril - Archangel of Revelation
Mikaeel - Archangel of Providence
Izrail - Archangel of Death
Israfil - Archangel of Resurrection

-------

The Arabic word "malaa'ika" has two definitions :

Malaaika=Subject [directly derived from root word 'Mulk']
Mulk=Kingdom; Monarchy; Sovereignty; Empire.

Malaaika=Angel [directly derived from root word 'Malakut']
Malakut=Heaven(s).

--------

Ayats 67-76 of Surah Suad :

--Say: It is a message of importance,
--(And) you are turning aside from it:
--I had no knowledge of the Highest Chiefs when they disputed;
--It is revealed unto me only that I may be a plain warner.
--When your Lord said to the angels; Surely I am going to create a mortal from dust:
--So when I have made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him.
--And the angels did obeisance, all of them,
--But not Iblis: he was proud and he was one of the unbelievers.
--He said: O Iblis! what prevented you that you should do obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands? Are you proud or are you of the exalted ones?
--He said: I am better than he; Thou hast created me of fire, and him Thou didst create of dust.

-------

The Arabic : 'almala-i al-aAAla' literally means "the highest ANGELS" or ARCHANGELS...

In the Arabic : 'Fasajada almala-ikatu kulluhum ajmaAAoona' ... The 'almala-ikatu' is in the specific context of 'malaaika' as SUBJECTS and not just limited to the 'malaaika' as ANGELS...

Allah Taala informed the 'malaaika' [i.e. ANGELS] about the impending creation of Nabih Adam (as) ...

But when Allah Taala ordered the 'malaaika' [i.e. SUBJECTS] to prostrate themselves to Adam, He ordered ALL SUBJECTS of creation...And this included the Jinnat [made of pure or smokeless fire]...The ANGELS being made of pure light. Why would Iblis be included among the ANGELS if he was a Jinn, created of fire ??

This above tafseer was explained by the 7th Imam-ul-Muslimin Musa al-Kazim in his tafseer of the Holy Qur'anic ayahs...

That is what Rasul Muhammad (as) MEANT when he quoted the famous hadith qudsi of 'Thaqalayn' or "Two Weighty/Precious Things" :

"The Qur'an is with MY Aal [Family] or Ahlul Bayt [People of The House] and they are with the Qur'an...And the TWO will not separate until they meet me at the Fount of Abundance (Kawthar)..."

The TRUE TAFSEER or MEANING of the Holy Qur'an is with Aal-i-Muhammad and the Aal-i-Muhammad are with the Qur'an...That they will NEVER DEVIATE from the communication of Almighty Allah Taala and will preserve and convey the Qur'an's TRUE MEANING...

--------

So when the Shia Uleyma state that those "exalted ones" or "Aaleena" of Ayat 75 of Surah Suad were the FIVE Ahlul Bayt Muhammadi [Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Husayn], they are clearly in SERIOUS ERROR...Because they did not pay attention to Ayat 69 of Surah Suad which CLEARLY explains who those "Aaleena" were...Nabih Adam (as) even though created of clay externally, had his SPIRIT breathed into him by Almighty Allah Taala Himself ! If the Ahlul Bayt Muhammadi WERE created before Nabih Adam (as) , than what were they exactly ? As they couldn't have been HUMAN or INSAN...They weren't ANGELS nor were they JINNAT...Than what could they have been ??

--------

You see some Muminin DON'T need the Shaykh Saduq's or Shaykh Mufid's to UNDERSTAND some of the Surahs or Ayahs of the Holy Qur'an...

Edited by Al-Afza, 02 August 2008 - 11:48 AM.


#37 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 02 August 2008 - 12:08 PM

And were exactly have you come up with this assertion from? What, do you think as-Saffar, al-Himyari, al-Kulayni, as-Saduq, al-Mufid, and so on were working for the Sunni, anti-Shi`i Abbasids?? Or is that because they lived contemporaneously with them, that this somehow paints them with their brush?? If so, you'd have to reject everything written from between the years 750 CE to their downfall in 1258 CE, which would be absurd.



Salam...

From an article excerpt on Shaykh Saduq which answers this question :

Because of the many journeys that Sheikh As-Saduq made to various countries for the purpose of seeking studies, he could read, listen, deliver lectures, and gain the license of many scholars and masters of the countries that he passed by in the various fields of knowledge.

A good look in his numerous books, such as al-Amali, Men La Yahdhuruh ul-Faqih, At-Tawhid, Thawab ul-A'maal and many others, proves that he rested upon many of the Shiite and SUNNI master scholars in the field of narrations. He also depended upon such scholars in the fields of hadith regarding a great variety of sciences and fields. The famous names of the master scholars upon whom Sheikh As-Saduq depended in relation of the reports are innumerable.

-----------

Shaykh Saduq was an eminent scholar. No doubt. But my point is you don't need his commentaries to read and understand the Holy Qur'an or the authentic works of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma...That is my point. And with that thought, I will end this lengthy exchange here.

Edited by Al-Afza, 02 August 2008 - 12:17 PM.


#38 macisaac

macisaac

    واقفي

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,701 posts
  • Location:The City of Champions
  • Religion:الإسلام
  • Interests:Loving my Queen

Posted 02 August 2008 - 12:18 PM

Salam...

From an article excerpt on Shaykh Saduq which answers this question :

Because of the many journeys that Sheikh As-Saduq made to various countries for the purpose of seeking studies, he could read, listen, deliver lectures, and gain the license of many scholars and masters of the countries that he passed by in the various fields of knowledge.

A good look in his numerous books, such as al-Amali, Men La Yahdhuruh ul-Faqih, At-Tawhid, Thawab ul-A'maal and many others, proves that he rested upon many of the Shiite and SUNNI master scholars in the field of narrations. He also depended upon such scholars in the fields of hadith regarding a great variety of sciences and fields. The famous names of the master scholars upon whom Sheikh As-Saduq depended in relation of the reports are innumerable.

-----------

Shaykh Saduq was an eminent scholar. No doubt. But my point is you don't need his commentaries to read and understand the Holy Qur'an or the authentic works of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma...That is my point. And I will end this lengthy exchange here.



Salam,

What you've quoted though has nothing to do with him or his works (or the other scholars I referred to) as working for the Abbasids. So again I'd ask, where do you get that assertion from? And as to Shaykh Saduq, have you actually even read his works? I have several of them in my possession, and had you read them you might realize that comparatively little of what he "wrote" was actually from him. That is, the majority of his books are collections of hadiths, with minimal commentary if any from him. Even in a work wherein there is less direct quoting, still you can trace much if not most of what he says to some hadith or other. So when I say such and such is found in Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih for instance, I'm likely referring to a hadith that has been narrated. That is, if you want to refer to the authentic teachings of the A'imma (sayings, epistles, and such), it is largely (at least) going to be via books such as those that Shaykh Saduq, Shaykh Kulayni and others compiled.

Edited by macisaac, 02 August 2008 - 12:19 PM.


#39 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 02 August 2008 - 01:21 PM

Salam,

And as to Shaykh Saduq, have you actually even read his works? I have several of them in my possession, and had you read them you might realize that comparatively little of what he "wrote" was actually from him. That is, the majority of his books are collections of hadiths, with minimal commentary if any from him. Even in a work wherein there is less direct quoting, still you can trace much if not most of what he says to some hadith or other.



Salam...

Your above quote just MADE MY WHOLE POINT...

You don't need Saduq or Mufid to understand the Kitabullah or the authentic works of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma...

Wa Salam...Or I'll wind up being caught up in what the contemporary Hashimite, the late, great Sayed Idries Shah defined as :

"The celebrated BRAWLING of the scholars [uleyma]..."

Amin.

P.S. - You also did not answer to my INVITATION to offer an UNDERSTANDING of Ayats 67-76 of Surah Suad...You quoted Shaykh Saduq. Again. It is clear you are not interested in "understanding" the Holy Qur'an or the authentic works of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma...

All you seem to be interested in is establishing the credentials of "shia" uleyma while questioning the credentials of others...

You are a "shia" alter ego of that Nasibi Mufti...Uninterested in true enlightenment or learning...Just interested in fruitless pseudo-intellectual dispute.

Edited by Al-Afza, 02 August 2008 - 01:30 PM.


#40 macisaac

macisaac

    واقفي

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,701 posts
  • Location:The City of Champions
  • Religion:الإسلام
  • Interests:Loving my Queen

Posted 02 August 2008 - 01:48 PM

P.S. - You also did not answer to my INVITATION to offer an UNDERSTANDING of Ayats 67-76 of Surah Suad...You quoted Shaykh Saduq. Again. It is clear you are not interested in "understanding" the Holy Qur'an or the authentic works of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma...



Salam,


Sigh... And you just proved you can't read Arabic (or that you didn't bother to read my post). What I quoted from Saduq's book was a _hadith_, not Saduq's own words. Whether it's an authentic one or not is another question, but if you'd read it you should know I what I was quoting.

#41 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 02 August 2008 - 03:33 PM

Salam,


Sigh... And you just proved you can't read Arabic (or that you didn't bother to read my post). What I quoted from Saduq's book was a _hadith_, not Saduq's own words. Whether it's an authentic one or not is another question, but if you'd read it you should know I what I was quoting.



Salam..

Sigh-and-a-half...

My invite was to YOU...Not Saduq's quote of a quote...The point was your level of UNDERSTANDING.

Can 'macisaac' come up with anything on his own or he cannot function without the Saduqs or Mufids to define him (i.e. you)...?

All you can come up with are QUOTES or QUOTES of QUOTES...

Since, that doesn't concern you at all and proving whether I can or cannot read Arabic is your top priority...

PROVES my point.

You are the "shia" counterpart of Mufti. And you have come up with nothing...Just disputes...

One of the most CHALLENGING meanings was decoded in my post on Ayahs 67-76 of Surah Suad...So many a Judeo-Christian scholar have jumped upon the alleged Qur'anic "discrepancy" or "contradiction" of the 'prostration of the malaaika (angels)' and why was Iblis (a jinn) included...But you didn't even care about this alleged "discrepancy" deciphered...But were more interested in proving whether or not I can read Arabic...

You need to "moderate" your priorities and your purpose brother...

Wa Salam.

Edited by Al-Afza, 02 August 2008 - 03:46 PM.


#42 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 06 August 2008 - 01:31 AM

I'm assuming that you reject this view, and if indeed you do, then who are "The High Ones" according to your original tafaseer?



Salam...

Brother. If I were you, I would be both interested and concerned with some of the Western Orientalists or Academics forensic and paleographic works that have been underway in our present day and age...

For example, the 1972 archaelogical discovery of the Sanaa Parchments : layers of papyrus scrolls radiocarbondated to 705 A.D. to the time of Al-Walid..Just 73 years AFTER the passing of Rasulallah (pbuh). Written in early Hejazi Arabic script.

Dr. Gerd Rudiger Puin was in charge of the restoration project by the Yemeni government of these Quranic parchments. Dr. Puin states among other things that without the punctuations of the standard texts at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, each Quranic word has upto 30 different meanings...!

Also, another interesting thing you might want to look up is Dr. Christoph Luxenberg [Lichtenberg] and his book on the Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur'an.

**Luxenberg is his pseudonym because of what had happened to Suliman Bashear, who voiced similar theories at the An-Najah University in Nablus, was thrown out of the window by his Muslim students.

Swiss professor Markus Gross has been publicly involved with expounding on Luxenberg's decoding theories...

Look up Luxenberg and Puin on the internet...I am no advocate of these academics but their archaeologolical interest in the Qur'an should seriously prompt us Muslims to do our own such endeavours to counter any European Orientalism toward our Kitabullah...

But if we keep quoting or relying on commentators from the past as well as the present and their methodology, we will be undermined by the European Orientalists scholars...

**Qur'anic Arabic or the Hejazi Script was said to have 24 letters compared with modern Arabic [Masri/Maghrebi/Shami or Levantine dialects] which has 28 letters. It is now acknowledged that Hejazi or Qur'anic Arabic was an amalgamation of the following languages : Hieratic(Ancient Musri); Syriac; Aramaic; Ugaritic; Akkadu [Subartu/Amurru/Kaldu dialects]. There are a few words in the Qur'an that are unknown to this day by Qur'anic scholars...Further proof that the Qur'an is from Allah Taala and none other !

I did provide a photo copy of the Sanaa Parchments of the Holy Quran below...

Attached Images

  • 350px_SanaaQuoranDoubleVersions.jpg

Edited by Al-Afza, 06 August 2008 - 01:53 AM.


#43 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 06 August 2008 - 12:11 PM

I'm assuming that you reject this view, and if indeed you do, then who are "The High Ones" according to your original tafaseer?



Salam..

To append to my last post...Puin is unaware of the Qur'anic codices of Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn, Imam Sajjad, and Imam Baqir handwritten on deerskin folios and papyrus which PREDATE the Sanaa Parchments found in '72...

They are in the Astaneh Library at Meshed. Brought there by the Safavids from the Nizamiyya University of Baghdad Library...

Puin's claim is that the Sanaa Parchments are the earliest Qur'anic writings found so far...There was a recently aired Natl Geo program titled INSIDE THE KORAN that discussed the Sanaa Parchments but made no mention of the Astaneh Library Qur'anic codices...

It the Republic of Iran would allow Western scholars such as Puin and Luxenberg to examine the Qur'anic codices of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma, that would be a milestone in establishing once and for all which the earliest Qur'anic writings are...Imam Ali's codex is said to be dated to 657 A.D. or just 25 years AFTER the passing of our Nabihullah (pbuh) .

Puin may have unknowingly stumbled onto the fact that the Umayyads DID make a concscious effort to CHANGE and ALTER the Qur'anic verses and texts...

It is for this reason that the Aimmatul Muslimin (from Imam Ali to the 8th Imam ar-Raza) had handwritten the Holy Qur'an for its PRESERVATION in its original form. So it would not suffer the same fate as the Taurat and the Injil. Judeo-Christian scholars and theologians concealed the original works and wrote their OWN AHADITHS (i.e. TRADITIONS) which is what we have today in the Torah and the Bible [both the Tanakh and the New Testament]...

The original Taurat was still in use and had copies in circulation even in Nabih Muhammad's lifetime...This is proven in the following Qur'anic verse from Surah Maida; Ayat 43 :

And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers.

[Wakayfa yuhakkimoonaka waAAindahumu alttawratu feeha hukmu Allahi thumma yatawallawna min baAAdi thalika wama ola-ika bialmu/mineena]

This CLEARLY indicates that the Jewish Arabs came to Rasulallah (pbuh) for judgement when they STILL had the original version of Allah's Taurat with them...

When I have upheld that we must seek to UNDERSTAND the Qur'an rather than try to INTERPRET it is further covered in the following verses from Surah An-Nisaa; Ayahs 82-83 :

004.082
Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

[82. Afala yatadabbaroona alqur-ana walaw kana min AAindi ghayri Allahi lawajadoo feehi ikhtilafan katheeran.]

004.083

And when there comes to them news of security or fear they spread it abroad; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few.

[83. Wa-itha jaahum amrun mina al-amni awi alkhawfi athaAAoo bihi walaw raddoohu ila alrrasooli wa-ila olee al-amri minhum laAAalimahu allatheena yastanbitoonahu minhum walawla fadlu Allahi AAalaykum warahmatuhu laittabaAAtumu alshshaytana illa qaleelan.]

Alas, Rasul is obviously no longer among us but the "men of understanding" still are...The late Sayed Idries Shah and GENUINE contemporary Sufi masters [not charlatans like Inayat Khan, etc.] would be those...

Those who don't always "quote" people who "quote" while taking no accountability for initiating the ahadith...Or the tafseers of the Qur'an Sharif...Now you know what school of Islam I belong to...Imam Ali (as) was the FOUNDING FATHER of the Sufi Order or the Order of the Awliyas [i.e. Muqaribun]...It is NOT a jamaat. But transcends the 'shiyan' or "sectarianism" of standardized Islam.

Wa Salam.

Edited by Al-Afza, 06 August 2008 - 12:21 PM.


#44 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 06 August 2008 - 01:08 PM

I'm assuming that you reject this view, and if indeed you do, then who are "The High Ones" according to your original tafaseer?



Salam..

You see the deeper meaning of Ayat Muwaddah of Surah Ash-Shura :

42:23
That is of which Allah gives the good news to His worshippers, (to) those who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my FAMILY; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful.

Thalika allathee yubashshiru Allahu AAibadahu allatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati qul la as-alukum AAalayhi ajran illa almawaddata fee alqurba waman yaqtarif hasanatan nazid lahu feeha husnan inna Allaha ghafoorun shakoorun.

The instruction was for ones who are to be "near" the Aal-i-Muhammad. And they are the 'Muqaribun' ...The genuine Sufis (Woolclad).

Not the 'shiyan' or "sectarians"....

The Salih-ul-Muminin...

The instruction by Allah Taala was not TO ALL OF THE UMMAH but specifically to the "
AAibadahu allatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati" ...As Allah Taala knew that not all would follow the guidance of the Aal-i-Muhammad Aimma...

The Sufi legend has it that Rasul Muhammad (pbuh) asked his only daughter, Bint Muhammad Fatima az-Zahra to weave a woollen robe for him*. This 'suf' robe was then presented by our Nabih to Imam Ali as a symbolic gesture that Rasul Muhammad is 'Madinatul Ilm' (The City of Knowledge) and Imam Ali was 'Babul Ilm' (The Gateway to the City of Knowledge). And thus, the students of transcendental Islam were since referred to as 'Sufis' (The Woolclad). The simplicity of the material of wool (suf) that represents the path of simplicity not ostentation and yet it is the endless path to Knowlege of Allah Rabbil Alamin...The knowledge which will grant riches in the Hereafter (Akhirat).
Which is why Imam Ali did not formally oppose his usurption of the Caliphate. Ayat 207 of Surah al-Baqarah (The Heifer) explains why Allah Taala was pleased with Imam Ali...

002:207. Wamina alnnasi man yashree nafsahu ibtighaa mardati Allahi waAllahu raoofun bialAAibadi.

And brother Mansab Jafri once stated that my knowledge of Ayat Muwaddah is of that of a 12-year-old...

*Make a very pointed observance as to whom Rasul Muhammad asked to WEAVE that Robe...Fatima[Weaned] the Zahra[Enlightened]...Not as 'wasilah' or means of approach but GUIDES whom Allah Taala has guided to bring us (the muminin) DIRECTLY to understanding Allah Taala...By their example as the living Sunnah of Rasul Muhammad (pbuh). The very duas of Imam Ali : Dua-i-Kumail and Dua-i-Mashlool attest to this...They are ALL about Allah Taala and are addressed to Allah Taala. Not Nabih Muhammad or any of the Anbiya before him as spiritual intermediaries...

In our temporal world, we know that some people reach high positions of office because they know someone at a higher post who will be intermediaries to the top boss. In the spiritual world, and with the TOP BOSS being Almighty Allah Taala, this doesn't work. You must achieve that closeness to Allah Taala by MERIT. You have to earn it. Not achieve it becuse of the closeness of Nabih Muhammad and his Aal to Allah Taala. That would not be fair. What the Sufi understanding is of the function of Muhammad Wa Aal-i-Muhammad is that they helped the Muminin HELP THEMSELVES to achieve that closeness to Allah Taala.
You see, when Allah Taala instructed the Muminin to send their blessings to Prophet Muhammad...It was to Prophet Muhammad. Not Muhammad and his Aal. Even though Allah Taala CLEARLY identified Prophet Muhammad's Aal in Ayat Muwaddah...

Rasul's Aal and Rasul are ONE AND THE SAME. The Aal of Rasul are through Rasul Muhammad. They cannot be SEPARATED. If you send the blessing to Rasul Muhammad, his Aal (Family) AUTOMATICALLY receive it. It is the "Muslim" Ummah that have made this divide between Rasul Muhammad and his Aal. Not Allah Taala. The Sunnis concentrate on Rasul Muhammad and ignore his Aal. The Shias only take Rasul Muhammad's name as a token for validation of his Aal, whom the Shias secretly hold in far greater REMEMBRANCE than Rasul himself.

Amin.



Edited by Al-Afza, 06 August 2008 - 02:07 PM.


#45 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 22 January 2010 - 10:04 PM

786


Glossary

Khalifah/Caliph=Heir; Successor; Vicegerent.

Khilafat/Caliphate=Heirloom; Succession; Vicegerency.

Sultan=Authoritarian [i.e. Governor; Governor-General.]

Sultanat=Authority [i.e. Governorate]

Malik=King; Monarch; Ruler; Sovereign.

Malak=Prince

Hami=Custodian; Guardian; Keeper; Protector.

Qari=Reciter; Recitalist.

Hafeez=Preserver; Safekeeper.

Hafez=Preserved; Safe.

Wali=Abettor; Aider; Caregiver; Caretaker; Helper.

Mawla=Redressor; Succorer.

Wilayat=Asylum; Haven; Refuge; Retreat [i.e. Protectorate]

Imarat/Emirate=Protectorate

Imam=Leader

Aimma=Leaders

Imamat=Leadership

Ummah=Community; Nation.

Sayed=Chief; Chieftain [i.e. tribal patriarch; clan patriarch]

Shaykh=Elder; Elderly; Old Man [i.e. tribal elder; clan elder]

Sharif/Shareef=Noble

Musharraf=Nobleman

Ashraf=Most Noble; Nobility.

Ammar=Commander [i.e. military leader]

Pre-Standard Islam

Ameer/Amir=Supreme Commander [i.e. supreme military commander; general of the army.]

Sultan=Authoritarian [i.e. governor; governor-general]
Sultanat=Authority [i.e. governorate]

Post-Standard Islam

Ameer/Amir=
1) Supreme Commander [i.e. supreme military commander; general of the army]
2) Commander-in-Chief [i.e. state leader; head of state]

Sultan=Monarch; Ruler; Sovereign.
Sultanat=Monarchy; Rule; Rulership; Sovereignty.

Amir-ul-Muminin/Ameer-ul-Momineen*=Supreme Commander of the Believers.

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

*When the standard Islamic shura(council) pleaded Hazrat Ali Ibn Abu Talib Al-Hashimi to accept the leadership of standard Islam, he took three days to make his decision; when he decided to accept, he changed the official title of the standard Islamic leadership from Khalifah[Caliph] to Amir; the standard Islamic shura(council) questioned this military appellation which was socially unprecedented for administrative or state leadership; Hazrat Ali Ibn Abu Talib then proposed the formal title of Amir-ul-Muminin(Supreme Commander of the Believers) which the standard Islamic shura(council) accepted; in Hazrat Ali's perspective, this post was a public service and not an honorary post; Hazrat Ali considered himself a public servant and redressor/helper(mawla/wali) of standard Islam and the Muslim ummah(community) and not an official or temporal heir or successor to Prophet Muhammad; this office now went from being a Khilafah/Caliphate(Heirloom; Succession; Vicegerency) to a Wilayat(Haven; Protectorate) or Imarat/Emirate(Protectorate); this further established an additional definition for the appellation Ameer/Amir as also Commander-in-Chief, a state leader or head of state; both Hazrat Ali and his eldest son Hazrat Imam Hasan were elected by the standard Islamic shura(council); upon Hazrat Ali's premature passing, the standard Islamic shura(council) elected a reluctant Imam Hasan Ibn Ali; contrary to popular tradition, he was not appointed by the dying Hazrat Ali; the official title of Amir-ul-Muminin was subsequently held by Hazrat Ali's eldest son and successor Hazrat Imam Hasan; when Amir Hasan Ibn Ali abdicated his post of temporal leadership of the Muslim ummah(community), the resuming Umayyad rulership reinstated the official title of Khalifah/Caliph; the title of Amir-ul-Muminin was resurrected under the 4th Abbasid Caliph Harun ar-Rashid upon the advice of his grand vizier[i.e. prime minister] Yahya Bin Khalid Al-Barmaki and retroactively applied to all the past Khalifah in subsequent history books.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza, 22 January 2010 - 10:10 PM.


#46 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 23 January 2010 - 02:44 AM

786

[Excerpts from early Fatimid Caliphate chronicles] :

--Shuayb b. Hashim al-Fahri had premature white hair and was nicknamed Shaybah. He built a port for Mecca, Shuwaybah, which was named after him; this port is present-day Jeddah. The sheer volume of traffic this port generated as a trade route, increased the revenue for Mecca lucratively. Shuayb b. Hashim al-Fahri (aka Abdul Muttalib) received the epithet of Shaybatul Hamd after he rallied the Quraysh tribe and the rest of Mecca to confront the oncoming threat of Ethiopian Viceroy of Yemen, Abrahah Ashram and his army [which included trained elephants for warfare]. Due to divine intervention with the attack of the Ababeel flock of birds that drove the elephants mad, the Quraysh and the rest of the Meccans were spared a potentially disastrous onslaught by the Yemenite forces.

--During the Ghazwah Aab-ul-Badr[Battle of The Wells of The Full Moon], 313 Muslims faced over 1000 Meccans; this was the maiden jihad for the Muslims, who were ill-equipped in comparison to the vastly well-equipped Meccan army. Nonetheless, the Muslims won a decisive victory over the Meccans. The Muslims suffered only 3 casualties out of 313 mujahidin. Of the three, one of them was the late husband of Hazrat Salma b. Khazeefah b. Thabit al-Mughairah. Six months after the Battle of Badr, Hazrat Salma[nicknamed Umme Salamah], had run into difficult times and was struggling financially. Thus, Prophet Muhammad made the decision to wed her for her own safety and security.

--When Prophet Muhammad's former servant, Zayd b. Harith b. Sharajih an-Nakhai, whom he later made his fosterson, divorced his expectant wife Zaynab b. Jahsh b. Riyab al-Asadi, Rasulallah wedded her for her safety and security. Zayd had a secret affair with a Yathrabi girl of flirtatious reputation; he eventually became enamoured with her to such an extent, that he secretly sought to divorce his pregnant spouse Zaynab b. Jahsh. However, Zayd was afraid of what people would think of him if he carried out his desire to divorce Zaynab b. Jahsh. He should have feared Allah instead. Zayd was admonished by Prophet Muhammad but in the end, he did not take heed and divorced his expecting spouse to marry the far more attractive, seductive, and historically unnamed Yathrabi girl. Hazrat Zaynab b. Jahsh had been given the nickname Umme Habiba; orthodox historians had falsely attributed that nickname to Ramla b. Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] al-Umawi, who in fact never really wedded Prophet Muhammad. Hazrat Zaynab b. Jahsh had borne a son of Zayd b. Harith after her divorce from him whom she named Kumayl. Zayd ended up marrying his paramour but had no children with her; he eventually ended up a casualty of war in the Battle of Mauta. Also contrary to popular tradition, Zayd b. Harith was not handed the alam(standard) to lead the defensive military campaign against the oncoming Ghassanids of Syria. He was a participant, however.

--By mid-Rabiul Awwal, 41 A.H., Imam Hasan b. Ali had finalized all the terms and conditions he placed upon Sham Sultan(Governor-General) Muawiyah b. Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] for the pending abdication of the Wilayat[i.e. Caliphate], which he was handing over to Muawiyah. In mutual agreement with the Islamic shura(council), Imam Hasan b. Ali was to abdicate on 22nd Rabiul Awwal, which completed his 6-month term to the day. However, Imam Hasan decided to extend his abdication another four days. This was because of the upcoming anniversary of the death of his great paternal grandfather Shuayb b. Hashim al-Fahri[aka Abdul Muttalib/Shaybatul Hamd]. Imam Hasan wanted to abdicate on a memorable date which was only days away from the initial date set for his abdication. Following Imam Hasan b. Ali's abdication, Muawiyah b. Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] upon accession, quickly dissolved the Islamic shura(council) which had been active since the foundation of the Caliphate itself. Muawiyah b. Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] then instituted the office of grand vizier[i.e. prime minister] to the Caliphate by appointing to that post, his fellow kinsman Marwan b. al-Hakam.

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

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir...

#47 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 28 January 2010 - 10:01 AM

786


There are two distinct accounts on the biographical narrative about Zayd b. Harith b. Sharajih an-Nakhai(601-629 A.D.) :

--The Abbasid chroniclers have it that he was born in 588 A.D. and was purchased at Ukaz bazar by Lady Khadijatul Kubra. After her marriage to Prophet Muhammad, she presented Zayd to him as his manservant. Prophet Muhammad later freed him and made him his fosterson. Allegedly, Zayd had ended up enslaved due to inter-tribal conflicts. He was purported to have been of either the Bani Kalb or Banu Kilab tribe; many scholars equate Bani Kalb as a variant appellation of Banu Kilab. Also, when Zayd's father and paternal uncle came to take him back with them, he supposedly refused preferring to stay with Prophet Muhammad. The Abbasid chroniclers also documented that the Quranic verse about sons to be called with their biological fathers' names included was in direct reference to Zayd being formerly addressed as Zayd b. Muhammad, when he really was not Prophet Muhammad's biological son. Also among the Abbasid chroniclers, Zayd's father has been alternately identified as either Harith or Harithah. The Abbasid chroniclers also incredibly have Zayd divorcing the modestly attractive Lady Zaynab b. Jahsh b. Riyab al-Asadi to wed an alleged Negro maidservant of Prophet Muhammad's late biological mother Lady Amina whose name was Baraka. Notwithstanding the fact that this maidservant would have been old enough to be Zayd b. Harith's grandmother ! And from this supposed union, was born a son named Usamah !? This same Usamah was supposedly handed the alam(standard) at age 17 by Prophet Muhammad to avenge the death of his alleged biological father Zayd at the Battle of Mauta; this military expedition was called the Sarya campaign. Historically however, there have been widely conflicting reports on this alleged expedition and the possibility of it being pure fiction. The alleged Usamah, on the other hand, virtually disappeared from early Islamic history after being associated with the dubious Sarya expedition.

--The early Fatimid chroniclers had Zayd not of the Bani Kalb and/or Banu Kilab tribe, but of the Yemenite tribe Banu Nakha'a. Zayd's biological father was named Harith with no variation such as Harithah. Furthermore, Zayd's biological parents were moderately prosperous merchants who had fallen upon hard times and lost their fortune. They ended up being indentured servants in Taif while they were unable to provide for their only child Zayd, who in turn was sold into slavery and ended up in Mecca. Fatimid chroniclers have Zayd b. Harith b. Sharajih an-Nakhai born in 601 A.D.; he was initially discovered by Hazrat Jafar b. Abu Talib who brought him to the attention of his father, the Sultan of Mecca, Hazrat Abu Talib; the 9-year-old Zayd was being mistreated by his owner. Hazrat Abu Talib had his nephew Prophet Muhammad look into to the matter. As it turned out, Prophet Muhammad and Lady Khadija bought Zayd's freedom and made him their servant, paying him steady wages for his service. This occurred in 610 A.D., while three years later in 613 A.D., when Zayd was 12-yrs-old, Prophet Muhammad formally made him his fosterson. As for the Quranic verse regarding sons to be recognized by the names' of their biological fathers, that verse was in no way directly related to Zayd b. Harith, as he was in fact NEVER addressed or referred to as Zayd b. Muhammad. For one, his genealogy was widely known by the very fact that he was always documented as Zayd b. Harith b. Sharajih. And two, Zayd's father Harith an-Nakhai was known to be in neighbouring Taif and maintained contact with Zayd. Harith b. Sharajih was eternally grateful to Prophet Muhammad and Lady Khadija for buying Zayd's freedom from Zayd's cruel former owner. The Quranic verse mentiond earlier was in direct reference to the pre-Islamic pagan habit of wealthy clan or tribal men fathering illegitimate sons via zina(fornication) while not taking any formal responsibility for them. The Quranic verse consequently ensured that such men would then have to take responsibility for their promiscuity, providing for their illegitimate sons and their mothers[who thus became those who were possessed by the right hands of their men], regardless of their social status. No longer was any illegitimate son to be known as ibn abihi[son of his father]. However, even the Quranic verse did not stop a few of the Umayyads from fully abandoning their promiscuous habits. Zayd's divorcee, Lady Zaynab b. Jahsh, was wedded by Prophet Muhammad for her security and safety. She had also been expectant with Zayd's child when Zayd unjustifiably divorced her for his secret paramour who was an historically unnamed Yathrabi girl. The child was a boy named Kumayl who later became a loyal follower of Imam Ali, who had prescribed the celebrated prayer to him : Dua-e-Kumayl. Somehow, Kumayl b. Zayd an-Nakhai(625-701 A.D.) became mutated into Kumayl b. Ziyad in subsequent historical records. Hazrat Kumayl participated in the two-year jihad led by Abdur Rahman b. Muhammad b. al-Ashath against the cruel Umayyad governor of Kufa, Iraq, al-Kulayb b. Yusuf al-Thaqafi al-Hajjaj. Hazrat Kumayl was the commander of the battallion of Quranic huffaz(preservers) in the climactic Battle of Dayr al-Jamajim, which had occurred in Shaban 82 A.H.[Sep-Oct 701 A.D.]; Hazrat Kumayl died a martyr at age 76 in that battle while his deputy commander, Said b. Jubayr(665-714 A.D.), was taken prisoner after the mujahidin were brutally crushed by the forces of the Umayyad governor al-Hajjaj; after nearly 13 years of imprisonment, Said b. Jubayr was eventually martyred at age 49 in Shaban 95 A.H.(May 714 A.D.) by al-Hajjaj, who himself died of mysterious causes within a month of Ibn Jubayr's execution.

Edited by Al-Afza, 28 January 2010 - 10:18 AM.


#48 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 06 February 2010 - 12:40 PM

786

[Appended : Excerpts from early Fatimid Caliphate historical records]

Note :

The Bani Abbas Caliphate, which was founded by Abu al-Abbas as-Saffah[the Blood-shedder], was based upon a colossal falsehood. They claimed direct descent from Prophet Muhammad's paternal uncle named al-Abbas b. Abdul Muttalib. There is one huge problem with this pseudo-historical account : Prophet Muhammad's paternal uncle Abbas[Frowning] was the real name of Hazrat al-Hamzah[the Steadfast]. Prophet Muhammad had only TWO paternal uncles. Orthodox Muslim scholars have listed anywhere from a minimum total of 5 to a maximum total of 11 paternal uncles for Prophet Muhammad. The historical personage of Hazrat Abbas al-Hamzah had been split into two separate persons by Abbasid scholars : Abbas & Hamzah. The reason for this falsification was that Hazrat Abbas al-Hamzah had no offspring. He had only the one spouse in Lady Halima as-Salma during his lifetime and she was barren, unable to bear him any offspring. As it was, Hazrat Abbas al-Hamzah was of an adventurous spirit and spent his time hunting big game and leading armed expeditions to apprehend or drive away brigands that raided Meccan caravans. In order to legitimize their overthrow of the Umayyads, the Abbasids needed to lay false claim to the Caliphate. In reality, the Hashimites were always considered the rightful successors of Prophet Muhammad. However, the Hashimites never really had any desire to assume temporal leadership of the Islamic world. Because the Bani Abbas could not claim to be Hashimites, they took the appellation of Bani Abbas. Having split the historical personage of the real Abbas al-Hamzah into two different paternal uncles of Prophet Muhammad, the Bani Abbas laid claim to the Caliphate of Islam upon this false lineage. Otherwise, if there really was a separate paternal uncle of Prophet Muhammad named al-Abbas b. Abdul Muttalib, then why wouldn't the Abbasids just identify themselves as Bani Hashim ? After the Kerbala massacre at the hands of the Umayyads in 61 A.H.[680 A.D.], the Hashimites were almost wiped out. The Bani Hashim made a very slow recovery. The Bani Hashim were nowhere near evolving into a tribe from being the Qurayshi clan they were when the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads in 132 A.H.[750 A.D.]. Also, if the Abbasids were really of Hashimite lineage & genealogy, they would never have betrayed and inflicted such treacherous treatment upon the Hashimites. Another historical curiosity is that the reinvented personage of al-Abbas b. Abdul Muttalib bears an uncanny resemblance to the factual personage of Hazrat Abbas b. Ali b. Abi Talib : Both have the title Abu al-Fazl[Father of the Gracious] attributed to them; both had spouses named Lubaba. In the case of the factual Hazrat Abbas b. Ali, Abul Fazl was his laqab (epithet) while al-Abbas b. Abdul Muttalib had Abul Fazl as his kunyat (agnomen).

Note :

The city of Taybah[Al-Madinah], which was founded & settled by the Arab tribe of Banu Yathrab, had Bara b. Azib as its Sultan[i.e. Governor] during the time of the Hijrah[620-622 A.D.]. Hazrat Bara b. Azib(560-640 A.D.) was an ally of Hazrat Abu Talib, Sultan of Mecca. It was Hazrat Bara b. Azib's support which enabled the Bani Hashim, Bani Muttalib, and later, the Muslim refugees returning from Ethiopia to settled down in Taybah[Al-Madinah]. Hazrat Bara b. Azib was the leader of the Ansar in Taybah[Al-Madinah]; he was also the sayed [tribal chief] of the Banu Yathrab tribe. Second to Hazrat Bara b. Azib al-Yathrabi al-Ansari, the most influential and powerful man in Taybah[Al-Madinah] was Salul b. Awf(560-650 A.D.). Salul b. Awf was the member of a different Yathrabi clan then Hazrat Bara b. Azib. Salul b. Awf was not at all one of the Ansar of Prophet Muhammad & the Muslims. He led the Yathrabi & Medinite opposition in giving Prophet Muhammad & the Muslims permanent residency in Taybah[Al-Madinah]. Salul b. Awf was a staunch ally of the then pagan Banu Quraysh. It wasn't until Prophet Muhammad & the Muslims annexed Mecca in January 630 A.D., that Salul b. Awf finally converted to Islam. Salul was one of those who firmly believed that one must bend with the breeze or break.

Edited by Al-Afza, 06 February 2010 - 12:58 PM.


#49 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 08 February 2010 - 03:08 PM

786

[Appended footnote to post # 50]


According to Fatimid tradition, when Prophet Muhammad had handed over his half of the Fadak Oasis gardens to his only daughter Lady Fatima, she took in one-fifth of its monthly income for her own household; the remaining four-fifths, she distributed among the orphans, the poor, the wayfarers, and the sick. When her portion of the Fadak gardens were confiscated by 1st Caliph Quhafah b. Uthman[Abu Bakr], he forwarded all of its monetary proceeds toward the Caliphate's treasury. Abu Bakr had literally transformed the Zakat Ul-Mal[The Charity Treasury] established by Prophet Muhammad into Bayt Ul-Mal[The House Treasury], which became the Caliphate's treasury. In reality, when 1st Caliph Quhafah b. Uthman[Abu Bakr] reinstated the old Meccan aristocracy to important positions within his Caliphate, he compensated them with some of the proceeds of the income from the Fadak Oasis gardens.

Edited by Al-Afza, 08 February 2010 - 03:18 PM.


#50 Al-Afza

Al-Afza

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,458 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 13 February 2010 - 03:43 AM

786

[Excerpt from early Fatimid chroniclers]

Note :

Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] b. Harb al-Umawi was born in 560 A.D. in Mecca; born in the same year as Salul b. Awf and Hazrat Bara b. Azib of the Banu Yathrab of Taybah[Al-Madinah]. His laqab[epithet] was Abu Sufyan [Father of Walking Quickly ]; an emphasis upon the appellation Sufyan [Who Walks Fast ]. It was never his personal name. He was the son-in-law of Utbah b. Rabiah b. Abdu Shams as-Sahmi and brother-in-law of Waleed b. Utbah b. Rabiah b. Abdu Shams as-Sahmi; husband to Henda b. Utbah b. Rabiah b. Abdu Shams as-Sahmi with whom he fathered 3 sons : Yazid; Utbah; Muawiyah & one daughter : Ramla. Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] had 2 younger brothers : Sakhr & Harith and one sister : Jamila. Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] was also incorrectly said to be named Sakhr, when in fact that was the name of his younger brother; his youngest brother was named Harith. Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] was the scion of the Bani Umayyah whose genealogy was thus : Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] b. Harb b. Umayyah b. Abdu Shams as-Sahmi. Orthodox historians falsely recorded that Umayyah was the alleged son of Qays[Abdu Shams] b. Munaf[Abdu Manaf] b. Qusay b. Kilab al-Fahri. Safawi sources claimed that Umayyah was the adopted son[and former slaveboy] of Qays[Abdu Shams] b. Munaf[Abdu Manaf] b. Qusay b. Kilab al-Fahri. However, Fatimid sources record that Umayyah was the illegitimate elder son of Abdu Shams as-Sahmi from a slave girl; this slave girl was the daughter of Abdu Shams' mother's personal slave woman. Abdu Shams had raped her and Umayyah was the result of that rape. Because the illegitimate child was a boy, it was not buried alive. Umayyah was said to be his mother's only child who died during labor giving birth to Umayyah. Umayyah was then raised by his biological father Abdu Shams as-Sahmi who later married and had another son[one that was legitimate]. Umayyah's younger half-brother was named Rabiah b. Abdu Shams as-Sahmi. Rabiah had 2 sons named Utbah & Utaybah[Shaybah]; Utaybah was nicknamed Shaybah because of his premature white beard. Utbah's daughter Henda wedded Utbah's half paternal first cousin Harb's son, named Abdul Uzza[Worshipper of Uzza]. Orthodox Muslim scholars have listed an additional son to Utbah named Hashim Abu Hudhayfah, an alleged sahabi of Prophet Muhammad who supposedly died in the Battle of Al-Yamamah in 633 A.D. Fatimid chroniclers make absolutely no mention at all of a second son to Utbah, but do list a son to his younger brother Utaybah ash-Shaybah named Hisham, who was killed at the Battle of Badr in 624 A.D. Before his death, Abdu Shams as-Sahmi had made Umayyah one of his material heirs. Umayyah had a lifelong obsession with being regarded as a legitimate peer to any of the Banu Quraysh clans of Mecca. In spite of Umayyah's overachievement in material wealth having capitalized on his inheritance, his progeny was not formally identified as the Bani Sahm by the Quraysh of Mecca, but identified with their own separate appellation as the Bani Umayyah. The Bani Umayyah grew most jealous of the prestige enjoyed by the Bani Hashim clan of the Quraysh of Mecca.

Postscript :

The progeny of Umayyah b. Abdu Shams as-Sahmi :

sons of Umayyah : Wail; Harb;

sons of Wail[Abul Aas] : Aas; Affan; Hakam;

sons of Aas : Said; Amr;

sons of Affan : Uthman; Zubayr;

son of Hakam : Marwan

children of Harb : Abdul Uzza; Sakhr; Harith; Jamila;

children of Abdul Uzza[Abu Sufyan] : Yazid; Utbah; Ramla; Muawiyah;

Edited by Al-Afza, 13 February 2010 - 04:30 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users