Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Panzerwaffe

Amir Mukhtar

17 posts in this topic

What exactly is the true 12-er shia opinion about Amir Mukhtar and his father Abu Ubaidah b. thaqafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Bro are you talking abt the great personality mukhtar who avenged the blood of Imam Al Husayn (as) and the other martyrs of Karbala?

If yes then please refer to this thread

It provides information about his life and how he succeeded in his mission.

If you are refering to someone else then please provide some more information so I can research more ab this person. As for his father well I have no knowledge other than what is provided in the link above.

Hope that helps

WSalaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ brother i have seen this thread before but I have my doubts about the authenticity of the narrated events

many contemporary shias were actually very cold towards him (according to some sources) ...but he is also greatly maligned by pro-uthmanid sources ....since he was eventually defeated by followers of ibn zubair. While the tawwabun could truely be taken as the most sincere and devout shias who tried to avenge the blood of Imam Hussain .....stories on amir mukhtar widely different some portray him as a political adventurer who took advantage of the event of karbala and tried to use the name of Ibn hanafiyyah...that is why i needed clarification

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Well bro in that case give me some time and Inshallah I will try and find some material which shall help you. As far as I know the events of his life where he avenged the blood of Imam Al Husayn (as) and of the other martyrs is authentic. Sheikh Abbas Qummi in Nafashal Mahmoom has narrated the full incident about his avenging of the blood of Imam Al Husayn (as). However he has mentioned something from tabari which is stated below. Maybe this is why People cause doubt over him. Allah knows best.

It has been narrated by Tabari in his Tareekh (vol 5) that when Imam Al Hassan (as) was taken to the white palace of Madeen, Sa'ad bin Mas'ood, the uncle of Mukhtar, was alongside with him. Mukhtar went to his uncle and said "Do you not desire acquiring a higher position?" to which Sa'ad asked, "And what is that?" Mukhtar replied, "Arrest Al Hassan (as) and hand him over to Mu'awiyah". Sa'ad replied "Woe be to you! Should I arrest the son of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and hand him over to the enemy? What a degraded man are you". This was the episode which provoked resentment against Mukhtar. But the majority of Shiah historians refute this and consider this episode to be a fabrication to maglin the devoutness of Mukhtar. While some are of the view that even if Mukhtar did this, it was due to his dissimulation (Taqiyyah) for he was closely monitored by the spies of Mu'awiyah. He later sheltered Muslim bin Aqeel and rendered assistance to him. As is related that when Muslim bin Aqeel was arrested, Mukhtar had been to a village called Lafgha. He was then arrested by Ubaydullah bin Ziyad and was imprisoned until Imam Al Husayn (as) was martyred. He was very much aggrieved and pledged to avenge his death. Later he avenged the blood of Imam Al Husayn (as) and put to sword numerous ones amongs his murderers, thus his pure and genuine intentions can certainly be considered. Allah knows best.

Also remember that before avenging the blood of Imam Al Husayn (as), Mukhtar went to see Imam Al Sajjad (as) and got a signed decree from him allowing him to pursue this mission. Later he sent that decree to Ibrahim, son of Malik-e-Ashtar, who upon receiving it sent a man to Medina to confirm the authencity of the decree. For an Imam of the time to give his permission for such a mission shows that what Mukhtar wanted to do was not for political adventure or power. He was a man of sincerity.

Hope that answers some of your questions

WSalaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

Also remember that before avenging the blood of Imam Al Husayn (as), Mukhtar went to see Imam Al Sajjad (as) and got a signed decree from him allowing him to pursue this mission. Later he sent that decree to Ibrahim, son of Malik-e-Ashtar, who upon receiving it sent a man to Medina to confirm the authencity of the decree. For an Imam of the time to give his permission for such a mission shows that what Mukhtar wanted to do was not for political adventure or power. He was a man of sincerity.

Hope that answers some of your questions

WSalaams

alaikum as-salam

Al-Katib in his book 'Development of Shiite political thought' writes :

"Mukhtar, who was leading the Shiites for Kufah did claim that, Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah has ordered him to avenge the killing (of Imam Hussain), by killing Hussains murderers, and that he is the Imam after his father."

Ash’ari al –Qummi: Al Maqalat wa al-Firaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alaikum as-salam

Al-Katib in his book 'Development of Shiite political thought' writes :

"Mukhtar, who was leading the Shiites for Kufah did claim that, Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah has ordered him to avenge the killing (of Imam Hussain), by killing Hussains murderers, and that he is the Imam after his father."

Ash’ari al –Qummi: Al Maqalat wa al-Firaq

(bismillah)

(salam)

I find that hard to accept because in a number of historical books I have referred to regarding the story of Mukhtar, I have found that he got the decree from Imam Al Sajjad (as) and Ibrahim, son of Malik-e-Ashter even sent a man to check his authencity from the Imam (as) himself. Also remember Malik-e-Ashter was a sincere and close companion of Imam Ali (as) therefore he would have taught his son who the Imams (as) were and Ibrahim was a follower of Ahl ul Bayt (as) and knew who the Imam of his time. Hence if the decree was from Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah then Ibrahim would not have supported Mukhtar in his campaign to avenge the blood of Imam Al Husayn (as). The fact that he supported Mukhtar proves that the decree was from the Imam of the that time Imam Al Sajjad (as).

Another thing which the historians have written is that when Mukhtar went to Imam Al Sajjad (as) to ask for his permission, he was accompanied by Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah.

Wsalaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

Another thing which the historians have written is that when Mukhtar went to Imam Al Sajjad (as) to ask for his permission, he was accompanied by Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah.

Wsalaams

alaikum as-salam bro

Does it means that Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah® never claimed Imamate for himself ? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert on this issue, but I've come across the theory that Muhammad Hanafiyya was the link between Imam Sajjad (as) and the people. Some analysis say that his claim of Imamate was a protection to shield Imam Sajjad (as) from harm. A kind of Taqaiyyah. Other claims are that it was done for the miracle event of the Hajar-e-Aswad, so that it could be publicly (and miraculously) declared who the Imam was. I have not come across any history that talks of any rift between 4th Imam and Hz. Muhammad Hanafiya. Together with the fact that 3rd Imam left Muhammad to cater to all the hashimites esp. family of prophet in Medina, lends credance to the idea that Muhammad was applying protectionist implementations for 4th Imam by acting on his behalf.. so that there is none (or minimum) direct dealings with 4th Imam, that might bring harm to Imam (as). In the meantime, 4th Imam (as) directed his tabligh through the medium of publicly supplicated duas.

Again, these are ideas. But worth looking into.

And the perspective of the historical environments must also be taken into consideration.

W/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree that there was no dispute between ibn hanaffiyah and Imam Sajjad,

but does anyone know why the tawwabun did not join hands with Mukhtar? I mean were they not essentially fighting for the same purpose? this makes me wonder maybe the tawwabun doubted the true intentions of Mukhtar, as they also refused to help ibn zubair ( who obviously had no interest in "avenging " the blood of Hussain)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ I agree that there was no dispute between ibn hanaffiyah and Imam Sajjad,

Bro. Forgeforth: I dont think there was any Taqiyya in it b/c claim of Imamate of Muhammad Hanafiya led to divisions among the shiites and ...

The sources even report Zayn al-`Abidin as publicly denouncing Mukhtar in violent terms which seem to warrant serious examination. 10 If these reports are correct, however, the reason for Zayn al-~Abidin's resentful attitude towards Mukhtar seems to have been the latter's proclamation of Ibn al-Hanafiya's imamate, which Zayn al-`Abidin considered as the usurpation of his own rights.

http://www.karbala-najaf.org/shiaism/235-258.htm

but does anyone know why the tawwabun did not join hands with Mukhtar? I mean were they not essentially fighting for the same purpose? this makes me wonder maybe the tawwabun doubted the true intentions of Mukhtar, as they also refused to help ibn zubair ( who obviously had no interest in "avenging " the blood of Hussain)

Bro Panzerwaffe :

Tawwabun did not join hands with Mukhtar b/c of the same reason i.e. Mukhtar was appointed by Muhammad b.Hanafiya and Muhammad claimed Imamate for himself. Tawabun didnt accept it.

I'm quoting from The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam S.H.M.Jafri http://www.karbala-najaf.org/shiaism/222-234.htm

The Tawwabun refused to join Mukhtar, as they had no wish to participate in any doubtful adventure or to deviate from their main purpose of atonement through sacrifice. They said that they would follow only Shaykh ash-Shia Sulayman b. Surad. 15 Two points in. Mukhtar's arguments with the Tawwabun are worth noting here, since they reveal fundamental differences between them. Mukhtar said that firstly Sulayman did not know how to organize the military for warfare, nor did he have any knowledge of diplomacy or politics; secondly, Mukhtar had been appointed by the Mahdi, Muhammad b. l-Hanafiya, as his deputy, confidant, and minister to avenge he blood of Husayn. 16 (Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya was 'Ali's hird son from a Hanafite woman, and was not a descendant of the Prophet.) The refusal of the Tawwabun to support Mukhtar on these grounds indicates that they were interested either in purely military ventures nor in political affairs; nor were they ready to accept even the eldest surviving son of 'Ali as their Imam, as he was not the direct descendant of the prophet through Fatima.

All this clearly shows Muhammad Hanafiya did claimed Imamate for himself and therefore Tawwabun didnt unite with Mukhtar.

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the book - Al-Imam al-Mahdi, The Just Leader of Humanity by Ayatullah Ibrahim Amini, it was Mukhtar who attributed Mahdaviyat to Mohammad bin Hanafiyyah.

The first person who took advantage of the people's faith in Mahdiism and its religious underpinnings was Mukhtar. Following the tragic event of Karbala in 61 AH/680 CE, Mukhtar wanted to avenge the martyrs of Karbala and overthrow the Umayyad government. But he realized that the Hashimites and the Shi'is had lost hope in seizing the caliphate for themselves. Consequently, he saw the belief in Mahdiism as the only way to awaken the people and make them hopeful. Since Muhammad b. Hanafiyya's name and patronymic were the same as that of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) (this was one of the recognized signs of the Mahdi) Mukhtar decided to seize the opportunity and introduced Muhammad b. Hanafiyya as the promised Mahdi and himself as his vizier and envoy. He told the people that Muhammad b. Hanafiyya was the promised Mahdi of Islam. At the time when the oppression and tyranny were increasing and Husayn b. 'Ali, his family, and companions were killed mercilessly at Karbala, the Mahdi had decided to rise in order to avenge the martyrs of Karbala, and restore justice on earth as it had been filled with wickedness. He then introduced himself as the Mahdi's representative. In this manner Mukhtar launched an insurrection and killed a group of murderers who had participated in killing Imam Husayn. This was, by the way, the first time that an insurrection had been launched against the caliphate.

http://al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Chap-8.htm

Edited by SpIzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the book - Al-Imam al-Mahdi, The Just Leader of Humanity by Ayatullah Ibrahim Amini, it was Mukhtar who attributed Mahdaviyat to Mohammad bin Hanafiyyah.

http://al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Chap-8.htm

Yes there is no doubt that it was Mukhtar who attributed Mahdawiyat to Muhammad Hanafiya but Muhammad Hanafiya did not repudiate Mukhtar for his Imamate and messianic role. And according to S.H.M.Jafri, in The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam :

Nevertheless, the fact remains unchallenged that after Husayn's death the majority of the Shi'is followed Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya and not Zayn al-`Abidin, though the Tawwabun, as we have seen, thought of the latter as their prospective Imam. Even the remnants of the Tawwabun who survived the battle of `Ayn al-Warda were attracted by Mukhtar to the side of Ibn al-Hanafrya. 13 The reason was obvious. The Shi`is in Kufa, especially the mawali among them, wanted an active movement which could relieve them from the oppressive rule of the Syrians. They found an outlet only under the banner of Mukhtar, and saw a ray of hope in the Messianic role propagated by him for Ibn al- Hanafiya.

http://www.karbala-najaf.org/shiaism/235-258.htm

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes there is no doubt that it was Mukhtar who attributed Mahdawiyat to Muhammad Hanafiya but Muhammad Hanafiya did not repudiate Mukhtar for his Imamate and messianic role. And according to S.H.M.Jafri, in The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam :

I'm not denying that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know much about this issue but i think it is always better to avoid discussing personalities like Muhammad Hanafiya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So perhaps there was a rift between Mukhtar and 4th Imam...

But not between Muhammad Hanafiyya and 4th Imam.

Thats what its tending to look like...

There might have been reasons for Muhammad to not get involved in a repudiating conflict (hands-off approach, like sistani has done in Iraq) or perhaps it was done but not amply recorded. If Muhammad was enjoying the position created by mukhtar, it does not make any sense that he would have the relationship that he did with 3rd and 4th Imams.

Perhaps silences on many fronts had once again to do with the socio-political environment of the time. Also remember that it was a time of great strife and wars, and distances were far, and suspicions many.

Just some things to keep in mind. W/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore also realise that sometimes relations between Imams and their followers were not as good as we think...and in trying circumstances it led to disputes some very staunch shias disagreed strongly at times with the Imams of their times

e.g Suleiman b sured ( leader of tawwabun) and some other shias used to call Imam Hasan " one who humiliates the faithful"...after the peace treaty with muawiyah as they all oppsed it intially( but later they did accept it) ...yet these same people would be ready to sacrifice their lives for the Imam.

Ibn Hannafiyyah maintained good relations with ibn abbass throughout his life ....it is unlikely that ibn abbass would have backed ibn hannafiyyah if he claimed the Imamat as the son of Ali...as ibn Abbas has always said that it is through Ali's relationship with the Prophet that Ali and his sons are Imams

I do not know much about this issue but i think it is always better to avoid discussing personalities like Muhammad Hanafiya.

why do you say that?

please remember this too

http://www.karbala-najaf.org/shiaism/235-258.htm

An exhaustive scrutiny of the sources may well prove that

he was a devoted follower of the House of `Ali and a sincere

supporter of their cause, but whatever the case may be, the

fact remains that he has generally been treated rather

unsympathetically by the sources of different schools for

different reasons. The Twelver Shi'i sources present him in

an unfavourable light since it was he who for the first time

began propaganda for the Imamate of Muhammad b. al-

Hanafiya, thus deviating from the line of Fatima.

The non-

Shi`i sources, on the other hand, seem to have been influenced

by the anti-Mukhtar propaganda launched by both the

sympathizers of Ibn az-Zubayr and those of the Umayyads.

No serious study has so far been done on Mukhtar, and the

sketchy accounts given by some of the modern scholars 1 are

generally influenced, without a critical assessment, by the

sources usually hostile to him. Recently, however, Hodgson

has hinted that the blackening of Mukhtar's reputation and

the attempt to discredit him began from the time of his death.

On the other hand those who project Amir Mukhtar as the sole avenger of Husain's blood whose shiaism was without doubt I speculate are influenced by Iranians since in his revolt for the first time did Iranians play any active role

he never-

theless maintained a carefully non-committal attitude and

never openly raised his claims to the heritage of Husayn. 14 It

is indeed difficult to say whether Ibn al-Hanafiya's policy of

not publicly laying claims to the leadership of the Shi`is was

because of the serious risk such a claim would have entailed

or because he was aware of the fact that he. was not the

descendant of the Prophet. We have repeatedly pointed out

throughout this work, from the event of Saqifa till the

movement of the Tawwabun, that the main emphasis of the

Shi'is regarding the leadership of the community has been

focused upon the direct relationship to the Prophet. With

reference to Hasan and Husayn, we always find far more

emphasis on the idea of succession to the Prophet by blood

than to `Ali by blood. If all these overwhelming reports have

any historic merit, then it seems very strange indeed that

immediately after Husayn's death the emphasis has so

suddenly changed from the lineage of the Prophet to that of

'Ali. It is, therefore, most probable that, besides political

danger, Ibn al-Hanafiya, not being the descendant of the

Prophet, was hesitant to claim the Imamate for himself. This

also explains why Mukhtar was first so anxious to gain the

support of Zayn al-'Abidin; and when he lost all hopes of

winning the son of Husayn, only then did he turn to Ibn al-

Hanafiya. As for the other part of the problem, that is, how

the Shi'is of Kufa so readily changed their attitude and

accepted as their Imam a son of 'Ali who was not the

descendant of the Prophet, whereas Zayn al-'Abidin was,

some explanation must be sought. Perhaps the only answer to

the riddle may be found in the fact that most of the original

and main body of the Shi'a, with a clear doctrinal stand

regarding the idea of the leadership, had been much reduced

in number, first in the Karbala massacre with Husayn, and

then in the battle of 'Ayn al-Warda under the command of

Sulayman b. Surad al-Khuza'i. They were not only the hard

core and well grounded in their Shi`i! ideals, but also provided

intellectual and religious leadership and guidance to the

masses of the Shi`a of Ku fa. After Karbala and `Ayn al-

Warda, what remained in Kufa in the name of the Shi`a were

mostly the wavering commoners of the Arabs and the mawali

who in that desperate situation could not make the delicate

doctrinal distinction between merely a son of `Ali and a son

of `Ali from Fatima. To them, `Ali was, after all, the cousin of

the Prophet and also a member of the priestly clan of Hashim.

That the sanctity of the Banu Hashim was confined to

Muhammad after the Prophethood had been bestowed on

him, to the exclusion of other members of the family of

Hashim, as understood by the original body of the Shi'a, was

lost among these commoners. They were thus easily carried

away by the talented eloquence of Mukhtar and his successful

propaganda for Ibn al-Hanafiya as the deliverer (Mahdi)

from the tyranny and injustice inflicted upon them by the

Umayyads. It was, therefore, not so much the rights and

personality of Ibn al-Hanafiya which made the masses of the

Shi`is of Kufa accept him as Mahdi-Imam as it was their

desperate yearning for a deliverer from Umayyad domination

and oppressive rule. A careful examination of Mukhtar's

propaganda for Ibn al-Hanafiya would show that the

overriding emphasis in introducing him was on his role as

Mahdi and not so much on his being the Imam. This may

prove to have been the main factor which attracted people to

him.

Enlarged part is important

Also add to that the attrition in the battles of Jamal and siffin....

Most of the early companions who supported Ali in these battles either were martyred or had died of old age by that timewe have seen how easily people deviate even in the presence of Rasulallah and Imam Ali ...so how would they fare without even their companions

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All this clearly shows Muhammad Hanafiya did claimed Imamate for himself and therefore Tawwabun didnt unite with Mukhtar.

any incident where the tawwabun would have openly condemned ibn hannfiyyah ?

So perhaps there was a rift between Mukhtar and 4th Imam...

But not between Muhammad Hanafiyya and 4th Imam.

Thats what its tending to look like...

There might have been reasons for Muhammad to not get involved in a repudiating conflict (hands-off approach, like sistani has done in Iraq) or perhaps it was done but not amply recorded. If Muhammad was enjoying the position created by mukhtar, it does not make any sense that he would have the relationship that he did with 3rd and 4th Imams.

Perhaps silences on many fronts had once again to do with the socio-political environment of the time. Also remember that it was a time of great strife and wars, and distances were far, and suspicions many.

Just some things to keep in mind. W/s.

There are also examples in history of Ummayyad caliphs like Marwan and his son "cooperating " with Imam Sajjad .....it was all needed in those times I believe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.