Jump to content


-


Photo
- - - - -

Amir Mukhtar


16 replies to this topic

#1 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,271 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 03 September 2006 - 12:41 PM

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

#2 A follower

A follower

    -Unregistered-

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,443 posts
  • Location:Scotland, UK

Posted 03 September 2006 - 12:54 PM

(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

#3 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,271 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 03 September 2006 - 02:33 PM

^ 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, 03 September 2006 - 02:36 PM.


#4 A follower

A follower

    -Unregistered-

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,443 posts
  • Location:Scotland, UK

Posted 03 September 2006 - 03:04 PM

(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

#5 Jondab_Azdi

Jondab_Azdi

    ÌÚÝÑí

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Religion:Islam (Imami Shi'a)
  • Interests:ÇáãÞÇæãÉ

Posted 03 September 2006 - 06:27 PM

(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


#6 A follower

A follower

    -Unregistered-

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,443 posts
  • Location:Scotland, UK

Posted 03 September 2006 - 06:53 PM

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

#7 Jondab_Azdi

Jondab_Azdi

    ÌÚÝÑí

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Religion:Islam (Imami Shi'a)
  • Interests:ÇáãÞÇæãÉ

Posted 03 September 2006 - 09:51 PM

(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:

#8 forgeforth

forgeforth

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 03:03 PM

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.

#9 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,271 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 05 September 2006 - 05:17 PM

^ 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)

#10 Jondab_Azdi

Jondab_Azdi

    ÌÚÝÑí

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Religion:Islam (Imami Shi'a)
  • Interests:ÇáãÞÇæãÉ

Posted 06 September 2006 - 06:12 AM

^ 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-n...ism/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-n...ism/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

#11 SpIzo

SpIzo

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,419 posts

Posted 06 September 2006 - 06:15 AM

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/...ontl/Chap-8.htm

Edited by SpIzo, 06 September 2006 - 06:16 AM.


#12 Jondab_Azdi

Jondab_Azdi

    ÌÚÝÑí

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Religion:Islam (Imami Shi'a)
  • Interests:ÇáãÞÇæãÉ

Posted 06 September 2006 - 06:35 AM

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/...ontl/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-n...ism/235-258.htm

ws

#13 SpIzo

SpIzo

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,419 posts

Posted 06 September 2006 - 06:45 AM

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.

#14 Aabiss_Shakari

Aabiss_Shakari

    http://www.abubakr.org

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,414 posts
  • Location:Shia Chat
  • Religion:True Shia Twelver Islam

Posted 06 September 2006 - 11:16 AM

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

#15 forgeforth

forgeforth

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts

Posted 06 September 2006 - 11:34 AM

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.

#16 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,271 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 07 September 2006 - 05:32 PM

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-n...ism/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, 07 September 2006 - 05:53 PM.


#17 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,271 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 07 September 2006 - 06:05 PM

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



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users