Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله
  • entries
    26
  • comments
    120
  • views
    5,510

A ShiaChat Reunion?


Ibn al-Hussain

10,461 views

:salam:

As the school-term comes to an end, and there was some time that I could spare for my self, I've thought a lot about how my views on life, religion, man's relationship with God, and the world around me, have changed over the years. This is going to be a pretty random rant - but I guess that is what blogs are for :confused:.

As of now, it has been 4 years since I moved to the seminary in Qom, and while there are many brothers and sisters here who spent many years on ShiaChat, many of them have either asked for their accounts to be deleted, with all of their posts, or have completely abandoned the forum all together or visit once in a while. I'm one of the handful of those who have not asked for my account to be deleted. All my posts from my early teenage years to now mid and late-20s are there. Personally, I never felt I had anything to hide - my posts are pretty much who I am. One can clearly see the early phase of an excited teenager learning a thing or two about the religion, with very deep-rooted presumptions about life, to a hyper kid getting accustomed to a some-what celebrity status, loved & hated by so many, to then entering university life and maturing up (some may disagree :blush:), and eventually entering into the work-force, married, moving to a different country, kids etc. While browsing through my earliest posts back in 2004, I was really able to just reflect on not just how much I have changed, but even how much influence (positive or negative) people on this forum have had on me. Of course this was not happening in a vacuum. I was interacting with all sorts of people - albeit behind a screen. There are so many real names, user-names, and names that I don't even remember - all of them - that I can recall, and in hindsight, see how each and everyone of them played a role in the development of my ideas, the stances and decisions I made in life, the open-mindedness I developed, or even the doubts I may have developed over various issues, and the questions that would remain unanswered for months and years.

This is very obvious for me even while I study in the seminary. The questions I may ask, the extent of tolerance I may show, the critiques I may mention, the willingness to really question some of our "famous" theological or historical views - some of these things make other students and at times even teachers really uncomfortable. Nevertheless, I believe this is in part due to what transpired on this forum and I am happy for it. This forum was like a large community center. It wasn't a community center for a specific ethnicity, or a culture, or converts or a specific gender. This forum for a large part was a community for those who either didn't have access to a real community where they lived, or were not satisfied with the communities that they belonged to. I believe it represented quite accurately the state of the Shi'a (primarily in the West) for a large part. It collectively represented the views that persisted and continue to persist amongst the Shi'a. Unfortunately, it is this portion of the Shi'a populous that often gets unnoticed outside of virtual reality. The inability of those leading us (for the most part) to really dissect and decipher the state of an average Shi'a's mindset, has really been one of the major issues for our communities in the West. The ignorance towards the epistemological framework that an average Shi'a growing in the West acquires through the education system or simply by living there, the delusional presumption that somehow a sub-culture contained within the 4-walls of a building will be able to preserve itself and overcome a dominant culture outside, the satisfaction of merely entertaining the audience with shallow lectures & speeches - while not addressing important and crucial matters: the cure for all of this seems to be have been missing in the last few decades, primarily due to ignorance towards it.

On a rare encounter I may have with a lost-long SCer, Its interesting to see how many stayed religious as they were, or were irreligious and become religious, or remained irreligious, or how so many are now going through a faith crisis as they have grown and began questioning and pondering over life's crucial mysteries. 

Reflecting back on what views I held and what views I hold now, nostalgia overtook me and I started browsing through old posts, old pictures, audio and video files that I still have saved from a decade ago (had a seriously good laugh over some audio files of @SO SOLID SHIA I still have with me). It is really weird how all of a sudden around 2012/2013 the forum just died. As if everyone switched off their plugs and disappeared. People definitely have to move on with their lives, no doubt about that. Of course there were some people who left much earlier, but this sudden silence is really absurd and that it wasn't replaced with a new batch of talented, and educated individuals is really hard to explain.

Perhaps those members who are still lingering around from the early 2000s ( @Gypsy @DigitalUmmah @Darth Vader @Abbas. @Haji 2003 @Abu Hadi @Wise Muslim @Qa'im @notme) and are still in touch with those who have left, maybe they can work on a ShiaChat Reunion of some sort. Perhaps get in contact with old members and request them to make a moment's appearance and leave some remarks on what they are up to in life! What changes have taken place in your lives, in your views, in your lifestyle - if any? There were some members I had such a great time with, and it felt as if we would remain friends forever. It would be great to be able to reconnect with them.

@Baatil Ka Kaatil  @Matami-Shah @Zain @Hasnain @Abdulhujjah @Peer @fyst @Syedmed @Nida_e_Zahra @hmMm @SpIzo @venusian @sana_abbas @fatimak @HR @asifnaqvi @Bollywood_Hero @phoenix @blessing @zanyrulez @wilayah @Hajar @Zuljenah @LaYdee_110 @fadak_166 @raat ki rani @Friend of All @queenjafri @Simba @Path2Felicity @3ashiqat-Al-Batoul @-Enlightened @karateka @A follower @hameedeh @lethaldefense @kaaju barfi @Friend of All @Ya Aba 3abdillah ...there are dozens of other members if I keep going.

97 Comments


Recommended Comments



  • Veteran Member
6 minutes ago, hayaah said:

Hardly anyone uses facebook these days....

I suppose it depends, statistically, more people are logging into facebook than ever before.

I was basing my answer on having spoken to a brother who used to be very active here, I was trying to get him to come back, he said that he was happy on fb as Islamic pages were more active than sc.

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
37 minutes ago, Heavenly_Silk said:

Could it also be that most of the "popular" topics have been discussed repeatedly, people may feel like there is not much to contribute to anymore?

I don't think that is the case. Since I've come to the seminary, I realized that there are a plethora of topics that are being discussed or can be discussed, or a lot of new insight that can be shed on topics, even on previously discussed topics. Most of these discussions are taking place, but they never make their way into the Western world for various reasons. 

For example, the role of history in our understanding of jurisprudence and its application, the role of ethics and human rights in our application of Islamic law, the role of the intellect in our day to day life - how balanced do we have to be between using our intellect and relying on faith. These are topics that require some degree of knowledge - but previously we had a decent number of members who would have been able to engage in these discussions.

However other social and family related issues like role of women and men in a society and within a family (old topic, but a lot of new light can be shed here, given recent changes in society's understanding), dealing with domestic violence and abuse, the future of our children's education in the West, the doubts and challenges millennials are facing etc. there are all these issues that can and should be discussed with more innovative perceptions. Some of the blog posts Br. @Qa'im makes on his blog are of extreme importance today. They should perhaps be discussed further on the forums.

Obviously you also have the Qur'anic and Hadith related topics as well that never get old and there is always new developments happening there, but once again it just seems there are not enough people of caliber left to engage in these sort of discussions.

This has been my observation.

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, notme said:

I do think the site went through a period of excessively heavy handed moderation and people got banned or left. I'm not in contact with anyone from the old times anymore, but I'd love to know how some of them are doing. 

Amen. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Ali_Hussain said:

That is part of the reason, however I believe that the forum died due to moderation issues, there were many, many occasion in which new members would come and ask a question only to have the thread locked and them to be told to just use the search engine. What did the mods think was going to happen? That kind of behaviour, first of all comes across as rude, and secondly doesn't allow the user to develop a taste for what this forum is supposed to be about.

There are of course other issues, such as facebook being such a popular platform.

We have got to make registering and posting questions easier on this board. In the past you could register without having such strict restrictions.

 

Edited by uponthesunnah
Link to comment

I'm not entirely convinced forums are dead, given reddit, and other popular online forums. I think the problem we have is multifaceted, and there are many factors which users here have posted and are legitimate.

But at the same time, i see a very simple solution we can begin to work with:

1. Make it easier to register and post on shiachat. Remove as much red-tape as possible, while balancing user safety. I say many new users register, see the red tape, and just leave. 

2. Advertise the forum. Many people aren't on shiachat because there has not been any concerted effort to recruit members to the forum.

3. Be a little bit more lax about banning.

Link to comment
  • Forum Administrators

I think it's easier to register and participate than ever before. Now you can register through your FB account, and you no longer need 50 posts to use the chatroom or PM.

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member

I remember back then we used to play some shooting game (was it Deus Ex?) with all SC teams. It was fun. I have been and still am the estranged uncle of SC. :D I have enjoyed my stay very much, being in touch with such fine people. I have also learnt a lot from SC. Sometimes I ask SC'ers for prayers when I find myself knees deep in poop and it works.

Perhaps one of the reasons why there are less posters of the intellectual kind is because of lack of serious and deep discussions about religious and social issues and therefore less opportunity to learn and share new things. Perhaps because nowadays people get offended more or feel violated and insulted when challenged? Or with age we feel more shy to discuss things. I don't know.

Anyway it is good to read from you brother. I also badly miss the old gang and brave souls like So Solid Shia who faced the fires of moderation defiantly till they got burnt. :D But in any case I think the need is to facilitate proper debates and discussions to provide content for the seeking minds because issues like moderation rules will always be all but imperfect.

Link to comment
  • Forum Administrators
23 hours ago, Ali_Hussain said:

I believe that the forum died due to moderation issues, there were many, many occasion in which new members would come and ask a question only to have the thread locked and them to be told to just use the search engine.

1. In the introduction phase few people knew about the site and there were not many users

2. In the growth phase the topics were being discussed for the first time. So there was tons and tons of debate. Over time for each topic the number of new angles that could be covered was reduced. So the scope for debate and discussion was reduced also (see point 3).

2a. That scope would be reduced firstly because when people google a topic it's more likely to give them specific threads on shiachat that have covered it before. And they'd get their answer directly from an old thread.

2b. If they still persist in asking, as moderators it's our job to show them threads where there may already have been well-researched discussion. This is really important from a hygiene point of view.

3. For each topic as the scope for general and superficial debate is reduced, there remains scope for more detailed and in-depth discussion. But most laypeople do not have the knowledge (or inclination) for this because it is boring. People from seminaries could fill the gap, but they choose not to (see my final point).

Well-informed posters tend NOT to keep posting ad nauseam. And it's our job as moderators to refer people to those answers and ask them to come back if they have an angle that has not already been covered.

Someone seeking truth will understand the reasonableness of this approach. A troll will leave. Good.

There is a contradiction in your post. You say that people in the seminaries don't visit Shiachat and yet also criticise moderators for shutting down threads that are likely to be repetitive, trivial and/or titillating.

Surely the latter policies should attract the more serious sort of person who attends a seminary?

To be honest if there is a contingent of ex-Shiachatters in the seminaries, I am afraid their absence says more about them than it does about this site and it's not favourable.

Edited by Haji 2003
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Latest Blog Entries

    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      In this thread there was a half jokey but also serious issue that I raised:
      At some point Muslims will ask whether conjugal relations with androids are allowed and we can predict the answer will be no.
       
      Since I first started that thread a lot has happened and I think it's worth introducing some new variables to the discussion.
      There was a time when men who dressed as women (and vice versa) did so either for humour or if it was in some way related to their sexuality the attempt would seem a bit ridiculous. Nowadays though fantasy can be more readily realised with the aid of technology.
      In a similar vein men who play with dolls (this is serious, stay with me) are faintly creepy and weird. But technology moves on and at some point the dolls will pass for humans. While orthodox Muslims may well be aghast at the idea of relations between us and the androids, clearly this will be considered to be progress amongst some people. They may not currently regard it as such but their ideological progeny will.
      But then another issue will emerge. If someone gains emotional and other forms of support from their android, what if they want to pass on their wealth to the android? If this sounds utterly crazy, remember that in Germany people can and do pass on their inheritance to pets. In Britain such inheritance can happen, but in a more complicated way.
      So while we have had dystopian science fiction prognosticating about robots AI becoming 'self-aware' and stealing the planet from us what if such a loss can happen without such a confrontational dystopia?
      What if large numbers of humans give up on human-to-human relations and instead take up with androids who will never argue back, will always say yes and be physically whatever people want them to be.
      And as a reward for this their human companions leave their possessions to robots?
      It could be that it is selfishness and narcissism that disinherits us and nothing more sinister.
    • By Meedy in Never thought I would see days like these
         0
      My family are being torn apart bit by bit.
      My oldest brother's wife falsely accusing of him cheating and she knows its not true but the wealth and her sisters whispers have blinded her.
      My 2nd old brother's wife or both blame my 3rd brother wife for my failed marriage and told me parents to pick them or us.
      I have my own issues and demons to deal with
      My mind is not strong enough to listen to the news anymore. 
      I see hypocrisy everywhere.
      There are times, I get tested with the same tests,  yet I failed despite knowing the answers. Although I am getting better with God help.
      I think some of us, do get tested in life with same tests, despite knowing the answers, yet sometimes we fail.
      Perhaps some of the tests that we failed, God tests us again with those tests to see give us opportunity to overcome those tests.
      The more we seek to get closer to God, the more Shaytan attack us and perhaps we get tested more than unbelievers. 
      It is very hard to find someone to talk with about God and religious matters. So many people no longer believe in God but if you speak about how did we get here etc, they have no answers or no interest in talking about. Don't they realise, what they have is because God gave to them, everything belongs to God
      The richer people become, they become more stingy. 
      Spiritually I am doing bit better than before as I know how to overcome the tests that I am being tested with.
      I am writing this, because it's very to find someone to talk about such things face to face.
      I apologise, if this blog is approprate.
      God Bless all of yous  
       
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         4
      The 2019 UK election
      As some of you may know Britain had an election in 2019 and the Conservative party (aka Tories), who are on the right of the political spectrum won the most seats in the House of Commons. Their leader was Boris Johnson so he became Prime Minister. I'm pointing this out because UK politics works differently to other systems.
      But various scandals plagued his premiership and earlier this year he was forced to stand down.
      Selecting a new Prime Minister
      This triggered the selection of a new Prime Minister amongst Conservative MPs and once they had short-listed some candidates, these people were put to the vote amongst 180,000 people in the UK who were members of the Conservative party.
      All along it had seemed that the front runner in this election was Rishi Sunak, who had served as Chancellor (finance minister) under Johnson and who was widely regarded as competent.
      Ultimately someone else won, her name as you may have heard in recent days is Liz Truss.
      In a series of debates (some televised) she set put her plans for the economy. During these debates Sunak pointed out that they would lead to disaster.
      Liz Truss
      But Truss was selected by the members of her party and she set about implementing her policy. The result was economic chaos, she had to sack her Chancellor (as a scapegoat) and bring in someone new who would reverse the changes that she had promised.
      Today she has had to resign and a new person will be selected by the Tories as leader.
      The oddity
      One thing that stands out over the past few months is the following story that has been occasionally reported in the mainstream media:
      https://www.ft.com/content/5d4f9455-cad2-43d8-bcd3-de5b038cb67b
      The story is odd because during an election campaign the contestants have a lot of domestic issues to address and debate. Why would a candidate reach out to people about a matter of foreign policy - moving the British embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      I think there is.
      It's about the Stans
      As the conflict continues there is media coverage being given to:
      Russia's Asian regions who are physically far from the conflict and who have little vested interest in it, some of the people are Muslims Russia's neighbours who are 'independent', but nevertheless have a close relationship with Moscow e.g. Tajikistan and the latter has specifically voiced concerns I think there is a longer-term attempt to take these regions and countries out of Moscow's orbit.
      Not repeating Western mistakes made in Iraq and Syria
      The problem that will have been recognised in some quarters is that there is a risk these countries will fall into Iran's sphere of influence, which has been the case to some extent in Iraq. The Syrian war was an attempt to take the country out of Iran's orbit, but that has backfired.
      One way to ensure that the mistakes in Iraq and Syria are not repeated is to go after the IRI itself.
      The Iranian link
      And this is what the current protests in Iran are about, either the IRI is replaced in its entirety or it is so pre-occupied internally that it is not able to address changes taking place in the countries to its north.
      The long term
      Longer term I don't think this is about Russia and Iran as much as it is about China. The aim would be to have China surrounded by states that owe some form of allegiance to NATO.
       
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      TL:DR
      Saudi is increasing investments in sports and entertainment. This is supposedly diversifying the economy away from oil and gas. They are also laying open Saudi to 'international consumer culture' because these industries also rely on international tourists. To cater for the latter you have to accommodate their tastes and these include alcohol, music and the exploitation of women. 
      By investing now in these industries the Saudi government is making itself hostage (deliberately) to a future situation where it has to say to its people, "guys to get a return on our investments we need to relax xyz Sharia based laws".
      If you want a precedent, there is one in Singapore. The country has been a tourism hub for decades. But at one point they relaxed the laws around gambling because they were losing 'high roller' gamblers to Macau and other countries.
      more later...
    • By Islamic Salvation in A Marginalia to Mu'jam
         55
      هلك الناس أجمعون قلت: من في الشرق و من في الغرب؟ قال: فقال: إنها فتحت على الضلال
      All the people were destroyed. I said: whomever was in the east and the west? he said: it (the whole earth) was opened up to misguidance
      هلكوا إلا ثلاثة ثم لحق أبو ساسان و عمار و شتيرة و أبو عمرة فصاروا سبعة
      All were destroyed except three - then they were joined by Abu Sasan, Ammar, Shatira and Abu Amra, so they became seven [Ja`far al-Sadiq]
       
      Did the Sahaba Apostatize?
      There are narrations which indicate that all the companions were destroyed except three, these were then joined by four others, so they became seven who were saved. However, most of the scholars have understood this Halak [destruction] to be that of Dhalal [misguidance] i.e. perished in Salvific terms, not Kufr [disbelief] - which is the opposite of Islam.
       
      Who are the three?
      They are the pillars of the Madhhab. They are explicitly named in some of the narrations below:
      أبي بصير قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلا ثلاثة: أبو ذر، و سلمان، و المقداد؟ قال: فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: فأين أبو ساسان، و أبو عمرة الأنصاري؟
      [al-Kashshi] Abi Basir said: I said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام: all the people turned back except for three - Abu Dhar, Salman and Miqdad? Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said: so where is Abu Sasan and Abu Amra al-Ansari?!
      أبي بكر الحضرمى قال: قال أبو جعفر عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلاثلاثة نفر سلمان وأبو ذر والمقداد. قال: قلت: فعمّار؟ قال عليه السلام: قد كان جاض جيضة ثم رجع ... ثم أناب الناس بعد فكان أول من أناب أبو ساسان الانصاري وأبوعمرة وشتيرة وكانوا سبعة فلم يكن يعرف حق أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلاّ هؤلاء السبعة
      [al-Kashshi] Abi Bakr al-Hadhrami said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people turned back except three individuals - Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad, I said: what about Ammar? He عليه السلام said: he wobbled a bit then he returned [to the truth] … then the people repented after that, so the first ones to return [to the truth] were Abu Sasan al-Ansari, Abu Amra, Shatira, and they became seven, none recognized the right of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام except these seven.
      'then the people repented after that, so the first ones ...' This shows that it was not just these seven, rather, these were the foremost of them. علي بن أبي طالب عليهم السلام قال: خلقت الارض لبسبعة بهم ترزقون وبهم تنصرون وبهم تمطرون منهم سلمان الفارسي والمقداد وأبو ذر وعّمار وحذيفة رحمة اللّه عليهم. وكان علي عليه السلام يقول: وأنا إمامهم وهم الذين صلوا على فاطمة صلوات الله عليها
      [al-Ikhtisas] Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام said: the earth was created for seven, because of them you are given sustenance, and because of them you are assisted, and because of them is rain made to fall on you, among them are Salman al-Farsi and al-Miqdad and Abu Dhar and Ammar and Hudhayfa - may Allah have mercy on them. Ali عليه السلام used to say: and I am their Imam, and they are the ones who prayed [Salat al-Mayyit] upon Fatima صلوات الله عليها            
       
      The Three had a higher status than the Four
      حمران قال: قلت لأبي جعفر عليه السلام: ما أقلنا لو اجتمعنا على شاة ما أفنيناها قال: فقال: ألا أخبرك بأعجب من ذلك قال: فقلت: بلى قال: المهاجرون و الأنصار ذهبوا إلا (و أشار بيده) ثلاثة
      [al-Kashshi] Humran said: I said to Abi Ja’far عليه السلام - how few we (the Shias) are! if we gather to eat a sheep we will not be able to finish it, he (Humran) said: so he عليه السلام said: should I not inform you of something even more bewildering? he (Humran) said: I said: yes (do so), he said: the Muhajirun and the Ansar all diverted (i.e. went astray) except for - and he gestured with his hand - three.
      In al-Kulayni’s variant the narration continues:
      قال حمران: فقلت: جعلت فداك ما حال عمار؟ قال: رحم الله عمارا أبا اليقظان بايع وقتل شهيدا، فقلت في نفسي: ما شئ أفضل من الشهادة فنظر إلي فقال: لعلك ترى أنه مثل الثلاثة أيهات أيهات
      Humran said: may I be made your ransom - what is the status of Ammar? He said: may Allah have mercy on Ammar Aba al-Yaqdhan, he pledged allegiance and died a martyr, I said in my heart: what thing is better than martyrdom, so he [the Imam] looked at me and said: perhaps you think that he [Ammar] is like the three [in status], how far! how far! [from truth that opinion is]. 
       
      Does this mean all others became apostates?
      The crux is the meaning of Ridda (ردّة) in these narrations. Whether it is to be understood in a linguistic sense or the technical sense of apostasy. If the latter is taken then it means all the Sahaba became Kafir [out of Islam] for not sticking to Ali.
      Irtidad in the linguistic sense refers to ‘turning back from something’. It has been used with this meaning in a number of verses such as:
      فَلَمَّا أَن جَاء الْبَشِيرُ أَلْقَاهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ فَارْتَدَّ بَصِيرًا قَالَ أَلَمْ أَقُل لَّكُمْ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مِنَ اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ
      (i) So when the caravan herald [fore-runner] came he threw it on his face so he returned to seeing, he said: did I not say to you that I know from Allah what ye do not (12:96)
      قَالَ الَّذِي عِندَهُ عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ
      (ii) The one who had knowledge of a part of the Book said: I will bring it to you before your glance returns back to you [i.e. you blink and open your eyes again] (27:40)
      مُهْطِعِينَ مُقْنِعِي رُءُوسِهِمْ لاَ يَرْتَدُّ إِلَيْهِمْ طَرْفُهُمْ وَأَفْئِدَتُهُمْ هَوَاء
      (iii) Racing ahead, their heads bowed down, their glances not returning back to them [i.e. unblinking] and their hearts void (14:43)
      Whenever Irtidad from the Diin - ‘turning back’ from the Diin i.e. apostasy in the technical sense is meant, the Qur`an qualifies it by explicitly mentioning Diin.
      يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَن يَرْتَدَّ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ
      (i) O you who believe, whoever turns back from his Diin from among you then Allah will bring about a people whom He loves and they love Him (5:54)
      وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُوْلَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ
      (ii) And whoever among you turns back on his Diin and dies whilst being a Kafir then those are they whose deeds have been nullified in the world and the hereafter (2:217)
      It is clear that the narrations about the Irtidad of the Sahaba are not qualified by Diin. To understand that meaning from it would require further proof.
       
      The Chosen Interpretation
      The Irtidad in the narrations should be understood [in light of other narrations] as people turning away, after the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله, from what they had made incumbent on themselves in his صلى الله عليه وآله lifetime, when they gave the Bay`a to Ali b. Abi Talib as the leader of the believers i.e. Irtidad from Wilaya not apostasy from Islam. 
      Instead, they decided to give the Bay`a to someone else because of expediency and other reasons. This was a betrayal of epic proportions that opened up the door of misguidance and innovation in the Diin, however, they had not exited the apparent Islam, nor were all on the same level of liability for this.
      This interpretation is aided by the following texts:
      أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله إلا ثلاثة. فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الأسود، وأبو ذر الغفاري، وسلمان الفارسي، رحمة الله وبركاته عليهم، ثم عرَف أناسٌ بعدَ يسير. وقال: هؤلاء الذين دارت عليهم الرحا وأبوا أن يبايعوا، حتى جاؤوا بأمير المؤمنين مكرَهاً فبايع، وذلك قوله تعالى: وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ
      (i) [al-Kafi] Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people were the people of Ridda after the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله except three. I said: who are the three? He said: al-Miqdad b. al-Aswad, Abu Dhar al-Ghiffari and Salman al-Farsi, may Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon them, then the people came to know after a while [the truth], these [three] are those around whom the banner revolved and they refused to give Bay`a [to Abu Bakr], until when they brought the commander of the faithful عليه السلام by coercion and he gave the pledge of allegiance, and that is His words the Elevated - “Muhammad is not but a messenger, messengers have come and gone before him, if he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels, and whoever turns back on his heels then he will not harm Allah a thing and Allah will recompense those who are grateful” (3:144).
      The narration indicates that the uniqueness of the three was that they did not give the Bay`a to the usurper because of knowing the true status of Ali, it was only when Ali was forced to give the Bay`a, and he did [for the Masliha which Allah willed], that the three also agreed to do it. The meaning of 'then the people came to know after a while ...' is that some people recognized their fault, and acknowledged that the commander of the faithful was the most rightful person to assume leadership. That all the others apart from the three were paralyzed by fear is shown in the narration below:
      أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: جاء المهاجرون والأنصار وغيرهم بعد ذلك إلى علي عليه السلام فقالوا له: أنت والله أمير المؤمنين وأنت والله أحق الناس وأولاهم بالنبي عليه السلام هلم يدك نبايعك فوالله لنموتن قدامك! فقال علي عليه السلام: ان كنتم صادقين فاغدوا غدا علي محلقين فحلق علي عليه السلام وحلق سلمان وحلق مقداد وحلق أبو ذر ولم يحلق غيرهم؛ ثم انصرفوا فجاؤوا مرة أخرى بعد ذلك، فقالوا له أنت والله أمير المؤمنين وأنت أحق الناس وأولاهم بالنبي عليه السلام عليه السلام هلم يدك نبايعك فحلفوا فقال: إن كنتم صادقين فاغدوا علي محلقين فما حلق إلا هؤلاء الثلاثة قلت: فما كان فيهم عمار؟ فقال: لا؛ قلت: فعمار من أهل الردة؟ فقال: إنّ عمارا قد قاتل مع علي عليه السلام بعد ذلك
      (ii) [al-Kashshi] Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said: the Muhajirun and Ansar and others came after that [the coup at Saqifa] to Ali عليه السلام and said to him: you are by Allah the commander of the faithful, and you are by Allah the most rightful person and closest to the prophet, put forth your hand so that we can pledge allegiance to you, for by Allah we are going to die in front of you [in your defense], Ali said: if you are truthful then come to me tomorrow having shaved your head [which would visually identify the ‘rebels’ to the authorities], so Ali shaved, so did Salman, Miqdad and Abu Dhar, and no one else did, then they came a second time after the first and said: you are by Allah the most rightful person and closest to the prophet, put forth your hand so that we can pledge allegiance to you, and they swore an oath, he said: come to me tomorrow having shaved your head if you are truthful, so no one shaved except three. I said: Ammar was not among them? He said: No, I said: Ammar is from the people of Ridda? He said: Ammar fought together with Ali after that.
      This reaffirms that the uniqueness of the three is related to them not giving in and remaining with Ali to the end as far as his right is concerned. Note also how Ammar is not included among the Ahl al-Ridda, even in a historical sense, because of his later support for Ali. In fact, one of the reasons behind Ali accepting to give Bay`a after his show of dissent was so that the masses do not renounce the faith totally. Recall that the Islamic polity was still unstable and there were a lot of Arab tribes whose allegiance had been personally to the prophet and not the Diin per se, the Jahiliyya was not far from their psyche.
      أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: إن الناس لما صنعوا ما صنعوا إذ بايعوا أبا بكر لم يمنع أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام من أن يدعو إلى نفسه إلا نظرا للناس و تخوفا عليهم أن يرتدوا عن الاسلام فيعبدوا الاوثان ولا يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وكان الاحب إليه أن يقرهم على ما صنعوا من أن يرتدوا عن جميع الاسلام وإنما هلك الذين ركبوا ما ركبوا فأما من لم يصنع ذلك ودخل فيما دخل فيه الناس على غير علم ولا عداوة لامير المؤمنين عليه السلام فإن ذلك لا يكفره ولا يخرجه من الاسلام ولذلك كتم علي عليه السلام أمره وبايع مكرها حيث لم يجد أعوانا
      (iii) [al-Kafi] Abu Ja'farعليه السلام  said: When the people did what they did - when they gave allegiance to Abu Bakr, nothing prevented the commander of the faithful عليه السلام from calling to himself (i.e. gather support to rival them publicly) except his fear for the people - that they would apostate from Islam, and begin worshiping the idols anew, and reject witnessing that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is his messenger; and it was more beloved to him to acquiesce to what they had done rather than them apostatizing from the whole of Islam. Verily, those who clambered upon this (opposing Ali for rulership) have been destroyed. As for the one who did not contribute anything to that (opposing Ali for rulership) and entered into what the people entered into without knowledge (about his status) nor enmity towards him then this act of his does not make him a disbeliever, and it does not remove him from Islam, and this is why Ali kept quiet about his matter (status), and gave allegiance while displeased, when he could not find any supporters.
      The narration makes it clear that had the Imam fought for his leadership i.e. a civil war it would cause irreparable damage, this is because of the tenuous position that Islam had, even the outward Islam (the Islam of the Shahadatyn) would have been wiped out. There were a lot of external and internal enemies waiting for this infighting to make sure that the whole foundation of Islam crumbles.  
      Conclusion
      The Umma became, for the most part, misguided after their prophet. This is something that had also happened to the communities of past prophets. But this misguidance should not be understood to have taken all of them out of Islam as a whole, rather, by ignoring a central commandment of the prophet they have done a great sin which struck a blow to the pristine Islam.
      Furthermore, the protagonists differ relative to their role in the fiasco. Some were quite unaware of the whole thing and lacked full knowledge of the Haqq of Ali and his Ma`rifa, this could be because they were blind to the order of the prophet (total ignorance); had some doubts; did not have the ability to influence the outcome because of some constraints [swept away by the wave of events]; or because they showed cowardice and faltered in coming to Ali’s aid. Others later acknowledged their mistake and made up for it in the following years. All these in their different categories can be said to be the majority. Their fate in the next world of “realities” is left to Allah
      On the other hand, there were those who administered the whole thing. They had full knowledge of what the prophet had ordered them and what the divine commandment required them to do. They also knew the position of Ali. Despite this, they fought against this explicitly. These are those who should be treated as apparent Muslims in the daily life in this world [according to most scholars]. This is, after all, how Ali himself treated them, praying in their mosques, visiting them in sickness, helping them out when they faced challenges, eating with them etc. part of which is Taqiyya and safeguarding the greater principles of Islam, but they are undoubtedly people of the fire in the next world.
      Note that this interpretation is dependent on the position of differentiating between the Dharuriyat of the Diin and that of the Madhhab and considering the Shahdatayn alone to be enough in making someone a Muslim [unless taken out for some other reason]. Whilst this is a popular position among scholars today, it has had its detractors among the scholars of the past, one of them being someone like Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani, who considered the rejectors of the Wilaya as Kafirs with the fullest implication this has [even in this world].  
    • By Last Chance in Poems for the Ahlul Bayt
         1
      An orphan is the name of a child who lost his mother,
       But what is the name of a mother who loses a child? 
       Crushed between the door and the wall along with the souls of Hassanain,
       Robbed of her child, her right, her husband's, she fights through the pain.
       Her name is Fatima. The one whose essence mankind will never reach, 
       For God Himself has shielded her with a protection that none can breach,
       Mistress of my soul and the women of the worlds,
       With her name and her hand the secret of this life unfurls,
       The strength of my heart and the strength of Haidar,
       The strength of the lion who conquered Khaybar, 
       For who else can converse with such beauty and power,
       Fight the usurpers after the loss of Mohsen, the wilted flower? 
       Her name is az-Zahra, the radiant light, illuminating a path,
       For those who want to see and be away from God's wrath,
       For he who angers az-Zahra has evoked the Messenger's displeasure,
       And no doubt, God's own wrath which follows is that beyond any measure,
       For who is so aligned with the will of her Creator,
       Which woman did He create, that other than her there is no greater? 
       Her name is al-Batool, unsurpassed in every way,
       Be it the chastity, the virtue, or the worship she did display,
       No man equalled her strength the day she fought her right,
       Look around you now- see the destruction of Fatima's might.
       For which woman could have such eloquence and knowledge of the Book? 
       Fadak was hers then and now, no matter what they took. 
       Quoting the verses to them that were revealed to her very door,
       Every lie, every plot of theirs and tactic, into shreds she tore. 
       For she is as-Siddiqa, the truthful, no matter who calls himself this too,
       A name is just a name but the truth lies in what we do,
       Ali is with the truth, truly this is no lie,
       And the truth is with Ali, but she will shortly die,
       Leaving behind a house that is both so full and bare,
       Full of Ali's grief, but of a mother's warmth, left bare,
       A homely nest no more, for its mother is no longer,
       A house that used to buzz with life, now remains mourning and sombre.
       Hassan holds her feet and Hussain cries on her chest, 
       An imagine after which the heart of Ali will never find rest,
       Zainab and Kulthum sob as they await the darkness of night,
       One final farewell they crave before facing a new plight.
       And Ali...? A broken man, half a human, dealt his biggest blow,
       He sits with his head in his hands, and tears of anguish now freely flow. 
       The lion, the warrior, the hero that roared with such might,
       Now quietly sobs for her pain and her loss, a flame of grief now alight.
       Two souls intertwined...now world's apart,
       A long journey of loneliness Ali has to start,
       Her orphans, her prayer mat, the memories of her days,
       With these he will survive, and he now says...
       'A flower, nipped in the bud. From paradise it came, and to paradise it went, but has left its fragrance in my mind'. 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Blog Statistics

    86
    Total Blogs
    475
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...