Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله
  • entries
    30
  • comments
    131
  • views
    334,418

Did the Sahaba become Kafir?


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].  

55 Comments


Recommended Comments



  • Veteran Member
Islamic Salvation

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, E.L King said:

So basically it was kufr which opposes iman and not kufr which opposes Islam? 

One way of putting it is that Iman is Naqis [deficient]. The other is that one is Kafir in Akhera. Both have been used by scholars who adopt this position. We are to treat them as Muslims on the apparent in our dealings with them.  

Other scholars did not see this nuance, someone like Yusuf al-Bahrani says:

إنك قد عرفت أن المخالف كافر لاحظ له في الاسلام بوجه من الوجوه 

You have known that the Mukhalif is a Kafir, he has nothing to do with Islam [he has no portion in Islam], in any way whatsoever.

See his: Shihab al-Thaqib fi Ma`na al-Nasib

This is an extreme position that we reject for many reasons.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
  • Veteran Member
Ayuoobi

Posted

Brother are there any ahaadith specifying the position of Malik ibn al-Nuwayrah? He died (according to my understanding, I may be mistaken) for not only refusing to give the zakaat, but for his loyalty to Imam Ali (as). Is his status like the three, or the seven, or below that?

It seems odd to me that he would not be considered among the elite considering he gave blood; during the very early period where confusion was widespread among the people he had baseerah. 

  • Veteran Member
Ayuoobi

Posted

Also brother what about the womenfolk? Like Um Salamah.

Or the Banu Hashim in general.

  • Advanced Member
haidermpr

Posted

Umme Salma was steadfast on her Imaan. And as such these traditions talk about men folk and not women. Bani Hashim are also not included in these narratives. Read these narratives with special reference to Last Wish/Will of Prophet saww where he asked Hazrat Ali as to fight for his rights of caliphate if ansaar support him.

Ref. Sulaym bin Qais Hilali

guest051217

Posted (edited)

What about the following:

1. Bilal [ra]

2. Jabir ibn Abdillah al Ansari [ra]

3. Ibn Abbas [ra]

We even find in narrations Az Zubayr was one of the ones to stand by Ali a.s, but then later diverge.

4.Ubay ibn K'ab [ra]

5. Abdullah ibn Masu'd [ra] [i know this is a little bit of a khilaf issue]

6. Umar ibn abi salama [ra]

7. What of Abu Dujana [ra] , a man who even when death faced him stood by the Prophet [saw] ?

This is what the Prophet called out: "I am Muhammed and i am the Messenger of Allah, i am not killed, and i have not died" [words of the prophet from Al Kafi Volume 8] [Reliable hadith]

When the Prophet looked to Abu Dujanah [who was among the few who stayed with the Prophet he said: "O Abu Dujanah,you can also go; you have my permission to suspend your pledge of allegiance" [words of the prophet from Al Kafi Volume 8] [Reliable hadith same as above]

Now, have a look at the faith and Eman of Abu Dujanah [Radiyallahu Anhu! These words might make you shed a tear, and if not, evoke some reaction in your heart:]

"He[Abu Dujanah] turned around and sat before the Holy Prophet [saw] wept, and said: "No by Allah!", he raised his head to the sky and said: "No by Allah, i will not suspend my pledge of allegiance with you. I have pledged allegiance with you, then to whom can i return? Must i return to my wife who will die or the children who will also die or to the house that will be destroyed, or the asset that will vanish and the time of death that is approaching?' He kept fighting until his wounds made him to feel heavy when he and Ali were shielding him [The Holy Prophet.] [ from Al Kafi Volume 8] [Reliable hadith same as above]

 

If i understood this correctly, seven are the foremost, three are above the later four, but there are many others too?

Could it be possible that many feared not giving Bayah? After all, violence was used against those who rejected Abu Bakr. Perhaps some were bewildered and did not know what to do and gave Bayah out of taqqiyah but in their hearts wished they could give it to Ali a.s but know it was just not practical ?

Edited by QuranandAhlulbayt
  • Veteran Member
Islamic Salvation

Posted

9 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

What about the following:

Jabir ibn Abdillah al Ansari [ra]

 

[1/135] الكافي: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي نجران، عن عاصم بن حميد، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: حدثني جابر عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ولم يكذب جابر ...
 
[1/135] al-Kafi: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Najran from A`sim b. Humayd from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abi Ja`far عليه السلام who said: Jabir [b. Abdallah] narrated to me from the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله - and Jabir did not lie - …

https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/book-of-narrators/jabir-b-abdallah-al-ansari-and-jabir-b-yazid-al-jufi

These are some of the narrations about Jabir in our books.

https://sites.google.com/site/rijalalkashi/vol1/jabir-b-abdallah-al-ansari

I will post more about the others as their entries come up in Mu`jam or al-Kashshi.

9 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

If i understood this correctly, seven are the foremost, three are above the later four, but there are many others too?

Correct.

9 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

Could it be possible that many feared not giving Bayah? After all, violence was used against those who rejected Abu Bakr. Perhaps some were bewildered and did not know what to do and gave Bayah out of taqqiyah but in their hearts wished they could give it to Ali a.s but know it was just not practical ?

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.

  • Veteran Member
Islamic Salvation

Posted

On 4/19/2017 at 0:38 AM, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

5. Abdullah ibn Masu'd [ra] [i know this is a little bit of a khilaf issue]

Indeed.

[78] و سئل عن ابن مسعود و حذيفة فقال: لم يكن حذيفة مثل ابن مسعود لأن حذيفة كان ركنا و ابن مسعود خلط و والى القوم و مال معهم و قال بهم
 
[78] And he [Ibn Fadhal] was asked about Ibn Mas`ud and Hudhayfa - so he said: Hudhayfa was not like [of the same status as] Ibn Mas`ud because Hudhayfa was a pillar [of support to Ali and rejecting the Khulafa] while Ibn Mas`ud became confused and accepted the group’s authority and inclined with them and professed them [as superior].  
 
On 4/19/2017 at 0:38 AM, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

If i understood this correctly, seven are the foremost, three are above the later four, but there are many others too?

 
و قال أيضا: إن من السابقين الذين رجعوا إلى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام: أبو الهيثم بن التيهان و أبو أيوب و خزيمة بن ثابت و جابر بن عبد الله و زيد بن أرقم و أبو سعيد الخدري و سهل بن حنيف و البراء بن مالك و عثمان بن حنيف و عبادة بن الصامت ثم ممن دونهم قيس بن سعد بن عبادة و عدي بن حاتم و عمرو بن الحمق و عمران بن الحصين و بريدة الأسلمي و بشر كثير
 
He [al-Fadhl] also said: from among the fore-runners who returned back to the commander of the faithful عليه السلام were: Abu al-Haytham b. Tahiyyan, Abu Ayyub (al-Ansari), Khuzayma b. Thabit, Jabir b. Abdallah, Zayd b. Arqam, Abu Said al-Khudri, Sahl b. Hunayf, al-Bara` b. Malik, Uthman b. Hunayf and Ubada b. al-Samit - then those who were lesser than them - Qays b. Sa'd b. Ubada, Adi b. Hatim, Amr b. al-Hamiq, Imran b. al-Hussayn, Burayda al-Aslami and a large number of men besides.
 
  • Veteran Member
Islamic Salvation

Posted

12 hours ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

@Islamic Salvation

Hate to keep pestering you brother, but what about Abu Ayyub al-Ansari? If I recall correctly, he initially refused to give bayah to Abu Bakr, but there is the issue of him fighting under a Muslim army commanded by Yazid at Constantinople.

I noticed the section under his name on https://sites.google.com/site/rijalalkashi/vol1/abu-ayyub-al-ansari is empty.

This is how al-Fadhl explains the point you raise. 

[77] و سئل الفضل بن شاذان عن أبي أيوب خالد بن زيد الأنصاري و قتاله مع معاوية المشركين فقال: كان ذلك منه قلة فقه و غفلة، ظن أنه أنما يعمل عملا لنفسه يقوى به الإسلام و يوهي به الشرك و ليس عليه من معاوية شي‏ء كان معه أو لم يكن
 
[77] al-Fadhl b. Shadhan was asked about Abi Ayyub Khalid b. Zayd al-Ansari and his fighting together with Mua`wiya against the polytheists - he said: that was a lapse of understanding from him and an oversight, he thought that he was performing an act for its own sake, by which he would strengthen Islam and efface polytheism, and that he would suffer no consequences by way of Mua`wiya - whether he was there [present with him] or not [since it had nothing to do with him].
 
  • Advanced Member
YAli

Posted

On 19/04/2017 at 7:54 PM, Shaykh Patience101 said:

@Islamic Salvation

Hate to keep pestering you brother, but what about Abu Ayyub al-Ansari? If I recall correctly, he initially refused to give bayah to Abu Bakr, but there is the issue of him fighting under a Muslim army commanded by Yazid at Constantinople.

I noticed the section under his name on https://sites.google.com/site/rijalalkashi/vol1/abu-ayyub-al-ansari is empty.

Salam brother, that's interesting, do we have sources that narrate he refused to give bayah to Abu Bakr. Thanks 

  • Advanced Member
wmehar2

Posted

On 4/19/2017 at 3:44 AM, Islamic Salvation said:
 
[79] Abu Abdallah Muhammad b. Ibrahim said: narrated to me Ali b. Muhammad b. Yazid al-Qummi saying: narrated to me Abdallah b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hisham b. Salim from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: Bilal was a righteous slave while Suhayb was an evil slave - crying over Umar (i.e. after the latter was assassinated).
 
 

ختص: كان بلال مؤذن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله، فلما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لزم بيته ولم يؤذن لاحد من الخلفاء وقال فيه أبوعبدالله جعفر بن محمد عليه السلام: رحم الله بلالا فإنه كان يحبنا أهل البيت، ولعن الله صهيبا فإنه كان يعادينا

al-Ikhtisas: Bilal was the Mua`dhin of the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله, so when the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله died, he [Bilal] remained in his house, and he did not give the Adhan for any one of the Khulafa, Abu Abdillah Ja`far b. Muhammad عليه السلام said about him: may Allah have mercy on Bilal, for he used to love us the Ahl al-Bayt, may Allah curse Suhayb for he used to have enmity with us.

يه: عن أبي بصير عن أحدهما عليهما السلام أنه قال : إن بلالا كان عبدا صالحا، فقال: لا اؤذن لاحد بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله، فترك يومئذ حي على خير العمل

al-Faqih: From Abi Basir from one of them عليهما السلام that he said: Bilal was a righteous slave, he said: I will not give the Adhan for anyone after the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله so 'Hayya ala Khayril Amal' was abandoned from that day.

يب: محمد بن علي بن محبوب، عن معاوية بن حكيم، عن سليمان بن جعفر، عن أبيه قال : دخل رجل من أهل الشام على أبي عبدالله عليه السلام فقال له: إن أول من سبق إلى الجنة بلال، قال: ولم؟ قال : لانه أول من أذن

Tahdhib al-Ahkam: Muhammad b. Ali b. Mahbub from Mu`awiya b. Hukaym from Sulayman b. Ja`far from his father who said: a man from the people of Sham entered to meet Abi Abdillah عليه السلام so he said to him: the first one to proceed to Janna will be Bilal, he said: why is that? he said: because he was the first to give the Adhan.

NOTE: al-Majlisi says that it could be the Imam who says this about Bilal, as is more likely, but there is an option that it is the Shami who said this, and the Imam responded - 'why do you say that?' [as a form of objecting to it] and the Shami answered, and the Imam remained silent because of Taqiyya. 

Also, Bilal being the first to proceed to Janna is not absolute, but could be relative to other Mu`adhins, or his class of the Sahaba who are not Ahl al-Bayt.

Salaam,

Here's a bit of other side perspective:

Sahih Bukhari Hadith Vol.2, Hadith. 375,
Narrated by Abdullah bin Ubaidullah bin Abi Mulaika
One of the daughters of 'Uthman died at Mecca. We went to attend her funeral
procession. Ibn 'Umar and Ibn Abbas were also present. I sat in between them (or
said, I sat beside one of them. Then a man came and sat beside me.) 'Abdullah
bin 'Umar said to 'Amr bin 'Uthman, "Will you not prohibit crying as Allah's
Apostle has said, 'The dead person is tortured by the crying of his relatives?"
Ibn Abbas said, "Umar used to say so." Then he added narrating, "I accompanied
Umar on a journey from Mecca till we reached Al-Baida. There he saw some
travelers in the shade of a Samura (A kind of forest tree). He said (to me), 'Go
and see who those travelers are.' So I went and saw that one of them was Suhaib.
I told this to 'Umar who then asked me to call him. So I went back to Suhaib and
said to him, 'Depart and follow the chief of the faithful believers.' Later,
when 'Umar was stabbed, Suhaib came in weeping and saying, 'O my brother, O my
friend!' (on this 'Umar said to him, 'O Suhaib! Are you weeping for me while the
Prophet said, "The dead person is punished by some of the weeping of his
relatives?" ' Ibn Abbas added, "When 'Umar died I told all this to 'Aisha and
she said, 'May Allah be merciful to Umar. By Allah, Allah's Apostle did not say
that a believer is punished by the weeping of his relatives. But he said, Allah
increases the punishment of a non-believer because of the weeping of his
relatives." 'Aisha further added, "The Quran is sufficient for you (to clear up
this point) as Allah has stated: 'No burdened soul will bear another's burden.'
" (35.18). Ibn Abbas then said, "Only Allah makes one laugh or cry." Ibn Umar
did not say anything after that.

  • Advanced Member
wmehar2

Posted (edited)

On 4/19/2017 at 3:44 AM, Islamic Salvation said:

[79] Abu Abdallah Muhammad b. Ibrahim said: narrated to me Ali b. Muhammad b. Yazid al-Qummi saying: narrated to me Abdallah b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hisham b. Salim from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: Bilal was a righteous slave while Suhayb was an evil slave - crying over Umar (i.e. after the latter was assassinated).

Is this reference to Suhayb bin Sinan/ aka Suhayb Ar Rumi RA?  Or a different Suhayb?

I'd be surprised, considering Suhayb Ar Rumi/bin Sinan was close companions of Bilal ibn Rabah RA and Salman e Farsi RA.  As non-Arab Sahaba, they frequently spent much of their time together.

Also, from tafsir, a Quran verse was reveled upon Suhayb's arrival to Medina after being held back by the Qu'raish... he had to give up all of his wealth that he acquired after arriving as a runaway slave of the Byzantine Empire to escape Mecca to Medina after the Hijrah.

"Thereupon, the glorious verse was revealed: ‘And of mankind is he who sell himself, seeking the pleasure of Allah And Allah is full of kindness to (His) slaves’ (Quran 2:201). "

In fact, he's also fought in every battle alongside the Prophet SAW, and never ran from any nor left his side.

Also, Suhayb lived out the rest of his life till old age, spreading for Da'wah until he died (In response to the OP's post). 

These were taken from WikiShia:

He and Imam Ali were the last of Immigrants who joined the Prophet (s) in the first half of Rabi' I.

Some have related the revelation of verse 207 of the sura al-Baqara to him. However, it is famous that it has been revealed about the role of Imam Ali  at Laylat al-Mabit.

Suhayb participated in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and other battles of the Prophet (s). About him, the noble Prophet (s) said, "the leaders are four people; I am the leader of Arabs, Suhayb is the leader of Romans, Salman is the leader of Persians and Bilal is the leader of Habesha."

Edited by wmehar2
  • Advanced Member
wmehar2

Posted

1 hour ago, wmehar2 said:

Also, Suhayb lived out the rest of his life till old age, spreading for Da'wah until he died (In response to the OP's post). 

To Elaborate further,

Suhayb spent any and all his wealth to the poor and community, even after the Prophet SAW died, and continued to spend his stipends for the needy and did not partake in corrupt Ummayyad wealth schemes.

This reeks of guilt by association, in a false accusation of a legitimate believing Sahaba  of being evil, all because he was cried over Umar's death and lead prayers after his death temporarily.  That's unfortunately not an academic/scholarly line of thought at all, and most importantly  it's not an Islamic line of logic.

Suhayb in his character was a Greek-Speaking Arab who was kidnapped from a wealthy family and brought up as a slave in Byzantine society, unlike Salman he had no knowledge of the Bible,, Hebrew and other Aristocratic attributes... instead Suhyab only learned directly from the Prophet's SAW Sermons.  His Arabic was harsh/heavy and himself had a difficult time re-learning it.

Contextually, Suhayb was a close companion but never could be in an inner circle of influence that was Umar, Uthman, and the rest of the "higher social ranked" Sahaba.  Instead he chose to act simply and directly in what he perceived was the direct way to please Allah SWT, e.g.(Hadith where he gave food after being questioned by 'Umar why he starved himself, that the Prophet SAW told him the best of people were those who gave food and charity). 

He was innocent to a fault, and perhaps ignorant.  Assuming Shia rhetoric of 'Umar and Abu Bakr is true of their plot to Usurp the Khilafah,  Suhayb was ignorantly in no place to understand with his lacking Arabic speech and distance from that social status (since he was a slave and not Quraish), the ramifications that 'Umar could have been an evil man and he was crying over an evil guy.

He seemed to be a goof ball as well, and is cited for making the Prophet SAW laugh on many occasions, and would never do it at any one else's expense.

Shame on the people who ascribe lies and false sayings to the Imams, AS on them all.

I've read deeply into the sources in al Kafi, and Yasser Habibs hate rhetoric and I find not a single ounce of legitimate nor logical premises of which to condemn/accuse Suhayb by direct actions, words, or speech.

Nearly all sources, even Shia indicate Suhayb as a righteous companion and follower of the Prophet SAW.

  • Veteran Member
Islamic Salvation

Posted (edited)

Sometimes the question is asked - who is greater Salman, Miqdad or Abu Dhar?

The narration below goes some way in attempting to answer, though it is not free of some weakness in the chain. It should also be noted that it is limited to how they reacted in response to the order of Ali in the face of the usurping of his right and does not speak of their overall merit.

Furthermore, they did not in fact sin in the conventional sense of the word, what two of them did might be called lapses which arose because of the righteous anger against the injustice done to Ali.

Despite this, what was required in the face of this unimaginable betrayal was to submit totally to the unknown wisdom behind divine providence.

[24] علي بن الحكم، عن سيف بن عميرة عن أبي بكر الحضرمي قال: قال أبو جعفر عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلا ثلاثة نفر سلمان و أبو ذر و المقداد قال: قلت: فعمار؟ قال: قد كان جاض جيضة ثم رجع، ثم قال: إن أردت الذي لم يشك و لم يدخله شي‏ء فالمقداد، فأما سلمان فإنه عرض في قلبه عارض أن عند أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام اسم الله الأعظم لو تكلم به لأخذتهم الأرض و هو هكذا فلبب و وجئت عنقه حتى تركت كالسلقة فمر به أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فقال له: يا أبا عبد الله هذا من ذاك بايع فبايع و أما أبو ذر فأمره أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام بالسكوت و لم يكن يأخذه في الله لومة لائم فأبى إلا أن يتكلم فمر به عثمان فأمر به، ثم أناب الناس بعد فكان أول من أناب أبو ساسان الأنصاري و أبو عمرة و شتيرة و كانوا سبعة، فلم يكن يعرف حق أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلا هؤلاء السبعة

[24] Ali b. al-Hakam from Sayf b. Umayra from Abi Bakr al-Hadhrami who 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], if you want the one who did not waver and nothing of doubt entered him then it was al-Miqdad, as for Salman then it came to his heart a thought that the commander of the faithful عليه السلام knew the greatest name of God which if he were to intone - the earth would swallow them up, and it is indeed so [it is true], because of this he was pulled by the scruff of his neck and it was stricken until it left a swollen lump [cyst], the commander of the faithful عليه السلام passed by him and said: O Aba Abdillah this [i.e. suffering] is because of that [the thought you had] - so give the pledge of allegiance, as for Abu Dhar then the commander of the faithful عليه السلام had ordered him to remain silent, but he was not one to be affected by the blame of the blamer in regards his duty to Allah, he did not desist until he talked, so Uthman b. Affan passed by him and ordered that he be disposed of [and he was banished], 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. 

NOTES:

al-Miqdad obeyed the order of accepting Ali's decision to give the Bay`a unquestioningly, Salman harboured the thought that Ali should use the Greatest Name of God to overpower his enemies once and for all [without being patient about the divine decree], while Abu Dhar was too scrupulous about the truth to remain quiet and had to publicly condemn the usurpers.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Sumerian

Posted (edited)

Quote

 [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.

Al-Salamu Alaykum brother @Islamic Salvation. I have a question, this explains why Imam Ali (AS) chose not to rise, but how does that fit in with Imam Al-Husayn's (AS) revolution against Yazid Al-Khabeeth (LA)? Does this mean the people were already murtadeen when Yazid (LA) became the [false] Khalifa?

Edited by E.L King
  • Moderators
Abu Nur

Posted (edited)

I just recently observed the enemy of Ahlulbait (as) quoted one of these hadiths and made people think that Shias believe that most of the sahaba became kafir. Of course these kind of people never read the rest of the hadiths nor they try to understand the full meaning of the hadith, rather they just want to show that in the Shi'a authentic hadiths we find these kind of beliefs to make us look like kafirs.

Edited by Dhulfikar
  • Veteran Member
baqar

Posted

On 30/04/2017 at 4:46 AM, Islamic Salvation said:

al-Miqdad obeyed the order of accepting Ali's decision to give the Bay`a unquestioningly, Salman harboured the thought that Ali should use the Greatest Name of God to overpower his enemies once and for all [without being patient about the divine decree], while Abu Dhar was too scrupulous about the truth to remain quiet and had to publicly condemn the usurpers.

Brother, what is the source of this hadith?

I doubt the negative connotations for Salman because Salman is the ONLY companion about whom the Prophet said that he is from my Ahlul Bayt. 

As for what the hadith says about Abu Zar Ghaffari, I do not see anything negative in it.   

  • Veteran Member
Panzerwaffe

Posted

On 4/18/2017 at 4:38 PM, guest051217 said:

What about the following:

1. Bilal [ra]

2. Jabir ibn Abdillah al Ansari [ra]

3. Ibn Abbas [ra]

We even find in narrations Az Zubayr was one of the ones to stand by Ali a.s, but then later diverge.

4.Ubay ibn K'ab [ra]

5. Abdullah ibn Masu'd [ra] [i know this is a little bit of a khilaf issue]

6. Umar ibn abi salama [ra]

7. What of Abu Dujana [ra] , a man who even when death faced him stood by the Prophet [saw] ?

This is what the Prophet called out: "I am Muhammed and i am the Messenger of Allah, i am not killed, and i have not died" [words of the prophet from Al Kafi Volume 8] [Reliable hadith]

When the Prophet looked to Abu Dujanah [who was among the few who stayed with the Prophet he said: "O Abu Dujanah,you can also go; you have my permission to suspend your pledge of allegiance" [words of the prophet from Al Kafi Volume 8] [Reliable hadith same as above]

Now, have a look at the faith and Eman of Abu Dujanah [Radiyallahu Anhu! These words might make you shed a tear, and if not, evoke some reaction in your heart:]

"He[Abu Dujanah] turned around and sat before the Holy Prophet [saw] wept, and said: "No by Allah!", he raised his head to the sky and said: "No by Allah, i will not suspend my pledge of allegiance with you. I have pledged allegiance with you, then to whom can i return? Must i return to my wife who will die or the children who will also die or to the house that will be destroyed, or the asset that will vanish and the time of death that is approaching?' He kept fighting until his wounds made him to feel heavy when he and Ali were shielding him [The Holy Prophet.] [ from Al Kafi Volume 8] [Reliable hadith same as above]

 

If i understood this correctly, seven are the foremost, three are above the later four, but there are many others too?

Could it be possible that many feared not giving Bayah? After all, violence was used against those who rejected Abu Bakr. Perhaps some were bewildered and did not know what to do and gave Bayah out of taqqiyah but in their hearts wished they could give it to Ali a.s but know it was just not practical ?

Umar b abi salma is mentioned fondly in nah jul balagah and kitab sulaym b qays he attened jamal and later goverened Bahrain for Ali

  • Veteran Member
Panzerwaffe

Posted

On 4/20/2017 at 2:33 AM, Islamic Salvation said:

This is how al-Fadhl explains the point you raise. 

[77] و سئل الفضل بن شاذان عن أبي أيوب خالد بن زيد الأنصاري و قتاله مع معاوية المشركين فقال: كان ذلك منه قلة فقه و غفلة، ظن أنه أنما يعمل عملا لنفسه يقوى به الإسلام و يوهي به الشرك و ليس عليه من معاوية شي‏ء كان معه أو لم يكن
 
[77] al-Fadhl b. Shadhan was asked about Abi Ayyub Khalid b. Zayd al-Ansari and his fighting together with Mua`wiya against the polytheists - he said: that was a lapse of understanding from him and an oversight, he thought that he was performing an act for its own sake, by which he would strengthen Islam and efface polytheism, and that he would suffer no consequences by way of Mua`wiya - whether he was there [present with him] or not [since it had nothing to do with him].
 

Also abu ayyub was governer of medina and general at nahrawan for Ali when he was able to convince a lot of khawarij to return back to Ali

He also was a vocal critic of uthman as well

If abu ayyub was traitor to Alid cause he would have collaborated with bishr b abi artat when he raided medina but abu ayyub left and joined Ali in kufa

  • Veteran Member
Islamic Salvation

Posted

On 4/19/2017 at 0:38 AM, guest051217 said:

What of Abu Dujana [ra] , a man who even when death faced him stood by the Prophet [saw] ?

[1/-] Ilal al-Sharai: Ahmad b. Ziyad b. Ja`far al-Hamdani from Ali b. Ibrahim b. Hashim from his father from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr al-Bazanti and Muhammad b. Abi Umayr from Aban b. Uthman from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said:

All the companions of the messenger of Allah ran away on the day of Uhud - no one was left among them except Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام and Abu Dujana Simak b. Kharasha. The prophet صلى الله عليه وآله said to him: O Aba Dujana - don’t you see your people? he said: I do, he said: join up with them, he said: this is not what I gave my pledge of allegiance to Allah and His messenger for! he said: you are released [from your pledge], he said: by Allah the Quraysh will never get the opportunity to say that I abandoned you and ran away until I taste what you taste! Then the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله prayed for a good recompense for him.

Whenever a group used to attack the messenger of Allah - Ali عليه السلام would face them and repel them until he had killed a large number of them and injured others. He continued this way until his sword broke so he came to the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله and said: O messenger of Allah – a man can only fight with his weapon but my sword has broken! So he (the prophet) gave him his sword Dhu al-Fiqar and he (Ali) kept on defending the prophet using it until marks [wound traces] were inflicted on him and he became unrecognizable [because of a multitude of injuries]. Jibril descended and said: O Muhammad this is an incomparable support from Ali to you! so the prophet said: he is from me and I am from him, Jibril said: and I am from you both, and they heard a voice from heaven saying: there is no sword but Dhu al-Fiqar and the there is no young champion except Ali.

https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/book-of-narrators/simak-b-kharasha

Don'tMakeAس

Posted

14 minutes ago, Islamic Salvation said:

there is no sword but Dhu al-Fiqar and the there is no young champion except Ali

I have always heard it said that this phrase is not from our saheeh ahadith. Perhaps I've been incorrectly informed.


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

         0 comments
      Western media blame Chinese subsidies for the success of different industries
      the question arises that if every industry from solar panels to car manufacturers are being subsidised where is the money coming from? I think blaming subsidies hides a more compelling socio-economic reason - the intergenerational household. This is people living with their children and their own parents in the same household.
      I asked Claude the following:
       
      In summary:
      The contribution of intergenerational households to China's economic miracle remains substantial. By reducing labor costs, enabling capital accumulation, providing private social insurance, and creating labor market flexibility, this institution has been a hidden pillar of the Chinese development model. Understanding this contribution is crucial for comprehending how China achieved rapid growth with relatively limited formal social safety nets and why replicating the Chinese development model may be difficult for countries lacking similar household structures.
       
      This is the full answer:
       
      The institution of intergenerational households has indeed played a significant role in China's remarkable economic development over the past quarter-century, serving as both a cultural continuity and an economic adaptation that has facilitated the country's rapid industrialization and urbanization. This household structure, where multiple generations live together under one roof, has created unique economic efficiencies that have contributed to China's growth trajectory in ways that are often underappreciated in conventional economic analyses.
      During China's economic transformation beginning in the late 1990s, millions of rural workers migrated to urban centers for factory and construction jobs. The intergenerational household model enabled this massive labor mobility by providing a crucial support system. Grandparents remaining in rural areas could care for children while parents worked in distant cities, allowing workers to accept lower wages since they didn't need to pay for childcare in expensive urban areas. This arrangement effectively subsidized China's manufacturing competitiveness by reducing the reproduction costs of labor—a hidden subsidy that made Chinese exports more competitive globally.
      The efficiency gains extend beyond childcare. In urban areas, intergenerational households have allowed families to pool resources for housing purchases in China's notoriously expensive property markets. Three generations combining their savings and income streams could afford homes that would be impossible for nuclear families, enabling wealth accumulation despite relatively low individual wages. This pooling mechanism has also facilitated small business formation, with extended families providing both startup capital and unpaid labor for family enterprises that have been engines of China's private sector growth.
      Perhaps most significantly, the intergenerational household model has addressed elderly care without requiring extensive public expenditure. As China's population has aged rapidly, the traditional model of children caring for elderly parents has prevented what could have been a massive fiscal burden on the state. Adult children provide daily care, financial support, and housing for aging parents, reducing demand for public pensions, healthcare services, and elderly care facilities. This private provision of social insurance has allowed the Chinese government to maintain high investment rates in infrastructure and industrial development rather than diverting resources to social spending.
      The model has also created labor market flexibilities that have supported economic dynamism. Grandparents providing childcare have enabled higher female workforce participation rates than might otherwise be possible, expanding the effective labor supply. During economic downturns, the extended family network provides unemployment insurance through resource sharing, reducing social instability and allowing for more aggressive economic restructuring. The household registration (hukou) system, while restrictive, has worked in conjunction with intergenerational households to maintain connections between urban workers and rural safety nets.
      However, this model faces increasing pressure as China develops. Rising housing costs, changing cultural values among younger generations, and the geographic dispersion of economic opportunities are straining traditional arrangements. The one-child policy's legacy means fewer working-age adults must support more elderly relatives, potentially reducing the model's sustainability. As China transitions toward a consumption-driven economy, the high savings rates enabled by intergenerational resource pooling may become less advantageous.
      Nevertheless, the contribution of intergenerational households to China's economic miracle remains substantial. By reducing labor costs, enabling capital accumulation, providing private social insurance, and creating labor market flexibility, this institution has been a hidden pillar of the Chinese development model. Understanding this contribution is crucial for comprehending how China achieved rapid growth with relatively limited formal social safety nets and why replicating the Chinese development model may be difficult for countries lacking similar household structures.
         0 comments
      The first sign was Mrs. Chen's third corgi.
      When I started walking dogs in 2019, she had one—a cheerful pembroke named Biscuit who actually needed the exercise. By 2021, she'd added Mochi "for emotional support during lockdown." Fair enough. But last month, she introduced me to Wasabi, explaining how each dog fulfilled a different emotional need: Biscuit for nostalgia, Mochi for anxiety, Wasabi for her fear of aging. She'd installed cameras to livestream them while at work, narrating their activities to her therapy group.
      The shift happened gradually. My client base exploded—not because people worked longer hours, but because walking their own dogs interrupted their "self-care routines." They needed that hour for meditation apps, life coaching, or documenting their healing journey on social media.
      Take the Riverside Tower residents. Once a community where neighbors knew each other's names, it became a fortress of individual emotional kingdoms. The building's WhatsApp group, originally for organizing barbecues, devolved into competitive vulnerability posts. "Trigger warning: Bruno's separation anxiety triggered MY abandonment trauma today. Please respect my boundary of no eye contact in the elevator this week."
      The dogs knew something was wrong before I did. They began developing their owners' neuroses—anxiety, aggression, bizarre phobias. Pepper, a previously bomb-proof pitbull, now cowered when his owner's phone buzzed with therapy app notifications. A golden retriever named Sunshine stopped eating unless her meals were blessed by her owner's "emotional support ritual."
      Pet stores evolved into wellness centers. "Therapeutic" breeds sold for thousands—French bulldogs marketed for depression, pugs for social anxiety. The city opened "Emotional Support Animal Spas" while the homeless shelter closed for lack of funding. Nobody noticed the irony.
      My breaking point came at Dr. Morrison's penthouse. A psychiatrist who'd written bestsellers on self-compassion, he owned seven dogs, each named after a feeling: Joy, Peace, Courage, etc. He explained his system while Peace defecated on his Persian rug, ignored.
      "They're living vision boards," he said, scrolling through his phone. "Surrounding yourself with pure emotional energy."
      "When did you last walk them yourself?" I asked.
      He looked confused. "That's what you're for. I need to maintain boundaries to preserve my emotional availability."
      Walking home that night, passing pedestrians absorbed in phones, sharing their emotional breakthroughs with followers instead of friends, I realized what we'd become. A society so obsessed with feeling better that we'd stopped feeling anything real. The dogs—purchased for connection—had become props in elaborate performances of self-care.
      Mrs. Chen texted as I reached my apartment: "Adding a fourth dog for my inner child work. Can you handle another?"
      I looked at my own dog, a mutt named Dave I'd rescued before all this madness. He wanted nothing from me but a walk, a meal, maybe a scratch behind the ears. No therapeutic purpose, no emotional labor, just simple companionship.
      "I'm sorry," I typed back. "I'm at capacity."
      It wasn't true. But in a world where every interaction had become transactional, where even love required a wellness framework, I'd learned that sometimes the healthiest boundary is knowing when to stop.
         0 comments
      In the New Testament (NT) a curious phenomenon emerges: the absence of an earthly Jesus in Paul’s correspondence. Even more noteworthy is the fact that Paul is not forced by the first apostles, including the disciples and relatives of Jesus, to rely on eyewitness testimony.
      In the Gospels Simon “Peter” (Aramaic: “Cephas”) first confesses Jesus to be the Messiah (Anointed [of God], Greek “Christ”) and is made Jesus’ deputy:
      Paul evidently refers to Peter/Cephas as a “pillar” of the early church, alongside James and John (cf. Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19, Luke 6:4, and Acts 2:12):
      Paul further mentions him as Jesus’ first eyewitness, but only after the latter’s ‘resurrection’ (Paul strangely excludes Jesus’ ministry):
      Oddly, Paul seems to imply that the apostles, among whom he includes himself, only saw Jesus after his ‘resurrection’:
      Paul even claims that “the gospel” was only revealed to him:
      Now the Galatians might have regarded human testimony and/or traditional authority as paramount. If so, they would have deferred to the “pillars” and/or their emissaries. But had these known an earthly Jesus, Paul’s argumentation would not have worked, for then the Galatians would have cited either Jesus himself or eyewitnesses, including relatives. Yet Paul evidently treats the Galatians as valuing visions more than forms of testimony. Had he thought otherwise, he might have refrained from mentioning his lack of contact with other apostles:
      That Paul does not address eyewitness testimony or is even forced to do so is remarkable. To illustrate, one can imagine an exchange:
      Galatians: “Your ‘gospel’ is manmade, whereas we have the testimony of Jesus’ companions”
      Paul: “I am not lying, for I did not receive my ‘gospel’ by means of men, but revelation”
      If the Galatians were arguing thusly, why would Paul appeal to revelation?
      The Galatians could always rely on Jesus and his disciples. One might argue that Paul deliberately omitted Jesus’ ministry, knowing his weakness. He might have known that he would lose his case by a) giving equal weight to revelation and/or b) claiming to be an eyewitness. But if true, a) would nullify Paul’s line of argumentation in Galatians; the latter also rules out b), given that Paul, in his own words, does not rely on testimony either.
      So, based on the evidence, one is left with the following:
      Paul says Jesus was only seen after his ‘death’, e.g., in 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:5–8; and Galatians 1:1–24. Neither Paul nor his foes, including the very first apostles, relied on eyewitness testimony. Paul is not compelled to do so in his epistles; neither do his opponents insist that he do. The Galatians themselves did not use eyewitness testimony, as Paul’s case shows. Paul assumes he had the same access to ‘Jesus’ as the first apostles (revelation). Given the author of this blog‘s own belief in a historical Jesus, all this awaits a plausible explanation.
         4 comments
      This post was stimulated by the election of Donald Trump and his view that claims of climate change are exaggerated and his promise to the electorate that he'd resume coal mining.
      When uranium was first discovered people believed that the world's supplies would only last until the new century (2000), but since then new discoveries keep being made. Uranium will likely last a very long time and for more than long enough for us to develop alternative and safer and cleaner means of energy generation. In the meantime uranium has also been responsible for enabling is to learn a great deal about atomic physics, which we otherwise would not have done and which has perhaps been a stepping stone towards acquiring knowledge about energy production which would have been difficult to acquire without having the lessons provided by uranium-powered nuclear reactors.
      The central idea underlying the God hypothesis was that evidence of intelligent design lies in our having had the right proportions of fuels to last us while we developed the intellectual capability so as to be able to develop the next, more sophisticated source of power.
      Intelligent design also means that the system within which we live can take into account our weaknesses. So people who worry about climate change, fear that continued reliance on fossil fuels will likely mean that man-made temperature rises will lead to long-term habitat destruction.
      So this story could go either one of two ways. Either we take into account the warnings of those worried by man-made climate change and mend our ways, or we suffer the consequences.
      If the God hypothesis holds, however, no matter what we do we'll survive. The hypothesis holds that whoever put us here put in sufficient resources for us to stay around for a lot longer and go further than we have done.
      I think the outcomes are more subtle than that. The God hypothesis will also hold true if the people who deny climate change persist with their use of old technologies and in so doing hand over technological and economic leadership to those people who have the vision to change. I think this has been the story of humankind. One of the reasons why the West gained its supremacy over other countries and cultures was its earlier understanding of the power of hydrocarbons and the ways that they could be used to power a multitude of machines.
      Similarly, post-carbon fuel sources will require the development of a range of different technologies and the countries that are faster to adopt will gain leadership advantages.
      The God hypothesis also holds that due to God's mercy we are aware of the dangers of different types of fuel. The famous London smog and the measurable levels of particulates in many of today's cities are a testimony to people becoming aware of the dangers of hydro-carbons, irrespective of the climate change problem. These natural signals are there to be heeded and again, the countries and people who do so, will be the ones who will benefit the most.
      The case of the Easter Islanders is worth bearing in mind. They had developed a belief system which involved cutting down the trees on Easter Island to construct and move their Moai. Ultimately their beliefs meant that there were no trees left and the island was no longer habitable. Holding the wrong beliefs led to their destruction, but not of that of the wider planet. In a similar way, I think climate change deniers are harming no one else but themselves. True climate change operates at the level of the planet, but I think here are enough people willing to take heed so as to mitigate its worst effects, while at the same time undermining the legitimacy of the deniers.
      https://contemporaniablog.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/god-hypothesis-ii/
         0 comments
      Summary
      Over the past decades I had observed reference to the word penniless when the UK media referred to Indian migrants who came to the UK in the 1970s. The anomaly was the fact that in subsequent years I had seen their increasing purchase of retail stores (often corner shops and pharmacies) in Britain. How can penniless people get into businesses that require capital?
      First off some evidence for the penniless trope:
       
      Now the ChatGPT analysis
       

      Why the “penniless” story took hold
      Material losses were real and easily visible. Idi Amin allowed each departing Ugandan Asian to take only the equivalent of about £50–£120 in cash and one suitcase; more than 5,600 firms, farms and homes were confiscated en.wikipedia.org. The UK tabloids and ministers therefore greeted the first charter flights in September 1972 with photographs of bewildered families clutching a few bags. Those images became the master-narrative picked up in subsequent scholarship and the media.
      The label also served political purposes. Portraying the arrivals as destitute refugees helped the Heath government win public support for the Uganda Resettlement Board and for access to welfare benefits lordslibrary.parliament.uk. At the same time, it masked anxieties in parts of White Britain about receiving another non-European group (a point Ram & Jones later called the “politics of disguise” in South-Asian business debates) tandfonline.com.
      How retail entrepreneurship became possible in spite of that start
      Pre-migration human and cultural capital
      East-African Asians were an archetypal “middleman-minority”: more than 90 % had worked in trade, accountancy or light industry before 1972, often in family firms en.wikipedia.org.
      Long commercial apprenticeships, multilingual ability and kin-based management routines transferred intact to Britain and dramatically shortened their learning curve once a market niche (convenience retail) emerged. Portes, Robson & Yusuf’s 2021 cohort analysis in Journal of Refugee Studies shows that by 2011 East-African Asians had occupational distributions equal to—or better than—the UK-born population lordslibrary.parliament.uk.
      Hidden or delayed-access financial capital
      Channel Mechanism Typical time-lag Overseas bank deposits Many Gujarati merchants kept sterling balances in London and India to pay suppliers; funds became accessible once new accounts were opened in the UK. 6-24 months Compensation & insurance British diplomats negotiated partial compensation for expropriated assets (Hansard, 12 Mar 1975) hansard.parliament.uk. 3-5 years Property collateral Families that purchased modest terraced houses in the mid-1970s used rising equity as collateral for shop mortgages in the 1980s. 5-10 years Ethnic community finance
      Rotating Savings and Credit Associations—known to Gujaratis as committee or visis—re-emerged in Leicester, Wembley and Southall almost immediately. A recent Elsevier scoping review confirms that ROSCAs remain widespread among Asian diasporas in high-income countries and routinely supply lump sums of £5–15 k for micro-enterprise starts sciencedirect.com.
      Because participation is reputation-based, newcomers could mobilise capital without conventional collateral—something mainstream banks denied to many immigrants in the 1970s.
      Family labour and sweat equity
      Convenience stores, newsagents and petrol-station kiosks demanded long hours more than large fixed investments. As Basu’s survey of 163 London immigrant firms shows, Asian businesses substituted unpaid family labour for scarce cash during the start-up phase researchgate.net.
      Push and pull from the wider economy
      Discrimination in salaried employment nudged professionally-qualified refugees toward self-employment (Ram’s “blocked mobility” thesis, Ethnic and Racial Studies) tandfonline.com.
      At the same time, Britain’s small-shop sector was being vacated by retiring native owners as supermarkets expanded. Buying leaseholds or goodwill for corner shops often cost < £10 k in 1975 prices—an attainable target through the mechanisms above.
      Reconciling the two pictures
      The newcomers were genuinely cash-poor on arrival, but they were not capital-less. Their stock of human, social and transnational financial capital—plus an institutional repertoire (ROSCA, family firm, rotating kin credit)—allowed them to assemble the modest funds retailing required within a few months or years. The “penniless” trope persisted because it captured first impressions and suited government messaging, whereas the slower, largely invisible mobilisation of diasporic resources unfolded off-stage in kitchens, temples and community halls.
      In migration research terms, the case is a textbook illustration of “migrant capital”—the idea that mobility converts pre-migration resources into new economic value (Ryan, Erel & D’Angelo, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies) research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk. Far from contradicting the initial narrative, their later retail success simply shows how quickly intangible assets can be monetised when opportunity structures permit.
       
       
         0 comments
      Introduction
      There is a school of thought that argues that British colonial policy favoured some subjects rather than others. This was to advantage Britain and disadvantage the colonies. This had an impact on the colonies even after the end of the Empire even after its dissolution.
       
       

       

       



       
         5 comments
      Same methodology as before, but more specific prompts on my part - and better answers
       
      Summary
      An important motivation for exploring this topic was my previous blog post about Prophet Yusuf's ((عليه السلام).) policy options. The overall theme of that post was the role of the State (Egyptian) that would intervene in the national grain market on the advice of Prophet Yusuf ((عليه السلام).). That was an example of how (in my opinion) Islam presented a non-market based solution to an external shock. This might not be well received in circles that favour 'private enterprise'.
      My proposition is that Prophet Nuh's ((عليه السلام).) story, on the other hand, deals with a type of individual that free marketers and capitalists etc. hold as a hero of the economic system - the entrepreneur. However he's a specific type of entrepreneur since he was not driven by the profit motive, but he's an entrepreneur nevertheless. In this post I substantiate that proposition. This post refines some of the issues initially explored in V1. This is still work in progress and the references to the Qur'an that gpt4 makes need to be researched.
      The stories of the two Prophets I think are interesting insofar as they show solutions to external shocks (famine and flood) being provided by Prophets and those solutions have similarities with economic philosophies that are today considered to be ideological opposites. That opposition perhaps reflects a weakness on the part of modern thinking.
      My prompts in bold and gpt4's answers in plain text.
      Imagine you are a scholar of Islam with an interest in management. How could the story of Noah in the Qur'an be seen through the lens of social entrepreneurship?
      Social entrepreneurship is about recognizing societal problems and using entrepreneurial principles to create, organize, and manage ventures to bring about social change. In the context of the story of Noah (Nuh in Arabic) as it is told in the Qur'an, we can extract various lessons related to social entrepreneurship.
      Vision and Determination: Noah had a clear vision and was determined to build an ark despite the ridicule of his people. This reflects the characteristics of a social entrepreneur who has a clear vision for a social change and is persistent despite challenges and criticism. Resourcefulness and Innovation: Noah was not a shipbuilder, yet he was tasked with building an ark to withstand a great flood. He had to be resourceful and innovative in his approach, just like a social entrepreneur who often has to work with limited resources and come up with innovative solutions to societal problems. Leadership and Teamwork: Noah had to lead and manage his family and the animals on the ark. He needed to ensure everyone's survival during the flood. This highlights the need for strong leadership and team management skills in social entrepreneurship. Resilience and Patience: Noah faced a lot of opposition from his people. Despite this, he remained patient and resilient, demonstrating the ability to withstand a lot of negative pressure. This mirrors the challenges faced by social entrepreneurs who often need to maintain their resilience and patience in the face of obstacles and opposition. Social Impact: Ultimately, Noah's mission was about saving mankind and animals from a catastrophic event. This aligns with the ultimate goal of social entrepreneurship, which is to create a positive social impact. It's important to note that religious texts like the Qur'an are interpreted differently by different people, and the above is one possible interpretation. These lessons extracted from the story of Noah can be used as a source of inspiration and guidance for social entrepreneurs.
      Thank you. Noah was not selling anything for money. How could his enterprise be viewed in terms of exchange theory?
      Exchange theory, which has roots in economics, sociology, and psychology, is a social psychological and sociological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. It posits that human behavior is driven by the exchange of rewards, both tangible and intangible.
      In the context of Noah's story from the Qur'an, the 'enterprise' he was undertaking was not a typical business venture aimed at monetary gain. Instead, it was a mission with a spiritual and moral goal, to save humanity and the animal kingdom from divine retribution. The exchange happening here was not of goods, services, or currencies, but rather of faith, obedience, and survival.
      Noah, as a Prophet, was tasked to communicate God's message to his people. He 'offered' salvation and divine mercy in exchange for faith and righteous behavior. Those who accepted his message and acted accordingly were 'rewarded' with survival in the face of the cataclysmic flood.
      This kind of exchange—where the 'goods' are intangible and the 'currency' is faith, trust, and obedience—is not typical in the world of business, but it is common in religious and spiritual contexts. It also exists in social entrepreneurship to some extent, where the 'reward' for supporting a cause may be an intangible sense of satisfaction, community belonging, or moral fulfillment.
      In this interpretation, the 'profit' Noah was seeking was not material wealth, but the salvation of his followers. Similarly, the 'profit' for a social entrepreneur may not always be monetary but can be the social impact and positive change that they are able to bring about.
      Again, it's important to remember that this is just one interpretation of the story. Different people may have different perspectives based on their personal beliefs, values, and experiences.
      Please elaborate on Noah's entrepreneurial role as a risk-taker.
      An entrepreneur, by nature, is a risk-taker, and social entrepreneurs are no exception. They are willing to take on significant risks to bring about positive social change, often venturing into uncharted territories and challenging the status quo.
      In the story of Noah from the Qur'an, Noah can be seen as a significant risk-taker in the following ways:
      Challenging the Status Quo: Noah challenged the prevailing norms and beliefs of his society by preaching monotheism in a largely idolatrous community. This was a significant risk as it made him a target of ridicule, rejection, and even threats to his safety. Long-Term Commitment Despite Uncertain Outcomes: Noah was tasked with building an ark—a monumental task—despite the lack of any immediate signs of a flood. This uncertainty could be likened to the risks that entrepreneurs take, as they often invest considerable resources in projects without a guaranteed outcome. Stakeholder Resistance: Noah faced significant opposition from his own community, including from some of his own family members. This resistance is similar to the pushback social entrepreneurs often face from various stakeholders who are resistant to change. Resource Allocation: Building an ark required significant resources, both in terms of time and materials. Allocating these resources for a purpose that many deemed pointless was a significant risk. Similarly, social entrepreneurs often have to make tough decisions about resource allocation with no guarantee of success. Personal Risks: In addition to the societal risks, Noah also undertook personal risks. His unwavering commitment to his mission resulted in personal loss, including the loss of some family members who didn't believe in his message. This is akin to the personal sacrifices and risks many entrepreneurs take on—financial, emotional, and physical—in pursuit of their vision. In all these ways, Noah embodies the risk-taking nature of an entrepreneur, demonstrating the courage, resilience, and determination that are key characteristics of successful entrepreneurship.
      As a social entrepreneur, Noah was both taking risks in his enterprise and expecting others to take risks as well. For what reasons would his potential stakeholders be willing to take those risks?
      In the context of the story of Noah from the Qur'an, potential stakeholders—those who listened to Noah's message and chose to support his mission—were expected to take significant risks. Here are some potential reasons they might be willing to take those risks:
      Belief in the Vision: The stakeholders who joined Noah likely believed in his vision of monotheism and the impending divine punishment. Much like stakeholders in a social enterprise, they were likely moved by his message and felt that the cause was worth the risk. Trust in the Leader: The stakeholders likely trusted Noah as a leader, believing that he was divinely guided and would lead them to safety. This level of trust is also crucial in social entrepreneurship, where stakeholders need to trust that the entrepreneur will use their resources wisely and effectively to achieve the desired social impact. Desire for Salvation: The primary 'reward' that Noah's followers sought was divine mercy and salvation. This was a powerful motivator for them to take the risk and join him on the ark. Sense of Moral Duty: Some of Noah's stakeholders might have felt a moral obligation to support his cause and stand against the prevailing societal norms of idol worship. Community and Belonging: By joining Noah, the stakeholders became part of a community of believers. This sense of belonging and community can be a strong motivator, especially in times of adversity. In social entrepreneurship, stakeholders often take risks for similar reasons. They believe in the entrepreneur's vision, trust in their leadership, desire to contribute to a positive social change, and find value in being part of a community that shares their values and goals.
      Is there any evidence in the Qur'an that Noah was a trustworthy man?
      Yes, the Qur'an does present Noah as a trustworthy and righteous man. The Qur'an refers to Noah as a Prophet, which in Islamic belief denotes someone chosen by God to deliver His message to the people. Prophets in Islam are seen as models of moral and ethical conduct.
      In the Qur'an, Noah is described as a grateful servant of God (Surah Al-Isra, 17:3) and a messenger who was inspired by God (Surah Al-Shu'ara, 26:105). His dedication to the task given to him by God, despite immense ridicule and opposition from his people, further underscores his trustworthiness and commitment.
      Moreover, the Qur'an describes Noah as patient and steadfast in the face of adversity. In Surah Hud (11:36), God tells Noah that no one else will believe in his message beyond those who already have, suggesting that Noah had done his utmost to convince his people. Noah's response to this divine decree, and his continued dedication to his mission, further underscores his trustworthiness.
      It's important to note that the depiction of Noah as a trustworthy figure is based on the Islamic belief system, which sees the Qur'an as the word of God and Noah as a prophet. Different people may interpret these texts in different ways, depending on their cultural, historical, and personal contexts.
      Your last response has made some useful references to specific Qur'anic ayats. Can you please substantiate the previous points you have made in his conversation with reference to specific ayats?
      Absolutely, I'd be happy to provide references from the Qur'an that can support the points we've discussed in this conversation about Noah's role as a social entrepreneur. Here are a few examples:
      Vision and Determination: Noah's vision and determination can be seen in Surah Hud (11:36-37), where God instructs Noah to build the Ark under His guidance and in His vision. Despite the ridicule of his people, Noah remains determined and committed to his task. Resourcefulness and Innovation: Surah Hud (11:37) also speaks to Noah's resourcefulness and innovation. Despite not being a shipbuilder, he is able to construct an ark capable of surviving the flood. This required significant innovation and resourcefulness. Leadership and Teamwork: Noah's leadership is apparent in his efforts to gather his followers and the animals onto the Ark, as described in Surah Hud (11:40). Resilience and Patience: Noah's patience and resilience can be seen in Surah Nuh (71:5-6), where he mentions calling out to his people day and night without them increasing but in flight. Despite his people's rejection, Noah continues his mission with patience. Social Impact: The ultimate goal of Noah's mission was to save his followers from the impending divine punishment. This is clear in Surah Al-A'raf (7:64), which mentions that Noah was able to save a group of believers. Risk-Taking: Noah's risk-taking is evident in Surah Hud (11:38), where it is mentioned that he began constructing the ark and whenever the chieftains of his people passed by him, they ridiculed him. Despite the ridicule and societal pressure, Noah took the risk and continued with his mission. The above references are translations and interpretations from the Qur'an and reflect the points discussed in the context of social entrepreneurship. The interpretations of these verses can vary among different scholars and readers.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Blog Statistics

    90
    Total Blogs
    515
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...