Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله
  • entries
    30
  • comments
    130
  • views
    10,093

Did the Sahaba become Kafir?


Islamic Salvation

12,852 views

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
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
Link to comment
  • Veteran Member

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. 

Link to comment
  • Advanced Member

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

Link to comment

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
Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
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.

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
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.
 
Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
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].
 
Link to comment
  • Advanced Member
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 

Link to comment
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to comment
  • Advanced Member
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
Link to comment
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
  • Moderators

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
Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
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.   

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
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

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
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

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
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

Link to comment
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.

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
      [This was originally posted in 2016 - but seems to have disappeared from my list of blog entries, although subsequent posts in the series are still there. This post is based on the original, but I have used the passage of time to refine it and add some more detail. Detail also added about transition fuels].
      Synchronicity between resource availability and human development
      I think it is interesting how the content of planet Earth appears to be ‘synchronous’ with human growth and development.
      A very specific example to illustrate this idea is the development of a process for distilling kerosene from petroleum by the Canadian geologist and physician Abraham Gesner in the mid-19th century. Kerosene could be used to light lamps, and before his discovery, the oil used in lamps came from whales, an obviously finite source and one which was becoming increasingly expensive as demand for oil expanded as the population and living standards rose.
      Kerosene, as a fuel for light, would dominate the market until the arrival of electricity.
      The planet's whale population, therefore, was sufficient to enable people to use their oil for lamps until such time that kerosene was discovered. Would the knowledge used to develop kerosene become redundant?
      No.
      The distillation of oil and what that could yield would ultimately become essential for the development of the petrochemical industry and the fuels that we would use to power cars and trucks.
      Abundance and availability
      It is also remarkable that the most abundant fuel sources have been the ones most easily available and easiest to exploit (wood) and thereafter fuel sources have become progressively more challenging to find and exploit. And yet the imperative to find and exploit the latter has always been there in order to fuel the latest innovations (such as the internal combustion engine).
      Climate change
      However, it is not just availability and demand that have driven the need to find new fuels. As man has progressed, we have recognised the risks of pollution from fuel sources. Early realisation came from the obvious harms posed by burning coal in cities. In the 1950s London used to suffer from smogs (black fog), when travel would become impossible. Those are now history as the city replaced coal burning with the use of natural gas to heat homes.
      Making the leap to new fuels
      It's not easy to make te jump from one type of fuel to another, and at the time of writing, that leap is the one from fossil fuels to renewables in order to address climate change. Even here, it's interesting to see that we have 'transition fuels" i.e. fossil fuels that cause less damage to the environment than others, the following comes from the International Energy Agency:
      https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-energy-transitions
      These transition fuels facilitate change by enabling us to make the change more progressively and with less disruption.
      The mercy of resource constraints? 
      It is, of course, possible to look at the above from another perspective. An abundance of whale oil may have meant that there was less imperative to find an alternative. And if Kerosene had not been developed for this use, would fuels have been so readily developed for internal combustion engines? Resource constraints of one energy source have therefore helped to develop new sources of energy and those new sources have been able to support larger human populations.
      Predictng the future
      We are at a point where the risks associated with the continued use of hydrocarbons is understood to present various environmental risks. Fortuitously there new technologies have become available that will help to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. The very notion of renewable energy means that it will be less susceptible to resource constraints compared to previous sources of energy and therefore likely to be able to support larger human populations. 
      Intelligent design
      It is, therefore, the balance between the availability of resources, our ability to exploit them and ultimately the constraint on their availability which encourages us to find better alternatives - that provides evidence, in my opinion, for intelligent design.
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         4
      [This post was initially published as 'A little conspiracy theory of mine' on Oct 25 2016. I've now retitled it and linked some of the text with the notion of the Great Replacement Theory.]
      Summary
      Britain, after the Second World War ostensibly recruited workers from various developing countries in order to fill skill shortages. However, around the same time, there was a concerted effort by Australia to recruit working-class Britons. A possible explanation to this anomalous situation is that there was a concerted policy by Britain and Australia to ensure that Australia remained white. This is one argument against the idea that inward migration into the West is somehow an attack on white people. The two examples of migration examined here represent the opposite.
      The Great Replacement Theory
      According to Prof Matthew Feldman there is a lite of versions of The Great Replacement Theory and a full-fat one and the latter holds that:
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream
      In this post, I will argue that at least in terms of one example, this is indeed the case, but rather than representing some form of surrender on the part of the 'white race' as the far right claims the policy represents, it is actually the opposite.
      The Windrush Generation
      This is the narrative all Britons have been brought up with (the following is from the UK government's own website):
      http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/immigration.htm
      It sounds very multi-culti, liberal and nice. Britain needed labour, brown people needed jobs and everyone would get along swimmingly in post-war Britain. This was not illegal immigration, it was planned and made good economic sense.
      Here's some more justification from the British Library:
      http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item107671.html
      To help immigration into the UK, the British Nationality Act of 1948 gave rights to all people from the commonwealth to settle in the country. West Indian immigration to the UK from the 1940's to the 1960s was about 170,000. In Britain, there was an increase of about 80,000 people originating from the Indian sub-continent from 1951 to 1961.
      So if there was such a shortage of labour in postwar Britain, surely the British government would have been aghast at the prospect of Britons leaving the UK? And trying to put a stop to it?
      Apparently not.
      The Assisted Passage Scheme from Britain to Australia
      Australia's 'Assisted Passage Migration Scheme' started in 1945 and involved 1 million people migrating from Britain to Australia.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7217889.stm
      The following paper adds some nuance to this:
      Yet despite the 'reluctance' we still get:
      Stephen Constantine (2003) British emigration to the empire- commonwealth since 1880: From overseas settlement to Diaspora?, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 31:2, 16-35, DOI: 10.1080/03086530310001705586
      From the same paper the following motivation, which refers to policies in the nineteenth century could perhaps explain the flow of people observed at the top of this post:
       
      Conclusion
      In sum, Britain was allowed to go a bit brown, because it was essential that Australia, Canada and other dominions remain essentially white. And this racist policy was maintained until the facts on the ground had been established. This point is one counter-arguments to the 'Great Replacement Theory' that has been espoused in some far-right circles in the West.
       
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream
       
      So we have two migration stories. And the funny thing is that the first story is covered in the press, and you'll also find the second story given a lot of attention.
       
      But the two are never mentioned together.
       
      It's when you put, what are otherwise very positive stories together, that something far nastier emerges. Something which is within plain sight but unacknowledged.
       
      https://contemporaniablog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/poms-and-windrush/
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      [updated in May 2023 to include the Nvidia example and refine the argument overall].
       
      Summary
      When you are in a weak position, all the choices you have are bad ones. Your opponent who dominates you due to more and/or better resources will ultimately prevail. It has historically been easy to 'blame' the Palestinians and other indigenous groups for their loss of territory.
      But we are fortunate enough to live through a period where erstwhile powerful nations are being made to suffer the same indignities that others have been through, albeit their loss is not in the domain of geographic territory, rather it's technological leadership.
      What this experience should teach everyone is that losers don't necessarily end up losing because they are feckless or stupid, rather the cards may just be stacked against them.
      Introduction
      I've always thought that since British Mandate the Palestinians have been in a no-win position. This has been due to their lack of military power and economic and political resources. If they accepted the offers the international community and the Israelis gave them, there would have been an incentive for the Israelis to take more land (if the Pals don't mind yielding some land, they might not mind yielding more), and if the Pals had resisted, that would also have given the Israelis a pretext to take more land (for defensive purposes), the latter has proven to be the case.
      In short, whatever the Pals decided did not matter; the Israelis' dominant position ensured that they could respond in a manner that was advantageous to them. The same applies to Native American Indians in the 18th and 19th centuries; whether their response to European settlers was to fight or make treaties, the outcome would always be the same, their lands would be taken. In both cases, there was such an asymmetry between the Europeans and indigenous peoples that there was nothing the colonised could do that would change the outcome.
      In the examples that follow, I look at some contemporary examples that illustrate a different dynamic. In these instances, non-Western powers have presented the West with situations where regardless of the actions the West takes, the outcome for the West will not be one that it considers satisfactory.
      Huawei - China
      The following piece in the Financial Times (FT) neatly summarises how I feel about the situation between the U.S. government and Huawei. In the 21st century, it is beginning to look as if the Chinese have the best cards. For example, Huawei makes good and cost-effective telecoms infrastructure.
      Western countries may have security concerns, but if they ban Huawei, they could end up with a poorer solution. Other countries that have no such qualms could benefit from the cost advantages that Huawei equipment offers. But if Western countries accept Huawei, they risk entrenching the advantages that the Chinese have, as well as the claimed security risks.
      Sanctions have been a preferred Western method of taking action against countries that have fallen out of favour. But this tool only works where you have something the other person wants and can't get anywhere else; when the situation is reversed - you can end up damaging yourself.
      https://www.ft.com/content/8fc63610-88fe-11e9-b861-54ee436f9768
       
      Nvidia
      Jensen Huang of the American chipmaker Nvidia makes a similar claim in May 2023:
      https://www.ft.com/content/ffbb39a8-2eb5-4239-a70e-2e73b9d15f3e
       
      SWIFT - Russia
      This example arose during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022. The West wanted to sanction Russia by imposing economic sanctions, including barring Russian entities from access to Western financial systems. But this was not straightforward:
      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/24/what-is-swift-international-payments-network-russia-sanction
       
      Sic transit gloria mundi (so passes worldly glory)
      Some of what we see today has the hallmarks of British attempts to stop Indian technological development by banning the Indians from making their own steam engines, at the start of the 20th century. The British may have delayed Indian development by some decades, but that's all they were able to do. Whether the British took no action to stop Indian technological development or whether they proactively tried to hinder it, ultimately, they would lose. 
      There are now far too many Indians with increasing levels of capability to stop the juggernaut.
       
      The status quo
      In mid-2022, following a visit to Taiwan by Senator Pelosi, the FT noted this about the Chinese response to the visit:
      https://www.ft.com/content/5462a57a-bd13-4313-b26b-9645b48a70ee 
      In my opinion, it was Pelosi who altered the status quo; this was the most high-ranking visit in 25 years. Based on the theme of this blog post, given the dominant position of the Chinese, the American position should be to maintain the status quo. As soon as they seek to alter it, the Chinese have an excuse to try and establish a new status quo that is more favourable to them.
       
      Conclusion
      In the context of China, I think the U.S. government feels a threat to its economic/technological dominance. Although this may be dressed up as wanting to preserve fair competition. And U.S. sanctions are its attempt to fight back. But whether the U.S. decides to fight or not, I think in the longer term, that dominance will have to be compromised. Huawei and the Chinese are now too far along the technological path of development, and they are far further ahead than the India of the early 20th century. 
      The U.S. is now in a similar technological position versus the Chinese that the Palestinians have been versus the Israelis. In the U.S./China context is issues centre around technology and in the Palestinian/Israeli context it's to do with economics and political power.
      Whatever option the US chooses, it will ultimately 'lose'. Loss in this context is not necessarily wholly ceding technological leadership to the Chinese, but it may well involve acknowledging their superiority in certain areas. Other countries like Russia also may be able to work their way around sanctions, for example, so Western attempts to control their behaviour will have limited success.
       
       
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      Summary
      Following someone else's lead (whether their advice or actions) because they are credible is not sufficient. You need to understand the motives for their actions.
      The problem
      https://www.forbes.com/profile/sam-bankman-fried/?sh=2e43415d4449
      The firm grew to this size because of investments by large, well-known and reputable organisations, which in turn drew in investments from many other smaller investors. One of those reputable investors was Temasek (the Singapore state investment firm). These investors were understood to have undertaken professional 'due dligence' before investing. Due diligence is where an investor examines the finances, management and other salient aspects of the venture in which it is investing.
       
      https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/ftx-collapse-investors-temasek-due-diligence-corporate-governance-red-flags-3097916
       
      Temasek explained its failure as follows (from the link above):
       
      Analysis of the problem
      An analysis of the above would tell us the following. Smaller investors invested in FTX because large investors like Temaseak were already invested and they trusted these blue chip investors. The basis for trusing Temasek was:
      It is reputable (due to its track record of smart investment) It claims to have done its due diligence on FTX It works within a regulatory environment where the government monitors But did Temasek really do due diligence in the way that it should have done? The following is from an FT video.
      https://www.ft.com/video/f7a7fad1-f3ed-41ee-94a7-e1311989aa7e
       
      The answer is likely that Temasek and Blackrock etc. did not do their due diligence in the way that they should have done.
       
      So what drove Temasek's behaviour and that of other reputable investors?
       
      Firms like Temasek did not invest after undertaking due diligence, they invested because they had a fear of missing out. There's also the issue that the sum invested by Temasek and Blackrock etc. was not significant in terms of the size of those organisations.
       
      The takeaway for the rest of us
      Most of us are not in a position to be investing millions in crypto or following Temasek's lead! Sow what takeaway do we have?
      If you are following the advice and behaviour of someone else - you need to understand the motivation for their actions.
      It's not enough to rely on their reputation (track-record) and their expertise.
      This applies to everything, whether it is advice from a doctor, lawyer or mar'je.
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         2
      I thought I’d put this together based on the discussion in laith’s spirituality thread.
      The issue of happiness arose because striving for spirituality can involve lifestyle changes and I think a barrier to that can be a feeling that such a lifestyle will diminish one’s enjoyment of life.
      Which leads us to wondering what it means to be happy and whether that can be changed.
      Looking around me I see all sorts of people doing very different things and many of them at least claim to be happy. There’s the uncle who is not rich in any financial sense, but who spends entire days in Pakistan playing golf. There’s the barrister cousin who’s forever preparing for a very important court case or my mum who’ll cook for a hundred ladies for a majlis at our home.
      In each instance, as I see it, these people have configured what it is that will make them happy and then gone about achieving it. In each instance what’s really smart is that they’ve configured happy in such a way that it is stretching but also actually achievable.
      Achievable in the sense that given the environment and circumstances that they have and about which we can often do little, they’ve taken charge of those things which they can control, defined what happiness means on the basis of these and constructed it in such a way that they can get it. Stretching is also important because without it there can be no sense of achievement.
      Most importantly, in each instance I can see that while they are happy there’ll be other people who can just as easily see that this is not the lifestyle that would make them happy. I would go mad if my daily routine involved taking a stick and repeatedly hitting into a small hole an even smaller ball. 
      Some of that definition of happiness depends on the meanings that we attach to things. I’ve explained what golf means to me. But for my uncle there’s clearly a sense of physical achievement, there’s the sportsman’s image he has of himself that’s reinforced and there are the meanings he associates with golf as an exclusive sport. For my mother the meanings are associated with the religious symbols, the wajib, the mustahab, the sawab and so on.
      In each instance there’s also the social kudos. My uncle gets to meet the ‘higher-ups’ in Pakistani society and the approval of this social network is obviously important. The same goes for my mum. I wind her up by saying that I don’t see much difference between what motivates her and the Hindu and Sikh women I come across who put in a lot of effort to cook the meals at their local temples to win the appreciation of their social circles. 
      In each instance happiness has been configured in such a way that there’s an easily accessible social network of people who will appreciate what the individual can do. My mum’s social network of Shia ladies has developed organically over decades. My uncle’s social network was acquired when he left the UK and moved to Pakistan, joined the local golf club and impressed them with his skill.
      Social networks are important because happiness is often co-created with the people around us. Those symbols and meanings often only really work when there is someone to share them with. Someone who can understand what they mean and what their significance is and with whom it’s possible to have a conversation about that shared interest and indeed to develop it.
      Of course you can have symbols that have meaning only for you and where there may be no one else to share them with, but then the inner satisfaction will have to suffice. Many years ago I met Yousuf Karsh and I have an autographed book of his photos, but that name means nothing to anyone else that I know, but the knowledge of having met him gives me an inner glow. Sometimes there may be no symbols at all and also no-one else to share them with, I know of fairly anonymous investors who make lots of money and they’re quite happy with the anonymity or alternatively there are academics who have a lot of professional recognition, but much less money.
      Yaani it’s L’Oreal and Wallahi you’re worth it
      SoSolidShia who has since left Shiachat, (or was he banned?) used to have that as part of his avatar and I always thought it was quite clever. But it does remind us of how the messages we see every day remind us that thinking of the self is justified and that there is a cause and effect relationship between spending money and being happy.
      Of course, there isn’t but many people are taken in by it. Is there a magic pill? If there is one the effects are only short-term before you need to spend again in order to get the next high.
      To take the example of another type of product, what was initially presented as an occasional treat because of its high calorific value or sugar content, is promoted in such a way that it becomes part of our regular consumption and happy is replaced by habit and the company behind it has a bigger share of our wallet, which was always the intention.
      When we buy happy then, it has to be on an irregular basis for it to keep delivering happiness.
      Can buying happiness ever really pay off? When its consumption isn’t easy, when it requires some prior effort or engagement I think it can.
      I remember spending hours sitting in theatres watching live performances of Shakespearean and other Jacobean plays. I am pretty sure there were more entertaining things to do for a sixteen-year-old. But it was very worthy. Certainly it wasn’t as much fun as the latest Hollywood blockbuster and obviously, it wasn’t as accessible. But it did make the study of English literature easier and yes, after a fashion it was actually enjoyable, especially when you knew the script and could decode the jokes. The prior study increased the enjoyment. Years later I can still remember some performances, but I can't remember any movies I watched at the time. So there's the added payoff of happy memories.
      Something else that occupied my teenage years and was immensely fun was wet processing photographic film and photos. It was an interesting combination of art and science. I think all the people who have hobbies can understand. The people whose entertainment is mainly passive, such as watching television, might not.
      The funny thing though is that the people with the hobbies may not necessarily be doing them to achieve happiness, it just happens as a by-product. In contrast, the people who switch on the television are chasing after happiness and yet when they find it, it’s likely to be more transient than for those people who just happened upon it.
      There are two types of people today, those who create content and those who consume it. I think the creators are happier than the consumers.
      And where there is an effort in achieving happy I think there is also the likelihood of satiety, the feeling of fulfillment and the need to do something else. In contrast, where the consumption of happiness is easy, where it is simply bought and passively consumed, the lack of satiety means that overconsumption is possible.  We see some people watching inordinate amounts of television, we see increasing levels of obesity and rising levels of debt as people eat and buy themselves happy.
      Happy about what?
      I remember playing with car racing sets as a kid. It was never a satisfactory experience. One car in the set would always be intrinsically faster than the other, you could predict who would win the race depending on what car they had.
      There was clearly a difference between what those, admittedly cheap, sets could deliver and what my expectations were. Expectations that are higher than what we can realistically receive will always end in disappointment. Happy people have their expectations met or exceeded. But setting expectations that are too low may lead to people serially taking advantage of you since you never complain.
      What’s the solution here?
      It’s a question of differentiating between what matters and what does not. And even, more importantly, it’s a matter of assessing whether the people we are dealing with can actually deliver what they promise.
      Too often we are willing to suspend disbelief, take people at their word and believe their promises. They patently cannot deliver, but we refuse to believe that, sometimes this is because of our own ignorance or greed. The possible gain seems so attractive that we fall for the lie. Conmen do this all the time. Often what is at stake is either money or love because in both areas we really find it difficult to behave rationally. The Nigerian 419 scam goes for people who believe that you can get large sums of money easily and men from various developing countries make promises of love to older, richer single white women in the West via the internet, which usually involves a trip to the local branch of western union. These are extreme examples, but it happens to a lesser extent for different products and services all the time.
      Then there’s the issue of differentiating between what matters and what does not. Life is too short, you cannot complain about everything. Indeed, it may well be the case that you took someone at their word, perhaps even knowing that they could not and would not deliver everything that they promised, but you knew deep down that this did not really matter, but you were confident that what you really were interested in would actually be delivered.
      In my opinion, this marks the difference between two types of people who go on the hajj. The knowledgeable ones know what constitutes for a good hajj, where you were guided correctly by the alim with you and where the requirements were fulfilled correctly. These people also know what questions to ask different hajj organisers in order to ensure that their expectations about the fulfilment of their obligations are met. They can hear the promises about the hotel, but they know deep down that whether or not these are fulfilled, does not really matter.
      On the other hand, there are people who may not really know what their religious obligations are. These are the people who lose focus and are the ones who are unhappy about not getting enough food at Mina, the waiting around and the quality of the hotel. Not only are they unhappy but they are unhappy about the wrong things and perhaps even happy at the wrong things as well!
      Reconfiguring happy then, is a matter of being clear what we should be happy about, ensuring that we get that and not worrying when other promises that people make are not delivered.
      The disappointment of loss
       Too often people set expectations about what it is that will make them happy that is either unachievable or costly in a variety of other ways. The trick perhaps is to focus on what we can directly achieve by ourselves with the minimum of resources. It’s being able to do what is costless better than before and deriving satisfaction from it. And the only costless activity, over which we have complete control, in my opinion, is prayer.
       At the same time, it’s not a matter of eschewing or rejecting what the world has to offer. Rather it’s the ability to be happy if you have the material goods but not disappointed if you don’t. It’s being able to walk away dispassionately in the face of material loss. I'll deal with the latter issue in this post.
      Equanimity in the face of loss takes practice.
      The practice comes from giving charity. Each time we do it, we cut our bonds from the material, so that when losses occur as a result of circumstances over which we have no control they affect us less and we do not suffer unhappiness.
      Psychologically humans hate incurring losses. It’s part of our DNA. Nobel prize winning research has shown this. We do all sorts of crazy things in order to avoid losses. Give someone the option of paying $1.30 for a gallon of gas and receiving a $0.10 rebate if they pay by cash or instead paying $1.20 by credit card and incurring a $0.20 surcharge and they’ll always go for the $1.30 option. The cash buyers will do it for obvious reasons and the people paying by credit card will do it as well because paying the $1.30 as a default option is far less psychologically painful than seeing a base price of $1.20 and then realising that choosing to pay by credit card will involve incurring an additional $0.20.
      There have been a number of other studies along similar lines, all demonstrating that we will often engage in irrational actions to avoid losses. I’ve previously linked to a lecture given by Robert Shiller at Princeton where he refers to people taking out (really bad value) insurance policies for individual flights in order not to incur a loss.
      Another often quoted example in this area is to do with how much value we attach to things we own. Experiments show that if people own something they’ll ascribe a higher value to it than other people who do not. 
      Giving to charity then or detaching ourselves from what we own, is difficult for humans. It is part of the human condition. And yet IIRC the Qur’an mentions charity every time it mentions prayer.
      I think it works in a number of different ways. I’ve outlined one and another that comes to mind is my view that the Qur’an is recognising that wherever someone has gains (on which charity can be paid), they will invariably at some point suffer a loss. When people who have had gains give some of them away as charity when the invariable losses do happen, they will, at least, have the comfort in knowing that while they had it, they spent it on assets for the akhira.
      Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
       A discussion about achievements in life or the lack of them in the Thoughts threads reminded me of this.
       We often think about what we could have done, would have done or should have done. This can become a maudlin exercise full of regrets and unhappy thoughts.
       Often such thinking can lead to issues about what we’ll do now to address this and I wonder whether the options discussed are always advisable.
       Just because we did not do a certain degree 15 years ago, does that mean we’ll be any better off or happier doing it now? The world when the decision was taken not to do the degree or when the opportunity was missed, was a different world to the one we are in now. The benefits of that degree may well have changed. The costs of doing it now may well be different to what they would have been in the past, so the value of the whole exercise may be different as well.
       In hankering after what could have been and in trying to get it back we could be losing focus on what else we could be achieving now in the time that we have left that may offer greater value.
       The whole process of looking backwards is one that assumes we are now older than we were before. As we get older the reduction in the time that we have left becomes more acute – the focus now really has to be on what really matters.
       So as we get older the very process of worrying about previously missed material gains and losses may actually compound the problem rather than make it better. The goals have to be different now.
       The benefit that age brings is that older people can compare the achievements and mistakes of people that they have known over a long period of time. Young people cannot do this. They can be told about it, but personal experience often has more resonance.
       Older people can see where their peers started, what they did in terms of materialistic and spiritual activities and observe where they have ended up. That longitudinal perspective is one whose benefit you don’t have if you are young.
        In the final calculation when you start attending the funerals of people you have known for a long-time, you realise how futile material achievements are, especially at the margins. If an individual has acquired enough material success to have been self-sustaining (including any family) surely any assessments of success and failure over the life led thus far need to be in terms of spiritual and moral mistakes and future rectifications?
      Thought of in this way, reflections about the past become an intensely productive, positive and indeed happy activity. Because whatever happened in the past that enabled us to arrive at a destination where there is a realisation (niyat) that rectification is necessary, surely that has been a positive result? 
      These are the only changes that I can think of which are not rendered irrelevant by changing circumstances in the same way as the ones I mentioned at the start of this post.
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         4
      Summary
      Since the inception of Islam, there had been various sects competing for prominence; many had died out, and the two major ones were Twelver Shia and the Sunni fiqh.
      Then suddenly, from the start of the 19th century to the end of that century, we have the emergence of Ahmadiyya, the renewal of Ismailism and the creation of a new faith entirely, Baha ism. Go back a hundred years, and we can add Wahhabism to this list. I identify a common thread amongst all these new religions in this post.
      Four religions in a couple of hundred years ... and three Knights
      That's an unusually fertile period of spiritual spontaneity by any measure. Or is the explanation for such flowering of faith more mundane and perhaps guided by vested foreign interests or even stimulated by them? Because what marked that period, from the ones that preceded it was the growing recognition by countries from outside the middle eastern region that it was an important geographical location in itself and also for its proximity to the wealth of India. That latter point is important because there is little disagreement that British foreign policy towards the middle east paid due cognisance to the views and interests of the Government of India - of course, that is a pre-independence Government, so wholly controlled by Britain.
      Wahhabism
      Abdul Wahhab developed what is commonly referred to as an austere interpretation of Islam, one that denounces the rituals and beliefs that he felt had accreted over the centuries. There is a rich vein of (conspiracy) theories, easily found on the internet, that in his travel to Iraq in the early 18th century, he could have come across British agents (specifically a 'Mr Hempher'). Certainly, the British East India Company had been well established at that time, and a British consulate had been established in Iraq in 1802. Less widely commented on is the fact that the famous Danish/German explorer Carsten Niebuhr travelled to Arabia in 1761.
      But leaving conspiracy theories aside, it's possible to develop an argument about foreign involvement based on far less controversial ideas. Britain may not have been a midwife to Wahhabism, but I think people of all geo-political persuasions would agree that Britain was a helpful nanny.
      The person with whom the British did have extensive dealings was Ibn Saud, who had entered into a pact with Abdul Wahhab in 1744. British sources said he persistently approached Britain for support and was generally rebuffed. Saud was a political leader who continued to promote the Wahhabi philosophy after the death of its founder. Saud was no cleric. But he was shrewd enough to mould the ideology as the basis for providing a motivation for conquest and a glue that would hold his fighters together. British records show that he took responsibility for hiring and firing clerics based on his political agenda.
      My source for this and some other information about Wahhabism that is presented here is a PhD dissertation submitted to King's College London in 2002 by Hassan Syed Abedin, titled "Abdul Aziz Al-Saud and the great game in Arabia, 1896-1946".
      Ibn Saud (who would in due course be given the British title 'Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire') was ultimately successful in his goal of receiving support from Britain in 1914 when Britain needed to have someone distracting the Ottomans so that they could devote fewer resources to World War I taking place in Europe.
      Prior to that, it's argued that Ibn Saud had spent considerable efforts in achieving a status similar to the one held by Mubarak Al Sabah, the emir of Kuwait. This ideal status would have meant that Sauds and their territories would have been subjects of the Ottoman empire, but who would be given the protection of the British.
      This version of events does not look very good for Ibn Saud, presenting him as someone who is willing to do business with non-Muslims in order to undermine a Muslim ruler, and he'd serve a useful role in helping Britain with the following objective:
      Crewe private telegram to Hardinge, Viceroy of India, November 12,1914, cited in Busch Britain, India and the Arabs: 1914-1921, p. 62.
      Ismailis
      Further, east we find the rise of the modern-day Nizari Ismailis, whose Aga Khan in the mid-19th century created a new role for himself in providing services to the British Empire (Aga Khan I would receive an annual British pension of £20,000 per year). Mihir Bose (a noted writer on the subject) says that the Aga Khan had to plead his case for some time before the British took him seriously since they wanted to be sure that they were backing a local ally who'd present them with better value than the alternatives. His grandson Aga Khan III would be bestowed the title of 'Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India'. Their esoteric faith was totally at odds with the one promulgated by Wahhab, but regardless of that difference served a useful purpose.
      Regardless of the support he gave, the British were aware of the hypocrisy of his religious position:
      Sir Charles Napier to Governor-General of India, Earl of Ellenborough, 1843
      The period around the 1840s is interesting for the following reason, as the following letter makes clear:
      Purohit, T. (2012) The Aga Khan Case (religion and identity in colonial India). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
      The writer of the letter is Major Henry Rawlinson, the military officer who worked for the commission in Persia from 1834 to 1838 and subsequently served as a political agent in Qandahar. So the British were interested in there being dislocation in Iran at around this time because of a perceived threat to their interests in Afghanistan.
      This makes the genesis and development of the third religion covered here all the more interesting.
      Bahai'ism
      In roughly the same period, the mid-nineteenth century, we also see the rise of the Bahai faith in Iran. Mirza Ali Mohammad was born in 1820 and was executed in 1850. A focus of his attention was economic inequality in Iran. There were clear political implications, as  noted by the middle eastern commentator Juan Cole:
      The socio-economic aspect of Bab's teachings are also explained here:
      Mansoor Moaddel (1986) The Shi'i Ulama and the State in Iran. Theory and Society, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Jul., 1986), pp. 519-556. This extract: p526.
      This socio-religio-poliitcal impact of a new faith did not go unnoticed by the colonial powers of the time and gained ground as a result of their support as a means of destabilising the Qajar dynasty. Like Ibn Saud, Abdul Baha, eldest son of the Baha'u'llah, would also be awarded the title of Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, ostensibly for his work in alleviating famine.
       
      Shahvar, S. (2018) ‘Oppression of Religious Minority Groups in Times of Great Upheaval in Late Qajar Iran: The 1892 Persecution of Jews and Baha’is of Jewish Origin in Hamadan Based on Two Newly Discovered Letters’, The Jewish quarterly review. University of Pennsylvania Press, 108(2), pp. 225–251.
       
      Ahmadiyya
       
      Going further east, we find the third innovation in the Muslim religion towards the end of the 19th century and one that would lead to charges of being the creation of a new religion entirely. The Ahmadis would destabilise Muslims in the Indian sub-continent. Their support for the British in India is expressed in their texts:
      There is a reason for this approach; unlike the established religions of the Indian sub-continent, the leader of this new religion needed legitimacy. By acquiescing to the needs of the invaders, he sought to achieve that. For the established religions doing the same would have been challenging because they would have lost the legitimacy of their many existing followers; the new religion with far fewer followers had much less to lose in this respect but potentially a great deal more to gain. 
      Conclusion
      I am not saying that the British went into the middle east with the prior notion of introducing new faiths. However, it is reasonable to say that in an environment where there were new powers in the region, for someone starting a new faith, the potential for a symbiotic relationship with these new arrivals was obvious. 
      For the invaders, these new religions provided a ready-made supportive constituency with which to challenge the established order, whether it be the Ottomans, the Qajars or the established religious order in India.
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      Putting 2 and 2 together
      I have some knowledge of what social entrepreneurship is and like most of you I have read the story of Prophet Nuh ((عليه السلام).) in the Qur'an and Bible. At this point, I would start googling like crazy to build up the argument, but I decided to take a short-cut and asked chatgpt the following question:
      Can Noah and his construction of the ark be considered a form of social entrepreneurship?
       
      Now there are aspects of social entrepreneurship that are important that chatgpt has missed out, and to be honest they are pretty crucial to the link between his story and the concept of social entrepreneurship and I'll add them later. So I asked chatGPT:
      How does social entrepreneurship differ from entrepreneurship?
       
      This is taking us in the right direction. Looking at each of the above bullets in turn: 
      Prophet Nuh ((عليه السلام).) was focusing on social change (saving people from sin) and obviously had an environmental goal in mind (overcoming the dangers posed by the flood).  Social entrepreneurs target marginalised groups and Prophet Nuh ((عليه السلام).) was going for people who were sinners. The new product he had created was the ark His metric for success was the number of people saved.  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Blog Statistics

    87
    Total Blogs
    490
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...