Jump to content

Leibniz

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leibniz

  1. If one has to name the most irrational barbaric and inhuman religious ritual of our times , it has to be the self flagellation of all sorts done by some Shias.
  2. What I feel after going through the historical accounts is that Ali , Talhah and Zubair were the most politically ambitious "Sahabas". Zubair even sided with Hashmites for a brief period against the outcome of Saqifa. Interestingly these three " Sahaba" largely vanished from the scene once Abu Bakr took over and they remained inactive in terms of wars and administration. This further makes one believe that they were disgruntled and had a bad blood with the incumbent caliphs. Secondly , its also plausible that they were covertly planning against the caliphs to dethrone them. They were gathering and masting political support for themselves. All what these three were doing , actualized during the last years of Uthman. Ali had Egyptians , Persians and some Kufans on his side. Zubair had Basrans and Talhah had some support in Kufa. This political support which became obvious after Uthman , must have been gained in the decades pre Uthman turmoil. Thirdly , the offsprings of these three were politically ambitious as well. They carried on the legacy and you see all the Alids , Zubayrites inspirants of caliphate. The sons of Talhah (Who was the weakest among the three) lost prominence and joined the Zubayrites.
  3. Yeah I feel so that Ali was more close to Persian clients than the Sahabas. Its more likely that he spent his life as a disgruntled man once he was denied the caliphate. He could not fight for it and he must have thought that the majority of Sahabas don't like him. The ultimate shelter for Ali were the Persian clients who were aliens in Hijaz then and Ali's affiliation with them was very natural. A lonely man had found a company and a political support , something which careied on for generations to come. The reports of his cooperation with Omar are scarce and I feel that if that was the case we should have had abundant reports about it. What do you why Ali opened the case of the killing or Harmazan and his daughter against Obaydullah Ibn Omar as soon he became the caliph?
  4. There is no harm in murdering the enemy who wants to murder you. We don't know the exact circumstances but if Imam Ali had a role in Omar's murder , I don't find it something out of the blue. Murder was a normal thing back then.
  5. I was going through Twitter and I found a tweet which intrigued me. I have been hearing since my childhood that the Indian sage Mahatma Gandhi had expressed high praise for Al-Hussain. But the Tweet claims that its a fabrication and there is no evidence for this. Instead Gandhi has praised Abu Bakr and Omar. Can someone well versed in Gandhi comment on it? Source? Gandhi's praise for Abu Bakr and Omar
  6. For me he is a human being who was politically embattled with his opponents. They tried to nab him and he must have tried to nab them. It's all natural human tendency.
  7. I am not justifying Obayd's actions so spare me the copy paste.
  8. On the other hand , I feel Imam Ali had a covert role in the assassination of Omar. Firstly , Imam Ali was close to the Persian clients and right after the murder of Omar he has been quoted as saying "I have no role in it". Thirdly , when Obyadullah Ibn Omar went on spree killing to avenge the death of his father and ended up killing the daughter of Harmazan as well , it was Imam Ali who asked Uthman to impose death penalty upon Obayd as Qisas which Uthman refused. Fourthly , the first thing that Ali did as Caliph was to reopen Obaydullah's case and try him for the killings that he undertook as revenge of Omar's murder. This decision made Obaydullah flee to Mua'via and join his ranks.
  9. It was Omar who was bent on chopping Abu Sufyan's head when he approached the Prophet just before the fall of Mecca and it was Abbas who pleaded in Abu Sufyan's favour telling Omar that you would not have asked for chopping his head had he been a Bani Adi.
  10. What is so reprehensible about a consensual sexual act that he/she be burnt to death? What you are saying is like saying that a person prone to sinistrality is not punishable but his act of writing with the left hand (to which he is neurologically prone to) is punishable.
  11. Hadiths like these are taking the people out of the fold of Islam and such narrations are quoted by many in the western world to shun away people from Islam and make them believe that Islamic Sharia is some barbaric code of law. Once we know that some people are genetically prone to homosexuality , who can justify such a barbaric stone age punishment inflicted upon a couple for just being homosexual? I wonder what was going in minds of the Hadithists when they were penning down such narrations and those who were "authenticating" them down the line.
  12. Why would anyone "attack" a benign personality like Abdullah Ibn Ja'far? What purpose does it serve? It was merely correcting the history. But it seems that you have taken the notion of infallibility to the next level ; from infallible Imams to the infallible Bani Hashim.
  13. Ws , I fear that's not very accurate as Budayh, Sahib Khathir, and Nashi-t were famous "full fledge" singers and all three of them had a very bad moral reputation as well. The association of Abdullah Ibn Ja'far with music is not limited to these narrations , there are much more to it
  14. Folk most probably as Abdullah Ibn Ja'far was more associated with folk vocalists. "Abd Allah loved music and did not see listening to it prohibited. He supported singers such as Budayh, Sahib Khathir, and Na[Edited Out]" http://en.mobile.wikishia.net/index.php/'Abd_Allah_b._Ja'far_b._Abi_Talib
  15. I believe that the the first 5 Imams were pious individuals and were great leaders who can be followed religiously but they were not infallible. I don't know much about the rest of the 6 Imams so I can't say anything about them. As far as Al Mahdi is concerned , I think there is ample evidence to the fact that Hassan Askari died issueless and the figure of his son was later innovated to keep the ball rolling. As far as house of Saud , I hope it falls apart soon. It would be in the interest of Muslims as a whole and we shall get rid of one the most pungent monarchy in the history of Islam.
  16. If you focus too much on online forums and YouTube , you shall find a lot of ex Muslims and atheists but their percentage in the real world is very low.
  17. Abdullah ibn Ja'far used to sing songs in the court of Mua'via and use to take the notable vocalists of Arabia with him there. Perhaps to appease Mua'via so that he does not act against Banu Hashim
  18. I don't believe that a person known as Mahdi by the Shia and Sunnis was ever born or shall be born. Saudi monarchy is an evil and suppressive regime which has harmed the interests of Muslims for a long time. I don't see any pragmatic methodology to bring it down in near future. The strength of al Saud comes from four sources. First they have money and hence their money guarantees them internal stability and they use money as a foreign policy. The money is not going out anytime soon Secondly , they have a strong American backing which is why Saudia shall remain afloat in case of any conflict and I don't see the US support stopping anytime soon Thirdly , most of the Sunni majority countries and their populace backs Saudia. The Sunni countries either support Saudia for geopolitical reasons or for money and the populace supports Saudia due to the religious sanctity attached to Saudia. Fourthly , monarchies in our times are brought down by Democratic movements and I feel the Saudi society has no affinity for Democracy , even the liberal Saudis. So its a smooth sailing for aal Saud till any of the above changes. I theory I do believe that the Saudi regime should be brought down.
  19. PS : Lets focus on getting justice for the poor innocent boy rather than labeling his death as a sign of the arrival of Mahdi.
  20. Muhammad ibn Abdullah popularly known as "al-Nafs al-Zakiyya" was the grand grand son of Imam Hassan. He led an unsuccessful revolt against the Abbasid Caliph Al Mansur. Most of these revolts were rooted in eschatological claims and hence it was a popular myth those days that al-Nafs al-Zakiyya is the Mahdi. You can corelate his name to the name of Mahdi in Hadiths and see how these Hadiths originated or we're forged. Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya tried to imitate the Prophet while he was outnumbered and besieged with his supporters in Madina by the forces of Al Mansur , he claimed that this battle is going to be another "Battle of Ahzaab". So much so that he even made a trench around Madina digging around on the foundations of the trench of the battle of Ahzaab. He was deserted by his loyalists and he ended up getting killed , crucified. Before he got killed , he sold the Prophet's sword to a businessman for 400 coins. Similarly , the myth of " Mahdi's Army with black flags from Khurasan" originated from Abu Muslim Khurassani's army carrying black flags and marching on the Umayyad empire. All these eschatological claims were popularized for political purposes and later on they wormed into our theology and Hadiths. People in millions have perished waiting for a Mahdi , thousands of incidents and events in history have been interpreted as signs of his arrival and we have had in dozens claimants of Mahdi (in both Shia and Sunni realms) but no heavenly figure is going to descend and do all the miraculous stuff Shia and Sunnis claim that he would do
  21. Ws , I would like to see the source of the claim that Zainab AS had put the condition and Abdullah ibn Ja'far diorced her on her own will. I have heard it many times but could not find it in any primary sources of history. After the dead of Yazid , amid all the chaos in the ranks of Ummayads , even Marwan was considering giving oath of allegiance to Abdullah Ibn Zubayr. As far as Abdullah Ibn Ja'far's association with Ummayads , they are well established , so much so that he named a son of him Mua'viya
  22. The argument was that Abdullah Ibn Ja'far associated with Yazid even after Karbala. Given the fact that he was the ex Husband of Zainab , his post Karbala stance clearly indicates that he was pro Ummayads.
  23. Yazid wrote to Uthman Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abi Sufyan that Abdullah Ibn Zubayr , who had then shown some willingness to give oath of allegiance to Yazid , be sent to Damascus only in chains. Ibn Zubayr upon hearing this retracted from his stance of giving oath. Abdullah ibn Ja'far was persuading Yazid in Damascus to give up on the idea of chain but Yazid was adamant claiming that he had sworn to God that he would chain ibn Zubayr. Abdullah ibn Ja'far advised Yazid to make a chain of gold and silver so that ibn Zubayr won't feel humiliated but the idea did not work.
  24. I feel , the details are unwarranted and superfluous. Its like asking how does God exist and how is her seated on his thorn and how does he interact with the physical realm? Though the only relevant thing is that He exists. Secondly , the dichotomy of matter and spirit parts of human body is illusory when it comes to perception and cognitive faculties so it does not matter whether it was a physical journey or a spiritual one. The fact is that the Prophet ascended to heavens as described by the Qur'an and the details are unwarranted.
×
×
  • Create New...