Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leibniz

  1. On a side note , the grandson of Abdullah Ibn Jaffar who was named after him claimed to be not only the Imam but God incarnate Abdullah ibn Mua'via ibn Abdullah ibn Jaffar
  2. PS : Abdullah Ibn Jafar's daughter got married to the infamous Ummayad General Hajjaj bin Yusuf and there are narrations indicating that Abdullah ibn Jaffar divorced Zainab before Karbala , probably due to her decision of embarking on the journey with her brother Al Hussain.
  3. Right. How does the collusion of Abdullah ibn Jaffar with Ummayads humiliate Ali? His relations with Mua'via and Yazid are well established , so much so that he named his famous son after Mua'via.
  4. Ws brother I don't remember you refuted what I said. I would not hesitate to correct myself if given evidence. I am not advocating for the Ummayads. I am simply saying that not all Banu Hashim were anti Ummayads and many Hashmittes were having very good terms with the Ummayads. Those Ummayads include Yazid as well. Even after Karbala , Abdullah ibn Jaffar used to act as an advisor to Yazid and he even laid out a strategy for Yazid as how to deal with Abdullah ibn Zubayr.
  5. Let's only attach the Shia adjective to it if the boy was killed for being a Shia. Its a horrific crime but adding a sectarian oomph to it (if its not there infact) would be an insult to the injury.
  6. First , You should not conclude "Yazid loved Hussain" from "Yazid did not want Hussain get killed". It does not follow from that. There were many Banu Hashim who sided with the Ummayads , including Yazid. Is it surprising? Its not only Tabari who has narrated all this but Ibn Saa'd and bladhuri as well. Let me quote a few for you. 1. Abdullah Ibn Jaffar had a passion for music and had a close intimacy with Mua'via. He used to sing in the court of Mua'via as well. He later acted as advisor to Yazid and named one of his sons Mua'via. The same Mua'via ibn Abdullah led a revolt against Ummayads later on and captured parts of Faras. 2. Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah used to wrestle in Mua'via's court with Romans and he gave the sword of Prophet to Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan after giving him pledge of allegiance and accepting a grand sum of money. 3. I hope you know about Aqeel ibn Abi Talib already. And there are numerous other such examples. Tabarai's history is the only proper chronological account of Islamic history from pre Islamic era to the era of Prophet and mid Abbasid era. Other than Tabari's history we have Tabqaat ibn Saa'd and Ansab ul ashraaf of bladhuri which are more of biographical accounts of early Islamic personalities in various orders. Let's trash them all and you tell me where you take your history from?
  7. I mean really? I believe Yazid was two headed monster taking a blood bath twice a day. Tabari has stated that Yazid was infact a one headed monster taking a blood bath once a day and therefore I believe Tabari was pro Yazid.
  8. Shiasm is the antithesis of Sunnism. Apart from the theological differences , Sunnis hate Shias mostly for their cursing of Sahaba. If Shias give up the cursing thing , Sunnis would care less if Shias believe in 12 Imams or 28. Other than this , the Sunnis community in general is always suspicious about Shias and the common Sunnis have developed a plethora of hate filled conspiracy theories about Shias like Shias have a different Qur'an and Shias engage in some explicit sexual acts when they gather etc
  9. Call it whatever you like but most of the people are simple minded and their minds would stomach soup rather than some hard crackers. That's the human condition.
  10. There are way too many facets of apostasy in the current times. Its on the rise and its almost plaguing the Muslim society in the west. The core factor is the rise of "Neo-atheist" movement after 9/11. Public speakers and commentators like Hitchens , Dawkins , Harris et al have made a great impact on the minds of people who look at Islam from its media portrait of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Secondly , Atheism or anti-theism is a product of the social evolution post enlightenment. Christianity , particularly the Protestantism has evolved along with the various strains of scientific and philosophical evolution of atheism so they can better deal with the domestic devil while Muslims are alien to all this. There are various Christian speakers and philosophers like Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig who can handle the modern day doubts very well but there is no such character in the Muslim world. All we have are copy cat punks like Adam Deen or that Hamza guy. Academic scholarship has long passed away in the Muslim world. Thirdly , the moral calculus of the western world is in a clear conflict with the moral calculus of Islam. Various of Islam related moral pretensions are considered barbaric in the current times and its very much easy to make a moral argument against Islam (or Muslims) these days.
  11. Sunnism is simple and swift (not saying that its true necessarily) and its conclusions are obtained from straight forward premises. On the other hamd Shiasm is more of a twisted idea which plays around with your emotions to convince you (not saying that its necessarily false) and its conclusions are obtained from chaotic non linear tangled premises. Any simple minded person would go for Sunnism.
  12. Taking advantage of your presence here I have a question. While reading Abi Mikhnaf's account of Karbala in Tabari , I tried to search for the narrators of Abi Mikhnaf and found almost nothing about most of them. For example , from a narrator "Humayd bin Muslim" Abi Mikhnaf has narrated alot and I could not find anything about him. Do we have any biographic account of "Humayd bin Muslim" in Rijaal books? You have mentioned a research on Maqtil , has the scholar looked into Abi Mikhnaf's narrators in his research?
  13. "Reliability" is a subjective term when it comes to Islamic historiography. Most and earlier work on Islamic history has been done by the Sunnis so I shall share their perspective on this. Almost every Sunni scholar has deemed Abi Mikhnaf unreliable and there is no Hadith from him in the Sunni literature. At the same item , Abi Mikhnaf is the primary source of many early Islamic events like the death of Uthman and Karbala. He has narrated extensively about these events from narrators (most of whom are Majhool) so Abi Mikhnaf's account has too much details and its for that "juice" that no Sunni historian has rejected his account of Karbala et al despite the fact the Sunni Muhadiths have castigated him for being a liar and a Shia etc.
  14. Shia Sunni conflict is basically a political conflict which has evolved into a theological conflict. The tenets of the theological conflict revolve around Infallible Imams Vs Adool Sahaba and both the concepts are just bankrupt belief systems except for the fact that the Sunni concept of Adool Sahaba is not as central to Sunnism as the Shia concept of Infallible Imams is to Shiasm. As far as God judging on the basis of Shia-Sunni , it would be the most ruthless type of God to judge people on the basis of vague and contradictory historical accounts and throw them around into hell for not having their history correct which was passed down to them in a vague contradictory manner. The only logical cope out is to believe that God would judge people on the basis of the minimalistic standards laid down in the Qur'an as pointed earlier in this thread.
  15. With all due respect , you are implying that one should first accept the dogma of infallibility of Imams as you understand it and then should understand the whole event of Karbala in the light of that. It is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Its akin to saying 1. All colors are white 2. If you believe grey is grey 3. Then refer to premise #1
  16. Such conspiracy theories only strengthen the Sunni position. How come Malik ibn Nuwayra be be the only one to raise up for Ali in the outskirts of Madinah while Ali himself along with the other pro Ali Hashimites , Ammar etc kept silent ? And surprisingly it would be Omar who would take Khalid to task for killing a Shia of Ali. To add to the soup , it was one Malik among the hundreds of thousands who remembered the Ghadeer and rose his voice for Ali in the light of it. At times the Shia argument from history stoops down to the level of Alex Jones conspiracy theories.
  17. WS bro , I shall open a thread about the Sunni doctrine of Sahabas and we can discuss it there. Its not very clear to me either and most of my information about it comes from what I have heard from the Sunnis.
  18. I have seen many Malikis and Shafis keeping subtle beards and I think both of these schools allow trimming beard.
  19. How does that hadith entail that the Ummah should raise up to appoint Hassan as Caliph instead of Mu'aviya? The "Ummah" did not rising up for this cause is simply an indication that people in majority did not interpret this Hadith in the political terms you want.
  20. The Sunni doctrine of Sahabas , as far as I know , is not as rigid , puritan and idealistic as the Shia doctrine of Imamah. The Sunnis don't take Sahabas as infallible and would admit that they did make mistakes. They either don't want to highlight those mistakes or they feel that their mistakes don't add up to the degree of Fisq so they swallow them without reluctance. In the Mu'aviya Ali and later Hassan Mu'aviya conflict they would say that Ali and Hassan were on the righteous side but would refrain from branding Mu'aviya a Fasiq and Kafir. I find this approach a sympathatic approach towards the nutshell of Islam albeit not historically pure.
  21. Right. History focuses on major events but like in the case of Ali you see him around , may be after long intervals , here and there during the caliphate of the first three caliphs but Hassan and Hussain for those long 19 years are out of picture absolutely. It was the perfect time for them to educate their Shia circles in Madina and we should have seen abundant Hadiths , during that era , being narrated from them and about them in the Shia sources. But we find nothing.
  22. Fine , its understandable that 'they' don't want to mention them but I could not find anything in the Tashayyu sources about those 19 years. Whatever little I could dig out was from the Sunni sources. I have infact found two more narrations of those 19 years in Sunni sources which I shall past some time.
  • Create New...