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

Leibniz

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leibniz

  1. What I have heard from the Shias goes like this. They have two types of responses to Ridda campaigns and other military conquests during the caliphate in general. 1. They would either brand them as unnecessary bloody battles ensued for expanding the empire and got nothing to do with Islam , castigating it from modern pacifistic perspective. They would explain away the presence of the "good sahaba" like Ammaar by Taqayyah' card. If Ali is seen anywhere in the pic "He did this to save Islam" 2. This is one is more interesting as it is like " God of the gaps" argument. I have seen Shias who find grey areas in history and fill them with their own conspiracy theories. So no one infact apostatized and rebelled as such but these were supporters of Ali who revolted and were branded as apostates etc to massacre them. This is an open admission that the smaller tribes living in the outskirts of Hejjaz were far more braver than Hashimites.
  2. May be this interpretation supports WF and the ousting of Shah so that's why we are seeing it from Ayatullah Khamenei. One more such interpretation comes from the Jihadist and Ikhwani Salafis who use Hussain's uprising as an argument against the Madkhali Salafis who tend to emphasize on abiding by the ruler no matter what.
  3. On a light note : I was talking to a Sunni who told me that there is such an authentic hadith in Sunni sources and when I asked him , then why did Hussain go there ? , he said "May be Hussain did not hear this hadith".
  4. Hussain's action are the best argument against 'Taqayyah'. Yet you would see that those who praise Hussain for his metal , steadfastness and sacrifice would always keep the 'Taqayyah' card in pocket and would explain away anything that contradicts their theological view of history with the Taqqayah card. So much so that Imam Reza's becoming crown prince of Mamun is branded as Taqayyah on his part.
  5. Machiavellian model is the only model which works , atleast in the medieval history. There are almost no exceptions to it except for a very few benevolent dictators. As far as the decline of Uthman , I see it more as a naturalistic decline of caliphate coupled by a larger ungovernable empire with various issues and the Hashimites waiting for the final showdown , in case of Uthman they found the aging caliph who was a political underdog by nature. The ansari caliph scenario would have been ideal but whether the imiggrant Quraish would have accepted that , I don't think so. Ummayads and especially Mu'aviya were very liberal secular people and I don't think so they ever tried to middle into religious affairs. No notable scholar issues a decree against Hussain , not even after his death. We don't find much Hadith's in favor of Mu'aviya , they could forge many during their reign. Even in the Sunni world , Mu'aviya is excluded from the Rashidoon and is taken as a liability. Of course their are exceptions to the Hashmite Ummayad rivalry. One other such example is the friendship of Marwan and Imam Zain Ul abideen. It was Imam Zain who gave shelter to the family of Marwan while Ummayads were expelled from Mecca. Abdullah ibn Omar had refused to give them shelter. Later on it was Marwan who took Imam Zain Ul abideen to Muslim bin Uqbah to get a safety assurance for him. What can one make of all this mess? May be the only logical solution is to state that Islam has nothing to do with governance and is a personal religion. I don't see any coherent solution other than this to the bloody history of caliphate in Islam.
  6. I wish it was as simple as that. Abi Mikhnaf's account of Karbala is a very naturalistic explanation of all the events that to the massacre of Karbala. He gives an account of what happened immediately after the death of Mu'aviya till the massacre and its impacts shortly afterwards. We can not read intentions but we definitely can say something about them from the details provided by Abi mikhnaf and the collective circumstantial evidence. There are atleast 5 instances in which Al-Hussain agrees to stepping back from Karbala and avoid the conflict. The first is when he encounters Hur and his men near Karbala till Ibn Sa'ad has not arrived on the scene. He offers Hur that he would depart back. The second one is in his encounter with Ibn Sa'ad in which Al-Hussain proposes stepping back. The rest can be found in his sermons and interactions before the massacre began. His decision to step back , end up his journey to Kufa and get out of the situation at hand is very much naturalistic. He is a man who has been encircled by opponents who have a history of bloodshed and his father has been battling the same faction in the recent years. Hussain is seeing the impending doom and he is disillusioned with the Kufan support as well. He twice or may be thrice mentions to Ibn Sa'ad's Army that I did not come by myself , rather I was invited by you people. He even shows them the letters. This simply implies that he is trying to get out of the showdown scenario , to save himself and his family. In a meeting with Ibn Sa'ad , Al-Hussain proposes that we both should leave our men here and visit Yazid so that we can sought it out. When the news of this proposal and Ibn Sa'ad's soft corner for Al-Hussain reaches the court of Ibn Ziyad , Shimr there instigates Ibn Ziyad alluding to Ibn Sa'ad's soft corner for Al-Hussain and that's when Ibn Ziyad sends Shimr to the scene and he shatters the negotiations as he arrives. No one needs to read the mind of Al-Hussain but its crystal clear as to what's going on. This account is naturalistic and it makes sense. That's how humans operate. Now , interpolating "Hussain knew that he shall be killed in Karbala and he knowingly embarked on the journey for mass sacrifice" into this makes the whole scenario inexplicable , unnatural and contradictory. Its an extraordinary claim and it needs an extraordinary evidence to substantiate it.
  7. Right. There is an ambiguous narration in Tabari which underlines Mu'aviya visit to Madinah before the siege of Uthman and there is a talk of succession to Uthman. A poet there mentions Ali as his successor and Talhah Zubair to be strong candidates. Mu'aviya is mentioned as successor by Uthman and his fumes Ali. It is very much possible that Uthman had made his mind to appoint Mu'aviya as his successor and this fastened the things against him. Even if Uthman would not appoint Mu'aviya as a successor explicitly and some Shura would have been set up , I think Mu'aviya would have been appointed anyway. Mu'aviya was in the position of great political strength. Syria had already become his loyal power center , he had a great influence in Egypt and Hejjaz and for all practical purposes it was impossible to challenge him. Your point about idealism is right but you see that idealism was not realistic. Muslims were ruling Hejjaz , Yemen and Nijran during the prophet's time but the caliphate exponentially expanded after him from Hejjaz to Syria , to large parts of Khorasan and to Africa. Larger states weaken the central authority by default , sociocultural intermingling yield into pluralism rather than Puritanism and that's how life goes on. Sociopolitically , the states regress from Puratinism to Pluralism and the same happened with early Muslim empire. Ali was an idealist but by the end of his life he had learned the bitter facts of statecraft and made a peace treaty with Mu'aviya handing him over Syria and taking Iraq. This leads us to the question that what is the status of caliphate in Islam. Is it binding upon Muslims to establish one? What would be the methodology of selecting a Caliph? Given all the bloodshed and ambiguity that followed , did not the prophet devise a system in his life for succession ? Or Caliphate is kinda secular thing which has got nothing to do with religion and therefore their are no clear instructions in Quran or Hadiths about succession? Or its kinda ijtihadi thing which shall be dealt with by Muslims according to the conditions of their time like how they did it in Saqifa. I don't have any hard views on it but there is narration describing a meeting between Ibn Abbas and Omar during Omar's caliphate. Omar asks him about Caliphate and Ibn Abbas tells him that " Ya amir Ul momineen if you don't mind , I dare say we deserved it" and Omar says that by God this bias shall never go away from the hearts of Hashimites and God did not want Prophethood and Caliphate to combine in one house. The companions fought for Caliphate among themselves , later the Ummayads fought with in themselves for it. The Hashimites fought for it with Ummayads and later the Hashimites fought for it with in themselves , the Abbasids fought with Alids and so on. If Ali would have been the first Caliph what would have been next? Succession with in Hashimites? Their would have been similar turff wars with in Hashimites about succession and as unlike Ummayads ,the Hashimites had a religious oomph attached to them , we would have seen new sects (not just political factions) originating after every succession feud , a phenomena similar to Shia sects originating from differences over the succession of various Imams.
  8. Right but keeping in view the society of the time , the tribalism and bigotry coupled by medieval ignorance , I feel maintaining status quo was always a far better option than over throwing the Caliphs no matter how much unjust or worldly they were. Even in modern times , see the fate of Libya and Iraq after Gaddafi and Saddam who were both brutal psychopathic dictators but dethroning them just erupted the volcano. I feel the same happened with the killing of Uthman in the muslim society then.Abdullah Ibn Omar , ibn Abbas and Al-Hassan were more pro status quo individuals.
  9. Or justice for Persian convert was a theme of Mukhtar's movement which attracted many Persians to his moment. Tabari has narrated that when Musa'b massacred Mukhtar with his 7000 men , just 700 of them were Arabs.
  10. Abdllah Ibn Omar did not love Yazid and did not give him a pledge initially. It is very much evident that all the senior companions had learned a hard lesson from the events that befell after the death of Uthman , the bloody wars in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims perished and worst kind of brutalities were unleashed so they refrained from getting into any such mess again. Abdullah Ibn Omar , Abdullah Ibn Abbas , Muhammad ibn Ali al hanaffiyyah all avoided joining or initiating any "revolts" and gave the pledge of allegiance to who ever the ruler was.
  11. Another impression that I get while going through the pages is that Hassan , Abdullah ibn Abbas and Abdullah Ibn Omar are the only sane minded people among the notables who kept their calm in those turbulent times and did not indulge into any meaningless bloodshed , coups and groupings.
  12. The thing which sets me aback the most when reading about the history of Islam is that the Muslim society in general was very tribal and even racist. It seems that the kind of modern day pluralistic kind of "everyone is equal in Islam" sentiment did not exist. Almost every individual while making an argument in his favor is seen referring to his father and forefathers. Judging the events in such a society through out 21st century lenses is itself a problem as the we all have our own modern day values in mind and we measure that society through it.
  13. Thanks for the suggestions. I have much to read before arriving at an honest and academic conclusion. I tend to read "hard copies" of books by getting them from market. At times availability of books is an issue and at times the language is an issue. I have started with history and I am moving up. I have a few other areas in my mind that I feel a student should explore like Hadiths and that ever foggy Rijaal business. I also want to focus on Quranic exegesis as that's also a part of the divide. I shall keep on making threads about all these topics and shall look forward to your contributions.
  14. Sulayman was much sobber and honest among the Kufan Shias. But those around him were much different , cowards and hasty people who did love Al Hussain but their love could not take them beyond slogans. The Shi'i movement in Kufa was always disorganized and chaotic , even in the times of Ali. Ali wanted to launch another war against Mu'aviya after Neharwan and the Kufans refused to go for war. Abi Mikhnaf narrates that Ali in Fajar asked the people of Kufa to assemble out side Kufa so that the Army should march for the war. Ali sat there till evening and not a single person come out. Kufa was a new city and it was multiethnic multi tribal city. There was no organized society in Kufa. One can imagine how hard the tribal and ethnic lines would be there. The inhabitants of Kufa were more motivated by tribalism than religion. There are numerous narrations which indicate that tribes changed their religious affiliation due to tribal affiliations.
  15. Thanks for the details. You have opened a whole new dimension of research to me. I did not know that the idea of 'prior knowledge about martydom in Karbala' had been castigated by Shia scholars. I can't read Persian unfortunately so I would look up for English or Arabic version of the book.
  16. Kufans writing letters to Al-Hussain telling him about an Army of his shias ready to wage battle and them telling Hussain that they shall expel the Ummayad governor Nauman bin baahir and Hussain not negating any of these and him setting off for Kufa , its all very clear as to what his intentions were. You are inducing a conjecture " Well , Al Hussain might have acted against what the Kufans were saying" so the onus is on you to substantiate it. Just state it as to what do you think Al-Hussain's intentions were and how did you come to know that?
  17. In one letter narrated by abi mikhnaf the Kufans commit that he would expel the Ummayad governor of Kufa Norman ibn Bashir in no time if Hussain embarks on his jorney for Kufa. It was about an uprising and it was about over throwing Yazid. No once can say what Al-Hussain's strategy would have been had he entered Kufa. He might would have waited there consolidating his power and reaching out to Basara before taking Yazid head on, or may be something else but there is no doubt as to what the end goal of Al-Hussain was.
  18. Sounds like you are asking for an audio tape. I did not ask for a photo copy , rather I asked for a reference to the treaty from the primary sources.
  19. What clear sort of thing do you want? An audio tape? It is very much evident from his correspondence that he was going to Kufa hoping for an uprising and that's what the Kufans promised him. We also know for a fact that Muslim bin Aqeel did lead an uprising in Kufa and he did bring the palace of governor under siege albiet the Kufans ditced him and left him very soon. If you have any alternative narrative as to why Hussain was going to Kufa , mention it and substantiate it.
  20. @ShiaMan14 Narrated by Abi Mikhnaf " When Mu'aviya died , the Shias gathered in the house of Sulayman ibn Surad in Kufa. They thanked God over the death of Mu'aviya and Sulayman spoke to them. He said Mu'aviya has died and Hussain has not given his pledge of allegiance (to Yazid) yet. Oh people you are the Shias of Ali and if you are determined that you shall help Hussain and wage battle against his enemies then write to him. If you have cowardice then don't write to him. The people agreed and letter was written to Hussain"
  21. I shall respectfully ignore your posts from now on as I find no purpose in subjective assessments and self centered didactic rants.
  22. https://www.al-islam.org/probe-history-ashura-dr-ibrahim-ayati/chapter-3-letters-kufians-imam
  23. Abi Mikhnaf has reported many details of the letters pertaining the correspondence between Hussain and the Kufans , Yazid and Ibn Ziyad etc. We can make make sense of the events from them. If you have a reference to such documentation about "Hassan-Muaviya treaty" I shall look them up. My demand for a reference from the primary sources about the treaty is not intended towards countering the Shia narrative or refute anyone. It's only intended to find out the truth , so no offence and no hard feelings.
  24. I have given you a solid reason for Hur's change of mind. Hur made his moral preferences in a very short frame of time when he realized that a noble man who is travelling along his family is being butchered despite the fact that he has submitted to giving allegiance to Yazid and going back. You can add much poetic significance to Hur's decision but that does not change anything about the whole event.
  25. If its was predestined that Hussain shall get killed in Karbala and he himself knew this then the Kufans who wrote letters to him and ditched him later on can safely say that it all was predestined and none of their action could prevent it from happening , had they even acted contrary to how they acted. What you have stated about Imams is the traditional Ithna ash'ari view of the Imams and that does not stand the test of history and natural assessment of human social psychology. I feel we can summarise Hussain's actions like this 1. He either wanted to over throw Yazid and for that he wanted to make Kufa his bastion as he already knew that there is a Shi'i uprising there so he wanted to shift to Kufa along with his family. He was taking his family along with him because he was of the mind that either Yazid's loyalists would not go as far as massacring him along with his family or the Kufans would have captured the gov in Kufa before I enter it. This was plain riddled by political misjudgments and it badly failed. I am not questioning Hussain's intentions here. He might have thought that overthrowing Yazid was his religious responsibility but still its a political change that he was seeking. 2. Hussain knew each and every thing before hand. He knew that Kufans would ditch him and Yazid loyalists shall massacre him in Karbala but he continued on his mission to meet his fate and the massacre happened. This self contradictory scenario makes no sense whatsoever and is no different from the sacrificial religious myths that we find in Christianity or Hinduism.
×
×
  • Create New...