Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Leibniz

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leibniz

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. "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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. I have seen many Malikis and Shafis keeping subtle beards and I think both of these schools allow trimming beard.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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".
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...