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. For such an old man counting thousands of bricks must have been a hard task , given the fact that he was a revered scholar so it was a humiliation as well. Infact Mansur told him that I want you to take a government duty , if not being the Chief justice , be it counting the bricks.
  2. Yeah Ibn Ziyad refused. He already faced a backlash in Kufa after Karbala and he must have thought that Yazid is forcing him to lead another unpopular massacre. I read some where that even the most professionally obedient Ummayad General Hussain Ibn Numair did not want to ensue the attack and purposefully stayed around Madinah till Yazid died. After hearing of Yazid's death , he offered Abdullah ibn Zubayr a pledge of allegiance but Ibn Zubayr missed the train due to his irreconcilably rigid nature.
  3. Abu Hanifa never became 'Chief Judge'. Mansur offered him the post and he refused. Mansur punished him by making him stand all the day and count the bricks with a stick that were being used in the construction of the new capital Baghdad. Abu Hanifa later died in prison. Check out Mansur's account in Tabari. As far as Ahmed ibn Hanbal , he was severly persecuted for around 20 years during the reign of Al Mamun and Al Mutasim. For that you can check Ibn Hanbal's account in Khateeb's tarikh Baghdad
  4. Bro , all Sunni Imams were persecuted by the caliphs. Abu Hanifa , Malik and Shafi were persecuted for Tashayyu and Ahmed Ibn Hanbal was hugely persecuted for his opposition to Mamun's Mihna campaign. Ironically it was the same time Imam Al-Reza was Mumun's crown prince.
  5. Why did not those Sunni Imams become Imami Shias then? Despite the fact that we know for sure that they had the good ol' tashayyu in them like Abu Hanifa financially supported Zaid's uprising and Malik supported Muhammad Nafs e Zakiyyah uprising but hey they were not Imami Shias. Both Abu Hanifa and Malik were persecuted for it by the Caliphs. What stopped them from becoming Imami shias?
  6. @Ashvazdanghe By the authority of abi mikhnaf , Tabari has reporting a very interesting incident about Zaid Ibn Ali Ibn Hussain. A few of his Shias visited him in Kufa and asked him about his opinion of Abu Bakr and Omar. Zaid told them that they did a mistake by not handing over caliphate to Ali but yet they were pious people and ruled per Quran and Sunnah. Their mistake did not reach the level of Fisq. His Shias got angry over this asking him "if that's the case why should we raise against Hisham". Zaid labeled them as Rafidha and that's how the word originated. The sectarian divide was much much different back then and the lines of sectarian demarcation that have been drawn now , did not exist then. But its a topic for another day.
  7. That's what Tashayyu was back then , loving 'Ahli bait' and preferring Ali over the rest of the companions , most of early Shias did not even prefer Ali over Shaykhain but over Uthman and the rest. Imami Shiasm did not exist any where then and I respectfully state that after reading around for a few months.
  8. Abi Mikhnaf was not a Sunni. He was a Shia albeit not an Imami Shia. His father was in the ranks of Ali in Siffain. I know it sounds and feels very good to assume that Quran is the only authentic book and all other books have errors but the devil is in the details. All the major conflicts related to Shia Sunni split are historical events and their is no escape from asserting them historically. Their is no cop out. Believe me , I started reading the "primary sources" a few months back and going through all these pages I have found out that history is not a farce and Muslims have done a fairly good job in preserving the history.
  9. @skyweb1987 If you don't believe in primary sources and you take any book on history as factual , Sunnis have penned down voluminous books on the merits of Mu'aviya , start taking such books as factual as well. My approach to history is a humble one , the approach that any honest objective inquirer of truth would take. I feel is that you either don't know how history is composed and asserted or you just want to get away with it.
  10. You are just trivializing the issue to get away with it. Whatever I have stated about primary sources is something established. These are the primary sources of Islamic history. If you know any others , educate me. Let me play your game of trivialization with you. Give me a definition of definition before I give you a definition of primary sources.
  11. The pic that comes to my mind when I think of Mu'aviya is that of King Hussain of Jordon , a man who is secular deep down and knows very well how to consolidate his power while dealing with a variety of opposition
  12. That's your prerogative. I want to rationally assert the history not through dogmatic lenses. It is a difficult task but its worth the effort.
  13. Buddy its all simple. The Muslim historiography began in the second century AD with Ibn Ishaq , Al Waqidi , Ibn Sayf , Al Zuhri , abi mikhnaf et al. They penned down a few books on Seerah , riddah , maghazi. Their reports were then collected by Ibn Sa'ad and others , most abunduntatly and systematically by Al-Tabari. These are the primary sources of the history of Islam.
  14. Mu'aviya was a cunning man and his cunningly nature can be interpreted as 'political wisdom'. I am sure if he was alive in our times , he would have been a very successful ruler. He was way ahead of his competitors in terms of politics.
  15. Primary source means any source which goes back to the original event that is being narrated. For example 'Maqtal Hussain' by Abi Mikhnaf is the primary source of Karbala as whatever he has documented goes back to eyewitness account through narrators.
  16. @skyweb1987 I did not go through the whole article that you have pasted but I skimmed through the references. Ibn Athir (circa 1200 AD) is not a primary source , "al Imamah wal siyasah" is a fabrication , and the many others that have been quoted are not primary sources. I have Ibn Sa'ad's Tabaqat , if the treaty's details are mentioned there kindly quote the reference , I shall look it up.
  17. Hur did not commit suicide rather he made a moral decision in the circumstances that I have mentioned. But Hur's decision does not imply that Karbala made any significant political change nor does it add anything to the questions I have raised.
  18. Hussain's 3 conditions including putting his hand in the hand of Yazid has been reported by Abi Mikhnaf who is the primary source of the narrations of Karbala. If you reject it because it does not fit in your theological view of the history , reject all his other narrations too
  19. Hur's change of mind is very much rational. Once Al-Hussain presented the three conditions to Omar ibn Saad ie 1. I be allowed to go to Syria so that I can give my hand in Yazid's hand 2. I be allowed to go back to Madinah 3. Or I be allowed to go to any of the border areas and Omar ibn Sa'ad refused to entertain any but insisted on taking Hussain to Ibn Ziyad and Hussain giving pledge of allegiance to Ibn Ziyad , Hur changed his mind by yelling "Even If these three conditions were presented by a non muslim we should have let him go" and he changed sides.
  20. Why Al Hussain took his family with him? There is no clear account of it in history. Several of his cousins and others advised him against taking his family. The most probable assessment is that Hussain had decided to.make Kufa his bastion against the Ummayads and permentatly reside there so he took his family with him. You can read the history of Hashmites uprisings during Ummayads and later specific Alids uprisings during Abbasid , their nature and orientation has been the same that of Hussain's. I find nothing substantial which disconnects these uprisings. I even feel that these uprisings can be connected with the uprising against the Ummayad Uthman but I am looking more into it to make a clear connection.
  21. Yazid did rule for three years but thats not huge accomplishment to praise Yazid for. Ummayads ruled for more than 90 years (before establishing another caliphate in spain parallel to the Abbasid Caliphate) after Karbala but thats not an accomplishment of Yazid. The credit for it mainly goes to Abdul Malik ibn Marwan but that's a different topic. As i have made it clear that i neither love Yazid nor do i consider him a person worthy of any praise so I find this discussion superfluous. You may curse him as much as you like.
  22. We see raising against the Caliphs to over throw them as a general trend among the Hashimites. It did not stop with Hussain. Soon after the Karbala we see the Kaysanite uprising of Muhammad bin Ali al-hanaffiyyah. Then we see Zaid's uprising. Then there is Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Hassan's uprising against Mansoor and so on. All of these uprisings met the same fate. How is Karbala disconnected from them?
  23. First of all Yazid did not initiate Karbala nor did he plain it. Given the distance between Kufa and Damascus and the timeline of the events, Ibn Ziyad most probably acted without Yazid's consent. However Yazid did not punish any of the perpetrators of Karbala so this means that he was fine with it. As far as what Yazid achieved out of Karbala , nothing. He became an unpopular figure in Hejjaz and later on in the Harrah uprising all the Ummayads were expelled out of Mecca mainly due to Yazid. Yazid was a tyrant and reckless man with no political sanity and I don't know of anyone who would admire Yazid for anything , let alone considering him "Mowla".
  24. That is very interesting. Hussain having prior knowledge of his martyrdom in Karbala really absolves the Kufans of all responsibility. I did not think of it before. I would like to read more about it so I am eagerly waiting for your write up on it.
  • Create New...