Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Leibniz

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leibniz

  1. The general financial status of early companions had improved a lot by then. Special stipends were given to Sahabas of Badar and they used to get a special share in war booties. Ali had 19 servants by the time he died. It was not a matter of corruption.
  2. Right. Muhammad Ibn Hudhayfa was the grandson of Utbah and an Ummayad. He was brought up by Uthman as his father had adopted Salim as his foster son. Its very much clear from Tabari's account that Muhammad wanted some post and Uthman refused and hence he turned against Uthman. He later joined in with Muhammad bin Abu Bakar in Egypt for propaganda compaign against Uthman and mobilize the mob from there. Intrestengly enough , Ammar bin Yasir (another companion of Ali) joined them too in Egypt when Uthman sent him for fact finding there. There are numerous narrations which state that Ammar used to talk against Uthman in Madina. In the account of Egypt , Tabari brings in the Ibn Saba connection hinting that Ibn Saba had set up a netwok. I am still reading more about the Ibn saba connection with the death of Uthman so I would not comment on that. Secondly , yes the Bani Ummayads were power hungry but so was everyone else. The Ummayads had the upper hand due to Syria while the Hashmites and Zubarids were operating from weaker bastions. Killings were so abundant that Musab killed Mukhtar along with 7000 of his men and Abdullah Ibn Umar once told Musab that had you killed this much of sheep and goats from your father's herd even then it would have been israaf. I would exclude Mu'aviya from the list of fancy killers as his character I feel is some what different. Remember when prior to Uthman's siege Saeed bin al-aas sent Al-Ashtar , Amr Ibn Hamiq , Ibn sohan and Kumayl to him to 'sought them out' , he did not punish anyone of them. He rather send them Abdur rehman Ibn Khalid. It was Kumayl or Ibn Sohan who even snatched Mu'aviya's beard but he remained calm. I think Mu'aviya was a statesman politician. He knew that violence would only threaten his own thorn in the long run and his political ideology was very much pluralistic than his predecessors or successors. He did kill Hujar Ibn adi and Amr bin Hamiq but I think such cases are very few. Interestingly , he bought most of the Hashmites too. Aqeel was on his side. Al-Hannafiyyah used to wrestle with the romans in his court , Abdullah Ibn Jaffar used to be a regular visitor to his court and I read in Ibn sa'ad Tabaqat that Abdullah Ibn Jaffar had a pashion for music so he would sing in front of Mu'aviya too. Not to count his peace treaty with Hassan and even Abdullah Ibn Abbas giving him pledge of allegiance. He was a power hungry man no doubt but he was a very formidable politician and had a lot of acumen.
  3. No he is not unknown. Tabari has mentioned him and has also mentioned the incident of his father with Uthman. His killing at the hand of Hajjaj is also mentioned by Tabari. You are right , he was not a shia but had a personal grudge against Uthman.
  4. There is another narration in Ibn Sa'ad's Tabqat which point towards Ali's role in Uthman's killing. When Muhammad Ibn Ali al-hannafiyyah met the Caliph Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan to give him his pledge of allegiance , Abdul Malik told him that I remember you were dragging my father Marwan on the ground when Uthman was being killed but I am going to spare you for that if you give me Prophet's sword which is with you. Al-Hannafiyyah handed him the sword and Abdul Malik gave him a huge amount of money.
  5. I would respond to the rest of post in a while @Panzerwaffe
  6. ^Umayr Ibn Dhabi is the man who jumped over Uthman's dead body. His father was imprisoned by Uthman over a dog dispute and Umayr had that grudge. He was later executed by Al-Hajaaj in Kufa
  7. Dismissing Uthman's governors was a blunder and it proved to be catastrophic. Even Ibn Abbas disagreed with this decision of Ali.
  8. Nepotism is a modern day sin. It was normal back then. After Uthman Ali's governors were Suhl bin Hunaif , Uthman bin Hunaif (Hunaif brothers had made brethern with Ali after migration) , Abdullah Ibn Abbas , Ubaidullah Ibn Abbas and Qusm bin Abbas. As far as corruption , I don't think so. All the companions of Muhammad had become very much wealthy and had purchased villas and states here and there. Talhah had a huge state in Kufa. Ali had a state in the vicinity of Madina. Amr Ibn al aas had a state in Egypt and Palestine. All this I feel did bring the lust for more and more.
  9. Zubair's son was the ultimate opportunist as he even sided with the Karjites for a brief time so him siding with Ibrahim al ashtar does not prove any thing. Yes you are right about the fact that the mob from Kufa apparently supported Talhah but on that day it was the Egyptian mob which mainly carried out the execution and the Egyptians were supporters of Ali. You are right that Malik al ashtar is missing from the account of the day if Uthman's execution but he is very active before and after his execution. It was mainly al ashtar who set the stage for caliphate of Ali. See , Ummayads later on killed all those involved in the killing of Uthman and they executed some of them very brutally. Sudan , amr , Ibn Zabi , Hukaim bin Jabala , Muhammad bin Abu Bakar , Kinanah , Muhammad bin abi Hudhaifa et all all were executed. If Alids can legitimize the killing of Uthman and glorify his killers , Ummayads can legitimize the killing of Al Hussain and glorify his killers. My point is that from this perspective it becomes an ugly power struggle for the thorn between Hashmites and Bani Ummayads which the bani ummayads ultimately won and religion has nothing to do with it.
  10. Right. None can deny that Karbala has had a historical effect and Hussain is more revered than any of the Ummayad or Abbasid Calip but I am talking about practical sociopolitical effects back then when the massacre happened. Nothing significant happened after Al Hussain and for most of the people it was life as usual. Buddha is revered too but that's a cultural thing not a political thing. Hussain wanted a political change and that did not happen. What I mean is that his sacrifice contributed nothing to the political change he was looking for
  11. I have no solid views on that. I am trying to formulate ones now
  12. I recently picked Tabari's history to read about all the controversial events pertaining Shia Sunni split. The most important one is the siege and killing of Caliph Uthman. Its this event which I think directly shaped into Karbala and whatever was done to Uthman in Madinah was more or less done to Hussain in Karbala. I even remember someone from Ibn Ziyad's side saying that deprive Hussain of water as Uthman was deprived. Here I want to discuss Ali's role in the killing of Uthman. One narrative is that he was though dissatisfied with Uthman's policies and nepotism , he did not play an active role in the killing of Uthman , rather he tried to save him by acting as a middle man etc. But if one reads Tabari's narrations more closely , there are many narrations which state that Ali had an active role. For example , the day the 'rebels' of Egypt caught Uthman's servant with a letter and Ali met the rebels in front of Uthman , the rebels asked Ali "Did not you write letters to us inviting us here?". Some of the rebels then talk to each other and say " Why have we done all this for him (Ali) when he is not upto the task". On the other hand Talhah did confront Ali in the battle of camel and tolf him that it was Ali who instigated people against Uthman. Now , Mu'aviya may have had some other motives for falsely blaiming Ali but why did Talhah blamed him for that? We also see that all the notable people who were involved in the killing of Uthman were later seen as commanders in Ali's Army or governors in his caliphate like Malik al ashtar , Muhammad bin Abi Bakar , Amr bin Hamiq , Kinana bin Bishr etc. Why was that so if Ali had no active role in the killing of Uthman? The Sunni narrative is that these people had overpowered Ali but that's gibberish. I want a clear account of all this from the primary sources please.
  13. Sorry , I fail to understand this. How was religion saved?
  14. Imam Ali did start the war eventually against a man of much weaker standing than Abu Bakar and Omar but lost it to him. How is Karbala related to the reappearance of Mahdi? I feel Karbala is an event in history in which a noble man unsuccessfully stood up against a harsh unjust ruler but what's beyond that? Such events have taken place numerous times in history
  15. I don't think so anything of historical significance was achieved. Yazid kept on ruling for three years and died of natural causes. Ummayads kept on ruling for 90 years after Karbala with more authority. Unlike Ali , Hassan and Hussain , the following Imams went into political oblivion and the social significance that the Ahli Bayt had was lost. So much so that Imam Sajjad had to carry fodder for Ummayad horsemen to save his life later on. The event did not send any major ripples across the muslim lands except for the Tawabbun uprising. Even when the Ummayads were overpowered , the caliphate passed on to Abbasids who were Sunnis as well and the Ahli Bayt could not get any authority. I fail to see any significance of the massacre of Karbala except for the cultural and poetic kinda influence that it has made.
  16. I don't think so that's factually correct. Many other prominent Sunni 'Sahaba' were not rulers either and we have all the details about their lives. The same goes for many scholars of that era. It was not like the camera was so much focused on the rulers that it missed 19 years of the life of people as prominent as Hassan and Hussain.
  17. The issue is not that of Sunnis. For them Hassan and Hussain were just some other 'companions' and as nothing much is recorded about the life of Abdullah Ibn Zubair's life during Mu'aviya rule , we don't have a detailed account of Hassan and Hussain lives for those long 19 years. The matter of concern is that we don't have any Shi'i narrative of those 19 years as well. My second concern is that after these 19 years in Madina , we know that Hussain decided to move to Kufa because he was convinced Kufans have raised against Yazid. Why did not Hussain have a popular support in Madina? Abdullah Ibn Zubair also lead a rebellion against Yazid and his bastion was Mecca and Madina and it seems that he had some popular support as well as his kingdom later on covered a large area including all of Hejjaz , most of Iraq and parts of Syria before the Ummayads over powered him.
  18. Thank you but I want precise information about these 19 years. I feel something is missing from the history.
  19. I find it absolutely stupifying that we don't have any details of these 19 years. The only thing that I have heard is that they used to pray behind Marwan in Madina and Marwan shall curse Imam Ali and Hussain would curse back Marwan. The other thing that I have heard is that Hussain once got into a fued over some land with Walid Ibn utbah and the clan of bank Taim (Abu bakr's clan ) came out in his support forcing Walid to handover the land to Hussain.
  20. Hassan and Hussain lived in Madina for 19 years during the reign of Mu'aviya before Karbala. What was their life like for those 19 years? I have read almost nothing about these 19 years in any history book. Can someone share something about these 19 years from authentic primary sources?
  21. They take it because they don't care. Sufism is a mix of Islam , mythology and emotionalizism. See , Marijuana or for that matter any other intoxicating drug induces a temporary euphoria and hence an escalated spiritual state in which all the Sufi experiences become more vivid and real. But if we suppose God created this world and he is the kind of omnipotent God and just God as described by Islam , he would not want you to take Marijuana to discover him.
  22. Thank you for the reference but the Hadith makes no sense. Dhaal expliciltly means misguided or unguided and it in no way can mean alone. Secondly the second part of the verse Fahada can only be linked to the Ka (You) and it would be absurd linguistically to translate it like "He found you alone in the people therefore he guided the people to recognise you". Also if one matches it with the rest of the verses in the Surah one can not translate it in another way.
  23. Allah is telling the prophet that He found you lost and hence guided you. Can someone provide a literal translation and exegesis ? I would much appreciate if there are any sayings of Imams explaining this verse.
  24. Leibniz

    The Four Elements

    The idea of everything being made up from the four elements is an ancient myth with origins in classical Greek academia probably. The early Muslims just regurgitated what had come to them from ancient sources. It was only after the Mutazzalite tradition and the Asha'ri movement to counter them that the scientific tradition started flourishing in Islam.
  25. In case of devil one can claim free will but in case of Abu Bakr there was no free will. Its like if I give you a blue and a red marble and ask you to pick one while I have already predestined that you would pick the blue one. Its not about whether Abu Bakr was good or bad but its a contradiction between Imamah and Khilafah. Had Ali been the first Caliph there would not have been 12 Imams.
×
×
  • Create New...