Search the Community

Alhamdulillah. May Allah reward Br. Asadullah Ali

[This will be a series of blog entries on the history of ShiaChat.com; how it was founded, major ups and down, politics and issues behind running such a site and of course, the drama! I will also provide some feedback on development efforts, new features and future goals and objectives] Part 1 - The IRC (#Shia) Days! Sit children, gather around and let me speak to you of tales of times before there was ever high-speed Internet, Wi-Fi, YouTube or Facebook; a time when the Internet was a much different place and 15 yearold me was still trying to make sense of it all. In the 90s, the Internet was a very different place; no social media, no video streaming and downloading an image used to take anywhere from 5-10 minutes depending on how fast your 14.4k monster-sized dial-up modem was. Of course you also had to be lucky enough for your mom to have the common courtesy not to disconnect you when you’re in the middle of a session; that is if you were privileged enough to have Internet at home and not have to spend hours at school or libraries, or looking for AOL discs with 30 hour free trials..(Breathe... breathe... breathe) - I digress. Back in 1998 when Google was still a little computer sitting in Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s basement, I was engaged in endless debates with our Sunni brothers on an IRC channel called #Shia. (Ok, a side note here for all you little pups. This is not read as Hashtag Shia, the correct way of reading this is “Channel Shia”. The “Hashtag” was a much cooler thing back in the day than the way you young’uns use it today). For those of you who don’t know what IRC was (or is... as it still exists), it stands for Internet Relay Chat, which are servers available that you could host chat rooms in and connect through a client. It was like the Wild West where anyone can go and “found” their own channel (chat room), become an operator and reign down their god-like dictator powers upon the minions that were to join as a member of their chat room. Luckily, #Shia had already been established for a few years before by a couple of brothers I met from Toronto, Canada (Hussain A. and Mohammed H.). Young and eager, I quickly rose up the ranks to become a moderator (@Ali) and the chatroom quickly became an important part of my adolescent years. I learned everything I knew from that channel and met some of the most incredible people. Needless to say, I spent hours and dedicated a good portion of my life on the chatroom; of course, the alternate was school and work but that was just boring to a 15-year-old. In the 90’s, creating a website was just starting to be cool so I volunteered to create a website for #Shia to advertise our services, who we are, what we do as well as have a list of moderators and administrators that have volunteered to maintain #Shia. As a result, #Shia’s first website was hosted on a friend’s server under the URL http://786-110.co.uk/shia/ - yes, ShiaChat.com as a domain did not exist yet – was too expensive for my taste so we piggybacked on one of our member’s servers and domain name. The channel quickly became popular, so popular that we sometimes outnumbered our nemesis, #Islam. As a result, our moderator team was growing as well and we needed a website with an application that would help us manage our chatroom in a more efficient style. Being a global channel, it was very hard to do “shift transfers” and knowledge transfers between moderators as the typical nature of a chatroom is the fact that when a word is typed, its posted and its gone after a few seconds – this quickly became a pain point for us trying to maintain a list of offenders to keep an eye out for and have it all maintained in a historical, easily accessible way. A thought occurred to me. Why not start a “forum” for the moderators to use? The concept of “forums” or discussion boards was new to the Internet – it was the seed of what we call social media today. The concept of having a chat-style discussion be forever hosted online and be available for everyone to view and respond to at any time from anywhere was extremely well welcomed by the Internet users. I don’t recall what software or service I initially used to set that forum up, but I did – with absolutely no knowledge that the forum I just set up was a tiny little acorn that would one day be the oak tree that is ShiaChat.com. [More to follow, Part 2..] So who here is still around from the good old #Shia IRC days?

Salams I’m inviting members to share brief travel stories along with select pics about the wonderful places they have visited and the things they experienced there. The reason for starting a new thread is that I’d like to focus on individual experience, personal observations, and examples of cultural exchange and shock etc as opposed to the more general to-do and to-see lists which, in the age of the internet, anyone can look up online about any place on Earth. Reports of pilgrimages or religious travel are welcome but this is by no means the main or exclusive focus of the thread. I was in transit at Oakland airport (OAK) when I saw this appear on a digital screen with a background of an unknown snow-covered mountaintop. “We travel not to escape life but for life not to escape us.” It struck a chord. I’ll start with some observations from my Umrah trip. Until then here's something to think about:

Salam Are there any tried and verified ways to break mob mentality? Can an observer make individuals think for themselves when they are being swept up by a fanatical crowd? Or will they only think for themselves if they want to, and maybe not even then? Is there any hope for avoiding history repeating?

If you don't know what this theory is sit back and grab some popcorn. There was a Mongol-Turkish empire in the medieval ages in what is now Ukraine, Southern Russia, Azerbaijan, or in simpler terms the Caucasus Mountain region. At one point the ruler and a large chunk of the population converted to Judaism as the Byzantine Empire was Christian and the Abbasid Caliphate was Muslim. The empire collapsed after sometime this happened. The population dispersed and to this day the Khazar empire is a mystery as they barely left any traces. Now, the theory is when the empire collapsed the now Jewish-Mongol population moved westward to White European empires and mixed in with the European population while keeping Judaism alive in their isolated communities. Thus after generations after generations of mixing in with Whites, these Jews look European and the Mongol-Turk look was long gone after mixing exclusively with Whites. These "White" Jews are called by a more familiar name, Ashkenazis. Now, you may ask why is this a problem? Well a huge chunk of the Jewish Israeli population are Ashkenazi Jews. IF this theory is true, then a chunk of the supposed Jewish population in Israel no longer have rights to the land of Israel as they aren't descendants of the Jews that supposedly came into Europe after the Romans destroyed the 2nd Jewish temple 2000 years ago. Thus pretty much making the State of Israel void religiously. Try to research more and come back, What do you guys think of this theory?

Assalaamu `alaykum, all. Having a great love for Mawla `Ali (karramAllahu wajhahu) and swords in general, I thought I'd do some research into the famed Dhu-l Faqar; perhaps one day I might order a reproduction made to the specifications outlined below:1. Arab swords of the early Islamic era were similar in almost every way to either the Roman spatha or the Sassanid longsword, i.e. they were straight and double-edged (the saber was an innovation originating in Central Asia, not finding its way to the Persians or Arabs until much later). The highest quality were made in Yemen from imported wootz ingots (made in southern India). They were uniformly worn hung from a baldric; wearing a sword on one's hip on a belt was not customary (in fact it seems to have been looked down upon) for the Arabs.2. I have effectively ruled out its name referring to a bifurcation of the tip or serration of the edges (as we see on Shī`ī pendants and Indo-Pakistani interpretations). Bifurcation of the tip would make a sword structurally unsound (particularly with the desired impact area being roughly the upper third of the blade), and such a measure would be ludicrous to as ferocious a warrior as `Alī (`alayhi salām); such a sword would not have been one famously used by him. Serration of the edge (such as on the medieval Flamberge), while indeed effectively improving the performance of a cut-centric sword (as spathae were), was not innovated until much later in history. Thus I have determined that the name either has to do with cleaving/separating (the vertebrae, specifically), or referring to a particularly intricate fuller design it may have incorporated (fiqr is a word meaning fine engraving). As it was quite ordinary for spathae to have multiple (quite attractive) fullers, I'm leaning more toward translating its name as "Lord of Cleaving."3. By investigating Ibn al-Qayyim's "Zād ul-Ma`ād" and Imām Tirmidhī's "Shamā'il," I have determined the parts of Dhū-l Faqār's furniture which were made of silver, and they are as follows:-Bikrāh: these are the part of the scabbard which attach to the rings through which the baldric straps are fed.-Dhu'ābah: this would usually refer to the lanyard hung from the pommel (used for weapon retention and decoration), but since this is mentioned along with those features made of silver, I have to assume this refers to a ring through which the lanyard was strung.-Na`l: this is the decorative (and protective) endcap at the base of the scabbard, also called chape. Not to be confused with chappe.-Halqah: throat (chappe). As spathae featured both a chappe on the scabbard and the hilt, I shall thus apply it to both. Note that the chappe of a spatha's hilt tended to be incorporated into the larger (usually) shoulder-style rounded handguard.-Qabī`ah: pommel cap and handle accents.4. The blade will resemble in length, width, and taper, that of a typical 7th-century Roman spatha. It should have a roughly spatulate tip. I have decided on a U-shaped fuller; this would be a double-fuller which is joined at the tip (and matches a picture I found of the Fatimid iconography).5. As I mentioned, the best quality swords made by the Arabs were made in Yemen, which had considerable Persian influence at the time. So why isn't this sword being made in the Sassanid longsword style? I'm not assuming Dhū-l Faqār was a Yemeni-made sword, because there is a hadīth which mentions that one of the swords (not named, unfortunately) belonging to RasūlAllāh ﷺ (as Dhū-l Faqār originally did) was made in the style of the Bani Hanīfah. This tribe inhabited the Yamāmah region, which is part of modern-day Najd; far from Persian influence. Furthermore, all of the anatomical features mentioned above are indicative of Roman style. None of the Sassanid longswords I've seen has incorporated them as described, while every spatha has.So that's where I am now. I've still got a lot of research to do for ideas on the particular style of decoration I'm going to use for the mountings. I've seen some examples from the period that experts aren't sure are Byzantine or Arab, so it's safe to assume Byzantine and Arab weaponry incorporated similar, if not identical, motifs.So what's everyone think of my sword ijtihād so far? Input is welcome!

The saying usually goes “like father like son”. However, in the case of Abraham and Ishmael it should be “like son like father”. In the Qur’an, their names are written as ʾIsmāʿīl (إسماعيل) and ʾIbrāhīm (إبراهيم). It seems rather banal to those of us used to reading these names, it is an etymological peculiarity. In the original Hebrew, these names are Yišmaʿel (יִשְׁמָעֵאל‎), meaning “God Heard”, and ʾAbrāhām (אַבְרָהָם), meaning “Father of Nations”. While Yišmaʿel is Arabicized typically from Hebrew, ʾAbrāhām is not. The initial alef is pronounced with a kasrah in the Arabic rather than a fatḥah like in the Hebrew. More notably, the final alef becomes a yāʾ in the Arabic. This has even confused Muslim philologists who have listed such variants of the name as ʾAbrahām, ʾAbrāhum, and ʾAbraham. The philologist and orientalist, Arthur Jeffrey, in his “The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an”, records several theories as to why this might be the case concluding that the best possibility is that ʾIbrāhīm was put onto the same pattern as ʾIsmāʿīl’s name when being Arabicized – something the Qur’an has done with other names. Though it seems semantical, it is relevant to understanding the style of the Qur’an. This topic and others like it have to do with the history of Arabic, which, like the history of any language, is important in providing context to linguistic phenomena, and consequently better cementing our understanding of the Qur’anic text. While great efforts are made by Muslims to have mastery over Arabic grammar, there seems to be a gap in our collective understanding of this topic. Arabic is now a global language spoken by 290 million native speakers found from Morocco to Khuzestan and Central Asia, and it is used as a liturgical language by over a billion people. In the 9th-century BC, though, it was an obscure Semitic language spoken by an equally obscure ethnic group of nomadic herders and mercenaries from the South Syrian desert. As such, I intend on writing a series of brief blog posts, which will give an overview of the history of the Arabic language. In due course, we shall also examine interesting features of and notable oddities in the language, such as the one I mentioned at the beginning of my introduction. These posts will not necessarily be chronological so that the task of writing is easier. Since a language exists only due to people being there to speak it, I will also be writing general points about the history of the Arab people. This will not be comprehensive, rather, it will simply complement our primary discussion on the Arabic language. I hope that by reading this series you will grow to love the subject as much as I do, and by its completion, have deepened your knowledge of the Arabic language and the Qur’an.

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rahmat Allah Wa Barakatuh I am a Muslim born agnostic, my father is Sunni and my mother Shiite. I have a lot of questions on how Shias view certain topics. My first question is on Fatima bint al rasul, I have heard a lot of claims from Sunnis that according to Shiites, Omar ibn al-Khattab broke Fatima's ribs. Is this claim true? If yes, could I please be informed of the historical text? Moreover, what is the reason behind the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis? My second question is on the Caliphate: Would Shiites live under a Sunni caliphate? The third one is on progressiveness: Would Shiite Islam ever get rid of the Jizya system, or how does Shiite Islam view LGBTs and are the punishments similar to that of Sunni Islam? (cutting the hands in case of stealing, etc.) The fourth question is on economics: How should the economy be regulated under an Islamic caliphate, that is if it should be regulated? I would be very thankful to who answers in a detailed manner stating sources. Jazakum Allah Khayran

The 17/18March TED Radio Hour was a repeat of the 23Oct16 program. In this program the early history of our Net origins is reviewed. l thought it is good because it is both history and technology. www comes from CERN and _____. (Sorry, Al Gore ) http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/449179937/open-source-world

Hi - I am new here and hoping to find some help. I am writing a fiction novel that takes place in 1880 in Tehran, the protagonist is a young theology student and I would love to chat with anyone that may have researched that era and what life would have been like for a cleric, students, etc.etc. Trying to make the characters as likeable, believable and identifiable as possible. I am Melbourne based if anyone is keen to chat face to face or happy to do the email thing. Very much appreciated.

As salamun alaikum There was a question that struck my mind while i was reading about karbala. I read that after killing the 72 people the yazidis sliced they head off their body and put it on top of a spear and took it along the caravan. While in the mean time their bodies were burried by Hazrat Jabir ibn Abdullah in karbala. My question is that when the heads were returned to the ahlulbayt just before getting free. what was done with the heads? Plz give answers with relaible hadiths. Jazakallah khair. Was salamun alaikum

Reposting my old post and summarizing some comments to it. Quite a few Christians, especially Protestants, claim the following combination of beliefs that I find highly disturbing: 1) That “pharisaic” Judaism and its central text, Talmud, are “satanic” 2) That Islam is similar to Talmudic Judaism and therefore, by extension, is also “satanic” 3) That the entire world must support the state of “Israel” and that Palestinians are bad, because they don't support it. Since I studied in traditional anti-Zionist rabbinical institutions, I am well familiar with this topic and I would like to say a few words about it. Interestingly enough, these beliefs represent in a distilled form the original core idea of Zionism and demonstrate its origins very well. In colonial times, various British and American Protestant theologians of the early 19th century started spreading the idea of the “restoration of the Jews”. Based on their peculiar interpretation of the Christian Bible, they came to believe that if the Jews will gather in Palestine and establish there their own state, such event would trigger the Second Coming of Christ. Apparently, this idea originated from the Catholic Jesuit circles, but found a solid ground among the Anglo-Saxon Protestants, some of whom came to believe to another weird idea that they are the descendents of the original Hebrew tribes and therefore have the right to control Palestine. This website has a large collection of historical articles about these developments within Protestant groups. Contrary to Judaism, these people viewed Jews as a race and not a religion. The colonial West in the 18th and 19th centuries was in general obsessed with racial and nationalist theories. The Church condemned the Jewish Talmud since the Middle Ages, primarily because it sharply criticizes the Christian Trinity doctrine and because is written is a style that most Christian couldn't comprehend. After the series of liberal revolutions, more and more assimilated Jews became emancipated in the Western society, but due to the spread of nationalism, new anti-Jewish currents emerged in the West. In contrast to traditional anti-Judaism of the Church, these new currents were based on racial mythologies. Some assimilated Jews picked up the “brilliant” solution that early Christian Zionists offered for them: to establish their own state, based on the “enlightened” Western values of secular nationalism and colonial attitudes to non-Western people. Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, wanted originally to convert all Jews to Christianity, but later modified his views and supported “plain” secularization. Here comes a major paradox: those British and American Christians who supported this idea really wanted the Jews (and everyone in the world) to become Christians, but wished them to move to Palestine, where they could serve as allies of the colonial West. They didn't want anything “Talmudic”; they just wanted to create another “civilized” Western colonial state like South Africa. Traditional Talmudic Jews, on their hand, were totally opposed to Zionism, because the Talmud explicitly forbids this idea of gathering in Palestine and establishing their own state. This idea contradicts the basic Jewish belief that only the true Redeemer sent from God can gather them in a miraculous way and even that is not universally accepted. According to some more esoteric Jewish teachings, the future messianic Redemption of universal harmony will transcend state politics altogether. This is the real Zionist “conspiracy”: the entire Zionist movement started as a result of cooperation between Anglo-Saxon Protestants and anti-traditional assimilated Jewish nationalists. The Talmud as such plays no role in classical Zionism, except that some isolated concepts from it were adopted as secularized slogans, often in a completely twisted fashion. 90% of Jewish Zionists, let alone the Christian ones, are unable to read the Talmud at all. At best, they may consider it an important historical piece of Jewish literature. Typical high-rank supporters of the Zionist state like bankers and politicians are usually totally secular and have no serious Jewish education. As long as they thinks and acts like their right-wing Protestant Christian fellow ruthless businessmen, they are “cool”. If they would act "Talmudic", they wouldn't fit into the club. Since the Zionists captured and twisted the minds of many Jews, new heretical varieties of Judaism emerged from this confusion. Such notorious fascists as Baruch Goldstein or Meir Kahane undoubtedly considered themselves followers of the Talmud. We hear now chief rabbis and famous religious figures supporting Zionism and spreading hatred against the Palestinians and Muslims. How did this happen? Simple enough and in some ways quite similar to Wahhabi currents in Islam. The Talmudic corpus and related literature is a very large and complicated collection of texts, which may be compared to the Muslim Hadith collections. The Quran (5:32) contains an explicit quote from the Talmud and affirms the basic traditional Jewish belief that the Talmud contains supplemental parts of Moses' prophecy, which has been transmitted through oral narration. The above verse is found only in the Talmudic literature and not anywhere in the Bible. A number of other verses in Quran also have parallels in the Talmud and not found in the Scripture. Besides orally transmitted information from the prophets, the Talmud contains many legal decisions that the Talmudic sages derived using certain logical rules, which were also transmitted from Moses. It also contains historical rabbinical decrees, esoteric interpretations of the Scripture, theological and ethical discussions, various folk legends and even ancient medicinal remedies. Those Christians who tried to study the Talmud and came to hate it didn't get what it is all about. The Talmudic literature is a extremely large and diverse collection of discussions about all sorts of things, recorded during many centuries mostly in Persia and written in a very Persian multilayer story-inside-story style. The largest and most reliable collection is called “Bavli”, which means the Babylonian or Iranian Talmud. It's written mostly in Sassanian dialects of Aramaic, not in Hebrew. Practical law or advices comprise only a fraction of the Talmud and are a matter of debates and analysis. Many narrations and interpretations are rejected by the Talmudic text itself, but were still considered worth recording or allowing an esoteric interpretation. In some cases, parallel narrations allow to decide, which variant is more reliable in practice. A number of schools within Judaism, somewhat like Islamic madhhabs, derive various laws from the Talmud by somewhat different rules. One school considers a certain narrator or some text more practically reliable than another etc. No one in traditional Judaism, since the Middle Ages, derives any law directly from the Talmud without consulting first classic commentators and existing practical legal literature. Proper understanding of the Talmud requires years of systematic study and reading lots of commentaries. Maybe, this link to another Shiachat thread could help the readers to understand where most of these old Christian accusations come from. Anti-Muslim writers use the Ahadith in the same exact fashion, taking things out of context or by amplifying weak rejected narrations. Many Talmudic discussions are related to similar theoretical issues. Capital punishment was abolished in Judaism about 2000 years ago, because no one is considered righteous enough to serve as a judge or witness for such serious cases. Even when capital punishment existed, it was very rarely practiced by the line of tradition that became what's known today as rabbinical Judaism. Only very directly committed offenses, with at least two righteous male witnesses and a proper warning, could lead to death penalty. In many cases, the Talmud discusses, whether some weird and disgusting actions could be punished, in theory, by a human court, or whether one who did them may perform certain religious rituals. Such discussions also help to understand the metaphysical, philosophical and esoteric underpinnings of various laws. One classic example that Christians constantly use against the Talmud is that a Jew who kills a non-Jew is exempt from death penalty. First of all, some commentators explain that it only applies to people who worship idols and have no morality, and not to Christians and Muslims. Murder of a Jew or non-Jew is a terrible sin, whether punishable by human means or not. Second, the Talmud lists many other situations when a murderer is exempt from penalty. The general line in the Talmud is to find all possible ways and arguments to avoid death penalty. A court who would kill even one person in 70 years would be considered a “bloody court” and some sages provided a logic that, in Islamic terms, avoids “hudud” altogether. Another classic example Christians use against the Talmud that it allegedly teaches that sex with a girl below 3 years is permitted. Absolutely not! What it says that if such undoubtedly disgusting act happened, the girl would still be considered a virgin and her honor would not be blemished. The main and most famous complaint against the Talmud is its alleged teachings of Jewish supremacy. The Talmud never considers non-Jews “subhuman”. That's simply a fabrication. But it does contain pretty harsh statements about idol worshipers and teachings about the Jews' being a people who receive special and unique blessings from God, if they carefully follow Judaism. One main source of controversy and potential misunderstanding is that the Talmudic texts sometimes conflate the terms "goy" (non-Jew) and "akum" (abbreviation of "Star worshippers"), because most non-Jews, when the Talmud was written, were "by default" idol worshippers of various kinds. Careful analysis of parallel narrations shows that all this negative stuff is about idolaters. The Talmud praises non-Jewish monotheists, including some Persian kings and other people. Another example. Current standard editions of the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 37a) contain the following: Therefore, humans were created singly, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if he had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if she had saved a full world. The oldest version of this Talmudic quote correspond exactly to the Quran 5:32 and don't mention Jews in particular. The Yerushalmi Talmud, the Midrashim and several other parallel transmissions of this quote also don't mention the word "Israel". Even in the case of the common Babylonian Talmud editions, this quote makes a difference between Jews and immoral non-believers, but does not, exclude non-Jews who practice an ethical monotheistic religion, as it is easy to prove by the internal logic of the same Talmudic tract, which praises non-Jewish monotheists and equated them with the Jewish High Priest who served at the Jerusalem Temple (Sanhedrin 59a). In Islamic terms, this is an example of a "weak Hadith". The basic practical Talmudic structure of categories of believers/unbelievers, as their are interpreted in Judaism, goes as follows: Good people: Torah-observant Jews, who receive special blessings for following Moses' prophecy. A convert to Judaism is a Jew. According to traditional Judaism, it doesn't matter, whether Jews today are descendents of the ancient Hebrews or Khazars or Romans. Righteous non-Jews, who follow the prophecy of Noah and receive special blessings. Muslims are usually included in this category or in a somewhat different respected category of people. Trinitarian Christians are included by many opinions, but it's a matter of debate. Some schools of thought completely equate Muslims and Christians with the Jews on social and spiritual level. More liberal rabbinical authorities include all ethical people into this category, including polytheists and atheists, using basic ethics as the main criterion of righteousness. I personally agree with this opinion. It's a duty for Jews to support, love, help, treat well, respect all good people. Bad people: Classic idolaters of Antiquity. In times of peace, Jews must treat them well and with hospitality, deal with them fairly, help their poor, but the basic attitude is to stay away from them, not to get too friendly and not to help them too much. Ex-Jewish outright heretics and non-believers. The worst category in the Talmud. No love, no good treatment here. According to some hardcore opinions, they may be killed even without a court decree. To secular Jewish readers: No, neither me nor most Orthodox Jews today accept this attitude. People get confused and come up with all sorts of ideas. Some atheist definitions of nature or philosophical ground of being are more theologically sound than some other people's weird ideas about God, who may better decide, who is a heretic and who is not. The “gray zone”: Many classic sources of rabbinical law say that the Talmud condemns only the seven ancient Canaanite tribes who practiced human sacrifices or other ancient nations like the Romans who would come to a circus to entertain themselves watching animals tearing people apart or forcing slaves to fight each other to death. So, even someone would erect today a statue, proclaim it as a deity and bow to it, there is still room to disregard this behavior, love and respect such a person. Or, esoterically, one may say that everything is a reflection of God's names and this person in his heart really worships God. On the other hand, because the status of Trinitarian Christianity is a matter a debate in Judaism and because the Church systematically persecuted, killed, tortured and humiliated the Jews until recent times, there are many Orthodox Jews who avoid having close friendship with Christians and have negative opinions of their religion. For Christian readers: No, I don't agree with this attitude and many Orthodox Jews don't. But there is enough room for opposite opinions here. More inclusively minded Orthodox Jews tend to value ethical behavior over religious beliefs, while more hardcore Orthodox tend to regard people as heretics and idolaters for any slight deviation. In any case, traditional Judaism requires to treat everyone nicely and fairly. Traditionally, Islam was always considered the closest religion to Judaism. Christianity, on the other hand, was often viewed negatively, although there are many highly positive opinions on it, i.e. by Menachem Meiri, Jacob Emden and Elia Benamozegh. Very many classic commentaries to the Torah and Talmud were written in Muslim countries, often originally in Arabic. Most classical schools of rabbinical law were established in Muslim countries. The Zionists turned the Jewish history upside down. They discarded the long history of Jewish-Islamic cultural synthesis and invented the myth of “Judeo-Christian” civilization. Classical Judaism with its Talmud, which explicitly forbids the Jews to create a state in Palestine and which was written in a “politically incorrect” region (Iraq and Iran), has no place in classical secular Zionism. But here comes a surprising twist. After the Nazi genocide of millions of European Jews, the Zionist movement captured the attention of most Jews who were well familiar with the long history of traditional Christian anti-Jewish hatred. But the Zionist's best allies and the originators of their ideology were some Protestant sects who don't exactly like Judaism. So the Zionists projected the history of Christian anti-Jewish persecution on the Muslims. To be fair, persecutions did happen under various Muslim rulers, but they were not nearly as common as in the Christian world and they were actions of certain corrupt individuals and not an integral doctrine of religion. The Jews perfectly understood that, but the Zionists seized the moment after the Nazi genocide and managed to confuse many people. Another factor that helped this confusion was that the governments in some Muslim countries made the conditions of the local Jewish communities unbearable after the Zionist state was established and forced them to leave the Arab countries. This was a very bad move, which only popularized Zionism and helped to created this new myth of anti-Jewish Muslim hatred. The final factor is the Salafi/Wahhabi type of Muslims who basically copied the old Christian hatred against the Jews. So, two very anti-traditional and somewhat similar movements, both strangely connected to Anglo-Saxon Protestantism in their ideology - Wahhabism and Zionist pseudo-religion - started fighting each other and polluting the world with their ideas. As a result of all that, new forms of “religious” Zionists emerged. All negativity against the idolaters and oppressive types of Christians that one can find throughout the history of Judaism was redirected in a highly amplified and concentrated form to the Muslims. The fact that this negativity has to do with theology (idols and Trinity) was ignored. On the contrary, Muslims became somehow equated in this Zionist twisted version of Judaism with the worst kind of idolaters, who should be normally still treated nicely and without trying to dominate them. But here is a catch: one may kill “even the best of idolaters”, according to the Talmud, during a military combat. The “religious” Zionists declared that their state is in constant war with the Muslims who want to kill all Jews. Such twisted logic basically gives a license to kill. The same exact logic is used by Wahhabis who removed the concept of “Ahl Al-Kitab” from their version of Islam and consider everyone at permanent war with Muslims. There is a good book written by Yakov Rabkin, A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, which explains how traditional Judaism and Zionism are totally incompatible. The author is an Orthodox Jew and a history professor. I strongly don't recommend books written by anti-religious authors (Israel Shahak) or fanatical right-wing Christians (David Duke, Israel Shamir), because such authors usually have no serious knowledge of Judaism and often promote hatred against both Jews and Muslims under a mask of “anti-Zionism”. I hope this rough introduction is clear enough. If people here will find these topics interesting, we could go into more detailed discussions. There also also esoteric trends in Judaism, kind of similar to Bektashis or Alawites, who tend to emphasize things like personal devotion and non-literal interpretations over fixed rules. My main interest on this forum is not battling Zionism. I am trying to apply Henry Corbin's methodology to Jewish philosophy and esoterica, and I find studies of Hadith and Irfan in comparison to Talmud and Kabbalah very refreshing and important.

Assalaaam'alikum everyone, thanks for reading. I've been up all night and slouching at work pondering this. The Shia' side of Islam purposes that our Prophet SAW was infallible and acted out Islam (which I agree with from an infallible perspective that the Prophet never intentionally committed a wrong or sinful act and therefore has not), before it was revealed since his birth correctly its true form..., (im not sure if this is extended to the imams as well it seems so) But don't these verses sort of contradict this? Unless I'm wrong on that perspective, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm only basing this from what Ive heard interacting with others here and its possible i've misunderstood. 46:9 Say, "I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner." 10:15 And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, those who do not expect the meeting with Us say, "Bring us a Qur'an other than this or change it." Say, [O Muhammad], "It is not for me to change it on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I should disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day." 7:203 And when you, [O Muhammad], do not bring them a sign, they say, "Why have you not contrived it?" Say, "I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord. This [Qur'an] is enlightenment from your Lord and guidance and mercy for a people who believe." 6:50 Say, [O Muhammad], "I do not tell you that I have the depositories [containing the provision] of Allah or that I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me." Say, "Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Then will you not give thought?" I mean unless i've misunderstood or someone misspoke, These verses seem to directly go against the idea that the Prophet SAW lived and exemplified the Qu'ran/God's Laws prior to their revelation. A recurring theme, amazingly Sub'an Allah, where he says "I only follow what is revealed to me", no one in that time seems to pick up on the Prophet SAW living or exemplifying Islamic manifestations prior to revelation and brings it up... Being unaware of God's message doesn't give capacity to one to sin, of course. and to a lesser extent, these verses: 118:10 Say, "I am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord - let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone." 27:65 Say, "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah , and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected." -The Qur'an was Unseen before the Prophet's SAW birth. was it not? Thoughts? commentS? Advice? Suggestions?

The anniversary of prophet departure has just passed. The anniversary of his birth is upcoming in the next few months. As you might have noticed, not a lot is known about our prophet, his struggle, his efforts to reach out and spread religion. A lot is being misunderstood. In this forum, we get many new muslims or friendly christians who are eager to know us and our religion from our own mouths. We get many younglings, we get many old shia who are also ignorant about the prophet then we got our own restricted knowledge about him as well. This is a call for all of us here who are able to produce a well researched well written pieces of articles regarding the prophet Seerah , so by the time of his birth anniversary we will be having something to gift to the prophet. The ground is open to all. Each one can try, after all giving a little is better than nothing at all and our prophet deserves from us the little time we can spend to write small piece of writing.

History of Revival of Halab (Aleppo)540 CE - Aleppo was pillaged and burned to the ground by the Persian Sāsānian king Khosrow I. 962 CE - Aleppo was besieged and pillaged by the Byzantine army of Nicephorus II Phocas. Sayf alDawlah the Muslim leader rebuilt it & Aleppo relived in glory anew. 1138 CE - Earthquakes destroyed large portions of Aleppo. Nur alDin Zinki came & rebuilt it from the ground. 1260 CE - The Tatar Mongols led by Hulaku took Aleppo. He massacred its inhabitants & pillaged the city. The Mongols were soon ejected from Syria by the Mamlūks of Egypt. The city continued to suffer, enduring an outbreak of plague in 1348 CE and a devastating attack by Timur in 1400 CE. 1822 CE & 1830 CE - just 200 years ago, 1/3 of Aleppo's inhabitants were killed & its buildings destroyed in 2 major earthquakes. & in 1979 CE - Bashar al Assad's father, Hafiz alAssad sieged Aleppo & people were rounded up & over 2000 massacred even after Eid al Fitr holiday. After all of this. Halab (Aleppo) returned. عادت حلب،

A new website, www.history-islam.com, is now online. Not yet fully complete but the major features are allready functioning. Majority of hIstory topics were adapted from english,irib.ir, and some are from other sources. Data can be filtered by topics and can be search by typing a keyword. It also includes a quotes from our personalities, maybe in the future this would seperate into another website, www.infalliblequotes.com.

Assalamallikum, We all have informational gaps in our education that should have been mentioned/covered in school. Here is a good example: The first art historian, in the modern sense, was Giorgio Vasari. He wrote the volumes "The Lives ..." in which he coined several words of modern usage: --rinascita --Rennaissance-- --concorronza -completion, which has a capitalist sense because artists competed for patronage --goth -became Gothic Architecture though Vasari meant it in a derogatory sense as goth=barbaric --Byzantine --as "eastern" Rome, which is named after an 8th Century BCC/BCE city on the site of what will become Constantinople Here is a good three page read for college students -which High Schoolers can use (like to impress their instructors)- on Byzantine Studies: --- http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199252466.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199252466-e-001 ------within this article is a reference to Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" . Reading his bio on Wiki is a start and a summation on his theses. plus: a word for describing Islamic (and other) art: tessellate -to form into a mosaic

Since there is no room for the forum about the history, so i put this on General Discussions. If there is more literature concerning this history, please put the article, books, or weblink in this thread. I am still reading this article :) . If Nabi Muhammad SAWW let his Ummah to slaughter hundreds of human, will this act refute his Ma'sum/infalibillity ? So this is the link and articles. http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.html NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA By W. N. ARAFAT From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (1976), pp. 100-107. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper. The biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us that Banu Qaynuqa.,1 and later Banu al-Nadir,2 provoked the Muslims, were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possessions. Later on Khaybar3 and Fadak4 were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira,5 the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza, sided with the Qura[Edited Out]es and their allies, who made an unsuccessful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in time they surrendered, but unlike the Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery. Consequentiy, trenches were dug in the market-place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and their necks were struck.6 Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900. On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy. The Arabic sources will now be surveyed, and the contribution of their Jewish informants will be discussed. The credibility of the details will then be assessed, and the prototype in earlier Jewish history pin-pointed. The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him.8 But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story, which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble. One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories. It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced together by him from information given by a variety of persons he names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza. Against these late and uncertain sources must be placed the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There, the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." There is no reference to numbers. Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens the relevant chapter on the siege of Medina. These were: a client of the family of al-Zubayr and others whom he "did not suspect". They told parts of the story on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Ka'b b. Malik, al Zuhri, 'Asim b. 'Umar b. Qatada, 'Abdullab b. Abi Bakr, Muhammad b. Ka'b of Qurayza, and "others among our men of learning", as he put it. Each of these contributed to the story, so that Ibn Ishaq's version is the sum total of the collective reports, pieced together. At a later stage Ibn Ishaq quotes another descendant of Qurayza, 'Attiyya13 by name, who had been spared, and, directly, a certain descendant of al-Zabir b. Bata, a prominent member of the tribe of Qurayza who figures in the narrative. The story opens with a description of the effort of named Jewish leaders to organize against the Muslims an alliance of the hostile forces. The leaders named included three from the Banu al-Nadir and two of the tribe of Wa'il, another Jewish tribe; together with other Jewish fellow-tribesmen unnamed. Having persuaded the neighbouring Bedouin tribes of Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja' to take up arms, they now proceeded to Mecca where they succeeded in persuading the Quraysh. Having gathered together a besieging force, one of the Nadir leaders, Huyayy b. Akhtab, in effect forced himself on the third Jewish tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, and, against the better judgement of their leader, Ka'b b. Asad, he persuaded them to break faith with the Prophet in the hope, presented as a certainty, that the Muslims would not stand up to the combined attacking forces and that Qurayza and the other Jews would be restored to independent supremacy. The siege of Medina failed and the Jewish tribes suffered for their part in the whole operation. The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon and outright rejection. The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later generations without the meticulous care or the application of the critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed. It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life.14 It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira. On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq.15 One finds, therefore, that later historians and even exegetes either repeat the very words of Ibn Ishaq or else abbreviate the whole story. Historians gave it, as it were, a cold reception. Even Tabari, nearly 150 years after Ibn Ishaq, does not try to find other versions of the story as he usually does. He casts doubt by his use of the words, "Waqidi alleged (za'ama) that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug." Ibn ai-Qayyim in Zad al-ma'ad makes only the briefest reference and he ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers. Ibn Kathir even seems to have general doubt in his mind because he takes the trouble to point out that the story was told on such "good authority" as that of 'A'isha.16 Apart from mild complacency or doubtful acceptance of the story itself, Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry;17 the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza. His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor"18 "who transmits his stories from the Jews".19 In other words, applying his own criteria, Malik impugned the veracity of Ibn Ishaq's sources and rejected his approach. Indeed, neither Ibn Ishaq's list of informants nor his method of collecting and piecing together such a story would he acceptable to Malik the jurist. In a later age Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said,20 condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar21 then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". Nothing could be more damning than this outright rejection. Against the late and uncertain sources on the one hand, and the condemning authorities on the other, must be set the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." Exegetes and traditionists tend simply to repeat Ibn Ishaq's tale, but in the Qur'an the reference can only be to those who were actually in the fighting. This is a statement about the battle. It concerns those who fought. Some of these were killed. others were taken prisoner. One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner the significance of the event would have been greater. There would have been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it would be normal to expect only a brief reference. So much for the sources: they were neither uninterested nor trustworthy; and the report was very late in time. Now for the story. The reasons for rejecting the story are the following: (i) As already stated above, the reference to the story in the Qur'an is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatever of the killing of a large number. In a battle context the reference is to those who were actually fighting. The Qur'an is the only authority which the historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is the authentic version. (ii) The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition. (iii) To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden."22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named. (iv) It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed.23 (v) It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates in his Kitab al-amwal24 that when Khaybar felt to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by execesive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq (he said to them) I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza. (vi) If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark.25 (vii) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden." Indeed, Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates a very significant incident in his book Kifab al-amwal,26 which, it must be noted, is a book of jurisprudence, of law, not a sira or a biography. He tells us that in the time of the Imam al-Awza'i27 there was a case of trouble among a group of the People of the Book in the Lebanon when 'Abdullab b. 'All was regional governor. He put down the sedition and ordered the community in question to be moved elsewhere. Al-Awza'i in his capacity as the leading jurist immediately objected. His argument was that the incident was not the result of the cormmunity's unanimous agreement. "At far as I know (he argued) it is not a rule of God that God should punish the many for the fault of the few but punish the few for the fault of the many." Now, had the Imam al-Awza'i accepted the story of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza, he would have treated it as a precedent, and would not have come out with an argument against Authority, represented in 'Abdullah b. 'Ali. Al-Awza'i, it should be remembered, was a younger contemporary of Ibn Ishaq. (viii) In the story of Qurayza a few specific persons were named as having been put to death, some of whom were described as particularly active in their hostility. It is the reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe. (ix) The details given in the story clearly and of necessity imply inside knowledge, i.e. from among the Jews themselves. Such are the details of their consultation when they were besieged, the harangue of Ka'b b. Asad as their leader; and the suggestion that they should kill their women and children and then make a last desperate attack against the Muslims. (x) Just as the descendants of Qurayza would want to glorify their ancestors, so did the descendants of the Madanese connected with the event. One notices that that part of the story which concerned the judgement of Sa'd b. Mu'adh against Qurayza, was transmitted from one of his direct descendants. According to this part the Prophet said to Mu'adh: "You have pronounced God's judgement upon them [as inspired] through Seven Veils."28 Now it is well known that for the purposes of glorifying their ancestors or white washing those who were inimical to Islam at the beginning, many stories were invented by later generations and a vast amount of verse was forged, much of which was transmitted by Ibn Ishaq. The story and the statement concerning Sa'd are one such detail. (xi) Other details are difficult to accept. How could so many hundreds of persons he incarcerated in the house belonging to a woman of Banu al-Najjar?29 (xii) The history of the Jewish tribes after the establishment of Islam is not really clear at all. The idea that they all departed on the spot seems to be in need of revision, as can be seen on examining the sources. For example, in his Jamharat al-ansab,30 Ibn Hazm occasionally refers to Jews still living in Medina. In two places al-Waqidi31 mentions Jews who were still in Medina when the Prophet prepared to march against Khaybar - i.e. after the supposed liquidation of all three tribes, including Qurayza. In one case ten Madanese Jews actually joined the Prophet in an excursion to Khaybar, and in the other the Jews who had made their peace with him in Medina were extremely worried when he prepared to attack Khaybar. Al-Waqadi explains that they tried to prevent the departure of any Muslim who owed them money. Indeed Ibn Kathir32 takes the trouble to point out that 'Umar expelled only those Jews of Khaybar who had not made a peace agreement with the Prophet. Ibn Kathir then proceeds to explain that at a much later date, i.e. after the year 300 A.H., the Jews of Khaybar claimed that they had in their possession a document allegedly given them by the Prophet which exempted them from poll-tax. He said that some scholars were taken in by this document so that they ruled that the Jews of Khaybar should be exempted. However, that was a forged letter and had been refuted in detail. It quoted persons who were already dead, it used technical terms which came into being at a later time, it claimed that Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan witnessed it, when in fact he had not even been converted to Islam at that time, and so on. So then the real source of this unacceptable story of slaughter was the descendants of the Jews of Medina, from whom Ibn Ishaq took these "odd tales". For doing so Ibn Ishaq was severely criticized by other scholars and historians and was called by Malik an impostor. The sources of the story are, therefore, extremely doubtful and the details are diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the rules of the Qur'an to make the story credible. Credible authority is lacking, and circumstantial evidence does not support it. This means that the story is more than doubtful. However, the story, in my view, has its origins in earlier events. Is can be shown that it reproduces similar stories which survived from the account of the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, which ended in the destruction of the temple in the year AD. 73, the night of the Jewish zealots and sicarii to the rock fortress of Masada, and the final liquidation of the besieged. Stories of their experience were naturally transmitted by Jewish survivors who fled south. Indeed one of the more plausible theories of the origin of the Jews of Medina is that they came after the Jewish wars. This was the theory preferred by the late Professor Guillaume.33 As is well known, the source of the details of the Jewish wars is Flavius Josephus, himself a Jew and a contemporary witness who held office under the Romans, who disapproved of certain actions which some of the rebels committed, but who nevertheless never ceased to be a Jew at heart. It is in his writings that we read of details which are closely similar to those transmitted to us in the Sira about the actions and the resistance of the Jews, except that now we see the responsibility for the actions placed on the Muslims. In considering details of the story of Banu Qurayza as told by the descendants of that tribe, we may note the following similar details in the account of Josephus: (i) According to Josephus,34 Alexander, who ruled in Jerusalem before Herod the Great, hung upon crosses 800 Jewish captives, and slaughtered their wives and children before their eyes. (ii) Similarly, large numbers were killed by others. (iii) Important details of the two stories are remarkably similar, particularly the numbers of those killed. At Masada the number of those who died at the end was 960.35 The hot-headed sicarii who were eventually also killed numbered 600.36 We also read that when they reached the point of despair they were addressed by their leader Eleazar (precisely as Ka'b b. Asad addressed the Banu Qurayza),37 who suggested to them the killing of their women and children. At the ultimate point of complete despair the plan of killing each other to the last man was proposed. Clearly the similarity of details is most striking. Not only are the suggestions of mass suicide similar but even the numbers are almost the same. Even the same names occur in both accounts. There is Phineas, and Azar b. Azar,38 just as Eleazar addressed the Jews besieged in Masada. There is, indeed, more than a mere similarity. Here we have the prototype - indeed, I would suggest, the origin of the story of Banu Qurayza, preserved by descendants of the Jews who fled south to Arabia after the Jewish Wars, just as Josephus recorded the same story for the Classical world. A later generation of these descendants superimposed details of the siege of Masada on the story of the siege of Banu Qurayza, perhaps by confusing a tradition of their distant past with one from their less remote history. The mixture provided Ibn Ishaq's story. When Muslim historians ignored it or transmitted it without comment or with cold lack of interest, they only expressed lack of enthusiasm for a strange tale, as Ibn Hajar called it. One last point. Since the above was first written, I have seen reports39 of a paper given in August 1973 at the World Congress of Jewish Studies by Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, in which she challenges Josephus' assertion that 960 besieged Jews committed suicide at Masada. This is highly interesting since in the story of Qurayza the 960 or so Jews refused to commit suicide. Who knows, perhaps the Story of Banu Qurayza is an even more accurate form of the original version. Footnotes 1. Ibn Ishaq, Sira (ed. Wustenfeld, Gottingen, 1860), 545-7; (ed. Saqqa et al., Cairo, 1955), II, 47-9. See also al-Waqidi, Kitab al-maghazi (ed. M. Jones, London, 1966), II, 440 ff.; Suhayl, al-Rawd al-unuf (Cairo, 1914), I, 187 et passim; Ibn Kathir, al-Sira al-Nabawiya (ed. Mustafa `Abd al-Wahid, Cairo, 1384-5/1964-6), II, 5, et passim. 2. Sira, 545-56, 652-61/II, 51-7, 190-202; Ibn Kathir, oop. cit., III, 145 ff. 3. Sira, 755-76, 779/II, 328-53, 356, etc. More on Khaybar follows below. 4. ibid., 776/II, 353-4. 5. ibid., 668-84/II, 214-33. 6. ibid., 684-700/II, 233-54. 7. ibid., 689/II, 240; `Uyun al-athar (Cairo, 1356 A.H.), II, 73; Ibn Kathir, II, 239. 8. In his introduction to `Uyun al-athar, I, 7, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (d. 734 A.H.), having explained his plan for his biography of the Prophet, expressly states that his main source was Ibn Ishaq, who indeed was the chief source for everyone. 9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied. 10. d. 179. 11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12. 12. ibid, I, 16. 13. Sira, 691-2/II, 242, 244; `Uyun al-athar, II, 74, 75. 14. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (op. cit., I, 121) makes precisely this point in relation to the story of the Banu Qaynuqa' and the spurious verse which was said to have appeared in Sura LIII of the Qur'an and at the time was taken by polytheist Meccans as a recognition of their deities. The author explains how various scholars disposed of the problem and then sums up by stating that in his view, this story is to be treated on the same level as tales of the maghazi and accounts of the Sira (i.e. not to be accorded unqualified acceptance). Most scholars, he asserts, usually treated more liberally questions of minor importance and any material which did not involve a point of law, such as stories of the maghazi and similar reports. In such cases data would be accepted which would not be acceptable as a basis of deciding what is lawful or unlawful. 15. See n. 18 below. 16. Tabari, Tarikh, I, 1499 (where the reference is to al-Waqidi, Maghazi, II, 513); Zad al-ma`ad (ed. T. A. Taha, Cairo, 1970), II, 82; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., IV, 118. 17. On this see W. Arafat, "Early critics of the poetry of the Sira", BSOAS, XXI, 3, 1958, 453-63. 18. Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila. 19. `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7. In his valuable introduction Ibn Sayyid al-Nas provides a wide-ranging survey of the controversial views on Ibn Ishaq. In his full introduction to the Gottingen edition of the Sira, Wustenfeld in turn draws extensively on Ibn Sayyid al-Nas. 20. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7. 21. ibid. 22. Qur'an, XXXV, 18. 23. Qur'an, XLI, 4. 24. ed. Khalil Muhammad Harras, Cairo, 1388/1968, 241. 25. Significantly, little or no information is to be found in general or special geographical dictionaries, such as al-Bakri's, Mu`jam ma'sta`jam; al-Fairuzabadi's al-Maghanim al-mutaba fi ma`alim taba (ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1389/1969); Six treatises (Rasa'il fi tarikh al-Madina ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1392/1972); al-Samhudi, Wafa' al-wafa' bi-akhbar dar al-Mustafa (Cairo, 1326), etc. Even al-Samhudi seems to regard a mention of the market-place in question as a mere historical reference, for in his extensive historical topography of Medina he identifies the market-place (p. 544) almost casually in the course of explaining the change in nomenclature which had overtaken adjacent landmarks. That market-place, he says, is the one referred to in the report (sic) that the Prophet brought out the prisoners of Banu Qurayza to the market-place of Medina, etc. 26. p. 247. I am indebted to my friend Professor Mahmud Ghul of the American University, Beirut, for bringing this reference to my attention. 27. d. 157/774. See EI2, sub nomine. 28. Sira, 689/II, 240; al-Waqidi, op. cit., 512. 29. Sira, 689/II, 240; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., III, 238. 30. e.g., Nasab Quraysh (ed. A. S. Harun, Cairo, 1962), 340. 31. op. cit., II, 634, 684. 32. op. cit., III, 415. 33. A. Guillaume, Islam (Harmondsworth, 1956), 10-11. 34. De bello Judaico, I, 4, 6. 35. ibid., VII, 9, 1. 36. ibid., VII, 10, 1. 37. Sira, 685-6/II, 235-6. 38. Sira, 352, 396/I, 514, 567. 39. The Times, 18 August 1973; and The Guardian, 20 August 1973.

Please read this article: https://ballandalus.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/the-wahhabi-sack-of-karbala-1802-a-d/ There is always a first time and this is the first time I have read it myself. Is this info reliable?

Greetings, This is not an anti semite topic. I found this when i was looking for reasons of hatred that was directed to jews in Europe. Through studying history, it seems that usury played a key role in this situation. In the old world , there were three major religions :Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The last 2 religions forbade usury. Judaism forbade taking interests from other jews but made it ok to take it from non jews and according to some interpretations, it is an obligation upon a jew to take interest from non jew. In this wiki page, there is a mention of the role of banking in the crusades. But I am very poor in economy and can't get the whole mechanism of how it worked. would someone explain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking

Sallam Alikum, and I sent my condolences to the Muslim Ummah for the tragic death anniversary of the Holy Lady Fatima (AS). I have been looking all over the place to find where Fatima Al-Zahra is mentioned in mainly Sahih Muslim and Bukhari about Omar Ibn Alkhattab attacking the house of Bibi Fatima? Can someone help locate these narration? Also other than the reason of "different translations" what do you say about this? http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?37869-Did-Umar-(R-A-)-tried-burn-the-house-of-Fatima-(R-A-)

Peace be upon you guys, I need help in finding Seyed Mohammed Ali Shahrestani work that is translated into English, if not, arabic is fine. I can't seem to find anything. Thanks in advance

Animosity in the hearts of the people Abu Ya’laa and Bazzaar have narrated on the authority of narrators considered correct by Haakim, Zahabi, Ibne Habbaan and others that Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) informed بینا رسول اللّٰہ ﷺ آخذ بیدی ونحن نمشی فی بعض سکک المدینہ، اذ أتینا علیٰ حدیقۃ، فقلت:یا رسول اللّٰہ !ماأحسنھا من حدیقۃ !فقال: انّ لک فی الجنۃ أحسن منھا.ثم مررنا بأُخری، فقلت :یا رسول اللّٰہ !ما احسنھا من حدیقۃ !قال: انّ لک فی الجنۃ أحسن منھا.حتیٰ مررنا بسبع حدائق، کل ذالک أقول ما احسنھا ویقول :لک فی الجنۃ أحسن منھا، فلما خلا لی الطریق اعتنقنی،ثم أجھش باکیاً.قلت: یا رسول اللّٰہ !ما یبکیک؟قال: ضغائن فی صدور أقوام لا یبدونھا لک الا من بعدی.قال: قلت : یارسول اللّٰہ !فی سلامۃ من دینی؟قال: فی سلامۃ من دینک“One day Holy Prophet took my hand in his hand and we both started walking slowly in one of the lanes of Madinah. We reached near a garden. I said, ‘O Prophet of Allah, what a beautiful garden!’ Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said, ‘O Ali you have a more beautiful garden than this in paradise.’ After this we reached another garden. I said, ‘O Prophet of Allah, what a beautiful garden!’ Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said, ‘O Ali you have a more beautiful garden than this in paradise.’ We came across seven gardens and after each garden I said, ‘what a beautiful garden!’ and Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) replied, ‘You have a more beautiful garden than this in paradise.’ When the road was deserted, Holy Prophet embraced me and began weeping. I asked, ‘O Prophet of Allah! What makes you weep?’ Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informed, ‘This nation bears animosity towards you in their hearts which they will reveal after I am gone.’ I asked, ‘O Prophet of Allah! Will I be steadfast on my religion at the time?’ Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) replied, ‘Yes, you will be steadfast.’ This tradition has been recorded with the same meaning and text in Majma al-Zawaaed on the authority of Abu Noaimi[1] and Bazzaar and in Mustadrak[2] with the same chain of narrators. Haakim and Zahabi[3] both consider this tradition to be correct. Based on this it is an accepted fact that the chain of narrators of this tradition is correct. However the text is summarized in Mustadrak. Only Allah knows whether this has been done by Haakim himself or was done in the subsequent editions (by the editor) or was done by the publisher. On examining it is evident that the chain of narrators of this tradition is the same as the one taken by Abu Ya’laa and Bazzaar which Haakim and Zahabi consider as correct. However the only difference in the two references is that Haakim has recorded this in an incomplete manner i.e. he has concluded the narration at ‘you have a more beautiful garden than this in paradise.’ Similarly it is evident from other traditions that the ‘nation’ referred to in this tradition is the Quraysh which has been elaborated in the forthcoming topics. VISIT SERATONLINE.COM Who was responsible for misguiding the people after Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)? Another fact that is evident is it was the Quraysh who were responsible for the deviation and destruction of the people after the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise. In one tradition Abu Huraira relates: Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informed: یھلک امتی ھٰذا الحی من قریش‘Some people from the Quraysh are dragging my nation towards destruction.’ People asked, ‘What should we do at that time?’ Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.): لوان الناس اعتزلوھم‘The people should distance themselves from them (the corrupt ones from the Quraysh).’ In another tradition Abu Huraira says, I have heard from the truthful Prophet (s.a.w.a.), ھلاک امتی علیٰ یدی غلمۃ من قریش‘The destruction of my nation will be at the hands of those from the Quraysh with lust for power.’ The people asked, ‘Is Marwan among them?’ Abu Huraira declares, ‘If I want I can name each one of them and I can even inform you of their tribes.’ Both these traditions are considered correct.[4] The Enmity of the Quraysh and Bani Umayyah toward Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his progeny In the preceding pages we have recorded traditions wherein the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had exposed the treachery and animosity of the people. Now we shall examine some narrations about the enmity of the Quraysh with special reference to Bani Umayyah. Some of these people bore enmity from the time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), which was evident. However, since they could not settle scores with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) they rose against the Ahle Bait (s.a.) in order to get back at Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) relates, اللّٰھمّ انی أستعدیک علیٰ قریش، فانھم أضمروالرسولک ضروباً من الشر والغدر، فعجزوا عنھا، و حُلت بینھم و بینھا، فکانت الوجبۃ بی والدائرۃ علیّ. اللّٰھمّ احفظ حسناً وحسیناً، ولا تمکّن فجرۃ قریش منھما ما دمت حیاً، فاذا توفّیتنی فانت الرقیب علیھم وانت علیٰ کل شيء شہید ‘O Allah, I seek help from You against the Quraysh. They concealed their hatred and animosity towards the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) because they could not reveal it. O Allah You protected him (s.a.w.a.) from them. Now they are targeting me with their hatred. O Allah, protect Hasan and Husain till the time I am alive. Do not allow the transgressors of the Quraysh to dominate them. And after I depart from the world then You alone are a Custodian. And You are a Witness over everything.’[5] Note how Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) describes the hatred and animosity in the hearts of the Quraysh. Until the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was alive Allah did not allow them to expressly show their animosity. However once the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) passed away Ameerul Momineen (s.a.) had to bear the brunt of their hostility. Likewise, it is evident from Ameerul Momineen’s (a.s.) statement that the Quraysh would target Hasan (a.s.) and Husain (a.s.) with their hatred for the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and would finally kill them. In another sermon Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) declares, وقال قائل انک یابن ابی طالب !علیٰ ھٰذا الامر لحریص. فقلت: بل انتم. واللہ. أحرص و أبعد، و أنا اخص و أقرب و انما طلبت حقاً لی و انتم تحولون بینی و بینہ، و تضربون وجھی دونہ، فلما قرّعتہ بالحجۃ فی الملأ الحاضرین ھبّ کانہ بہت لا یدری ما یجیبنی بہ.One person told me, ‘O son of Abu Talib you are greedy for leadership.’[6] I replied, ‘By Allah, you people are greedier for leadership while you have nothing to do with it. On the other hand I am more deserving of it and I am (only) demanding my right. You are obstructing my path and preventing me from acquiring leadership.’ ‘When I convinced him with firm arguments and proofs in the midst of the people, he realised he was wrong and was so stunned that he could not respond.’ ‘O Allah, I seek help from You against the Quraysh and their helpers. Surely they have severed relations with me. They have belittled my high status and they have gathered to contend with me regarding the matter that was exclusively for me.’ Then the people said, ‘sometime you should demand your right and sometime you should abandon them.’ Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) wrote a letter to his brother Aqeel.. فدع عنک قریشاً و ترکاضھم فی الضلال، و تجوالھم فی الشقاق، وجما حھم فی التیہ، فانھم قد اجمعوا علیٰ حربی اجماعھم علیٰ حرب رسول اللہ ﷺ قبلی، فجزت قریشاً عنی الجوازی، فقد قطعوا رحمی وسلبونی سلطان ابن أُمّی‘Leave the discussion about Quraysh and their deviation and their dissent and their stubbornness as these people have already decided to fight me like they had decided to fight the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.). Now only Allah will punish the Quraysh for severing relations with me and usurping the leadership of my cousin (Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)) from me.’[7] Ibne Adi in his book Al-Kaamil narrates: Once Abu Sufyan said, ‘the example of Muhammed (s.a.w.a.) in the Bani Hashim is like the example of a flower with sweet fragrance in the midst of foul odour.[8] Someone informed the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) about Abu Sufyan’s statement. On hearing this, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) rose while his face showed signs of anger. (He said) مابال اقوام تبلغنی عن اقوام …‘What kind of senseless talks am I hearing from the people?’[9] Ibne Adi in Al-Kaamil has clearly mentioned Abu Sufyan’s name while recording this narration. In some other books the same statement has been documented but instead of Abu Sufyan it is attributed to an anonymous person. For example refer to Majma al-Zawaaed.[10] In another tradition Abdul Muttalib Ibn Rab’ee Ibn Harith Ibn Abdul Muttalib narrates, ‘Some of the Ansaar approached the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and said: We are hearing senseless talks from people related to your tribe to the extent that one person said – Muhammed (s.a.w.a.) is like a date tree growing in the midst of rubbish!’[11] Even this narration has been recorded with some changes (to conceal the truth). The Cause of the Enmity Take away prejudice and stubbornness of the historians and traditionalists and it will become clear that the animosity and snide comments were a result of the close proximity between Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.). These people were challenging Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) so that they could exact vengeance from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). In addition to this Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib’s (a.s.) role in slaying the senior members of Quraysh in various battles was another factor which cannot be ignored as a cause for animosity. Especially when one considers that Uthmaan himself had pointed this out to Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.). Aabi in his book Nathr al-Dorar[12] records that Ibne Abbas narrates that in one of the discussions with Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.), Uthmaan said ما اصنع ان کانت قریش لا تحبکم، و قد قتلتم منھم یوم بدر سبعین کانّ وجوھھم شنوف الذھب‘What do I do if the Quraysh do not love you? In the battle of Badr you had killed seventy of their members of which each one was like shining gold.’ Obviously, the Quraysh could not express their resentment over this humiliation in front of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). So they turned against the Ahle Bait (s.a.) to exact revenge just as the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had prophesied. This led to a chain of events wherein they turned against Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) and Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.). After them they opposed Imam Hasan (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.). The opposition to Ahle Bait (a.s.) and by extension to their lovers is evident till date. Enmity with Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) and Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) What is evident from history is that every effort was made to restrict the propagation of the traditions of the infallibles (a.s.). On the other hand the traditionalists and narrators of Sunnis were relentlessly forging traditions and narrations. The caliphs prohibited the narration of important traditions which had the potential to embarrass them. Books that recorded such narrations were either burnt or destroyed. Under such circumstances, it is not possible for one to demand that the incidents related to oppression and injustice on Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) be presented in a precise and unambiguous manner. Rather, we can narrate these incidents in the briefest manner possible given that the traditionalists and historians who were conscious of their duty to present the truth narrated the events with great difficulty and at great risk. These events were concealed and transmitted secretly so as not to alert the government who wanted to put an end to its propagation. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had already informed the Ahle Bait (a.s.) that the nation would behave treacherously with them and take revenge from them. The Quraysh sought to take revenge from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by tormenting Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) who was a part of him. Since the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had already mentioned that Faatemah (s.a.) is a part of me, the Quraysh sought to spite the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by turning against Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.). Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) was present in the nation as a part of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) so that the nation could be examined and those who bore enmity towards the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) would be exposed through their enmity of Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.). And this examination came very quickly after the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise so much so that Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) passed away to meet her father just like he had prophesied. We do not expect to compile all the incidents and narrations right down to the minutest detail. However, if we can compile even 50% of the narrations and incidents then it is reasonable to say that we can conclude from the remaining incidents to a large extent. We have seen the level of distortion that these narrations have been exposed to so much so that the narration of Abu Sufyan, Islam’s biggest enemy, insulting the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has been recorded by attributing it to an anonymous person. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that we record all the incidents that transpired after the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise when many of these incidents and narrations involve such explosive comments and reputed personalities. However, Allah’s Grace and Bounties on His servants have ensured that despite the most trying of circumstances, some faithful historians and narrators were always present to document these incidents and narrations so that the truth would be evident to the seekers of truth across all eras. Our endeavour at all times has been to narrate from the reputed books of Sunnis. We have not taken the help of Shiah references in this matter. Even with the Sunnis references we have taken care to narrate from ancient texts as opposed to those that were compiled in the subsequent centuries. [1] Majma al-Zawaaed, vol. 9, pg. 118 [2] Mustadrak, vol. 3, pg. 139 [3] Mizaan al-Etedaal, vol. 3, pg. 355 [4] Musnad-e-Ahmad, vol. 2, pg. 288, 301, 324, 328 [5] Sharho Nahj al-Balaaghah, vol. 20, pg. 298 [6] Nahj al-Balaaghah, vol. 2, pg. 84; Nahj al-Balaaghah of Faiz al-Islam Sermon 171 [7] Sharho Nahj al-Balaaghah, vol. 16, pg. 151 [8] We have taken great care to translate critical sentences from Sunnis sources. [9] Al-Kaamil fi al-Zo’faaee, vol. 3, pg. 28 [10] Majma al-Zawaaed, vol. 8, pg. 215 [11] Ibid [12] This book has been published and now available in the market. For more details refer to Sharho Nahj al-Balaaghah, vol. 9, pg. 23

This article points out to some history of the good relationship Muslims had with Jews until Palestine was usurped. http://www.dawn.com/news/1150340/jews-under-muslim-rule

This is a nice, informative and well referenced blog about azadari practices in India and adjoining countries http://vsgoi.blogspot.in/ Tazia, the most important icon of Muharram ceremonies, is also an example of a unique craft with deep roots in the historical and cultural milieu of India. Prepared as a replica of Imam Hussain’s shrine at Karbala, thousands of tazias in various shapes and sizes are taken out as an integral part of Muharram processions. History behind The word "tazia" is a derivative of an Arabic word "taziat" meaning 'condolence.' According to Hollister 'the custom of carrying these models of Hussain's tomb is said to date from the time of Timur (d. 808 A.H./1405 A.D.), who brought such a miniature tomb back from Karbala, later called the tazia.' Scholars agree on the origin of the tazia rituals in India, but differ on whether Timur had the zarih (the miniature model) built on order, or had it brought from Karbala. The practice and rituals of commemorating the tragedy of Karbala spread with the expansion of Islam in India. As the people adopted Islam and started to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam and his companions at Karbala, they established their own traditions of azadari (performances of all the Muharram rituals in general in which taziadari is one of the most significant aspects ) according to their diverse cultures. Read more on http://vsgoi.blogspot.in/