Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Did Shias Kill Imam Hussain(as)?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

^ refer to post #25

for refs see biography of ibn abihudhayfa/ibnhamiq/ in Usdul Ghaba and Al-Isaba

and events around murder of uthman and its participants listed in Tabari, muhammad b abibakrs role is wellknown in it

for shurayah b hanis loyalty to ali see the events around arbitration at siffin in Tabari or Minqari waqat sifffin

He mentions Abul Hasan Mazani as killer of uthman,its true but I wasnt able to locate any of his participation in the later civil war

but Rifa'a b Rifea Zuraqi another Badri is one of those who assaulted the house of ibn affan and he is listed in all his biographies as a participant in all wars of ali on his side

should we begin to name the opponents of uthman who were in ali's army

you, as a Sunni, acknowledge Imam Ali to be a righteous Caliph. Does that make you Shia? Certainly not. Similarly, most of those who were living under the government of Imam Ali were not his followers, and that was why they rebelled against him for their own worldly interest, the list include:

Aisha/Talha/Zubair and their supporters and these were the ones whose hands were filled with boold of uthman ibn affan, as well as those whom Imam Ali named them al-Khawarij (kharijites) who disobeyed Imam Ali in the battle of Siffin and announced that Ali is a polytheist (Mushrik). No doubt that Imam

Ali gave an oath that he will fight and kill all of them except nine individuals who will be able to escape (one of which later murdered Imam

Ali (as)), and this exactly happened in the battle of Nahrawan. Imam Ali never called them Shia, nor the historians claimed them as such, but you

do! The Shia of Imam Ali are those for whom the Messenger of Allah as follows:

The Messenger of Allah said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you and

your companions and your Shia (followers) will be in Paradise."

Sunni references:

(1) Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655

(2) Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p329

(3) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289

(4) al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani

(5) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22

(6) al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous

authorities.

(7) al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247

Thus the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) used to say the phrase of "Shia of Ali". This phrase is not something invented later! Prophet Muhammad

(PBUH&HF) said that the true followers of imam Ali will go to Paradise, and this is a great felicity. Also Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari narrated that:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "The Shia of Ali are

the real victorious in the day of resurrection/rising"

Sunni references:

- al-Manaqib Ahmad, as mentioned in:

- Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p62

- Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, who quotes

the tradition as follows: "We were with the Holy Prophet when Ali came

towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shia will aquire salvation

on the day of judgment."

The stupid claim that Shia killed Imam Husain follows that the Prophet

states those who will kill Imam Husain will go to Paradise! Perhaps, you

believe that's why Yazid did so.

Such claim by Wahhabis has been made solely to cover the nasty face of the

tyrannical leaders of that time and to drift the attention from their

horrible crime, and to justify their rule. It will not be surprising that

they have gone as far as saying it was the legitimate right of Yazid to

take all possible action to preserve his dynasty. In contrast with the

claim of these individuals, the Sunni history confirms that Imam Husain was

killed by the direct order of Yazid (LA):

Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid in Kufah) was leaving Iraq

to Syria after killing the battle of Karbala, with a guard of his

followers. Shuraih (the payroll Judge who gave verdict that the blood

of Imam Husain is Halaal) noticed that he was silent for a long time,

he approached him and said: "O Ubaydullah, I think it bothered you

that you killed Husain?! Ubaydullah said: No! Indeed Yazid had

ordered me to either kill Husain or he (Yazid) will kill me.

Sunni reference: History of Ibn Athir, v4, p140

The above gives evidence to the fact that he was Yazid who gave the direct

order to kill Imam Husain (as). Later, when the scandal of his horrible

crime and the abuse of the household of the Prophet started shaking his

regime, he condemned the act of Ibn Ziyad in public and disassociated

himself. It has also been reported that:

Yazid ordered the head of Husain brought to Syria, when it was put to

him he started abusing it and beating it with his stick and said the

following Poetry:

I wish that my elders in Badr witness the fear of Khazraj from the

falling of the swords. Then they would have cherished and savored (my

act) and by saying O Yazid may your arm be powerful (for getting

revenge by killing Husain). Sunni refernces:

- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch. 11, pp 331-332

- al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48

- Tarikh Alisalm v5, p18-19

Those who killed imam hussain were the ones who gave allegiance to abubakr, umar, uthman, muawia and yazid, none of them loved ali and his family. i have already proven what abubakr and umar did with fatima zahra(sa). and i will prove what muawiyah did with imam hassan(as). and you certainly know what yazid did to imam hussain(as). and the best prove that yazid and his followers which include the 3 caliphs and muawiya were not shia of ali was hurr ibn ziyad riahi(as), he converted to shia or follower of hussain on ashura and he said to his troops that i have to choose to go to hell or paradise,hussain(as) is son of ali(as) and fatima(sa), the prophet loved him, how can i raise against him? and then he went to imam hussain and imam hussain accepted him.

moreover imam hussain(as) told the yazidi troops, o shias of ale abi sofian, do you know who i am? this is very clear that yazidi troops were all the present day nawasib. this is very clear.

Edited by imamia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The names and identities of the killers are known, and obviously they were not Shiites.  If one wants to discuss the role and participation of the kufans, by all means do so, but the statement 't

I suggest you kindly remain on topic instead of trying to speculate about the religious beliefs of the brother. The topic is open for everyone to discuss, as is our forum in general.  Thanks for

Kufa  was founded in the rule of second caliph and it was also promoted by wealthy persons during the rule of third caliph, thus it is obvious that the people of Kufa were followers of the caliphs and

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Shias did not kill Imam Husayn(as). This had been debunked by Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani recently. You can listen to his speech (Night 3 - Did The Shi'ah of Kufa kill Imam Husayn (as) ? ) here http://www.alemaan.net/public/index.php?view=audio&mid=4&aid=7&aname=MUHARRAM%201432/2010&lname=Sayed%20Ammar% 20Nakshawani

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^ when somebody lies so blatantly as nakhswani does then they hide the truth and propogate falsehood, what respect cud we have for such people ?

(salam) to All the Muslims,

Panzerwaffe,

It shines out clearly to anyone who has been observing this thread that somehow you bare a form of a grudge against the Sayyed, I have no idea why you would consider reciting in the Iraqi tone of mourning, something recommended in ahadith of the Imams (as) to be "singing" (of course, this merely demonstrates the fact that you have 1- Never been an Imami Shi'a contrary to what you claim or 2- are familiar with this injunction yet are hiding behind cheap insults).

You my friend are nothing but a Pseudo, Self-Professed Historian, who read one or two academic works and hence thought you knew it all. The major problem with you is what we call Epistemological Schizophrenia, you have no objective standard for discerning truth, you utilise History books which themselves are self-contradictory and filled with conflicting accounts. At times you have even referred to Albani's criticisms of Isnads, yet you are not even an orthodox Sunni.

You are a follower of the Pseudo-Scholar Muhammad al-Asi, who's methodology is just as loose and random, not to mention as subjective as the choice on a cafeteria menu, a man who praises Salahuddin Ayyubi and yet also praises Hassan al-Sabah.

I think the real problem with people like yourself my equal in humanity is that you are drowning in your own sad pathetic insecurity, you are a Pseudo-Historian who doesnt even know the original languages of the sources involved in the study of Islamic History. You hide behind Sunnism, yet yourself are a tafdheeli who rejects Mu'awiyah (LA) yet no Orthodox Sunni does this.

It's ironic due to this, you have no community, you're the sad lone wolf, with only one scholar who represents you: Imam al-Asi, rejected by Shi'as, rejected by Sunnis.

No wonder you consider Sayyed Ammar a liar, when you consider both trends of Islamic Orthodoxy- Sunni and Shi'a to be lies. You are a revisionist pseudo historian, who jealous at Sayyed Ammar, must attack him via mocking.

Here's a challenge for you, Sayyed Ammar is a recognised Historian, a Doctoral student in the field of Islamic Historiography in a Top UK University, he knows the original languages of sources and has been teaching the subject.

In terms of recognised Historical analysis, who are you? can you access the original sources?

I think insha Allah, my words should now have spoken to your heart my friend, jealousy is not an islamic trait. If you disagree with someone, do so respectfully, don't hide your jealousy and hatred behind cheap insults and mockery- after all, we're all trying to be better Muslims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam) to All the Muslims,

Panzerwaffe,

It shines out clearly to anyone who has been observing this thread that somehow you bare a form of a grudge against the Sayyed, I have no idea why you would consider reciting in the Iraqi tone of mourning, something recommended in ahadith of the Imams (as) to be "singing" (of course, this merely demonstrates the fact that you have 1- Never been an Imami Shi'a contrary to what you claim or 2- are familiar with this injunction yet are hiding behind cheap insults).

You my friend are nothing but a Pseudo, Self-Professed Historian, who read one or two academic works and hence thought you knew it all. The major problem with you is what we call Epistemological Schizophrenia, you have no objective standard for discerning truth, you utilise History books which themselves are self-contradictory and filled with conflicting accounts. At times you have even referred to Albani's criticisms of Isnads, yet you are not even an orthodox Sunni.

You are a follower of the Pseudo-Scholar Muhammad al-Asi, who's methodology is just as loose and random, not to mention as subjective as the choice on a cafeteria menu, a man who praises Salahuddin Ayyubi and yet also praises Hassan al-Sabah.

I think the real problem with people like yourself my equal in humanity is that you are drowning in your own sad pathetic insecurity, you are a Pseudo-Historian who doesnt even know the original languages of the sources involved in the study of Islamic History. You hide behind Sunnism, yet yourself are a tafdheeli who rejects Mu'awiyah (LA) yet no Orthodox Sunni does this.

It's ironic due to this, you have no community, you're the sad lone wolf, with only one scholar who represents you: Imam al-Asi, rejected by Shi'as, rejected by Sunnis.

No wonder you consider Sayyed Ammar a liar, when you consider both trends of Islamic Orthodoxy- Sunni and Shi'a to be lies. You are a revisionist pseudo historian, who jealous at Sayyed Ammar, must attack him via mocking.

Here's a challenge for you, Sayyed Ammar is a recognised Historian, a Doctoral student in the field of Islamic Historiography in a Top UK University, he knows the original languages of sources and has been teaching the subject.

In terms of recognised Historical analysis, who are you? can you access the original sources?

I think insha Allah, my words should now have spoken to your heart my friend, jealousy is not an islamic trait. If you disagree with someone, do so respectfully, don't hide your jealousy and hatred behind cheap insults and mockery- after all, we're all trying to be better Muslims.

all these lines but just bunch of fluff , i can see your frustration as u cant answer my questions

nakhswani is "recognized historian" what piece of academic historical work has he produced

regarding your question of original sources anyone can have access to original sources, the books that i refer to are considered primary sources today of biographies since their sources are now not availible

you, as a Sunni, acknowledge Imam Ali to be a righteous Caliph. Does that make you Shia? Certainly not. Similarly, most of those who were living under the government of Imam Ali were not his followers, and that was why they rebelled against him for their own worldly interest, the list include:

Aisha/Talha/Zubair and their supporters and these were the ones whose hands were filled with boold of uthman ibn affan, as well as those whom Imam Ali named them al-Khawarij (kharijites) who disobeyed Imam Ali in the battle of Siffin and announced that Ali is a polytheist (Mushrik). No doubt that Imam

Ali gave an oath that he will fight and kill all of them except nine individuals who will be able to escape (one of which later murdered Imam

Ali (as)), and this exactly happened in the battle of Nahrawan. Imam Ali never called them Shia, nor the historians claimed them as such, but you

do! The Shia of Imam Ali are those for whom the Messenger of Allah as follows: The Messenger of Allah said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you and

your companions and your Shia (followers) will be in Paradise."

Sunni references:

(1) Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655

(2) Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p329

(3) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289

(4) al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani

(5) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22

(6) al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous

authorities.

(7) al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247

Thus the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) used to say the phrase of "Shia of Ali". This phrase is not something invented later! Prophet Muhammad

(PBUH&HF) said that the true followers of imam Ali will go to Paradise, and this is a great felicity. Also Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari narrated that:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "The Shia of Ali are

the real victorious in the day of resurrection/rising"

Sunni references:

- al-Manaqib Ahmad, as mentioned in:

- Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p62

- Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, who quotes

the tradition as follows: "We were with the Holy Prophet when Ali came

towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shia will aquire salvation

on the day of judgment."

The stupid claim that Shia killed Imam Husain follows that the Prophet

states those who will kill Imam Husain will go to Paradise! Perhaps, you

believe that's why Yazid did so.

Such claim by Wahhabis has been made solely to cover the nasty face of the

tyrannical leaders of that time and to drift the attention from their

horrible crime, and to justify their rule. It will not be surprising that

they have gone as far as saying it was the legitimate right of Yazid to

take all possible action to preserve his dynasty. In contrast with the

claim of these individuals, the Sunni history confirms that Imam Husain was

killed by the direct order of Yazid (LA):

Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid in Kufah) was leaving Iraq

to Syria after killing the battle of Karbala, with a guard of his

followers. Shuraih (the payroll Judge who gave verdict that the blood

of Imam Husain is Halaal) noticed that he was silent for a long time,

he approached him and said: "O Ubaydullah, I think it bothered you

that you killed Husain?! Ubaydullah said: No! Indeed Yazid had

ordered me to either kill Husain or he (Yazid) will kill me.

Sunni reference: History of Ibn Athir, v4, p140

The above gives evidence to the fact that he was Yazid who gave the direct

order to kill Imam Husain (as). Later, when the scandal of his horrible

crime and the abuse of the household of the Prophet started shaking his

regime, he condemned the act of Ibn Ziyad in public and disassociated

himself. It has also been reported that:

Yazid ordered the head of Husain brought to Syria, when it was put to

him he started abusing it and beating it with his stick and said the

following Poetry:

I wish that my elders in Badr witness the fear of Khazraj from the

falling of the swords. Then they would have cherished and savored (my

act) and by saying O Yazid may your arm be powerful (for getting

revenge by killing Husain). Sunni refernces:

- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch. 11, pp 331-332

- al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48

- Tarikh Alisalm v5, p18-19

Those who killed imam hussain were the ones who gave allegiance to abubakr, umar, uthman, muawia and yazid, none of them loved ali and his family. i have already proven what abubakr and umar did with fatima zahra(sa). and i will prove what muawiyah did with imam hassan(as). and you certainly know what yazid did to imam hussain(as). and the best prove that yazid and his followers which include the 3 caliphs and muawiya were not shia of ali was hurr ibn ziyad riahi(as), he converted to shia or follower of hussain on ashura and he said to his troops that i have to choose to go to hell or paradise,hussain(as) is son of ali(as) and fatima(sa), the prophet loved him, how can i raise against him? and then he went to imam hussain and imam hussain accepted him.

moreover imam hussain(as) told the yazidi troops, o shias of ale abi sofian, do you know who i am? this is very clear that yazidi troops were all the present day nawasib. this is very clear.

i have heard these twisted theories and series of half-truths several times before plz answer the questions that I raised

if u want to go into the genesis of the various factions of shia thats a seperate discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) to All the Muslims,

Panzerwaffe,

You are a follower of the Pseudo-Scholar Muhammad al-Asi, who's methodology is just as loose and random, not to mention as subjective as the choice on a cafeteria menu, a man who praises Salahuddin Ayyubi and yet also praises Hassan al-Sabah.

What's wrong with Salahuddin Ayyubi ? I opened a thread questioning 12rs to bring proof that he killed their forefathers. Till today, I have not seen a single source.

I think the real problem with people like yourself my equal in humanity is that you are drowning in your own sad pathetic insecurity, you are a Pseudo-Historian who doesnt even know the original languages of the sources involved in the study of Islamic History. You hide behind Sunnism, yet yourself are a tafdheeli who rejects Mu'awiyah (LA) yet no Orthodox Sunni does this.

And what is wrong with this ? If non-12r Shia views are filled with ignorance, can you tell us why Al Hadid al Mutazilli was appointed by a major scholar 12r to write the commentary of najh al Balagha ?

It's ironic due to this, you have no community, you're the sad lone wolf, with only one scholar who represents you: Imam al-Asi, rejected by Shi'as, rejected by Sunnis.

Its also sad, none of the 11 imams could establish their imamte due to a lack of followers. Today you are mocking a person who is banned from of Saudi Arabia for speaking against the Royal family. Yet Ahmedinejad called King Abdullah and wished him a speedy recovery.

As for your post they are only filled ad-hominem attacks. If you think you have answers to history then I do have one question for you. The majority of people of Iraq who gave bayah to Imam Ali (as) accepted him as the 4th calipah ? What is their status ? Were they Nasibi ?

Edited by Abdaal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Dear Panzerwaffe,

I must admit i do not believe you have actually read the original sources you quote from, but forgive me if i am mistaken.

1)as for using Tabari, Imam at-Tabari only placed narratives in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six? For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak narrations.

2)Yes Ibn Hamq is anti-Uthman, Shii. But he didnt participate in killing of uthman, and simply comes into prominence when questioning Ziyad.

3)Shurayh Qadi according to Tabari and Minqari was never a partisan of Ali, but merely Qadhi of Kufa from period of Umar, for a brief spell under Ali and than helped sanction ibn ziyads execution of alids in kufa. Helped sanction killing highlights a kufan who was not an Imami.

4) al Istiab Volume 4 page 48, Dhikr Abu al Hasan Mazani: “Abu Al Hasan Mazani was a companion of Prophet Muhammad (s), and he was one of the companions present in “Aqba” and Badr”. Zaid bin Thabit, on the day of ‘Uthman’s murder said to the Ansar from Madina that, “Shall we become the helpers of Allah for a second time?” He (Mazani) replied, “No! By Allah we won’t follow your lead, for if we do, we will be counted amongst those who on the Day of Judgement shall proclaim that our leaders misguided us”.

Note here this Sahaba refuses to side with ‘Uthman – he did not deem him to be a victim, on the contrary he made it clear that to side with him would lead to punishment on the day of Judgment for following a misguided Imam. He never sided with alI in any civil war.

5) in al Istiab Volume page 322 Dhikr Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa: “The lead figure in inciting people against ‘Uthman was Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa, ‘Uthman raised him for many years after his father had died. When people began to oppose ‘Uthman, Muhammad incited the Egyptians, and this worsened the situation”. RAISED BY UTHMAN!!!!! Has never had any inclination to Ali.

6)you dont seem to discuss “Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), Abdur-Rahman- bin-Adlees was present at the time of “Hudabia” peace treaty, and he was also present at the “allegiance under the tree”, “Allegiance of Rizwan”, and he was the commander of the group that came from Egypt and surrounded the house of ‘Uthman and killed him”. [Al Istiab Volume 2 page 203. he did not fight under Ali at any time.

7) If ou want to use tabari finally, then We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of Karbala, in Imam Hussain (as)’s army declaring:

“I am al-Jamali. I believe in the religion of Ali. A man called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying “I follow the religion of Uthman”. Nafi replied, “Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he attacked and killed him

Tabari Volume 19 pages 136-137

Edited by janali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1) What's wrong with Salahuddin Ayyubi ? I opened a thread questioning 12rs to bring proof that he killed their forefathers. Till today, I have not seen a single source.

2) And what is wrong with this ? If non-12r Shia views are filled with ignorance, can you tell us why Al Hadid al Mutazilli was appointed by a major scholar 12r to write the commentary of najh al Balagha ?

3) Its also sad, none of the 11 imams could establish their imamte due to a lack of followers. Today you are mocking a person who is banned from of Saudi Arabia for speaking against the Royal family. Yet Ahmedinejad called King Abdullah and wished him a speedy recovery.

4) As for your post they are only filled ad-hominem attacks. If you think you have answers to history then I do have one question for you. The majority of people of Iraq who gave bayah to Imam Ali (as) accepted him as the 4th calipah ? What is their status ? Were they Nasibi ?

Abdaal,

You're another pseudo-Historian, one who has no clear 'Aqeedah and one who's ilk is only also represented by Imam al-Asi, the Pseudo-Scholar. What are we today- Mu'tazili? Political Zaydi? Sunni?

Not too surprise you would rush to this Jaahil's defense.

As to your points, I've numbered them in the quote:

1) Salahuddin Ayyubi- Responsible for forced conversions and bloodshed in Fatimid Egypt- thats enough said really, I have a whole book on the issue in arabic, but you dont know arabic so there's no point in directing you to it.

2) Don't know, Don't care- again, rather irrelevant, I encourage Sunnis to read Nahjul Balagha, I know they won't change their views, but I encourage them to at least accept glimpses of truth. Secondly how many of your so-called Sunni brothers accuse Ibn Abi'l Hadeed al-Mu'tazili of being a Rafidi. I think my point is clear.

3) I am not Abdul-Ahmadinejad, what he does is not relevant to me, may Allah forgive him for any sins he commits. As for Imam al-Asi being banned, don't worry he wouldnt have gained any followers there, your analogy is a poor one which breaks anyway: Colonel Qaddafi of Libya was also banned from Saudi for a period of time, is he a moral paradigm for you? As for the Imams (as), it's sad yes but their role was never meant to be limited to a political dimension.

4) Abdaal, do you have reading comprehension problems?!

I've never claimed to be a master historian, where as Panzerwaffe does fancy himself as one, you tend to do so too. Hence why you break away from any orthodoxy and both follow your whims based upon your shallow understanding of history. I know that you and Panzer don't have access to any of the primary or even medieval sources other than the translated ones, and it's not ad hominem rather it's fact to state that you two who are neither trained Historians believe you can even comment on it. Particularly when neither of you can access the original arabic sources. The very fact you had to ask about salahuddin, when there is a whole genre of literature on it is telling.

In response to the so called "Panzerwaffe",

Sayyed Ammar will first be publishing his thesis into a book, after that I know he was working on translating another and also had a last one on a seperate historical issue.

Also, he was teaching at Exeter Uni.

You can now state your qualifications in history, the languages of the sources you can access etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[

To Yahya 2004

Your post are full of anger and emotions. Therefore, in those areas, all I see is blah blah blah.

1) Can you tell me which source you read for Saladdin and why I should take it as an objective source? Does this book say he killed 12rs or Ismailis ?

2) In the earlier post you stated

"I think the real problem with people like yourself my equal in humanity is that you are drowning in your own sad pathetic insecurity, you are a Pseudo-Historian who doesnt even know the original languages of the sources involved in the study of Islamic History. You hide behind Sunnism, yet yourself are a tafdheeli who rejects Mu'awiyah (LA) yet no Orthodox Sunni does this."

You claim to have a problem... So this is why I asked you about point number 2. Again you don't care. All you care about is starting up flame wars. Also in history, my Sunni brothers the Hanabali butchered the Mutazilla, and wiped out that population. Therefore, this school was a much bigger threat to them the 12r shias.

4) That's why I asked you about Ibn Hadid al Mutazillah. Please look into this. Also, can you tell me why Shaykh Al Mufid's father made him study under a mutazilli while the 12th imam was the imam of the time, and there were many 12r Shia scholars at the time too such as Shaykh Saduq and others.

Edited by Abdaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in history, my Sunni brothers the Hanabali butchered the Mutazilla, and wiped out that population.

Source? I've seen you make this claim before (about some supposed Mu`tazila massacre being the cause of their disappearance), though I have no idea what you are talking about.

4) That's why I asked you about Ibn Hadid al Mutazillah. Please look into this. Also, can you tell me why Shaykh Al Mufid's father made him study under a mutazilli while the 12th imam was the imam of the time, and there were many 12r Shia scholars at the time too such as Shaykh Saduq and others.

Again, what the heck are you talking about?! Do you just dream this stuff up and post random questions about it? Shaykh Mufid had a number of teachers, the ones you will find most prominently listed being Shaykh Saduq and Ibn Qulawayh, both Imamis. In Baghdad it was common for scholars of different sects to sit in on other each others lectures and such, so yes he did interact with the Mu`tazila (and debate with them) a fair bit. Also, Mufid was born after the greater occultation had already begun, so I don't know what you're trying to say there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Dear Panzerwaffe,

I must admit i do not believe you have actually read the original sources you quote from, but forgive me if i am mistaken.

1)as for using Tabari, Imam at-Tabari only placed narratives in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six? For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak narrations.

2)Yes Ibn Hamq is anti-Uthman, Shii. But he didnt participate in killing of uthman, and simply comes into prominence when questioning Ziyad.

3)Shurayh Qadi according to Tabari and Minqari was never a partisan of Ali, but merely Qadhi of Kufa from period of Umar, for a brief spell under Ali and than helped sanction ibn ziyads execution of alids in kufa. Helped sanction killing highlights a kufan who was not an Imami.

4) al Istiab Volume 4 page 48, Dhikr Abu al Hasan Mazani: “Abu Al Hasan Mazani was a companion of Prophet Muhammad (s), and he was one of the companions present in “Aqba” and Badr”. Zaid bin Thabit, on the day of ‘Uthman’s murder said to the Ansar from Madina that, “Shall we become the helpers of Allah for a second time?” He (Mazani) replied, “No! By Allah we won’t follow your lead, for if we do, we will be counted amongst those who on the Day of Judgement shall proclaim that our leaders misguided us”.

Note here this Sahaba refuses to side with ‘Uthman – he did not deem him to be a victim, on the contrary he made it clear that to side with him would lead to punishment on the day of Judgment for following a misguided Imam. He never sided with alI in any civil war.

5) in al Istiab Volume page 322 Dhikr Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa: “The lead figure in inciting people against ‘Uthman was Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa, ‘Uthman raised him for many years after his father had died. When people began to oppose ‘Uthman, Muhammad incited the Egyptians, and this worsened the situation”. RAISED BY UTHMAN!!!!! Has never had any inclination to Ali.

6)you dont seem to discuss “Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), Abdur-Rahman- bin-Adlees was present at the time of “Hudabia” peace treaty, and he was also present at the “allegiance under the tree”, “Allegiance of Rizwan”, and he was the commander of the group that came from Egypt and surrounded the house of ‘Uthman and killed him”. [Al Istiab Volume 2 page 203. he did not fight under Ali at any time.

7) If ou want to use tabari finally, then We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of Karbala, in Imam Hussain (as)’s army declaring:

“I am al-Jamali. I believe in the religion of Ali. A man called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying “I follow the religion of Uthman”. Nafi replied, “Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he attacked and killed him

Tabari Volume 19 pages 136-137

awaiting reply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Macisaac

Can you tell me why ibn Abil Hadid was appointed by a 12r Shia scholar to write the commentary of Nahj al Balagha ? The reason I am bringing this up is because Yahya is saying that you have to pick sides. Either you are Ahle hadith Sunni or a 12r Shia.

Source? I've seen you make this claim before (about some supposed Mu`tazila massacre being the cause of their disappearance), though I have no idea what you are talking about.

Give me time, I will look it up. .

Again, what the heck are you talking about?! Do you just dream this stuff up and post random questions about it? Shaykh Mufid had a number of teachers, the ones you will find most prominently listed being Shaykh Saduq and Ibn Qulawayh, both Imamis. In Baghdad it was common for scholars of different sects to sit in on other each others lectures and such, so yes he did interact with the Mu`tazila (and debate with them) a fair bit. Also, Mufid was born after the greater occultation had already begun, so I don't know what you're trying to say there.

I know he had many 12r Shia teachers such as Shaykh Saduq, Abu Al Jayshand Jafar ibn Qulya. However, it is also said that he studied theology under a Mutazilla scholar named Abu'l-Qasim al-Ka'bi al-Balkhi (ra).

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Macisaac

Can you tell me why ibn Abil Hadid was appointed by a 12r Shia scholar to write the commentary of Nahj al Balagha ? The reason I am bringing this up is because Yahya is saying that you have to pick sides. Either you are Ahle hadith Sunni or a 12r Shia.

Can you tell me what the heck you are talking about? What "12r" Shia scholar per say do you think this was?

Give me time, I will look it up. .

Have at it.

I know he had many 12r Shia teachers such as Shaykh Saduq, Abu Al Jayshand Jafar ibn Qulya. However, it is also said that he studied theology under a Mutazilla scholar named Abu'l-Qasim al-Ka'bi al-Balkhi (ra).

Well, that would seem pretty unlikely, considering al-Balkhi had already died before the Shaykh was even born... So where did you pull that one from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Can you tell me what the heck you are talking about? What "12r" Shia scholar per say do you think this was?

Have at it.

Well, that would seem pretty unlikely, considering al-Balkhi had already died before the Shaykh was even born... So where did you pull that one from?

Salaam 'Alaykum Brother MacIsaac,

Unfortunately when it comes to Abdaal and Scholarship he is known for making Historically Anachronistic claims and then fails to bring sources, this is generally what happens when you trust Pseudo-Scholars like Imam al-Asi.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a response from him. I'll give you some other claims which he's made:

1) Shaykh al-Mufid (ra) being the first to give Zayd ibn 'Ali a positive rating in Imami Scholarship

2) Odd claims regarding Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi (ra) and Mullah Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi.

When called to task on these things, he didn't even have the decency to concede he fell into error. That shows the extent of his sincerity bro.

Panzerwaffe on the other hand used to be a lot more respectful, he's unfortunately going down hill these days, I guess that's what happens when you spend your time with the people of ignorance like al-Asi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

,

I must admit i do not believe you have actually read the original sources you quote from, but forgive me if i am mistaken.

1)as for using Tabari, Imam at-Tabari only placed narratives in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six? For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak narrations.

hadith and history are different issues , maghazi and history cannot be studied from hadith alone thats a commonly accepted principal

2)Yes Ibn Hamq is anti-Uthman, Shii. But he didnt participate in killing of uthman, and simply comes into prominence when questioning Ziyad.

not really he is one of the 4 who broke into the chamber of uthman and he is listed as a leader of certain egyptian groups

ibn hamiq is a sahabi and prominent before his killing

3)Shurayh Qadi according to Tabari and Minqari was never a partisan of Ali, but merely Qadhi of Kufa from period of Umar, for a brief spell under Ali and than helped sanction ibn ziyads execution of alids in kufa. Helped sanction killing highlights a kufan who was not an Imami.

shurayh is at the arbitration with ALi in siffin, and he NEVER sanctioned killing of hujr infact he tried to stop their killing after his signature was forged by ibn ziyad

4) al Istiab Volume 4 page 48, Dhikr Abu al Hasan Mazani: “Abu Al Hasan Mazani was a companion of Prophet Muhammad (s), and he was one of the companions present in “Aqba” and Badr”. Zaid bin Thabit, on the day of ‘Uthman’s murder said to the Ansar from Madina that, “Shall we become the helpers of Allah for a second time?” He (Mazani) replied, “No! By Allah we won’t follow your lead, for if we do, we will be counted amongst those who on the Day of Judgement shall proclaim that our leaders misguided us”.

Note here this Sahaba refuses to side with ‘Uthman – he did not deem him to be a victim, on the contrary he made it clear that to side with him would lead to punishment on the day of Judgment for following a misguided Imam. He never sided with alI in any civil war.

so thats what i said, there is no dispute here

5) in al Istiab Volume page 322 Dhikr Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa: “The lead figure in inciting people against ‘Uthman was Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa, ‘Uthman raised him for many years after his father had died. When people began to oppose ‘Uthman, Muhammad incited the Egyptians, and this worsened the situation”. RAISED BY UTHMAN!!!!! Has never had any inclination to Ali.

so what he raised by uthman bottomline is that he supported ali and was an opponent of uthman, he was an egyptian and the friends with muhammad b abibakr

secondly have u heard of abdullah b masadi al farazi ? he was raised by ali but he hated ali and supported muawiyah

6)you dont seem to discuss “Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), Abdur-Rahman- bin-Adlees was present at the time of “Hudabia” peace treaty, and he was also present at the “allegiance under the tree”, “Allegiance of Rizwan”, and he was the commander of the group that came from Egypt and surrounded the house of ‘Uthman and killed him”. [Al Istiab Volume 2 page 203. he did not fight under Ali at any time

i never said he was a supporter of ali.

7) If ou want to use tabari finally, then We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of Karbala, in Imam Hussain (as)’s army declaring:

“I am al-Jamali. I believe in the religion of Ali. A man called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying “I follow the religion of Uthman”. Nafi replied, “Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he attacked and killed him

Tabari Volume 19 pages 136-137

that practice was common in those days that does not mean he was a imami shia, since his opponents said they were followers of uthman.If his oppenents were like present day sunnis why didnt they acknowlwedge themselves as followers of abubakr or umar first before uthman ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me what the heck you are talking about? What "12r" Shia scholar per say do you think this was?

ibn Al Alqami

Have at it.

They peaked at Momoon Rasheed's era, then after that Mamoon's successor did not adopt his will to keep the state a Mutazilla one. As for their extinction, I read an article that it was the Mongols who were responsible for their demise. However, I also recall that the Sunni rulers after the 5th century closed the doors of ijtihad. There were still some Mutazilla scholars left after the Mongol invasion, so I am wondering how they completely became extinct. I believe that has something to do with it.

Well, that would seem pretty unlikely, considering al-Balkhi had already died before the Shaykh was even born... So where did you pull that one from?

You are right. There is about a 20 year gap. Wiki use the term "his teacher", but you dismissed the possibility. Also, I'm aware that the Ahlul Bayt (as) influenced the Mutazilla, and its not the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
In response to the so called "Panzerwaffe",

Sayyed Ammar will first be publishing his thesis into a book, after that I know he was working on translating another and also had a last one on a seperate historical issue.

Also, he was teaching at Exeter Uni.

You can now state your qualifications in history, the languages of the sources you can access etc.

his thesis is debunking the fanciful picture that aisha bewley has painted of muawiyah, as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

being a historian or religious scholar is not my profession, I have my own and Alhumdillah I perform in it very well.My beef with guys like nakhswani is that they knowingly hide the truth and twist the facts to suit their sectarian agenda, in this lecture he is trying to say as if no supporters of ali were involved in the uprising and revolt/killing of uthman.Thats simply not true any objective historian will tell u

read the "murder of the caliph uthman" by Martin Hinds for starters( and he quotes exclusively muslim and mostly pro-shiite sources in it )if u want primary sources did up what Baladhuri , waqidi, abu mikhanaf and others have said about it.More original sources like manuscripts are beyond my reach they are mostly in museaums.But a lot of that is not incorporated in traditional curriculam either whether university or otherwise.Many original works of historians are LOST anyway e.g abu mikhnaf, ibn kalbi , waqidid their primary works are mostly lost

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
To Yahya 2004

Your post are full of anger and emotions. Therefore, in those areas, all I see is blah blah blah.

Lol, I'm not the one who e-stalks Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani and produces videos on him on youtube, he's certainly been angering you mate.

If I am angry, I'm angry at your deceit, lies and ignorance. Things which indeed merit anger. As for emotions, lets test the consistency of some like you Abdaal:

Your colleague in the Asi Madhab stated:

"why does nakhswani sings towards the end of his lectures ? its kinda childish and idiotic"

Does that sound intellectual, or rational to you? or do you also realise it's emotional. As my Imams (as) tell me, address people on their level, hence really and truly he merited it. As to my post towards you, if labelling you a "Pseudo-Historian" is what entitled it to be seen as emotional, then fine. However adequate examples were given to demonstrate how I came to this conclusion.

As to your points:

1) Can you tell me which source you read for Saladdin and why I should take it as an objective source? Does this book say he killed 12rs or Ismailis ?

I could, but I discuss with intellectuals not those who earned their islamic education through audio lectures. As for objective, seeing as you're neither Sunni nor Shi'a, and can't seem to decide what exactly you are, then No, as a Neo-Mu'tazili Tafdheeli, you'd probably reject whatever source I give you on "rational" grounds (very Mu'tazili) and hence would not consider objective. The source I have uses the term Imami and Ismai'li in describing who was present (two seperate groups=), so your counter-objection is not applicable for this source. Like I mentioned earlier, you don't know arabic, so no point in going further, with this point.

2) In the earlier post you stated

"I think the real problem with people like yourself my equal in humanity is that you are drowning in your own sad pathetic insecurity, you are a Pseudo-Historian who doesnt even know the original languages of the sources involved in the study of Islamic History. You hide behind Sunnism, yet yourself are a tafdheeli who rejects Mu'awiyah (LA) yet no Orthodox Sunni does this."

You claim to have a problem... So this is why I asked you about point number 2. Again you don't care. All you care about is starting up flame wars. Also in history, my Sunni brothers the Hanabali butchered the Mutazilla, and wiped out that population. Therefore, this school was a much bigger threat to them the 12r shias.

I couldn't care less about sunni in-fighting, many tragedies in history occured, I believe you're ever so slightly side-tracking. As to your question in point number two, it carries no baring on me Abdaal, you really need to get past this notion of every Imami scholar representing me. It perhaps was a bigger threat than the twelver shi'as, I view that as non-sequitor to the discussion at hand.

4) That's why I asked you about Ibn Hadid al Mutazillah. Please look into this. Also, can you tell me why Shaykh Al Mufid's father made him study under a mutazilli while the 12th imam was the imam of the time, and there were many 12r Shia scholars at the time too such as Shaykh Saduq and others.

I don't have 'ilm al-ghayb, nor any wasiyyah from Shaykh al-Mufid's father, so in short...No. Again, I feel the question is rather....shallow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam 'Alaykum Brother MacIsaac,

1) Shaykh al-Mufid (ra) being the first to give Zayd ibn 'Ali a positive rating in Imami Scholarship

You can't deny that there are negative hadith written about him in your own books. As for Shaykh Saduq & Mufid, I believe Shaykh Mufid was brighter and more knowledgeable than his teacher.

2) Odd claims regarding Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi (ra) and Mullah Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi.

There are 12rs on this site that have admitted to this.

When called to task on these things, he didn't even have the decency to concede he fell into error. That shows the extent of his sincerity bro.

At least I am bringing this up on shiachat.

Panzerwaffe on the other hand used to be a lot more respectful, he's unfortunately going down hill these days, I guess that's what happens when you spend your time with the people of ignorance like al-Asi.

What do you have against Imam Al Asi besides him being a non-12r ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

his thesis is debunking the fanciful picture that aisha bewley has painted of muawiyah, as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

being a historian or religious scholar is not my profession, I have my own and Alhumdillah I perform in it very well.My beef with guys like nakhswani is that they knowingly hide the truth and twist the facts to suit their sectarian agenda, in this lecture he is trying to say as if no supporters of ali were involved in the uprising and revolt/killing of uthman.Thats simply not true any objective historian will tell u

read the "murder of the caliph uthman" by Martin Hinds for starters( and he quotes exclusively muslim and mostly pro-shiite sources in it )if u want primary sources did up what Baladhuri , waqidi, abu mikhanaf and others have said about it.More original sources like manuscripts are beyond my reach they are mostly in museaums.But a lot of that is not incorporated in traditional curriculam either whether university or otherwise.Many original works of historians are LOST anyway e.g abu mikhnaf, ibn kalbi , waqidid their primary works are mostly lost

Dude, you're ever so slightly out of date.

That was his M.A Thesis, Ph.D is a step above that. I attended a few taught courses by the Sayyed and asked if I could read some chapters from his more recent work. Just wait till it comes out and you will be pleasantly surprised, it has an entire discussion on source methodology.

Perhaps if you realised the nature of something before you dismissed it, it would be more useful. Anyway, judging from the fact you've generally had to refer to work done by Hinds, the deceased Orientalist historian shows me you do not have access to read the primary sources involved in the investigation of Islamic Historiography, hence I really think you are in no position to dismiss someone who has taught at one of the top U.K Institutes in the field of Islamic History.

It would be like a kid who builds model planes, complaining to a Boeing Engineer about his flaws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Dude, you're ever so slightly out of date.

That was his M.A Thesis, Ph.D is a step above that. I attended a few taught courses by the Sayyed and asked if I could read some chapters from his more recent work. Just wait till it comes out and you will be pleasantly surprised, it has an entire discussion on source methodology.

Perhaps if you realised the nature of something before you dismissed it, it would be more useful. Anyway, judging from the fact you've generally had to refer to work done by Hinds, the deceased Orientalist historian shows me you do not have access to read the primary sources involved in the investigation of Islamic Historiography, hence I really think you are in no position to dismiss someone who has taught at one of the top U.K Institutes in the field of Islamic History.

It would be like a kid who builds model planes, complaining to a Boeing Engineer about his flaws.

i refered to hinds work so you could have a start but i dont completely rely on it for myself , can you name the PRIMARY sources of islamic history ? esp pertaining to uthmans opponents the topic at hand

Just wait till it comes out and you will be pleasantly surprised, it has an entire discussion on source methodology.

thats not unique most PHD thesis incorporate that no matter what field you are in,i will be interested in his conclusions about important events rather than details of methodology since there is nothing "new " here, these sources have been debated upon by generations of scholars

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1- You can't deny that there are negative hadith written about him in your own books. As for Shaykh Saduq & Mufid, I believe Shaykh Mufid was brighter and more knowledgeable than his teacher.

2- There are 12rs on this site that have admitted to this.

3- At least I am bringing this up on shiachat.

4- What do you have against Imam Al Asi besides him being a non-12r ?

1- There are hadiths on everything and anything in our books, we need to use methodologies to test the hadith, like isnaad criticism. The fact is your initial claim was wrong, and you have never had the humility to accept that.

As to your point on Mufid and al-Saduq, thats neither here nor there, I may be inclined to agree with you, however the nature of Shaykh al-Saduq's works which have been passed down to us don't give us enough to judge that, compared to the nature and amount of Shaykh Mufid's, so it may be an unfair judgement.

2- That's irrelevant, you brought no proof for the assertion when challenged by MacIsaac, there are "Shi'as" on this site who claim all sorts, please don't assume that to be a criterion of any sort.

3- So you're lack of sincerity is made up for by you making false claims on Shiachat?! Sorry mate, not following.

4- Many things, he generally seems to make claims without sourcing, he claims to represent muslims yet comes from no tradition of scholarship, he seems to be a Muslim-Supremacist who glorifies an Islamic Past which had horrible sides to it, like I was shocked by some of his lectures that he seemed almost proud of the darker histories of some of the figures he was speaking on. I used to be a fan of his, but I have found him to be a misleading Muslim-Supremacist who wishes to return us to a History which is Anachronistic and at other times extremely dark and grim. Nonetheless, I might open a thread on this in future, I don't want to switch the topic here.

i refered to hinds work so you could have a start but i dont rely on it for myself , can you name the PRIMARY sources of islamic history ? esp pertaining to uthmans opponents the topic at hand

thats not unique most PHD thesis incorporate that no matter what field you are in,i will be interested in his conclusions about important events rather than details of methodology since there is nothing "new " here, these sources have been debated upon by generations of scholars

I don't claim to be a Historian, you on the other hand do.

My Speciality would fall more into the primary works of Sirah-Maghazi literature and after that the Imami Hadith Literature.

Sure, it's not Unique, I'm just pointing out that you've accused him of many things, I already made my boeing comparison to show how I feel you're outgunned on this. Secondly, please let's not be patronising, when it comes to Historiographical discussions, our Islamic Historians didn't apply modern methods of Historiography and so it's a massive exaggeration to liken the debates of the generations of scholarship to modern day academic debates, I'm not dismissing the former, but at least dont equivicate it with the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
don't claim to be a Historian, you on the other hand do.

when did i make that claim ?

Sure, it's not Unique, I'm just pointing out that you've accused him of many things, I already made my boeing comparison to show how I feel you're outgunned on this.

i was pointing out the inaccuracies of his statements just like you crticize Al-Asi even though you might not be close to his knowledge or experience

Secondly, please let's not be patronising, when it comes to Historiographical discussions, our Islamic Historians didn't apply modern methods of Historiography and so it's a massive exaggeration to liken the debates of the generations of scholarship to modern day academic debates, I'm not dismissing the former, but at least dont equivicate it with the latter

so modern day academic methods are the ultimate test of veracity of sources ? would you be willing to test your aqeedahs according to the theories based on decades of research done by likes of Madelung, Kohlberg, Donner, Poonawalla etc or would you take Nakhswani's word against theirs ? or Martin hinds for that matter !

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

ibn Al Alqami

Ibn al-`Alqami, was an `Abbasid court minister. How do you get that we was a scholar?

They peaked at Momoon Rasheed's era, then after that Mamoon's successor did not adopt his will to keep the state a Mutazilla one. As for their extinction, I read an article that it was the Mongols who were responsible for their demise. However, I also recall that the Sunni rulers after the 5th century closed the doors of ijtihad. There were still some Mutazilla scholars left after the Mongol invasion, so I am wondering how they completely became extinct. I believe that has something to do with it.

The Mu`tazila never seem to have really garnered much support (or even seem to have cared to) outside of the `Abbasid courts and scholarly elites in Baghdad and Basra. Once they lost their court patronage, and without much support from the people, and the rise of the Asha`ira et al, they would have eventually died out. By the time the Mongols came around, what Mu`tazilis that were left would have been a pale shadow of their former selves with most of the greats of their schools long gone by then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1- when did i make that claim ?

2- i was pointing out the inaccuracies of his statements just like you crticize Al-Asi even though you might not be close to his knowledge or experience

3- so modern day academic methods are the ultimate test of veracity of sources ? would you be willing to test your aqeedahs according to the theories based on decades of research done by likes of Madelung, Kohlberg, Donner, Poonawalla etc or would you take Nakhswani's word against theirs ? or Martin hinds for that matter !

1- In Several of your posts you have discussed how history motivated you to switch theological leanings, it would appear from these posts you consider yourself a trained historian.

2- Al-Asi's only experience seems to be waiting in front of some mosque, he claims the right to, like sour grapes. His knowledge, well, again it seems to be extremely shallow to me, restricted to these modern day political revolutionary types with their anachronistic readings of history.

3- Again, do you suffer from reading comprehension?!-

I never claimed they were "the ultimate test" let alone a "test" I explained they are a unique means of producing additional information on sources,

My Aqeedah is based upon what the Imams (as) taught and the Qur'an, I don't care for history to prove 'Aqeedah unlike you, so you're second question is really a strawman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I'm not the one who e-stalks Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani and produces videos on him on youtube, he's certainly been angering you mate.

The reason for that is he made our leaders Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) and Shaykh Junaid Baghdadi (ra) look like idiots. I think that type of attitude needs a response.

If I am angry, I'm angry at your deceit, lies and ignorance. Things which indeed merit anger. As for emotions, lets test the consistency of some like you Abdaal:

I am not the one who calls on unity then decides to use double meanings to attack the leaders of my opponents. Personally I have more respect more Yassir Habib since he is open.

Your colleague in the Asi Madhab stated:

There is no such thing as an Asi madhab. Imam Al Asi is admired because he covers areas in history which Sunnis scholars of today don't. However, unlike your hero he does not declare 12rs are non-momins. Recall what Nakshawani narrated about Qari Abdul Basit. At least you admit you don't have ilm-e-gaib.

I could, but I discuss with intellectuals not those who earned their islamic education through audio lectures. As for objective, seeing as you're neither Sunni nor Shi'a, and can't seem to decide what exactly you are, then No, as a Neo-Mu'tazili Tafdheeli, you'd probably reject whatever source I give you on "rational" grounds (very Mu'tazili) and hence would not consider objective. The source I have uses the term Imami and Ismai'li in describing who was present (two seperate groups=), so your counter-objection is not applicable for this source. Like I mentioned earlier, you don't know arabic, so no point in going further, with this point.

The problem is at that time the Fatimids first had a split. So it was Ismailis vs Ismailis. Then the other problem with the Fatimids allied themselves with the Crusaders. Do you have any defense for that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1- The reason for that is he made our leaders Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) and Shaykh Junaid Baghdadi (ra) look like idiots. I think that type of attitude needs a response.

2- I am not the one who calls on unity then decides to use double meanings to attack the leaders of my opponents. Personally I have more respect more Yassir Habib since he is open.

3- There is no such thing as an Asi madhab. Imam Al Asi is admired because he covers areas in history which Sunnis scholars of today don't. However, unlike your hero he does not declare 12rs are non-momins. Recall what Nakshawani narrated about Qari Abdul Basit. At least you admit you don't have ilm-e-gaib.

4- The problem is at that time the Fatimids first had a split. So it was Ismailis vs Ismailis. Then the other problem with the Fatimids allied themselves with the Crusaders. Do you have any defense for that ?

1- Thanks for admitting to stalking him

2- Neither do I, is this like an automated response you have for twelvers, I myself don't call for unity with people like yourself. I know you know who jibt and taghut are. You're not speaking to a 15 year old newly religious shi'a here.

3- Asi, is not in a theological position to declare anyone non-Mo'min, since he doesnt represent any school of islamic thought.

4- Haha, topic switch, I stated, my sources stipulates Imamiyyah, non-Isma'iliyyah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1- In Several of your posts you have discussed how history motivated you to switch theological leanings, it would appear from these posts you consider yourself a trained historian.

wrong conclusion, i relied on historicAL RESEARCHES OF OTHERS BTW is it a sin to change ur aqeedah if u find overwhelming evidence against it ?

2- Al-Asi's only experience seems to be waiting in front of some mosque, he claims the right to, like sour grapes. His knowledge, well, again it seems to be extremely shallow to me, restricted to these modern day political revolutionary types with their anachronistic readings of history

sadly u only honor worldly success, he dosent seem to care about it.

3

- Again, do you suffer from reading comprehension?!-

I never claimed they were "the ultimate test" let alone a "test" I explained they are a unique means of producing additional information on sources

so would u benefit from this "additional information" if it comes from non-imami 12er sources ? or do u blindly follow ur own scholars ?,

My Aqeedah is based upon what the Imams (as) taught and the Qur'an, I don't care for history to prove 'Aqeedah unlike you, so you're second question is really a strawman.

did imams leave a book for u ? if not how are their hadith authenticated ? does it involve a complicated science of ilm-e-rijal ? knowledge of geneology and history ? but u rely on non-infallible sources for that dont u ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Panzerwaffe

1- Nope, if you do find overwhelming evidence in theory that's fine.

2- Lol, when did I once claim that- I follow the Imams (as) of Aal Muhammad, who never attained such for themselves.

3- My friend, I left Christianity, went to Islaam and have struggled to find the right school of thought since then, believe me, I'm no blind follower, I ever pursued the academic study of religion at university to develop my critical thinking, you on the other hand, born into a muslim family, do blind taqleed of the historian.

4- Yep it involves a complicated science, what process do you use, if it is Sunni 'ilm al-rijaal, then you know you must accept Mu'awiyah as a righteous person (LA).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn al-`Alqami, was an `Abbasid court minister. How do you get that we was a scholar?

I thought he was a scholar. Maybe not. However, he still appointed a non-12r to write the commentary. Also the commentary being a non-12r one is considered one of the best.

Sharh 'Izz al-Din ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mu'tazili(d. 656/1258).

This is the most famous commentary on which several

commentaries have been written.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/commentaries.htm

The point I am trying to make here to Yahya is that we(Panzerwaffe and I) should be able to disagree with both Ahle ahadith and 12r Shia. He sees this to be a problem as he stated.

The Mu`tazila never seem to have really garnered much support (or even seem to have cared to) outside of the `Abbasid courts and scholarly elites in Baghdad and Basra. Once they lost their court patronage, and without much support from the people, and the rise of the Asha`ira et al, they would have eventually died out. By the time the Mongols came around, what Mu`tazilis that were left would have been a pale shadow of their former selves with most of the greats of their schools long gone by then.

Yes, its a big loss for Sunnis. If that school continued to contribute till today we would have gone very really far.

I am sick of tyrants ruling over us, but at least a tyrant like Mamoon Rasheed had a lot to contribute.

1- Thanks for admitting to stalking him

That's for giving the honour to Imam Al Asi in return.

2- Neither do I, is this like an automated response you have for twelvers, I myself don't call for unity with people like yourself. I know you know who jibt and taghut are. You're not speaking to a 15 year old newly religious shi'a here.

So who do you call unity toward.? Only those who will become 12rs in the future ? Only those who read refutation pamphlets and anti Sunni sites online and become 12rs ?

3- Asi, is not in a theological position to declare anyone non-Mo'min, since he doesnt represent any school of islamic thought.

And Nakshawni had the right to decide Qari Abdul Basit's position ? Or is he basing this off Al Khoei's fatwa where all non-12rs are kaffir in the aqira ?

4- Haha, topic switch, I stated, my sources stipulates Imamiyyah, non-Isma'iliyyah.

You are one who mentioned Salauddin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

3- My friend, I left Christianity, went to Islaam and have struggled to find the right school of thought since then, believe me, I'm no blind follower, I ever pursued the academic study of religion at university to develop my critical thinking, you on the other hand, born into a muslim family, do blind taqleed of the historian.

so wud u accept this "so would u benefit from this "additional information" if it comes from non-imami 12er sources ?"

how did u develop "critical thinking" without being a academic or historian ?

taqleed of a historian dont crack me up, its 12ers imami that endorse blind taqleed

4- Yep it involves a complicated science, what process do you use, if it is Sunni 'ilm al-rijaal, then you know you must accept Mu'awiyah as a righteous person (LA).

forget the sunnis, u know very well that the reason why the dogma that all sahaba are reliable in terms of hadith was developed

answer my questions

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

,

hadith and history are different issues , maghazi and history cannot be studied from hadith alone thats a commonly accepted principal

not really he is one of the 4 who broke into the chamber of uthman and he is listed as a leader of certain egyptian groups

ibn hamiq is a sahabi and prominent before his killing

shurayh is at the arbitration with ALi in siffin, and he NEVER sanctioned killing of hujr infact he tried to stop their killing after his signature was forged by ibn ziyad

so thats what i said, there is no dispute here

so what he raised by uthman bottomline is that he supported ali and was an opponent of uthman, he was an egyptian and the friends with muhammad b abibakr

secondly have u heard of abdullah b masadi al farazi ? he was raised by ali but he hated ali and supported muawiyah

i never said he was a supporter of ali.

that practice was common in those days that does not mean he was a imami shia, since his opponents said they were followers of uthman.If his oppenents were like present day sunnis why didnt they acknowlwedge themselves as followers of abubakr or umar first before uthman ?

1) there are numerous contradictions as to the names of those who broke into uthmans house- i could show the variance in difference if you wish from primary sources if you wish- arabic or even persian translit.

2) As for Shurayh--a) Abu Musa al ashari and Al-Ashath b qays were also with Ali at Siffin- quite opportunistically i may add- as displayed by the threesomes later behaviours- does not mean- and i repeat the point which you seem to confuse - that there is a difference between entering the ranks as a soldier who is theologically an Alid and one who enters to cause division (you seem to forget the Prophets battles and his famous hypocritical companions being alongside him!- bad decision by the Prophet would you agree????

3) b)Forget Hujr, please explain Shurays behaviour with Muslim b AQIL and the response he gave Bani Mudhaj when they asked where is Hani.

4) The infiltration at camps at Jamal was something known-and certainly did not highlight sincere motives- Look at Marwans famous answer in the Ansab when he is asked about his role- and he replies i shot arrows towards Ali and Ayeshas army.

5) no such thing as a modern day sunni back then brother. Murjiites at most (me being kind).... You like academia, read Afsaruddin on this.

6)On academia, you use Hinds, Poonwala, Madelung,- have you read the SCATHING attacks by their contemporaries on thier conclusions! Considering it is clear you cant actually read primary works- its better you stick to review articles. if im not mistaken the Martin Hinds you refer to is more concerned with the meccan aristocracy in his work on Uthman than any periphary egyptian groups.

7) calm down -- you seem bright enough to read a few articles- but your hatred is evident-- to call the eulogies childish idiotic, your masters like madleung, hinds, even Kohlberg and Poonwala havent stooped that low to ridicule the memory of the grandson of the Prophet.

8)His thesis refuting Bewley was five years ago. As a budding historian, try and get your history a bit more precise.

Provide me with primary sources in your analysis and not half analyses reviews.

Edited by janali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Some of those against Imam Hussain (as) or those who supported Yezid (LA) are considered Sahaba for Sunnis.

Umar bin Saad (LA), Umr bin Hareeth (LA), Abdullah ibn Umar (LA).

If people of Kufa were Shia of Ali (as) they would have been in the first place with Imam Ali (as) rather they were being summoned to fight against Aisha.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 005, Book 057, Hadith Number 116.

Narated By Abu Wail : When 'Ali sent 'Ammar and Al-Hasan to (the people of) Kufa to urge them to fight, 'Ammar addressed them saying, "I know that she (i.e. 'Aisha) is the wife of the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter (world to come), but Allah has put you to test, whether you will follow Him (i.e. Allah) or her."

I think this sums up who killed Imam Hussain (as).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So did Abu Bakr, Umar prayed behind Prophet (pbuh) but later denied pen and paper to the Holy Prophet (pbuh) to write a will. Did not participate in his (pbuh) funeral. Brought Wood and fire to burn the house of Prophet (pbuh). Angered Fatima (as) who was part of Prophet (pbuh)

check for Sahih hadiths www.abubakr.org

What is your point they were all hypocrites right, so why not let us curse them. Are you ready?

and nobody has yet responded to the above post

Edited by zakzaki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...