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

The Problem With The Shia Approach To History

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Alsalam alaykum,

Brothers, this topic is a very large one, and its umbrella is so huge that almost every Sunni-Shia issue can ultimately fall under it. I honestly don't know where to start with this one, so I ask for your patience if some of it seems organized.

My goal from doing this is because I want Shias to understand why the Sunnis stick to their official historical narrative.

As many of you know, both official versions of Shia and Sunni histories technically has arrived us from the same sources. Murooj Al-Thahab, Tareekh Al-Ya'qoubi, Tareekh Khaleefa bin Khayyat, Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Tareekh Al-Madinah by Ibn Shibbah, and most importantly Tareekh Al-Tabari.

Of course, one also learns history from hadith compilations, but we will get to that later.

Now, those books above are most often associated with Sunnism, with the exception of the first two. These authors are considered to fall under the wide umbrella of Shiasm. Sunnis do not believe that these are Imamis though, but political Shias. Of course, Shia history does not revolve around those two books exclusively, but revolves around all of the ones that I have mentioned above. There is no Shi'ee that will doubt that Al-Tabari did a great job at preserving the Shia point of view by narrating what he found in the books of Abu Mikhnaf. I even have a copy of Maqtal Al-Hussain in which the author admitted that much of what is in the manuscripts of the book was only preserved by Al-Tabari.

Now, I am not trying to argue that Shias are reliant on Sunnis for their own history, even though that might be the case sometimes. However, I am saying that the truths that I have mentioned previously should lead Shias to take a different approach on history.

I often hear Shias argue, "This evidence for Imamah can be found in so-and-so's Sunni book. Therefore, we should accept it since it is not likely for a Sunni to lie about such a matter that is so against his beliefs."

In response, I'd say that I have previously mentioned that Sunni works have included Shia narrations. If you go through Siffeen for example, you will find that 90%, if not more, of the narrations come to us through Shias that Sunnis consider to be fabricators.

Due to this, a Shi'ee should approach Sunni books in the same way that he would approach Shia books. The strength of the narrators is to be considered when judging the contents of the narration.

Similarly, Sunnis should not approach Shia books like they do not include Sunni narrators. If one looked through Al-Amali by Al-Tusi, he would find many Sunni narrators. A Sunni cannot use these as evidence for him, unless the hadith is authentic according to his standards.

Inshallah the above makes it clear as to why when a Shi'ee quotes the incident of Al-Saqeefah according to Al-Tabari, it doesn't hold any weight, since it is in reality an Imami narration by Abi Mikhnaf that is then quoted by Al-Tabari. (Be aware that Al-Tabari stated in the beginning of his book that he quoted false narrations and that these are not from him, but from the sources he quoted from.)

Now that this has been known, I move on to the more important issue of how this is practised. As we all know, most Shias accept the event of the "breaking of the rib". However, why is this accepted? Is it authentic according to Shia standards? No. Is it authentic according to Sunni standards? No. The only reason it is accepted as a fact is because Shias WANT to believe that Omar committed this horrendous act. This isn't based upon any academic research at all.

The basic justification is the following:

1- Omar is bad because he stole the caliphate

2- It is justified to hate him

3- It is acceptable for one to attribute narrations, even if they are untrue, to Omar in order to spread the hate

4- Omar broke the rib of Fatima should be accepted as a fact

On the other hand, Sunnis approach these issues differently. Perhaps it is because we are more aware of the efforts of fabricators than Shias are. I, as a Sunni, approach these issues different. I will not accept Shia narrations from Shia books to prove my views, nor will I accept weak narrations from Sunni books. I will only accept authentic narrations from my own sources. Of course, this doesn't mean that I will only accept things that my desires lead me to accept.

For example, my heart does not like the fact that some companions of the Prophet (pbuh) drank alcohol after prohibition, or that they fornicated after prohibition. However, I have to deal with these facts academically. It would be hypocritical to reject any and everything against the status of the companions for the mere reason that I do not like it. Similarly, I have personally weakened many narrations in praise of Mu'awiyah. I have also weakened narrations in praise of Abu Bakr and Omar, because those merits fall below the point that I consider "authentic".

Ultimately, this system allows me to keep my feelings in check. I do not accept what I wish to for the soul reason that my desires pull me in that direction.

Now, this may all not matter to you because I am a Sunni and all Sunni books are fabrications anyways. Right? However, let us say that I was a Shi'ee. How would you want me to approach Shiasm? Would you want me to approach the history of Shiasm emotionally and authenticate everything negative that was attributed to the companions? Or would you want me to approach the history of Shiasm logically and only authenticate what meets the standards of authentication?

Finally, I have this final word of advice to Shias. Instead of accepting what you were taught, do what I did, and learn Shiasm through your own authentic narrations. Do not learn it from fabrications from Sunni or Shia books. It is only then when your views regarding history, the status of the companions, and these controversial events can be considered to be justified.

I have previously created a thread in which I have included evidence that the early Shias did care about the authenticity of narrations and that these were based upon academic standards and not emotional ones. Please refer to the thread for those evidences:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

A number of fallacies in your submission, Farid. You assume, for the most part, that we base our history on weak and fabricated narrations. Moreover, you seem to assume that anything coming from Shee‘ahs in the Sunnee books is automatically a lie (correct me if I misunderstood you). Otherwise, you should have no problem accepting narrations from Shee‘ahs in your books as long as they are reliable. (And, of course, your classical scholars used to accuse people who displayed love for Imaam ‘Alee, even though they were Sunnee giants, including al-Tabaree and al-Nisaaee, of Shee‘ism.

Moreover, you seem to be oblivious of the fact that we have mutawaatir narrations in our books too. Even if all the chains of a narration are weak, they can still give it tawaattur (as in the case of the Incident of the Door). Personally, I accept the narration as mutawaatir after seeing numerous chains for it. Please note this when dealing with Shee‘ahs.

Brother Nader Zaveri does a very fine job of strictly verifying Hadeeths before placing reliance on them. Even a quick glance through his blog alone gives deep credit to our views of history. That notwithstanding the tawaattur of almost everything we hold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The problems with your approach, Farid, are (1) that you make a very weighty assumption that the authors, compilers (old and new) and the actual appraisers of rijal whose work you use today after centuries, are immaculate. (2) All these ahadith and history books, whatever is left of them today, have remained under the strict censorship of not even Sunnis but rather secular monarchs who ruled over muslims and for the sake of consolidation of power for themselves and for governmental administration of masses, regulated and censored religious activities, material and influence. This phenomenon is nothing new to human history which repeats itself, and this is how most of Christianity today is in the corrupted form of a pagan abomination. This is why many actual real life researchers dub many of hadith works as products of "Mua'wiya's hadith factories". Now who should a person take education in this matter from then? From the internet where nothing is as it seems? From a "hadith science" that tells us to completely disregard and consider a lie any hadith that has been dubbed "weak" because the supposedly omniscient and flawless rijalists of old did not know a narrator or because isnaad were missing or because of some similar weak excuse? Unwise. Yes I know you will say that my scholars use ahadith and its scientists so let me say that they are actual scholars, the don't make assumptions, and they are honest in finding the truth. That is why they surprisingly quote what you dub "weak" in their books. Our Imams have given us other criterion for this matter: Compare it to the essence of the Qur'an; Accept if in conformity, reject if contradictory to it.

I find it ironic that on one hand you are willing to defend Umar ibn Khattab and on the second you choose to rely on ahadith, the very thing that Umar forbade to collect and compile after the Rasul (pbuh) left us. Some sahabis even received a beating from Umar for their obsession with ahadith. As for those four reasons why Shiah "hate" him, you know I can expand them enough but the thread will get derailed. But how about you add the waqiah of qalm wa qertas to it? Or that of Hudaibiyah? Or that he was absent at the Prophe's (pbuh) funeral? And even Fatimah's (as) ? And additions like "as-salatu khairum-min-an-naum" and taraweehs? So on and on and on.

The bottom line is that we can not make assumptions to determine the truth. It's not that easy. Be it history or ahadith. This is where common sense and the conscience comes into play. Take the example of Umar since you've used it. If we find so many faults in Umar and so many grave sins attributed to him, and with a history like his own, with a lineage of his, when you consider all of it, then a person is going to consider him an antagonist after reading all of that from even Sunni sources and then it doesn't matter to him all that much if somewhere one or two hadiths about him are weak.

I'm not saying that ahadith or the research on them is entirely a futile practice. Rather I think it would be a lot better if all of us expand our scope and use the God given tools like common sense for example. And by the use of it a Sunni should come to think: "What am I doing? Why is defending Umar so important to my deen? I could have prayed some nawafil instead of this pointless activity. I could have read the qur'an to make use of that time. Let the Rafidha and their stupid beliefs about him be. This is obviously a wrong activity meant for mullahs whose deen is to create division among muslims based on petty excuses."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

briliant topic , i have few points to say

1- as Abu dujana said , the history played a role in how much authintic hadiths from our imams- our most relible resources- reached to our hands , keeping in mind how little is known about our last imams lives , the ongoing prescution of shias and their books plus other factors i may miss

2-the authintication of hadiths in sunni school is diffrent than the way used by shia and similar to it in other regards , one should be aware of these diffrences

3-there are issues that matter ie , it affects ones aqeeda , and other issues that dosnt matter much or wont change much of our aqeeda , lets take your example , the rib incident and lets assume it has 50% probability of being correct and 50% propbability of beng incorrect , the real question that comes afterward ,would the other 50% affect your aqeeda , if yes , by what percentage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Abu Dujana:

The problems with your approach, Farid, are (1) that you make a very weighty assumption that the authors, compilers (old and new) and the actual appraisers of rijal whose work you use today after centuries, are immaculate.

This is untrue. I accept the fallibility of the rijalists.

(2) All these ahadith and history books, whatever is left of them today, have remained under the strict censorship of not even Sunnis but rather secular monarchs who ruled over muslims and for the sake of consolidation of power for themselves and for governmental administration of masses, regulated and censored religious activities, material and influence.

This is news to me. From what I've learned, the muhaditheen, for the most part, were isolated from the governments of their times. Please be more specific.

This is why many actual real life researchers dub many of hadith works as products of "Mua'wiya's hadith factories".

...and yet, authentic hadith collections are pretty much entirely free of the hadiths in praise of Mu'awiyah and Amr bin Al-Aas.

Our Imams have given us other criterion for this matter: Compare it to the essence of the Qur'an; Accept if in conformity, reject if contradictory to it.

This is a useless method. Al-Kulayni already stated in his introduction that this is barely useful since most narrations do not support or contradict the Qur'an.

I find it ironic that on one hand you are willing to defend Umar ibn Khattab and on the second you choose to rely on ahadith, the very thing that Umar forbade to collect and compile after the Rasul (pbuh) left us. Some sahabis even received a beating from Umar for their obsession with ahadith.

These examples pretty much prove my point. We are faced with two alternative histories and both can be found within the Sunni sources. I have not found a single authentic hadith in which Omar prevented people from writing down the hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh). Omar himself, in authentic narrations did write hadiths down. I ask, what causes you to accept the idea that he prohibited hadith collection?

As for those four reasons why Shiah "hate" him, you know I can expand them enough but the thread will get derailed. But how about you add the waqiah of qalm wa qertas to it? Or that of Hudaibiyah? Or that he was absent at the Prophe's (pbuh) funeral? And even Fatimah's (as) ? And additions like "as-salatu khairum-min-an-naum" and taraweehs? So on and on and on.

Ajeeb. I wouldn't mind you folks hating Omar as much if these things are actually correctly attributed to him according to your standards. Did Omar innovate al-taraweeh and al-salatu khairun min al-nawm in Shiasm? Are these things true? You see, in the eyes of a Shi'ee scholar, it could have been a Sunni narrator that falsely attributed these things to Omar as merits, since Sunni narrations are not reliable to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Brother, our Imam Ali (as) said: "Knowledge is like the missing jewelry to a mu'min. So take it wherever you find it." I didn't know that the Shiah reject all Sunni narrations before now. In fact we're fond of reading them since they're about Islam. Personally I'm even fond of reading anything that might help me find the truth, more knowledge or understanding of God, even if the chances are slim and the resource unreliable. I've read the Bible, and even alleged holy books like the Dead Sea scrolls, Book of Mormons, etc. This is why I implore my brothers in Islam to expand their scope of helpful resources and take sanity checks oft and on.

Criticizing the Rafidha may be a rewarding activity for you and vice verse. However, I wish to see the day when we compare our Usools and Furoo' instead of constantly debating the same old Sahaba topic, again and again and again. I suspect it is a deception to keep Muslims busy with frivolous and unproductive activities. As the TV is a Western tool to hinder the masses from thinking by taking away that time and brain energy, similarly I feel that the controversial Sahaba topic is a Sunni tool to keep Sunni muslims away from the things that actually matter before God. So why not instead teach the real Usools and Furoo' to the Rafidha? Enlighten us how we are wrong in all the differing fiqhi problems. For example, our joining of salats, our different timings of fasting, of ablutions, of prayers, of qur'anic matters, of understanding of God, etc. We could learn a lot from all that. But I won't derail the thread here any further.

This is news to me. From what I've learned, the muhaditheen, for the most part, were isolated from the governments of their times. Please be more specific.

Okay sure. I invite you to read primarily about the time of the second Abbassid monarch, Mansur Dwaniqi, successor of Al-Safa7, and of the political turmoil and circumstances faced by the Abbasid caliphate in their beginning. Have you honestly not read how, from about 125000 collected ahadith, only around 15000 survived and made it into books, while the rest were burnt?

Then, an even earlier example. Kindly consider Abu Hurairah, who is a somewhat interesting character. A Jew who converted, according to history, 18 months before the Rasool Allah (pbuh) left us. Appointed governor by a "rightly guided caliph" who chose him over hundreds of thousands of other companions. And then he also happens to be the one Raavi with the most narrations in Sunni saheeh books. Now who wouldn't find that suspicious.

Now, let us discuss the historian Yaqoobi who is alleged to be "a political Shiah even if not an Imami". I find that interesting. Care to elaborate some more? And why Tabari is spared the same treatment and label I wonder. He has also reported some reports that should be similarly unforgivable? Like the martyrdom of Al-Ghifari (ra) through the cruelty of Uthman ibn Affan, for instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ahmad bin Hanbal was a very close ally of al-Mutawakil, the Naasibi caliph. They were so close that al-Mutawakil would subject his policies and appointments to Ahmad‘s approval. So, why wouldn‘t Ahmad doctor some hadeeths, for instance, to tally with the state‘s taste?

Besides, while recording the famous Hadeeth in which the Prophet (pbuh) cursed Mu‘aawiyah, Ahmad deleted the unpalatable part in his Musnad. This shows his own inclination to doctor Hadeeths (not that he always did this, or that he was alone in it). The fact that he was part of a Naasibi government makes the matter even more likely.

So, yes, the Sunnee caliphs censored the history books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Okay sure. I invite you to read primarily about the time of the second Abbassid monarch, Mansur Dwaniqi, successor of Al-Safa7, and of the political turmoil and circumstances faced by the Abbasid caliphate in their beginning. Have you honestly not read how, from about 125000 collected ahadith, only around 15000 survived and made it into books, while the rest were burnt?

I am not aware of this event, nor do I believe that it would hold any weight since hadiths were not only written down, but were memorized. Unless he burnt 125,000 narrators, I doubt that it would make a difference.

Then, an even earlier example. Kindly consider Abu Hurairah, who is a somewhat interesting character. A Jew who converted, according to history, 18 months before the Rasool Allah (pbuh) left us.

You see, this is the very problem. Why would you accept that he was Jewish? Your "history" said so? My "history" didn't. What makes you accept this as true other than the fact that it raises huge question marks regarding the reliability of the man?

Some Sunnis argue that Jibreel left Ali for Mohammed (pbuh). This is "history" according to some people. Do you know why some Sunni accept this? It is because it makes your views look more dubious and disgusting. Is there any proof that this is the Shi'ee belief? No, but it is sufficient for some of those Sunnis, because it supports their view.

This is the very problem that both sects are facing. People are accepting a specific narrative for the sole purpose of supporting your own ideology. They simply disregard everything else for the sole fact that it goes against their own narrative.

Here is something ironic I just thought of:

Even those that reject hadith sciences like yourself, ultimately come back to it. Every Shi'ee will prefer the narrations of the companions of Ja'afar over the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). This is because Shias, even those that reject the credibility of ilmul rijal STILL say, "I cannot accept this hadith, because it is by Abu Huraira, Ibn Omar, and A'isha." Guess what bro? That is ilmul rijal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Brother, you know the point is not that if he was Jewish. The point is the involvement of early muhaditheen and their works, which you said were mostly unaffected by the monarchy's influence. Did you also know that at least two of the four Sunni Imams are reported to have took punishments. One was awarded lashes by a Mu'tazilla influenced monarch and another was said to be jailed, while another report says that his apprentice (Abu Yusuf) was appointed qadhi al-qadha (chief justice) by the monarch.

Should it also be unreliable that rulers like Hajjaj bin Yusuf were mass murdering bigots? Should we doubt waqiah Karbala? Should we doubt that Ali (as) was cursed from the pulpits during Bani Umayya's time? Should we also doubt that our 11 Imams (as) were all martyred by power hungry evil and envious monarchs of their times, "Sahaba", Tabi'een or otherwise? And for that matter, please tell me what kind of poison exists in this universe that is known to modern man or medicinal science and has the quality that if you taste it slightly it will kill you several years later? So, when and how actually was the foundation of martyrdom of Bani Hashim and its followers, the "Shi'ah", laid down and by whom? So much so that we're being hunted down and killed by nawasib even today. Even today, the Islamic clergy play a significant role in politics. Even today the Shi'ah killers are funded and financed and protected by some extremist clergy and some governments. Of course every one is involved. Abu Hurairah could have turned down the offer of a big worldly status of governorship involving riches. This is a no-brainer. In order to rule over the Muslims, the government, any govt, needs the support and good graces of the clerics.

Should we doubt everything even though these are all pieces of one giant puzzle that interlock with each other perfectly?

The important parts of "history", as it exists today, are highly logical and support common sense, human nature, and fill those missing blanks into the mind of a reader, the things the mullah won't tell us for our own "betterment", they'd say. History gives answers and illumination. But you're right. We all believe what we want to believe. It is a choice and a bit of a gamble, of course, since nothing in this life can ever be 100% confirmed. But some fear God and choose wisely and honestly for the right reasons, while others have other reasons. And since the stakes of this gamble are so high and the game, this life, has only one play through, I'd rather stick with what is rational, what satisfies my conscience, and the most beneficial that gives nearness to God. I would rather follow and love the Ahl-al-Bayt (as) first and foremost, since they are the closest to God, so that I may also learn something or gain something. What am I going to gain from a worldly man, full of rage, deceptions, and insolence? Why shouldn't instead the undisputed most pious and most wise be my hero and focus of study?

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

Aslamalaykum,

@Farid

Interesting topic bro, not everything has reached us in history & what has come to us are through great sacrifices made by the ahlul bayt, companions of the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w & the Imams. The rest of the hard work which was carried out by scholars both by sunni/shia scholars, there is nothing wrong on relying on sunni sources as long as it doesn't go against the Quran & Ahlul bayt a.s.

Yes we have to follow a criteria of ilmul rijaal which is a science that scrutinises in what reaches us but it is not immune from mistakes. Like Abu Dujuna said & it is very valid:

From a "hadith science" that tells us to completely disregard and consider a lie any hadith that has been dubbed "weak" because the supposedly omniscient and flawless rijalists of old did not know a narrator or because isnaad were missing or because of some similar weak excuse? Unwise. Yes I know you will say that my scholars use ahadith and its scientists so let me say that they are actual scholars, the don't make assumptions, and they are honest in finding the truth. That is why they surprisingly quote what you dub "weak" in their books. Our Imams have given us other criterion for this matter: Compare it to the essence of the Qur'an; Accept if in conformity, reject if contradictory to it.

You've called (underlined part) this a "useless method." I totally disagree with you, this is the one of the main differences between shia/sunni, this is beautiful method taught to us by our Imams & this should be the final factor on determining the hadith. Science of rijaal funnels out all the dirt but does not mean that it keeps all the dirt out as it is a man made system, so one should do the final checks by comparing narrations to the Quran & if it doesn't contradict other established narrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Abu Dujana:

Should we also doubt that our 11 Imams (as) were all martyred by power hungry evil and envious monarchs of their times, "Sahaba", Tabi'een or otherwise?

Instead of discussing theory, I thought it would be fun to see how you apply your rationality. Please provide your reasons as to why you believe that Al-Jawad was martyred.

@ Muslimunity1:

You've called (underlined part) this a "useless method." I totally disagree with you, this is the one of the main differences between shia/sunni, this is beautiful method taught to us by our Imams & this should be the final factor on determining the hadith.

You aren't disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with Al-Kulayni. I am assuming that you do not have the hadith experience that he has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alsalam alaykum,

Brothers, this topic is a very large one, and its umbrella is so huge that almost every Sunni-Shia issue can ultimately fall under it. I honestly don't know where to start with this one, so I ask for your patience if some of it seems organized.

My goal from doing this is because I want Shias to understand why the Sunnis stick to their official historical narrative.

As many of you know, both official versions of Shia and Sunni histories technically has arrived us from the same sources. Murooj Al-Thahab, Tareekh Al-Ya'qoubi, Tareekh Khaleefa bin Khayyat, Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Tareekh Al-Madinah by Ibn Shibbah, and most importantly Tareekh Al-Tabari.

Of course, one also learns history from hadith compilations, but we will get to that later.

Now, those books above are most often associated with Sunnism, with the exception of the first two. These authors are considered to fall under the wide umbrella of Shiasm. Sunnis do not believe that these are Imamis though, but political Shias. Of course, Shia history does not revolve around those two books exclusively, but revolves around all of the ones that I have mentioned above. There is no Shi'ee that will doubt that Al-Tabari did a great job at preserving the Shia point of view by narrating what he found in the books of Abu Mikhnaf. I even have a copy of Maqtal Al-Hussain in which the author admitted that much of what is in the manuscripts of the book was only preserved by Al-Tabari.

Now, I am not trying to argue that Shias are reliant on Sunnis for their own history, even though that might be the case sometimes. However, I am saying that the truths that I have mentioned previously should lead Shias to take a different approach on history.

I often hear Shias argue, "This evidence for Imamah can be found in so-and-so's Sunni book. Therefore, we should accept it since it is not likely for a Sunni to lie about such a matter that is so against his beliefs."

In response, I'd say that I have previously mentioned that Sunni works have included Shia narrations. If you go through Siffeen for example, you will find that 90%, if not more, of the narrations come to us through Shias that Sunnis consider to be fabricators.

Due to this, a Shi'ee should approach Sunni books in the same way that he would approach Shia books. The strength of the narrators is to be considered when judging the contents of the narration.

Similarly, Sunnis should not approach Shia books like they do not include Sunni narrators. If one looked through Al-Amali by Al-Tusi, he would find many Sunni narrators. A Sunni cannot use these as evidence for him, unless the hadith is authentic according to his standards.

Inshallah the above makes it clear as to why when a Shi'ee quotes the incident of Al-Saqeefah according to Al-Tabari, it doesn't hold any weight, since it is in reality an Imami narration by Abi Mikhnaf that is then quoted by Al-Tabari. (Be aware that Al-Tabari stated in the beginning of his book that he quoted false narrations and that these are not from him, but from the sources he quoted from.)

Now that this has been known, I move on to the more important issue of how this is practised. As we all know, most Shias accept the event of the "breaking of the rib". However, why is this accepted? Is it authentic according to Shia standards? No. Is it authentic according to Sunni standards? No. The only reason it is accepted as a fact is because Shias WANT to believe that Omar committed this horrendous act. This isn't based upon any academic research at all.

The basic justification is the following:

1- Omar is bad because he stole the caliphate

2- It is justified to hate him

3- It is acceptable for one to attribute narrations, even if they are untrue, to Omar in order to spread the hate

4- Omar broke the rib of Fatima should be accepted as a fact

On the other hand, Sunnis approach these issues differently. Perhaps it is because we are more aware of the efforts of fabricators than Shias are. I, as a Sunni, approach these issues different. I will not accept Shia narrations from Shia books to prove my views, nor will I accept weak narrations from Sunni books. I will only accept authentic narrations from my own sources. Of course, this doesn't mean that I will only accept things that my desires lead me to accept.

For example, my heart does not like the fact that some companions of the Prophet (pbuh) drank alcohol after prohibition, or that they fornicated after prohibition. However, I have to deal with these facts academically. It would be hypocritical to reject any and everything against the status of the companions for the mere reason that I do not like it. Similarly, I have personally weakened many narrations in praise of Mu'awiyah. I have also weakened narrations in praise of Abu Bakr and Omar, because those merits fall below the point that I consider "authentic".

Ultimately, this system allows me to keep my feelings in check. I do not accept what I wish to for the soul reason that my desires pull me in that direction.

Now, this may all not matter to you because I am a Sunni and all Sunni books are fabrications anyways. Right? However, let us say that I was a Shi'ee. How would you want me to approach Shiasm? Would you want me to approach the history of Shiasm emotionally and authenticate everything negative that was attributed to the companions? Or would you want me to approach the history of Shiasm logically and only authenticate what meets the standards of authentication?

Finally, I have this final word of advice to Shias. Instead of accepting what you were taught, do what I did, and learn Shiasm through your own authentic narrations. Do not learn it from fabrications from Sunni or Shia books. It is only then when your views regarding history, the status of the companions, and these controversial events can be considered to be justified.

I have previously created a thread in which I have included evidence that the early Shias did care about the authenticity of narrations and that these were based upon academic standards and not emotional ones. Please refer to the thread for those evidences:

http://www.shiachat....re-than-a-tool/

Good topic, but it’s a very difficult subject to discuss. People are more likely to understand historical events in the context of their beliefs then anything else. The perfect example is the Prophet (pbuh). Muslims have one view of him, while using the same sources non-Muslims can have a completely opposite view. Many shias and sunnis have absolutely no problem with his marriage to Aisha, what happened to Banu Qurayza etc but both things are used to criticise the Prophet and Islam. We pick and choose what we want to follow and understand.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend recently about how history is taken out of context and/or weak/fabricated narrations used to promote sectarian beliefs. He had no problem accepting Sunnis did this, but refused to accept Shias could do it.

And Farid, I do believe you’re not as objective or unbiased as you think you are J

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^ Thank you for your comments, akhi... and I do agree, I am not the most objective person.

I was merely stating that I will not accept whatever affirms my faith unconditionally, which is more than I can say about most Muslims.

Edited by Inglip
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great topic, thank you Inglip for starting it.

One point to my fellow Shia's posting here:

To make this an academic debate, and one worthy of reading and reference, please stick to providing proof for claims you make (even historical events - be it with or without the sanad). Also, lets not build arguments based on guesses and assumptions, its hardly intellectual. Just b/c Ahmed ibn Hanbal or others were close to the governors of the time (weather we consider those governors just or not) is not prove that they bent the rules wherever they could, or straight out fabricated. Being a friend of a corrupt person is not in itself sufficient proof to establish the corruption of the person in question. So if we want to prove Abu Huraira and his likes as fabricators, lets do it in a more professional manner.

Enjoying the debate, keep it up!

Allah Ma'akom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmad bin Hanbal was a very close ally of al-Mutawakil, the Naasibi caliph. They were so close that al-Mutawakil would subject his policies and appointments to Ahmad‘s approval. So, why wouldn‘t Ahmad doctor some hadeeths, for instance, to tally with the state‘s taste?

Besides, while recording the famous Hadeeth in which the Prophet (pbuh) cursed Mu‘aawiyah, Ahmad deleted the unpalatable part in his Musnad. This shows his own inclination to doctor Hadeeths (not that he always did this, or that he was alone in it). The fact that he was part of a Naasibi government makes the matter even more likely.

So, yes, the Sunnee caliphs censored the history books.

Do you hold the same view about shia scholars who had the opportunity to be close to leaders, say Tusi and Majlisi?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Do you hold the same view about shia scholars who had the opportunity to be close to leaders, say Tusi and Majlisi?

No. You know why? While Ahmad b. Hanbal tampered with some hadeeths to keep them in light with the Naasibi thoughts of the state, I am not sure our scholars did that, except probably for 'Allaamah al-Majlisee II. Both Ahmad b. Hanbal and al-Bukhaaree tampered with a lot of ahaadeeth in their respective books. While al-Bukhaaree's motive was mainly his Naasibism, Ahmad's was a combination of Naasibism and state influence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Farid

You aren't disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with Al-Kulayni. I am assuming that you do not have the hadith experience that he has.

I have my doubts that Imam Kulayni r.a said this, can you bring the exact statement that your claiming please.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Alsalam alaykum,

Brothers, this topic is a very large one, and its umbrella is so huge that almost every Sunni-Shia issue can ultimately fall under it. I honestly don't know where to start with this one, so I ask for your patience if some of it seems organized.

My goal from doing this is because I want Shias to understand why the Sunnis stick to their official historical narrative.

As many of you know, both official versions of Shia and Sunni histories technically has arrived us from the same sources. Murooj Al-Thahab, Tareekh Al-Ya'qoubi, Tareekh Khaleefa bin Khayyat, Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Tareekh Al-Madinah by Ibn Shibbah, and most importantly Tareekh Al-Tabari.

Of course, one also learns history from hadith compilations, but we will get to that later.

Now, those books above are most often associated with Sunnism, with the exception of the first two. These authors are considered to fall under the wide umbrella of Shiasm. Sunnis do not believe that these are Imamis though, but political Shias. Of course, Shia history does not revolve around those two books exclusively, but revolves around all of the ones that I have mentioned above. There is no Shi'ee that will doubt that Al-Tabari did a great job at preserving the Shia point of view by narrating what he found in the books of Abu Mikhnaf. I even have a copy of Maqtal Al-Hussain in which the author admitted that much of what is in the manuscripts of the book was only preserved by Al-Tabari.

Now, I am not trying to argue that Shias are reliant on Sunnis for their own history, even though that might be the case sometimes. However, I am saying that the truths that I have mentioned previously should lead Shias to take a different approach on history.

I often hear Shias argue, "This evidence for Imamah can be found in so-and-so's Sunni book. Therefore, we should accept it since it is not likely for a Sunni to lie about such a matter that is so against his beliefs."

In response, I'd say that I have previously mentioned that Sunni works have included Shia narrations. If you go through Siffeen for example, you will find that 90%, if not more, of the narrations come to us through Shias that Sunnis consider to be fabricators.

Due to this, a Shi'ee should approach Sunni books in the same way that he would approach Shia books. The strength of the narrators is to be considered when judging the contents of the narration.

Similarly, Sunnis should not approach Shia books like they do not include Sunni narrators. If one looked through Al-Amali by Al-Tusi, he would find many Sunni narrators. A Sunni cannot use these as evidence for him, unless the hadith is authentic according to his standards.

Inshallah the above makes it clear as to why when a Shi'ee quotes the incident of Al-Saqeefah according to Al-Tabari, it doesn't hold any weight, since it is in reality an Imami narration by Abi Mikhnaf that is then quoted by Al-Tabari. (Be aware that Al-Tabari stated in the beginning of his book that he quoted false narrations and that these are not from him, but from the sources he quoted from.)

Now that this has been known, I move on to the more important issue of how this is practised. As we all know, most Shias accept the event of the "breaking of the rib". However, why is this accepted? Is it authentic according to Shia standards? No. Is it authentic according to Sunni standards? No. The only reason it is accepted as a fact is because Shias WANT to believe that Omar committed this horrendous act. This isn't based upon any academic research at all.

The basic justification is the following:

1- Omar is bad because he stole the caliphate

2- It is justified to hate him

3- It is acceptable for one to attribute narrations, even if they are untrue, to Omar in order to spread the hate

4- Omar broke the rib of Fatima should be accepted as a fact

On the other hand, Sunnis approach these issues differently. Perhaps it is because we are more aware of the efforts of fabricators than Shias are. I, as a Sunni, approach these issues different. I will not accept Shia narrations from Shia books to prove my views, nor will I accept weak narrations from Sunni books. I will only accept authentic narrations from my own sources. Of course, this doesn't mean that I will only accept things that my desires lead me to accept.

For example, my heart does not like the fact that some companions of the Prophet (pbuh) drank alcohol after prohibition, or that they fornicated after prohibition. However, I have to deal with these facts academically. It would be hypocritical to reject any and everything against the status of the companions for the mere reason that I do not like it. Similarly, I have personally weakened many narrations in praise of Mu'awiyah. I have also weakened narrations in praise of Abu Bakr and Omar, because those merits fall below the point that I consider "authentic".

Ultimately, this system allows me to keep my feelings in check. I do not accept what I wish to for the soul reason that my desires pull me in that direction.

Now, this may all not matter to you because I am a Sunni and all Sunni books are fabrications anyways. Right? However, let us say that I was a Shi'ee. How would you want me to approach Shiasm? Would you want me to approach the history of Shiasm emotionally and authenticate everything negative that was attributed to the companions? Or would you want me to approach the history of Shiasm logically and only authenticate what meets the standards of authentication?

Finally, I have this final word of advice to Shias. Instead of accepting what you were taught, do what I did, and learn Shiasm through your own authentic narrations. Do not learn it from fabrications from Sunni or Shia books. It is only then when your views regarding history, the status of the companions, and these controversial events can be considered to be justified.

I have previously created a thread in which I have included evidence that the early Shias did care about the authenticity of narrations and that these were based upon academic standards and not emotional ones. Please refer to the thread for those evidences:

http://www.shiachat....re-than-a-tool/

Assalaamo-Alaikum. Rather than dwelling further down the road, with accusations regarding Hazrath Umar [ra] and so on, why don't you start off from the begining and just make it plain and simple. Like such; Did the Prophet [pbuh] name and appoint his successor??? Did he leave it to the Ummah??? What criteria and procedure was put in place and by whom to select a leader??? Do you believe Imaamath is from Allah and he selects and choses Imaams or do you think it's up to the people to select their Imaams??? Simple and straight questions, nothing lengthy and long! Wassalaam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

Dar'ul Islam covered exactly what needed to be said. I like rijal, I use it myself at times - but there is a tendency amongst those who insist on rijal to act like the non-saheeh akhbar does not exist. If a hadith has a majhool or dha`eef transmitter, then that whole narration is thrown out. This is, however, not how historians study history. Regarding the event of the door, what we do find is multiple Sunni and Shi`i sources relating the threat made by `Umar. It comes down with different chains - some go back to the Imams, some go back to others. While I agree with Inglip's statement that none of these ahadith are explicitly "saheeh", the event of the door is still an oral narrative describing a public event coming through multiple sources. This alone would make some academic historians believe the event is likely. At most, you can say the event was "likely" or "unlikely" based on whatever proofs you come up with, but I would not say a couple majhooleen would automatically make the event a fabrication and a lie. The reality is, rijal is a simplistic system and a safety measure to keep us from accepting things that hurt our Islam. However, like Dar mentioned, the Imams instructed us to not outright deny these ahadith lest they be true. The study of history is not just to look at the "authentic" material; it's to look at all material, to understand what was consciously being discussed after this events allegedly occurred. I won't get into my issues with rijal, but the idea that a person always tells the truth (never a mistake in words, never a lie) and that a person always lies, applies to very very few people in the real world. Rather, what's more relevant in historiography is, what events were more widely discussed and narrated. If we apply rijal on all history, we would have almost nothing.

Edited by Qa'im
Link to post
Share on other sites

To add one point to Dar'ul_Islam's post, historical works were compiled with the implicit acceptance that people recall and transmit historical events according to their biases. This is why you often find multiple narratives of the same event recorded by the same historian in the same work. The narratives are there so they can be put together to: (1) come to a decent understanding of what happened and (2) gauge the biases and sectarian currents within the umma at the time of narration. History has a different purpose in Islam; while many Muslims focus on history quite a bit, a poor understanding of historical issues will not affect the quality of one's deeds especially if they are religiously correct. Maybe such a consideration is what allowed the early Shii scholars to more or less put aside history in general or treat it in a secondary manner. In that light, I think your thread really doesn't add much because you're making an issue out of nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Great topic, thank you Inglip for starting it.

One point to my fellow Shia's posting here:

To make this an academic debate, and one worthy of reading and reference, please stick to providing proof for claims you make (even historical events - be it with or without the sanad). Also, lets not build arguments based on guesses and assumptions, its hardly intellectual. Just b/c Ahmed ibn Hanbal or others were close to the governors of the time (weather we consider those governors just or not) is not prove that they bent the rules wherever they could, or straight out fabricated. Being a friend of a corrupt person is not in itself sufficient proof to establish the corruption of the person in question. So if we want to prove Abu Huraira and his likes as fabricators, lets do it in a more professional manner.

Enjoying the debate, keep it up!

Allah Ma'akom

Debate? This is, and especially after your request, become more like a never ending one sided lecture on history. You see, in a debate, both sides should contribute equally. I'm expected to answer and provide references, but not Farid? Thats perfectly understandable because he has yet to actually mention any historical account. Did you see how he replied to my last post, post #9? And if his reply did any justice to the entire thing I tried to explain to him. To me, this isn't something new. I know him and his style of "debate" very well over the years. No offense. He'll keep on dodging and limping along with frivolous replies just to drag the "debate" along while he looks for potential openings in order capitalize on them.

That sort of practice is simply not worth bothering with. I'll let other peeps take over from here and experience the formidable statesmanship skills of our brother Farid. I have much better things to do than teach Islamic history, preside over Q&A sessions, and scan all the history books only to find the nay sayers saying nay. If any one is actually curious enough then Read history yourself first, please. Since much of it is either "news" or "very interesting" to other people then obviously this is teaching, and only becomes a debate if I find an equal who knows history too, and also happens to be honest enough to acknowledge at least that he read it in books too. Once that requirement is met and we all share a common frame of reference in regards to knowledge of history, THEN there can be a debate. :)

If you want Abu Huraira done in a more professional manner or in fact in any manner of your liking all you have to do is use google. You will find tonnes of professional material or whatever makes sense to you. As for the involvement of early non-shia clergies with the state, again, read history books or simply google. You will find heaps of such accounts. They will show you everything you want, or don't want, to see. As for the allegation or mentioned possibility of Shi'i clergy being in bed with the state I honestly found that funny. History is littered with accounts of persecution and genocide of Seyyeds and their Shi'ahs (including the clerics too, naturally). How then, can they be in league with their natural enemies?

Imam Ali (as) said: "The truth has been made manifest aplenty for those who seek it."

Sadly, I don't have the time or motivation to become the conduit here for that. I believe whatever I've written here so far should suffice just like the silence and absence of rebuttals in its response should also suffice.

Edited by Abu Dujana
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Assalaamo-Alaikum. Rather than dwelling further down the road, with accusations regarding Hazrath Umar [ra] and so on, why don't you start off from the begining and just make it plain and simple. Like such; Did the Prophet [pbuh] name and appoint his successor??? Did he leave it to the Ummah??? What criteria and procedure was put in place and by whom to select a leader??? Do you believe Imaamath is from Allah and he selects and choses Imaams or do you think it's up to the people to select their Imaams??? Simple and straight questions, nothing lengthy and long! Wassalaam.

Don't you think he would have already attempted to do that, even if it were remotely possible and convincing in the least? :)

Edited by Abu Dujana
Link to post
Share on other sites

Much appreciation to brothers Darul Islam and Qaim, great posts.

Just wanted to mention, getting in to the whole sanad and rijjal issue when it comes to history is quite tricky, since most events are based on 'kabar al-wahid'. Also as members; CM and al-Irshad, mentioned not all of history is relevant to our Aqaid, nor is it a science which the absence of some sections would weaken the faith. The main events are pretty much agreed on, some even found in ahadith, history does a good job of painting a picture, or artistic impression if you will (be it vague/blurry at times).

Debate? This is, and especially after your request, become more like a never ending one sided lecture on history. You see, in a debate, both sides should contribute equally. I'm expected to answer and provide references, but not Farid? Thats perfectly understandable because he has yet to actually mention any historical account. Did you see how he replied to my last post, post #9? And if his reply did any justice to the entire thing I tried to explain to him.

To be completely undiplomatic, i don't care too much about the sunni method of studying history, b/c fr the most part it doesn't seem much like a 'study', although i would be interested in reading their guidelines, but what i was trying to direct this thread towards was explain the correct Shia method of looking at history.

My request was genuine in the sense that i wanted it to be kept in mind that there are both Shias and Sunnis reading this who will have heard the events you mention for the first time, hence it would be useful to them/us to see references posted, or evidence of 'ahadith tampering'.

So, my focus is more for Shias to learn more from our other Shia brothers here, however, i would prefer we lean our newly sort information based on evidences or examples rather than something just thrown in the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Muslimunity1:

I have my doubts that Imam Kulayni r.a said this, can you bring the exact statement that your claiming please.

Look up his intro. It isn't that long.

@ Darul Islam:

Here's the way I see it. Shi'i scholars, and to an extent the traditional Sunni scholars (i.e. not Salafis), look at history as history and not hadith. `Ilm al-dirayah does not apply the same way to History like you like apply it to hadith. The problem with the Salafi approach to history is they look at history like muhaditththoon and not historians.

I don't see how this is exclusive to Salafis. Ibn Hajar is notorious for denying historical reports and he was an Ash'ari. Believe it or not, historical criticism, with the usage of rijal, existed way before the birth of Ibn Taymiyah. Perhaps you are unaware that one of the earliest reasons of wadh'i in hadith occurred due to the sectarian split that occurred after the death of Uthman. Nasibism and tashayyu were finally created, with both parties fabricating traditions to support their views. It only started out with hadiths though, but that later developed into historical fabrications.

The explanations for why a hadith or historical narrative being weak or unreliable in its actuality has to be more than "weak guy in the chain and therefore it didn't happen."

More like, "We have many trustworthy narrators, but the only person that narrated this event is a liar." Isn't that suspicious? Furthermore, a level of probability is given to weak narrations. It isn't high enough for one to accept, but a percentage is actually given. Of course, there is no fixed number, but the same applies to authentic historical accounts and hadiths. A single hadith with a saheeh sanad may be in my heart a 95%. This is sufficient for me to act upon. If it came through two routes, it may go up to 99%. So, no, the hadith system, doesn't claim infallibility, nor is it as rigid as one may think. Similarly, the historical events that you accept aren't ones that you believe with 100% certainty. I'm talking about specifics of course. We know that Khaibar happened and that Ali killed Marhaba. Some reports say that Marhaba was cut in half with Ali's sword swing. What is the percentage level that you attribute to that in your heart? It does appeal to you and speaks well of Ali's strength and bravery. But do you give it a 100% just because of that?

I suppose one who lived within a country that suffered some political turmoil would have a greater appreciation for rijal. My wife's friend claims that Shias burned down her neighbour's house with a molotov cocktail. To me, her friend is not a reliable source of news. She also is an ignorant Sunni that would gain from the negative news attributed to Shias. I rejected this narration, even if it is possible that it occurred. The fact that this was not reported by other thiqaat caused greater suspicion the following days.

@ Abu Dujana:

It seems like you missed out on post #11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, my focus is more for Shias to learn more from our other Shia brothers here, however, i would prefer we lean our newly sort information based on evidences or examples rather than something just thrown in the air.

Shias are more likely to accept almost anything, no mater how great a lie, if it puts some of the sahaba - especially the Three, in a negative light without bothering to find out if it's authentic or not. Similarly, they will almost certainly accept any and all praise of the Imams, no matter how extreme. This also relates to events such as Imam Ali being forced to give bayah - the more details you add, the more some people just lap it up. For example, being dragged through the streets with a rope around his neck (and a passing Jew converting to Islam after seeing Imam Ali's patience...) is more likely to be accepted as not only does it show Imam Ali's treatment it also automatically shows the sahabas such as Umar and Khalid bin Waleed as evil, harsh and oppressive.

Sunnis on the other hand I find are much more objective, and will in some cases reject narrations praising some of their top sahabas if they think it's not authentic enough - but with this approach, is there a risk that certain praise and qualities of Imam Ali are filtered out due to sectarian bias?

On the other hand, they'll also reject criticism or find excuses to cover 'mistakes' =)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Shias are more likely to accept almost anything, no mater how great a lie, if it puts some of the sahaba - especially the Three, in a negative light without bothering to find out if it's authentic or not. Similarly, they will almost certainly accept any and all praise of the Imams, no matter how extreme. This also relates to events such as Imam Ali being forced to give bayah - the more details you add, the more some people just lap it up. For example, being dragged through the streets with a rope around his neck (and a passing Jew converting to Islam after seeing Imam Ali's patience...) is more likely to be accepted as not only does it show Imam Ali's treatment it also automatically shows the sahabas such as Umar and Khalid bin Waleed as evil, harsh and oppressive.

Sunnis on the other hand I find are much more objective, and will in some cases reject narrations praising some of their top sahabas if they think it's not authentic enough - but with this approach, is there a risk that certain praise and qualities of Imam Ali are filtered out due to sectarian bias?

On the other hand, they'll also reject criticism or find excuses to cover 'mistakes' =)

^^ Why don't you use "Ali ra", as you folks do, instead of using "Imam Ali"?

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Farid

Look up his intro. It isn't that long.

It is true that al-Kulaynī said that the principle of comparing hadīth to the Qur'an is found in only a few cases, he never used the word useless though. Also it doesn't mean this is really the case, according to his reasearch he is right but doesn't mean that all scholars during his time or after came to same conclusion.

@Vigilare

Shias are more likely to accept almost anything, no mater how great a lie, if it puts some of the sahaba - especially the Three, in a negative light without bothering to find out if it's authentic or not. Similarly, they will almost certainly accept any and all praise of the Imams, no matter how extreme.

I disagree, I can only speak for myself and others that I know and this is not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Muslimunity1:

It is true that al-Kulaynī said that the principle of comparing hadīth to the Qur'an is found in only a few cases, he never used the word useless though. Also it doesn't mean this is really the case, according to his reasearch he is right but doesn't mean that all scholars during his time or after came to same conclusion.

Its uselessness is implied, since it is such a rarity in which this rule can be put to use. Other scholars don't need to agree. He is thiqa al-islam, and he knows more about hadiths than pretty much everyone. You cannot deny that this statement has an enormous amount of weight.

@ Abu Dujana:

Still waiting for your thoughts on post #11.

Edited by Inglip
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I don't see how this is exclusive to Salafis. Ibn Hajar is notorious for denying historical reports and he was an Ash'ari. Believe it or not, historical criticism, with the usage of rijal, existed way before the birth of Ibn Taymiyah. Perhaps you are unaware that one of the earliest reasons of wadh'i in hadith occurred due to the sectarian split that occurred after the death of Uthman. Nasibism and tashayyu were finally created, with both parties fabricating traditions to support their views. It only started out with hadiths though, but that later developed into historical fabrications.

(salam)

lordship(lord botha with that clown picture suited you better) care to explain "wadh'i "

and the split you so mention as a 'matter concluded' to misguide is ill thought out.

You surely remember the hadith of the hubb of ali(as) and the bughz of ali(as).

The grouping was evident then as the holy prophet (pbuh) is stating.

Infact this grouping came about at the very first proclamation of the holy prophet (pbuh) famously known as dawat e zul ashira.

the very instance in which a nasbi has been condemned in the holy quran.

infact i will go so far as in saying that this first nasbi must have had something in him to at least admit the eman of abu talib(as) when he said that from now onwards you will be obeying your son.

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Farid the answer to post #11 was in post # 23. I've decided not to participate in your game. Find someone else to play it with.

@Anyone who wishes to learn about "Shia history" / Vigilare:

Let me introduce you to an entirely new outlook which may give you new insight on the entire "Shia hate sahaba" problem of yours.

Consider the Usool and Furoo' of Shia and your own. The Furoo' related to our dislike of some companions who did wrong is called "Tabarra", while the furoo' which adheres us to the Ahl-al-Bayt (as) is called "Tawalla" and it is also related. Anyone who honestly wishes to understand Shiism needs to start from there and understand the philosophy behind it.

One of the purposes of Tabarra and Tawalla is to keep the doctrine for the people free from double standards and impurities. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the entire Shi'a take on history is a fantasy (suppose). But even if a fantasy, it still conforms to and is compatible with human nature and the history of mankind and the first wrong committed by Kabeel for his brother Habeel (as). It teaches us to dislike hypocrisy, even subtle actions or words that are injurious to Islam or its cause or to other believers. It teaches us to love and support believers and treat them according to the purity of their faith. It teaches us to dislike impure and evil people. It teaches us to love those who are closer to God.

The complete list of the benefits of these two furoo' are too vast for me to even grasp fully, let alone list them all here. But one should be able to get the gist from what I've written.

Again, "the shiah view of history" answers many questions. The only problem is that it is too blunt, too rude, like the truth or an awakening. BUT the inner self or the conscience will always accept the truth, and prefer it over irrationality or confusion due to added falsehood.

To give an example of history's troubleshooting answers, consider the mistreatment of the progeny of the holy Prophet (pbuh). It reaches its peak at Karbala, which in an undeniable event. Then, a reader of history is naturally going to have several questions pop up in his mind. "Why did the Muslims who are supposed to love the Prophet did so?" "Why did so many others not intervene?" "How come this trend of murdering Seyyeds and their Shiah continue afterwards during Bani Umayya and Bani Abbas monarchies and even today?". For this the person needs to study more history. The mistreatment of the progeny of the Prophet (pbuh) began most obviously and openly in popular history with the atrocity of the orchard of Fadak. Then there is even the mistreatment of the Prophet (pbuh) himself, which the history will simply throw at its reader without respect for the criminals. Some names will repeat over and over. And thus these names, because of their evil doings and utter lack of repentance or remorse, finally end up in the crucible of "Tabarra".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Farid

Its uselessness is implied, since it is such a rarity in which this rule can be put to use.

He never used the method much but he did not imply it wasn't valid, neither did he deny it.

Other scholars don't need to agree. He is thiqa al-islam, and he knows more about hadiths than pretty much everyone.

Some might disagree with the above statement, as some consider sheikh Sadooq as the giant of his time. That's irrelevant though, the point is not everyone agrees with Imam Kulayni r.a.

You cannot deny that this statement has an enormous amount of weight.

It does carry lot of weight, no doubt but not enough to consider the overall method as useless.

Edited by muslimunity1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...