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

Attempts Of Refutation The Book About Ibn Saba

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Toyib wrote a book on ‘Abd Allāh b. Sabā which can be downloaded here or bought on the same link. Two Salafī brothers, Farid and Hani, have equally made an effort to “refute” his book. Here, he will be making some brief, general comments about their attempted “refutation”, with the Permission of Allāh. 

 

DOWNLOAD THE COMMENTS

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

Good refutation :)

I liked this part:
 

So, the Shī’ī reports which establish that Ibn Sabā existed, and that he believed in the divinity of Amīr al-Mūminīn and was burnt, somehow “prove” the Sunnī claims! Māshāllāh! What a “rational” methodology! What “great” logic! But, when did Shī’ī aḥādīth become ḥujjah for Sunnī Muslims?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bismillah.

 

Salaam.

 

There are two precious books by Allameh Murtaza Askari in which he attempted to approach historically this issue and he talked a lot about 150 fabricated companions for the Prophet (p) and he has a great book specially about Abdullah ibn Saba'; this book is basically in Arabic but, as I much as I know, it has been translated to Persian and Urdu, Here is the names of the books:

 

1) Arabic: مئة و خمسون صحابى مُختلَق

    Persian: یکصد و پنجاه صحابى ساختگى

 

2) Arabic: عبدالله بن سبأ و اساطیر أخری

    Persian: عبدالله بن سبأ و دیگر افسانه های تاریخی

   

    Urdu:

عبد اللہ بن سبا اور دوسرے تاریخی افسانے                   

  link volume 1:

http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/urdu/Allama%20Sayyid%20Murtaza%20Askari%20-%20Abdullah%20Ibn-e-Saba%20-%20Volume%20I.pdf

 

 link volume 2:

http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/urdu/Allama%20Sayyid%20Murtaza%20Askari%20-%20Abdullah%20Ibn-e-Saba%20-%20Volume%20II%20&%20III.pdf

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Good refutation :)

I liked this part:

 

 

So, the Shī’ī reports which establish that Ibn Sabā existed, and that he believed in the divinity of Amīr al-Mūminīn and was burnt, somehow “prove” the Sunnī claims! Māshāllāh! What a “rational” methodology! What “great” logic! But, when did Shī’ī aḥādīth become ḥujjah for Sunnī Muslims?

 

Did he really made this comment? Seems he hasn't read the book. Nowhere, Farid made such claim, but he proved from both Shia and Sunni sources that Ibn Saba and his sect existed and how their beliefs influenced the Shia sects.

 

You can read the book on Abdullah bin Saba and refutation of Toyib here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You can read the book on Abdullah bin Saba and refutation of Toyib here.

 

And you can read the refutation of that pathetic refutation here.

 

Click 'DOC' under 'view the book'.

 

Personally, I'm pretty sure Ibn Saba' existed, but he had no influence on us at all. Sahīh ahādīth state that Imam Ali [as] burned him because he said that he was divine. We say that he was the Imam, not that he was divine. Other Sahīh ahādīth show that he was cursed by our Imams.

Edited by Ali al-Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he really made this comment? Seems he hasn't read the book. Nowhere, Farid made such claim, but he proved from both Shia and Sunni sources that Ibn Saba and his sect existed and how their beliefs influenced the Shia sects.

 

You can read the book on Abdullah bin Saba and refutation of Toyib here.

 

 

 

(bismillah)

 

 

I doubt you had read anything. This is because through reading, they have not established any Authentic or Reasonable premises that shows that such has an influence on The Shia of Ahlulbayt (a.s).You have committed a fallacy of false claim. Please quote from the book, at least one logical or Authentic premise that shows what you have just stated, which you will find non, since I have went through the useless book.

 

__________________

(wasalam)

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

Good refutation :)

I liked this part:

So, the Shī’ī reports which establish that Ibn Sabā existed, and that he believed in the divinity of Amīr al-Mūminīn and was burnt, somehow “prove” the Sunnī claims! Māshāllāh! What a “rational” methodology! What “great” logic! But, when did Shī’ī aḥādīth become ḥujjah for Sunnī Muslims?

 

 

That was good, but I think this was the best bit,

 

"So, we Shī’ah ask them: where are your authentic proofs for the twelve claims? To convince us on their twelve claims, Sunnīs must – of course - provide reliable reports from the Shī’ī sources only. No Sunnī has ever been able to do that since the time of Prophet Ādam."

 

:lol:  may Allah protect brother Toyib.

Edited by Ali al-Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Toyib wrote a book on ‘Abd Allāh b. Sabā which can be downloaded here or bought on the same link. Two Salafī brothers, Farid and Hani, have equally made an effort to “refute” his book. Here, he will be making some brief, general comments about their attempted “refutation”, with the Permission of Allāh. 

 

DOWNLOAD THE COMMENTS

 

(bismillah)

 

Just to correct Toyib. The author of the book is one person and he is brother Farid. Secondly, brother Hani is not a Salafi but a Shafi`i.

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

السلام عليكم

 

عبد الله بن سبا

 

His existance cannot be refuted. Both in Tashayyu and sunnah. His role and reality is definitely up for debate.

 

What is fact and cannot be refuted is that he was not jewish. He had no role in formulating shia islam. He and his so calledfollowing did not hide their true identity and went under aliases. He was simply an extremist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Toyib wrote a book on ‘Abd Allāh b. Sabā which can be downloaded here or bought on the same link. Two Salafī brothers, Farid and Hani, have equally made an effort to “refute” his book. Here, he will be making some brief, general comments about their attempted “refutation”, with the Permission of Allāh. 

 

DOWNLOAD THE COMMENTS

 

 

 
And you can read the refutation of that pathetic refutation here.

 

Click 'DOC' under 'view the book'.

 

Personally, I'm pretty sure Ibn Saba' existed, but he had no influence on us at all. Sahīh ahādīth state that Imam Ali [as] burned him because he said that he was divine. We say that he was the Imam, not that he was divine. Other Sahīh ahādīth show that he was cursed by our Imams.

 

 

I read the comments of Toyib. Honestly, there is nothing worthy of refutation and harldy anything academic and he failed to refute evidences provided by Farid. Most of his comment are just ridiculous i.e. his claims about Sabaiyah tribes etc.

 

Toyib did ask for a reference/scan because he was unable to find it, which I am sure, will be provided by Farid.

 

Toyib admitted in his book that the existence of Abdullah bin is authentically proven from Shia sources but claimed Sunnis are unable to prove the existence of Ibn Saba and what they attribute to him. The claims of toyib (he took his arguments from a Shia book) was proved wrong as Farid did prove the existence of the man, his sect and beliefs through authentic reports.

 

Mashallah bro you refuted the rafidhi

 

I didn't. The book did :) 

 

what's ibn saba significance?

 

Read the book Abdullah bin Saba.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I read the comments of Toyib. Honestly, there is nothing worthy of refutation and harldy anything academic and he failed to refute evidences provided by Farid. Most of his comment are just ridiculous i.e. his claims about Sabaiyah tribes etc.

 

 

Your Failure to answer my previous question, shows how little you know of the subject. I went through the book, and Farid did not answer any of the twelve question claims of Ahlul-Sunnah. There is no evidence provided concerning the so called "Influence" on the Followers of Ahlulbayt (a.s). I asked you to quote, because I know every well the useless arguments provided.    

 

 

 

 

Toyib admitted in his book that the existence of Abdullah bin is authentically proven from Shia sources but claimed Sunnis are unable to prove the existence of Ibn Saba and what they attribute to him

 

That is the concern of the "Influence", which you claim is "Significant" is absolutely zero on your account.

__________________________________________

(wasalam)

 

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

Out of curiosity who were the main followers of ibn saba in time, of Ali Hasan aND hussain....do we have their names per brothe farid?

U guys if want a neutral account read Sean Anthony s book on ibn saba in a nutshell he says

A guy called Abdullah ibn saba definitely existed in times of Ali

He had an extremist streak but the extent of which is unclear in the sources his key followers are unknown

Some of his influence s can be found in Imami shiasim today others became extinct

His rOle in the civil war is greatly exaggerated to absolve other Sahaba of blame.

Anthony also confirms Imami shiaism did not exist in the times of Ali and his sons

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

Its hard to tell, that's why ahlus sunnah believe that they changed their names and had aliases so noone would know. Obviously this cannot be proven and remains a conspiracy theory to the bakri sect. But their core belief relies upon sayf in umar al tamimi, the master of story telling...throughout history only the ones who win wars actually write the tales. That's why the fathers of tashayyu died defending books...

If they want to claim we have jewish roots and exaggerators so be it, they are equal in that with tamim al dari(christian priest),abdullah ibn salam(rabbi),kaab al ahkbar(rabbi) and abu hurayrah(jew).

But we are missing the best part!! Muawiya in abi sufyan was actually in allegience with the romans and even put the christian cross on the ummayad rals! I collect ummayad and abbasid coins so believe me! When he expanded the dynasty to spain they kept the cross. History tells us he was christian. Secular history of course but hey, the cross is on their dirham....

Same thing with Umar in Al Khattab, you would love to.see what's in the jewish midrash about him and conquering jeruselem...baytyul maqdis was the best political move he could have done again in their books.

So there are much more important things to discuss that actually made history not ibn saba....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Out of curiosity who were the main followers of ibn saba in time, of Ali Hasan aND hussain....do we have their names per brothe farid?

U guys if want a neutral account read Sean Anthony s book on ibn saba in a nutshell he says

A guy called Abdullah ibn saba definitely existed in times of Ali

He had an extremist streak but the extent of which is unclear in the sources his key followers are unknown

Some of his influence s can be found in Imami shiasim today others became extinct

His rOle in the civil war is greatly exaggerated to absolve other Sahaba of blame.

Anthony also confirms Imami shiaism did not exist in the times of Ali and his sons

Read my post below...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Bismillah.

 

Salaam.

 

There are two precious books by Allameh Murtaza Askari in which he attempted to approach historically this issue and he talked a lot about 150 fabricated companions for the Prophet (p) and he has a great book specially about Abdullah ibn Saba'; this book is basically in Arabic but, as I much as I know, it has been translated to Persian and Urdu, Here is the names of the books:

 

1) Arabic: مئة و خمسون صحابى مُختلَق

    Persian: یکصد و پنجاه صحابى ساختگى

 

2) Arabic: عبدالله بن سبأ و اساطیر أخری

    Persian: عبدالله بن سبأ و دیگر افسانه های تاریخی

   

    Urdu:

عبد اللہ بن سبا اور دوسرے تاریخی افسانے                   

  link volume 1:

http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/urdu/Allama%20Sayyid%20Murtaza%20Askari%20-%20Abdullah%20Ibn-e-Saba%20-%20Volume%20I.pdf

 

 link volume 2:

http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/urdu/Allama%20Sayyid%20Murtaza%20Askari%20-%20Abdullah%20Ibn-e-Saba%20-%20Volume%20II%20&%20III.pdf

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

English:

http://www.al-islam.org/abdullah-ibn-saba-and-other-myths-sayyid-murtadha-al-askari/introduction-tale-abdullah-bin-saba

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(bismillah)

 

That is great. Is that the translation of the Two volumes? I never expected any one to translate it, because of how lengthy it was, But It seems There is. Thanks for post. Much appreciated.

 

 

____________

(wasalam)  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

rafidi1986 I agree 90 % with your posts esp

"sunni" islam has a lot of influences too from Christian and jewish sources and as you correctly mentioned tamim dari and kaab b ahbar and Abdullah b salam and the traditions glorifying bayt ul maqdus esp when it was in ummayyad hands while hijaz was under ibn zubair

you are 100 % correct about ummayyads collision with romans infact a sunni scholar Khalid yahya blankinship notes in his work that muawiyah paid an indemnity to romans to maintain peace while he fought Ali

Also Christian arabs of Syria always supported ummayyads es sufyanids even against Iraqi muslims ( shia or not), muawiyah ummayyads likely used old byzantine coins that explains some of the Christian emblems but muawiyah and ummayads were not Christians they were like pagan arabs they just outwardly followed islam if it was convenient to them they wud have followed any faith

 

However Ill say this without any hypocrisy  that imami 12ershiaism is not the uncorrupted pristine islam with  unadulterated beliefs which can be traced right back to the times of the Prophet either

 

And please post pics of your early ummayyad coins would love to see them thank you !

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

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=32857q00.jpg&vpar=1288&zpg=38144&fld=http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins2/

Alhamdulilah! You agree with me, its a recent phenomena that muawiya has been praised so much.

This link has the most explicit pictures of christian symbols on ummayad coins

Yes I will upload them, the best one I own is my harun rashid abassid dinar its got so much propaganda on it like it says in the name of the commander of the faithful abu jafr. Its crazy! These caliphs were atheist at its finest!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=32857q00.jpg&vpar=1288&zpg=38144&fld=http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins2/

Alhamdulilah! You agree with me, its a recent phenomena that muawiya has been praised so much.

This link has the most explicit pictures of christian symbols on ummayad coins

Yes I will upload them, the best one I own is my harun rashid abassid dinar its got so much propaganda on it like it says in the name of the commander of the faithful abu jafr. Its crazy! These caliphs were atheist at its finest!

It is not recent

I think Annasa'i and and /or another scholar (sunni) were beaten badly till they died when they refused to praise Mu'awyiah or narrate a hadith with his virtue, so even back then the populace liked to praise him much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

what's ibn saba significance?

 

No significance to the Shī'a whatsoever, apart from the fact he was from the ghulāt and the Imāms cursed him - brother Nader has posted some excellent stuff on Ibn Saba'.

Edited by Ali al-Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=32857q00.jpg&vpar=1288&zpg=38144&fld=http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins2/

Alhamdulilah! You agree with me, its a recent phenomena that muawiya has been praised so much.

This link has the most explicit pictures of christian symbols on ummayad coins

Yes I will upload them, the best one I own is my harun rashid abassid dinar its got so much propaganda on it like it says in the name of the commander of the faithful abu jafr. Its crazy! These caliphs were atheist at its finest!

also, the Islamic coin was made during Abdul Malik bin Marwan times. I believe there is a story related to one of our Imams in which our Imam made the suggestion to create the Islamic coin, something to do with economic war that was going on at that time.

so, up till abdlulmalik and up till all the previous roman coins that were in hands of people were all replaced, the roman coins were in market during Ummayyad rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Muawiyah was always popular in Syria as he did a lot for the Syrians he was a good politician as Kennedy s will always be godfathers of Democrats

Ok can somebody answer who were the main goons and disciples of ibn saba ? SInce both 12ers and sunnis hate him his disciples must be hated too

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The coins were definatley not kept in circulation by the romans. Proof is the khosuro currency that the "rightly guided caliphs" kept was roman.

This was not by abdal malik. History tells he minted in basra, hid coins much different.

These are common ummayad currency developed by ummayads not romans.

Numismatics professionals would disagree with you

History is guesswork a lot of times and a cross on so called muslim currency is no excuse

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Toyib said in the comments that he was unable to find a source Farid used.

 

Here is the reply of brother Farid:

 

His inability to find a quote from the provided source displays incompetence. See here for a PDF of the book (p. 177):

 

http://ia600502.us.archive.org/22/items/waq60886/03_60888.pdf

 

 

 


Out of curiosity who were the main followers of ibn saba in time, of Ali Hasan aND hussain....do we have their names per brothe farid?
U guys if want a neutral account read Sean Anthony s book on ibn saba in a nutshell he says
A guy called Abdullah ibn saba definitely existed in times of Ali
He had an extremist streak but the extent of which is unclear in the sources his key followers are unknown
Some of his influence s can be found in Imami shiasim today others became extinct
His rOle in the civil war is greatly exaggerated to absolve other Sahaba of blame.
Anthony also confirms Imami shiaism did not exist in the times of Ali and his sons

 

+1

 

Thank you brother.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ u r welcome brother

I think if both sunnis and Imami 12ers research him without bias he's not so enigmatic nor so influential,far more influential than him would be the main companions of 5th aND 6th shia imams who shaped Imami shiaism in its infancy, the companions of first 2 shia Imams are more influential in Sunni than shia hadith yet it wud be an exaggeration to day they were 100 % like today's sunnis

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
the companions of first 2 shia Imams are more influential in Sunni

 

 

So that explains why they call someone Ameer and do taraddi for that person who beheaded a close companion of the 1st Imam. Those individuals only came in because of the phrase "tabeen" and "Sahaba" were used. Ask any Sunni who would recognise lets say Amir bin Hamiq (RA), a great Badri companion.  This whole thing about companion based Islam is the invention of Banu Ummaya, projecting their version of how Islam should have been to the past and then somehow trying to connect it with the present. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Bro Amr b hamiq is not a badri...he accepted islam at hudabiya and was indeed a companion cruelly martyred by muawiyah

Companion cannot be an invention of Banu umaaya only as very few companion supported them in fact good evidence that ummayyads scorned the old guard of the early companions most of their Sahaba supporters were late converts.If u see the discourses and speeches of anti uthman lobby in the fitnas the companion label was always a much coveted title. Ali s supporters boasted that his side was a starstudded line up of dozens of Sahaba while ummayyads side had a handful.hell bro even read Husayn letter to muawiyah when he laments the martyrdom of Amr b hamiq khuzai and calls him i.e Amr " companion of the prophet"

But look at Jaber b adullah, bara b azib, abu saad khudri, ibn abbas, zayd b arqam companions of Ali b abitalib who have narrated hundreds of hadith in Sunni books

The ibn zubair faction of sunnis may have over emphasized the Sahaba factor too since after demise of Ali a lot of Sahaba backed him as well.

Yes sunnis exaggerate the importance of a few Sahaba aND don't recognize a great many Sahaba thsts true but bro look at Imami shias how many know of any Sahaba of Ali except a handful ? E.g how many shias know of sahl b hunyf a badri companion aND very close friend of Ali

Regarding ummayyads distortion of Islam yes I agree they did but thats a,different discussion but not just they abbassids Imami shias aND aisha/ibn umar/ibn zubair lobby did too.UMMAYYADS greatest damage was the stifling the political freedom of muslims and rubber stamping it by bribing some Sahaba and Tabeeen ( but not all nor even the majority in fact a minority)

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

The ibn zubair faction of sunnis may have over emphasized the Sahaba factor too since after demise of Ali a lot of Sahaba backed him as well.

Yes sunnis exaggerate the importance of a few Sahaba aND don't recognize a great many Sahaba thsts true but bro look at Imami shias how many know of any Sahaba of Ali except a handful ? E.g how many shias know of sahl b hunyf a badri companion aND very close friend of Ali

 

 

 

Outside of the world of internet jihad against the rawafidh, the average Sunni on the street doesn't have a clue about the companions, when they use this as a (hate) card against the Shi'a, it is only because of brain washing.

 

 

I'm not saying that we are much better, but in terms of laymen recognition, the problem is pretty much the same - although I would like to think that most Imamis could name at least ten of the fourteen infallibles, I'm sure most can name ten sahaba that they hate.

 

If you mean in terms of madhhabi recognition, there is probably some truth in what you say.

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

Narsis...indeed Amr b hamiq is one of my fav companions of Prophet & Ali

It'd mentioned in Isaba by ibn hajar thar prophet prayed for him and he had black hair even in old age, his hadith is narrated by rifa'a by shaddad another devotee of Ali

Ali_hussain

Sahaba are kinda ideological pawns in a game of oneupmanship between Sunni and Imamis ...they are Not as critical to sunnis as Imams are to 12ers however since integrity of Sahaba for sunnis is necessary for protection of their hadith that's why they defend them staunchly just imagine if all of a sudden someone launches a vicious,assault on 99% of Imami hadith narraters ? I'm sure your scholars will defend then staunchly too.

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

@Panzerwafee

 

Good reply i do agree with you. But you must see this way, there are thousands of narrations from Tabeen and Sahaba coming from massive collection ahadith of the Sunnis. I do not dispute that. 

 

However those thousands of narrations do not have any impact on the so-called Sunni sect. The Giant Sunni sect rests on four pillars namely Abu Huraira, Ayesha, Anas, Ibn Umar and you can consider Ibn Abbas bearing some impact (due to Abbasid influence). Abu Huraira, Anas bin Malik were solely promoted by the Banu Ummaya since day one due to their allegiance to that faction. Narrations from Ayesha were implanted by the Zubairi faction represented by Shihab Al-Zuhri. Ibn Umar is probably the only slightly neutral source although he is known to be loyal to Banu Ummaya. In a nutshell you can safely say that Sunnism is product of the joint venture between the Ummayad and Zubayri factions and one thing common to them is definitely Nasb.

 

 

We all know that so-called four pillars were not really Sahabi in the truest sense. They were merely juvenile companions (if you may consider that), teenagers that were in the company of the Holy Prophet (SAWA) more than their own age.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ sunnism as we know it today is largely the brainchild of umar b Abdul Aziz who was able to heal some of the scars of the civil wars by forming a all inclusive politically correct mainstream body of muslims which included elements of the pro-Alids Pro-ummayyad and pro-zubayri elements representing Iraq Syria and Hijazi esp Meccan elites and even was able to tame some elements of khawarij, it was a brilliant political move and more than that a genuine effort at recounciling the differences of the various factions

so naturally this movement centered along overlooking the flaws of the major companions and giving a raher sunday school version of events as it did not feel like knowing the dirty details of the first and second civil war would do any good other than re-open old scars.

Imami shias on the other hand were not hamstrung by  such requirements and infact the propogation of their sectarian beliefs relied on "exposing" the gory details of the civil wars as it served not only to project the sahaba who opposed Ali in a negative light ( much of which is justified but not all) and also highlite the tragedy of their Imams lives & subsequent martyrdom which became the mantra of imami shia ism

 

 

Regarding the over reliance of sunnis on abu hurairah Aisha ibn umar and anas b malik ( esp the first 3 ) I agree that gives a rather lopsided view in favor of the first 3 caliphs which is only partially balanced by the influence of ibn abbas, jabir, abu seed etc but their influence did serve to dilute the nasb of Pre-umar b Abdul Aziz sunnisim which was very hostile to Alids. also don't forget the internal rift amongst the sufyanids and marwanids of ummayyads the former were greatly vilified esp because of yazids actions and later marwainds because of Abdul malik b Marwan were seen in a rather positive light as he ended the second civil war although his heavy handed tactics earned him he lastin hatred of Iraqis sunni and shia alike.Marwanids however were not so anti-Alid as sufyanis remember that Marwan was sheltered by Zain ul abideen when medina turned against him and in turn marwainds left the Alids alone until zayd b Ali started his rebellion. You are also right tha abu huraira was complicit with he ummayyads to a certain extent hard to know how much since he seems to be a rather dubious figure.

 

 

 However it must also be said that very few companions of the first 3 Imams are hadith narraters for Imamis as well.In other wrds the companions of first 3 imam have played a relatively minor role in shaping present day shiaism

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
sunnism as we know it today is largely the brainchild of umar b Abdul Aziz

 

 

I do not agree with that. I am sure you are aware regarding the revolt by Imam Zayd ibn Ali (AS) against Banu Ummaya. Whatever Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA) did was reversed by his successors including the disputed Fadak hamlet. I believe it is accurate to say that only during the time of Imam Hanbal that Ameer ul Mumineen (AS) was some-what rehabilitated as the new fourth "righteous caliph". Sunnism crystallized much later.

 

I agree with you that Imamis tend to over-emphasize the "blame game" on Abu Bakr and Umar. I am doubtful whether the Sheikhyn really did what was reported in the narrations. My understanding is that the Ummayads introduced many innovations into Islam such as saying "Ameen" loudly, Qabd, etc.

 

They tried to legitimize their claim by pointing fingers to Umar ibn Al-Khattab, They soon raised the two as super-heros of Islam purely to dismiss the claim made by the Alids. At the end of the day, if you remove that three individuals there will be nothing left of Islam (ie Sunnism) 

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...