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
Sign in to follow this  
Skanderbeg

Mukhtar al-Thaqafi

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Biography of the companion who took revenge on the killers of Imam Husayn (a).

http://www.al-islam.org/mukhtar-al-thaqafy-kamal-al-sayyid

The Mukhtar Narrative

(مختار نامه) A series directed by Davud Mirbaqeri narrating Mukhtar al-Thaqafi's revenge for Karbala.

[With English Subtitles]

http://www.shiasource.com/the-mukhtar-narrative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Skanderbeg said:

Salam, 

He took revenge on the killers of Imam Hussain a.s. so at least he must have been doing something good.

And if he is bad then why is his grave to be found at the back of Masjid Al-Kufa?

Yes. But he also lied about some things. Maybe for the sake of becoming more popular and influential.

I do not know about his grave though.

7 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

That article is actually biased, and does not present an accurate picture of the truth.

Do you have ahadith that contradict that article? That article contains only one hadith (a saheeh hadith nevertheless) that calls him a liar. I think there may be some ahadith in praise of him but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Skanderbeg said:

Salam, 

As a new Shia why did you shiachat members never told me about Mukhtar al-Thaqafi?

What was his role in Shia Islam?

Salam, this is the link of the movie made for the great person Mukhtar al-Thaqafi with english subs, you can find all the episodes there

https://www.shiatv.net/video/c56866a88cc47130625d

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Abu Nasr said:

Yes. But he also lied about some things. Maybe for the sake of becoming more popular and influential.

I do not know about his grave though.

Do you have ahadith that contradict that article? That article contains only one hadith (a saheeh hadith nevertheless) that calls him a liar. I think there may be some ahadith in praise of him but I'm not sure.

I have watched the entirety of the Mukhtar series, and I noticed foul play in these words of the author of that article:

Quote

To prove that al-Mukhtār bin Abī `Ubaydah al-Thaqafī was the leader of the Kaysāniyyah sect, here are two videos from the famous TV series by Iran Mukhtār Nameh (Narratives of Mukhtār), with English Subtitles.


First Video:
al-Mukhtār asking permission from Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah for the uprising.  (Click link below to watch video and continue until 43:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7xi7eIfg6jg#t=2408s

Second Video:
al-Mukhtār shows a letter from Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah to Ibrahim bin Malik al-Ashtar and it is signed "Muhammad al-Mahdi". Ibrahim bin Malik says that Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah always signs his letter "Muhammad bin `Ali", and not as "Muhammad al-Mahdi". al-Mukhtār says it is a "secret" between Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah and him. (Click link below to watch video and continue until 8:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ba-mwo_awbw#t=355s
 

First, we do not use movies as textual evidences in our religion. It is really very ridiculous that a movie has become "a sahih hadith" when it comes to Mukhtar. In any case, it is explained later in the movie that Sayyid Muhammad b. 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, used the signature "Muhammad al-Mahdi" in his letters to Mukhtar in order to conceal his true identity, in case the letter fell into the right hands. Secondly, there are scenes in the film where Mukhtar explicitly proclaimed the Imam of Imam al-Sajjad, peace be upon him.

Secondly, contradictory ahadith have been reported about him. I seriously doubt that the author does not know how our 'ulama have investigated those reports and arrived at their positive view of al-Mukhtar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, the author accuses al-Mukhtar of being the leader of the Kaysaniyyah sect:

Quote

To prove that al-Mukhtār bin Abī `Ubaydah al-Thaqafī was the leader of the Kaysāniyyah sect, here are two videos from the famous TV series by Iran Mukhtār Nameh (Narratives of Mukhtār), with English Subtitles.

Although he has misused a movie as his "proof", this is what Shaykh al-Tustari said in reply:

وأما قولهم بكيسانيته فغير معقول، لأنه مذهب حدث بعد المختار وبعد محمد ابن الحنفية، بل لا يمكن قوله بإمامة محمد وقد قتل في حياة محمد ولم يكن محمد مدعيا للإمامة

As for claim that he was part of the Kaysaniyyah, it is not logical, because it was a sect which came into being after the death of al-Mukhtar and after the death of Ibn al-Hanafiyyah. Rather, it was impossible for him to claim the Imamah of Muhammad (b. al-Hanafiyyah) as he was killed during the lifetime of Muhammad (b. al-Hanafiyyah) and Muhammad (b. al-Hanafiyyah) was not claiming Imamah.

So, that author's claim about al-Mukhtar is like claiming that Abu Bakr and 'Umar were followers of Ahmad b. Hanbal. We all know how very illogical that is.

Perhaps, the most disturbing part is that the author was actually aware of the above facts! He has referenced Sayyid al-Khui's (may Allah be pleased with him) research on al-Mukhtar, and he surely therefore must have read this in it (in response to the claim that al-Mukhtar was a Kaysani or Mukhtari):

وهذا القول باطل جزما، فإن محمد بن الحنفية لم يدع الإمامة لنفسه حتى يدعو المختار الناس إليه، وقد قتل المختار ومحمد بن الحنفية حي، وإنما حدثت الكيسانية بعد وفاة محمد بن الحنفية

This is clearly false, for Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyyah did not claim Imamah for himself, such that al-Mukhtar could have invited the people to him. Also, al-Mukhtar was killed during the lifetime of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyyah, and al-Kaysaniyyah came into being AFTER the death of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyyah.

The author ignored these clear facts, and proceeded to misquote a movie, for reasons best known to him.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Moreover, the author accuses al-Mukhtar of being the leader of the Kaysaniyyah sect:

Although he has misused a movie as his "proof", this is what Shaykh al-Tustari said in reply:

وأما قولهم بكيسانيته فغير معقول، لأنه مذهب حدث بعد المختار وبعد محمد ابن الحنفية، بل لا يمكن قوله بإمامة محمد وقد قتل في حياة محمد ولم يكن محمد مدعيا للإمامة

As for claim that he was part of the Kaysaniyyah, it is not logical, because it was a sect which came into being after the death of al-Mukhtar and after the death of Ibn al-Hanafiyyah. Rather, it was impossible for him to claim the Imamah of Muhammad (b. al-Hanafiyyah) as he was killed during the lifetime of Muhammad (b. al-Hanafiyyah) and Muhammad (b. al-Hanafiyyah) was not claiming Imamah.

So, that author's claim about al-Mukhtar is like claiming that Abu Bakr and 'Umar were followers of Ahmad b. Hanbal. We all know how very illogical that is.

Perhaps, the most disturbing part is that the author was actually aware of the above facts! He has referenced Sayyid al-Khui's (may Allah be pleased with him) research on al-Mukhtar, and he surely therefore must have read this in it (in response to the claim that al-Mukhtar was a Kaysani or Mukhtari):

وهذا القول باطل جزما، فإن محمد بن الحنفية لم يدع الإمامة لنفسه حتى يدعو المختار الناس إليه، وقد قتل المختار ومحمد بن الحنفية حي، وإنما حدثت الكيسانية بعد وفاة محمد بن الحنفية

This is clearly false, for Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyyah did not claim Imamah for himself, such that al-Mukhtar could have invited the people to him. Also, al-Mukhtar was killed during the lifetime of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyyah, and al-Kaysaniyyah came into being AFTER the death of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyyah.

The author ignored these clear facts, and proceeded to misquote a movie, for reasons best known to him.

As a confirmation:

Some believe that al-Mukhtar was the founder of the Kaysanite movement, stating that since al-Mukhtar was nicknamed as Kaysan, his followers were called the Kaysanites. Mamaqani doesn't believe so, and believes that al-Mukhtar was not a Kaysanite.

Ayatollah Khoei believes this accusation has been made by non-Shias who have referred to fabricated and rejected narrations, and believes that Kaysanitism was founded after the death of al-Mukhtar and Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya.

In addition, al-Allama al-Amini rejects al-Mukhtar's connection with the Kaysanites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

There is ahadith in praise in him and ahadith in condemnation of him,  obviously, this would happen with a character like Mukhtar. 

The best thing to do is assume the best, but at the same time, not act as if it's knowledge.

The Imams (peace be upon them) at times had to publicly dissociate themselves from well-known anti-taghut figures like al-Mukhtar. This was clearly done in taqiyyah in order to protect the Ahl al-Bayt and their followers. Sometimes, the Imams made these statements even in private to certain Shi'ah in order to protect the latter, especially if the Imams feared that they might unsuspectingly fall into a trap of the brutal rulers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Skanderbeg said:

Salam, 

He took revenge on the killers of Imam Hussain a.s. so at least he must have been doing something good.

And if he is bad then why is his grave to be found at the back of Masjid Al-Kufa?

Because there are many narrations.

Some old Hadiths that he is a liar, there are narrations that praise him, some claim he did it with pure for Imam Hussein, many claim he did it with intention of political reasons.

 

But just to clear out something, in Islam there is no such thing as "killing for revenge". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Al-Ameli said:

Because there are many narrations.

Some old Hadiths that he is a liar, there are narrations that praise him, some claim he did it with pure for Imam Hussein, many claim he did it with intention of political reasons.

 

But just to clear out something, in Islam there is no such thing as "killing for revenge". 

Salam,

But there is punishment. And his intentions are only known to Allah.

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skanderbeg said:

Salam, 

Thank you for the clarification.

There are HAdiths such as:

Regarding his intention towards Allah, many people say there is a hadiths that say other things:

"it is narrated that Mukhtar sent one hundred thousand dirham for Imam Zainul Abideen. But Imam wanted not to accept them. And he also feared that if he returned, than Mukhtar will create trouble for him, so he let the money at his home. When Mukhtar was killed, Imam wrote to Abdul Malik that this is your right, take it away. And he cursed Mukhtar and said, he would lie upon us, and he would claim that wahi of Allah reveals on me."

Jila ul Ayun , by Baqir Majlisi, p. 805-807

Few scholars believe that Mukhtar wanted to gain rule and kingdom, and used this way for his purpose. And in the beginning, he attached himself with Imam Zainul Abideen, since he was not appointed (mamoor) on khuruj he was aware of his false intentions, he didn’t accept Mukhtar’s request. Than Mukhtar attached himself with Muhammad ibn Hanafiya, and he would invite the people towards him, and he would call Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya, the Mehdi. And the Kaysaniya sect was started by him. And they said Muhammad ibn Hanafiya is alive, and he is the last Imam, and thanks to God, that religion ended and its followers have finished, and they were called Kaysani because they were the companions of Mukhtar and Mukhtar was called Kaysan because according to their reports, Ali called him Kays in some of his letters. Or due to this reason that the leader of Mukhtar’s army and his advisor, was Abu Umra, and he was called Kaysan. And from the reports, it is clear that Mukhtar’s intention regarding his khuruj were not correct. He had appointed liars to preach his religion. But since great things were done by him, we are hopeful of his salvation, and not to indulge in matters of such people is the right way.

Jila ul Ayun , by Baqir Majlisi, p. 805-807

And more and more and more.

Allaho Aalam regarding their authenticity, thus I personally cannot say they're true or not. If he did it with pure intention towards Allah, then may Allah make his status higher, if not, then Allah knows better where his status lies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, 

I'm not someone from the inbetween or the yes and no at the same time. 

You can stay in the middle and not taking a risk but I go for the most positive narrations about him and in the first place his noble deed itself. 

And as I said before, intentions are only known to Allah and not the affairs of man. 

If you only came with narrations that are 100% autenthic it would be diffirent but now you yourself say you're not really sure about them either. 

 

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skanderbeg said:

I believe he did the best deed a man could do in his time (that's the proof for me) no matter what were the sayings about him. In the end a man is judged by his deeds and the state he dies in. 

 

:salam:

Exactly... Mukhtar was a great warrior who fought for Imam's Hussain's (as) blood and he was successful in his mission. I have heard Ulemas say that it was due to Mukhtar's uprising that we got to know more about the battle of Karbala. He made the people who were part of the accursed army of Yazeed (la) give out details of the incidents which happened at Karbala.

Also, not sure if it has been mentioned above, but I have read/heard of a hadith where Imam Baqir (as) I think gave a warm welcome to the son of Mukhtar and made him sit next to him. He only spoke of great things about his father and thanked his role in getting Banu Hashim lead a normal life again. I am not sure if such a behaviour would be befitting from an Imam to a person who is bad.

And with regards to the negative narrations, it is quite obvious that the Ummayyad rulers who followed his death were going to leave no stone unturned in trying to defame a man who made a mess of their plans. Compare this uprising with the ones who are quite famous in Islamic history and look at their reasons for staging a rebellion against Imam Ali (as). Mukhtar definitely fulfilled his promise whilst those famous figures hogged the limelight and did nothing to justify their rebellion after they came into power.

 

Allah swt knows best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, related to this topic, I have read on several websites that Ibrahim bin Malik al-Ashtar, who was a commander of Mukhtar's army, later joined forces with his killer Mus'ab bin Zubayr after Mukhtar's death in order to fight the Umayyads. They were both apparently killed shortly after in a battle with Abd al-Malik bin Marwan.

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=10743

http://fa.wikishia.net/view/%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%85_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%DA%A9_%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%B1

 

Is this true? Why would Ibrahim bin Malik side with Mus'ab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2016 at 1:59 PM, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

The Imams (peace be upon them) at times had to publicly dissociate themselves from well-known anti-taghut figures like al-Mukhtar. This was clearly done in taqiyyah in order to protect the Ahl al-Bayt and their followers. Sometimes, the Imams made these statements even in private to certain Shi'ah in order to protect the latter, especially if the Imams feared that they might unsuspectingly fall into a trap of the brutal rulers.

Allah has gifted us with Abu faatima's intellect, may Allah bless you and your family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from al-Kafi, the chain is pretty strong from what I can see:

محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن محبوب عن علي بن رئاب، عن أبي عبيدة وزرارة جميعا، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: لما قتل الحسين عليه السلام أرسل محمد بن الحنفية إلى علي بن الحسين عليهما السلام فخلا به فقال له: يا ابن أخي قد علمت أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله دفع الوصية والإمامة من بعده إلى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام ثم إلى الحسن عليه السلام، ثم إلى الحسين عليه السلام وقد قتل أبوك رضي الله عنه وصلي على روحه ولم يوص، وأنا عمك وصنو أبيك وولادتي من علي عليه السلام في سني وقديمي أحق بها منك في حداثتك، فلا تنازعني في الوصية والإمامة ولا تحاجني، فقال له علي بن الحسين عليه السلام: يا عم اتق الله ولا تدع ما ليس لك بحق إني أعظك أن تكون من الجاهلين، إن أبي يا عم صلوات الله عليه أوصى إلي قبل أن يتوجه إلى العراق وعهد إلي في ذلك قبل أن يستشهد بساعة، وهذا سلاح رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله عندي، فلا تتعرض لهذا، فإني أخاف عليك نقص العمر وتشتت الحال، إن الله عز وجل جعل الوصية والإمامة في عقب الحسين عليه السلام فإذا أردت أن تعلم ذلك فانطلق بنا إلى الحجر الأسود حتى نتحاكم إليه ونسأله عن ذلك قال أبو جعفر عليه السلام: وكان الكلام بينهما بمكة، فانطلقا حتى أتيا الحجر الأسود، فقال علي بن الحسين لمحمد بن الحنفية: ابدأ أنت فابتهل إلى الله عز وجل وسله أن ينطق لك الحجر ثم سل، فابتهل محمد في الدعاء وسأل الله ثم دعا الحجر فلم يجبه، فقال علي بن الحسين عليهما السلام: يا عم لو كنت وصيا وإماما لأجابك، قال له محمد: فادع الله أنت يا ابن أخي وسله، فدعا الله علي بن الحسين عليهما السلام بما أراد ثم قال: أسألك بالذي جعل فيك ميثاق الأنبياء وميثاق الأوصياء وميثاق الناس أجمعين لما أخبرتنا من الوصي و الامام بعد الحسين بن علي عليه السلام؟ قال: فتحرك الحجر حتى كاد ان يزول عن موضعه، ثم أنطقه الله عز وجل بلسان عربي مبين، فقال: اللهم إن الوصية والإمامة بعد الحسين ابن علي عليهما السلام إلى علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب وابن فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله قال: فانصرف محمد بن علي وهو يتولى علي بن الحسين عليه السلام.
علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن زرارة، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام مثله

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/1122_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A1/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_396

It could be argued that if Ibn al-Hanafiyya believed that he was the imam, he could have told people, and it could have spread that way, these things can spread quite fast, and often once someone believes something, it is hard to make them change that belief, no matter who tries to convince them, Ibn Saba' being a fine case in point.

Either way, it isn't like the idea that al-Mukhtar was a deviant doesn't have any foundations whatsoever, not everyone has the same standards as to what they accept as sound proof and people view things in different ways.

Allah knows best.

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

It could be argued that if Ibn al-Hanafiyya believed that he was the imam, he could have told people, and it could have spread that way, these things can spread quite fast, and often once someone believes something, it is hard to make them change that belief, no matter who tries to convince them, Ibn Saba' being a fine case in point.

Ibn al-Hanafiyyah (may Allah be pleased with him) mistakenly believed that Imam al-Husayn (peace be upon him) died without appointing a successor, as the hadith you quoted shows. Since he was an uncle to Imam al-Sajjad (peace be upon him), he thought that he was the natural successor of Imam al-Husayn. However, Imam al-Sajjad informed him that Imam al-Husayn actually appointed him (i.e. Imam al-Sajjad) a successor before his martyrdom, and he further proved his Imamah with the miracle of Hajar al-Aswad. The final sentence of that hadith states that Ibn al-Hanafiyyah then accepted Imam al-Sajjad as his Imam:

فانصرف محمد بن علي وهو يتولى علي بن الحسين عليه السلام

12 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Either way, it isn't like the idea that al-Mukhtar wasn't a deviant doesn't have any foundations whatsoever, not everyone has the same standards as to what they accept as sound proof and people view things in different ways.

Ibn al-Hanafiyyah believed in the Imamah of Imam al-Sajjad. He never publicly or even privately made any claim that he was an Imam (apart from his initial argument with Imam al-Sajjad). There is zero reason why al-Mukhtar (may Allah be pleased with him) would have declared Ibn al-Hanafiyyah an Imam. Besides, the Kaysaniyyah sect which did that, came into being after only the death of al-Mukhtar. How then could he have been their "leader"? From his grave?!

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree

The hadith states that Ibn al hanafiyya thought he was the Imam, one of the signs that show us he was sincere and mistaken was the fact that he made dua to Allah to make it apparent who the Imam was at the black stone.

Edited by Abu-Jafar Herz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, he believed that he was the imam, mistaken or not, at one point he held that belief, it isn't impossible that he told someone and that is how it spread, if he didn't know who the next imam was, why would anyone else? Someone may have asked him, and he may have told them.

The point is, we don't know, there is just as much guess work involved in supposing that the narrations against him were said in taqiyya.

With certain historical matters, we can never have absolute certainty about what came when, so to say that the Kasaniyya sect started after the death of Ibn al-Hanafiyya could be inaccurate, or the belief that he was the Mahdi started after his death, but it morphed from a sect who believed that he was the imam.

We know from the succession of Imam al-Sadiq [a] for example, that there was confusion, and people asked different children of his who the imam was, so if Ibn al-Hanafiyya believed that he was the imam (the difference is that he was sincere in his belief and al-Aftah (for example) wasn't), it isn't a far stretch for him to have told people that he was the imam, and then when he denied it to them, they could have believed that it was taqiyya to protect himself from the authorities.

This isn't something to demonise someone over, as there are proofs that can be brought for both opinions.

We all know that when it comes to Karbala, with all the emotions that it raises, scholars can be irrational with what they accept, look at the story of Ruqayya for example.

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Either way, he believed that he was the imam, mistaken or not, at one point he held that belief, it isn't impossible that he told someone and that is how it spread, if he didn't know who the next imam was, why would anyone else? Someone may have asked him, and he may have told them.

We do not base serious facts upon assumptions and guesses. There is no evidence that he told anyone other than Imam al-Sajjad about his "Imamah". We cannot go beyond that.

Quote
14 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

The point is, we don't know, there is just as much guess work involved in supposing that the narrations against him were said in taqiyya.

What you are suggesting is that the Imams were contradicting themselves - which is a very serious thing to imagine. The deeds of anyone who is not a mumin are NOT accepted by Allah. If al-Mukhtar had been a kafir and mushrik (i.e. if he had believed in the Imamah of Ibn al-Hanafiyyah), his jihad against the Nawasib would have been of zero value to the Ahl al-Bayt. And we all know that they greatly valued his jihad. That shows that he was, and he died, a mumin.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brothers who are active here, can you tell me do we have any Hadith[tradition] narrated/transmitted by Al- Muhtar in any of the four Classical books? 

If yes, how many and what type[ usul or fiq]?

or they are just historical accounts that do not have any implications in terms of determining any faith related issues or legal rulings/?

When he did take power, was Al Mukhtar a just ruler?

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

We do not base serious facts upon assumptions and guesses. There is no evidence that he told anyone other than Imam al-Sajjad about his "Imamah". We cannot go beyond that.

What you are suggesting is that the Imams were contradicting themselves - which is a very serious thing to imagine. The deeds of anyone who is not a mumin are NOT accepted by Allah. If al-Mukhtar had been a kafir and mushrik (i.e. if he had believed in the Imamah of Ibn al-Hanafiyyah), his jihad against the Nawasib would have been of zero value to the Ahl al-Bayt. And we all know that they greatly valued his jihad. That shows that he was, and he died, a mumin.

I acknowledge that it is guess work, it is more of a theory, but based on other historical events it isn't that far fetched.

Quote


إبراهيم بن محمد الختلي قال حدثني أحمد بن إدريس القمي قال حدثني محمد بن أحمد قال حدثني الحسن بن علي الكوفي عن العباس بن عامر عن سيف بن عميرة عن جارود بن المنذر عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قال ما امتشطت فينا هاشمية و لا اختضبت حتى بعث إلينا المختار برءوس الذين قتلوا الحسين (ع)

From Jaarood bin Al-Mundhir from Abee `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام), He said: "The women of the Bani Haashim didn't comb and color (their hair) (i.e. beautify themselves) until Al-Mukhtaar came to us with the heads of those (who) killed Al-Hussayn (عليه السلام)"

Source:

1.     Al-Kashee, Ikhtiyaar Ma`arifah Al-Rijaal, pg. 127, hadeeth # 202

 

 

Is this the only authentic narration that praises him? Because, to be honest, I'm not seeing where the praise is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

I acknowledge that it is guess work, it is more of a theory, but based on other historical events it isn't that far fetched.

 

Is this the only authentic narration that praises him? Because, to be honest, I'm not seeing where the praise is.

 

This is from a research by bro Islamic Salvation:

Quote
On 8/23/2013 at 0:13 AM, Islamic Salvation said:

إبراهيم بن محمد الختلي، قال حدثني أحمد بن إدريس القمي، قال حدثني محمد بن أحمد، قال حدثني الحسن بن علي الكوفي، عن العباس بن عامر، عن سيف بن عميرة، عن جارود بن المنذر، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال : ما امتشطت فينا هاشمية و لا اختضبت حتى بعث إلينا المختار برءوس الذين قتلوا الحسين عليه السلام
 

202. Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Khatliy who said: narrated to me Ahmad bin Idris al-Qummiy who said: narrated to me Muhammad bin Ahmad who said: narrated to me al-Hasan bin Ali al-Kufiy from al-Abbas bin A’mir from Sayf bin Umayra from Jarud bin al-Mundhir from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام that he عليه السلام said: no Hashimite woman who was with us combed her hair or applied dye (colouring) to it - until Mukhtar sent to us the heads of those who killed al-Husayn عليه السلام.

 

حمدويه، قال حدثني يعقوب، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن المثنى، عن سدير، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال : لا تسبوا المختار فإنه قتل قتلتنا و طلب بثارنا و زوج أراملنا و قسم فينا المال على العسرة
 

197. Hamdawayh who said: narrated to me Ya’qub from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hisham bin al-Muthanna from Sadiyr from Abi Ja’far عليه السلام who said: do not abuse al-Mukhtar - for he killed our killers, and demanded (repraisal) for our blood, and married off our widows, and divided amongst us the wealth when we were upon hard times.

Hadith # 197 is authentic, and it shows that the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon him) greatly valued the efforts of al-Mukhtar.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...