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  
guest050817

Did Umm Aisha order arrows to be fired?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Kitab al Irshad (The Book of Guidance) By Sheikh al Mufid

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/imam-al-hasan-second-imam-brief-look-his-life

FYI:

("The time during which al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, lived was very precarious and one of the harshest of all centuries in the history of the Shi’as of Ahl al-Bayt (as). Dissensions broke out anew every year on the anniversary of Al-Ghadir and particularly on the occasion of ‘Ashura’ when the Shi’as commemorated events which their opponents, from among the fanatical Hanbalites of Baghdad, could not tolerate. Those opponents, therefore, used to assault them and many calamities and catastrophes as well as massacres resulted as we explained in the first part of our book titled Sira’ al-Hurriyya fa ‘Asr al-Mufid. In some years, they set fire to the homes of the Shi’as in the Karkh area, killing eighteen thousand or, according to Ibn Khaldan, twenty thousand children, youths and women.

He, may Allah have mercy on him, wanted to deal with the issues wisely and be precise. He aspired to write his book titled Al-Irshad, which he wrote near the close of his life, as a book containing, in addition to precision and scholarly honesty, historical accounts accepted by everyone, so that everyone would benefit from it. He did not want it to be anything but defining an event by its details, away from sectarianism. He even transcends the sectarian limitations and fanaticism in order to make it a book for all people.

It is for this reason that he did not mention in it noteworthy provocative and sensitive issues. He even did not include anything about the details of the incident of the saqifa or anything relevant to swearing the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr10. It seems that he did not include the said incident in the realm of his balanced policies which contemplated on the circumstances and environments and dealt with them realistically, with responsibility and awareness.

As regarding Shaikh al-Tusi, he had a book to defend specifically Imamite Shi’as because Al-Shafi contains the rebuttal by Sayyid al-Murtada to what the Mu’tazilite judge ‘Abd al-Jabbar had stated, so al-Tusi, may Allah have mercy on him, summarized it. Al-Tusi, then, like Sayyid al-Murtada, had written a book as an Imamite defending his sect, proving its validity. He wanted to get to the defining line that separated him from others. But Shaikh al-Mufid wanted his book, Al-Irshad, to transcend such lines to be a book of chronicles for everyone who could take a look at it and benefit from it without feeling any embarrassment or being charged.

If the Imamites are the only ones with such consensus, rather than all others from among Shi’a sects, such as the Isma’ilites, Zaidis, etc., it is not then right that al-Mufid should attribute it to non-Imamite sects which have no consensus in its regard.

It is noteworthy that al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, avoided stirring fanaticism on one hand, and on the other he tried to point out to a very sensitive issue in a very indirect and clever way, proving the existence of a stillborn whom the Prophet S named “Muhsin,” leaving to the reader the task to research the fate of that boy..."

https://www.al-islam.org/tragedy-al-zahra-doubts-and-responses-jafar-murtadha-al-amili/part-4-what-al-mufid-says

The start of this seemed somewhat plausible but the last paragraph was just ridiculous,  anyone can open al-Irshad and see what al-Mufid's personal opinion on Muhsin was, I can't see how anyone can read it and come to this conclusion.

Share this post


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

The start of this seemed somewhat plausible but the last paragraph was just ridiculous,  anyone can open al-Irshad and see what al-Mufid's personal opinion on Muhsin was, I can't see how anyone can read it and come to this conclusion.

What Shaikh al-Mufid Intended to Say in His Book Titled

Al-Irshad

Someone says that Shaikh al-Mufid, may Allah sanctify his resting place, has said the following: “There are among the Shi’as those who say that Fatima, peace and blessings of Allah be on her, miscarried a boy after the demise of the Prophet S whom the Messenger of Allah S named, when he was in his mother’s womb, as ‘Muhsin.’ So, according to this sect, the children of the Commander of the Faithful (as) are twenty-eight in number, and Allah knows best.”6

Sayyid al-Amin has cited this statement by Shaikh al-Mufid in his book titledA’yan Al-Shi’ah, and so did al-Majlisi in his book titled Bihar al-Anwar as well as others.

If Shaikh al-Tusi was transmitting the consensus of the Shi’as that ‘’Umar hit Fatima’s stomach till she miscarried Muhsin, and the narrative is famous among them7, Shaikh al-Mufid, then, contradicts al-Tusi, his contemporary and professor, and his statement gives the impression that he basically does not adopt the notion of such a miscarriage.

The answer to the above is as follows:

FIRST: The said statement does not indicate that al-Mufid contradicted al-Tusi in this regard because the word “Shi’a” used to be applied during al-Mufid’s time to many sects such as the Zaidis, Isma’ilites, Imamites and others, actually even the Mu’tazilites who used to rule Baghdad and who permitted the commemoration of ‘Ashura’ in the well known way since then. The opponents of the Shi’as used to call the latter “Rafidis.”

Al-Nawbakhti, in his book titled Firaq al-Shi’a, al-Ash’ari in his book titled Al-Maqalat wal Firaq, and Shaikh al-Mufid himself in Al-Fusal al-Mukhtara, have all discussed this issue; so, whoever wishes to see the details should refer to them and to other books dealing with schisms and sects. The honorable ‘allama al-Mazandarani al-Khawajoo’i has rebutted those who claimed that the word “Shi’a” was applied particularly to those who believed in Ali’s Imamate even if he does not believe in other Imams saying, “This is strange and is indicative of the limited knowledge of one’s research. There is an indication in many narratives that the Zaidis, Waqfis and their likes were also called Shi’as.”8

Imam al-Sadiq, peace with him, is quoted as having said, “‘’Umar ibn Yazid talked about the Shi’as in detail,” adding, “‘There will be among the Shi’as after us those who are worse than the Nasibis.’ I said, ‘May I be your sacrifice! Don’t they claim that they love you and dissociate themselves from your enemy?’ He said, ‘Yes..., etc.’”9

Al-Mufid here does not want to attribute the narrative of al-Muhsin’s miscarriage to all the Shi’as in the general sense but rather to the Imamites in particular. He, may Allah have mercy on him, may have chosen the term “sect” after that to identify a sect from among the Shi’as that narrates the same, not all the sects labelled as “Shi’as.”

What is noteworthy is that he, may Allah have mercy on him, did not say, “Some Shi’as narrate a tradition...,” but he rather said, “Among the Shi’as are those who state that Fatima, peace of Allah be on her, miscarried after the demise of the Prophet S..., etc.” He, may Allah be merciful to him, did not point out to onehadith or more, nor did he point out to the size of the sect that says so from among the Shi’as in as far as their number is concerned. Rather, he pointed out to the fact that it is accurate to call them a “sect” when he said, “According to what this sect says..., etc.”

Shaikh al-Tusi, may Allah have mercy on him, is called the sect’s Mentor, meaning the sect of the Imamites, not of all the Shi’as.

1. Al-Shafi, Talkhis, Vol. 3, p. 156.

2. Jannat al-Ma’wa, pp. 78-81.

3. Al-Bid’ wal-Tarikh, Vol. 5, p. 20.

4. Ibn Abul-Hadid, Sharh Nahjul-Balagha, Vol. 2, p. 60.

5. Dala’il al-Sidq, Vol. 3, section 1.

6. Al-Mufid, Al-Irshad, Vol. 1, p. 355 (edition published by the al al-Bayt for the revival of the legacy of Beirut, Lebanon, in 1416 A.H./1995 A.D.).

7. Al-Shafi, Talkhis, Vol. 3, p. 156.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

https://www.al-islam.org/tragedy-al-zahra-doubts-and-responses-jafar-murtadha-al-amili/part-4-what-al-mufid-says#what-shaikh-al-mufid-intended-say-his-book-titled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

What Shaikh al-Mufid Intended to Say in His Book Titled

Al-Irshad

Someone says that Shaikh al-Mufid, may Allah sanctify his resting place, has said the following: “There are among the Shi’as those who say that Fatima, peace and blessings of Allah be on her, miscarried a boy after the demise of the Prophet S whom the Messenger of Allah S named, when he was in his mother’s womb, as ‘Muhsin.’ So, according to this sect, the children of the Commander of the Faithful (as) are twenty-eight in number, and Allah knows best.”6

Sayyid al-Amin has cited this statement by Shaikh al-Mufid in his book titledA’yan Al-Shi’ah, and so did al-Majlisi in his book titled Bihar al-Anwar as well as others.

If Shaikh al-Tusi was transmitting the consensus of the Shi’as that ‘’Umar hit Fatima’s stomach till she miscarried Muhsin, and the narrative is famous among them7, Shaikh al-Mufid, then, contradicts al-Tusi, his contemporary and professor, and his statement gives the impression that he basically does not adopt the notion of such a miscarriage.

The answer to the above is as follows:

FIRST: The said statement does not indicate that al-Mufid contradicted al-Tusi in this regard because the word “Shi’a” used to be applied during al-Mufid’s time to many sects such as the Zaidis, Isma’ilites, Imamites and others, actually even the Mu’tazilites who used to rule Baghdad and who permitted the commemoration of ‘Ashura’ in the well known way since then. The opponents of the Shi’as used to call the latter “Rafidis.”

Al-Nawbakhti, in his book titled Firaq al-Shi’a, al-Ash’ari in his book titled Al-Maqalat wal Firaq, and Shaikh al-Mufid himself in Al-Fusal al-Mukhtara, have all discussed this issue; so, whoever wishes to see the details should refer to them and to other books dealing with schisms and sects. The honorable ‘allama al-Mazandarani al-Khawajoo’i has rebutted those who claimed that the word “Shi’a” was applied particularly to those who believed in Ali’s Imamate even if he does not believe in other Imams saying, “This is strange and is indicative of the limited knowledge of one’s research. There is an indication in many narratives that the Zaidis, Waqfis and their likes were also called Shi’as.”8

Imam al-Sadiq, peace with him, is quoted as having said, “‘’Umar ibn Yazid talked about the Shi’as in detail,” adding, “‘There will be among the Shi’as after us those who are worse than the Nasibis.’ I said, ‘May I be your sacrifice! Don’t they claim that they love you and dissociate themselves from your enemy?’ He said, ‘Yes..., etc.’”9

Al-Mufid here does not want to attribute the narrative of al-Muhsin’s miscarriage to all the Shi’as in the general sense but rather to the Imamites in particular. He, may Allah have mercy on him, may have chosen the term “sect” after that to identify a sect from among the Shi’as that narrates the same, not all the sects labelled as “Shi’as.”

What is noteworthy is that he, may Allah have mercy on him, did not say, “Some Shi’as narrate a tradition...,” but he rather said, “Among the Shi’as are those who state that Fatima, peace of Allah be on her, miscarried after the demise of the Prophet S..., etc.” He, may Allah be merciful to him, did not point out to onehadith or more, nor did he point out to the size of the sect that says so from among the Shi’as in as far as their number is concerned. Rather, he pointed out to the fact that it is accurate to call them a “sect” when he said, “According to what this sect says..., etc.”

Shaikh al-Tusi, may Allah have mercy on him, is called the sect’s Mentor, meaning the sect of the Imamites, not of all the Shi’as.

1. Al-Shafi, Talkhis, Vol. 3, p. 156.

2. Jannat al-Ma’wa, pp. 78-81.

3. Al-Bid’ wal-Tarikh, Vol. 5, p. 20.

4. Ibn Abul-Hadid, Sharh Nahjul-Balagha, Vol. 2, p. 60.

5. Dala’il al-Sidq, Vol. 3, section 1.

6. Al-Mufid, Al-Irshad, Vol. 1, p. 355 (edition published by the al al-Bayt for the revival of the legacy of Beirut, Lebanon, in 1416 A.H./1995 A.D.).

7. Al-Shafi, Talkhis, Vol. 3, p. 156.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

https://www.al-islam.org/tragedy-al-zahra-doubts-and-responses-jafar-murtadha-al-amili/part-4-what-al-mufid-says#what-shaikh-al-mufid-intended-say-his-book-titled

More trickery, bring your proof that al-Tusi was al-Mufid's teacher, this little bit of trickery is only done to strengthen this argument that is based purely of the assumptions of the author - through the claim that the view of the teacher takes precedence over the view of his student. So given that in fact al-Mufid was the teacher, does that weaken the argument?

It isn't that was the author is saying isn't in some way possible, even though it is clearly just his opinion rather that being a fact, it is that you are trying to use this rather weak argument to strengthen an even weaker story, which is the point of discussion of this thread.

The bottom line is that in al-Mufid's own words, he doesn't believe in the existence of Muhsin, to try and argue that he did is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marwan bin Hakam

Marwan was the son of Hakam, cousin and son-in-law of Uthman. He was born in the year 2 A.H., while his father was yet a disbeliever. When the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) saw him, he said, “The young one of a lizard is also a lizard. The offspring of an accursed is accursed.” He was six or seven years of age when Hakam became a Muslim and came to Medina and was immediately expelled and the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said: “Who would save me from this lizard?” He also said, “He should not be allowed to be with me at any place.” Thus at this same time he went to Taif with his father and brothers. From there when the second caliph expelled him to Yemen, he also went with them. He came back during the third caliphate and became the vizier and the secretary of the caliph. He was the one most responsible for the murder of Uthman. After Uthman, he became Muawiyah’s adviser. During the time of Muawiyah he remained the governor of Medina for some time. After the coronation of Yazid, he told Walid bin Uqbah, the governor of Medina that if Husayn (a.s) did not pay allegiance at that moment he would never pay it. So either you kill him or take allegiance.” After the martyrdom of Husayn (a.s) when the people of Medina rebelled against Yazid and began to expel selectively each member of Banu Umayyah from Medina, and there was risk of being killed and destroyed, Marwan sought the refuge of Imam ‘Ali Ibn Husayn (a.s) and the Imam gave him refuge. This was the magnanimity of the holy Imam. When after the death of Yazid, his son Muawiyah became aloof from the kingdom and because of this he was buried alive, the throne of Damascus remained vacant for six months. At last, this same Marwan got the throne and again the kingdom of Banu Umayyah remained in their own progeny. It could be possible only for those who believe Muhammad as a prophet to accord such honor to one who was cursed by the Prophet and whose progeny was cursed by the Prophet and one who was externed by the Prophet! It was not surprising that he married the wife of Yazid and mother of Khalid. One day in the full court, Marwan abused Khalid and Khalid complained to his mother. She obtained the assistance of her maids and during the night smothered Marwan with a pillow and sat upon it until he died of suffocation.

https://www.al-islam.org/understanding-karbala-allamah-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/banu-umayyah-view-holy-quran#marwan-bin-hakam

*****

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=621

Share this post


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

 

The bottom line is that in al-Mufid's own words, he doesn't believe in the existence of Muhsin, to try and argue that he did is ridiculous.

6. Al-Mufid, Al-Irshad, Vol. 1, p. 355 (edition published by the al al-Bayt for the revival of the legacy of Beirut, Lebanon, in 1416 A.H./1995 A.D.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sermon 73: Didn't he swear me his allegiance after ...

Amir al-mu'minin said about Marwan ibn al-Hakam at Basrah. When Marwan was taken on the day of Jamal, he asked Hasan and Husayn (p.b.u.t.) to intercede on his behalf before Amir al-mu'minin. So they spoke to Amir al-mu'minin about him and he released him. Then they said, "O' Amir al-mu'minin he desires to swear you allegiance" Whereupon Amir al-mu'minin said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

قاله لمروان بن الحكم بالبصرة

قالوا: أُخِذَ مروان بن الحكم أَسيراً يوم الجمل، فاستشفع الحسن والحسين (عليهما السلام) إلى أَميرالمؤمنين (عليه السلام)، فكلّماه فيه، فخلّى سبيله، فقالا له: يبايعك يا أميرالمؤمنين؟ فقال:

Did he not swear me allegiance after the killing of `Uthman? Now I do not need his allegiance, because his is the hand of a Jew. If he swears me allegiance with his hand he would violate it after a short while. Well, he is to get power for so long as a dog licks his nose. He is the father of four rams (who will also rule). The people will face days through him and his sons. 1

أَفَلَمْ يُبَايِعْنِي بَعْدَ قَتْلِ عُثْمانَ؟ لاَ حَاجَةَ لِي في بَيْعَتِهِ! إِنِّهَا كَفٌّ يَهُودِيَّةٌ لَوْ بَايَعَنِي بِيَدِهِ لَغَدَرَ بِسُبَّتِهِ. أَمَا إِنَّ لَهُ إِمْرَةً كَلَعْقَةِ الْكَلْبِ أَنْفَهُ، وَهُوَ أَبُو الاْكُبُشِ الاْرْبَعَةِ، وَسَتَلْقَى الاْمَّة مِنْهُ وَمِنْ وَلَدِهِ يَوْمَاً أَحْمَرَ!

Alternative Sources for Sermon 73

(1) Ibn Sa`d, al-Tabaqat, I, in the account of Marwan;

(2) al-Baladhuri, Ansab, II, 361;

(3) al-Zamakhshari, Rabi`, I, 37;

(4) Sibt, Tadhkirah, 78;

(5) Ibn al-'Athir, al-Nihayah, I, 67; see al-Damiri, Hayat al-hayawan and Ibn Abi al-Hadid, II, 54.

1. Marwan ibn al-Hakam was the nephew (brother's son) and son-in-law of `Uthman. Due to thin body and tall stature he was known with the nickname "Khayt Batil" (the thread of wrong). When `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan killed `Amr ibn Sa`id al-Ashdaq, his brother Yahya ibn Sa`id said:


O' sons of Khayt Batil (the thread of the wrong) you have played deceit on `Amr and people like you build their houses (of authority) on deceit and treachery.


Although his father al-Hakam ibn Abi al-`As had accepted Islam at the time of the fall of Mecca but his behaviour and activities were very painful to the Prophet. Consequently, the Prophet cursed him and his descendants and said, "Woe will befall my people from the progeny of this man." At last in view of his increasing intrigues the Prophet externed him from Medina towards the valley of Wajj (in Ta'if) and Marwan also went with him. Prophet did not thereafter allow them entry in Medina all his life. Abu Bakr and `Umar did likewise, but `Uthman sent for both of them during his reign, and raised Marwan to such height as though the reins of caliphate rested in his hands. Thereafter his circumstances became so favourable that on the death of Mu`awiyah ibn Yazid he became the Caliph of the Muslims. But he had just ruled only for nine months and eighteen days that death overtook him in such a way that his wife sat with the pillow on his face and did not get away till he breathed his last.


The four sons to whom Amir al-mu'minin has referred were the four sons of `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan namely al-Walid, Sulayman, Yazid and Hisham, who ascended the Caliphate one after the other and coloured the pages of history with their stories. Some commentators have regarded this reference to Marwan's own sons whose names are `Abd al-Malik, `Abd al-`Aziz, Bishr and Muhammad. Out of these `Abd al-Malik did become Caliph of Islam but `Abd al-`Aziz became governor of Egypt, Bishr of Iraq and Muhammad of al-Jazirah.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-73-didnt-he-swear-me-his-allegiance-after

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...