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  
Leibniz

What was achieved out of Karbala?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

As far as Hussain having prior knowledge about what would happen to him in Karbala , I have read those narrations. All those narrations are unrealistic and self contradictory. Even if one adds those narrations to the narrative of Karbala , they make the event even more vague , irrational and perplexing.

4

Those traditions (which are interestingly found both in Sunni and Shi'i works) are most likely later fabrications by the Kufan school of hadith - perhaps to excuse their predecessors of their acts. Hopefully, I can write something about it one day and bring out the various alibis that point towards that.

Another interesting comparison to make would be to look at the factors and context of the Battle of Fakh - which has been described as the 2nd Karbala (in Shi'i works) - and see what similarities the event had with Karbala.

@.InshAllah. that is definitely one way of looking at it, though I believe we are adding instances of acts to the concept of islah that don't pop up when you first think of the word, hence it requires a bit more work to establish certain instances can also be considered islah  in the same way he initially intended it. Otherwise, it is completely possible for him (a) to have changed his initial goal from Islah of the nation, to not wanting to carry out such a great task (because of the scenario he was now facing).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Those traditions (which are interestingly found both in Sunni and Shi'i works) are most likely later fabrications by the Kufan school of hadith - perhaps to excuse their predecessors of their acts. Hopefully, I can write something about it one day and bring out the various alibis that point towards that.

Another interesting comparison to make would be to look at the factors and context of the Battle of Fakh - which has been described as the 2nd Karbala (in Shi'i works) - and see what similarities the event had with Karbala.

@.InshAllah.

That is very interesting. Hussain having prior knowledge of his martyrdom in Karbala really absolves the Kufans of all responsibility. I did not think of it before. I would like to read more about it so I am eagerly waiting for your write up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see raising against the Caliphs to over throw them as a general trend among the Hashimites. It did not stop with Hussain. Soon after the Karbala we see the Kaysanite uprising of Muhammad bin Ali al-hanaffiyyah. Then we see Zaid's uprising. Then there is Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Hassan's uprising against Mansoor and so on. All of these uprisings met the same fate. How is Karbala disconnected from them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

We see raising against the Caliphs to over throw them as a general trend among the Hashimites. It did not stop with Hussain. Soon after the Karbala we see the Kaysanite uprising of Muhammad bin Ali al-hanaffiyyah. Then we see Zaid's uprising. Then there is Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Hassan's uprising against Mansoor and so on. All of these uprisings met the same fate. How is Karbala disconnected from them?

Imam Hussain (as) uprising?  With women and children against army of Ibnu Ziyad? What kind of uprising is that?

Imam Hussain insisted on not giving his allegiance to tyrant Yazeed..ever! Even if he has die.  That was the reason that Imam Hussain and his followers never start attacking...only defending.  Defending the faith of Islam.

Even during the battles at Karbala, Imam Hussain kept reminding Ibnu Ziyad army to leave followers of Ahlulbayt alone.  Imam Hussain conducts during the event Karbala...shows the true color of Islam of Muhammadi.

There are lots of differences between event of Karbala and other uprisings.  No connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, layman said:

Imam Hussain (as) uprising?  With women and children against army of Ibnu Ziyad? What kind of uprising is that?

Imam Hussain insisted on not giving his allegiance to tyrant Yazeed..ever! Even if he has die.  That was the reason that Imam Hussain and his followers never start attacking...only defending.  Defending the faith of Islam.

Even during the battles at Karbala, Imam Hussain kept reminding Ibnu Ziyad army to leave followers of Ahlulbayt alone.  Imam Hussain conducts during the event Karbala...shows the true color of Islam of Muhammadi.

There are lots of differences between event of Karbala and other uprisings.  No connection.

Why Al Hussain took his family with him? There is no clear account of it in history. Several of his cousins and others advised him against taking his family. The most probable assessment is that Hussain had decided to.make Kufa his bastion against the Ummayads and permentatly reside there so he took his family with him.

You can read the history of Hashmites uprisings during Ummayads and later specific Alids  uprisings during Abbasid , their nature and orientation has been the same that of Hussain's. I find nothing substantial which disconnects these uprisings. I even feel that these uprisings can be connected with the uprising against the Ummayad Uthman but I am looking more into it to make a clear connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immediately after Umar ibn Sa'd's verdict to wage battle, al-Hurr approaches al-Husayn with his son. He expresses his major transgressions to al-Husayn by compelling them to halt at Karbala. 

The question is why Al Hur changed side and not only Hur many more changed side as soon as they realized that war is inevitable, knowing well that they are going to die ?

Why Hur sacrificed himself by siding with a failed uprising against caliphate ?

Edited by Raheel Yunus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Raheel Yunus said:

Immediately after Umar ibn Sa'd's verdict to wage battle, al-Hurr approaches al-Husayn with his son. He expresses his major transgressions to al-Husayn by compelling them to halt at Karbala. 

The question is why Al Hur changed side and not only Hur many more changed side as soon as they realized that war is inevitable, knowing well that they are going to die ?

Why Hur sacrificed himself by siding with a failed uprising against caliphate ?

Hur's change of mind is very much rational. Once Al-Hussain presented the three conditions to Omar ibn Saad ie  1. I be allowed to go to Syria so that I can give my hand in Yazid's hand 2. I be allowed to go back to Madinah 3. Or I be allowed to go to any of the border areas and Omar ibn Sa'ad  refused to entertain any but insisted on taking Hussain to Ibn Ziyad and Hussain giving pledge of allegiance to Ibn Ziyad , Hur changed his mind by yelling "Even If these three conditions were presented by a non muslim we should have let him go" and he changed sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Hur's change of mind is very much rational. Once Al-Hussain presented the three conditions to Omar ibn Saad ie  1. I be allowed to go to Syria so that I can give my hand in Yazid's hand 2. I be allowed to go back to Madinah 3. Or I be allowed to go to any of the border areas and Omar ibn Sa'ad  refused to entertain any but insisted on taking Hussain to Ibn Ziyad and Hussain giving pledge of allegiance to Ibn Ziyad , Hur changed his mind by yelling "Even If these three conditions were presented by a non muslim we should have let him go" and he changed sides.

The first on is a total lie if imam hussain (as) wanted to do it he could do it before his journey but he clearly said before & during of his journey that he will go to this journey to not do this work 

Also his speaches & sermons available that he will not make allegiance with that corrupted tyrant yazeed (la)

Second one is same as one irrelevant because mecca & medina was full of Yazid (la) assassin's that was still there that if he returned to there they would kill him silently

For third he traveled to Kufa because people of a Kufa asked him &rest of places had same ir worser conditions than Mecca &Medina & he would be killed by Yazid (la) assassins in that places too.

So in conclusion whole of thsee claims are just ptopaganda of I'll minded people that completely irrelevant even a 3 years old kid won't recognize it rational

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Hur's change of mind is very much rational. Once Al-Hussain presented the three conditions to Omar ibn Saad ie  1. I be allowed to go to Syria so that I can give my hand in Yazid's hand 2. I be allowed to go back to Madinah 3. Or I be allowed to go to any of the border areas and Omar ibn Sa'ad  refused to entertain any but insisted on taking Hussain to Ibn Ziyad and Hussain giving pledge of allegiance to Ibn Ziyad , Hur changed his mind by yelling "Even If these three conditions were presented by a non muslim we should have let him go" and he changed sides.

Because of what you mentioned above (truth or fabrication) Hur and his son committed suicide.

You know very well that this is not the right answer.

Before you question the significance of Karbala. You must understand the sacrifice of Hur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Leibniz said:

I am not asking for a photocopy of the document. I am just asking for the conditions and details of the treaty mentioned in primary sources 

The historians have very boldly tried to keep the world in the dark about the clauses and the relevant details of the peace treaty. Was the treaty between Imam Hasane Al-Mujtaba (as) and Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan, signed in 41A.H, so unimportant that its details may be ignored? 

These terms, which had been proposed by Imam Hasan (as), were in the interest of Muslim Ummah in general and the treaty was signed with the witnesses of prominent personalities of Iraq and Syria. 

Among the old historical records only 'Al-Futuh' of Ibn. Atham Kufi and 'Ansabul Ashraf' by Baladhuri contain the text of the treaty and five terms and conditions are mentioned in it. Outwardly, one may conclude that these were the only terms agreed upon.However, a thorough search of other records reveals that the picture is quite different as there were other conditions too!

The Blank Paper

The historian Baladhuri writes in 'Ansabul Ashraf' that Muawiya sent Abdullah b. Amir b. Kerez and 'Abdel Rahman b. Samarah to (Imam) Hasan (as) and the two informed Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) about the damages through war and the consequences of continued bloodshed among Muslims, and indicated the willingness of Muawiya to hand over the rule to Imam Hasan (as) after his death.

In addition, they said that Muawiya would offer much more to Imam Hasan (as) in lieu of peace. Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) agreed with their ideas and sent 'Umru bin Salma Hamdani, Arhabi and Muhammad bin Ash'as Kandi along with them so that they could record the terms offered by Muawiya and may express the agreement (on behalf of Imam Hasan (as)). So, Muawiya sent the following letter to Imam Hasan (as):

"This letter is from Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan for Hasan bin ‘Ali (as). I make peace with you on the condition that after me the government will be handed over to you and I vouch for you before God, feeling obliged to God and the Holy Prophet (saws), remembering the firm pledge taken by the Glorified God from any of His bondsmen, that I will neither indulge in any intrigue against you nor would conduct any armed struggle against you.

Further that each year I will pay you ten lakh (one million) Dirham from Baitul Maal and the revenue of Mansa and Darb Jard (Darabgard) will be reserved for you. 'Abdullah b. Amir, 'Umru b. Salma Hamdani, 'Abdel Rahman b. Samarah and Muhammad bin Ash'as Kandi are witness to it and it has been written in Rabi II 41 A.H."

When Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) read the above letter of Muawiya, he gave a brief reply in one sentence: "He is trying to tempt me about something which I would not hand over to him if I had an inclination towards it."

After quoting the above sentence of Imam Al-Mujtaba (as), Baladhuri writes that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) called 'Abdullah bin Haras b. Noful, the nephew of Muawiya, and told him that he should go to his uncle (Muawiya) and tell him that if Muawiya was agreeable to guarantee the life and honour of the general public, then he would agree to hand over the reign to him. 'Abdullah b. Haras went to Muawiya and explained the condition to him.

In return Muawiya gave him a blank paper at the end of which was the seal of Muawiya, and sent the message to Imam Hasan (as) that he may write on it (the white paper) whatever he thought fit.
Imam Hasan (as) wrote the required terms and conditions on it, and after taking the signatures of the high powered Syrian delegation as witness, sent it back to Muawiya so that he (Muawiya) may affirm his agreement to all those terms and both these persons may be a witness to the agreement. 

Ibn. Atham Kufi has also written about the blank paper with some variation. He writes:
"On learning of the betrayal by Iraqi nobles and after addressing them, (Imam) Hasan (as) sent 'Abdullah b. Haras to Muawiya and stated that if Muawiya is ready to protect the life, property and honour of all men, then he would give allegiance to him, otherwise he would not do so.

When 'Abdullah b. Haras reached Muawiya, he (Muawiya) wanted to know the terms of peace. He added a few conditions (the same which, according to Baladhuri, had been suggested by Muawiya). At this Muawiya asked for a blank paper and putting his seal on it with his own finger, said:

'Take this page to Hasan (as) and tell him to write in it whatever he wishes. All his (Muawiya's) companions are a witness that he has willingly put the seal by himself.'" 4

After studying these two historical sources also, the issue is not clear as to why the need for sending the blank paper arose when Muawiya had agreed to all the terms and conditions conveyed by the representative of Imam Hasan (as)? However, after studying other historical documents, the problem is solved.

These documents clearly indicate that Imam Hasan (as) had demanded some terms and conditions from Muawiya before agreeing to peace. These included the issue of the next caliph and general peace and order to be included in the peace treaty, as Imam Hasan (as) had demanded that the caliphate must be returned to him after the death of Muawiya and that the people of Iraq, Hijaz and Madina would not be arrested for having fought Muawiya in the days of his (Imam's) father.

Muawiya was ready to accept all the terms and conditions of Imam Hasan (as), except that he could not guarantee the safety of ten persons who included prominent persons like Qais b. S'ad against whom Muawiya had vouched to cut his tongue and hands whenever arrested. Imam Hasan (as) conveyed to Muawiya that in such a situation, he was not prepared for peace with him.

Learning this, Muawiya put his seal on the blank paper and handed it over to the representative of the Imam (as) so that he may write what he thought appropriate and that he was willing to accept all the terms of the Imam (as) regarding peace. Imam Hasan (as) wrote all the terms and conditions demanded by him and sent it back to Muawiya.

When Muawiya agreed to those terms and a promise for the same was taken from him in the presence of responsible persons, only then the agreement was reached between the two sides according to which Imam Hasan (as) agreed to hand over the government to Muawiya for a given time (i.e. till the time Muawiya was alive). 5

The narration about the blank paper and related facts can also be traced from other historical sources which show that the delegation of Muawiya had accepted all the demands of Imam Hasan (as) and both sides had arrived at total agreement before the treaty. 6

For that reason, a team of researchers supports the narration about the blank paper being sent and agreement between both sides being reached on the terms written down by Imam Hasan (as). For the same reason, the year of the treaty is known as "A'am al-Jama'at" (the year of understanding). 7

All historians agree that both sides had agreed on the terms of the treaty before its being signed, but Muawiya did not honour it after the treaty had been signed and announced

4. Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh, Hyderabad: Daira al Maa'rif al Usmania, 1971, vol. 4, p.158-159.

5. Husayn Dayar Bakri - 'Tarikh al-Khamis', Beirut, Muassasah Shabaan, vol. 2 p.390; Muhib al Tabari - Dhakair al Uqba, Cairo, Maktaba al Qudsi, 1356 A.H., p. 139; Ibn. A'bdul Barr, 'Al IStiab'.

6. Ibn. Hajar Asqalani - 'Al Asabah fi Tamyiz al Sahaba; Suyuti - 'Tarikh al Khulafa', Qum,Intisharat al Raza, 1411 A.H., p. 191.; Abul Faraj - 'Maqatil al Talibin', Najaf, Maktaba al Haidariya, 1965, vol.1, p.43; Bukhari - 'Sahih Bukhari'; Hafiz Dhahabi, 'Al A'bar;, Beirut, Darul Kutub al Ilmia, vol. 1, p.35; Ibn. Qutaiba - 'Al Imama wal Siyasa', Qum, Manshurat al Razi, 1413 A.H. p.184.

7. . Hasan Kamil al Maltavi, 'al Imam al Hasan bin ‘Ali', Cairo, Ministry of 'Auqaaf', Egypt, 1994, p.123; Abdus Salaam Tarmanini - 'Ahdas al Tarikh al Islami', Al Kuwait, Majlis al Watani-lil-Saqafa, 1988, vol.1, p.420; Husayn Muhammad Jafri - 'The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam', Qum, Ansarian Publications pp. 151-152

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Terms and Conditions of the Peace Treaty

The peace treaty between Imam Hasan bin ‘Ali (as) and Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan was signed on the following terms and conditions:

1. Hasan (as) would hand over the rule, or government, to Muawiya provided he acts according to the Holy Book of God, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saws) and the character of pious and virtuous caliphs.

2. Muawiya does not have a right to nominate anyone after him. The rule would be handed back to Hasan (as) after him, or according to some narrations, it would be left to a consultative body ('shura') of Muslims.

3. The life, property and honour of the general public, whether black or white, belonging to Syria, Iraq, Tihama, Hijaz or which ever area, would be safeguarded.

4. The life, property, and honour of Shias of Imam ‘Ali (as) and their family members, will be protected and Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan is bound by the covenant of Almighty God in this respect and he will honour his covenant with Almighty God in this regard.

5. Muawiya will not take any open or secret action against Imam Hasan bin ‘Ali (as) or against Ahlul Bayt (as) of the Holy Prophet (saws) and he will not try to terrorize them anywhere on earth.

6. Imam ‘Ali (as) will be remembered with honour and dignity and he will not be reviled, according to some narrations, in the life time of Imam Hasan (as) no abusive language against Hazrat ‘Ali (as) will be used.

7. Muawiya will hand over the Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa and the revenue of Darab Jard (Darabgard) to him (Imam Hasan (as)) so that he may meet his expenses from the same and may repay the debt and other dues.

Analysis of the Terms and Conditions

Following the Book and Sunnah

"Hasan (as) would hand over the rule, or government, to Muawiya provided he acts according to the Holy Book of God, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw) and the character of pious and virtuous caliphs;" 11

In the above first condition, many points have to be thoroughly studied: The Imam (as), by demanding Muawiya to follow the Book and Sunnah as the first condition of the Treaty, proved that acting according to the Book and Sunnah was the ideal goal of the Imam (as), and if he was handing over the reign temporarily to Muawiya, then only his steps in accordance with the Shariah would be considered legal.

Accordingly, if Muawiya went against the said condition and Imam Hasan (as) were able to rule again, then he would have the legal right to claim it back from Muawiya. In fact, the Imam (as) had restricted the actions of Muawiya to be within law and constitution. Incidentally, by adding the virtuous character of pious caliphs as a condition, he had by implication also proved that his father was a pious and virtuous caliph and the feelings and ideas of Muawiya about him were wrong.

11. Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh', vol. 4, p.160; Baladhuri - Al-Ansab al Ashraf, vol. 3 p., Ibn. Abi al Hadid, ‘Sharh al-Nahjul Balaghah’, Cairo: Dar Ahya al Kutub al Arabia, 1962, vol. 16, p.22; Hasan Kamil al Maltavi - 'Al Imam al Hasan bin ‘Ali', p.121; Razi Ale Yasin - 'Sulh-ul Hasan', Qum, Manshuraat al Razi, 1993, p.259. Husayn Muhammad Jafri - 'The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam', Qum, Ansarian Publications, p.152.

Monarchy or Caliphate

Another important point for consideration in the above condition is whether Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) had handed over the rule over Muslims and the government to Muawiya through peace treaty, or he had given allegiance to Muawiya as a caliph and had accept ed the caliphate of Muawiya formally.

The fact remains that after fourteen hundred years, even the supporters of Muawiya cannot dare claim that Muawiya was a truly Islamic caliph ('Rashid Caliph'). Muawiya understood the point very well and when he fully realized the political plan of Imam Hasan (as), even before the formal announcement of the peace treaty, he publicized that Imam Hasan (as) had accepted him as a caliph.

It was Imam Al-Mujtaba (as)'s maturity of thought, example of excellence, courage, and the success of his political foresight which resulted in Muawiya being considered as a monarch or king by all sections of the society at that time, and he had to accept that status. A clear example of the same is that after Imam Al-Mujtaba (as), S'ad bin Abi Waqas, the well known Companion of the Holy Prophet (saws), addressed Muawiya as 'monarch'. 13

13. . Ibn. Athir - 'Al Kamil fi al Tarikh', Beirut: Darul Kutub al Ilmiah, 1987, vol. 3 p. 275; Razi Ale Yasin - 'Sulh-ul Hasan', Qum, pp.268

Similarly, Muawiya's words 'decisions will be taken with your (Imam's) consent' or 'the right belongs to them', clearly indicate that he conceded that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) had such a high religious standing which Muawiya could not challenge. Certainly, caliphate is nothing other than that high status! For that reason, when Imam Hasan (as) declined to accept his caliphate and said that he was claiming caliphate without any justification, Muawiya had no choice except to keep quiet. 14

14. Razi Ale Yasin - 'Sulh-ul Hasan', pp.274-275.

The future of Caliphate

"Muawiya does not have the right to nominate anyone after him. After him the authority shall return to (Imam) Hasan (as). According to some narrations, 'after Muawiya, it will be left to 'Shura' of Muslims as they deem fit'."

Imam Hasan Al-Mujtaba (as) knew the intentions of Muawiya very well. He knew that Muawiya will change the Islamic system of government to the kingdom of Qaiser and Kisra and it will become his family hierarchy. Therefore, the Imam had, by agreement, taken away the right of nomination of heir apparent from him.

What is narrated by some that the grandson of the Holy Prophet (saw) had advanced the condition that Muawiya will not nominate anyone after him but rather the election of the caliph will be left to the 'Shura' of Muslims, is not correct. 15

15. . Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh', vol. 4, p.159; Baladhuri - Al-Ansab al Ashraf, vol. 3 p.42; Ibn. Abi al Hadid, ‘Sharh al-Nahjul Balaghah’, vol. 16, p.22.

All the historians and researchers who have mentioned this condition are: Ibn. S'ad (according to Ibn. Hajar 'Asqalani), Ibn. Hajar Asqalani (Al-asabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba) Ibn. Asakir (Tarikh-e-Ibn. Asakir), Muhib al-Tabari (Dhakair al-Uqba), Ibn. Qutaiba Dinawari (al-Imamah wal-Siyasa), Husayn Dayar Bakri (Tarikh al-Khamis), Suyuti (Tarikh al-Khulafa), Ibn. Abdul Barr (al-Istiab) Hafiz Dhahabi (Tarikh al-Islam-o-al-'abar) Dr. Abdul Salam Tarmanini (Ahdas al-Tarikh al-Islami) 18

18. Ibn. Hajar - 'Al Asaba fi Tamyiz al Sahaba'; Muhib al Tabari - Dhakair al Uqba, Cairo, Maktaba al Qudsi, 1356 A.H., p. 139; Ibn. Qutaiba Dainwari - 'Al Imama wal Siyasa', Qum, Intisharat al Razi, 1413 A.H. p.184; Husayn Dayar Bakri - 'Tarikh al Khamis, p.390; Suyuti - 'Tarikh al Khulafa', Qum,Intisharat al Raza, 1411 A.H., p. 191; Abdul Qadir Badran, 'Tahzib Tarikhe Damishq'...Asakir, Beirut, Darul Ahya al..., 1987, vol 4, p.224.

All these writers have clearly written that, according to the agreement, the rule had to return to Imam Hasan (as) after Muawiya. Apart from this, there are other sources of evidence after which no element of doubt remains in accepting this condition.

In this regard, attention is drawn to those letters of Muawiya, written before peace, wherein he had offered the future government to Imam Hasan (as) and had confessed that he (Imam Hasan (as)) was the rightful claimant of the same. In addition to these letters, another argument is available from Ibn. Qutaiba Dinawari and other sources.

They write that when Muawiya tried to appoint Yazid as his heir apparent and invited delegations from different areas, all the others agreed but when the Iraqi delegation was asked about it, its leader Akhnaf bin Qais said:

"(O Muawiya) you have already made an agreement with Imam Hasan (as) in the name of God (and religion), of which you are well aware, that after you, the government will be his." 19

19. Ibn. Qutaiba - 'Al Imamah wal Siyasah', Egypt: Shirka Mustafa al Babi, 1963, vol. 1 p. 171.

In some narrations not only by Shias but others as well, it is stated that Imam Hasan (as) had put the condition that after him the caliphate would be handed over to Imam Husayn (as) and he would be his heir apparent. Justice Amir ‘Ali, the author of 'Roohe Islam' (the soul of Islam), also supports this view.23

23. Amir ‘Ali - 'Mukhtasar Tarikh al Arab', 1961, p.87.

The restoration of Peace and Order

"The life and property of all persons, whether black, red (Persian slave) or of whatever colour, and living in Syria, Iraq, Tihama, Hijaz or anywhere else, will be protected and they will not be harmed." 24

This condition reflects that one of the top priorities of Imam Hasan (as) was to provide protection of life, property and honour to all men. With the conquest of vast territories, many Persians, named as 'Humaraa', had also been enslaved along with the blacks and had become part of the Muslim Ummah.

This way the Imam (as) proved that he was above the distinction based on colour, religion or race was very serious about restoring peace, and that it was his goal to protect the life, property and honour of every person living in the Muslim society.

The Shias of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib

"The life, property, and honour of Shias of Imam‘Ali (as) and his family members, will be protected and Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan will honour his covenant with Almighty God in this regard" 25

However, when Muawiya refused to grant amnesty to ten followers of Imam ‘Ali (as) and said that whenever he would get hold of Qais, he would severe his hands and feet, Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) and his representative refused to agree to a conditional peace. 26

25. . Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh', vol. 4, p.160; Baladhuri - 'Ansab al Ashraf', vol. 3 p.42; Ibn. Abi al Hadid, ‘Sharh al-Nahjul Balaghah’, vol.16, p.18 & p.44; Abul Faraj - 'Maqatil al Talibin', Najaf, Maktaba al Haidariya, 1965, vol.1, p.43; Husayn Muhammad Jafri - 'The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam', Qum, Ansarian Publications, p.149; Abu J'far al Tabari - 'Tarikh al Ummum wal Mulook (Tarikh al Tabari)', Beirut: Darul Kutub al Ilmiah 1988, vol 3, p. 170; Hasan Kamil al Maltavi - 'Al Imam al Hasan bin ‘Ali', p.121; Taha Husayn - Islamiyat - 'Al Fitnatul Kubra' pp.979-980; Sheikh Mufid - 'Kitab al Irshad' vol. 2 p.10; Baqar Qarshi - 'Hayat al Imam al Hasan bin ‘Ali', vol 2, p.244.

26. . References have been quoted under 'blank page' above.

Conspiracy against Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet

"Muawiya will not take any open or secret action against (Imam) Hasan bin ‘Ali (as) or against Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet (saws) and he will not try to terrorize them anywhere." 27

If this condition was violated or anyone else would harm the progeny of the Holy Prophet (saws), then the blame would come to Muawiya as it was his rule. Due to the high status and the popularity of the progeny of the Holy Prophet (saws) among the Muslims, any such conspiracy was not in the interest of Muawiya.

Through this condition, in a way, it had become the responsibility of Muawiya to protect the life and honour of the progeny of the Holy Prophet (saws) and the Holy Ahlul Bayt (as).

27. . Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh', vol. 4, p.160; Baladhuri - 'Ansab al Ashraf', vol. 3 p.42; Taha Husayn - 'Al Fitnatul Kubra' p.979; Hasan Kamil al Maltavi - 'Al Imam al Hasan bin ‘Ali', p.121; Razi Ale Yasin - 'Sulh-ul Hasan', Qum,p.261; Baqar Qarshi - 'Hayat al Imam al Hasan bin ‘Ali', vol 2, p.245.

The undesirable schism of reviling Hazrat ‘Ali (as)

"Hazrat ‘Ali (as) will be remembered with dignity and honour and no abusive language will be used against him or, according to some narrations, it will not be practiced in the life of Imam Hasan (as)."

This condition, with some variation, has been recorded by the majority of the historians, some of the more prominent ones being: Abul Faraj Isphahani, Ibn. Abi-al-HAdid Mo'tazilli Ibn. Khaldun Ibn. Asakir ,Ibn. Kathir Sheikh Mufid The historian Tabari Ibn. Athir Ibn. S'ad Ibn. Sabbagh Maliki The scholar Razi Ale Yasin The scholar Baqar Qarshi. 28

28. Abul Faraj - 'Maqatil al Talibin', vol.1, p.43; Ibn. Abi al Hadid - ‘Sharh al-Nahjul Balaghah’, vol. 16 p.44; Ibn. Khaldun, ‘Tarikh Ibn. Khaldun’, Beirut, Muassasah A'lami lil Mutboo'at, 1971, vol. 2, p. 186; Abdul Qadir Badran, 'Tahzib Tarikhe Damishq'..., vol 4, p.224; Ibn. Kathir, 'Al bidayah wal Nihaya', Beirut, Maktaba al Ma'rif. 1974, vol.8, pp.15-16; Sheikh Mufid - 'Kitab al Irshad', Tehran, Intisharat-e-Ilmiah, vol. 2 p.10; Tabari - 'Tarikh al Tabari', Beirut: Darul Kutub al Ilmiah 1988, vol 3, p. 166; Ibn. Athir - 'Al Kamil fi al Tarikh', vol. 2, p.446; Abdul Aziz Salim - 'Tarikh al Daula al Arabia, Iskandaria: Moas sasah Shabab al Jame'h, 1993, vol.2, p.337; Ibn. Sa’d - 'al Tabaqaat al Kubra', Tarjuma Al Imam al Hasan, under publication, research by Abdul Aziz Tabatabai, Qum, Moassa sah Aale Ahlul Bayt, 1996; Qism min al Jaza-e-Samin' p.76; Ibn. Sabbagh Maliki- ‘al Fusul al Muhimmah', Najaf, Darul Kutub, p.145; 261; Baqar Qarshi - 'Hayat al Imam al Hasan bin ‘Ali', vol 2, p.243.

The Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa

"Muawiya would hand over the Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa and the revenue of Darab Jerd (Darab Gard, a state in Iran) to Imam Hasan (as) so that he could meet his expenses and pay back his debt and other dues." 29

Before deciding whether this condition is true or false, it is necessary to study the relevant details.

The historian Tabari, and later Ibn. Athir, writes that Imam Hasan (as) wanted that Muawiya should hand over to him the money available in the Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa. Muawiya agreed to this condition. At that time there were fifty lakh (five million) Dirham in that Bait-ul-Maal which (Imam) Hasan bin ‘Ali (as) took to Madina. 30

29. Ibn. Khaldun, ‘Tarikh Ibn. Khaldun’, vol. 2, p. 186; Abdul Qadir Badran, 'Tahzib Tarikhe Damishq'...Ibn. Asakir, Beirut, vol. 4, p.224; Ibn. Kathir, 'Al bidayah wal Nihaya', vol.8, p.15; Hafiz Dhahabi, 'Tarikh Al Islam'; Dainwari - 'Al Akhbar al Tiwal, Cairo, Dar Ahya al Kutub, 1960, p.218; Ibn. Khalkan - 'Wafeeyat al 'yan', Qum, Manshurat al Razi, 1364 A.H., vol. 2, p.66; Ibn. Athir - 'Al Kamil fi al Tarikh', Beirut, vol. 2, p.446; Husayn Dayar Bakri - 'Tarikh al Khamis', vol. 2, p.390; Hafiz Dhahabi, 'Al A'bar, vol. 1, pp.34-35; Tabari - 'Tarikh al Tabari', vol 3, p. 166; Ibn. S'ad - 'al Tabaqaat al Kubra', vol. 8,p.76, under publica tion. Dr.Abdus Salaam Tarmanini - 'Ahdaas al Tarikh al Islami',vol.1, p.420; Abdul Aziz Salim - 'Tarikh al Daulatal Arabia,vol .2, p.337 ; Sayuti - 'Tarikh al Khulafa', Qum, p. 191.

30. Earlier references above

Before deciding whether this condition is true or false, it is necessary to study the relevant details.

The historian Tabari, and later Ibn. Athir, writes that Imam Hasan (as) wanted that Muawiya should hand over to him the money available in the Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa. Muawiya agreed to this condition. At that time there were fifty lakh (five million) Dirham in that Bait-ul-Maal which (Imam) Hasan bin ‘Ali (as) took to Madina. 30

Dr. Husayn Muhammad Jafri, challenging this narration of the historian Tabari, writes:

"For two reasons, there seems to be no logical reason for this condition:"
"1. Till the time of the peace agreement, Imam Hasan (as) was the undisputed caliph of Kufa. Therefore, the Bait-ul-Maal was under his custody;"

"2. Our sources confirm that it was the practice of Hazrat ‘Ali (as) that at the end of every week he used to distribute all that was in the Bait-ul-Maal. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that within the few months of the caliphate of Imam Hasan (as), despite heavy war expenses and the disorder due to the martyrdom of Hazrat ‘Ali (as), fifty lakh (five million) Dirham would still be available in the Bait-ul-Maal." 31

31. Husayn Muhammad Jafri - 'The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam', p.149.

The scholar Hashim Ma’aruf al Hasani also doubts these  weak narrations and he expresses his views thus: "These narrations lack authenticity from the point of view of continuity of source and are weak. Apart from this, it is also likely that the governments of Bani Umayya and Bani Abbas concocted such narrations just like dozens of others that they had concocted about Imam Hasan (as).

So that they may influence human minds that Imam Hasan (as) had bargained for money in exchange for caliphate and had opted for a life of pleasure, giving up the most important religious issues. These ideas were spread by an Abbasid caliph who wanted to harm the cause of Husayni followers who were active against the oppressive rulers. 35

35. Hashim Ma’aruf - 'Serat al Aimmah Ithna Ashar' Beirut, Darul T'aaruf lil Mutboo'at, 1977, vol. 1, p.584; For further reference, refer to Baqar Qarshi - 'Hayat al Imam al Hasan bin ‘Ali', vol 2, p.405.

it cannot be denied that Muawiya had offered large sums to Imam Hasan (as) which he had rejected outright as he considered it "blackmail" and bribe.  

In his opinion, Muawiya or any other caliph did not have the right to give the money belonging to Muslims to anyone - even to Imam Hasan (as). This fact has been mentioned by Atham Kufi in his history. 36

36. . Ibn. A'sum - 'Al Futuh', vol.4, p.159.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

The first on is a total lie if imam hussain (as) wanted to do it he could do it before his journey but he clearly said before & during of his journey that he will go to this journey to not do this work 

Also his speaches & sermons available that he will not make allegiance with that corrupted tyrant yazeed (la)

Second one is same as one irrelevant because mecca & medina was full of Yazid (la) assassin's that was still there that if he returned to there they would kill him silently

For third he traveled to Kufa because people of a Kufa asked him &rest of places had same ir worser conditions than Mecca &Medina & he would be killed by Yazid (la) assassins in that places too.

So in conclusion whole of thsee claims are just ptopaganda of I'll minded people that completely irrelevant even a 3 years old kid won't recognize it rational

Hussain's 3 conditions including putting his hand in the hand of Yazid has been reported by Abi  Mikhnaf who is the primary source of the narrations of Karbala. If you reject it because it does not fit in your theological view of the history , reject all his other narrations too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raheel Yunus said:

Because of what you mentioned above (truth or fabrication) Hur and his son committed suicide.

You know very well that this is not the right answer.

Before you question the significance of Karbala. You must understand the sacrifice of Hur.

Hur did not commit suicide rather he made a moral decision in the circumstances that I have mentioned. But Hur's decision does not imply that Karbala made any significant political change nor does it add anything to the questions I have raised.

Edited by Leibniz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@skyweb1987

I did not go through the whole article that you have pasted but I skimmed through the references. Ibn Athir (circa 1200 AD) is not a primary source , "al Imamah wal siyasah" is a fabrication , and the many others that have been quoted are not primary sources.

I have Ibn Sa'ad's Tabaqat , if the treaty's details are mentioned there kindly quote the reference , I shall look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Surely, there exists in the hearts of the Mu’mineen (believers), with respect to the martyrdom of Hussein , a heat that never subsides.

[Mustadrak al-wasail vol 10 pg 31]

Basically he is claiming the Prophet Muhammad  knew that Hussain  was going to be martyred…what is your take on this?

So I started looking in the Sunni references.  My focus was to find out whether the Prophet  knew that his grandson al-Hussain  was going to be martyred, whether he referenced it anywhere, or told anyone.  As Ahlu-Sunnah, we believe that the Prophet  does not know the future on his own, so it would have to be some form of revelation from God.  Alḥamdulillāh, I found some really good and elaborate discussion on this topic, from the Hadith point of view,  in Silsitat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah by Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, vol. 3, p. 159, hadith 1171.  Here, and for the sake of brevity, I will not mention all the narrations or references that the Sheikh mentioned in his book.  Rather, I will focus on three distinctive narrations [from three different Companions] found in Musnad al-Imam Ahmad, followed by some commentary (basically grading the level of authenticity of each narration) by Sheikh al-Albani .

 

The Narration of Ali bin Abi Talib 

حدثنا محمد بن عبيد حدثنا شرحبيل بن مدرك عن عبد الله بن نجي عن أبيه أنه سار مع علي، وكان صاحب مطهرته، فلما حاذى نينوى وهو منطلق إلى صفين فنادى علي: اصبر أبا عبد الله، اصبر أبا عبد الله بشط الفرات، قلت وماذا؟ قال: دخلت على النبي ذات يوم وعيناه تفيضان، قلت: يا نبي الله أغضبك أحد؟ ما شأن عينيك تفيضان؟ قال: بل قام من عندي جبريل قبل فحدثني أن الحسين يقتل بشط الفرات، قال: فقال هل لك إلى أن أشمك من تربته؟ قال قلت نعم. فمد يده فقبض قبضة من تراب فأعطانيها فلم أملك عيني أن فاضت. أخرجه أحمد ٨٥/١

Narrated Muhammad bin Udaid, narrated Shurahbil bin Mudrik, from Abdullah bin Nujayy, from his father, that he traveled with Ali , and he used to carry his purifying water.  When they were next to Nainawa on his way to Siffin, Ali  called, “Be patient Oh Abu Abdillah (the kunya of his son al-Hussain), be patient Oh Abu Abdillah by the banks of the Euphrates.  I [Nujayy] said, “what is this?”.  He [Ali] said, “I entered upon the Prophet  one day while his eyes were shedding tears.  I said, ‘what is it with yours eyes shedding tears?’.  He said, ‘Rather, Jibreel was here earlier and he told me that al-Hussain will be killed by the bank of the Euphrates and he [Jibreel] said ‘do you want me to provide you a sample from his soil [where he will be killed] so you can smell it?’ and I said ‘yes’.  So he extended his hand and he took a grip from the soil and gave it to me so I couldn’t help my eyes to fill with tears'”.  [Recorded by Ahmad, vol. 1, p. 85.]

Sheikh al-Albani  commented on this narration:

قال الألباني: قلت وهذا إسناد ضعيف، نجي والد عبد الله لا يدرى من هو كما قال الذهبي، ولم يوثقه إلا ابن حبان، وابنه أشهر منه، فمن صحح هذا الإسناد فقد وهم

“I say this is a weak chain of narration.  Nujayy the father of Abdullah is unknown according to Dhahabi, and no one said he’s reliable except ibn Hibban.  His son is more famous than he is.  So whoever authenticated this chain has erred.”

The Narration of Anas bin Malik 

حدثنا مؤمل حدثنا عمارة بن زادان حدثنا ثابت عن أنس بن مالك أن ملك القطر استأذن ربه أن يأتي النبي فأذن له، فقال لأم سلمة املكي علينا الباب لا يدخل علينا أحد، قال وجاء الحسين ليدخل فمنعته، فوثب فدخل فجعل يقعد على ظهر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وعلى منكبه وعلى عاتقه، قال: فقال الملك للنبي أتحبه؟. قال نعم. قال: أما إن أمتك ستقتله، وإن شئت أريتك المكان الذي يقتل فيه. فضرب بيده فجاء بطينة حمراء، فأخذتها أم سلمة فصرتها في خمارها. قال قال ثابت: بلغنا أنها كربلاء. أحمد ٢٤٢/٣

Narrated Mu’ammal, narrated Umaarah bin Zaadaan, narrated Thaabit from Anas bin Malik that the Angel of Rain took permission from his lord to visit the Prophet  so He gave him permission. The Prophet told Umm Salamah  to watch the door so no one could come in. Al-Hussain  came wanting to enter and I stopped him. But he jumped, entered, and started sitting on the back of the Prophet  [al-Hussain was a young child at the time], and on his shoulders. Then the angel asked the Prophet , “Do you love him?”. He said, “yes”. The angel said, “Indeed your Ummah will kill him, and if you wish, I can show you the place where he will be killed”. Then, he struck with his hand and came with red clay. So Umm Salamah  took it and tied on it in her veil. Thaabit [the sub-narrator] said, “it has reached us that it’s Karbala”. [Recorded in Musnad al-Imam Ahmad, vol. 3, p. 242]

Sheikh al-Albani  said about this chain of narration:

قلت ورجاله ثقات غير عمارة هذا. قال الحافظ: صدوق يكثر الخطأ. وقال الهيثمي: رواه أحمد وأبو يعلى والبزار والطبراني بأسانيد، وفيها عمارة بن زادان وثقه جماعة وفيه ضعف وبقية رجال أبي يعلى رجال الصحيح

“Its narrators are trustworthy except for Umaarah. Al-Haafidh [ibn Hajar] said about him, ‘he tells the truth but his mistakes are many’. Al-Haythami said, “this hadith was narrated by Ahmad, Abu Ya’la, al-Bazzar, and Tabarani through several chains, in it is Umaarah bin Zaadaan, some affirmed his trustworthiness but he has some weakness. The remaining narrators of [the chain of] Abu Ya’la are the narrators of Sahih [narrators found in Bukhari and Muslim].'”

So we see here that al-Albani  related to us the difference of opinion regarding one narrator in this Hadith and that is Umaarah bin Zaadaan. The issue with Umaarah is not trustworthiness but rather his weak memory which renders this narration as slightly weak.

The Narration of Umm Salamah, the Wife of the Prophet 

حدثنا وكيع قال حدثني عبد الله بن سعيد عن أبيه عن عائشة أو أم سلمة. قال وكيع: شك عبد الله بن سعيد. أن النبي قال لإحداهما: لقد دخل علي البيت ملك لم يدخل علي قبلها فقال لي: إن ابنك هذا حسين مقتول، وإن شئت أريتك من تربة الأرض التي يقتل بها. قال: فأخرج تربة حمراء. مسند الإمام أحمد ٢٩٤/٦

Narrated Wakee’, narrated Abdullah bin Sa’eed, from his father from Aisha or Umm Salamah [Wakee’ said this doubt came from Abdullah bin Sa’eed] that the Prophet  said to one of them [either Aisha or Umm Salamah ], “An angel entered the house on me, he never entered on me before, and he said to me, ‘this son of yours, al-Hussain, will be killed, and if you wish I can show you the soil from the earth where he will be killed’. Then he took out some red soil”. [Recorded in Musnad al-Imam Ahmad, vol. 6 p. 294]

Al-Albani  commented on this narration,

قلت: وهذا إسناد رجاله كلهم ثقات رجال الشيخين فهو صحيح إن كان سعيد وهو ابن أبي هند سمعه من عائشة أو أم سلمة، ولم أطمئن لذلك، فإنهم لم يذكروا له سماعا منها، وبين وفاته ووفاة أم سلمة نحو أربع وخمسين سنة وبين وفاته ووفاة عائشة نحو ثمان وخمسين سنة. والله أعلم

“This chain of this narration has all trustworthy narrators, narrators of the two Sheikhs [i.e. Bukhari and Muslim]. Therefore, this narration is authentic IF Sa’eed, and he’s ibn Abi Hind, has heard it from Aisha or Umm Salamah . But I’m not at peace with that since they [Hadith scholars] have not mentioned that he has heard from her. Meanwhile, between his death and the death of Umm Salamah  is about 54 years, and between his death and the death of Aisha  is about 58 years, and Allah  knows best.”

So again we see here a slight weakness in the narration. Everything looks good except the question of whether Sa’eed bin Abi Hind heard from one of the wives of the Prophet  or not. Here we’re not negating that he heard from them. We just don’t possess solid evidence that he did. Also, you notice here the precision of the scholars of Hadith in calculating the difference in death years between narrators. Depending on the gap, this can increase or decrease the likelihood of one narrator meeting the other or hearing from them.

Final Verdict on the Hadith

As we see from above, every narration has a slight weakness one way or another. So what’s the final verdict? Does the story stand. Can we say that the Prophet , for certain, was told that his grandson, al-Hussain , was going to be killed? And the answer is YES.  Al-Albani makes the following conclusion after going over more narrations:

قلت وبالجملة فالحديث صحيح بمجموع هذه الطرق، وإن كانت مفرداتها لا تخلو من ضعف، ولكنه ضعف يسير، لا سيما وبعضها قد حسنه الهيثمي، والله أعلم

“Altogether, the Hadith is authentic by collectively considering all the chains of narration. This is true even though each single chain is not free from defects, but it’s minor defects. This is not to mention that some of those chains were graded as Hassan [less authentic than Sahih, yet authentic] by al-Haythamee.  And Allah knows best.”

Here al-Albani  is following a well-known rule among the scholars of Hadith. If the Hadith is narrated through different chains of narrations all with slight weakness, then the chains of narration corroborate each other and the minor weakness is overlooked. This means that the essence of the story holds true. However, unique details mentioned in one version but not the other don’t have to be authentic. For example, we notice that there is no agreement on who the angel is among the narrations. One narration mentions Jibreel, another mentions the Angel of Rain, yet another doesn’t identify the angel at all. So here we don’t have to dwell on this difference since we may not have enough evidence to prove it one way or another.

 

https://muslimmatters.org/2013/11/13/prophet-know-grandson-al-hussain-going-martyred/

Any Expert opinions on above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

@skyweb1987

I did not go through the whole article that you have pasted but I skimmed through the references. Ibn Athir (circa 1200 AD) is not a primary source , "al Imamah wal siyasah" is a fabrication , and the many others that have been quoted are not primary sources.

I have Ibn Sa'ad's Tabaqat , if the treaty's details are mentioned there kindly quote the reference , I shall look it up.

1. Please provide the definition of the term Primary Source (of your understanding) of Islamic history and mention the reference for it.

2. I have responded for the "details of the treaty" from history available resources. I do not spoon feed here.

I have already mentioned my views earlier in this thread regarding your playing of words like Muawiya without understanding of historical facts for denying those..

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sermon 200: By Allah, Mu’awiyah is not more cunning than I am….

Treason and treachery of Mu’awiyah and the fate of those guilty of treason

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

في معاوية

By Allah, 1 Mu’awiyah is not more cunning than I am, but he deceives and commits evil deeds. Had it not been for the reprehensibility of deceit, I would have been the most cunning of all men. But (the fact is that) every deceit is a sin and every sin is disobedience (of Allah), and every deceitful person will have a banner by which he will be recognised on the Day of Judgement. By Allah, I cannot be made forgetful by strategy, nor can I be overpowered by hardships.

وَاللهِ مَا مُعَاوِيَةُ بِأَدْهَى مِنِّي، وَلكِنَّهُ يَغْدِرُ وَيَفْجُرُ، وَلَوْلاَ كَرَاهِيَةُ الْغَدْرِ لَكُنْتُ مِنْ أَدْهَى النَّاسِ، وَلَكِنْ كُلُّ غَدْرَة فَجْرَةٌ، وَكُلُّ فَجْرَة كَفْرَةٌ، وَلِكُلِّ غَادِر لِوَاءٌ يُعْرَفُ بِهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ. وَاللهِ مَا أَسْتَغْفَلُ بالْمَكِيدَةِ، وَلاَ أُسْتَغْمَزُ بالشَّدِيدَةِ.

Alternative Sources for Sermon 200

(1) Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi, II, 336, 338.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-200-Allah-muawiyah-not-more-cunning-i-am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sermon 7: They have made Satan the master of their affairs...

About the hypocrites

ومن خطبة له (عليه السلام)

يذم فيها أتباع الشيطان

They1 have made Satan the master of their affairs, and he has taken them as partners. He has laid eggs and hatched them in their bosoms. He creeps and crawls in their laps. He sees through their eyes, and speaks with their tongues. In this way he has led them to sinfulness and adorned for them foul things like the action of one whom Satan has made partner in his domain and speaks untruth through his tongue.

اتَّخَذُوا الشَّيْطَانَ لاِمْرِهِمْ مِلاَكاً، وَاتَّخَذَهُمْ لَهُ أَشْرَاكاً، فَبَاضَ وَفَرَّخَ في صُدُورِهِمْ، وَدَبَّ وَدَرَجَ في حُجُورِهِمْ، فَنَظَرَ بِأَعْيُنِهِمْ، وَنَطَقَ بِأَلسِنَتِهِمْ، فَرَكِبَ بِهِمُ الزَّلَلَ، وَزَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الخَطَلَ، فِعْلَ مَنْ قَدْ شَرِكَهُ الشَّيْطَانُ في سُلْطَانِهِ، وَنَطَقَ بِالبَاطِلِ عَلى لِسَانِهِ!

Alternative Sources for Sermon 7

(1) Al-Zamakhshari, Rabi’, I, 109;

(2) Ibn al-'Athir, al-Nihayah, II, 50. (kh-t-l )

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-7-they-have-made-satan-master-their-affairs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

1. Please provide the definition of the term Primary Source (of your understanding) and mention appropriate reference for it.

2. I have responded for the "details of the treaty" from history available resources. I do not spoon feed here.

I have already mentioned my views earlier in this thread regarding your playing of words like Muawiya without understanding of historical facts for denying those..

Primary source means any source which goes back to the original event that is being narrated. For example 'Maqtal Hussain' by Abi Mikhnaf is the primary source of Karbala as whatever he has documented goes back to eyewitness account through narrators.

Share this post


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

Primary source means any source which goes back to the original event that is being narrated. For example 'Maqtal Hussain' by Abi Mikhnaf is the primary source of Karbala as whatever he has documented goes back to eyewitness account through narrators.

Please mention the suitable reference of this definition of primary source of Islamic history. It seems to be an ambiguous interpenetration..

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


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

Sermon 200: By Allah, Mu’awiyah is not more cunning than I am….

Treason and treachery of Mu’awiyah and the fate of those guilty of treason

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

في معاوية

By Allah, 1 Mu’awiyah is not more cunning than I am, but he deceives and commits evil deeds. Had it not been for the reprehensibility of deceit, I would have been the most cunning of all men. But (the fact is that) every deceit is a sin and every sin is disobedience (of Allah), and every deceitful person will have a banner by which he will be recognised on the Day of Judgement. By Allah, I cannot be made forgetful by strategy, nor can I be overpowered by hardships.

وَاللهِ مَا مُعَاوِيَةُ بِأَدْهَى مِنِّي، وَلكِنَّهُ يَغْدِرُ وَيَفْجُرُ، وَلَوْلاَ كَرَاهِيَةُ الْغَدْرِ لَكُنْتُ مِنْ أَدْهَى النَّاسِ، وَلَكِنْ كُلُّ غَدْرَة فَجْرَةٌ، وَكُلُّ فَجْرَة كَفْرَةٌ، وَلِكُلِّ غَادِر لِوَاءٌ يُعْرَفُ بِهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ. وَاللهِ مَا أَسْتَغْفَلُ بالْمَكِيدَةِ، وَلاَ أُسْتَغْمَزُ بالشَّدِيدَةِ.

Alternative Sources for Sermon 200

(1) Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi, II, 336, 338.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-200-Allah-muawiyah-not-more-cunning-i-am

Mu'aviya was a cunning man and his cunningly nature can be interpreted as 'political wisdom'. I am sure if he was alive in our times , he would have been a very successful ruler. He was way ahead of his competitors in terms of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Hussain's 3 conditions including putting his hand in the hand of Yazid has been reported by Abi  Mikhnaf who is the primary source of the narrations of Karbala. If you reject it because it does not fit in your theological view of the history , reject all his other narrations too

When We know policy of Imam hussain (as) & his policy was policy of Quran  why we accept saying of someone  in a book that many errors entered in such books so this is not reason that we accept whole of his book we compare ,action & saying of all as with Quran not historical books .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, skyweb1987 said:

Please mention the suitable reference of this definition of primary source of Islamic history. It seems to be a ambiguous interpenetration..

Buddy its all simple. The Muslim historiography began in the second century AD with Ibn Ishaq , Al Waqidi , Ibn Sayf , Al Zuhri , abi mikhnaf et al. They penned down a few books on Seerah , riddah , maghazi. Their reports were then collected by Ibn Sa'ad and others , most abunduntatly and systematically by Al-Tabari. These are the primary sources of the history of Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ashvazdanghe said:

When We know policy of Imam hussain (as) & his policy was policy of Quran  why we accept saying of someone  in a book that many errors entered in such books so this is not reason that we accept whole of his book we compare ,action & saying of all as with Quran not historical books .

That's your prerogative. I want to rationally assert the history not through dogmatic lenses. It is a difficult task but its worth the effort.

Share this post


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

Mu'aviya was a cunning man and his cunningly nature can be interpreted as 'political wisdom'. I am sure if he was alive in our times , he would have been a very successful ruler. He was way ahead of his competitors in terms of politics.

Imam Ali (as) said if it was matter of political wisdom I was best polotician what muawiah (la) had was power of deceiving people not wisdom in any form if it . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Buddy its all simple. The Muslim historiography began in the second century AD with Ibn Ishaq , Al Waqidi , Ibn Sayf , Al Zuhri , abi mikhnaf et al. They penned down a few books on Seerah , riddah , maghazi. Their reports were then collected by Ibn Sa'ad and others , most abunduntatly and systematically by Al-Tabari. These are the primary sources of the history of Islam.

Where  is the reference for this definition of primary source of Islamic history",

Lol I like to verify and confirm your interpretation.

Otherwise it is just a fake and ambiguous plot to deny the facts exhibited by the history of islam as mentioned in available authentic sources.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Hur did not commit suicide rather he made a moral decision in the circumstances that I have mentioned. But Hur's decision does not imply that Karbala made any significant political change nor does it add anything to the questions I have raised.

Hur can left the battlefield out of morality why die for it ?

How Hur's decision does not imply Karbala made any significant political change ?

can't you see Hur's change of mind is the start of significant political change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leibniz said:

That's your prerogative. I want to rationally assert the history not through dogmatic lenses. It is a difficult task but its worth the effort.

You want assert your false idea like as what muawiah (la) & Yazid (la) & their followers wanted to do in whole of history keep doing your fancy work:hahaha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Leibniz said:

It was impossible to raise an Army in Mecca and Madinah. The two cities were apolitical compared to Kufa and the Zubayrites had already captured the constituency there. Al-Hussain once told Ibn Abbas that Abdullah ibn Zubair wants me to leave Mecca because he knows that he may not get a popular support if I challenge him. Ibn Zubair told Al-Hussain "The kind of support you have in Kufa , if I had that I would have left for Kufa". Kufa was the heart of Shias of Ali and they wrote letters to Al-Hussain inviting him there. Hussain did not receive letters from Basara. Its very much self explanatory why Hussain opted for Kufa.

The argument that he left Mecca because his life was under threat makes no sense. If he just wanted to escape threat to life , Mecca and Madinah would have been better options , even Yemen. How could you escape a looming death by embarking on a weeks long journey to Kufa in broad day light? 

There are way too many narrations which shed light on the intents of Al-Hussain. Tabari states that Ibn Abbas and Ibn Omar were coming along in Mecca and they saw Abdullah ibn Zubair and Al-Hussain whispering. Ibn Abbas warned them that don't break out of unity and don't creat  a unmanageable trouble. In another instance , Ibn Abbas told Al-Hussain , that I fear you shall be killed like Uthman and and just like Uthman's your family shall witness your death.

Some suggested Imam go to yemen there he had a lot of supporters and esp tribe of adi b hatim but his purpose was not survival 

Hijaz was also economically dependent on Egypt for grain and lacked the population to support armies

By 60 AH the fact is most of the old supporters of Ali were either dead or too old to lend any credible help in kufa 

And 20 yrs of muawiyah rule had changed the demographics with more pro uthman supporters settled there and many of Ali former supporters exiled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leibniz said:

Mu'aviya was a cunning man and his cunningly nature can be interpreted as 'political wisdom'. I am sure if he was alive in our times , he would have been a very successful ruler. He was way ahead of his competitors in terms of politics.

King Hussain of Jordan , Anwar saadat or hafiz ul Assad had similar political skills 

Saddam is more like hajjaj b yusuf

Nasser or gaddafi are way more idealistic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

When We know policy of Imam hussain (as) & his policy was policy of Quran  why we accept saying of someone  in a book that many errors entered in such books so this is not reason that we accept whole of his book we compare ,action & saying of all as with Quran not historical books .

Since 18st century we divorce politics from religion so its easy to call husyan s strategy as flawed from a secular perspective

but if you a fervent believer, believe apocalypse is near , believe in afterlife than using 140 lives to make a final stand that might provoke a bigger revolution was a strategy worth trying and quite cost effective too 

If you look at other religiously motivated uprisings like khawarij and those of qurra, mukhtar it took thousands of deaths and not much lasting effect but husyan was able to use his religious standing to magnify the impact to a great effect.

Yes it failed in its immediate objective but I'm sure husain realized that as soon as Muslim b aqeel mission failed, he could have turned back but husyan was probably sick of life of exile in medina and watching his supporters in iraq suffer under ummayyads and wanted a showdown regardless it's quite understandable.

FRom a strictly political aspect too no arab tribal chief would willingly sacrifice all his male relatives and see his women taken captive unless he feels it's for a really good reason and we can only have opinions and estimates about it based on historical accounts 

 

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

King Hussain of Jordan , Anwar saadat or hafiz ul Assad had similar political skills 

Saddam is more like hajjaj b yusuf

Nasser or gaddafi are way more idealistic 

The pic that comes to my mind when I think of Mu'aviya is that of King Hussain of Jordon , a man who is secular deep down and knows very well how to consolidate his power while dealing with a variety of opposition 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

The pic that comes to my mind when I think of Mu'aviya is that of King Hussain of Jordon , a man who is secular deep down and knows very well how to consolidate his power while dealing with a variety of opposition 

Who ironically was a hashemite lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

Where  is the reference for this definition of primary source of Islamic history",

Lol I like to verify and confirm your interpretation.

Otherwise it is just a fake and ambiguous plot to deny the facts exhibited by the history of islam as mentioned in available authentic sources.

You are just trivializing the issue to get away with it. Whatever I have stated about primary sources is something established. These are the primary sources of Islamic history. If you know any others , educate me.

Let me play your game of trivialization with you. Give me a definition of definition before I give you a definition of primary sources.

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...