Jump to content
Panzerwaffe

Riddah wars : official 12er imami perspective

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What I have heard from the Shias goes like this. They have two types of responses to Ridda campaigns and other military conquests during the caliphate in general. 

1. They would either brand them as unnecessary bloody battles ensued for expanding the empire and got nothing to do with Islam , castigating it from modern pacifistic perspective. They would explain away the presence of the "good sahaba" like Ammaar by Taqayyah' card. If Ali is seen anywhere in the pic "He did this to save Islam"

2. This is one is more interesting as it is like " God of the gaps" argument. I have seen Shias who find grey areas in history and fill them with their own conspiracy theories. So no one infact  apostatized and rebelled as such but these were supporters of Ali who revolted and were branded as apostates etc to massacre them. This is an open admission that the smaller tribes living in the outskirts of Hejjaz were far more braver than Hashimites.

Share this post


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

What I have heard from the Shias goes like this. They have two types of responses to Ridda campaigns and other military conquests during the caliphate in general. 

1. They would either brand them as unnecessary bloody battles ensued for expanding the empire and got nothing to do with Islam , castigating it from modern pacifistic perspective. They would explain away the presence of the "good sahaba" like Ammaar by Taqayyah' card. If Ali is seen anywhere in the pic "He did this to save Islam"

2. This is one is more interesting as it is like " God of the gaps" argument. I have seen Shias who find grey areas in history and fill them with their own conspiracy theories. So no one infact  apostatized and rebelled as such but these were supporters of Ali who revolted and were branded as apostates etc to massacre them. This is an open admission that the smaller tribes living in the outskirts of Hejjaz were far more braver than Hashimites.

1.it was a good Sahaba ‘Mālik Ibn Nuwayra’ that martyred by Khalidibn Walid (la) that he was an opportunist that martyred him without crime & did adultry by force with his wife but Abubakr forgive him & didn’t punish him although his ruling was anti Islamic & showed he is not capable & qualifyed for caliphate.

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Malik_b._Nuwayra

2. This is not god of gaps but sunni historian neglected it to run away from bitter truth that their beloved caliph made great mistake that showed his falsehood.

all shia scholars condemn it except the part of battle with false prophets 

but many of people killed by Khalid Ibn Walid (la) & order of Abubakr because of obtaining Zakāt wealth for themselves , Khalid (la) announced many Muslims because they didn’t pay Zakat to him and announced them as infidel & apostle despite they were Muslims & they believe that Zakāt must paid to successor of prophet (pbu) from his progeny someone like as imam Ali (as) 

most of them weren’t shia but they were against Abubakr   but Khalid (la) did a mass under between Muslim by order of Abubakr.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


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

^ the issue is were any supporters of Ali fighting abu Bakr at all in the riddah wars , if so which ones ?

One of greatest of them was Malikibn Nuwaira that link is available on above post ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

One of greatest of them was Malikibn Nuwaira that link is available on above post ^

Such conspiracy theories only strengthen the Sunni position. How come Malik ibn Nuwayra be be the only one to raise up for Ali in the outskirts of Madinah while Ali himself along with the other pro Ali Hashimites , Ammar etc kept silent ? And surprisingly it would be Omar who would take Khalid to task for killing a Shia of Ali. To add to the soup , it was one Malik among the hundreds of thousands who remembered the Ghadeer and rose his voice for Ali in the light of it.

At times the Shia argument from history stoops down to the level of Alex Jones conspiracy theories.

Share this post


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

Malik b nuwaira was a shia martyr?

Why didn't other supporters of Ali or Ali himself protest his killing ?

In fact it was umar who criticized Khalid for being so trigger happy 

Was Malik b nuwaira not a muslim?

What khalid bin waleed La did is not obvious in  the history?.  Do you support Khalid actions?

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 12:22 AM, Panzerwaffe said:

Can someone share what is the official view of shia scholars regarding rebels who rose up against abu Bakr 

Thanks 

The following provides the details about Riddaa Wars:

The so-called “wars of apostasy” fought in the caliphate of Abu Bakr, were actually a civil war – the first in Islam. These wars were fought by Muslims against Muslims – the casus belli in their case being the refusal of some tribes to pay the poor-tax to the government of Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr began his reign with a civil war but he called it a war of apostasy. When a civil war was given the name of a war of apostasy, it became “respectable” and “holy,” and it became the duty of all Muslims to participate in it.

The Aims of the Wars of Abu Bakr and Umar

1. To silence the critics of the Saqifa government, and to put an end to interrogations of all kinds.

2. To convince the Muslims that the policies of the Saqifa government were inspired by true religious zeal.

3. To give the Arabs an opportunity to gratify their lust for plunder. The theory was that once the Arabs tasted the pleasures of conquest and plunder, they would have little time or inclination to ponder moral, ethical or philosophical questions. Their self-interest would take precedence over everything else.

4. To assure the security of the government of Saqifa by all means. Its leaders figured that in the tumult of war and conquest, the Arabs would gradually forget the family of their Prophet, and this would be their real triumph.

5. To give an opportunity to the enemies of the family of Muhammad Mustafa to rise to high positions so that they would buttress the Saqifa power structure.

Though Ali had never challenged Abu Bakr and Umar, they saw his mere presence as a “threat” to their security. To make themselves “secure” they believed that they had to find a new base of power. This they readily found in the family of Abu Sufyan and the other Umayyads of Makkah, and they forged an alliance with them.

https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/principal-events-caliphate-abu-bakr

Share this post


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

Was Malik b nuwaira not a muslim?

What khalid bin waleed La did is not obvious in  the history?.  Do you support Khalid actions?

That's not the point 

Malik may have been a saint 

And we know Khalid was a scoundral 

But was he a shia of Ali?

There is a beautiful elegy written about Malik by his brother too

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


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

The following provides the details about Riddaa Wars:

The so-called “wars of apostasy” fought in the caliphate of Abu Bakr, were actually a civil war – the first in Islam. These wars were fought by Muslims against Muslims – the casus belli in their case being the refusal of some tribes to pay the poor-tax to the government of Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr began his reign with a civil war but he called it a war of apostasy. When a civil war was given the name of a war of apostasy, it became “respectable” and “holy,” and it became the duty of all Muslims to participate in it.

The Aims of the Wars of Abu Bakr and Umar

1. To silence the critics of the Saqifa government, and to put an end to interrogations of all kinds.

2. To convince the Muslims that the policies of the Saqifa government were inspired by true religious zeal.

3. To give the Arabs an opportunity to gratify their lust for plunder. The theory was that once the Arabs tasted the pleasures of conquest and plunder, they would have little time or inclination to ponder moral, ethical or philosophical questions. Their self-interest would take precedence over everything else.

4. To assure the security of the government of Saqifa by all means. Its leaders figured that in the tumult of war and conquest, the Arabs would gradually forget the family of their Prophet, and this would be their real triumph.

5. To give an opportunity to the enemies of the family of Muhammad Mustafa to rise to high positions so that they would buttress the Saqifa power structure.

Though Ali had never challenged Abu Bakr and Umar, they saw his mere presence as a “threat” to their security. To make themselves “secure” they believed that they had to find a new base of power. This they readily found in the family of Abu Sufyan and the other Umayyads of Makkah, and they forged an alliance with them.

https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/principal-events-caliphate-abu-bakr

Thanks but specifically my question is what shias of Ali fought against abu Bakr govt ?

Any names?

Obviously all of abu Bakrs actions were unjust according to 12er and to be fair abu bakr was too belligerent  when it comes to dealing with rebels of riddah wars 

The responses so far seems to be based on the principle of " enemy of my enemy is my friend " 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


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

Thanks but specifically my question is what shias of Ali fought against abu Bakr govt ?

OP and this question  in the thread are not contradictory?

 OP does not mention any such thing at first. This seems to be an addition to rotate the thread from OP at 180 deg.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


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

OP and title of thread are not contradictory?

The title does not mention any such thing at first.

You are right 

But I've heard so many contradictory things about these wars from shia perspective that its confusing what the official verdict is 

Let me try again

Do shias think riddah wars was an attempt to squash Shia of Ali who opposed abu bakr along with false prophecy movements or not ? And if so which shias of Ali were killed /oppressed?

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


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

Such conspiracy theories only strengthen the Sunni position. How come Malik ibn Nuwayra be be the only one to raise up for Ali in the outskirts of Madinah while Ali himself along with the other pro Ali Hashimites , Ammar etc kept silent ? And surprisingly it would be Omar who would take Khalid to task for killing a Shia of Ali. To add to the soup , it was one Malik among the hundreds of thousands who remembered the Ghadeer and rose his voice for Ali in the light of it.

At times the Shia argument from history stoops down to the level of Alex Jones conspiracy theories.

 

You’re glossing over several facts in your description and analysis of events which conveniently supports your outlook. You’re also presupposing your own way of looking at the entire situation as truth. Try to look at things from your opponent’s perspective rather than talking to them like everything you believe is true for both of you.

1. Imam Ali (as) didn’t give bay’ah for 6 months, only after Fatima (as) was finally martyred from her injuries did he pledge allegiance.

2. Imam Ali (as) refused to give bay’ah initially which led to the attack on his house (in your books there is clear evidence from Aslam the slave of Umar that Umar threatened to burn down the house immediately after rasoolallah (s) died, and Alex Jones is not in the chain unfortunately for you).

3. Truth is not a numbers game. We Shia have always maintained that the companions failed to come to the imam’s aid when he called them to rise up with him apart from a few individuals, hence the imam did not rebel against the coup, our texts are clear on this. Although we say many repented later on for staying silent.

Share this post


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

Let me try again

Do shias think riddah wars was an attempt to squash Shia of Ali who opposed abu bakr along with false prophecy movements or not ?

So it means the thread has gone already off topic which means there is no discussion remaining about OP. 

The so-called “wars of apostasy” fought in the caliphate of Abu Bakr, were actually a civil war – the first in Islam. These wars were fought by Muslims against Muslims – the casus belli in their case being the refusal of some tribes to pay the poor-tax to the government of Abu Bakr.

Imam Ali never fought in the Ridda wars which were prompted because the Muslims defied the Caliphate of Abu Bakr by not paying taxes. 

wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure i agree with you mostly but were these muslims supporters of Ali ? Or were any of the rebels ? 

But what about the false prophets was it wrong to fight them too ?

Why did Ali's supporters participate in those wars were they wrong , did imam ali admonish them from participating?

Btw there was no discussion in OP merely a question and your response says nothing of false prophet movements just those who only refused zakat, 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


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

Sure i agree with you mostly but were these muslims supporters of Ali ? Or were any of the rebels ? 

They were Muslims labeled as rebels by saqeefa government for the caliph own interests to stabilize the government in the name of holy war

In the caliphate of Abu Bakr, all those Muslims who had withheld the poor-tax, were denounced by him and by the Sunni historians as “apostates,” and were put to the sword. But in the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, all those people who rose in rebellion against the lawfully constituted authority, and who caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims, were exonerated and exculpated because they had committed merely an “error of judgment,” and they had “repented.

https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/principal-events-caliphate-abu-bakr

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


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

But there are 2 direct questions I asked above and I see no direct answer 

What answer you need to read my brother? I have mentioned mine already

7 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

They were Muslims labeled as rebels by saqeefa government for the caliph own interests to stabilize the government in the name of holy war

 

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False Prophets included:

Musailama in Yamama;

Tulaiha Asadi in Nejd;

Laqait bin Malik in Oman; and

Aswad Ansi in Yemen. 

But all those Muslims who raised against the saqeefa government were  not the followers of these false prophets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great topic bro Panzerwaffe

Here I thought you were our official historian. 

I am sure you know more but are trying for us to learn and think as well. 

For sure some more knowledgeable bros will come along and give us the more required detail.

Thanks

Share this post


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

False Prophets included:

Musailama in Yamama;

Tulaiha Asadi in Nejd;

Laqait bin Malik in Oman; and

Aswad Ansi in Yemen. 

But all those Muslims who raised against the saqeefa government were  not the followers of these false prophets.

I agree that's what I'm asking bro 

 

And you are right these are a series of different struggles by different leaders of variety of motivations I just see no proof that they were fighting because abu Bakr deprived Ali of his right 

To add insult to injury Ali helped abu bakr by not raising any rebellion in medina during the riddah wars and by letting his supporters help quell the uprising but Aisha stabs Ali in the back when hes dealing with Syrians in 36 AH

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


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

Great topic bro Panzerwaffe

Here I thought you were our official historian. 

I am sure you know more but are trying for us to learn and think as well. 

For sure some more knowledgeable bros will come along and give us the more required detail.

Thanks

Salam. 

Not at all brother I'm a very ignorant person but I try to learn with an open mind and  may God guide us 

We are very blessed to have immensely talented knowledgeable people here on SC ...I cannot even dream of coming close to their level 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×