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

Migration of Imam Hussain (as)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
On 1/30/2019 at 1:32 AM, haideriam said:

Two non physical entities in ether carrying out a physical threat. How insecure are you? Never threatened you just brought a fact to the table that you portray your insecurity by fabrications of being what you are not. You are being smashed to bits and yet you are so devoid of aql and wisdom that you keep getting up for more and expose yourself further.

I do not answer your questions because they are foolish, dishonest and misleading and diversionary.

The not sharing secrets is for my benefit in a spiritual sense but guess you have no idea of that concept.

The one upmanship and drama of flags and so on are a detriment to you learning. So if you are not here for learning then it must be to hide your insecurities.

Be productive and fruitful in the sense that your own conscience says it to you. 

Feel free to describe how I am insecure. You literally said:

On 1/29/2019 at 3:28 PM, haideriam said:

you would not say any of that in a face to face meeting, especially if the distance between us is less than the reach of my hand.

Perhaps your intention was to reach out, squeeze my cheeks for how lovable I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Congratulations, you wasted your time reading 200+ pages it seems.

Or it could simply be that you didn't really have a point and just want some time to re-gather your thoughts about how to get out of this predicament. 

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

All the sermons I gave you where he claimed the Khilafah as his right and not that of Bani Umayya. That and doing everything to try establish a government.

No one is denying that Khalifat was the right of our Imams. You gave a few sermons, I gave a few sermons about the Imam's (عليه السلام) focus and intention being the "islah" I.e. betterment of the community.

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Then throw out 80% of your knowledge of Islamic history, al-Tabari's work is one of the most fundemental works on Islamic history. Additionally, he relies largely on Shia historians to write about Karbala (mainly Abu Mikhnaf, at times supplementing him with others). Nafas al-Mahmum was written about a century and a half ago, it's a much later source than Abu Mikhnaf, and while is a good book, it would contain many more embellishments as well.

Not being a fan of Tabari doesn't mean I refute all his work. I cite Bukhari and Muslim all the time, doesn't mean I am their fan. I specifically said and only said I am not a fan of Tabari and prefer to rely on Nafasul Mahmoon as my goto source (for Karbala). I put "for Karbala" in () because it was implied but just to make sure.

Define the bold. Who embellished? Qummi?

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I'm honestly amazed at this, you've quoted to me a poor English translation of the Arabic you were arguing against, and the real kicker is that this is from Tarikh al-Tabari (which you don't like because Abdullah b. Saba). I don't think this can be topped :cryhappy:.

Hmmmm, so I didn't translate the text and it was considered good enough for Al-Islam to post on their website. Can I assume you have a better translation of Nafasul mahmum? better yet, you are currently doing the translation to be be published. Do the translation and I promise to pay for its publishing. 

Also, didn't think I was would have to call out the obvious but I started from "Tabari said..." on purpose. Otherwise I could have simply started with the Imam's letter. I specifically chose to start there show that I don’t simply reject Tabari and anyone who cites Tabari. Another example, if a Sunni says Ibn Saba is real because Tabari says so, I would reject that Sunni. But if a Shia scholar quotes Tabari about Ibn Saba and confirms it to be true, then it might be acceptable. I think you look at who said it; I look at what is being said. It has to be contextual.

I expected this reaction from you...

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Here's how poor the translation is, it chose to translate Awliya' as "friends" rather than authorities (I guess Imam Ali was really made the Muslims' friend at Ghadir) when it's talking about a position of power that was lost to them. You literally have them talking about their rightful authority being taken away by false claimants. Why on Earth would he be saying this. Talking about the restoration of the Sunnah is integral because (I) he is an Imam and (ii) the upholding of it was part of the treaty and the Imam is saying this was not held up (like power was not given to his family). I honestly am having a hard time believing you actually read al-Tabari's Tarikh's section on Karbala like you said you did.

Again, not responsible for the translation. Your powers of selective reading are amazing. While Imam recognized caliphate being his right, he also clearly states "we withdrew to avoid dissension. We cherish peace". Furthermore, he wrote, "I have sent towards you my messenger and I invite you to the Book of Allah and the tradition (sunnah) of the Prophet, for I see that the traditions (sunnah) have been destroyed and innovations have crept up". 

Are you seriously saying that the only Sunnah broken between the demise of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and 28 Rajab 60 AH was the caliphate being usurped?

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I don't know if you're thick or what, the Imam was guaranteed in the treaty between Imam Hasan and Mu'awiya that if Imam Hasan is no longer alive then after Mu'awiya's death, authority would go to Imam Husayn. I think you're forgetting that whole episode. Apparently he was guaranteed authority in a written treaty, he claimed authority as being his right wrongfully usurped by the Umawis, he discredited their claim to authority, he raised an army, he accepted allegiance from a city which didn't give it to the rival authority, and planned on doing all the duties of his authority, without actually seizing his authority. If you can't see how ridiculous that is then I'm very sorry.

First, I think you need to remind @Ibn al-Hussain about this fact since his exact words were, "Imam Husayn (a) did not agree with the truce Imam Hasan (a) made with Mu'awiyah - but for one reason or another, he continued to live under his caliphate"

Second, no one is arguing that caliphate was the right of the Imams. Third, no one has said Imam gave allegiance to Yazid or didn't send messengers.

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

No, he took oaths of allegiance before leaving making for Madina him the de jure leader of the two major tribes of the city, established a constitution immediately entering the city establishing himself as the head arbitrator, and immediately used it as a base of operations with which to conduct his affairs including waging war against his political adversaries because he thought it was a lovely hiding spot. While he had to escape Meccan persecution he clearly had the intent of establishing a government. This is just more bad history.

Oath of allegiance of 2/5 tribes did not make him the de facto Ruler of Medina. And what you cite as "immediate" took place over the course of weeks and months and instantaneously as you seem to indicate.

Nevertheless what happened post migration is different from the activities of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) prior to migration. Both of them were threatened with their life and both chose to migrate from their homes. I am comparing 2 events that actually happened. You are comparing an event that actually happened to an event that could or could not have happened. Surely this simple fact is not lost up on.

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

:love::cuddle:

I have to admit a certain degree of fascination in someone who presents the demeanor of someone so well read that he is the killer of Wahabis and destroyer of Quranists, yet has such poor understanding of Islamic history he doesn't understand what someone saying they're the rightful successor means or that someone taking all the measures to establish a government means they intend to establish a government. I've never seen thick headedness like this before.

My destruction of Wahabis, Quranists, etc is well documented on ShiaChat. Feel free to look through my history. 

If thinking of oneself as the rightful successor is the key, then, did the rest of the Imams not think of themselves as right successors of the preceding Imam, more deserving of the Caliphate and in fact Khalifa-e-Rasool? Fascinating to see that only 1 out of 12 Imams did their duty.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said he was the rightful successor, why didnt he fight for his right?

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Yes, I forgot how Sunni al-Tabarsi, al-Ardabili, and Abu Mikhnaf were. Again if you don't want to look at Sunni sources, clear your mind if the majority of recorded Islamic history as it stems from their works. The biggest early maqtal (by a Shia!) dealing with Karbala is preserved almost entirely in a Sunni work (al-Tabari). But clearly our historian brother has ascended the need to refer to sources when he's just making up facts.

It is not a matter of ignoring all Sunni sources. It is a matter of being selective with them. While you may think Bukhari is sahih, we don't. And if Bukhari is not sahih, then surely you don't consider Tabari to be sahih. If you are referring to Abu Mikhnaf as the 'biggest early' maqtal then clearly you belief in the authenticity of 'maqtal al-husayn' by Abu Mikhnaf even though a lot of scholars place doubt on its authenticity. Also, him being a Shia is also up for discussion. Since you want me to read some more, here is something I read:

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

After this, brother, do yourself a favour and actually go read those books you've said you read. You are manifestly unqualified to handle these discussions to be honest.

I expected such a reaction from you and so be it.

You present Hussain as a confrontational Imam who used the excuse of "islah" (betterment) to try to gain the Caliphate.

I present a Hussain who refused to bow down to ba'atil by pledging allegiance to it, went out seeking the betterment of the Ummah whether it be through establishing his rule or sacrificing his life. In the end he sacrificed his life becoming a hero and shinging example for the world while he remains a miscalculating politician who got himself and his family killed.

 

 

 

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It seems rather that Imam Hussein(عليه السلام) is just a figure that some have grown up hearing about, just a person. Nothing more 

he is familiar and to them and that somehow makes them inclined to think they ‘know’ him, as if he some child and or some guy that they had to learn about in class. Unable to get away from him

That’s why it’s not a mystery that Christians and Jews and regular folk will go to heaven even before those who are familiar with Imam Hussein(عليه السلام) and who ‘know’ about him more and analyze him in the same standard and manner as analyzing a homo sapien stranger. With the erroneous thought that what applies to us is what must be true for the noble chosen ones 

in the end for some, he is just a man. And I think it’s better for our own mind and souls to keep away from them and leave them be. Let’s not antagonize our own souls, they gain pleasure from it, and let’s not waste our time. In the end they have the freedom on this Earth to do whatever it is that they want, we know what they want but we shall choose patience and our striving so that our Imam may come. 

Allahuma salle Allah Muhammedin wa ale Muhammed 

wa ajjal farajaun

Edited by Ralvi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered

 

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235053851-Abu-al-fadl-al-‘Abbas-as-the-standard-bearer/?tab=comments#comment-3177366

"

By God!

Even if you sever my right arm,

I will persist in defending my faith,

And the Imam, who is the true one, for certain,

the Prophet's grandson, pure and trustworthy!16

That is, by God even if you cut my right arm I will not flinch from defending Husayn. Not much time passed when his rajaz changed again:

O my soul, fear not the faithless,...."

*****

They are lost, because they do not understand. Learn about his Master from him. 

Edited by S.M.H.A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered

It is important to understand the Basics from these two, specially what Zuhair bin al-Qain said . First who was Zuhair, when and  how did he join the Imam(عليه السلام). And These are profound statements followed up with Action in the Day of Ashura. 

Gives us insight into their understanding of Karbala. And their Recognition of the Imam(عليه السلام). They may have doubts before, but after they realized the Truth. Total submission.

So, all the Questioning, investigation, duediligence needs to be done into the Concept of the Divine Representative. And who,is the  Imam(عليه السلام) of the Time (Divine Representative). No one has ever said we should not do that, but once we have understood the Concept and recognized the Imam(عليه السلام) of the Time. By definition, since the Meaning, Scope and Authority is clear. No Judging, second guessing  allowed, as total submission is required.

Or it defeats the purpose, and people should circle back to the basics if they really, have a crystal Clear understanding of this Concept. 

Because, This habit, will fail us here, in the time of - 

Imam Sahib Al-'Asr Wa Al-Zaman, Al-Hujjah,  Al-Muntazar, Al- Qaim, Al-Mahdi(عليه السلام)

Only ones who truly do not understand the Concept, or the ones who do not believe in the concept, or the ones who understand but hide - and superficially, pay lip service but their hearts in not inclined will be Trying to question, judge, and second guess the Directive, Motives.

So, for this reason, these Topic are very sensitive and should be taken very seriously, or we are party to the blame in misguidance. This facts overrides any personal, individual issues and concerns or sensitivities or pride etc...

Quote

Zuhair bin al-Qain said: “By Allah! I wish I would be killed and then revived and again be killed until I get killed like this a thousand times, so that Allah should avert death from you and from these youths of your household!”

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235059122-hurr-al-riyahi/

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235058897-zuhair-bin-al-qain-joins-al-husayn-as/

 

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
23 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Feel free to describe how I am insecure. You literally said:

Perhaps your intention was to reach out, squeeze my cheeks for how lovable I am.

This is called flogging an off topic dead horse. Seriously how old are you brother!

Or are you trying to get a post count. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
18 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

By the way, there's no عين or همزة in "باطل", you can just say "baatil".

This just sums it up that knowledge and ignorance are just not the same. 

Some of the same from yester years

Quote

 

You can find the article by Shaheed Mutahhari(رضي الله عنه) in English (I do not know how good your Arabic or Persian linguistic prowess is) at: http://www.al-Islam.org/al-serat/ijtihad.htm.

I await your reply; (when I refer in the first person; I am talking to my respected brother "Siyyid Zuhair Naqvi" (is this a typo - should it be Sayyed - the word Siyyid is an invalid conjuction linguistically - and hence provide my primary evidence for your lack of knowledge in terms of Arabic linguistics).

Insha Allah this helps, and I appologise in advance for the length and complexity of this post; but I wish to illustrate that extracting fatawi from the original sources is not child's play; but a complex art (or science), that requires decades of preparation, education, and a plethora of mandatory skillset requirements, none of which can be obtained by a fallible person in a very short time-span, but require many decades of hard and detailed study, before even contemplating moving towards that pathway.

It is also dangerous to rely on limited knowledge of a subject when making such grandious claims on it; as this can also lead to massive confusion and ultimately misguidance - as explained; Shaytaan is working on every possible angle to make humanity confused and misguided.

It is important to remember and reflect upon this.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

 

It looks like Zuhair departed very quickly thereafter. 

Edited by haideriam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered

Let be candid and not waste every ones  time. Unless You all come out and explain your position on infallibility, which is the core of this topic. 

Questioning an Infallible Divine Representative under Divine Will/ Command/Mission.- will take you out of fold of Islam.

or

If Your understanding of Mawla- "mostly probably" is a "Beloved Friend"- Try logically explaining how is Muhammad al-Mustafa (peace be upon him and his pure progeny) is "Beloved Friend"

Most likely option, if above is not clarified-( which will be a Red flag-) Create an avalanche of non issues to bury/cover. This Thread will go on for ever and will end up with a lot of personal issues and other 'Stuff" or get closed. 

I am a layman, an average person, as some of you "state" to be people of religious institutions - its your job to clarify not create confusion and take every opportunity to remove doubts. You do not want people to be tangled in sophisticated questionable minor technical issues which will over shadow the Over all Event/Mission and the big picture and lead laypeople agnostic views. Which is not in our best interest. It helps the enemy, just wanted to ensure you all are aware of this, just in case you were not. So, I discharged my responsibility and now the ball is in your court. You all have free will to choose with full knowledge. So, no excuse is left for- I did not know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

My dear brother SMHA

Please this is not a Bushesque 'either you are for us or against us' approach. Also it is not trying to challenge brothers Ibn al-Hussain or Ibn Al-Ja'abi for they are much more knowledgeable than us @S.M.H.A.  @Salsabeel  @ShiaMan14  @Sirius_Bright and myself put together, so there are etiquettes to asking questions or clarifying a doubt and not trying to worry about the hidaya of others for that rests with Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Our job is to understand what is in our books and how it relates to others and trying to decipher the truth with the help of the most learned.

A question for brothers @Ibn al-Hussain   @Ibn Al-Ja'abi .

Will what the Imam e Asr(عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) says not be a hujjah upon us once we recognize him? Although it is slightly off topic and apologies for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

1. I made a genuine offer of peace which you ignored/rejected quite predictably. No more crying and complaining like a 5-yr old girl about behavior, quality, etc.

2. You mentioned that I think of you as a muqassir, then changed to nasibi and now crypto-Sunni. Let's face it, this is simply your self-image that you are projecting through me. I haven't called you any of these things.May be I think of you more things than this, may be less or may be I don't think anything about you at all. Whats important and quite telling is how you project your self-image. Perhaps you are these things and looking for confirmation from me. #NotMyJob

Now on to business...

20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

That's two different things, he did seem to object to making a truce with Mu'awiya and told his brother not to, as is evidenced in this report from al-TabarI which @Ibn al-Hussain quoted:

سنه 40 و دخل الناس في طاعه معاويه، و دخل معاويه الكوفه، فبايعه الناس قال زياد بن عبد الله، عن عوانه، و ذكر نحو حديث المسروقى، عن عثمان بن عبد الرحمن هذا، و زاد فيه: و كتب الحسن الى معاويه في الصلح، و طلب الامان، و قال الحسن للحسين و لعبد الله بن جعفر: انى قد كتبت الى معاويه في الصلح و طلب الامان، فقال له الحسين: نشدتك الله ان تصدق احدوثه معاويه، و تكذب احدوثه على! فقال له الحسن: اسكت، فانا اعلم بالأمر منك‏

But after Imam Hasan's response to him "Shut up! For I know more regarding this issue than you", he isn't recorded as saying anything else likely meaning he accepted this. Disagreeing about having it doesn't mean he never ended up accepting it, and in the end, he seems to have expected to see his end of the agreement fulfilled.

I just want you to note that there are Shia sources in agreement with what the Sunni sources state and that just because the source is from a Sunni author it doesn't negate the narrative it for that reason alone. Rather a serious analysis must be done of the author's sources, and analysis of the content of their report, and to look for corroboration.

Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was in disagreement about the truce. Okay.
Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was asked by some Kufans to rise against Muawiya . Okay.
What I am trying to understand is why @Ibn al-Hussain clearly wrote: "but for one reason or another, he continued to live under his caliphate". Surely the writer of 32,000 posts and reader of 20,000 books (I bumped up the number given that it has been a week) must have read the Peace Treaty to know that the Caliphate was due back to Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) after Muawiya which is why Imam refused to rise up. If not, 20,001 book could be Nafsul Mahmum, here it is:

After the death of Imam Hasan ((عليه السلام).), a movement came about among the Shi’ah of Iraq. They wrote a letter to Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).) stating their intention of deposing Mu’awiyah and their readiness (to support him) and swearing the allegiance (bay’ah) at his hands. In reply to their letter Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).) wrote that he disagreed to it because a pact had been made between them and Mu’awiyah, which would not be violated by them until the period expired (till Mu’awiyah died), and when Mu’awiyah dies it would then be decided as to what would be done.
Of course, there could be a number of reasons why he said "one reason or another" instead of giving the real reason. May be @Ibn al-Hussain does not agree with Qummi that this happened; may be he forgot; may be because it is not mentioned in Tabari (that I know off with my minimal knowledge of course) or may be by saying that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was adhering to the treaty would negate the narration being created that he was confrontational. We will never know but I do hope he enjoys book 20,001.

20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I really wish you were the man to get into this discussion with, and I know if I tried to do it with you I'd be wasting my time as there's much less on Ibn Saba in English than there is on Karbala, but I wonder what you make of the reports about Imam Ali killing a heretic named Ibn Saba recorded in Rijal al-Kashi.

You can always create this topic and educate all of us. Please be sure to tell us how Ibn Saba managed to dupe both sides in Jamal and get the battle started. I have my popcorn ready.

 

20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

You thinking I'm a crypto-Sunni who reads al-Bukhari has nothing to do with it, and conflating a hadith work with a historical work has nothing to do with it. I haven't flat out accepted Tarikh al-Tabari and everything therein, but stated it as an important historical source which is invaluable for providing us with information about early Islam. And as it seems, in this case he is corroborated with Shia reports, both historical and hadith. In any case, I'm quite frankly amazed you have any knowledge of the discussions regarding Abu Mikhnaf's madhhab. Suffice it to say that he seemed to have had Shi'I leanings, in the sense that Sunni rijal uses tashayyu' having had some proclivity to if not preference of Aal Muhammad, and moved within Shi'I intellectual circles. However any presumption I had of you having read up on the topic falls apart right after that. The famous text which was attributed to Abu Mikhnaf for centuries (whose only printed edition I'm aware of is the Kuwait edition) is undoubtedly not by him (as Shaykh al-Gharawi decisively proves), however he did write a book on the Maqtal of Imam Husayn called Waq'at al-Taff and this is largely preserved in Tarikh al-Tabari's section on the incident of Karbala. The work that was by him has also been partially reconstructed based on the report from al-Tabari by Shaykh Yusuf al-Gharawi. Any references made to Abu Mikhnaf's Maqtal here are made to him as he is cited in al-Tabari and not to the work of dubious authorship falsely attributed to him.


You have literally just said what I wrote but in a more verbose fashion. You could have simply said, "I agree with you ShiaMan14".

Also, I find it amazing that within 1 post Abu Mikhnaf went from "by a Shia!" to someone with "Shi'I leanings".
 

 

20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I find myself addressing this because you, @Salsabeel, and @S.M.H.A. seriously seem to think that there's a filtration process going on in what al-Islam.org for the quality of the content beyond that it is generally orthodox Ithna Ashari material. There isn't. They have no scholarly board made of historians verifying the veracity of everything and that is plainly evidenced by some of the resources they have up. So while Nafas al-Mahmum is an alright book, it's not because al-Islam.org put it up, it's because al-Qummi was a qualified muhaddith

In any case, the translation of Nafas al-Mahmum is poor, it was done by someone who didn't have a good grasp of Arabic or of English, possibly both, and wasn't able to render the Arabic text well into English. There doesn't need to be a good English translation for this translation to be bad, it's just bad. I wish with all my heart there was a good translation of this book and all the other Shia books in English, but there isn't and Ansariyan publishers have a habit of having bad translators translate texts for them. While this isn't as laughably bad as their others, this isn't good, and I especially have a problem with the translation you quoted to me and I offered you my reason. IKA Howard has done a better translation of this passage in his translation of al-Tabari's section of Yazid's reign (the aforementioned volume I don't actually believe you've read).

My offer for you to translate Nafsul Mahmu stands. I am even willing to put the money on escrow. If need be, I can talk to the Al-Islam and have you and @Ibn Al-Hussain be active historians on their board. Ayatollahs are not good enough, translators are not good enough, publishers are not good, web-site is not good, eventually you will run out of excuses and then we will know where the real blame resides.

BTW, it doesn't really matter what you believe about me or not. After all, someone who believes Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was more confrontational than other Imams won't really have good beliefs about anyone.

 

20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Nafas al-Mahmum is generally a fine book and I tend to personally believe most of what's in it, but the fact is simply that it is a late source when chronologically compared to al-Tabari, and as such can be subject to an evolving and expanding narrative. I recommend you watch this lecture as it is a good introduction to the historiography of Karbala (though I remember him overlooking some early sources in his case study). I wouldn't identify any individual as the one who introduced an embellishment for sure in any case as I wouldn't know how to prove that, just that that they recorded the embellishment (and that is, if you decide that it is). All of this requires historiographical analysis which I don't think is worth getting into with you. Nevertheless, you really are in no good place to critique Tabari.

So you are in a position to critique Qummi who according to you is a "qualified muhaddith" but I can't critique Tabari??? Where did I critique Tabari? I just said I am not a fan. Can going back to the embellishments, you can't tell me how a qualified muhadith embellished his book or if someone embellished it after he wrote it. You can't me who embellished it, what was embellished, when it was embellished, how it was embellished but IT WAS.  :hahaha: :hahaha::hahaha:

20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Actually it did, I'm not sure how well read you are about Arabian Jewry in late antiquity (my presumption as always is not very if it all) and as fascinating as the subject is for me, I'll stick to a rundown. As soon as the Prophet entered Madina and the Aws and Khazraj converted he was the de facto ruler of Madina especially considering he was the one to make a constitution affording the Jews of the city rights. It's doubtful the Jews of the city had any power compared to the Arabs militarily. And in any case, their migrations to save their lives doesn't negate that they also had primary goal to set up a government. It is clear that the Prophet fled Mecca to escape persecution and the Imam fled Medina to save his life and be free from having to pledge allegiance, and similarly they both intended to set up their governments when they arrived at their target cities. I don't think the Imam anticipated the Kufans when he reached MedinaMakkah, especially considering that he also had received advice to go to Yemen which was more remote but had a more reliable support base, but when the situation presented itself the Imam thought to avail it.

What was the time frame for all of the above to happen? You make it seem like it was instantaneous. Quite a busy Day 1 between building the mosque, getting everyone to agree, drafting the charter, etc.

My comparison stopped at the green text because that actually happened. You on the other hand are comparing what did happen with the Prophet to what could have or may have happened in Kufa. Quite bizarre.
 

 

20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I find myself needing to speak to this as it lays out the themes of your replies to me in this thread and the other one, misinformed, angry, and zealous. There are several major misunderstandings about important issues in this post especially, notably:

  1. The perceived role of the Caliph as being the protector of the Sunnah.
  2. What was stipulated in the treaty between Mu'awiya and Imam Hasan, and thus what the Imam expected and what he cited to justify his actions.
  3. The varieties of early Islamic literature and the polemical role of hadith literature vs. historical literature.
  4. Development of historical narratives and historiography.

As you can tell, all of these individual topics require some careful consideration and have been the subjects of entire books. I'm not going to bother to try to break everything down to you here because it's just not possible, you wouldn't want to hear it in the first place because I've been amazingly made out to be some crypto-Sunni, your lack of preliminary knowledge (e.g. a working knowledge of Arabic to access literature and a foundational knowledge of the subjects at hand), and simply because someone as vitriolic and close minded as you've been since the first page of that thread on the sermon of Fadak is not worth any serious investment of my time.

With that, I'll try one last time to elucidate my points and respond to you briefly.

This requires one to have a good understanding of how the Caliphs were perceived in the early Islamic period, especially up to this point all having claim to having "witnessed" the Prophet. From the earliest period up into the Umawi dynasty there was an understanding of them having a religious authority as well as a political one. Their authority extended not only to protecting law but also decreeing it (as you may recall with instances of Imam Ali contradicting Umar's judgements). As such they were understood as the pious defenders of the sunnah. Their authority hinged on this especially as they are justified by their protection of religion. When I read God's Caliph by Crone and Hinds, I was referred to the proclamation al-Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi records in his Mir'at al-Zaman (vol.13, pg.368) where al-Ma'mun names Imam al-Ridha his successor in A.H. 201 (their thesis overall demonstrates my point and seems to be a good reading of early Islamic history -- though not completely without its problems, as anyone familiar with Crone will know) which states and expands on this as the understood duty of the caliph within this early Islamic period (ironically said by an Abbasid).

Furthermore, when you return to the treaty between Imam Hasan and Mu'awiya, there is a stipulation that Mu'awiya protect the Sunnah, further reinforcing this understanding of the Caliphate. Since the Caliph's authority is rooted in his piety and defense of the sunnah Imam Husayn is effectively negating the authority of Yazid as a rightful caliph and instead asserting his own by his mission to restore his grandfather's sunnah. Indeed this is the role of the Imam, the be the representative of God after the demise of the Prophet. When read in context this is clearly him asserting his authority as the Imam, as the successor of his brother (who himself is the successor of his father who is the legitimate successor of the Prophet) and the legitimate successor of Mu'awiya per the treaty Mu'awiya entered into with Imam Hasan. This, therefore, asserts his claim and negates that of the "المدعين" (false claimants -- as he put it). 

Additionally, the sermon itself seems to be establishing the history of his claim up to this point, that it was legitimately in his family and it was contested with them unable to maintain it without causing great division and being forced to relent (you can read this as the treaty between Imam Hasan and Mu'awiya as well as Imam Ali relenting in the first place to Abu Bakr's authority), if this was him relinquishing his claim then he wouldn't keep reminding the people of the failure of the Umawi's to uphold the sunnah, their illegitimate claim to the throne of the Caliphate, and his family's position and legitimate claim. What would the Imam have done to maintain the sunnah? Would he have taken control of Kufah, used it as a base of operations, overthrown Yazid, and then given the divine government to someone else? And this especially considering that Hadith that says there was supposed to be the establishment of the "Amr" (affair, referring to the divine government which will now be instated by the Qa'im) established in 70 AH which was abrogated and postponed due to the killing of Imam Husayn. This is what @Ibn al-Hussain was referring to about "handing out roses". Was the Imam supposed to defeat Yazid and put in his place someone else or would he have taken the place of his brother's successor as the caliph (who himself was their father's successor, and he the Prophet's successor).

I think I got it now. Previously you said that while Imam was talking about islah, his goal was caliphate. Now you are saying that it is the duty of the Imam to protect the sunnah and how else could he do it after Muawiya other than by staking a claim for the caliphate.

Being the simpleton that I am, I do have some questions:
1) Can you confirm Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman maintained the sunnah perfectly. Sunnah was not changed and there were no innovations. The fact that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not rise against them would mean that, no? Or did Imam Ali (عليه السلام) simply not care about the sunnah enough to rise against the corruption and innovations?

2) We know that Muawiya did not adhere to the Treaty with Imam Hasan (عليه السلام). Can you confirm Muawiya maintained the sunnah perfectly and no innovations were made?  If some sunnah was changed and some innovations were made, was it not incumbent upon Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) to rise against this corruption? Why didn't he? Did he get too comfortable with Muawiya's stipend? Was the stipend Muawiya's way of bribing Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) into not rising against the tide of innovations?

3) Yazid became Caliph and asked for Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) allegiance. In his few days, did he change sunnah that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) decided to rise? Did Imam have foresight that Yazid will change sunnah so he thought it better to rise against Yazid before the innovations even started?

4) If the only way to defend the sunnah was to become caliph, then Imam Hussain really failed in his mission, didn't he?

7) Why didn't Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) rise against Yazeed or had Yazeed learned his lesson and stopped innovations and sunnah-corruption? Shouldn't Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) have killed Yazeed in Damascus? Why didn't Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) defend the sunnah like his father or die trying?

7) From the 4th Imam through the 11th Imam, why didn't any of them rise against sunnah violations and innovations? Was Imam Jaffar Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) given the chance to rise and he refused? Why didn't the subsequent Imams defend the sunnah? Why didnt they care as much as Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) about Allah and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

7) I am assuming that since the occultation, there has not been a single innovation or corruption of the sunnah so Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) is simply resting and waiting for the first innovation. Once it happens, abracadabra and he will appear.

Thanks in advance for the enlightenment.





 


 

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 2/1/2019 at 6:06 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

You present Hussain as a confrontational Imam who used the excuse of "islah" (betterment) to try to gain the Caliphate

I present a Hussain who refused to bow down to ba'atil by pledging allegiance to it, went out seeking the betterment of the Ummah whether it be through establishing his rule or sacrificing his life. In the end he sacrificed his life becoming a hero and shinging example for the world while he remains a miscalculating politician who got himself and his family killed.

 

20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Thank you for offering me as much nuance as you offered yourself. This nonsense is among the fallacious argumentative behavior I referred to in the thread by Reza, you can't help yourself. You're not just zealous, angry, and misinformed, you're small minded and a silly person. If someone has an unorthodox view about some matter, or even a view that is orthodox but contrary to your's, they have to also have an ulterior motive. That's why it isn't just not worth discussing with you, but it's impossible.

You keep projecting your self-image through me. I just presented my opinion of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and your opinion of him. I didn't say who is right and who is wrong. I am okay with you thinking of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) as confrontational. Is my understanding wrong or right about whether you believe Imam to be confrontational or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
20 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

By the way, there's no عين or همزة in "باطل", you can just say "baatil".

 

2 hours ago, haideriam said:

This just sums it up that knowledge and ignorance are just not the same. 

Hmmm, I had no idea that along with being an expert historian, you are also an linguist with expertise in translating Arabic into roman-Arabic

Why "baatil" and not batil or batel or batl. Is there a book on how to write Arabic using roman letters?

I actually had to google it and came upon an Arabic to latin converter that spelled it as "batl", then it cleaned it up to "batel"

Just one more thing I have taught you today. :hahaha: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, haideriam said:

This is called flogging an off topic dead horse. Seriously how old are you brother!

Or are you trying to get a post count. 

Wait, you are the one who brought physical proximity into this discussion? 

55 minutes ago, haideriam said:

My dear brother SMHA

Please this is not a Bushesque 'either you are for us or against us' approach. Also it is not trying to challenge brothers Ibn al-Hussain or Ibn Al-Ja'abi for they are much more knowledgeable than us @S.M.H.A.  @Salsabeel  @ShiaMan14  @Sirius_Bright and myself put together, so there are etiquettes to asking questions or clarifying a doubt and not trying to worry about the hidaya of others for that rests with Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Our job is to understand what is in our books and how it relates to others and trying to decipher the truth with the help of the most learned.

A question for brothers @Ibn al-Hussain   @Ibn Al-Ja'abi .

Will what the Imam e Asr(عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) says not be a hujjah upon us once we recognize him? Although it is slightly off topic and apologies for that.

hehehe. 

male-cheerleader.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
15 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

 

Just one more thing I have taught you today. :hahaha: 

 

 Yep taught me how to pretend you know Arabic when you don't and end up spelling it wrong in the process. 

And this is what happens when you rely on the translator rather than learn/read 200 books.  Hahahaha. Sure you got he zeros right.

 

13 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Wait, you are the one who brought physical proximity into this discussion? 

Just to point out to you that you are a keyboard warrior and have a different persona when sitting across debating with someone. This is directly proportional to the distance between yourself and the one you discuss with. 

And besides you are such a bore with the gifs. Grow up Shiaman.

Edited by haideriam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, haideriam said:

 Yep taught me how to pretend you know Arabic when you don't and end up spelling it wrong in the process. 

And this is what happens when you rely on the translator rather than learn/read 200 books.  Hahahaha. Sure you got he zeros right.

How did I pretend to know Arabic when all my posts are in English???

 

1 hour ago, haideriam said:

 Yep taught me how to pretend you know Arabic when you don't and end up spelling it wrong in the process. 

And this is what happens when you rely on the translator rather than learn/read 200 books.  Hahahaha. Sure you got he zeros right.

 

Just to point out to you that you are a keyboard warrior and have a different persona when sitting across debating with someone. This is directly proportional to the distance between yourself and the one you discuss with. 

But how do you know this?

I am guessing you are speculating...I guess I am big a keyboard warrior as Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) is confrontational.

1 hour ago, haideriam said:

And besides you are such a bore with the gifs. Grow up Shiaman.

I thought it was quite funny and apropos.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Personally I think a lot of Imams motivation was to rescue Iraqis from ummayyads,  judging from his letter to muawiyah it seems like he was very affected by tyranny on Iraqis esp murders of hujr b adi and amr b hamiq 

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

not trying to worry about the hidaya of others for that rests with Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Just as an FYI. Allah(عزّ وجلّ) does not come down to Earth to set things aright. We are not here to eat, sleep, and procreate. 

الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّا أَنْ يَقُولُوا رَبُّنَا اللَّهُ ۗ وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَهُدِّمَتْ صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا اسْمُ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا ۗ وَلَيَنْصُرَنَّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ {40}

[Pickthal 22:40] Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah - For had it not been for Allah's repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

Our job is to understand what is in our books and how it relates to others and trying to decipher the truth with the help of the most learned.

Here, Internet is an Anonymous place, we are all Screen names. We have books available for us lay people to read and get the bigger Picture. Minor Details may vary even among these books, which in overall sense do not change the basic Narrative. . But he Overall - General sense of the Over All Event is here. we can use these as a supplement in addition to the Majalis we attend and other scholars we hear and read. 

Some minor details may have two or three different versions, which can't be used as flag that our books have deficiencies and we have not been told the Truth. This spin is very common these days and should be handled. Focus on minor details of an event and blow it out of proportion to make it look like major lies have been told to Shia's. 

In this thread we are not really discussing minor details. We are discussing Opinions of the Anonymous people.  

https://www.al-Islam.org/event-taff-earliest-historical-account-tragedy-Karbala-Abu-mikhnaf

The Event of Taff, The Earliest Historical Account of the Tragedy of Karbala’

Abu Mikhnaf

*****

https://www.al-Islam.org/lohoof-sighs-sorrow-Sayyid-ibn-tawus

“Al-Lohoof ala Qatla al-Tofuf”

Sayyid Ibn Tawus

*****

https://www.al-Islam.org/nafasul-mahmum-relating-heart-rending-tragedy-Karbala-shaykh-Abbas-qummi

Nafasul Mahmum, Relating to the heart rending tragedy of Karbala'

Shaykh 'Abbas Qummi

If anyone have an issue with articles from al-Islam.org. First of all these are not articles from al-Islam.org. These are Books on al-Islam by the above authors. Plus you can order these in printed from like any other book available in the market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

Disagreement in different point of views is normal.

This is what chatsites are for. People to express their Opinion. In certain sensitive issues, like you have in National Security Issues, where the scrutiny is intense, rights are looked at from Collective point of view.  

If an random screen name says s/he thinks Our Master Imam Husayn(عليه السلام)  made a mistake. Well, its what s/he thinks because s/he has a different  point of view. We will take a step back and try to discuss the prerequisites for the main conversation. His/Her view on infallibility or we can't make any headway, s/he will argue mistake and we will argue Divine Will. No conclusion will ever be reached and it will be a waste of all of our time. 

But if, someone claims to be a Shia, and says a mistake was made, that is a different issue, more scrutiny is required.

If someone claims to be a Learned person and makes this claim, it take a different dimension on its own. 

I understand, people have different views and they need to be respected. For the most part I am now tempted to just ignore any claims and just address issues. On exceptional basis like this one, where we have claims by self proclaimed learned people it becomes a necessity ( for example in the case of a secular countries  National Security Concerns.) People do have the right to know. People have the right to claim anything on the internet, likewise people also reserve the right to question and evaluate this claim. 

As I said, we can just argue the points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

We are trying to understand different views on Migration of Imam Hussain(عليه السلام).

This has been well document in the books mentioned above. 

The discussion was on the Motives. If this was a Mistake by this ordinary person, like the companions. Others may want to imply an ordinary person and may want to make it a standard method we differentiate ahlul Kisa( people of the cloak)  with other Companions who did make mistakes. Where I can't question my Master under Divine will, others can and this is where we disagree. We just refuse to make All ordinary, making mistakes so let's not judge paradigm. Simply will not happen. 

If we were to question everything in the Qur'an like the motives of Prophet Abraham(عليه السلام) in regards to his son, and the event where he leaves the wife and son in Mecca. Or any other event purely on these guidelines were just assume an ordinary person/people you can may any case. So, its important to understand the Faith - A Divine Representative is always under Divine command. Our secular thinking, or even understanding of the law of that time or Common sense will fail as we do not understand the Will of Al- Mighty Alllah(عزّ وجلّ) like the angles in case of Prophet Adam(عليه السلام) also Like it was in the example of Prophet Moses(عليه السلام) here

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235060322-mistakes-of-Prophets-and-Imams-scholarly-views/?tab=comments#comment-3186214

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
19 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

A list of better uses of your time:

  • Reading al-Tabari, whether in English (since the translation is so good) or in Arabic.
  • Reading expert scholarly treatments of Fadak, Karbala, and the event of the door.
  • Studying Arabic, Farsi, or even Polish.
  • Hitting your head on a wall.

 

While learning Arabic and Farsi are great skills, in no way does it determine anyone's faith. As a reminder Abu Sufiyan spoke Arabic so did Muawiya, so did Yazeed, so did Umar bin Saad, so did Ibn Ziyad, etc. How did it help them in against love, respect and understanding of the Ahlul Bayt.

Farsi - Muslim bin Al-Hajjaj was Persian; Muhammad Al-Bukhari was Persian (Uzbek really) - how did it help them become great Shias.

So no more hiding your (lack of) faith behind a simple skill.

19 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I've thrown in the towel cause I have better things to do, you could even go to their methodology of bringing quotes from "grand ayatollahs" and I don't think these guys would care. They're just not worth the time and effort.

If you would have accepted my flag, you wouldn't have had to throw in the towel.

I think this is a cop out. You might be throwing in the towel because you have no answer for @Ibn al-Hussain "one reason or another". You might be throwing in the towel because a layman such as me called you out on calling Abu Mikhnaf a Shia! when in fact he is considered leaning towards Shia but not a Shia. But you are really throwing in the towel because I countered your "Hussain (عليه السلام) was more confrontational than other Imams" and "Hussain (عليه السلام) was after caliphate" with 7 simple questions. And that was just the first layer. I could peel so many layers of this ill-conceived theory that you will start to question your own existence.

On 2/1/2019 at 9:44 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

By the way, there's no عين or همزة in "باطل", you can just say "baatil".

You have set the precedent that one should use an ' for عين so practice what you preach or does roman Arabic grammar applies to me only???

On 1/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

(I guess Imam Ali was really made the Muslims' friend at Ghadir)

On 2/1/2019 at 9:44 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

(as you may recall with instances of Imam Ali contradicting Umar's judgements).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

@ShiaMan14

I have no idea why you double respond to me in this thread and the other, why you keep quoting old posts as if as soon as you think of something you have to say it, you and your friends could be 28 or 8 in my mind. As I said before I'm done arguing with you, I don't even know if you're so sincerely deluded you had no idea what the Prophet is doing taking oaths of allegiance before going to Medina or you're just backed into a corner and denying anything and everything to ensure your point stands. Your feelings seem to be so hurt over me saying you had a superfluous apostrophe in Batil where there's no need (by the way, yes there are standardized styles to transliterating Arabic which I don't care if you follow, there are also inherited spelling conventions such as "Ali" rather than "ʿAlī", but no conceivable reason, even in casual transliterations, where writing "ba'atil" makes any sense). It wouldn't even be worth addressing beyond the initial mistake if it didn't represent how absolutely moronic and bent on proving everyone wrong you are. I have to ask myself these questions:

  • Is it worth trying to discuss with you what it meant to be Shii in the time that Abu Mikhnaf was alive, that it didn't mean you were an Imami or that you even understood what an Imam was as we do? No, it isn't worth it, you don't want to hear it and you wouldn't understand this.
  • Is it worth trying to explain to you that someone protesting to their superior not to write a treaty would still adhere to the treaty, as they clearly did historically, after it is written until it is blatantly violated? No, we'd get into nonsense arguments about what the Imam was doing during Mu'awiya's lifetime and it might be worth it were it that you could actually refer to sources to see the Imam's behavior during this period and you the Imam referencing the treaty in the sermons he gave, if you haven't understood this now you won't.
  • Is it worth trying to explain to you that knowing Arabic and Persian is important here since historical primary sources were compiled in Arabic and to access scholarly discussions in secondary sources you also need to know Persian, and that knowing these doesn't mean you are a Mu'min, but just that you can actually reference what you are talking about and not cite poor translations to prove your point that don't hold up to scrutiny? No, because if you didn't understand that then you really are thick headed and it isn't worth trying to explain something so obvious.
  • Is it worth trying to explain to you what the Prophet was doing going to Medina, breaking down a timeline of events from the first pledge at Aqaba to the establishment of the constitution of Medina? No, these are such basic historical discussions that have been translated into English, and are so off topic from Imam Husayn's migration that it would be a waste of my time.
  • Is any of the above worth doing with someone who has such gaps in his knowledge he thinks I'm saying that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Mu'awiya did nothing to harm the sunnah and Islam during their reigns? No, I have neither the time nor inclination to someone who's having such a hard time understanding anything I'm talking about with the sunnah either because he doesn't want to or he's legitimately slow.
  • Is it worth discussing with people who were dismissive with @Ibn al-Hussain from the first instance he seriously tried to post in a thread about the authenticity of the long sermon attributed to Sayyida Fatima, despite the evidence he brought forth and despite his demeanor, just because he was contradicted by a legal scholar who hadn't done serious research into the speech but was nonetheless an Ayatollah and all that could be seen was his turban and his title? No, and this was the real issue. You, @Salsabeel, and @S.M.H.A. aren't just unaware and ignorant of the subjects that have been discussed between Muharram and now, if that was it we could have still discussed and shared research and thoughts, but you're arrogant and zealous and that's what killed any discussion before it started. You made your mind up and thought you were speaking for haqq and we for batil (/baatil/baatel/batel/bāṭil/باطل, but not ba'atil) and therefore we had to be dismissed and spoken down to. You would hide behind things like being "laymen" and "busy people" but still think you're entitled to just insult someone and dismiss them and be considered justified in this. I'm sorry to say but you all are deluded and pathetic. It wasn't worth the effort to discuss and as such, I have to opt out.

My sincere advice to you three is to work on your personalities, you are incredibly rude and difficult people to talk to. Try to broaden your horizons in reading, there's more than just books on al-Islam.org that confirm your opinion (hell, there's books on al-Islam.org that you might even benefit from if you seriously read them). If you want to discuss these things seriously and be taken seriously, try to learn some classical languages. Investing in learning Arabic and Persian is neither hard nor expensive and can be done even if you're a busy person. And try being more open minded in speaking with people. You have read incredibly little to be so convinced about everything. We're not saying to believe what we believe or even abandon what you do, but seriously think about these things beyond what's haqq and what's "ba'atil".

I can't say that it was a pleasure.

wassalam

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

@ShiaMan14   @S.M.H.A.   @Salsabeel  @Sirius_Bright  

Please listen to this lecture before you post anymore, I know this is most relevant to my brother Shiaman14., because you keep getting slapped again and again and you keep offering the other cheek by your ignorance becoming so apparent.  Also it talks about arrogance and lying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2019 at 4:16 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

You, @Salsabeel, and @S.M.H.A. aren't just unaware and ignorant of the subjects that have been discussed between Muharram and now,

 

On 2/3/2019 at 4:16 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

My sincere advice to you three is to work on your personalities, you are incredibly rude and difficult people to talk to. Try to broaden your horizons in reading, there's more than just books on al-Islam.org that confirm your opinion (hell, there's books on al-Islam.org that you might even benefit from if you seriously read them).

@Khadim uz Zahra, brother, since you have recently issued me a warning and after having ponder over it, I have decided to acknowledge that warning of yours. I request you to just look at above, I haven't posted a single comment on this thread before, yet I was complimented as ignorant, unaware, rude, difficult to talk. 

I think these brothers need to add few things in religion now. They need to make it "obligatory" for everyone to accept & submit to what they have researched and whatever they say. And anyone who is disagreeing with their research or ideology or their belief, must be declared a kafir or a ghali  etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
18 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

@ShiaMan14

I have no idea why you double respond to me in this thread and the other, why you keep quoting old posts as if as soon as you think of something you have to say it, you and your friends could be 28 or 8 in my mind. As I said before I'm done arguing with you, I don't even know if you're so sincerely deluded you had no idea what the Prophet is doing taking oaths of allegiance before going to Medina or you're just backed into a corner and denying anything and everything to ensure your point stands. Your feelings seem to be so hurt over me saying you had a superfluous apostrophe in Batil where there's no need (by the way, yes there are standardized styles to transliterating Arabic which I don't care if you follow, there are also inherited spelling conventions such as "Ali" rather than "ʿAlī", but no conceivable reason, even in casual transliterations, where writing "ba'atil" makes any sense). It wouldn't even be worth addressing beyond the initial mistake if it didn't represent how absolutely moronic and bent on proving everyone wrong you are. I have to ask myself these questions:

  • Is it worth trying to discuss with you what it meant to be Shii in the time that Abu Mikhnaf was alive, that it didn't mean you were an Imami or that you even understood what an Imam was as we do? No, it isn't worth it, you don't want to hear it and you wouldn't understand this.
  • Is it worth trying to explain to you that someone protesting to their superior not to write a treaty would still adhere to the treaty, as they clearly did historically, after it is written until it is blatantly violated? No, we'd get into nonsense arguments about what the Imam was doing during Mu'awiya's lifetime and it might be worth it were it that you could actually refer to sources to see the Imam's behavior during this period and you the Imam referencing the treaty in the sermons he gave, if you haven't understood this now you won't.
  • Is it worth trying to explain to you that knowing Arabic and Persian is important here since historical primary sources were compiled in Arabic and to access scholarly discussions in secondary sources you also need to know Persian, and that knowing these doesn't mean you are a Mu'min, but just that you can actually reference what you are talking about and not cite poor translations to prove your point that don't hold up to scrutiny? No, because if you didn't understand that then you really are thick headed and it isn't worth trying to explain something so obvious.
  • Is it worth trying to explain to you what the Prophet was doing going to Medina, breaking down a timeline of events from the first pledge at Aqaba to the establishment of the constitution of Medina? No, these are such basic historical discussions that have been translated into English, and are so off topic from Imam Husayn's migration that it would be a waste of my time.
  • Is any of the above worth doing with someone who has such gaps in his knowledge he thinks I'm saying that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Mu'awiya did nothing to harm the sunnah and Islam during their reigns? No, I have neither the time nor inclination to someone who's having such a hard time understanding anything I'm talking about with the sunnah either because he doesn't want to or he's legitimately slow.
  • Is it worth discussing with people who were dismissive with @Ibn al-Hussain from the first instance he seriously tried to post in a thread about the authenticity of the long sermon attributed to Sayyida Fatima, despite the evidence he brought forth and despite his demeanor, just because he was contradicted by a legal scholar who hadn't done serious research into the speech but was nonetheless an Ayatollah and all that could be seen was his turban and his title? No, and this was the real issue. You, @Salsabeel, and @S.M.H.A. aren't just unaware and ignorant of the subjects that have been discussed between Muharram and now, if that was it we could have still discussed and shared research and thoughts, but you're arrogant and zealous and that's what killed any discussion before it started. You made your mind up and thought you were speaking for haqq and we for batil (/baatil/baatel/batel/bāṭil/باطل, but not ba'atil) and therefore we had to be dismissed and spoken down to. You would hide behind things like being "laymen" and "busy people" but still think you're entitled to just insult someone and dismiss them and be considered justified in this. I'm sorry to say but you all are deluded and pathetic. It wasn't worth the effort to discuss and as such, I have to opt out.

My sincere advice to you three is to work on your personalities, you are incredibly rude and difficult people to talk to. Try to broaden your horizons in reading, there's more than just books on al-Islam.org that confirm your opinion (hell, there's books on al-Islam.org that you might even benefit from if you seriously read them). If you want to discuss these things seriously and be taken seriously, try to learn some classical languages. Investing in learning Arabic and Persian is neither hard nor expensive and can be done even if you're a busy person. And try being more open minded in speaking with people. You have read incredibly little to be so convinced about everything. We're not saying to believe what we believe or even abandon what you do, but seriously think about these things beyond what's haqq and what's "ba'atil".

I can't say that it was a pleasure.

wassalam

You've made a lot of promises about what you could do and not done any of it. Looks like simple diversionary tactics. I will make 1 more attempt to bring the thread back on track and if not, then respond to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi and @haideriam:

Since @Ibn al-Hussain believes Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) to be more confrontation than the other Imams, can you please stack rank the Imams from Most Confrontation to least Confrontational and provide a brief reason for your ranking? I will start the list:

Imams in order of being confrontational:

01) Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) - because he got himself and his family killed attempting to become Caliph

02)

03)

04)

05)

06)

07)

08)

09)

10)

11)

12)

Thank you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
23 minutes ago, haideriam said:

^^^ such a waste of space.

I watched the video; now you should answer my simple question about stack ranking the Imams in terms of Most Confrontational --> Least Confrontational. That is the main topic of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
50 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I watched the video; now you should answer my simple question about stack ranking the Imams in terms of Most Confrontational --> Least Confrontational. That is the main topic of discussion.

Let us forget the learned brother.

You and myself laymen, tell me what you think or what is it that we have grown up with and appeals to our logic and rationale for now, for these both grow with the acquisition of greater knowledge with practice. 

We will not try and catch each other out and though we are famous for being drifters and derailers of topics for it has nothing at all to do with the topic or it's relevance here and at this time.

So go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
12 minutes ago, haideriam said:

Let us forget the learned brother.

You and myself laymen, tell me what you think or what is it that we have grown up with and appeals to our logic and rationale for now, for these both grow with the acquisition of greater knowledge with practice. 

We will not try and catch each other out and though we are famous for being drifters and derailers of topics for it has nothing at all to do with the topic or it's relevance here and at this time.

So go on.

So you are not going to stack rank them but @Ibn Al-Ja'abi should, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
5 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

So you are not going to stack rank them but @Ibn Al-Ja'abi should, correct?

Shiaman you have grown up in my hands and you play clever with me, see that is disrespect and discourtesy. I thought you had read Mantiq at tayr in Farsi. 

Besides forget the two brothers for you are really too inconsequential with regards to their effort and time well spent. Sadly the recognition of knowledge only comes with knowledge and that is why you listen to the opinions of experts and not jahils in choosing a marja. 

You know there is a stack rank for them within our ulemas and we all know the title Amir ul Momineen only belongs to one and we know that the Hasnayn(عليه السلام) are above the rest.

And why do you have to link brother Ibn Al-Ja'abi all the time, is this trying to irritate him unnecessarily as he knows far far more than you and all us put together. This is called unnecessary provoking and could also be termed as a stealth form of cyber bullying. Kindly refrain from this low grade stubbornness.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...