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

Absolution of Yazid - Tabari

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

Recently, I was asked to read Tarikh Al-Tabari's Volume 19 related to Karbala. I made a comment that I was not a fan of Tabari and was told:

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.

I even listed my reason (Ibn Saba) as a main reason.

I also wrote that history is always written from the perspective of the historian and was given grief over it by another member.

Full disclosure: When I read Tabari's Volume 19 related to Yazid's reign several years ago, I had focused primarily on the account of Karbala. I read it this time from a more critical angle and realized how Pro-Yazid or pro-Ummayya Tabari was. Then I read the Translator's Foreword that re-affirmed my theory. Here are some excerpts from Tabari related to Yazid:

There may, however, have been a little more to it than that. According to both Balidhuri and Ibn A`tham, Mu`iwiyah had agreed, in the treaty he made with al-Hasan b. `All on the latter's abdication, that there should be a consultative council (shard) to decide the succession after him. However, Tabari fails to mention this. 
Translator's Foreword

For this Ibn al-Kalbi's account, or Tabari's version of it, leaves the main source, Abu Mikhnaf, and adopts the account of `Awanah b. al-Hakam. In this account, Yazid's appointment of Ubaydallah is as the result of advice from his Christian adviser Sarjun, who presents it as Mu`awiyah's advice. Clearly the appointment of `Ubaydallah is being laid at the door of the Christian Sarjun and blame for what ensues is in some way removed from Yazid.
Translator's Foreword

It is `Awinah, too, who reports the three choices given by Yazid of dealing with Muslim b. `Agil: (a) the first to imprison him; (b) the second to kill him; (c) and the third to banish him. The fact that Ubaydallah chooses to kill him again in some way diminishes the responsibility of Yazid for that action.
Translator's Foreword

The Baran historian Wahb b. lair (d. 2o7/82s) has Muslim, before he is killed, declare at the behest of `Ubaydallah that he is a leader of rebels, in this way detracting from any heroism Muslim may have shown. This historical report is completely ignored by Tabari.
Translator's Foreword

According to Abu Mikhnaf, the consensus of historians at this time was that al-Husayn had offered `Omar b. Sad, `Ubaydallah's commander of his forces against al-Husayn at Karbala', three options: (a) he would go back; (b) he would go to a frontier post; or (c) he would go to Yazid and put his hand in his and see what his view was. If these were really offered, then `Ubaydallah's task was over. All he had to do was send al-Husayn to Yazid. However, Ubaydallah insisted that al-Husayn must submit to him; this was too much for al-Husayn. He, his followers, and his family accepted death. The blame for al-Husayn's death according to this is clearly the responsibility of `Ubaydallah, and not Yazid. The purpose of this version originally may have been merely intended to transfer the blame for al-Husayn's death from Yazid to'Ubaydallah.
Translator's Foreword

Abu Mikhnaf himself has reports for both Yazid and Ubaydallah, poking at the teeth in al-Husayn's head. In'Awanah's version, when the surviving prisoners are sent to Yazid, he treats them well and declares that if he had been there he would never have killed a1-Husayn. From the extracts we have from `Awanah's account, it seems that he is transferring all the blame he can from Yazid to `Ubaydallah. 
Translator's Foreword

There is the same tendency in the sources to try to mitigate the responsibility of Yazid for these crimes against Islam by thrusting the blame on his generals, in this case, Muslim b. Ugbah and Hugayn b. Numayr al-Sakuni.
Translator's Foreword

When the letters reached Yazid-and there were only two days between their letters-he summoned Sarjun, a mawli of Mu'iwiyah and asked him, "What is your view of the fact that Husayn has directed his attention toward al-Knfah, and Muslim b. 'Agil is in al-KUfah receiving the oath of allegiance on his behalf? I have also learnt that al-Nu'man is weak, I have had other bad reports of him." Then he read him their letters land asked), "Whom do you think that I should appoint as governor of al-Kufah ?" Now Yazid was angry with 'Ubaydallah b. Ziyad, so Sarjun answered him, "Do you think, if Mu' awiyah were recalled to life for you, that you would take his advicel " He answered, "Yes." Sarjun produced a letter of appointment for'Ubaydallah b. Ziyad as governor of al- Kufah and said, " This is the advice of Mteiwiyah written before he died." So he took his advice, joined the two cities under the authority of'Ubaydallah, and sent him his letter of appointment.
PG30-31

Yazid's eyes filled with tears , and he said, "I would have been satisfied with your obedience without killing al-Husayn. May God curse Ibn Sumayyah. By God! If it had been I who had accompanied him, I would have let him off. May God have mercy on al-Husayn." Yaziid gave the messenger nothing. 
PG 169

When the heads were put in front of Yazid-the head of al-Husayn and those of his family and his followers-Yazid recited:
[Swords] split the skulls of men who are dear to us, but they were more disobedient and oppressive.547 [Then he added,) "Yet, by God, Husayn, if I had been to fight you, I would not have killed you."

PG170

Yazid summoned the women and the children and they were made to sit in front of him. He saw a dreadful sight. He said, "May God detest Ibn Marjinah. If there had been any kinship between him and you, he would not have done this to you; he would not have sent you thus."
PG171

According to Abu Mikhnaf-al-Harith b. Ka'b-Fitimah, daughter of `All-:554 When we were made to sit before Yazid, he showed pity to us, ordered things for us and was kind to us.
PG171

Yazid never ate lunch or dinner without inviting All b. al-Husayn to join him .
PG172

When they were about to leave, he summoned `All b. al -Husayn and said, "God curse Ibn Marjanah , if I had been with your father, he would never have asked a favor from me without my granting it to him; I would have protected him from death with all my power, even through the destruction of some of my own children. But God has decreed what you have seen . Write to me from Medina and report everything that you need."
PG172

Then the womenfolk of al-Husayn were brought in to Yazid. The womenfolk of Yazid's family, the daughters of Mu`awiyah and his family, shrieked with grief and lamentation. Falimah, daughter of al-Husayn--she was older than Sukaynah-asked, "Are the daughters of the Apostle of God prisoners , Yazid?" Yazid replied, "Cousin, I was unwilling for this to happen." She said , "By God! Not even an earring has been left to us " He answered, "Cousin, what will be given to you will be greater than what has been taken from you." Then they were taken out and taken to the house of Yazid b. Mu`awiyah. There was not a woman of Yazid's family who did not begin to lament and grieve . Yazid sent to each of the women, "What has been taken from you ?" No woman claimed anything, however expensive, without his giving double its value. Sukaynah used to say, "I never saw a man who did not believe in God who was better than Yazid b. Mu'awiyah."
PG173

Tabari mentions the events of Karbala in great detail. Then he lays blame of it on Ibn ZIyad.

When Yazi'd forces attacked Medina and Makkah, Tabari has a chapter on it with very limited details. He doesnt mention the plunder, pillage and rape of Medina, the desecration of the Prophet's mosque, etc.

So now I have to ask this question:

How many of you are fans of Tabari?

The choice presented to me was that if I am not a fan of Tabari, then I should throw out 80% of my knowledge of Islamic history.

If accepting 80% of Islamic knowledge comes with the price of absolving Yazid for his crimes as Tabari has done, then call me ignorant, uneducated, illiterate, narrow-minded, close-minded, jahil, brain-washed BUT I throw out 80% KNOWLEDGE OF Islamic HISTORY.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The immaturity is too much on this thread. The personal attacks from specific members will be dealt with.

Recently, I was asked to read Tarikh Al-Tabari's Volume 19 related to Karbala. I made a comment that I was not a fan of Tabari and was told: I even listed my reason (Ibn Saba) as a main reason.

Salams, I'm once again temporarily breaking my previous decision not to participate in any more of your threads for my own sanity to just make sure I understand you correctly. Al-Tabari, an Abbas

Posted Images

  • Moderators

Salams,

I'm once again temporarily breaking my previous decision not to participate in any more of your threads for my own sanity to just make sure I understand you correctly. Al-Tabari, an Abbasid era writer who is associated with the government, was actually pro-Umawi? This really has reached amazing lengths. And it's more reasonable to say this remarkable phenomenon took place than to say he was at the mercy of the sources he's quoting (which on the subject of Imam Husayn are few and far between). And even then, to understand these things (e.g. not talking about an expected Shura -- which would further my argument from that previous threads) as purposely anti-Alid narratives and not an alternative understanding of the direct causes of Karbala? I'm honestly still hung up on al-Tabari's secret passion for the Umawis, he must've hid that very close to his chest that considering the climate of Abbasid era scholarship was the support the Abbasids in their overthrow of the impious and faithless Umawis.

Btw, don't cry about being called out for using bad translations. You sound like a non-Muslim frustrated that he is being told his translation isn't good. Ideally you know the language of the sources for what your'e discussing but I could settle on you using reputable translations by reputable translators, e.g., I.K.A. Howard.

Anyway, happy reading.

wassalam

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I would recommend " deconstructing tabari history" by boaz shoshan as a good start 

It's a tricky subject and fraught with complications , for me I felt like a kindergartner studying calculus 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
14 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Salams,

I'm once again temporarily breaking my previous decision not to participate in any more of your threads for my own sanity to just make sure I understand you correctly. Al-Tabari, an Abbasid era writer who is associated with the government, was actually pro-Umawi? This really has reached amazing lengths. And it's more reasonable to say this remarkable phenomenon took place than to say he was at the mercy of the sources he's quoting (which on the subject of Imam Husayn are few and far between). And even then, to understand these things (e.g. not talking about an expected Shura -- which would further my argument from that previous threads) as purposely anti-Alid narratives and not an alternative understanding of the direct causes of Karbala? I'm honestly still hung up on al-Tabari's secret passion for the Umawis, he must've hid that very close to his chest that considering the climate of Abbasid era scholarship was the support the Abbasids in their overthrow of the impious and faithless Umawis.

Btw, don't cry about being called out for using bad translations. You sound like a non-Muslim frustrated that he is being told his translation isn't good. Ideally you know the language of the sources for what your'e discussing but I could settle on you using reputable translations by reputable translators, e.g., I.K.A. Howard.

Anyway, happy reading.

wassalam

Might I suggest that you read the Translator's Foreword. Being the layman that I am, my analysis could have been wrong but the Foreword simply re-affirmed my analysis. It literally states, "blame for what ensues is in some way removed from Yazid." and "diminishes the responsibility of Yazid".

13 hours ago, Leibniz said:

I mean really? I believe Yazid was two headed monster taking a blood bath twice a day. Tabari has stated that Yazid was infact a one headed monster taking a blood bath once a day and therefore I believe Tabari was pro Yazid.

Actually, Tabari is saying Yazid's generals were monsters. Yazid loved Imam Hussain, cried over him and a member of the Banu Hashim said, "I never saw a man who did not believe in God who was better than Yazid b. Mu'awiyah." and this person had seen Imam Ali (عليه السلام), Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) and Imam Hussain (عليه السلام).

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Might I suggest that you read the Translator's Foreword. Being the layman that I am, my analysis could have been wrong but the Foreword simply re-affirmed my analysis. It literally states, "blame for what ensues is in some way removed from Yazid." and "diminishes the responsibility of Yazid".

Actually, Tabari is saying Yazid's generals were monsters. Yazid loved Imam Hussain, cried over him and a member of the Banu Hashim said, "I never saw a man who did not believe in God who was better than Yazid b. Mu'awiyah." and this person had seen Imam Ali (عليه السلام), Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) and Imam Hussain (عليه السلام).

First , You should not conclude "Yazid loved Hussain" from "Yazid did not want Hussain get killed". It does not follow from that.

There were many Banu  Hashim who  sided with the Ummayads , including  Yazid. Is it surprising? Its not only Tabari who has narrated all this but Ibn Saa'd and bladhuri as well. Let me quote a few for you.

1. Abdullah Ibn Jaffar had a passion for music and had a close intimacy with Mua'via. He used to sing in the court of Mua'via as well. He later acted as advisor to Yazid and named one of his sons Mua'via. The same Mua'via ibn Abdullah led a revolt against Ummayads later on and captured parts of Faras.

2. Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah used to wrestle in Mua'via's court with Romans and he gave the sword of Prophet to Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan  after giving him pledge of allegiance and accepting a grand sum of money.

3. I hope you know about Aqeel ibn Abi Talib already.

And there are numerous other such examples.

Tabarai's history is the only proper chronological account of Islamic history from pre Islamic era to the era of Prophet and mid Abbasid era. Other than Tabari's history we have Tabqaat ibn Saa'd and Ansab ul ashraaf of bladhuri which are more of biographical accounts of early Islamic personalities in various orders. Let's trash them all and you tell me where you take your history from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
48 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

First , You should not conclude "Yazid loved Hussain" from "Yazid did not want Hussain get killed". It does not follow from that.

Who concluded that? I didn't even make any commentary on what Yazid actually felt. My commentary was specifically about Tabari.

48 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

First , You should not conclude "Yazid loved Hussain" from "Yazid did not want Hussain get killed". It does not follow from that.

There were many Banu  Hashim who  sided with the Ummayads , including  Yazid. Is it surprising? Its not only Tabari who has narrated all this but Ibn Saa'd and bladhuri as well. Let me quote a few for you.

1. Abdullah Ibn Jaffar had a passion for music and had a close intimacy with Mua'via. He used to sing in the court of Mua'via as well. He later acted as advisor to Yazid and named one of his sons Mua'via. The same Mua'via ibn Abdullah led a revolt against Ummayads later on and captured parts of Faras.

2. Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah used to wrestle in Mua'via's court with Romans and he gave the sword of Prophet to Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan  after giving him pledge of allegiance and accepting a grand sum of money.

3. I hope you know about Aqeel ibn Abi Talib already.

 Again, not the issue I am discussing.

The issue is how Tabari portrays Yazid.

48 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Tabarai's history is the only proper chronological account of Islamic history from pre Islamic era to the era of Prophet and mid Abbasid era. Other than Tabari's history we have Tabqaat ibn Saa'd and Ansab ul ashraaf of bladhuri which are more of biographical accounts of early Islamic personalities in various orders. Let's trash them all and you tell me where you take your history from?

I am saying take Tabari with a grain of salt. Simple example:

On 2/10/2019 at 8:56 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

Sukaynah used to say, "I never saw a man who did not believe in God who was better than Yazid b. Mu'awiyah."
PG173

Nafasul Mahmun says:

 The head of Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).) was placed near Yazid, Sayyidah Sakinah ((عليه السلام).) said, “I have not seen a more harsh man than Yazid. Nor is any infidel and polytheist worst and more tyrant than him”

Which one do you believe to be accurate? I guess the only possibility that Sukaynah and Sakinah are different.

As detailed as Tabari can get at times, he makes no mention of the Imam 's sermon in Yazid 's court nor Sayeda Zainab 's (عليه السلام) sermon.

Most importantly, the Translators Foreword is agreeing with my statementioned that Tabari has shifted blame for Karbala and Harrah away from Yazid. I can paste the whole thing if need be. 

Lastly, are you saying we should accept Tabari verbatim since it's the only thing we've got?

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
3 hours ago, Leibniz said:

2. Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah used to wrestle in Mua'via's court with Romans and he gave the sword of Prophet to Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan  after giving him pledge of allegiance and accepting a grand sum of money.

3. I hope you know about Aqeel ibn Abi Talib already.

 Salam I remember that I refuted these two in another post & you couldn't deny it or give a response to it  but again you are repeating these two issue here ,

the pro Yazids (la)& Muawaiah (la) & in general Ummayid (la) fans always were present at every era because they were anti Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) & also they were putting Arabs over other people but Abbasyds despite they were tyrants like as Ummayids , were multicultural dynasty at first they bring back Sasanid era with Islamic disguise while Barmakis were their advisors & after genocide of Barmakis they preferred Turks over Arabs so many pan Arabs were trying to show ummayids as saints & they were wishing to back to their era like as ISIS & Wahabists that have this agenda of pan Arabism in disguise of Isalm  & they are trying to revive Ummayid era that Yazid (la) & Muawiah (la) are their great heroes which ISIS had agenda of appointing someone as  the second Muawiah (la) & helping him in their war against Shias & Imam Mahdi (aj) to clear Earth from Shias like as Saudi monarch that bin Salman or someone like as king of Jordan are candidates for title of Second Muawiah (la)  that they highly invested in fabricating history in their favor specially king of Jordan that claims is from descendants of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) that some people made fake family tree for him & spreads it between all Muslims even in Iran but this claim refuted by all Shia scholars & they showed in best mode he is from Descendants of Abusufyan .

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

All especially Shiaman,

History and most of literature except for the Holy Qur'an is probability and one has to weigh statements on this balance of probabilities.

Historical narratives are not lines carved in stones.

Neither are they carved out of what one might have heard from the stage.

Neither are they reports from chains and authors who are dubious or have tendencies for Ghulu or are Nawasib.

Neither are chains in the weak or broken etc category. 

Even with the strongest of chains it is still a probability factor .

Holy Qur'an is the only 100% authentic book for it is muttawatir by the so many huffaz in its recitation from the Holy Prophet(sawws) and was committed to paper in whatever shape at a very early time.

In everything else there is a stacking of other evidences rather than what we have heard or believe

So for a statement in eg Tabari which goes against one's sets of preconceived notions and or could even be wrong again on a balance of probabilities.

This does not make a whole book wrong and makes mockery of the understanding of written work and academic analysis. 

So one needs to have read a lot really to make specific statements rather than general ones.

Here is a thought @ShiaMan14

If we can classify a narrator in the chain as weak or a liar etc, would the one narrating from him not have considered this for reporting from liars puts his own credibility at stake.

15 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Most importantly, the Translators Foreword is agreeing with my statementioned that Tabari has shifted blame for Karbala and Harrah away from Yazid. I can paste the whole thing if need be. 

Lastly, are you saying we should accept Tabari verbatim since it's the only thing we've got?

. so there is no verbatim and the translators foreword is his opinion on a balance of probabilities of which we are not aware.

This is what the other brothers do in an academic analysis in the Hawza in that they collect all evidence before sieving it and forming their opinion.

And this opinion is not a hujjah on anyone., so we can ease up a little.

Sheikh Shomali while talking on the tasbih was saying that a hadith and rest are raw materials for a faqih to issue a fatwa before he quoted Ayatullah Khoei's fatwa.

And mind you after all the ayah searching and all the hadith searching and applying all else the faqih at the end of the fatwa writes

Allahu Alam

Is this not probability!!

Edited by haideriam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

 Salam I remember that I refuted these two in another post & you couldn't deny it or give a response to it  but again you are repeating these two issue here ,

the pro Yazids (la)& Muawaiah (la) & in general Ummayid (la) fans always were present at every era because they were anti Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) & also they were putting Arabs over other people but Abbasyds despite they were tyrants like as Ummayids , were multicultural dynasty at first they bring back Sasanid era with Islamic disguise while Barmakis were their advisors & after genocide of Barmakis they preferred Turks over Arabs so many pan Arabs were trying to show ummayids as saints & they were wishing to back to their era like as ISIS & Wahabists that have this agenda of pan Arabism in disguise of Isalm  & they are trying to revive Ummayid era that Yazid (la) & Muawiah (la) are their great heroes which ISIS had agenda of appointing someone as  the second Muawiah (la) & helping him in their war against Shias & Imam Mahdi (aj) to clear Earth from Shias like as Saudi monarch that bin Salman or someone like as king of Jordan are candidates for title of Second Muawiah (la)  that they highly invested in fabricating history in their favor specially king of Jordan that claims is from descendants of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) that some people made fake family tree for him & spreads it between all Muslims even in Iran but this claim refuted by all Shia scholars & they showed in best mode he is from Descendants of Abusufyan .

Ws brother I don't remember you refuted what I said. I would not hesitate to correct myself if given evidence. I am not advocating for the Ummayads. I am simply saying that not all Banu Hashim were anti Ummayads and many Hashmittes were having very good terms with the Ummayads. Those Ummayads include Yazid as well. Even after Karbala , Abdullah ibn Jaffar used to act as an advisor to Yazid and he even laid out a strategy for Yazid as how to deal with Abdullah ibn Zubayr.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 2/12/2019 at 2:35 PM, haideriam said:

And this opinion is not a hujjah on anyone., so we can ease up a little.

I made the comment, "Not a fan of Tabari"

I was given the choice "Then throw out 80% of your knowledge of Islamic history"

Given the choice "be a fan of Tabari and accept 80% knowledge of Islamic History" OR "not be a fan and reject 80% of knowledge of Islamic history", I choose the latter.

Now if you are giving different choices, then it can be discussed.

On 2/12/2019 at 2:35 PM, haideriam said:

If we can classify a narrator in the chain as weak or a liar etc, would the one narrating from him not have considered this for reporting from liars puts his own credibility at stake.

This cannot be applied because @Ibn Al-Ja'abi said Nafasul Mahmun contains embellishments. Did Qummi consider these embellishments? I wish we apply the same principles to Tabari and Qummi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
10 hours ago, Leibniz said:

Ws brother I don't remember you refuted what I said. I would not hesitate to correct myself if given evidence. I am not advocating for the Ummayads. I am simply saying that not all Banu Hashim were anti Ummayads and many Hashmittes were having very good terms with the Ummayads. Those Ummayads include Yazid as well. Even after Karbala , Abdullah ibn Jaffar used to act as an advisor to Yazid and he even laid out a strategy for Yazid as how to deal with Abdullah ibn Zubayr.

it's true that people from Hashemits had good relation with Ummayids and Abbasyds & because of that always Imams were like strangers between Hashemits during life time that everytime that they need to prove themselves to their relatives beside other people but the two claims of you just fabricated to humilate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as you see I didn't refute your first statement about Abdullah ibn Jaffar that all Imams were suffering from such people in their life 

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

it's true that people from Hashemits had good relation with Ummayids and Abbasyds & because of that always Imams were like strangers between Hashemits during life time that everytime that they need to prove themselves to their relatives beside other people but the two claims of you just fabricated to humilate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as you see I didn't refute your first statement about Abdullah ibn Jaffar that all Imams were suffering from such people in their life 

Right. How does the collusion of Abdullah ibn Jaffar with Ummayads humiliate Ali? His relations with Mua'via and Yazid are well established , so much so that he named his famous son after Mua'via.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

PS : Abdullah Ibn Jafar's daughter got married to the infamous Ummayad General Hajjaj bin Yusuf and there are narrations indicating that Abdullah ibn Jaffar divorced Zainab before Karbala , probably due to her decision of embarking on the journey with her brother Al Hussain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
On 2/13/2019 at 3:41 AM, Leibniz said:

Right. How does the collusion of Abdullah ibn Jaffar with Ummayads humiliate Ali? His relations with Mua'via and Yazid are well established , so much so that he named his famous son after Mua'via.

Salam I said the statements about Muhammad Hnafiya (رضي الله عنه) & Aqil (رضي الله عنه) were humilating not Abdullah ibn Jaffar but also Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) had to prove his imamate to Abuhanifa (رضي الله عنه) after Karbala but except that he didn't does anything to humiliate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) like as wresteling with romans that for people of that time were impure persons & nobody didn't touch them even in normal contacts like handshaking that it was practicing until Qajar era in Iran  so how Son of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was wrestling with them it's clear this story mad up by Ummayids to show sons of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) so then Imam Ali (عليه السلام) don't follow Islamic teaching like as after martyrdom of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) people of Sham (Damascus) surprised  that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was praying in mosque & Imam Hussains was praying in Karabala under heavy attcks  because ummayid propaganda was fed them that he & grand sons of Prophet (pbu) don't pray at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
17 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

On a side note , the grandson of Abdullah Ibn Jaffar who was named after him claimed to be not only the Imam but God incarnate Abdullah ibn Mua'via ibn Abdullah ibn Jaffar

I don't have objection about him with you ,he wasn't the first nor the last person that did this deviation after him after death of Muhammad hanafiya (رضي الله عنه) some people from insiders of ummayids & Zubbayris in a coalition  for weakening imamate & every person that was revolting in favor of Ahlaulbayt (عليه السلام) like as Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) accused both of them to creating Keysanianh cult that were claiming hanafiya (رضي الله عنه) was an Imam & Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) was his deputy.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 2/13/2019 at 4:09 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam I said the statements about Abuhanifa (رضي الله عنه) & Aqil (رضي الله عنه) were humilating not Abdullah ibn Jaffar but also Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) had to prove his imamate to Abuhanifa (رضي الله عنه) after Karbala but except that he didn't does anything to humiliate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) like as wresteling with romans that for people of that time were impure persons & nobody didn't touch them even in normal contacts like handshaking so how Son of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was wrestling with them it's clear this story mad up by Ummayids to show sons of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) so then Imam Ali (عليه السلام) don't follow Islamic teaching like as after martyrdom of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) people of Sham (Damascus) surprised  that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was praying in mosque & Imam Hussains was praying in Karabala under heavy attcks  because ummayid propaganda was fed them that he & grand sons of Prophet (pbu) don't pray at all

Most of the history was penned down in the Abbasid era and one may use your argument to claim that most of the Anti Ummayads stuff came due to Abbaaid's pressure as they were very keen to demonize Ummayads. As far as Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah is concerned , to me he is shaddy character. He is surely on his father's side in Siffain but I don't find his character supportive of the 12ver Imami theology. Post Hassan , he was the leader of Hashimites and was a political figure for that reason. Mua'via bribed him and there is a narration in which Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah praises Yazid once he was approached to take part in an uprising against Yazid. He later pledged alligiance to Abdul Malik ibn Marwan. It seems that he made some political pursuits during and before Mukhtar's era but gave it up once the Ummayads consolidated power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
5 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Mua'via bribed him and there is a narration in which Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah praises Yazid once he was approached to take part in an uprising against Yazid. He later pledged alligiance to Abdul Malik ibn Marwan. It seems that he made some political pursuits during and before Mukhtar's era but gave it up once the Ummayads consolidated power.

his rule was like as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه) about protecting Prophet (pbu) but he was protectng two Sons of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussian (عليه السلام) that faced many accusation & false stories from Ummayids even his claim of Imamate against Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) is a weak story that not accepted by most of Shia scholars ummayids couldn't attack them directly but by targeting him they were trying to cause problem for Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & two Imams after him but he accepted these accusations & fabricated stories to proptect them like as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said to him in siffin you are like my hands that by them I protect my two eyes (Imam Hasan (as)& Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) ) that he was main supporter of Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) in his revolt & avenging of blood of martyrs of Karbala that Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) couldn't support him directly so him indirectly approved & supported Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) as a deputy of Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

his rule was like as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه) about protecting Prophet (pbu) but he was protectng two Sons of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussian (عليه السلام) that faced many accusation & false stories from Ummayids even his claim of Imamate against Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) is a weak story that not accepted by most of Shia scholars ummayids couldn't attack them directly but by targeting him they were trying to cause problem for Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & two Imams after him but he accepted these accusations & fabricated stories to proptect them like as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said to him in siffin you are like my hands that by them I protect my two eyes (Imam Hasan (as)& Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) ) that he was main supporter of Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) in his revolt & avenging of blood of martyrs of Karbala that Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) couldn't support him directly so him indirectly approved & supported Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) as a deputy of Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) 

Right. I believe that the 12ver concept of Imamah did not exist at that time. Various Hashmites claimed to be Imams and it was more of a political affair than a theological affair.

Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah's claim of Imamah can be asserted from a simple fact even if you dismiss all the narrations stating that. He had a son named Abdullah and was known as Abu Hashim. The Kaysanites after Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah made Abu Hashim their Imam. Kaysanites were the largest chunk of politically active Shias of that era. Abu Hashim is later said to have given the Imamah to Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abdullah ibn Abbas , thus paving way for the Abbasid ascent to Imamah (Caliphate).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

PS : I am translating a letter of Abbasid Caliph Abu Jaffar Mansoor in which he highly praises Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah while castigating the rest of the progeny of Ali. The Abbasids  had a soft corner for Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah due to the reason stated above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

A New World Order : Authority , Sacrality & Early Islamic Architecture 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 2/12/2019 at 4:09 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

I made the comment, "Not a fan of Tabari"

I was given the choice "Then throw out 80% of your knowledge of Islamic history"

Given the choice "be a fan of Tabari and accept 80% knowledge of Islamic History" OR "not be a fan and reject 80% of knowledge of Islamic history", I choose the latter.

@ShiaMan14

I don't have to be a fan of Tabari yet there is nothing wrong with taking 80% of history from him if it is well documented and has other supporting evidences as has been accepted by the others who are more knowledgeable than us. It is the 20% that I don't take from him that differentiates us and shows that I am not a fan of Tabari. Like I said earlier there is far more than fan or no fan, there is weight of evidence and not our thought. These are all probabilities and our fiqh does not depend on them. One needs to be very well versed in all sahih hadith pertaining to an issue and all historical references and language usage of the time etc. If most of our scholars have borrowed from him then we should be not so averse of the history as opposed to the man because of his leanings etc. So cliches like 'not a fan of Tabari' are not good usage of language in an academic setting. One should disagree only with the weight of the evidence. This is what historians do. One historical quote from a Shia book as opposed to Tabari's quote is not good enough. You have to build the weight of evidence otherwise they are both just statements. I hope you get the jist of what I am trying to convey. 

Quote

This cannot be applied because @Ibn Al-Ja'abi said Nafasul Mahmun contains embellishments. Did Qummi consider these embellishments? I wish we apply the same principles to Tabari and Qummi.

I think a better way of putting this across and getting a proper response would be 'brother Ibn Al-Ja'abi can you give us an example of some embellishments that you refer to' . Now that would be moving the discussion forward in a productive and learning environment. After all one would not shout and be rude to the teacher from whom one wants to learn. Generally one should refrain from being rude at all to anybody. We can talk of the why of embellishments later. And also I don't think any academic applies different standards to people writing on a subject. Their statements are weighed on the same scale as far as we are concerned. 

@ShiaMan14

On 2/12/2019 at 2:35 PM, haideriam said:

1. If we can classify a narrator in the chain as weak or a liar etc, would the one narrating from him not have considered this for reporting from liars puts his own credibility at stake.

2. Secondly as they were both in the same time period surely he would know more first hand about the narrator rather than rely on Rijal books written well after the period. 

What do you say? I might think of a third reason too unless you beat me to it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 2/14/2019 at 4:58 PM, haideriam said:

@ShiaMan14

I don't have to be a fan of Tabari yet there is nothing wrong with taking 80% of history from him if it is well documented and has other supporting evidences as has been accepted by the others who are more knowledgeable than us. It is the 20% that I don't take from him that differentiates us and shows that I am not a fan of Tabari. Like I said earlier there is far more than fan or no fan, there is weight of evidence and not our thought. These are all probabilities and our fiqh does not depend on them. One needs to be very well versed in all sahih hadith pertaining to an issue and all historical references and language usage of the time etc. If most of our scholars have borrowed from him then we should be not so averse of the history as opposed to the man because of his leanings etc. So cliches like 'not a fan of Tabari' are not good usage of language in an academic setting. One should disagree only with the weight of the evidence. This is what historians do. One historical quote from a Shia book as opposed to Tabari's quote is not good enough. You have to build the weight of evidence otherwise they are both just statements. I hope you get the jist of what I am trying to convey. 

I agree with you. But you have to question the person who presented the absurd choice. Not the person answering the absurd choice.

On 2/14/2019 at 4:58 PM, haideriam said:

I think a better way of putting this across and getting a proper response would be 'brother Ibn Al-Ja'abi can you give us an example of some embellishments that you refer to' . Now that would be moving the discussion forward in a productive and learning environment. After all one would not shout and be rude to the teacher from whom one wants to learn. Generally one should refrain from being rude at all to anybody. We can talk of the why of embellishments later. And also I don't think any academic applies different standards to people writing on a subject. Their statements are weighed on the same scale as far as we are concerned. 

I asked for examples but I was told I wouldn't understand them. Then there is a layman like me who cites clear examples of Tabari's pro-Yazid stance.

On 2/14/2019 at 4:58 PM, haideriam said:

2. Secondly as they were both in the same time period surely he would know more first hand about the narrator rather than rely on Rijal books written well after the period. 

What do you say? I might think of a third reason too unless you beat me to it. 

The same principles are not being applied. I said the same thing about Ayatollah Safi Golpaygani but it was rejected because he was not a "qualified historian".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 2/12/2019 at 3:48 PM, Leibniz said:

Ws brother I don't remember you refuted what I said. I would not hesitate to correct myself if given evidence. I am not advocating for the Ummayads. I am simply saying that not all Banu Hashim were anti Ummayads and many Hashmittes were having very good terms with the Ummayads. Those Ummayads include Yazid as well. Even after Karbala , Abdullah ibn Jaffar used to act as an advisor to Yazid and he even laid out a strategy for Yazid as how to deal with Abdullah ibn Zubayr.

Are you saying Abdullah bin Jaffar advised on Harrah and/or Siege of Makkah?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Yazid wrote to Uthman Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abi Sufyan that Abdullah Ibn Zubayr , who had then shown some willingness to give oath of allegiance to Yazid , be sent to Damascus only in chains. Ibn Zubayr upon hearing this retracted from his stance of giving oath.

Abdullah ibn Ja'far was persuading Yazid in Damascus to give up on the idea of chain but Yazid was adamant claiming that he had sworn to God that he would chain ibn Zubayr. Abdullah ibn Ja'far advised Yazid to make a chain of gold and silver so that ibn Zubayr won't feel humiliated but the idea did not work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
45 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

The argument was that Abdullah Ibn Ja'far associated with Yazid even after Karbala. Given the fact that he was the ex Husband of Zainab , his post Karbala stance clearly indicates that he was pro Ummayads.

I guess with that logic, Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) should be considered pro Ummayads since he worked with Muawiya on the Peace Treaty or Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was pro-kuffar because of Hudaibiya.

Associating with someone is different from endorsing someone or approving of their actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 2/19/2019 at 3:23 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

I agree with you. But you have to question the person who presented the absurd choice. Not the person answering the absurd choice.

Thanks and there was no absurd choice presented just a statement of fact. I am sure we will avoid the semantics.  

On 2/19/2019 at 3:23 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

The same principles are not being applied. I said the same thing about Ayatollah Safi Golpaygani but it was rejected because he was not a "qualified historian".

The same is being relied upon of going back to the primary or original source. Just our understanding and what we know bias. One needs to have read almost all the original sources and then texts based on those and other artifacts to build a historical picture as accurate as possible. We understand history might not have been kind to us in that we cannot even get some of the wiladat or shahadats dates right but first let us deal with what is present and then proposition our theories/conjectures into the scenarios as to why and why not.  After all even the sahih ahadith which convey an opposite meaning are not thrown away but are given reasons for according to the period  and time and circumstances placed in taqiyya as an example. Hope you get the reasoning of knowing the original sources. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I guess with that logic, Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) should be considered pro Ummayads since he worked with Muawiya on the Peace Treaty or Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was pro-kuffar because of Hudaibiya.

Associating with someone is different from endorsing someone or approving of their actions.

If I may interject, drawing up a treaty is different to working with or associating.  It is a wider ambit of saving human bloodshed. 

Don't worry brother I am in as much shock as you but we have to be brave and have to deal with things presented and in that some perceptions about some records might change.

My only question would be that does what Imam Mehdi(عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) says to us  hujjah or not, and even is it hujjah or not for the general Muslims?

For if and like it is because of being the Imam(عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) of our time, then surely Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) knew better than us that Imam Hasan(عليه السلام) was the hujjah of his time? It would be impossible to question the hujjah of his time.

In the same vein the fact of Fadak taking place is more important than the actual khutba.

On a personal level the recitation of salawat in the prayers is most indicative of succession in the ummah and then what the others did to obliterate that succession. 

We are here to derive understanding from each other and from the better lettered brothers. 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
12 hours ago, Leibniz said:

The argument was that Abdullah Ibn Ja'far associated with Yazid even after Karbala. Given the fact that he was the ex Husband of Zainab , his post Karbala stance clearly indicates that he was pro Ummayads.

Salam if he pro ummayds , he didn't allow to lady Zainab (sa) leaves him to suupport Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) , it's well documented when lady Zainab (sa) married with him she put a condition that if Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) goes to long travel  he divorces her that she can be with Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) but he for some reasons didn't associate Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) in his jouny to Kufa but divorced Lady Zainab (sa) based on her condition but he remained loyal to Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) until he died

Quote

Pledging Allegiance to 'Abd Allah b. Zubayr

According to al-Baladhuri, after Yazid's death, 'Abd Allah b. Ja'far pledged allegiance to 'Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr.

'Abd Allah had relations with 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan and was welcomed in his court. However, he was oppressed by 'Abd al-Malik and became poor in the last years of his life.

'Abd Allah b. Ja'far lived for few years in Basra, Kufa, Damascus, and finally resided in Medina.

Narrating Hadiths

'Abd Allah has narrated hadiths from the Prophet (s)Imam Ali (a) and his mother Asma' bt. 'Umays. Also, other narrators have quoted hadiths from him.

One of the hadiths that he narrated is the one about the revelation of the Verse of Tathir and that the Prophet rejected Lady Zaynab's request of becoming a member of Ahl al-Bayt (a) mentioned in the verse.

Wives

'Abd Allah married Zaynab (a) - the daughter of Imam Ali (a)- and had 5 children from her (4 sons -Ali, 'Abbas, 'AwnMuhammad, and a daughter named Umm Kulthum). He also married Layla bt. Mas'ud, while Zaynab (a) was alive. After her demise, he married her sister, Umm Kulthum.

http://en.wikishia.net/view/'Abd_Allah_b._Ja'far_b._Abi_Talib

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
49 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam if he pro ummayds , he didn't allow to lady Zainab (sa) leaves him to suupport Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) , it's well documented when lady Zainab (sa) married with him she put a condition that if Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) goes to long travel  he divorces her that she can be with Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) but he for some reasons didn't associate Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) in his jouny to Kufa but divorced Lady Zainab (sa) based on her condition but he remained loyal to Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) until he died

http://en.wikishia.net/view/'Abd_Allah_b._Ja'far_b._Abi_Talib

Ws , I would like to see the source of the claim that Zainab AS had put the condition and Abdullah ibn Ja'far diorced her on her own will. I have heard it many times but could not find it in any primary sources of history. After the dead of Yazid , amid all the chaos in the ranks of Ummayads , even Marwan was considering giving oath of allegiance to  Abdullah Ibn Zubayr. As far as Abdullah Ibn Ja'far's association with Ummayads , they are well established , so much so that he named a son of him Mua'viya 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...