Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
SyedOfBarha

Rock inscriptions by Zaid ibn Hasan (as)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The study of rock inscriptions near Makka and Medina is shedding new light on the early history of Islam.  A Saudi archeologist who is documenting these ancient rock inscriptions recently reported a few inscriptions produced by the hand of Imam Hasan's (عليه السلام) son Zaid (رضي الله عنه).

Video:  https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1104121236895031296/pu/vid/720x720/tOdWHAvCT9Bi-z58.mp4

To my knowledge, of the few thousand inscriptions found thus far dating back to the early years of Islam, this is the only one in the hand writing of a member of the Ahlul-Bayt (عليه السلام). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam , it looks like a fabrication first handwriting are very similar to current Arabic writing 

second if it was from Zaid ibn Hasan (رضي الله عنه) he would confess to Wialayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & was sending blessing to Prophet Muhammd (pbu) progeny but it's very similar what Sunnis say in their writing that they don't mention progeny of Prophet Muhammad (pbu)

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Zayd_b._al-Imam_al-Hasan_(a)

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam , it looks like a fabrication first handwriting are very similar to current Arabic writing 

second if it was from Zaid ibn Hasan (رضي الله عنه) he would confess to Wialayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & was sending blessing to Prophet Muhammd (pbu) progeny but it's very similar what Sunnis say in their writing that they don't mention progeny of Prophet Muhammad (pbu)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam , it looks like a fabrication first handwriting are very similar to current Arabic writing 

second if it was from Zaid ibn Hasan (رضي الله عنه) he would confess to Wialayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & was sending blessing to Prophet Muhammd (pbu) progeny but it's very similar what Sunnis say in their writing that they don't mention progeny of Prophet Muhammad (pbu)

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Zayd_b._al-Imam_al-Hasan_(a)

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mesopotamian Archer

Hello.

This is an old epistle/treatise, inscribed in the 6th century AD:

Muhammad_Bahrain_letter_facsimile.png

Share this post


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

Salam , it looks like a fabrication first handwriting are very similar to current Arabic writing 

Salam, are you saying that the handwriting of this inscription looks very similar to modern Arabic writing? 

An expert in textual analysis (philology) would have to weigh in and tell us if this is a forgery.  Point is that thousands of such inscriptions have been found in and around the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.  Are they all forgeries?  Why would someone chose to forge an inscription for Zaid bin Hasan's (عليه السلام)? 

10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

second if it was from Zaid ibn Hasan (رضي الله عنه) he would confess to Wialayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & was sending blessing to Prophet Muhammd (pbu) progeny but it's very similar what Sunnis say in their writing that they don't mention progeny of Prophet Muhammad (pbu)

 

Perhaps taqaiyya could be a reason for not openly acknowledging the status of Ahulul Bayt (عليه السلام).

Share this post


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

Salam , it looks like a fabrication first handwriting are very similar to current Arabic writing 

second if it was from Zaid ibn Hasan (رضي الله عنه) he would confess to Wialayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & was sending blessing to Prophet Muhammd (pbu) progeny but it's very similar what Sunnis say in their writing that they don't mention progeny of Prophet Muhammad (pbu)

I should add, these inscriptions have been studied by experts.  A couple of links where you can pursue this topic:

"Almaghthawi and his colleagues have found thousands of rock inscriptions in the Hejaz, especially around Medina, that appear to be from the first and second centuries of the Hijra (622-815 AD).  These epigraphic witnesses to early Islam promise a revolution in our understanding of the subject."

https://www.Islamic-awareness.org/history/Islam/inscriptions/haram1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Guest Mesopotamian Archer said:

his is an old epistle/treatise, inscribed in the 6th century AD:

 

 

4 hours ago, Guest Mesopotamian Archer said:

This is an old epistle/treatise, inscribed in the 6th century AD:

 Muhammad_Bahrain_letter_facsimile.png

Hello, thanks for posting this famous document.  It has been studied by modern scholars of Arabic and been shown to be a forgery.  The rock inscriptions on the other hand have passed scrutiny. 

The following analysis of this letter was published recently by the recognized expert Marijn van Putten who is an Historical Linguist working on Quranic Arabic and the linguistic history of Arabic at Leiden University.  The analysis shows how the study of historical texts (philology) is used by modern scholars to sift out forgeries from authentic documents.

Quote

 

There are several letters of the Prophet to several heads of state, which have been recorded in literary sources.  There are some documents out there, which are said to be the actual letters mentioned in these sources.  Scholars rightly take these to be forgeries.  Here's why:
 
First, in some orthographic aspects, it is *much* too modern.  All throughout the early Islamic papyri there was only one spelling of salām:  سلم، السلم  NEVER سلام، السلام.
 
The shape of the rāʾ is wrong.  In the early first century this is consistently a small semi-circle that ascends above and descends below the baseline.  In these forgeries it has the modern shape.
 
The final dāl is too 'Kufic'.  Early manuscripts have much less broad dāls.  The 'uptick' is also missing.
 
The forger seems to be unaware of the fact that word-final kāf is different from word-final dāl and writes it in the same "hyperkufic" manner.  It should have an upward stroke in final position.
 
And this one is funny:  We would be required to assume the Prophet spoke Fuṣḥā with a Turkish accent.  He writes al-munḏir as المنزر!  He slips up again for allaḏī which he writes as الزى.  Oops!  This can probably give us an idea where the forger was from.
 
A final reason to be skeptical about these forgeries is that they are *verbatim* the letters as we find in the literary sources.  It is unlikely that the literary sources retained the letters (if they existed, and they may have) and reproduced them down to the last letter.

So from this it should be clear that we *do not* have letters from the Prophet.  These are clearly modern forgeries.  This does not mean that the letters mentioned in the literary sources are fake:  They may have existed, but we only have those sources as proof of them.

Source:  https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1115340718711635970

 

 
 

Share this post


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

Perhaps taqaiyya could be a reason for not openly acknowledging the status of Ahulul Bayt (عليه ا

He was a well known person in his community & everyone knew about his family & lineage 

 

1 hour ago, SyedOfBarha said:

I should add, these inscriptions have been studied by experts.  A couple of links where you can pursue this topic:

"Almaghthawi and his colleagues have found thousands of rock inscriptions in the Hejaz, especially around Medina, that appear to be from the first and second centuries of the Hijra (622-815 AD).  These epigraphic witnesses to early Islam promise a revolution in our understanding of the subject."

https://www.Islamic-awareness.org/history/Islam/inscriptions/haram1

Also they can’t be a proof Because  Saudi monarchies are creating many forgeries in Mecca & Medina also their policy is to let all Shia proofs to be destroyed by natural causes & they don’t preserve it but they are preserving & forging signs & remaining of sites that were belonging to their enemies of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)   for example they turned Saqifa place to a museum that they preseve in it some belongings of enemies of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) & some idols in name of museum show , but they let places like as Qadir Khum , Fadak & Khaybar became ruins by nature & they don’t care about preservation that places 

https://hajjumrahplanner.com/saqifah-bani-saidah/

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Incident_of_Saqifa

https://images.app.goo.gl/kqWFvC56wYD7cDeYA

https://images.app.goo.gl/bowiaPKHDsjzUwDu8

http://greendeensa.org/saqifah-bani-saeda/

Share this post


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

He was a well known person in his community & everyone knew about his family & lineage 

Sure, but it's one thing to be a member of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) and another to actively assert their political rights (wilayah included) over the rights of their opponents. In fact the wiki page you shared says that Ziad (رضي الله عنه) practiced taqaiyya.

 

24 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Also they can’t be a proof Because  Saudi monarchies are creating many forgeries in Mecca & Medina also their policy is to let all Shia proofs to be destroyed by natural causes & they don’t preserve it but they are preserving & forging signs & remaining of sites that were belonging to their enemies of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)

Are the Saudis forging these rock inscriptions, thousands as they are in number?  I seriously doubt that.  The inscriptions have been studied by independent Western experts, using techniques of textual analysis, as well as other techniques such as examination of the coloration of the inscriptions.  Saudi forgery experts cannot deceive so many academic experts who have been involved in studying these inscriptions.

What you say about Saudis destroying archeological sites related to the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) is true and undisputed.  Could they be destroying rock inscriptions that exalt the status and rights of the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)?  Quite possible.  But just because this particular inscription does not include a durood or salawat on Ahul Bayt (عليه السلام), though surprising to an extent, doesn't prove it's forged.  It in fact begs a question: when do we see the first documented (written) evidence of durrood including mention of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)?  Perhaps Shia-style durrod was not as common back then in written texts as we might assume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...