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  
Mortadakerim

Abu Hanifa

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Perhaps you read the rest of of what I've written as well. That the Sahaba went to war with each other, killed one another, and fought with one another is indicative of something contrary to an accepted narrative.

The point is that you exceed this backwards to a period BEFORE the wars as well. 

I believe that such an approach is insincere and irrational.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

All the while we can clearly understand from the evidence there was a problem with succession and early Muslims were aware of it, no matter how we might try to reconcile that now.

There were disagreements but these did not lead to wars, rebellions or insurrections.

There were even interactions between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his predecessors concerning governmental and judicial matters which proofs that things were blown up and over-exaggerated later on.

To support and assist a government which is usurped and considered to be the greatest fitna in Islam is a terrible contradiction.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


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

There were disagreements but these did not lead to wars, rebellions or insurrections.

There were even interactions between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his predecessors concerning governmental and judicial matters which proofs that things were blown up and over-exaggerated.

It's not exactly just a few disagreements when we have evidence that one claimed evidence to leadership but was strong armed into giving up his claim by the other, that it's reported that his house was attacked and wife killed in that attack, that the earliest evidence for this written down is a generation afterwards during the lifetime of his sons and that book seems to have been accepted by the early Shias, close associates of his grandsons and great grandsons (regardless of its own authenticity the content was acceptable to early Shia), that early Sunni scholars attempted to fabricate a different chronology to rectify issues, and that his being strong armed and coerced would end opportunities for further conflicts. It's true, Imam Ali didn't get to fight for a right of his he asserted, but there clearly seems to be a reason. Abu Bakr and Umar didn't have an issue coercing him to relinquish his claim and recognize their's after a prolonged gap in pledging allegiance. Now of course you'll say that these aren't accepted by Muslim scholars (read: Sunni scholars working within a Sunni framework and attempting to ensure its survival). The issue is that:

  1. Reports of such a conflict appeared early and circulated among Shias close with the family of Ali
  2. We have further accounts from the family of Ali and from their Shias attesting to this
  3. A period existed wherein Ali didn't pledge allegiance and this struck historians as problematic leading to fabrications of accounts of what happened after the Prophet's death
  4. A clear schism between the followers of Ali and the followers of the three Caliphs (with further groups within these schisms, such as Uthmanids), I think the account reported by Abu Mikhnaf of Nafi' b. Hilal al-Jamali, killed at Karbala, saying he is on the religion of Ali and saying that the soldier whom he came to fight who claimed he is on Uthman's religion is really on the religion of Shaytan
  5. After a moment of significant trauma after which comes the allegiance
  6. And the actual reports we have about this incident seem to fill in what happened, and these reports aren't exclusive to Shii sources

Imam Ali advising Umar about his bad legal rulings doesn't undo the above, it doesn't undo the many reports of dissatisfaction attributed to Ali, and it doesn't undo the fundamental problems of Sunni hadith science attempting to ensure the survival of a Sunni orthodoxy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Both Sunni and Shia historians agree that there wasn't any fighting between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the first three caliphs (رضي الله عنه).

No. Shiʾa historians agreed that they despised each other, and I’ve already shown you. They even narrated that he cursed them! (I repeat, those are not my words).

In Biḥār ʿal-Anwār, volume 53, page 31.

That the Commander of the Believers said: “May Allah curse Ibn ʿal-Ḵḫāṭṭab, if it weren’t for him, no one would’ve committed fornication, except the wretched [of men and women...]”

8G2y5ud.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

It's true, Imam Ali didn't get to fight for a right of his he asserted, but there clearly seems to be a reason.

As I already said, we do agree that he (عليه السلام) accepted or at least stayed silent.

The neverending discussion is about WHY he (عليه السلام) did so.

As his attitude is decisive and should be taken as the criterium, unfortunately for those who believe in the traditional interpretation of imamate, it wasn't in favor but actually at the expense of it.

Rather his attitude was in defense of the institution of the caliphacy which he (عليه السلام) never opposed when not in charge and which he (عليه السلام) defended accordingly when in charge after his election.

During all his life he (عليه السلام) never acted otherwise.

To raise question marks and assume or  guess what his intentions were is a blank space that can be filled in by anyone.

While I believe that we should judge by the established and explicit facts without any.ambiguity as those are all we have.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 12:50 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

It's not exactly just a few disagreements when we have evidence that one claimed evidence to leadership but was strong armed into giving up his claim by the other, that it's reported that his house was attacked and wife killed in that attack, that the earliest evidence for this written down is a generation afterwards during the lifetime of his sons and that book seems to have been accepted by the early Shias, close associates of his grandsons and great grandsons (regardless of its own authenticity the content was acceptable to early Shia), that early Sunni scholars attempted to fabricate a different chronology to rectify issues, and that his being strong armed and coerced would end opportunities for further conflicts. It's true, Imam Ali didn't get to fight for a right of his he asserted, but there clearly seems to be a reason. Abu Bakr and Umar didn't have an issue coercing him to relinquish his claim and recognize their's after a prolonged gap in pledging allegiance. Now of course you'll say that these aren't accepted by Muslim scholars (read: Sunni scholars working within a Sunni framework and attempting to ensure its survival). The issue is that:

  1. Reports of such a conflict appeared early and circulated among Shias close with the family of Ali
  2. We have further accounts from the family of Ali and from their Shias attesting to this
  3. A period existed wherein Ali didn't pledge allegiance and this struck historians as problematic leading to fabrications of accounts of what happened after the Prophet's death
  4. A clear schism between the followers of Ali and the followers of the three Caliphs (with further groups within these schisms, such as Uthmanids), I think the account reported by Abu Mikhnaf of Nafi' b. Hilal al-Jamali, killed at Karbala, saying he is on the religion of Ali and saying that the soldier whom he came to fight who claimed he is on Uthman's religion is really on the religion of Shaytan
  5. After a moment of significant trauma after which comes the allegiance
  6. And the actual reports we have about this incident seem to fill in what happened, and these reports aren't exclusive to Shii sources

Imam Ali advising Umar about his bad legal rulings doesn't undo the above, it doesn't undo the many reports of dissatisfaction attributed to Ali, and it doesn't undo the fundamental problems of Sunni hadith science attempting to ensure the survival of a Sunni orthodoxy. 

When u say early Shias , who exactly are we referring to? And which book are you referring to ?

 

Where is the clear schisms between followers of Ali and first 2 caliphs ? Other than at the time of saqifa which seemed to fade after Imam pledged allegiance (per Sunni accounts)

Please elaborate,  I would be very interested to know esp interested in ubay b ka'b support of Ali at time of saqifa 

Also wasn't din e Ali not different from din e Muhammad ?  as Ali killed amr yathrabi after jamal for saying they were different according to atleast one account 

Also why did opponent of nafi b hilal not say I'm on religion of Abu Bakr /Umar rather than Uthman suggest some possibilities like first 2 caliph were not so polarizing as we think today BUT Ali and Uthman were 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 12:19 PM, Faruk said:

Both Sunni and Shia historians agree that there wasn't any fighting between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the first three caliphs (رضي الله عنه).

The fights between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his opponents that took place later on were 1) of a defensive character and 2) were only about his election by the jamat according to the norms and standards of caliphacy which he (عليه السلام) accepted and took its responsibility.

This makes the concept of imamate questionable and leaves space for other interpretations of imamate.

As I said over and over again. Imamate is rather a matter of consent than  explicit rulership as rulership was transferable in the case of the first three caliphs (رضي الله عنه) and Muawiya.

Yet its legitimacy depended on the consent of the Imams which was at the expense of Yazid.

 

 

Oversimplification but 

12er imami accounts will definitely tend to favor reports that highlite negative attitudes towards first 2 caliphs by Ali 

While harmonizing Sunni accounts tend to portray them as besties almost always on the same page on every issue 

Truth will likely be never be known for sure as we have no first hand accounts but reasonable to say relationships between Ali and first 2 caliphs varied from open hostility at times  to courteous cooperation on matters of mutual benefit.

Imam Ali perception of what his right was wrt leadership may be very different to what later Shias [ I.e after 1st century hijra] may consider as rightful leadership but the paucity of accounts preserved from the first generation of Muslims we are left to bicker over the sources available to us 

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

While harmonizing Sunni accounts tend to portray them as besties almost always on the same page on every issue

Not always.

In ʿal-Sunnāh, volume 3, page 505, ḥādith (809), by ʿal-Ḵḫāllal.

809 - Narrated Muḥāmad bin ʿAli, from ʿal-Āthrām that he said:

I heard Abʾa Abdillāh - Ahmad bin Ḥānbal - and the ḥādith of Āqil, from ʿal-Zuhrī, from Ūrwā, from Aisha, from the Prophet about ʿAli and ʿal-Abbas, and [the ḥādith of] Āqil, from ʿal-Zuhrī, that Abʾa Bākr ordered Ḵḫālid on ʿAli was mentioned to him, so he said: “What?” so, when he knew what it was, he said: “I don’t like for this to be written in the aḥādith.”

The muḥāqiq (commentator) of the book said below this ḥādith under the highlighted footnote (10): “And the isnād of Ahmad’s speech is ṣāḥih.”

The phrase that’s used here, “ordered so-and-so person on him,” is a metaphor in the Arabic language that indicates to killing, especially given the context.

qlKwoyu.jpg

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...