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

Eid-e-Zahra Mubarak to All lovers of Ahlul Bayt (as)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators

Today is shahadat (martyrdom) of Imam Hassan al-Askari (11th Imam) AS in the US and Canada. Tomorrow is Eid. Please consult your local authorities in other countries for Islamic holy days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team

It is already Eid in Indo-Pak. 

Eid-e-Zehra (sa) Mubarak. The Samari of this nation left for his permanent abode to hell. Whenever he died, his death sure brought happiness to the house of Ahlul Bayt (عليهم اسلام). 

Please do not make this an issue.

Edited by Sirius_Bright
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
56 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

It is already Eid in Indo-Pak. 

Eid-e-Zehra (sa) Mubarak. The Samari of this nation left for his permanent abode to hell. Whenever he died, his death sure brought happiness to the house of Ahlul Bayt (عليهم اسلام). 

Please do not make this an issue.

Fabrication. Ahlul Bayt are not as petty as you and I. We want to impose our desires and validate them through Ahlul Bayt. You see Imam Ali being concerned for his killer, yet 3 generations down you are saying his grandson celebrated the death of killers? Inconsistent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

 

10 hours ago, 786:) said:

http://www.askthesheikh.com/is-the-so-called-eid-e-Zahra-fact-or-fiction/

this is answered by the esteemed Shaikh Bahmanpour. This eid is typically fueled by the lanat circus zakireen looking for a paycheck.

If Eid al Zehra is not a legit eid, why is there a reccomended ghusl listed for the 9th of Rabi ul Awwal in the Islamic Laws of Ayatollah Sistani? And even more surprising than that is that in the footnotes this same mustahab ghusls section in Ayatollah Sistani's Islamic laws, the 9th of Rabi ul Awwal is called Eid al Zehra...

Brother @Ibn al-Hussain please explain this if you can.

You can see what I'm talking about: 

https://www.Sistani.org/english/book/48/2190/

Ruling 634. In the course of explaining recommended ghusls, jurists have mentioned many other ghusls, including:

1. the ghusl for each of the odd nights of the month of Ramadan, and the ghusl for each of the last ten nights of Ramadan, and another ghusl at the end of the 23rd night of Ramadan;
2. the ghusl for the 24th of Dhū al-Ḥijjah;(4)
3. the ghusl for the Eid of Nawrūz,(5) 15th of Shaʿbān,(6) 9th of Rabīʿ al-Awwal,(7) 17th of Rabīʿ al-Awwal,(8) and the 25th day of Dhū al-Qaʿdah;(9)

...

(1) The 1st of Shawwāl.

(2) The 10th of Dhū al-Ḥijjah.

(3) These days are known as the days of Tarwiyah and ʿArafah.

(4) The day of Mubāhalah.

(5) The day of the spring equinox.

(6) The birthday of the Twelfth Holy Imam (ʿA).

(7) Eid al-Zahrāʾ (ʿA).

(8) The birthday of Prophet Muḥammad (Ṣ) and Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (ʿA).

(9) The day of Dahw al-Arḍ.

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

reccomended ghusl listed for the 9th of Rabi ul Awwal in the Islamic Laws of Ayatollah Sistani? And even more surprising than that is that in the footnotes this same mustahab ghusls section in Ayatollah Sistani's Islamic laws, the 9th of Rabi ul Awwal is called Eid al Zehra...

Salam we celebrate it for becoming Imam Mahdi (aj) as our Imam  based on policy of 'being sad for martyrdom and griveness  & being happy for their happines' but rest of fabrications like as insulting to Sunni respected figures & calling it as 'Eid  Al Zahra ' comes from certain Shia  cults with weired beliefs that are hurting Imam Mahdi (aj) heart with their insults to other Muslims & rest of their bizarre actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

18 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

insulting to Sunni respected figures & calling it as 'Eid  Al Zahra ' comes from certain Shia  cults with weired beliefs

@Ashvazdanghe those Sunni figures may be respected for the Sunnis, and so we won't disrespect them in front of the faces of Sunni people. However, in our own hearts, I hope we both have nothing but disrespect and hate for them. Maybe to be more clear next time, you can write, "those figures which Sunnis respect" instead of "Sunni respected figures", because the latter is a little ambiguous (which can be a problem) if you understand what I'm saying...

Also brother, you see what you're doing here, you are describing groups of your own fellow Shia as "cults with wierd beliefs"? Why? On one hand you are respecting those who love and praise the ones who usurped the rights of and oppressed the ahle bayth (a) and on the other hand, while doing the respecting of the group I just described above, you're referring to your fellow believers as cults with wierd beliefs.

I understand sometimes there are a few groups of our Shia who can act cult-like and have weird beliefs, but here, I think the way you've said it is not really that acceptable.

Edited by AStruggler
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare

If Shia of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) chose a day for something.   A day of unity among the Shia of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) should be celebrated.

Refraining/abstaining and Remembrance are aligned with the concepts of  Eid al-Fitr and  Eid al-Adha. Here we have both elements in these two months and eight days. 

So, its a day of officially, in a united way across the globe to move to normalcy. ( Muharram never really ends ).

Not sure, why would this be a concern or agitation to any one. 

http://www.duas.org/eidzehra.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
21 hours ago, 786:) said:

Fabrication. Ahlul Bayt are not as petty as you and I. We want to impose our desires and validate them through Ahlul Bayt. You see Imam Ali being concerned for his killer, yet 3 generations down you are saying his grandson celebrated the death of killers? Inconsistent. 

Wait.. You're the same guy who has problem with celebrating Ghadeer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
22 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Excellent article. Happy Eid for the beginning of the Imamat of the 12th Imam, may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) hasten his reappearance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 11/7/2019 at 2:45 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 

Quote

The killing of ‘Umar and the Lifting of the Pens

The killing of ‘Umar and as well as the angels lifting up their pens, have both been mentioned in one narration that has been recorded in the works of some mainstream Shi’I scholars. The narration speaks of two individuals (who are completely unknown and no information regarding them exists in biographical works and history books) disputing over ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (or in some books it says Abu al-Khattab Muhammad bin Abi Zaynab the founder of the extremist Khattabiyah sect). They make their way to Ahmad bin Ishaq, a companion of Imam al-‘Askari, in the city of Qom while their visitation coincided with the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal. His female slave opens the door and informs them that Ahmad is celebrating the day as a day of ‘Eid and that he informed her of the words of Imam al-‘Askari considering this day to be the best of ‘Eids according to the Ahl ul-Bayt.

When they eventually meet Ahmad, they notice he has bathed specifically for this day and he begins to narrate a lengthy tradition from Imam al-‘Askari.  He describes his meeting with the Imam during one of the years, which also happened to coincide with the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal, and noticed that the Imam had informed those who were at his house to perfume themselves and wear new clothes. He questions the Imam about this, and the Imam begins to narrate a story from the time of the Prophet, which speaks of Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman meeting the Prophet and Imam Ali on a similar date while they were partaking in a meal with smiles on their faces, congratulating each other for the blessings of this day. Hudhayfa asks for the reason, and the Prophet informs him that this is the day on which Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) destroyed their enemies. The Prophet begins to inform Hudhayfa about the blessings that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has bestowed upon this day, and while relaying this, he mentions that Allah has also ordered the angels to lift their pens on the onset of this day, and to not record any sins of the Shi’as in honour of the Prophet and his successor.

Then the narrative changes to Hudhayfa, who says that he witnessed what the hypocrites did after the demise of the Prophet and when the second caliph died – on the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal – he visited Imam Ali to congratulate him. The Imam reminds him of the time when he visited them on a similar date and they were celebrating. He says that the celebration was to do with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) foretelling them about this day. The Imam proceeds to give about seventy names for this day, such as The Second Ghadeer, The Great Eid of Allah, The Day of Charity etc.

The narrative changes back to the two individuals who say that after having heard Ahmad narrate this report, they kissed his forehead and thanked Allah for having learned the virtues of this blessed day before dying.

Before going any further, since I will be mentioning certain authors and their books, it is befitting for the readers to be aware of the chronological order by year of when these individuals lived.

  • Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi: died 263 Hijri
  • Shaykh Saduq: 305 – 381 Hijri
  • Maymun ibn Qasim al-Tabarani (author of Majmu’ al-A’yad): 350/358 – 426/427 Hijri
  • Hashim ibn Muhammad Ali (author of Misbah al-Anwar): Alive in 558 Hijri
  • Ali ibn Ta’us (author of Iqbal al-A’mal): 589 – 664 Hijri
  • Ali ibn Ali ibn Ta’us (author of Zawaid al-Fawaid): 647 – 711 Hijri
  • Shaykh Hasan ibn Sulayman (author of al-Mukhtasar): Possibly before 742 – till after 802 Hijri
  • Shaykh Hurr al-Amili (author of Ithbat al-Huda): 1033 – 1104 Hijri
  • Allamah Majlisi (author of Bihar al-Anwar): 1037 – 1110 Hijri

The earliest book of a mainstream Shi’a scholar, in which this specific narration appears in is Misbah al-Anwar by Shaykh Hashim ibn Muhammad (scholar from 6th century Hijri but the book may have been written in 7th century Hijri)[1]. Its chain of narration is as follow:

قال: أخبرنا أبو محمد الحسن بن محمّد القمّي بالكوفة، قال: حدثّنا أبو بكر محمد بن جعدويه القزويني، وكان شيخاً صالحاً زاهداً (سنّهُ إحدى واربعين وثلاثمائة) صاعداً الى الحج، قال: حدثني محمد بن علي القزويني، قال: حدثنا الحسن بن الحسن الخالدي بمشهد أبي الحسن الرضا عليه السلام قال: حدثنا محمد بن العلاء الهمداني الواسطي و يحيى بن محمد جريح البغدادي قالا :تنازعنا في أمر أبي الخطّاب محمد بن زينب الکوفي فاشتبه علينا أمره فقصدنا جميعاً أبا علي أحمد بن إسحاق بن سعد الأشعري القمّي صاحب أبي الحسن العسکري عليه السلام بمدينته بقم

Shaykh Hashim said: Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Muhammad al-Qummi narrated to me in Kufa saying: Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ja’dawayh al-Qazwini – he was a righteous and ascetic scholar – narrated to me while on his way to Hajj (in the year 341 Hijri) saying: Muhammad bin Ali al-Qazwini narrated to me saying: Hasan bin al-Hasan al-Khalidi narrated to me in the shrine of Imam Ridha (عليه السلام) saying: Muhammad bin al-‘Ala al-Hamdani al-Wasiti and Yahya bin Muhammad Jarih al-Baghdadi both narrated to me saying: We were disputing regarding Abi al-Khattab Muhammad bin Zaynab al-Kufi, and his affair confused us. So we decided to go to Ahmad bin Ishaq bin Sa’ad al-Ash’ari al-Qummi the companion of Imam Hasan al-‘Askari (عليه السلام) in the city of Qom.

In this report, we see that the two main narrators (Muhammad bin al-‘Ala al-Hamdani and Yahya bin Muhammad Jarih[2] al-Baghdadi) who are completely unknown, are reporting the tradition to yet another unknown person by the name of Hasan al-Khalidi. In this report it says explicitly that the two individuals were arguing over Abi al-Khattab – rather than ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. We also do not know much about the life of the author himself, besides what is available through this book of his.

The next book that the narration exists is in al-Mukhtasar[3] of Shaykh Hasan bin Sulayman. This report has slight differences in its text, and its chain of narrators is cut severely short, however the two main reporters are the same, namely Muhammad bin al-‘Ala al-Hamdani and Yahya bin Jarih al-Baghdadi. The chain is as follow:

الشيخ الفاضل علي بن مظاهر الواسطي عن محمد بن العلا الهمداني الواسطي ويحيى بن جريح البغدادي

al-Shaykh al-Fadhil Ali bin Mazahir al-Wasiti from Muhammad bin al-‘Ala al-Hamdani al-Wasiti and Yahya bin Muhammad bin Jarih al-Baghdadi.

Over here, they are narrating this report to a person by the name of Ali bin Mazahir al-Wasiti (another unknown person).

The next book in which this report appears is Zawaid al-Fawaid of Ali ibn Ali ibn Ta’us, which we know of through Allamah Majlisi’s work Bihar al-Anwar. The chain of narrators is as follow:

رَوَى‏ ابْنُ‏ أَبِي‏ الْعَلَاءِ الْهَمْدَانِيُ‏ الْوَاسِطِيُ‏ وَ يَحْيَى بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حُوَيْجٍ الْبَغْدَادِيُّ

Ibn Abi al-‘Ala al-Hamdani al-Wasiti and Yahya bin Muhammad bin Huwayj al-Baghdadi narrate…

In Allamah Majlisi’s work Zaad al-Ma’ad, he records this tradition from Zawaid al-Fawaid and quotes additional words from Ali ibn Ali ibn Ta’us himself:

The author of Zawaid al-Fawaid said: I copied this narration from the handwriting of Ali bin Muhammad Tayy (رضي الله عنه)[4], and I found in other books various reports that are in line with this tradition, and I have relied on them. It is appropriate for the Shi’a to honour this day and express delight and happiness.[5]

The narration with Ali bin Mazahir in its chain (as recorded in al-Mukhtsar) has been briefly referenced by Shaykh Hurr al-Amili in his book Ithbat al-Huda[6] as well, however note the significant difference between this chain and the other ones:

ithbat al huda

And some of our scholars narrate in a treatise regarding the killing of ‘Umar, from Ali bin Mazahir al-Wasiti with a connected chain, from Muhammad bin Ali al-Hamdani from Hasan bin al-Husayn al-Samiri from Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi from Imam Hasan al-‘Askari.

In this chain, Yahya bin Muhammad is completely dropped and is replaced by another person by the name of Hasan al-Samiri (unknown). Two individuals are not reporting from Ahmad bin Ishaq in this chain, rather only one person (al-Samiri) is narrating from Ahmad bin Ishaq. Some have also mistakenly confused Ali bin Mazahir with Zayn ul-Din Ali bin ‘Izz al-Din Hasan bin Mazahir al-Hilli (8th century Hijri scholar), a student of Muhammad bin Hasan al-Hilli (son of Allamah Hilli and famously known as Fakhr al-Muhaqqiqeen). There is no evidence to suggest that it was him.

Other than the chain of narrators present in Misbah al-Anwar, the rest of the books all possess broken chains with gaps of 300 years and more, between their authors and the time when Ahmad bin Ishaq was living.

There also exists a great amount of inconsistencies in these chains. For example at one point Ali bin Mazahir is narrating from Muhammad bin al-‘Ala al-Hamdani al-Wasiti and Yahya bin Muhammad bin Jarih al-Baghdadi, who are in fact narrating the actual story of their visit to Ahmad bin Ishaq, whereas in Ithbat al-Huda, Ali bin Mazahir is narrating from Muhammad bin Ali al-Hamdani who then quotes from Hasan bin al-Husayn al-Samiri who narrates the tradition from Ahmad bin Ishaq. The names are not consistent and scriptural errors can also be witnessed, there is no mention of Yahya bin Muhammad in Shaykh Hurr al-Amili’s work at all and rather Hasan al-Samiri – a completely different and unknown individual – is mentioned in the chain.

Since we have not been able to identify who these individuals are, and with a gap of a few centuries between the authors and the unknown narrators, there is really no way to claim that we have a good level of assurance that this narration is reliable or that the wordings that have been recorded were indeed the words of Imam al-‘Askari, the Prophet, Imam Ali or any other individuals that have been referred to in the lengthy narration.

The narration also appears with another chain in an 11th century Hijri work, Anwar al-Nu’maniyah[7] of Sayyid Nematullah Jazairi, with a slightly different rendition of the text and a different chain. The author is supposedly quoting from Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari:

Narrated to us al-Amin al-Sayyid Abu al-Mubarak Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ardshir al-Dastani saying: Sayyid Abu al-Barakat bin Muhammad al-Jurjani narrated to us saying: Hibatullah al-Qummi (whose name was Yahya) narrated to us saying: Ahmad bin Ishaq bin Muhammad al-Baghdadi said: Narrated to us Hasan bin Hasan[8] al-Samiri who said: Myself and Yahya bin Ahmad bin Jarih al-Baghdadi decided to go to Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi who was a companion of Imam Hasan al-‘Askari in the city of Qom…

This chain when seen in light with the rest of the chains, once again has contradictions and inconsistencies. There are narrators that are both known and unknown (particularly the main narrators of the tradition) in this chain. In this narration, there is no mention of Muhammad bin al-‘Ala who is one of the individuals who supposedly visits Ahmad bin Ishaq with Yahya.

One last book by a mainstream Shi’I scholar that I will be mentioning in which this report is mentioned in with a different chain is al-‘Iqd al-Nadhid wa al-Durr al-Farid, of someone by the name of Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Qummi. Once again, not much is known about the author except that he authored this book. The book was written after 7th century Hijri and the chain on page 60 is as follow:

الحديث السادس والأربعون: عن الحسن بن الحسين السامري قال: كنت أنا ويحيى بن أحمد بن جريح البغدادي

Hadith Forty-Six: From Hasan bin al-Husayn al-Samiri who said: Myself and Yahya bin Ahmad bin Jarih al-Baghdadi

This chain is once again broken and shows similar inconsistency. A chart depicting the chains from the 6 books mentioned is presented below so the readers can see the inconsistencies (please note that all the individuals are unknown except Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi):

Hadith Chains

Before one can begin using a narration or a historical report, the most fundamental thing that needs to be attained, is a level of assurance that these words were essentially said. This is generally done either by looking at the chain of narrators and determining whether they were trustworthy individuals with good memories, or there exists sufficient contextual evidence, or redundancy in the same narration or its contents by multiple different individuals, to support the fact that these words were indeed said. With regards to this narration, after what we have witnessed, no reliable methodology will result in a level of assurance suggesting that this narration is reliable. In fact, the chains have major contradictions between each other whose result would be that the incident actually took place twice in exactly the same manner with different individuals. Names are dropped and added from book to book and even the names of the two main narrators who supposedly visit Ahmad bin Ishaq appear inconsistently. The hadith seems to have begun appearing in mainstream Shi’I works during the 6th century Hijri.

The Narration in an Earlier Work

This narration appears in one other book, earlier than any of the works mentioned above. It is a book authored by Abu Sa’eed Surur bin Qasim al-Tabarani (358 – 426 Hijri) by the name of Majmu’ al-A’yad. The author was a Nusayri, and a lot has been written and researched[9] about him, however it is outside the scope of this article to get into it. It suffices to say that he possessed leadership of the Nusayri community after Muhammad bin Ali al-Jali and al-Khasibi and would not be considered a mainstream Shi’I scholar by any definition.

The chain of narrators in this book is as follow:

حدثنا محمد بن محمد بن العبّاس الخراساني قال أخبرنا أبو علي احمد بن اسماعيل السليماني قال حدثنا الحسين بن أحمد بن شيبان القزويني قال حدّثني أبو أحمد بن علي الکهجشي قال حدثنا محمد بن العلاء الهمداني الواسطي و يحيی بن محمد بن جدع البغدادي قالا تنازعنا في باب أبي الخطاب

Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al-Abbas al-Khorasani narrated to us saying: Abu Ali Ahmad bin Ismail al-Sulaymani narrated to us saying: Husayn bin Ahmad bin Shayban al-Qazwini narrated to us saying: Abu Ahmad bin Ali al-Kahjashi narrated to me saying: Muhammad bin al-‘Ala al-Hamdani al-Wasiti and Yahya bin Muhammad bin Jad’ al-Baghdadi narrated to me saying: There was a dispute between us regarding Abi al-Khattab.

Regarding Ahmad bin Isma’il al-Sulaymani, he appears in the book Kifayah al-Athar of Ali bin Muhammad al-Khazaz and so does Husayn bin Ahmad bin Shayban al-Qazwini. The latter is considered a Shaykh ul-Ijazah and has also been mentioned in Tarikh Baghdad (Volume 8, #3991) of Khatib Baghdadi. The rest of the individuals are unknown.

This is perhaps the earliest work we have today in which this narration can be found (with many inconsistencies throughout the text). The book itself essentially lists out the important days and dates during the year, alongside any corresponding acts of worship or supplications. The narration appearing in a book belonging to an extremist Shi’I sect with serious theological flaws, and a sect that was known for fabricating plenty of traditions, raises a lot of serious concerns. This fabricated tradition seems to crept its way into mainstream Shi’I works, which is something really not unheard of.

The discussion so far had to do with establishing the reliability of this tradition by looking at how this report has come down to us. We can confidently affirm that with many unknown individuals, inconsistencies present in the chains, names being misspelt or moved around, added or removed, and its earliest version found in a Nusayri text, there is no way to attain any level of assurance that this report is reliable.

Moving on to the content of this narration, it causes even more problems.  All credible – early or later – historians suggest that ‘Umar ibn Khattab died in the last few days of Dhi al-Hijjah. There does exists a difference of opinion with regards to the actual date, however, no early historian has ever suggested that he died in a different month. Ibn Idris al-Hilli writes that whoever from among the Shi’as confuse his death date with the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal is mistaken and is going against the unanimous opinion of all historians.[10] He further references the opinion of Shaykh Mufid to support his claim. This aforementioned report, which is completely solitary in its nature, is the only report that  we have at our disposal today which states the death of ‘Umar being the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal.

Another point in the narration that assists us in determining its fabricated nature is the remark regarding angels lifting up their pens so that no sins of ours will be recorded on the day. When the tradition is seen in light of having its roots in a Nusayri text, it makes contextual sense that they would fabricate something like this. Tabarani in one of his other famous works Kitab al-Ma’arif attributes many fabricated traditions to Imam Hasan al-‘Askari, one of them implying that God exempted His creatures from worshiping Him through religious commandments and only wanted them to know Him, for gnosis is the worship of God.[11] With beliefs in such pseudo-esotericism, it is very plausible that a concept such as lifting of the pen was fabricated so that men are not bound by Islamic laws that pertain to the exoteric aspect of one’s life.

It seems that the first scholar to insist on 9th Rabi’ al-Awwal being the death date of Umar was ‘Allamah Majlisi in his Bihar al-Anwar. He brings the opinions of numerous Shi’a scholars and admits that the famous opinion amongst the Shi’a Imamiyah scholars is that ‘Umar died in Dhi al-Hijjah, but in a strange statement, uses the fact that in his day and age, people believed (either referring to people in Isfahan or those living under the Safavid government in general) that he died on the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal, as support for this opinion and chooses this view over the other.

Ibn Ta’us does mention in his Iqbal al-A’maal that he saw a meritorious narration regarding the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal and that some people express happiness because they believe someone had been killed on this day. While he does not mention any names, from the rest of his discussion it is not far-fetched to assume that he is speaking about the killing of ‘Umar. In any case, this narration that Ibn Ta’us is referring to can’t be the one that we have already spoken about, because the narration he is speaking about is in one of the books of Shaykh Saduq who is reporting it from Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام). However, Ibn Ta’us does not mention the name of the book, nor the tradition. Since Ibn Ta’us is not convinced that this individual was killed on the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal and states that he has not found anything else reliable to confirm this tradition from Saduq, he attempts to make sense of the tradition by giving possible explanations. For example, he says that it is possible that when it is said this individual was killed on this day, it could metaphorically mean that his killer decided to kill him on this day, or that it was the day that his killer arrived in Medina, or it was the day that his killer left his own city to travel towards Medina. Ibn Ta’us even quotes the view of some others who have tried to explain it away by saying: it was the day that the report of the killing of this individual reached the city where Shaykh Saduq lived – although he refutes this explanation.[12]

Ibn Ta’us further suggests that if there is anything to be happy about, it would be that Imam al-Mahdi (عليه السلام) officially became the Imam on this day (as his father left the world on the 8th).

While there are reports that some people would celebrate the killing of ‘Umar in Kashan on this day (where there exists a grave attributed to Abu Lu’lu – though it is highly unlikely to be his actual grave), however at one point in history even that was done on the 26th of Dhi al-Hijjah.[13]

Historically speaking, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab being killed on the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal was never taken seriously by mainstream Shi’I scholars (since the majority did not believe he was killed on that day to begin with), let alone celebrate it for this reason. It was only during and after the Safavid dynasty that this practice found any fame.

https://www.iqraonline.net/celebrating-9th-rabi-al-awwal-what-for/

You do realize that if some one was killed on the last days of Dhu'l-Hijjah or alternatively Zulhijja is the twelfth and final month in the Islamic calendar.

Your entire premise and research is in conclusive and does not even address the most common sense outcome. You missed a point, for example " if someone indeed "wanted to celebrate, just after the last days of the 12 th month is 1st of Muharram. And from the first of Muharram till the 8 of Rabi Al-awwal there is no chance for any celebration. 

Not saying this is the reason, I do not know for sure-  just addressing the error in conclusion/deduction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 11/7/2019 at 3:45 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 

Quote

The Killing of ‘Umar ibn Sa’ad

The actual killing of ‘Umar ibn Sa’ad by Mukhtar has been described in a few history books.  However I was not able to find any early historical reference for him being killed on this specific day. The closest thing I was able to find was in Allamah Majlisi’s Zaad al-Ma’ad while discussing the merits of 9th Rabi’ al-Awwal, he writes one sentence in passing:

And some have said that on this day ‘Umar bin Sa’ad – may curse be upon him – was sent to Saqar (one of the names of hell). If this is the case, then this is also a sufficient reason for the nobility of this day.[16]

Majlisi is evidently not sure about this. Mukhtar’s reign was from around the middle of Rabi’ al-Awwal in 66 Hijri till the middle of Ramadhan in 67 Hijri (around 18 months). We also know that ‘Umar bin Sa’ad was killed in 66 Hijri through multiple sources. This means he never lived to see a 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal under Mukhtar’s reign.

Dhahabi in his book Tarikh al-Islam writes under the events that took place in the year 66 Hijri that some of the individuals who partook in the killing of Imam al-Husayn were killed this year, namely ‘Umar bin Sa’ad bin Abi Waqas, and Shimr bin Dhi al-Jawshan al-Dhababi and a group of others.[17] Ibn Kathir in his al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaya[18] documents the details of the killing of ‘Umar bin Sa’ad under the year 66 Hijri. Ibn Khaldun in his Tarikh writes that when Mukhtar was done with the killing in Kufa near the end of 66th Hijri, he sent Ibrahim bin Ashtar to go kill Ubaydallah bin Ziyad.[19] From Ansab al-Ashraf of Baladhuri we know that Ibrahim bin Ashtar began this journey in Dhi al-Hijjah of the 66th Hijri.[20] This means that Umar bin Sa’ad was killed between the middle of Rabi’ al-Awwal and Dhi al-Hijjah of the 66th century (most probably closer to Dhi al-Hijjah of 66th Hijri rather).

There are other historical events that can further help us confirm that ‘Umar bin Sa’ad was definitely killed before the 9th Rabi’ al-Awwal of 67th Hijri and that he never lived to see that day under Mukhtar’s reign, but it will unnecessarily lengthen the discussion and we will suffice with what has been written.

Again your focus is misdirected, does not matter which one of the Shayateen were killed. 

as the quote from duas.org implies 

"After years of grieving for Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and his companions (عليه السلام), it was this time of the year when Imam Ali bin Hussain Zainul Abideen (عليه السلام) had a smile on his face. He received the good news on that the great companion and true Shia, Al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafy has taken revenge for the Ahlul-bayt (عليه السلام) and killed off many of the criminals who tortured the Ahlul-bayt (عليه السلام) in Kerbala.  Today we salute this great companion for his services to the true Islam."

http://www.duas.org/eidzehra.htm

Who was killed on what day or which year or how many years after Karbala is not important, if the news ( if reached on that particular day ) of some sort of Worldly Justice carried out by Mukhtar, that brought the smile on the face of the Mas'oom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 11/7/2019 at 2:45 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 

Quote

The only event that remains is the beginning of the Imamate of al-Mahdi. While his Imamate would have definitely begun on the 8th of Rabi’ al-Awwal, but due to it being a day of mourning, it is befitting to postpone any celebrations to the following day and mark the symbolic beginning of the Imamate of al-Mahdi on the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal.

https://www.iqraonline.net/celebrating-9th-rabi-al-awwal-what-for/

Just so you know, coronation is not really our thing, it is more of the King/kingdom type thought process. Imam is a Imam by birth, if there are two Imams at one time,  one is silent. 

Nothing wrong in ending the mourning period on this day, but the thought process is not align with the concept of Imamate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 11/7/2019 at 3:45 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Because of Qa'idah al-Tasamuh: https://www.iqraonline.net/the-principle-of-leniency-in-evidences-for-non-obligatory-acts-and-its-jurisdiction/

You can read Shaykh al-Najafi's (Sahib al-Jawahir) discussion on it here: http://lib.eshia.ir/10088/5/43 starts from:

وأما الغسل للتاسع من ربيع الأول فقد حكي أنه من فعل أحمد بن إسحاق القمي معللا له بأنه يوم عيد 

As for Sayyid Sistani, though he and others do not believe in Qa'idah al-Tasamuh, they believe such apparently mustahabb acts (found in weak reports) can be done based on raja matlubiyyah (with the hope of getting a reward). Sayyid Sistani's statements in his Minhaj al-Saliheen (v. 1, pg. 111-112) is more precise:

هذه الأغسال قد ثبت استحبابها بدليل معتبر وهي تغني عن الوضوء، وهناك أغسال ُأخر ذكرها الفقهاء (رض) في الأغسال المستحبة، ولكنه لم يثبت عندنا استحبابها ولا بأس بالإتيان بها رجاءً، وهي كثيرة نذكر جملة منها

الغُسل في اليوم التاسع والسابع عشر من ربيع الأول

These (I.e. ghusls he is discussing on the previous pages) are ghusls whose Istihbab have been proven with reliable evidence, and they suffice for Wudhu; but there are other Mustahabb ghusls which the Fuqaha have mentioned, but their Istihbab have not been proven to us, but there is no problem in performing with with the intention of Raja' (hope) - there are many, we will mention a few: ....ghusl on the 9th and 17th of Rabi' al-Awwal.

This does not prove anything about the historical reality of the contents of the report. In fact, if you are sure that a certain report is fabricated, Qa'idah al-Tasamuh will not be applicable.

Wasalam

here is from Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu'I.

https://www.al-Islam.org/Islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/ceremonial-recommended-baths

"

652. The jurists have mentioned many more recommended baths some of which are as follows:

(I) Bath on all odd nights of the month of Ramzan and the bath on each of its last 10 nights and another bath in the last part of its 23rd night.

(ii) Bath on the 24th day of Z'il Hajj.

(iii) Bath on the day of Eid-I-Nawroz and the 15th of Sha'ban and 9th and 17th of Rabiul Awwal and the 25th day of Zil Qa'dah.

"

---------------------------------------------

you say

Quote

This does not prove anything about the historical reality of the contents of the report. In fact, if you are sure that a certain report is fabricated, Qa'idah al-Tasamuh will not be applicable.

Again, the focus is misdirected.

Sayyid Khoie and Sayyied Sistani both have it in their Islamic Law books.

There is some sort of Significance of 9th of Rabiul Awwal. This can't be denied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/6/2019 at 1:17 PM, Mahdavist said:

I enjoyed reading this article. It really tackled the topic in very detailed way, almost leaving no room for further doubts. I just have two comments for it:

My first comment is that quite a bit of people believe it was Hurmala who was killed on this day and so the 4th Imam (a) smiled for the first time after Karbala. However, this article didn't comment anything about this belief. 

Secondly, in the beginning of the article, it was mentioned how some people believe that the 4th Imam (a) became happy on this day (because omar bin saad died), however no direct comments were made about this (I.e. the special happiness of the 4th Imam (a) on this day) later on in the article. The whole point was rather simply refuted by arguing how omar bin saad could not have died under Hz Mukhtar's reign. I feel it would have been nicer too see some additional discussion, about if any actual reports exist on the 4th Imam (a) (or the women of bani hashim) becoming happy on this day. If there exists no such reports, then it would have been nice for it to have been stated so. Regardless, the exploration/"debunking" of any supposed evidence for the claim of the happiness of the 4th Imam (a) (and the women of bani hashim) would have been nice. @Ibn al-Hussain

Edited by AStruggler
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, AStruggler said:

My first comment is that quite a bit of people believe it was Hurmala who was killed on this day and so the 4th Imam (a) smiled for the first time after Karbala. However, this article didn't comment anything about this belief. 

Most of the stories about who was killed on this day and what happened on this day in context of Mukhtar are really just stories without any backing. The works of history detail out what happened during Mukhtar's reign in detail and anyone can go and read them. Most of these stories told today are even worse than some of the stories that get told during Muharram because those stories - even if they are later fabrications - can still be found in at least some works albeit just a few centuries old. But some of the stories surrounding 9th of Rabi' are nothing but folklore. 

Quote

Secondly, in the beginning of the article, it was mentioned how some people believe that the 4th Imam (a) became happy on this day (because omar bin saad died), however no direct comments were made about this (I.e. the special happiness of the 4th Imam (a) on this day) later on in the article.

There is a tradition that says when Mukhtar sent the heads of the killers, the women of Bani Hashim began to beautify themselves and so on. But all of that was irrelevant to my discussion because I was not concerned with whether they did that or not. My point was to show that even if they did do something like that, it simply didn't (and rather couldn't have) happened on the 9th of Rabi' al-Awwal.

Anyways, I do want to update the article a bit, with some more details I haven't covered and perhaps also a section discussing its relevance to Qa'idah al-Tasamuh and so on. I wrote this article almost 4 years ago and since then my writing style has also improved a lot more and I think I can make the article read a bit better and more fluent than it currently does.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/6/2019 at 7:28 PM, 786:) said:

This eid is typically fueled by the lanat circus zakireen looking for a paycheck.

May Allah curse the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) who are the enemies of the Prophet saw and the enemies of Allah sub.

May Allah curse them day and night, all day, everyday. 

 

I'll get my paycheque from the Haqq almighty thank you very much. 

Edited by Moalfas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

This is not a debate topic, although some posts have been serious and informative. It is a happy thread: Eid Mubarak, Happy Eid, etc. Posts that are off-topic, rude, name-calling, insensitive, critical of Mods, etc., will not be approved. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Eid-e-Zahra Mubarak brothers and sisters! :)

For those disputing the validity of this occasion, please check out this sermon where the sheikh goes into detail about Eid-e-Zahra:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/6/2019 at 12:40 PM, Moalfas said:

عيد الزهراء عليها السلام مبارك 

9th Rabee Awwal 

Eid Al Zahara (عليه السلام) &

The first day of the Imamat of Al Hujja Al Mehdi (ajf)

Mubarak to All sisters, brothers, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and all of Allah's creations! 

NARAAAYYYYY

HAIDERIII

YAAAAA Ali 

IMG_7408.JPG

YA ALIiiiii HAQ HAIDERR

You too brother and everyone

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

Photos: Imam Hasan al-Askari mourning ceremony at office of Ayatollah Safi Golpaygani

https://en.abna24.com/news//photos-Imam-Hasan-al-askari-mourning-ceremony-at-office-of-ayatollah-safi-golpaygani_986496.html

November 7, 2019 - 4:24 PM News Code : 986496 Source : ABNA24Link: 

 

Ahlul Bayt News Agency (ABNA): Mourning ceremony for martyrdom anniversary of Imam Hasan al-Askari (عليه السلام) held at office of Grand AyatollahSafi Golpaygani in Qom.

گزارش تصویری/ مراسم عزاداری در دفتر آیت‌الله صافی گلپایگانی در سالروز شهادت امام حسن عسکری(ع)

 

گزارش تصویری/ مراسم عزاداری در دفتر آیت‌الله صافی گلپایگانی در سالروز شهادت امام حسن عسکری(ع)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
1 hour ago, Kaya said:

For those disputing the validity of this occasion, please check out this sermon where the sheikh goes into detail about Eid-e-Zahra:

Salam it's your assumption but this video doesn't approve your assumption that sheikh talks about Ashura celebration that I don't see any relation to this Eid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam it's your assumption but this video doesn't approve your assumption that sheikh talks about Ashura celebration that I don't see any relation to this Eid. 

Around minute ~3 he talks about Eid-e-Zahra

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

Around minute ~3 he talks about Eid-e-Zahra

anyway it doesn't relate to cursing second caliph based on weak narrations that currently his name mixed with Umar ibn sa'ad (la) . 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Ashvazdanghe said:

anyway it doesn't relate to cursing second caliph based on weak narrations.

The Sheikh in the video is a follower of Sayeed Sistani. Not everyone who celebrates Eid-e-Zahra curses the second Sunni caliph, this is exaggerated misconception.

The Sheikh relates the celebration to the events that occured 5 years after Karbala, where Omar ibn Saad was killed. Omar ibn Saad was one of the people who fought against Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) at Karbala.

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

The Sheikh in the video is a follower of Sayeed Sistani. Not everyone who celebrates Eid-e-Zahra curses the second Sunni caliph, this is exaggerated misconception.

The Sheikh relates the celebration to the events that occured 5 years after Karbala, where Omar ibn Saad was killed. Omar ibn Saad was one of the people who fought against Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) at Karbala.

I know it but I talk about current one that is celebrating by misusing name of the 'Eid al Zahra' for hurting Sunnis & causing disunity between Shias & Sunnis not for celebration death of Umar ibn Sa'ad (la) that similarity between his name &second caliph make an excuses for fabricators to drive this Eid to wrong way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
Quote

All credible – early or later – historians suggest that ‘Umar ibn Khattab died in the last few days of Dhi al-Hijjah. There does exists a difference of opinion with regards to the actual date, however, no early historian has ever suggested that he died in a different month.

https://www.iqraonline.net/celebrating-9th-rabi-al-awwal-what-for/

"Analysis of a sandstone inscription found in 2008,[8] determined that it reads: "In the name of Allah/ I, Zuhayr, wrote (this) at the time 'Umar died/year four/And twenty." It is worthwhile pointing out that caliph Umar bin al-Khattāb died on the last night of the month of Dhūl-Hijjah of the year 23 AH, and was buried next day on the first day of Muharram of the new year 24 AH, corresponding to 644 CE. Thus the date mentioned in the inscription (above) conforms to the established and known date of the death of ʿUmar bin al-Khattāb.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam

The translation of the inscription [Figure 1(a)] is:

In the name of God

I, Zuhayr, wrote [this] at the time ʿUmar died in the year four

and twenty (I.e., 24 AH).

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

--------------

Is the above correct based on your research?

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...