The First Fitnah (part 2)
Please read this if you havent.
Part 1 can be found here.
Again translated from Qasas-ul-Anmbia by Tabari.
The Ansars had made a highly personal oath of loyalty to the Prophet (SAW) and now that their chosen chief was no more, they wanted to choose a new one. Hazrat Omar (RA) was advised to leave the Ansars to their own deliberations and call their own meeting of Muhajireen. By now, Hazrat Omar (RA) had regained his poise and decided to meet the Ansars. They arrived at a critical position where they wanted to have a successor from Medina. In a measured, calm voice, Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) repeated the Prophet’s (SAW) praise for the men of medina but insisted that the Caliph must be Prophet’s (SAW) own tribe, from the sacred city of Mecca. Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) said to the crowd, ‘I nominate Omar (RA) and Abu Ubaida as the successor. Choose any one of them. I would be pleased with either of them.’ This intriguing suggestion was broken by Hazrat Omar (RA), who roared out, ‘Who will willingly take precendence over the man who the Prophet (SAW) ordered to lead the prayer?’ It was an unanswerable assertion. Hazrat Omar (RA) made use of the brief silence to quickly seize the hand of Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) and pledge public allegiance to him followed by the rest of the Muhajireen that accompanied them.
Warning: Please skip this if you are one of those who think that there are certain portions of history which sunnis should not be reading.
From there, Hazrat Omar (RA) went to Hazrat Ali (RA) where Hazrat Talha (RA), Hazrat Zubair (RA) and several other muhajireen were present. Hazrat Omar (RA) said, ‘Come and show your allegiance to Abu Bakar (RA).’ They did not seem willing and this angered Hazrat Omar (RA) who threatened them saying, ‘I will torch the house bringing it down to ashes.’ As a response, Hazrat Zubair (RA) took out his sword to attack Hazrat Omar (RA) but as he scurried towards Hazrat Omar (RA), he fell on the floor.
Wiki has an article on this, which can be read here.
I cross-checked to see who accompanied Hazrat Omar (RA) and Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) in this meeting with Ansars, most books simply mention other Muhajireen. Further, I also checked the validity of the nominations, nowhere it is mentioned that Hazrat Ali (RA) was nominated by Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA)
this, they did not tell us in school!
which part? the first one is pretty much there in all books, its the second part which most people usually dont talk about.
Hazrat Ali (A.S.) was not appointed by any of the three Caliphs. He was chosen by the people after Hazrat Usman, wasn’t he?
And then there’s again that question of the absence of Hazrat Ali (A.S.) from Saqifah. Only three mahajirs present.
And the question of no ahadees mentioned to argue the case of Hazrat Abu Bakar with the Ansar. Why make arguments over who is better, Mahajirs or Ansars? No one, not even the Ansars are remembering the Ahadees here. I don’t understand, weren’t the Muslims supposed to remember each and every word of the Prophet? The hadees books are filled with narrations about the Caliphs, what would have been better than them? There should not have been an argument here in the first place.
Don’t be offended by my comment yar. Delete it if you don’t like it. Sorry!
These questions have been bugging me for a lot of time. A lot of empty spaces that cannot be solved without research I think.
Firstly I would like to suggest that we need to take a look at this in a critical context not just of the times and the situation but for the personalities involved.
And finally we cannot deduce that these people were angels! They were humans, much much better than us, but humans non the less. And in the end…. “Aa’maal ka daaro-madaar niyyat per hai.” Aar Niyyaatoon ka ilm sirf Allah ko hai!
The lesson that I take from all this is that, as Muslims, we are taught to have different opinions about various issues and that we are taught to be adaptive not just by the lifes and teachings of the Rasoolallah Sallalaho Alaihi Wasallam but also what happened after him. And that without a unified leadership we will never be Muslims unified in one direction but Humans disparate and divergent from each other. The point to take up is that even after the demise of Rasoolallah Sallalaho Alaihi Wasallam, Islam did not have a happy-go-lucky and goodie too-shoe time, but a time of turmoil as is with new every beginning.
But one thing was certain as much as anything else, whether we were divided amongst ourselves or not, we were unified like brothers and sisters against any outside attack. Islam does not dictate the mode of governance nor the method or implementation, just the laws which need to be imposed, some in priority with the other as a leader sees fit, whether that leader is elected, inherited or simply imposed! the point is never that all Muslims agree with everything like mindless drones but that these disagreements and differing view and even animosity should not weaken us as an ummah! Why does nt anybody realize the fact that even during the Wars of the First and Second Fitnah none of the biggest empires present at the time which include Persians and the Romans never even dared to challenge the Muslim might?
Please dont take this as a critism to this post as I think that these facts need to be discussed and sorted out rather than be kept as taboo!
What I really think is that this only shows the acceptance of diversity and even tolerance to the idea of social change in Islam, that we as people not only fight for our view but bring changes about, rather than accept things and instructions of men without question and reason. This also shows that Islam has never been authoritarian but revolutionary in its nature. That is really what Islam is!
Finally lady by your pace I think that we ll reach the actual first Fitnah in about ten parts! I dont want to write lengthy comments anymore!
@ SAWJ
i am not offended at all…i am trying to get hold of more stuff to search about saqifah. Secondly, as far as i know, none of the Khulfa-e-Rashideen nominated anyone to be appointed as their successor when they died. As in Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) did not nominate Hazrat Omar (RA) and Hazrat Omar (RA) did not nominate Hazrat Usman (RA).
@ Safi
we are already talking about the first fitnah so its not going to be 10 posts later
secondly, thats the point i am trying to prove with these posts that these people were after all humans…prone to error and they took decisions according to their own knowledge. Obviously, there were munafiqeen amongst them and often took advantage of certain differences in opinions and the diversity. All this discussion about who the Caliph should be was going on before the Prophet (SAW) was buried, it was a panic situation…people felt like ’sheep in the rain’ and that panic can be felt even while just reading it. You can just imagine how it must be for the people who were going through it. The need for a leader was absolutely necessary.
Lady the first Fitna was TILL the assassination of Hazrat Usman! It was what led to the Battle of Bassora. Or maybe my facts are nt straight.
Oh and one more thing! Islam is supposed to be a religion with answer for anything, well I think this is our answer in case of a civil war. I mean civil war happen sooner or later in almost every civilization. This may sound weird but the First and Second Civil wars in Islam were although definitely bad but had some very interesting traits, one of which is that there was nt a break down in the system of governance, nor was there a challenging party for it, Actually there was but not really. In either cases the fight wasnt REALLY about power as in cases with other civilization but matters of principle. Which does proved us with the lessons that I mentioned earlier.
Oh and I did rechecked my facts and the FIRST Fitna really the events that led to the Battle of Bassora, whcih could be called the First Islamic Civil War, The Second would be the Events of Karbala. Wallahu Alam
second part!
@ Safi
oh u are talking about the civil wars that happened in daur-e-Ali. i am currently talking about things which led to that and it wasnt just the murder of Hazrat Usman (RA).
@ farooq
i thought so
@Safi: The second would be the battle of Siffin, the third would be the battle of Naharwan, the fourth would be Muawiyah’s coming to power (Imam Hasan (A.S.) avoided civil war and gave the Caliphate to him, which also brings the fact to mind that there were actually five caliphs, not four). The fifth would be Karbala, the sixth is Yazeed’s army raping the city of Madinah (Harra), the seventh is the demolition of the Ka’abah by Yazeedi forces. Interesting point to note here is that Imam Husain left Madinah and Makkah to prevent the cities from getting stained with his blood while Abdullah Ibne Zubair chose to hide inside the Ka’abah and let it be harmed. I think this was a great act of cowardice on his behalf. He should’ve let himself be sacrificed over the Ka’abah and gained martyrdom, instead of the other way round. And this also reminds me of Muqtada Al-Sadr hiding inside Hazrat Ali’s shrine. Man, was I angry at that guy!
@KW: Sab se pehlay, thanks!
Another question that I have from your comment yar is that Allah knew this would happen. Why didn’t He then have Rasoolullah appoint a leader after him to prevent all these fitnahs?
Here are the first few sects I think formed after the Prophet’s Ghaibat (Guys, don’t use words synonymous to death here, the Prophet isn’t dead. He went back to where he came from i.e. Aalam-e-Noor):
1) The Ansars who wanted Caliphate (Subcategories: a. Payed allegiance to Abu Bakar, b. Wanted to pay allegiance to Ali)
2) Hazrat Abu Bakar, Hazrat Usman, Abu Ubaidah Jarrah (three Mahajirs at Saqifah)
3) Those Ansar and Mahajireen who were not present at Saqifah.
4) Hazrat Ali and the family of the Prophet, and those who were busy with the Prophet’s last rites. [I think I did read that Abbas Ibne Abdul Muttalib notified Ali of the proceedings at Saqifah and asked him to stretch his hand so he could pay allegiance but Ali declined stating the reason that the Prophet's burial was more important. I'll try to find the source too.]
Allah would have known this all along.
One thing I want to find is that when a normal guy having, let’s say three children dies, Allah has made it compulsory to write a Will and set clear guidelines so that there is no dispute among the children over inheritance. Why then would Allah leave the most important of all things, Islam, his dearest religion, the chosen way of life for all to come, without having the Prophet appoint a successor?
It could have prevented all disputes and events like Saqifah, Fadak (and consequently the burning of Bibi Fatimah’s house and the death of her third child Mohsin, and her own martyrdom only three months after the Prophet), Jamal, Siffin, Naharwan, Karbala, Harra, etc. The list goes on!
And I do believe Hazrar Umar was appointed by Hazrat Abu Bakar moments before his death, no?
I dont want to start a thing here. Historically there have been only two CIVIL wars and those are the ones I was talking about. The other ones were NOT battles in the remotest sence, There is a difference between a war and a skirmish or other smaller (according to scale not emotion) acts of violence.
And there lies the beauty and the most important fact of Islam as to why the prophet Sallallaho Alaihi Wasallam (By the way he was a human and unfortunately all humans meet their end in this world, and this is not me saying this but the Quran.) did not pick a successor after his departure. If he HAD picked a successor,, it would have been a sunnah, and that my friend would have meant a system for the formation of governments in Islam.
Islam is like a Project Specification Sheet as far as Governance is concerned. The government has only to fulfill some criteria to be called an Islamic state, but the method is left quite open as how to create that government. Government and the leader can be elected, inherited and self imposed, but He only need to fulfill the needs of the Ummah, that is the only specification by Islam. And this is further enhances the flexibility of Islam and why it is applicable to all times and situation.
As for the Ka’bah being desecrated, and someone taking refuge in it, symbolism was never part of the Islam that the Prophet Sallallaho Alaihi Wasallam taught. Sure it was a despicable act but but it is not the fault of the refugee!
The point is that people are weak… As is evident by the history of not just Islam but the world itself, and it is our weakness which leads to both courage and cowardice. People cannot be blamed for either. It is the task of the leader to turn this weakness into strength and muster the courage amongst people. History of Islam has always been of struggle and victories against odds, because Islam itself teaches that our lives here are not for pleasure and peace, but our examination for the afterlife. But this would be somewhat lame excuse if not given in a more collective view of the society. The point of a Islamic society is not just to exist as it is but to struggle for the better. Even though there had been many sadening events in that early history of Islam but these acts did not make us weak or ignorant or arrogant, infact they made us stronger and more flexible so much so that Islam spread so fast and so deep that the places where it had spread are still part of a Muslim community to this day! It made some of the early leaders of the Islamic world wise and intelligent and robust and brave! And that Islam spread because of the scarifices of all those before them, This is exactly the fact WE need to learn, that they reason why we are Muslims today are not because we deserve it or that its our right, but that it came to us due to the sacrifices of countless others before us, and it is a tradition we have to keep!
Those who made those sacrifices in those early days made them so that Islam could be brought to us in as pure a form as it can be, and not because they wanted to create doubt and confusion in our minds, but for us to learn from their examples. There examples are the reason why each and every Sahabi and Sahabiyah as the distinction that they have in Islam and the only reason we are not allowed to taint there memories is because they are the reasons why we can now say Laa Ilaaha Illallah today, and because they are our example of both, the things we should do, and things we should NOT do! Each event and each memory tells us what to do and what not to do!
Besides in the end we all have to face Allah for our sins. And may He forgive all of us… But it is his job to pass judgment, and ours is to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors. If we dont, WE make their sacrifices go in vain!
Islam main to Kafir ko kafir kehna bhi mana hai… and the reasons are obvious.
His* in the second last paragraph second line!
@ SAWJ
thats the chronological order i want to go with too but i think i’l have to take a break once i am done with the first part.
secondly, Hazrat Usman (RA) was not present at Saqifah. It was Hazrat Omar (RA). Secondly, obviously, Allah (SWT) knew this would happen but I have the same opinion as Safi on this. If the Prophet (SAW) had nominated a successor, it would have become a sunnah.
@ Safi
Fitnah does not mean a civil war…it is used in that sense a lot of the times but it basically means ‘trial’. this was a huge trial for the Ummah: they had become leaderless. obviously, we only know of the scenario where the leader was chosen first and then the Prophet (SAW) was buried, we dont know what would have happened if things had happened the other way round. As you said, we are not here to judge these people, they were the ones who made the greatest sacrifices along with the Prophet (SAW) and his family to make Islam become a power to stay in merely 23 years. All I want to do is to ‘read’ what happened and share my findings with every one. A lot of the times we do not want to discuss all this saying that this is not part of Islam (and by this I am not pointing at you, I am saying this generally) but as you have mentioned yourself, we have to read all this to learn from our ancestors.
Lady I m starting to hate agreeing to you almost every damn time. Our greatest flaw is that we are always judgemental and think of the world in only black and white when it is nt so. We classify everything into two rigid categories instead of putting them in a gradient. Our job is to do neither. We are not the classifiers of whats good and whats evil.
Allah has given us brains and told us explicitly from day one to use it! Its about time we started to do so and learn from our actions and those of our fore fathers and not let history repeat itself. Cuz this time, no Nabi or any other person is going to guide us to salvation. it is up to us to do that on our own with guidance from Allah.
We should take a hard look on ourselves and see what we are doing, those wars maybe saddening, but we forget that they were all based on principles which were strong on BOTH sides! We not even fighting and so many of us die for no reason everyday! Should nt this at least tell us that our fore fathers stood for reason and principle? We fight amongst ourselves on petty issues which dont even deserve a fart! They may have fought, but they stood united even then, we all know the story of Ameer Muahwiyah telling Ceaser the if he even so much as see Ali Raziallah Ta’alah Unho the wrong way he would destroy him! That was the integrity and unity of Muslims at that time! We are willing to shed blood over sinful acts! We are no better than the Qureish Before Rasoolallah Sallallaho Alaihi Wasallam!
Its high time we mended our ways! And not just individually but collectively as a society!
@Safi: Historically there have been only two CIVIL wars and those are the ones I was talking about. The other ones were NOT battles in the remotest sence, There is a difference between a war and a skirmish or other smaller (according to scale not emotion) acts of violence.
Dude, you need to read history again. The battle of Naharwan resulted in the whole thousands strong Kharijiite army getting killed and only 7 or 9 remaining. Skirmish?
And there lies the beauty and the most important fact of Islam as to why the prophet Sallallaho Alaihi Wasallam (By the way he was a human and unfortunately all humans meet their end in this world, and this is not me saying this but the Quran.) did not pick a successor after his departure. If he HAD picked a successor,, it would have been a sunnah, and that my friend would have meant a system for the formation of governments in Islam.
Hundreds of thousands of people getting killed due to fitnahs that arose out of the Prophet not appointing a successor is not beauty, my friend. (I’ll address the Prophet being a human on my blog, if you care to visit you retarded freak.
)
As for the appointment being a sunnah, how many people cry over Imam Husain? It is a Sunnah, isn’t it? See my first Zakir Naik post.
The Prophet could have appointed a list of successors. The condition of Muslims today would not have been like this if he had done so. The Prophet migrated from Makkah to Madinah. He lived in Madinah. Why don’t all Muslims follow his lead and do these things. Sunnah, isn’t it?
How many countries today are governed according to the Islamic way of life? None! Following Muawiyah’s coming to power, the system of Khilafat ended and Mulookiat began. Was there anything Islamic about Muawiyah’s reign? A series of injustices on the Prophet’s family and Muslims, these are the highlights of this Mulookiat.
The Muslim world fell apart, sects formed. This is beauty?
73 sects in Islam, only one going to Heaven. Rest are destined for hell. Beauty?
Wouldn’t the Prophet and Allah have known this? Why make Wills compulsory? Why not leave it to the relatives to decide? Simply because it would lead to divisions and hatred. This is the property of one man here, only to affect his heirs. Islam was for the whole Ummah. It is evident from history that Muslims were not mature enough to decide things themselves that is why there were disputes. And even if it had become a Sunnah, there would have been a series of better appointments to lead Muslims than those that are happening till today. We are in a pitiful state.
As for the Ka’bah being desecrated, and someone taking refuge in it, symbolism was never part of the Islam that the Prophet Sallallaho Alaihi Wasallam taught. Sure it was a despicable act but but it is not the fault of the refugee!
Symbolism has been an integral part of Islam that the Holy Prophet taught. Consider the hadees “Ilm haasil karo chahay tumhein Seen hi kyun na jana paray!” Seen is the name of Iraq and it was a centre of learning at that time. Today it is a war-ravaged country. Still go to Seen? No. The meaning of this hadees is to go on a quest for knowledge. Seen here is a symbol for all future centres of learning, be it America, Singapore or Japan.
It wasn’t the fault of the refugee but it sure as hell was an act of cowardice. Consider on one hand one man leaving to protect the sanctity of the Harams and sacrificing himself, on the other there is one who actually seeks refuge inside the Haram to protect himself. Both did so, from one man, Yazeed. Difference hai donon mein? The event of Karbala had already taken place and everyone knew Yazeed had no respect for Islam, the Prophet’s family or the Holy Places. Yet Abdullah Ibne Zubair hid in the Ka’abah. Either it is cowardice or extreme stupidity on his behalf!
Those who made those sacrifices in those early days made them so that Islam could be brought to us in as pure a form as it can be, and not because they wanted to create doubt and confusion in our minds, but for us to learn from their examples. There examples are the reason why each and every Sahabi and Sahabiyah as the distinction that they have in Islam and the only reason we are not allowed to taint there memories is because they are the reasons why we can now say Laa Ilaaha Illallah today, and because they are our example of both, the things we should do, and things we should NOT do! Each event and each memory tells us what to do and what not to do!
Man, which form of Islam is pure? It was passed down to us in 73 colors.
Besides in the end we all have to face Allah for our sins. And may He forgive all of us… But it is his job to pass judgment, and ours is to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors. If we dont, WE make their sacrifices go in vain!
Our job is to investigate, to differentiate right from wrong. That is why we were given brains. To find and think!
We should take a hard look on ourselves and see what we are doing, those wars maybe saddening, but we forget that they were all based on principles which were strong on BOTH sides! We not even fighting and so many of us die for no reason everyday! Should nt this at least tell us that our fore fathers stood for reason and principle? We fight amongst ourselves on petty issues which dont even deserve a fart! They may have fought, but they stood united even then, we all know the story of Ameer Muahwiyah telling Ceaser the if he even so much as see Ali Raziallah Ta’alah Unho the wrong way he would destroy him! That was the integrity and unity of Muslims at that time! We are willing to shed blood over sinful acts! We are no better than the Qureish Before Rasoolallah Sallallaho Alaihi Wasallam!
I’m sorry, what? Amir Muawiyah did what? He told Ceasar to stay away and then he fought a battle with Ali himself? Come on man! History stands witness to the fact that Muawiyah had people curse Hazrat Ali from the mimber during his reign. This practice was continued by almost all Bani Umayyah kings (exception being Umar Bin Abdul Aziz). Read Abul Ala Maudoodi’s Khilafat aur Maulookiat. He gives full references from authentic history books for his writing. Hazrat Ali is the sole man who had many enemies in the Muslim “Ummah”.
**************
The only reason why we have so many sects in Islam is that we refuse to investigate how they began. Because of Qayaas! Every now and then, a new guy comes up and says “hey, this is my understanding of Islam. Follow me!” And a new sect begins. If everyone had understood Islam, we would have all been the same today!
We need to look back and investigate. Whenever I research on Islam, I shut all that I know in the locker at the back of my head. I hold no biases, in favor or against. I forget whether the four Khulafa were good or bad. I forget whether the Ummul Momineen were good or bad. I forget whether Bani Umayyah were good or bad!
Then I read. And it enables me to ask questions. And understand. And you have no idea how stupid Muslim writers and authors are! For example, I told you to read Maududi above. He writes about all the injustices Muawiyah did to Muslims, the killing of Muhammad Ibne Abi Bakar and the burning of his body, etc, yet he calls Muawiyah “Hazrat Muawiyah” in his book. Yeh kya bakwas or confusion hai?
Itnay confused kyun hain Musalman? Kisi bhi waqaye mein ek aadmi Haq par ho ga aur ek Baatil-o-Zulm per. Donon Haq per ho nahin saktay!
All Muslim authors, be it Maududi, or first gen writers like Tabari, Suyuti, Ibne Saad, or even Shia writers like Majlisi, Sheikh Mufeed, etc hold biases while writing. I don’t give a crap about their biases. I try to analyze and see who is telling the truth.
That is the only way to find out. For all I’ve seen, both Sunnis and Shias have extremely crappy and confused concepts of Islam. And mine seem to go along a tangent to theirs. Agar daleel se saabit bhi kar do tab bhi maannay ko koi tayyar nahin hota. Sochna nahin chahtay Musalman!
Ulloo ke Patthay hain saray!
Sorry!
A few things sawj,
- What do you think about why Maudoodi kept respectfor Muawiah, RA after mentioning all that you say in his book?
- Your idea goes that Khilafat o Mulookiat contains all ‘authentic’ historical references. May be you are aware of just one side of the picture then. Next time when you are in the mood to learn more about this history read up the rejoinders by Taqi Usmani “Amir Muawiah ra aur tareekhi haqaeq” and Hafiz Salahuddin’s “Khilafat o mulookiat ki sharai or tarikhi haisiat”.
- This is your understanding that the rest of the 72 are sects are bound to hell. Check out what others have to say.
That’s all. The rest of the things demand writing too much in detail.
i would like to make an important life-changing announcement here:::
‘you are ALL crazy!!’
What do you think about why Maudoodi kept respectfor Muawiah, RA after mentioning all that you say in his book?
I think upar likha hai.
Your idea goes that Khilafat o Mulookiat contains all ‘authentic’ historical references. May be you are aware of just one side of the picture then. Next time when you are in the mood to learn more about this history read up the rejoinders by Taqi Usmani “Amir Muawiah ra aur tareekhi haqaeq” and Hafiz Salahuddin’s “Khilafat o mulookiat ki sharai or tarikhi haisiat”.
Sure, I’ll read. Maududi mentions Ibne Katheer, Tabqat Ibne Saad, Tabarri, etc. I believe they are accepted authentic texts?
This is your understanding that the rest of the 72 are sects are bound to hell. Check out what others have to say.
I am indeed doing just that. And I’m not making a case for my sect here. The teachings of only one sect can be true. Not all. And which ever’s is, is going to heaven. The rest are not.
“I think upar likha hai.”
So you missed the question which was in response to what is “uper likha hai”. Before you only passed judgment that he was confused and blah which is always one of the easiest things. Someone in the same vein can also stand up and say that “SAWJ is confused and bakwas karta hai”. Nonsense. What I am asking here is why doesn’t the reasons maudoodi gave in his book hold weight for you?
“Sure, I’ll read. Maududi mentions Ibne Katheer, Tabqat Ibne Saad, Tabarri, etc. I believe they are accepted authentic texts?”
- There is more than meets the eye. The people writing in response also quote no where other than these very books which you believe to be authentic. And it is not an issue of translations.
“I am indeed doing just that. And I’m not making a case for my sect here. The teachings of only one sect can be true. Not all. And which ever’s is, is going to heaven. The rest are not.”
- Sometimes you do tend to binarize things, don’t you? : ) Yes, as for teachings one is true. But whether mistakes made by ALL of the other sects are necessarily so grotesque that Allah SWT will condemn ALL of them EN MASSE to hell is mute which is what I asked you to check out on.
And one last thing which I slipped while writing the previous comment, the hadeeth about going to Seen/Iraq for knowledge is not considered authentic by majority of sunni mahudditheen. Some reject it as outright fabrication while others are soft enough to say it was a proverb which got mistaken for a hadeeth. Needless to say, no one dilutes the importance of learning.
So you missed the question which was in response to what is “uper likha hai”. Before you only passed judgment that he was confused and blah which is always one of the easiest things. Someone in the same vein can also stand up and say that “SAWJ is confused and bakwas karta hai”. Nonsense. What I am asking here is why doesn’t the reasons maudoodi gave in his book hold weight for you?
You missed my point here too. What I was pointing out is his respect for Muwaiyah even though he’s stating injustices done by him.
There is more than meets the eye. The people writing in response also quote no where other than these very books which you believe to be authentic. And it is not an issue of translations.
Please enlighten me on what does not meet the eye.
Yes, as for teachings one is true. But whether mistakes made by ALL of the other sects are necessarily so grotesque that Allah SWT will condemn ALL of them EN MASSE to hell is mute which is what I asked you to check out on.
Aren’t the Usool-e-Din (core concepts) different here? The foundation of faith in Allah? Acts (Furoo-e-Din) come much later.
And one last thing which I slipped while writing the previous comment, the hadeeth about going to Seen/Iraq for knowledge is not considered authentic by majority of sunni mahudditheen. Some reject it as outright fabrication while others are soft enough to say it was a proverb which got mistaken for a hadeeth. Needless to say, no one dilutes the importance of learning.
Why exactly is it not a Hasan hadees? I mean for what reasons.
“You missed my point here too. What I was pointing out is his respect for Muwaiyah even though he’s stating injustices done by him.”
: )
Bhai, despite everything he stated about the misdeeds of certain people in his books, he did address the question as to why he continues to hold them in respect. If you want to say he was confused or doing bakwas, explain why the reason he gave in his defense doesn’t carry merit. At the moment it sounds like Maudoodi never realized the misdeeds he has stated in his book can or should have repercussions on his opinion for those people. I hope this is clear enough.
“Please enlighten me on what does not meet the eye.”
- If I had time, I would present my views with regards to each and every assertion in your comments above. But I don’t have it. That is why I sufficed mentioning the names where you can see other perspectives if you are curious. Still, extremely briefly, a major reason of disagreement is that not everyone assigns the same strength to each and every narration that is present in those books. And at least not everyone does it to blindly establish his preconceived notions. A good many of these canonical sources of history have a unique organization and a way of presenting that information. It is NOT written or meant to be taken in the pattern of latter day historical texts that you would just read and say this is what is there.
“Aren’t the Usool-e-Din (core concepts) different here? The foundation of faith in Allah? Acts (Furoo-e-Din) come much later.”
- OK lets say they (Shia, Sunni) are different ‘here’. What about the rest of the 71? Does it ‘necessarily’ hold for each and every sect? Is every difference in concept about the precepts of faith necessitating Shirk or negating the risalah which can never be forgiven? Even if it is all yes, still there we have this distinction of Takfeer-e-Mutlaq and Takfee-e-Muayyan. Though I am not one of those who say that everything is trivial between ale-sunnat and ale-tashayyu and that they have only peripheral differences as between hanafi maliki or shafii… But still I am totally against (a lot of emphasis) this foolish concept of carrying a catalog of labels and titles of who is who in jahnnum. Why? Why not just brush every Sharfoo, Shammuu and Pappu with one color? I am sorry, now it will get too lengthy. If I get time, I will delineate more sometime in the future insha Allah…
“Why exactly is it not a Hasan hadees? I mean for what reasons.”
- This is not the right thing to ask may be. But khair, a Hasan hadeeth is one which fulfills the condition of a saheeh hadeeth with the only exception that one or more narrators developing a bad memory at a later stage of life. The muhadditheen understand that this thing, if attributed to prophet SAWS, is Mauzoo. That is a hadeeth which either have no basis because its narrators either don’t exist at all or are known to be fabricating ahadeeth. If you are interested in finding the exact Jarh and Tadeel, quote me the books you know where this hadeeth is present. May be I could help you getting precise details.
And after so many disagreements, I want to leave on a note of concurrence. I do understand in principle the presence of Sha’air-Allah, which is what you perhaps mean by symbolism. There is a famous verse in Surah Baqarah:
“Verily Safa and Marwa are the sha’aair of Allah. So whoever performs Hajj or Umra then there is nothing wrong if he…”
Sorry, that is as much I could exhume now from my equations-stuffed memory. However, I do not think it was Abdullah Bin Zubair RA ‘fault’ that the opposing armies went overboard and destroyed something which they proclaimed themselves to pray towards. But khair, could be a long back and forth. And hey, another disagreement? : )
Although the discussion is still not ‘ugly’ and I am hoping it will remain this way (intellectual debates are welcome), i would only like to remind you guys of the following:
Please note that I will not tolerate if something is said against the the four khulfa-e-rashideen and umm-ul-momineen. Further, please refrain from calling anyone kafir solely due to your own biases.
Secondly, we are not here to judge anyone based on their concepts. It is only Allah’s (SWT) right to decide who enters heaven and who goes to hell.
Finally, staying on-topic would be highly appreciated.
@BW: Yes I do have disagreements over here. But I’ll call it a day for now.
@KW: Sorry, wasn’t pointing fingers at anyone.
@ SAWJ
no prob dude, and i wasnt pointing any finger at you either…it was a reminder for everyone because i am doing these posts to clarify some of my own doubts and also to learn new things, not to judge anyone
Pray 5 times. Not only read but try to follow Qura’an, rest will inshallh itself be in place.