I am confused..
After Hazrat Ali (RA), his son Hazrat Hasan (RA) was given the Khilafat right?
But im not understanding one thing, that is, Was Hazrat Hussein given a “title” or “leadership” role to lead the muslims? after Hazrat Hasan?
Imam Ali (as), during his lifetime, had to fight a battle against Muawiya, who fought to rule Muslims along with ummul Banin Hazrat Ayesha.
He couldn't get the total control during Imam Ali's time, however, he had gained a sizeable control after Imam Ali was martyred. Hence, there were very few momineen who followed Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Hussein (as) after him.
w's
Isnt it true...
One of the clause of the sulah... when Mahwiya was given khilafat was that after him Imam Hussain will be kahleefa ..... which was ignored by mahwiya?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NyFella: *
I am confused..
After Hazrat Ali (RA), his son Hazrat Hasan (RA) was given the Khilafat right?
But im not understanding one thing, that is, Was Hazrat Hussein given a "title" or "leadership" role to lead the muslims? after Hazrat Hasan?
[/QUOTE]
there is huge disinformation and little truth left in Muslim history.
According to the research done by Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, historians concluded that when Ali was murdered in 40 A.H, the 'shura' had two names, Hasan and Muaviya.
Hassan declined to be Caliph, so Muwaviya ruled from Damascus, Syria, while Hasan took up office as the Governor of Iraq in Kufa.
He had an attempt made on his life in 46A.H but survived. He retired due to ill health in 48 A.H and resided in Madina where his wife poisoned him and he died in 49A.H.
After Hassans retirement, Hussain was appointed Governor of Iraq in Kufa by Muaviya.
different people give different information....
i dont understand why we r still fighting over the issue....
how important is it as muslims to know who was supposed to be the ruler 1400 years back????
how important is it for us as humans to know it????
maybe that is one reason why we muslims r still so far behind the rest of the world....
we r still trying to figure out what happened 1400 years back, while we dont even know whats going on around us in the present time....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
different people give different information....
i dont understand why we r still fighting over the issue....
how important is it as muslims to know who was supposed to be the ruler 1400 years back????
how important is it for us as humans to know it????
maybe that is one reason why we muslims r still so far behind the rest of the world....
we r still trying to figure out what happened 1400 years back, while we dont even know whats going on around us in the present time....
[/QUOTE]
Thinking like this is exactly why Muslims are left far behind in the world. We never learn our history and neither do we taken lesson from it.
People who doesnt read history tends to make mistake again and again and again
^
try learning something constructive from history…
the history of this particular topic will bring u no good… 
Re: Hazrat Hussein (RA)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NyFella: *
Was Hazrat Hussein given a "title" or "leadership" role to lead the muslims? after Hazrat Hasan?
[/QUOTE]
No, Yazid was.
Muaviya ibn Abu Sufyan was an accomplished and very shrewd politician. He was appointed Governor of Shaam (Syria) by the third Caliph Uthman because of his family ties with the Caliph.
During the reign of Ali, Muaviya rebelled against him (due to his long standing animosity towards Ali and the Banu Hashim) and made Syria his own little kingdom, Muaviyah became a self-appointed monarch because he knew Governorships were appointed only by the Caliph and feared for his own due to his misdemeanours.
This animosity culminated in the worst civil war in Islamic History ever, the Battle of Siffeen. The battle in which the Prophet had foretold Ammar Yassir’s (a prominent Companion of the Prophet) death saying it would be Ghaddaar (traitorous) group who would kill Ammar. Ammar was fighting for Ali and was killed by Muaviyah’s side. This is an example of what the Sunni’s call Muaviyah’s ‘Ijtehadi ghalti’.
If you really want to know the exchanges that took places between Ali and Muaviyah, you should read the collection of Ali’s letters to him in Nahjul Balaghah. Also included are Ali’s sermons given at Siffeen.
After Ali’s death, Muaviyah knew as true as the blood of Omayyah running through his veins that Hassan was the natural and popular choice of people as the next Caliph. So instead of fighting with Hassan, who commanded allegiance of Iraqis Meccans and Medinites, Muaviyah made an offer he again knew Hassan would not refuse because Hassan wished to avoid bloodshed of Muslims at all cost. Muaviyah asked Hassan to sign a peace treaty with the condition that Hassan would be the ‘Heir to the throne’ or natural successor after Muaviyah and then promising the leadership would proceed naturally to Hussain, after Hassan.
After the death of Hassan by poisoning, Muaviyah broke the treaty and instead of Hussain, declared his own corrupted son Yazid as the next ‘Caliph’ of Muslims. So Yazid became the accepted ‘Khalifha’ and ‘Ameerul Momineen’ of the Muslims. The seeds sown at Saqifah had finally come to fruition. A tragic and black day for the Ummah of Muhammad (saw).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
there is huge disinformation and little truth left in Muslim history.
According to the research done by Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, historians concluded that when Ali was murdered in 40 A.H, the 'shura' had two names, Hasan and Muaviya.
Hassan declined to be Caliph, so Muwaviya ruled from Damascus, Syria, while Hasan took up office as the Governor of Iraq in Kufa.
He had an attempt made on his life in 46A.H but survived. He retired due to ill health in 48 A.H and resided in Madina where his wife poisoned him and he died in 49A.H.
After Hassans retirement, Hussain was appointed Governor of Iraq in Kufa by Muaviya.
[/QUOTE]
PakistaniAbroad can you give the works of reference / research for this please. I would like to read up on it.
Also can you tell me according to that research what shura was established (the ppl making up the shura) who supposedly ‘nominated’ muaviyah and hasan? Who appointed Hasan as the governor of Iraq? Who appointed Hussain as the Governor after Hassan’s death and did Hussain ever occupy that ‘position’ during his lifetime?
Re: Re: Hazrat Hussein (RA)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
No, Yazid was.
Muaviya ibn Abu Sufyan was an accomplished and very shrewd politician. He was appointed Governor of Shaam (Syria) by the third Caliph Uthman because of his family ties with the Caliph.
...
[/QUOTE]
I've read very similar account of this history, except some minor differences. According to what I read, Hazrat Hasan RA did become Khalifa after Hazrat Ali RA's martyrdom, but Muwaiya mounted war against him as well. When Hasan saw another bloodshed coming up, he resigned from Khilafa (perhaps signed treaty with Muawiya).
Rhia,
You can read Dr. Shabbir’s Book Karbala: Fact Or Fiction online.
Re: Re: Re: Hazrat Hussein (RA)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
I've read very similar account of this history, except some minor differences. According to what I read, Hazrat Hasan RA did become Khalifa after Hazrat Ali RA's martyrdom, but Muwaiya mounted war against him as well. When Hasan saw another bloodshed coming up, he resigned from Khilafa (perhaps signed treaty with Muawiya).
[/QUOTE]
After the passing away of Hazrat Ali, people did pledge the oath allegiance to Imam Hassan which basically was the traditional way of accepting a leader or the khalifah. Both 'parties' were preparing for war against each other until Muaviyah presented Hazrat Hassan with a peace treaty because he knew that Hazrat Hassan would never accept the Khilafah for its own sake but only to guide the people and to do what was in the best interest of the Ummah of Rasool (saw). It was in this respect Hazrat Hassan accepted the treaty and put down some conditions which were binding upon Muaviyah in that he would forgo his place as Khalifah the moment he broke the conditions and war would ensue. Muaviyah agreed to the treaty but later disregarded every single condition.
Thank you i did read the book and i am a little bit disappointed. I thought it was cutting edge research and the sardonic comments amongst other things left alot to be desired. While Dr Shabbir’s heart is in the right place and his effort sincere, it is quite obvious this gentleman is not very familiar with contemporary Shia thought and developments in Tarikh Qalam etc. I mean no offense but maybe this sort of research is revolutionary for those of the Sunni mazhab with respect to exposing historical inaccuracies but within the Jafri fiqh this has been going on for a quite a while now (few 100 years).
Even our most classical scholars have undertaken such research with respect to Ahadith etc, one of the reasons why perhaps we do not regard the collection of Hadith literature to be wholly accurate. Although to totally deny Hadith as Dr Shabbir has done just because of the inconsistencies and fabrications contained in them is to be less than objective. That spoils his study a little bit. It would have been more conducive of him to actually study each hadith, its isnaad, the rijaal etc etc and to decide the worthiness of each hadith with respect to its own merits, keeping the Quran as the infallible standard against which to measure the veracity of the hadith like so many mujtahids spend their lives doing than to go about on an ad hoc ‘research’. Other than that he does make some good points.
Dr Shabbir may be interested to know that through the study of Ilm Rijaal, scholars have concluded that no such characters called Abdullah ibn saba or ibn shamoon ever existed. They were fictitious creations of the over active imagination of Tabari. Maybe Doctor Sahib would like to review his book in this light and the conspiracy of magi/majus and jews may seem not so significant as he makes it out to be.
The book did not answer my questions. I only have a lot more questions now because of significants parts which have been singlemindedly glossed over.
Rhia,
I'm sure Dr. Sahib has a phone no. or e-mail address where he'd be happy to respond.
As for giving due consideration to every hadith?/ WHY??? the burden of proof is on the one who fabricates, not the ones who cling to The Criterion.
Ah thanx. I will try to contact him.
yes maybe the burden of proof is upon the fabricator and no doubt your and my job both would have been simple if they hadn't passed away centuries ago. Since they r not here to prove or to disprove we are left with the unfortunate legacy of the 'ummah' and thus the onus is too upon us. In this case we have to maintain our objectivity. We can do this in the following order:
Firstly to recognise the excess and outrages comitted, i.e. the fabrications, the innovations, and the inconsistencies DID occur in Hadith collections. So there can be NO 'sahih' or authentic book of hadith. To deny this and to claim everything was perfect is to lie to ourselves and to lie about our collective past.
Secondly we have to acknowledge that despite the multitude of infiltration, there do remain sayings that have a greater probability of being accurate.
And then there are all sorts of way that can determine the veracity of the Hadeeth, the first being The Criterion, the Book of God itself. Secondly to use our own reasoning and intellect, and third the traditional methods.
To deny ALL of hadith while there remains a chance that Hadith may be 'correct' is going from one extreme (accepting every hadith is authentic) to the other. And in every extreme you lose the power of objectivity and once you lose that you have nothing to go on, no ground to stand on so to speak.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
To deny ALL of hadith while there remains a chance that Hadith may be 'correct' is going from one extreme (accepting every hadith is authentic) to the other. And in every extreme you lose the power of objectivity and once you lose that you have nothing to go on, no ground to stand on so to speak.
[/QUOTE]
This may be outside the scope of the thread, but really, why don't we have anything to go on, if we have The Qur'an??
IMO the Prophet's Sunnah and the Quran are complimentary to each other, for our guidance. While there is a chance hadith provides accurate information rgarding the Sunnah, why would you want to reject it?
assuming the mods are ok with us continuing this discussion here..
I think the messenger's life was spent trying to follow the Qur'an. He was told to judge by the Qur'an and others were told to follow him as an example of someone who followed the Qur'an.
Emerging out of a study of The Qur'an is the notion that it has the potential of being a document good for all times.
Now being bound to how the messenger specifically followed the Qur'an in his times under the circumstances he lived in, tackling situations that arose in his lifetime only would be binding the ever living text of the Qur'an to a worldly interpretation applicable only to a particular period of time in history.
Of course. But none of that explanation actually explains why anyone would want to deny everysingle hadith ever recorded.
In one sense accurate narrations can actually put things into context for us to how the beloved messenger followed the teachings of the Quran and put them into effect. you say the Prophet was bound by Quran and the Quran is for all times to comes then the prophet's ACTIONS too (as bound by the Quran) give us a perfect template as to how to live our lives according to the Quran FOR ALL TIMES TO COME by simple virtue of that 'binding'. The Prophet too came for ALL mankind as Rehmatulil Alameen. His actions and character are not limited by 'circumstance'.
[quote]
Of course. But none of that explanation actually explains why anyone would want to deny everysingle hadith ever recorded.
[/quote]
This was the way generations of the past lost their track.. We've been told in the Qur'an to stick to the Qur'an and the reading of it. Had people been told to seek and compile every action and interpretation of the Prophet to later apply to their everyday problems, we'd then consider hadiths and get into discussions of their authenticity and accuracy.
[quote]
In one sense accurate narrations can actually put things into context for us to how the beloved messenger followed the teachings of the Quran and put them into effect.
[/quote]
The Qur'an has been detailed for us to understand. If there is minimal context available in the Qur'an, then let's all accept it as God's intent instead of trying to satisfy our curiosity by creating historical context.
I've personally observed that many of such 'contexts' are practically of little use.. like providing a 'context' to which wives of the prophet were admonished by God in the Qur'an.... Now that is of little use to the general public in following Qur'anic teachings and is used but to create rifts between muslims and slander personalities held dear by all.
[quote]
you say the Prophet was bound by Quran and the Quran is for all times to comes then the prophet's ACTIONS too (as bound by the Quran) give us a perfect template as to how to live our lives according to the Quran FOR ALL TIMES TO COME by simple virtue of that 'binding'. The Prophet too came for ALL mankind as Rehmatulil Alameen. His actions and character are not limited by 'circumstance'.
[/quote]
We attribute a lot to his personality rather than the actual phenomenon that separates this prophet with the ones that came earlier. This prophet brought us The Qur'an. The Final Testament, one which affirms what God had revealed earlier and the guide we'll need for the rest of our lives.
The prophet is dead, but the Qur'an is still alive and Allah has instructed us through the Qur'an to gain knowledge and continue reading and trying to understand this Qur'an.