Re: Questions about Marsiyas/nohas
Actually Umar II (Umar bin abdul aziz) was following more of the injunctions of the Shia Imams than any safavid or fatimid ruler I know of.Despite being a ummayyad he discontinued many of the oppressive practices of his predecessors (like cursing of Ali(A.S) from the pulpits) he also returned the property of Fedak taken by Marwan at the time of Uthman(R.A) from the Ahle-e-bait.It takes a lot of courage to do that esp. when you come from a family of Abu Sufyan and Muawiyah.Yet he is considered by the sunnis as a pious caliph while most shias I have meet barely know about him.
The problem is the concept of "their sahaba" and "their Ahle-e-bait" and I hold both sides equallly guilty for that. The question of who should succeed the Prophet(PBUH) was a political one NOT religious and that is why the original shias were called "partisans of Ali".Personally I think anyone who objectively studies the history of Islam while become more of a political shia and a religious sunni. The shia criticism of certain sahaba does not take into account their earlier services to Islam.Offcourse there should be a marked differance between the early converts like Abubakr(R.A) and Umar(R.A) and the later ones like Muawiyah.Many(not all) of the latter were simply following the principle of "if you cant beat them join them".But Why are the services of the earlier ones so easily forgotten? Even Ali(A.S) said of Zubair(R.A) "Even though he turned into a bitter enemy of mine in the later years Yet in the early years he was a good defender of the cause of religion"(sermon 12) He not only led his funeral Prayers but also cursed his killers. Even if the process of election at the saqifa was not flawless there is no doubt but exaggerations from both sides have distorted the truth almost beyond recognition
Very interesting analysis. And i agree culture has added new dimesssions to exageration