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
here are quotes from http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia_islam/02.htm
The seriousness of their opposition to or resentment of
Abu Bakr before they become reconciled to him is almost
impossible to ascertain, since the Shi’i sources exaggerate this
to the extreme(83)](http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia_islam/02.htm#f83) whereas the Sunni sources try to ignore or
minimize it as much as possible.(84)](http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia_islam/02.htm#f84) Historically it cannot be
denied, however, that these men formed the nucleus of the
first 'Alid party, or the Shi’a. It cannot be claimed that all
were equally enthusiastic and warm supporters; some of them
were lukewarm supporters who recognized 'Ali’s position as
the most worthy for the office of the caliphate because of his
personal merits, but nevertheless paid homage to Abu Bakr
without much resentment. The attitude of 'Ammar, Miqdad,
Abu Dharr, and Salman must have been different from that
of the others. These four companions are regarded by all the
Shi’is as “the Four Pillars” (al-arkan al-arba’a) who formed
the first Shi’a of 'Ali. After 'Ali’s compromise with Abu Bakr,
however, reasons for further opposition on the part of his
supporters ceased to exist and this elite of the first Shi’a
dwindled away physically. But can ideas, once introduced,
ever die out? The later years in the history of the development
of Islamic thought provide an answer to this question.
This was exactly what happened to Ya’qubi There
is a common tendency to suspect his accounts, which could
support the Shi’i cause, mainly because he himself was a Shi’i
But quite logically, if Ya’qubi can be suspected of bias in
favour of the Shi’i position, why cannot other historians of the
opposite affiliation be equally suspected of suppressing those
reports which serve the Shi’i purpose? In this situation, we
feel that Ya’qubi’s history should be considered a valuable
compendium of historical documents which survived the
tendentious efforts of the historians of the majority party
some quotes from the above site
"At the same time, on the other hand, he did not
recognize Abu Bakr and refused to pay him homage for six
months. In addition to the demoralizing factor of Fatima's
death, which occurred six months after the succession of Abu
Bakr, what perhaps compelled 'Ali to reconcile his position
with the existing order was the serious eruption of apostasy
and rebellion among the Arab tribes in the peninsula. This
coincidence of Abu Bakr's succession and the rebellion of the
tribes naturally forced people in Medina to forget whatever
ideological or personal differences they had and to unite
themselves against a common danger".
"However, the dominating personality of 'Umar and his
realistic understanding of the tides of the time were strong
enough not to allow any manifestation of discontent during
his rule, which was continuously involved in the conquest of
rich new lands for Islam. The occupation of Abu Bakr with
quelling the rebellion of the apostate tribes within the Arabian
peninsula, and of 'Umar in conquering foreign lands, served,
consciously or unconsciously, to keep internal feuds at rest. On the whole, the caliphate of 'Umar, as that of his predecessor Abu Bakr, characterizes a period in which Islamic ideals of simplicity, justice, equality, devotion to the cause, zeal for the faith, and a socio-economic equilibrium according to their understanding of these, were best represented".
The attitude of the Sahaba, prominent
among them being 'Ali, Talha, and Zubayr, is quite clear.
There is ample material to prove that almost all of them, and
especially these three, were equally loud in their opposition to
the ways of 'Uthman. Even 'Abd ar-Rahman b. 'Awf (died
32/652), who had played an all-important role in the election
of 'Uthman, is reported to have hinted long before the
outbreak of disturbances that he held 'Uthman’s actions to be
a violation of the pledge given by him at the time of his
election.(13)](http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia_islam/04.htm#13) (13)](http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia_islam/04.htm#f13) Baladhuri, V, pp. 26, 57; Tabari, I, pp.2955, 2980; 'Iqd, IV,
p.280
Ali(A.S) on the people of Kufa his treacherous supporters
May God destroy you. You
have filled my heart with pus and have lined my breast with
anger. You have made me drink draughts of anxiety one after the
other and have corrupted my judgment by your disobedience
and desertion, so that Quraysh say that the son of Abu Talib is a
brave man but had no knowledge of warfare. For God be their
father! Is any one of them more experienced in warfare or does
any of them occupy a place in it higher than mine? I started
fighting when I was not yet twenty years of age, and here I am the
same fighter when I have passed the age of sixty. But there could
be no judgment for him who is not obeyed.(70) ](http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia_islam/05.htm#f70)
Nahj al-Balagha, I, pp. 76-79; Mubarrad, Kamil, I, pp.20 f., with slightly different readings in some cases. I have followed the Nahj al- Balagha’s text.
Yet after Karbala many kufans repented and fought this little known battle of Ayn al-warda
The Tawwabun ultimately reached 'Ayn al-Warda and
engaged the Syrians fiercely, shouting, “Paradise! Paradise
for the Turabites!” (23)](http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia_islam/08.htm#f23) The battle lasted for three days, and the
Tawwabun fought with unprecedented resolution, determination,
and zeal. Even though greatly outnumbered, on the
first day they inflicted heavy losses on the Syrians. On the
second day, however, their own losses began to tell and their
leaders fell one after the other. The first to be killed was
Sulayman b. Surad himself, followed by Al-Musayyab b.
Najaba, 'Abd Allah b. Sa’d b. Nufayl, and then 'Abd Allah b:
Walin at-Taymi, each taking the leadership and the Tawwabun
standard in succession one after the other. By the end of
the third day the majority of the Tawwabun had fulfilled their
pledge to sacrifice their lives in the name of Husayn
Mas’udi, Muruj, III, p.94. “Turabites”: reference to Abu
Turab, 'Ali’s kunya
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
^ thanks I would say that culture id by FAR the biggest contributer to exaggeration the early islamic historians despite their respective biasis have been much more objective in their approach towards writing history ....it is the selective interpretation of these texts which is the problem