The 5th to 11th imams did dissociate themselves from ghlulu or extremist views regarding them yes but what was ghlulu in their time might be a rather normal view of 12ers today or vice versa
That’s why it’s important not to pick out things from earlier imami works and think they still believe in them, imami shaisI’m does not shy away from evolution and that means shedding some of the more scandalous beliefs which led to bad press like incomplete Quran.
The down side is that it’s impossible to find beliefs like those of today’s 12ers in the earliest muslims.You will find certain aspects of it like tayyimum, mutah , taqqiyah, 3 prayers etc as these beliefs did indeed exist despite they later dropping out of favor with sunnis but no clear sectarian identity of Imami shia with a separate fiqah
I agree with you, but both of you seem to so casually conclude that Sayyidah Aisha (RA) can go to war for either to “deliver justice to murderers” or “to re-capture territory” … neither of these “explanations” sit well with me because the Sahabah did not do things for personal gain. If these issues are easy for us to spot they will be even easier for them to know and avoid. The only explanation that sits well with me is that there was a definite ploy by the Khawarij and Jews to sow discord between the outposts of the Islamic world. In those days distance was the enemy and the messengers between the parties were to blame including the advisors.
While Sayyidah Aisha (RA) may have been convinced of the Caliphate of Sayiduna Mu’awiyah (RA) I believe she may not have been made aware of certain details that may have shed bad light on the other camp and vice-versa. That Sayyiduna Ali (RA)'s insistence on appointing a Caliph pervaded the investigation of a murder may not have been made clear to the other camp and instead they were told Sayyiduna Ali (RA) was harbouring murderers and then refused obedience to the Caliph. A Caliph that Sayyiduna Ali (RA) did not recognise because his advisors told him that Sayyiduna Mu’awiya was self appointed and sowed further discord. What can be seen clearly here is that there were middle-men in this whole scenario that the history books seem to treat like an independent and unbiased and truthful entity. Moreso than the Sahabah (RA) themselves.
*
You were then asked:
And you said:
But with my caveat you can say her stance was mistaken but correct according to her knowledge … had the disinformation she received been true. Territory wrongfully taken from the Caliphate should be taken back. The problem is that the Caliphate itself was up for contention.
*
You were asked:
And you said:
Again with my version being entertained the fitnah would have been planned from the time of Sayyiduna Uthman (RA). If the policies were the cause then look at how these were communicated and you are sure to find signs of fitnah not in the policies but in the way they were given and who took charge in giving them out. It is easy to create a scenario that leads from one wrong to another and usually it can be instigated with an exaggeration here and a lie there.
Sayyiduna Ali (RA)'s decisions were not made in a vacuum and that why is blame cannot be given to him (RA) except that he trusted his advisors and Allah (SWT) made it such that this trust became a worldly downfall in order to bring on the next stage of human civilisation - post-RasoolAllah (SAW).
I feel another investigation needs to be undertaken to see whether communication between the two parties was adequately delivered and there was no side interest developing. You will find there is indeed the coming of splinter groups because they started to exploit the Islamic world and they did this because they wanted the power for themselves. They did not gain power for long but they permanently created the major sectarian wound that was manifest in the Shi’at-Ali.
So I think rather than blame both sides or blame one side … there is the third option of blaming neither side and looking for external elements … this is where my heart tends to go - I cannot bring myself to blame either of the major camps because the reasons given are so obviously poor and simple - so simple that we cannot possibly imagine these would be oversights of the Sahabah (RA) the greatest of the followers that have been and will ever be.
^ Salam dear brother Psyah Eid Mubarak
respectfully I do disagree with your views on khawarij and jews spreading fitna if you need to investigate further these issues look at the biographies of the people involved in these events and you will see they were no other than the people who took part in the conquests during the time of the Rashidun caliphs
Regarding everything else is a matter of sources obviously there are many variants of these events out there.I understand that your heart will not let you blame any of the Sahaba for the discord which is totally fine I think Umar b Abdul Aziz RA took the right approach of “forgive and forget” and to move on.However I personally believe praising or criticizing or cursing anyone ( including Abu Bakr , umar , uthman, Ali ,Aisha, Fatima, hasan, Hussain) should not be an article of faith as none of these personalities are mentioned in the Quran.They ALL did great things in their lives and probably made mistakes whether with good intentions or bad God knows best.
Only when we free ourselves from the shackles of hero worship can we attain true tawheed and possibly some unity
^ Salam dear brother Psyah Eid Mubarak
respectfully I do disagree with your views on khawarij and jews spreading fitna if you need to investigate further these issues look at the biographies of the people involved in these events and you will see they were no other than the people who took part in the conquests during the time of the Rashidun caliphs
Regarding everything else is a matter of sources obviously there are many variants of these events out there.I understand that your heart will not let you blame any of the Sahaba for the discord which is totally fine I think Umar b Abdul Aziz RA took the right approach of “forgive and forget” and to move on.However I personally believe praising or criticizing or cursing anyone ( including Abu Bakr , umar , uthman, Ali ,Aisha, Fatima, hasan, Hussain) should not be an article of faith as none of these personalities are mentioned in the Quran.They ALL did great things in their lives and probably made mistakes whether with good intentions or bad God knows best.
Only when we free ourselves from the shackles of hero worship can we attain true tawheed and possibly some unity
Since this is a thread about perspective … I can say categorically that the positions of the first four caliphs in their subsequence of excellence being in order of their succession to caliphate is part of the 'aqeedah of Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jamma
Furthermore, one of my dear teachers has written this based on works of classical scholars.
He indeed argues that there is a “perspective” that the Caliphs are mentioned in the Qur’an and to give you a taster of this … See the following implied references for Sayyiduna Abu Bakr As-Siddique …
^that might be your perspective brother but not mine if that was the case we would have no disputes about succession and no first fitna this is more of a case of retrospective justification much like how 12ers imAmis argue that evidence of imamate is in Quran or the evidence for Ali divine appointment. ..I wud stick with what is clearly evident and leave the rest to God…that means I’m not a sunni or a 12er shia so be it
brother this “external factor” theory is the reason why muslim world still believes in conspiracy theories to this date.Rather I would suggest you take a closer look at arab tribal politics of 7th century and the economic factors that lead to weakning of control of Medina govt over the provinces and the rivalry between people of Iraq/Syria and Hijaz.
I wish I could understand the Battle of the Camel better and the circumstances leading up to this. I seriously doubt a mother-in-law and son-in-law by relation would go to war with each other because of a simple reason of disagreement over how to proceed with prosecuting murderers of a Caliph.
I read an essay once. I can’t recall and I won’t be able to verify this, because it was on the net somewhere and so I can’t vouce for it’s veracity.
But there was some mention in the history books of historians at the time, that when Aisha (R) later commented on the whole Battle, she states that she did not deliberately go with an army to Ali (R)'s camp for the purpose of fighting. There was a crowd that was irate over the murder of the prior Caliph, and they got together and decided to go to him as a mob, and she sensed there might be violence so she went with them to keep peace. When she was camped with this anti-Ali crowd, all of a sudden violence started, and it seemed to her and her party that the violence had been initated by Ali (R). It is still unclear to her at the time of the historian taking this history who essentially fired the first shot (or in that time period, threw the first arrow).
It’s very possible there was a third party at play that wanted Ali (R)'s and Aisha (R)'s forces to fight. Which were actually forces that were anti- and pro-Uthman (R).
Just like this there are quite a few places that require us to read between the lines. We know a war took place and we know these were the best of people - the only natural conclusion is that there MUST be a third element to this story.
When we look deeper we find clues to this effect and I feel a whole study if not already undertaken is deserved around this area alone. This is the Grassy Knoll of the Islamic world.
What Umm ul Momineen Aisha went to prevent was the first WAR between Muslims - that was the side of Ali Alaihis Salam and Muawiya RadiAllahu Anhu. This was set and ready to take place. Some Sahaba from the Hijaz decided to prevent this from happening. Umm Ul Momineen Aisha was asked to go with them - She Salam Alaiha was a person who could persuade the people. The situation was that Umm Ul Momineen was held in high esteem by the Muslims - if she was referred to then it would be as ‘‘oh Mother’’
Her role was to diffuse the situation using the peoples love for her as Mother of the Believers - that is why she was taken
If that was the case it would have Been called the peace of camel or truce of camel not battle of cAmel
Any way what you all are forgetting here is that battle of Jamal was NOT the first intramuslim war of 36AH but the siege of uthman aND first battle of basra when aisha &talha attacked and occupied Basra which was under Ali governer.
Also our historical and hadith sources are very limited so whatever u can conclude on these events should not be a basis of faith whether the participants had good or bad intentions is a matter which should not be related to our core beliefs
“Grassy knoll of islamic world” nicely done bro like the analogy
There has been brother several works on this but the problem is the PRIMARY sources are biased either Pro-Ali or Pro-uthman so the truth likely lies somewhere in between
Brother the murder of caliph uthman happened after a very PUBLIC siege and brawling outside his house, it was not a mystery who were the anti-uthman forces although there might be debate who struck the final blow the besiegers were WELL KNOWN to people of medina we dont need agatha christie or colombo to solve this murder
Yes Ali’s forces were mostly provincials from Kufa /egypt/yemenis some basrans and ansar which were anti-uthman
Aisha’s forces were mostly Quraishi and Basrans and were pro-uthman but not neccesarily pro-muawiyah for example Yala b ummaya RA a sahabi was anti-Ali and pro-Aisha in jamal but later on he joined ALi and was killed fighting against muawiyah.
See Aisha and Talha went to BASRA not syria as they knew Muaiwyah will never tolerate either one of them to be caliph otherwise it made more sense if they would have gone to syria to make common cause with syrians who also were supposedly demanding the same thing.Also dont forget it was MARwan ( one of the few supporters of Uthman during the siege) who killed Talha with an arrow during Jamal even though he was supposedly in his camp
Which 3rd party are you talking about ?
Lastly dont forget there was a lot of personal rivalry and jealousy between Ali and Aisha of each other , exact nature of it is impossible to ascertain as shia sources will exaggerate these tensions whiile sunni sources completely downplay them.
one more thing I’m surprised that conflict of first fitna is still seen in the light of sunni-shia sectarian debates as if people who supported Ali were “shia” and those who supported his opponents were “sunni” NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.The people in camp of Ali are of as much importance to sunnis as the ones who were opposed to Ali.To give a small example Al-Qama b Qays RA one of the teachers of Imam-e-Azam Abu Hanifa RA was a follower of ALi.In other words this was a civil war of Salaf of Ahle sunnah and imami shia only bring these issues up to discredit most companions and naturally sunnis get really defensive, to imamis even the people from camp of ALi are of marginal importance in hadith so even if they are discredited it does not affect their hadith corpus as they get very few ahadith from them.
similarly when sunnis attack certain companions of the imami shia imams esp those of 5th and 6th then the shia rise to defend their credibility as most of imami hadith come to us from companions of later imams.
Right, so her intent according to the history books, and her own testimony, was that she DID not go there to start a war.
I just don’t think she would have stood outside Ali (R)'s camp, and said “Kill him and his people”. Just doesn’t make any sense.
All in all, if Rasulullah (SAW) was brought back to life…I wonder what he would have to say about all that happened. And I wonder what he would say about the concept of “Imamat”.
I am just curious, is there any legit written SOURCE from Imams themselves that say “I am an Imam, and this is what an Imam is, and the Imamate is a real concept”.
Just like a Prophet (SAW) is not there to hide he is a prophet, and is speaking out loud and on documents that he claimed himself to be a Prophet and everyone and their mom knew it, why would an Imam hide that he is an Imam? Why would they report there are 3 books of revelation in addition to the Quran, oh but wait, no one has seen them, and these so-called “Imams” are the only ones with secret access to them?
Just seems odd. And I don’t get where in history this concept became mainstream. If Ali (R) knew these things were being said about him, wouldn’t there be hadith reporting that he heard these things and tried to put a stop to it?
The upcoming FIRST war between Muslims was a major factor in urgency to try and stop it from happening. Those who have cut their ties to the Muslims do not see and will not look at this aspect because it does not serve their agenda. Their agenda consists of rejecting what Islam came with and replacing it with a ‘‘it all went horribly wrong’’ view. It should also be known that the group known today as traditional Sunnis trace their own lineage back at this point in time as belonging to the party of Ali [shian e Ali], so those who were in the side of Ali Alaihis Salam did not necessarily go on to become a separatist party denying others of their Islam. Those who did, did so when re-interpreting the religion later in time.
The position of Umm ul Momineen IS of spiritual Mother, She IS the wife of The Prophet SallAllahu Alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallam now, and will be in the next world. The house they shared is a portion of Jannah and RasoolAllah SallAllahu Alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallam still resides there. It has a Green Dome on top now
Well we do have a narrations on it. To know some things of the future/past with pure accuracy is a requirement of Prophet-hood. It is a must. However our Prophet SallAllahu Alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallam knew all that was to happen, this information was bestowed upon Him SallAllahu Alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallam
With regards to this period RasoolAllah SallAllahu Alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallam said regarding His Grandson Al-Hassan Alaihis Salam that this son of mine is a Sayyid [leader] and that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala will bring about peace between two groups of Muslims through him.
Al Hassan Radiallahu anhu as we know went to make peace between His Side [the side of Ali Alaihis Salam, after the Martyrdom of Ali Alaihis Salam] and the side of Muawiya RadiAllahu Anhu. This step united the Muslims, once again
What is meant by the word Imamate by shias is concocted. However, the traditional Sunni Belief, Wilayat of the Ahle Bayt is true - Allah is your Wali and the Messenger SallAllahu Alaihi wa Ahlihi wa Sallam is your Wali, and the Believers [are your Walis]
Hadith:
**Narrated Abu Huraira Ad-Dausi:
**
Once the Prophet (ﷺ) went out during the day. Neither did he talk to me nor I to him till he reached the market of Bani Qainuqa and then he sat in the compound of Fatima’s house and asked about the small boy (his grandson Al-Hasan) but Fatima kept the boy in for a while. I thought she was either changing his clothes or giving the boy a bath. After a while the boy came out running and the Prophet (ﷺ) embraced and kissed him and then said, 'O Allah! Love him, and love whoever loves him.
[Bukhari]
This applies to others from the Ahle Bayt too
and other Walis not from the Ahle Bayt but whom Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala and His Messenger SallAllahu Alaihi wa Ahlihi wa Sallam LOVE
Hadith: It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said:
“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Whoever loves Hasan and Husain, loves me; and whoever hates them, hates me.’”
[ibn Majah]
The concept from this Hadith is certainly true and again applies to other Awliya
Protection from shia manipulation of the above:
**[Aa`raf 7:150] And when Moosa returned to his people, angry and upset, he said, “What an evil way you have handled affairs on my behalf, behind me; did you hasten upon the command of your Lord?” And he cast down the stone tablets, and catching hold of his brothers hair, began pulling him towards him; said Haroon said, “O the son of my mother! The people thought I was weak and would have probably killed me; so do not make my enemies laugh at me and do not identify me with the unjust.”
[Aa`raf 7:151] He submitted, “My Lord! Forgive me and my brother and admit us into Your mercy; and You are the Most Merciful of all those who show mercy.”**
What happened here is between Prophet Musa Alaihis Salam and Prophet Harun Alaihis Salam. We do not become shias of one or another due to disagreements between the Believers, other wise you will have to choose a side and become a shia of one Prophet and the enemy of the Other, which is ridiculous.
Having mentioned the wilayat of the Ahlu Bayt above, coming back to ‘‘imamate’’ if we take its meaning as ‘‘whom one follows’’ then Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
**[Taubah 9:100] And leading everyone, the first are the Muhajirs * and the Ansar *, and those who followed them with virtue - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has kept ready for them Gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in it for ever and ever; this is the greatest success. ( The immigrants. Those who helped the immigrants.)
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has clearly stated the Muhajirs and the Ansar are those who brought faith and are your imams [ones to be followed]. This is the Islamic Community and not just the Ahul Bayt exclusively
You said earlier that there are works that have been undertaken from the perspective of there being a “third party” cause to the fitnah. It is a belief I strongly hold and from the little I have seen I am compelled to deduce that this third party “if it is true” is not only responsible for the events as a whole but also responsible for ensuring the primary texts as documented history are documented in the way they are … However, I do not want this particular perspective to be side-lined in a dismissive way - You say there are works available - Please show which works there are that speak of the alternative history that I am suggesting here. Please summarise what they conclude and please indicate how they tackle the primary source issue that you talk about. If they do not do this then my original plea stands … That more research in this area of the “Grassy Knoll” of the Islamic world is well deserved. I personally do not believe there has been motivation to produce such a work because the existing works are often commissioned on the proviso that they defend a given sectarian angle - hence you have Shi’a bursars paying for works that favour them and Sunni bursars that pay for works that favour them … The only reason to prepare the alternative would be academic or truth driven … Motivation to find and access a viable answer … One that neither compromises the character of the Salaf yet explains why wars and bloodshed happened.
That is the problem when u say " does not compromise character of salaf" it’s like saying from..imami shia perspective “don’t deny infallibility of our imams but I’m open to other ideas”
This alterate history is primarily in certain sections of tabari from 36 AH especially now a historian sayf b umar tamimi is being criticized for this in the past in later times certain historians have defended him (Sean anthony)so it’s wrong to totally discredit him either.Problem with the 3rd party blame in the Jamal war is that it is not consistent and at times contradicting the reports from other sources.More importantly it defers the blame of war to very peripheral characters who were not the movers and shakers of the tribal stricture or pietist islamic structure either.Thirdly it totally ignores the influence of tribal politics in the civil war ( i.e no tribal motivation for the fitna is acknowledged) which was the most important feature of arab society.Lastly even hadith scholars thselves cannot validate one version of events over the other as they both alternate and mainstream rely mostly on historians
But I’m not proposing either what imami shia belive that except 3 or 4 most salaf became apostates either
but defending the reputation of an individual should not be the priority as in the end they are just individuals.I understand why sunnis want them to be seen as full of good intentions and only commiting mistakes but no intentional murder or sedition or malicious plotting as the veracity of the hadith depends on them but we don’t have to automatically discredit hadith if we say certain SAHABA ( again a very small number) not only made mistakes but also engaged in murder, malicious plotting and sedition.This is human nature some people are great, some very evil but most are just average but this approach is a farcry from the imami shia approach that accuses majority of sahaba of disbelief simply because they did not support a supposedly divine appointment of Ali KW
If u are interested reading check out
khilafah imamate article by khAlid Yahya blankinship
works of Etan kohlberg, MJ kister, sEan anthony, wilfed madelung, martin hinds michaEl cook, ..amongst others
if u amazon search them they are available
these nonmuslim use exclusively muslim sources but few muslim schoLars can free themselves of sectarian bias to treat the sources objectively
A good repository of historical narrations in classical islamic texts is al bidaya wal nihaya but ibn Kathir is Syrian so he treats abu mikhanaf and nasr b muzhim with hostility as being pro Ali which is justified to an extent but he should show the sAme kind of suspicion to proummayyad sources which he does not
see “echoes of fitna” by Aaron hagler on how the narrative of fitna evolved with time