Iran, Shi`ism, and History
Shibli Zaman
seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing black Persian shawls."
[Saheeh Muslim, Narrated by Anas ibn Malik (r), Book 40, Number 7034]
*Iran, Shi`ism and History*
The Abbasid caliphate ruled Iran under Traditional Sunni Islam from
750 AD. They began to severely decline by 820 marked by the incursion
of the Daylamids, yet they continued to exist in spite of occasional
Kharijite rebellions in the eastern provinces of Iran. After 821 the
Abbasid Caliphate began to severely decline and suffered pressure and
domination by external forces such as the Zeyarids, Daylamids and
other newly converted Turkic tribes who lacked in basic Islamic
knowledge but not in military might. The Daylamids heralded from the
regions of present day Azerbaijan. Their descendents, the Azeris of
today, are the only majority Shi`ite group of Turks in the world. The
weakness and gradual disintegration of the Abbasid empire led to an
Anti-Caliphate sentiment which exists in modern day Shi`ism. This was
political recession coupled with economic woes such as the Abbasid
failure to meet the demands of the merchants of the Transoxanian trade
route contributed to the resentment towards the Caliphate.
Under the Daylamid duress which the Abbasid Empire existed under from
821 to 1055 there rose what historians call the "Iranian Intermezzo".
This was a period which eventually yielded a revival of Persian as the
national language and an increased propagation of Shi`ism as the
national religion which was finalized by the Safavid Empire in as late
as the 16th century. This movement was pioneered by Yaqub ibn Layh who
placed the Kharijites ("seceders") of Khorasan as his generals and
highest in command. This marriage of a Shi`ite leader and the
Kharijites led to modern day Safavid 12 Imam Shi`ism as we now see it.
He wrested Nishapur, the home of Imam Muslim, from the Tahirids in
873. He was a coppersmith, or "Saffar", so his dynasty is called the
"Saffari" or Saffarid dynasty. He spoke Persian only and had
absolutely no knowledge of the Arabic language.
The Saffarids were succeeded by the Samanids who were vassals of the
Abbasid state and who brought a brief interruption in the Shi`ite
Persian nationalist revival. The Samanids were a puppet regime for the
Abbasids and were given the entire tracts of Herat, Bukhara,
Samarqand, Khojand, and further, so long as they upheld Traditional
Sunni Islam and paid tribute to the Abbasid Caliphate. By 875 they had
all of Khorasan and Transoxania. It was under the Samanids that the
Central Asian Turks were gradually introduced to Islam, which they
eventually embraced in entirety. Gradually, as the Samanids celebrated
further autonomy from Baghdad they began to fall under the influence
of the tide of returning to the Pan-Iranism which Yaqub ibn Layh had
initiated before them. By 900 the reviving of Persian culture and
directly challenging the Islamic culture and Arabic language took full
fruition. In 1009 Ferdowsi's "Shah Nameh" was composed to directly
challenge the valor of the early Arab Muslim Mujahideen who had
conquered Iran and to elevate the Persian language and culture. A
significant interruption in this Pan-Iranism was the rise of the
Turkish Ghaznawid Empire. It was shortly an Iranian presence but
eventually became in large part an integral component in Indo-Afghan
history.
The Buwayhids of Daylam finally mustered the courage to invade
Baghdad. They conquered it and captured the Caliph himself and made
him their puppet. Now Shi`ism had the freedom to make itself a
national presence in Iran.
Even during all this seed sowing of Shi`ism in Iran, Traditional Sunni
Islam continued to be a strong force in Iran until the Mongol
invasions of 1200 onward. The Zeyarids ruled everything from the
northern Daylam highlands all the way down to Isfahan and Hamadan.
They were conquered and replaced by the very ones they helped survive
Samanid persecution in their homeland of Daylam, the Buwayhids. By
1000, the Buwayhids had revived the Achaemenid Persian Empirical title
of "Shahenshah" meaning "King of Kings" for themselves. The Prophet
(s) strictly forbade this title and it is regarded as blasphemous in
Islam.
The Seljuqs conquered Iran and ruled it from 1038 to 1053. This was
another interruption of Shi`ite rule by champions of the Sunnah of the
Prophet (s). They were routed in Khorasan by Turkoman tribes,
captured the sultan and the Seljuq Empire ceased to exist as a solid
ruling force in Iran. They are credited with opening the doors to
Islamic conquest of Eastern Byzantine lands namely the Anatolian
Peninsula. The Seljuqs were followed by the Khwarezm Shahs whom we can
thank for instigating Genghis Khan (may Allah's curse be upon him
forever) for heading south and causing the greatest slaughter in
Islam's history as was prophesied by Prophet Muhammad (s).
Genghis Khan invaded and razed Iran to the ground in 1220-1221 then
withdrew to Mongolia where he later died in 1227. Again his grandson
Hulagu Khan invaded in 1256. This officially brought an end to the
Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad. It was forbidden in the Mongol Shamanist
religion to spill the blood of a royal. Thus, the last Abbasid caliph
was rolled in a carpet and kicked to death by Mongol soldiers and
horses. In 1295 Mahmud Ghazan, grandson of Hulagu, accepted Shi`ism at
the hands of those who had supported and called upon his greater
grandfather to destroy the realm of Islam.
In 1393 a claimant to Genghis Khan's house emerged. His name was Timur
Lang meaning "Timur the Cripple". He defeated the Ottomans on their
own ground and took the Sultan Beyezid captive in Ankara. He had
unusual reasons for his invasions of the numerous Muslim provinces of
the Islamic world. They are a sign of his Shi`ite background. He
claimed to have invaded Damascus to avenge Ali (as) because the
Damascenes had sided with Mu`awiya (r) against him.
The Safavids or "Safawiyah" ruled Iran in 1502 until 1736 accounting
for Iran's modern history. The Safavids culminated and refined the
sentiment against the Companions of the Prophet (s), Arabs in general,
and had an elitist love for anything Persian. Their origins lie with
the crippled Mongol Terrorist, Timur Lang (known in Europe as
"Tamerlane"). Timur gave the territory in and around Ardabil in
Azerbaijan to a Shi`ite extremist named Safi ad-Deen. He was also of a
heretical Sufi order named after him called the "Safavi" order. From
this order came the nightmarish guerilla force called the "Qizl Bash"
meaning "Red Head" in Turkish due to their red Turkish caps with 12
tassels. They promptly moved the capital of Iran from Qazvin to
Isfahan under their first ruler, Shah Abbas I. This is how modern day
Shi`ism evolved with Isfahan as its capital.
>From the Safavids came the surprise conversion of a member of one of
the original seven Qizl Bash Turkoman tribes. Nadir Shah, rejecting
his environment and lineage, strove to restore Traditional Sunni
Islam, albeit his own interpretation, as supreme throughout Iran and
abroad. He reigned from the tribe of Afshar, thus, his resultant
short-lived dynasty was called the Afsharid dynasty. He sought to undo
the extreme Shi`ite propaganda that had been wrought in Iran, Central
Asia and India. He invaded India in an attempt to supplant the Moghuls
who had decayed into a homogenous mixture of Hinduism, Islam, Adultery
and Alcohol. He defeated them and slaughtered who the Moghuls were
unable or unwilling to defeat the newly emerging Sikh movement from
the Punjab. Nadir Shah is written of with contempt for this reason in
Shi`ite as well as Sikh history. Nadir Shah believed himself to be a
Sunni of a fifth mathhab, the Ja`fari mathhab. He called upon the
Ottomans to accept his new "Persian Islam" as a fifth mathhab and give
the Ja`fari Sunni mathhab a "Maqam" or station at the Ka`bah along
with the traditional four mathhabs of Sunni Islam. This was viciously
rejected by the Ottomans as well as causing dissent amongst his
Shi`ite Safavid court which he was ruling by the hammer. Nadir Shah
failed to turn the doomed history of Iran and he was assassinated by
his one of his court members.
After Nadir Shah came the Zands who were from another tribe of the
Qizl Bash. They were extremely short lived and defeated by Reza Khan
Pahlavi who instituted the Pahlavid dynasty. The Pahlavids were
secularists and sought homogeny with the West. They existed until the
Iranian Revolution of 1979 under the leadership of Khomeini. Khomeini
finally reinstituted the Safavi extreme Shi`ism which had fallen with
the surprise conversion of Nadir Shah to Sunni Islam two hundred years
before. Once again the Righteous Caliphs were cursed, Sunnis made to
be disbelievers, and Iran isolated as a sea of Shi`ism.
One can see that from 750 to 1200 the Abbasids ruled Iran. From 820
onward the Sunni Iranian Empire began to gradually crumble and the
Shi`ites bit away at it piece by piece. History has shown that the
Shi`ite dynasties have contributed NOTHING to Jihad in foreign lands
but only to "Jihad" against Sunni regimes and even their own fellow
Shi`ites on occasion. Whereas the Sunni sub-empires of Abbasid Iran
spread Islam to new regions and brought new peoples into the fold of
Islam in as short as 15 years. Shi`ites Empires which ruled in Iran
for hundreds of years only succeeded in sacking and attacking fellow
Muslims, Sunni and Shi`ite alike.
Sunni Empires of Iran's History:
[750 A.D.]
1) Abbasids - Spread Islam as far as the Punjab.
2) Samanids - Propagated Islam amongst the Turks among whom rose the
Seljuqs. The Seljuqs then took Jihad into deep into Europe, which
eventually led to the Islamicization of the Balkans.
3) Ghaznavids - Waged Jihad and spread Islam into India defeating and
annihilating the Hindu Rajput forces of Prithvi Raj.
4) Seljuqs - Waged Jihad and spread Islam deep into Europe and
conquered modern day Turkey from the Greek Byzantines.
[1153 A.D.]
Shi`ite Empires of Iran's History:
1) Saffarids - Fought and defeated the Tahirid Muslims to control
Iran. Allied with and elevated the Kharijites of Khorasan as top
government officials and military leaders.
2) Buwayhids - Fought and defeated the Abbasid Caliphate and sacked
Muslim populated Baghdad. Fought and defeated the Muslim Zeyarids of
Daylam who gave them power to begin with. Coveted the invasion of the
rival Fatimid Shi`ite state in Egypt.
3) Safavids - Made Persian the official language abandoning both the
Qur'anic Arabic as well as their own native Turkic dialect. They made
Shi`ism the official state religion.
3) Mongols (Il-Khans) - Liberated the Jews from "jizyah" and gave them
positions in government. Repeatedly attacked and sacked neighboring
Muslim areas. Fought and defeated at Ayn Jalut in Palestine by the
Mamluk Sultans of Egypt under Sultan Baybars. Invaded and ravaged the
Ottoman Empire severely impeding the expansion of Islam into Europe.
Leveled 3 different Sultanates of Delhi to ashes. Killed even the dogs
and cats of Damascus. Humayun and other members of the Indian Moghul
dynasty of India backslid into Shi`ism and marked the beginning of the
greatest decline of any Islamic civilization in history. Sikhism
sprung from Shi`ite heretical Sufist orders of which Guru Nanak was a
member. This lead to the subjugation of the Afghans at the hands of
the Sikh and British alliance making them unable to properly repel the
subsequent British invasion. Thus, marks the end of India's 1000-year
Muslim rule. It is now Hindu.
This dissertation is an extremely concise summary of the nightmare the
Shi`ites have exacted upon the Muslim world throughout the history of
Islam from the very early days until the present.
A prayer of Ali can be found in one of the most eminent of Shi`ite
sources called "Nahju-l Balagha". It was his plea to Allah against the
people who claimed to be his "Shia`ah" or "partisans":
"Oh Allah, I am tired of them. They have vexed me. They are tired of
me. Oh Allah, give me better men in their place and grant them a
harsher man to lead them. Oh Allah, destroy their hearts as salt is
dissolved and lost in water."
[Nahju-l Balagha p.67; Beirut Edition]
was-salaamu `alaykum,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
qizilbash
Although I already did reply to the author, I noticed that this person
does not even have a elementary level of knoweldge on Iran.
Most people might not have this and that is fine. But when he writes
something like "Iran, Shi`ism, and History", without any cited
refrence, it begs us to the question that where is the moderator to
actually regulate the distortion of the most basic history of Iran?
Here is another example:
> After Nadir Shah came the Zands who were from another tribe of the
> Qizl Bash.
1. The Zands from Lurs-and Bakhtiaris.
>They were extremely short lived and defeated by Reza Khan
> Pahlavi who instituted the Pahlavid dynasty.
2. The Zands were defeated by the Qizilbash tribe of Qajar who
controlled Iran for 150 years about.
So it seems Mr. Zamaan has skipped about 150 years of history! Reza
Khan came after the Qajaars.
This would be analogous to skipping the British history and Pre-Civil
War Era of US history and saying Abe Lincoln made a new country USA.
> Once again the Righteous Caliphs were cursed, Sunnis made to
> be disbelievers, and Iran isolated as a sea of Shi`ism.
3. the "righteos caliphs" are not cursed in Iran, in any mosque, sufi
temple, zoroastrian temple and christian church in Iran. bring proof.
It seems like the extremists love to make an accusation and then claim
it as the truth. Why not at least have one citation in your wrong
historical material? Why not bring one proof for any accusation you
are making?
>
> One can see that from 750 to 1200 the Abbasids ruled Iran. From 820
> onward the Sunni Iranian Empire began to gradually crumble and the
> Shi`ites bit away at it piece by piece. History has shown that the
> Shi`ite dynasties have contributed NOTHING to Jihad in foreign lands
Actually the conquest of Spain was lead by a Shi`ite commander. And
also Shi`ites did not have much power in the history of Islam. We can
find sunni dynaties that did not contribute anything in conquering
foreign lands in history as well, specially in the subcontinent.
>
> but only to "Jihad" against Sunni regimes and even their own fellow
> Shi`ites on occasion.
Sunni regimes fought each other as well my friend and they still do
today. Also in shiism Jihad is forbidden unless for defensive reason,
this is one of the main doctrinal diffrences between the two sects.
Sunnism on the other hand seems to have a record on wiping of
indigineous population like that of Egypt, Lybia and ALgeria(Berbers)..
For example , you go to the Balkans today, and some countries have a
weird psychological disorder that they hate muslims with a extreme
passion. Croatia and Serbia are such countries. DO you know why?
Because "muslim" foreigners attacked their land , and controled their
territory. Killed their men, took women as slaves.. I as a muslim
would like to say that those people were astray from Islam.
Islam is not about conquering lands, it is about conquering heart. One
effective way we see this today, is through the peacefull universal
doctrine preached by Iranian thinkers such as Mowlana Jalal-ad din
Balkhi(RUMI), who's poetry book has surpassed has surpassed any other
poet(even shakespear) in the amount of volumes it has sold. Iranians
today are not interested in becoming Arabized, conquer other lands, and
not developing their own culture.
Why not give the hatred a rest and get rid off the 'Ajam' vs Arab,
Parsi vs Tazi complexities that exists in many Arabs(such as yourself)
and many Iranians unfortunately.
Today Iranians are going their own way and Arabs are going their own.
We have a diffrent culture, our
religion(shiism/sufism/zoroastrianism/sunni and so on) is also
diffrent. The sunnism of Iran is not like the sunnism of Wahabites in
other countries.
Our way of thinking is diffrent as well. In today's world, Islamic
unity and such is a thing of the past. Today is the era of world unity
and Iranian Muslims like Mowlana Balkhi are the ones that have
contributed to this greater unity. An Islamic league is not in the
interest of Iran, nor Turkey nor Afghanistan or any other country. It
is only in the interest of the Arab World.. We will accept the true
religion of Islam. Being Arab is not equivalent to being a Muslim and
being Muslim is not equivalent in being an Arab.
Thanks and Regards
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Shibli Zaman
>Dear reader,
>
>Although I already did reply to the author, I noticed that this person
>does not even have a elementary level of knoweldge on Iran.
I never received any such reply. This is news to me. Actually, I did
not even know this post existed until I switched news servers and saw
it. It was not on my server. I think it might be a good idea to set
something up where replies are emailed to the author. I did not even
have a clue there was any response. To say I do not have an elementary
knowledge of Iran is rhetoric and to say that after reading the
extremely brief piece on Iran's history is ridiculous. Keep the
child-like name calling and rhetoric off this discussion.
>
>Most people might not have this and that is fine. But when he writes
>something like "Iran, Shi`ism, and History", without any cited
>refrence, it begs us to the question that where is the moderator to
>actually regulate the distortion of the most basic history of Iran?
Usually, people arent in the practice of typing out Bibliographies at
the end of a Usenet post. This is the Usenet in case you forgot. Not a
library. A lot of this information is from studies and also
occasionally cross referencing books such as "The Concise Encyclopedia
of Islam" and other Encyclopediae. All you had to do was ask. This
abusive style is not appreciated.
>
>Here is another example:
>
>> After Nadir Shah came the Zands who were from another tribe of the
>> Qizl Bash.
>
>1. The Zands from Lurs-and Bakhtiaris.
Yes, the Zands had their origins in the Lurs. Something completely
inconsequential which means nothing in regards to the subject.
Nitpicking and avoiding the essence of this post only makes your
stance further without any credit.
>
>>They were extremely short lived and defeated by Reza Khan
>> Pahlavi who instituted the Pahlavid dynasty.
>
>2. The Zands were defeated by the Qizilbash tribe of Qajar who
>controlled Iran for 150 years about.
>
>So it seems Mr. Zamaan has skipped about 150 years of history! Reza
>Khan came after the Qajaars.
>
>This would be analogous to skipping the British history and Pre-Civil
>War Era of US history and saying Abe Lincoln made a new country USA.
This was a process that lasted a total of 150 years and neither ruled
long enough to be counted as significant in Iranian history. It is
utterly funny how you compare the rule of the Qajars and Zands to the
Civil War and Independence of the United States which MADE the USA.
Are you saying the 150 years of wars after Nader Shah MADE Iran? The
Zands ruled in the south of Iran with Shiraz as their center whereas
the Qizlbash ruled the north. They warred with each other and
eventually the Qajars won. These are ridiculous nit picky points that
dont have anything to do with the subject which is Shi'isms forceful
imposition on the country of Iran and Shi'ism's contribution (or lack
thereof) to the Muslim world.
>> Once again the Righteous Caliphs were cursed, Sunnis made to
>> be disbelievers, and Iran isolated as a sea of Shi`ism.
>
>3. the "righteos caliphs" are not cursed in Iran, in any mosque, sufi
>temple, zoroastrian temple and christian church in Iran. bring proof.
> It seems like the extremists love to make an accusation and then claim
>it as the truth. Why not at least have one citation in your wrong
>historical material? Why not bring one proof for any accusation you
>are making?
"The Shi'ites curse Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased
with them), along with all the rulers of the Islamic Nation, with the
exception of 'Ali. They fabricated a lie and attributed it to the Imam
Abul Hasan 'Ali bin Muhammad bin 'Ali bin Moosa, claiming that he
approved of his followers calling Abu Bakr and 'Umar "Al-jibt
wat-Taaghoot". This claim was made in one of their most extensive
works on the science of the ascertation of the veracity and competence
of the narrators of Prophetic Traditions, Tanqeehul-Maqaal fee
Ahwaalir-Rijaal, by a sheikh of the Ja'fari sect Allama Ath-Thani
Ayatullah Al-Mamqaani.' [Al-Mamqaani, lanqeehul-Maqaal fee
Ahwaalir-Rijaal, 1352 A.H.,Vo. 1,p207.]
Al-Mamqaani referred to the scholar Ash-Sheikh Muhammad bin Idrees
Al-Hilli's book As-Saraa'ir, in which Al-Hilli cited the work
Massaa'ilur-aijaal wa Mukaatabaatihim ila Mowlaana Abil-Hasan 'Ali bin
Muhammad bin 'Ali bin Moosa, the subject of which is questions and
letters directed to Abil Hasan 'Ali bin Muhammad. Among them is a
question from Muhammad bin 'Ali, who is quoted as saying:
'I wrote to him asking about an-naasib [one who is hostile to
Ahlil-Bait]. I asked him whether I needed proof of his hostility
towards Ahlil-Bait other than his recognition of Al-jibt wat-Taaghoot
i.e. Abu Bakr and 'Umar] as the rightful holders of the office of imam
[leader of the Muslim community]. His reply was that anyone whose
condition was like that just described, was adequately shown to be a
naasib.'
Thus, any person would be counted as an enemy of the Prophet's family
merely by his giving precedence of rank to Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq and
'Umar Al-Farooq, and by his acknowledging their positions as imams.
The expression 'Al-Jibt wat-Taaghoot' is used by the Shi'ites in the
prayer of imprecation which they call "Du'aa Sanamay Quraish"
(imprecation against the two idols of the Quraish). They mean by these
expressions, the two caliphs Abu Bakr and 'Umar (may Allah be pleased
with them). This vicious Shi'ite prayer of imprecation is mentioned in
their book Miftahul-Jinaan; it reads: "O Allah, bestow Your blessings
upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad and upon his family, and curse
the two idols of the Quraish, their Al-Jibt wat-Taaghoot, as well as
their two daughters..." They are referring to the two Mothers of the
Believers, Aa'ishah and Hafsah, the pure and noble wives of the
Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them)."
[ Khutoot al Areeda by al Kanadi]
There is your proof. Did you honestly not know all this or was it
concealment on your part? I even have a scan of the actual document
signed by Khomeini which means this is a practice as recent as this
century. How would you, with your DEEEEEEEEEP knowledge of Iran and
its history not know this? This is not meant to be offensive, as
"Toqiyah" is a big part of the Shi'ite faith. "Toqiyah" is to hide
one's true beliefs to please others.
>weird psychological disorder that they hate muslims with a extreme
>passion. Croatia and Serbia are such countries. DO you know why?
>Because "muslim" foreigners attacked their land , and controled their
>territory. Killed their men, took women as slaves.. I as a muslim
>would like to say that those people were astray from Islam.
First of all the Bosnians (originally called "Bogumils") were willing
converts to Islam from a monotheistic Catholic sect. The Albanians
were also converted through missionary tacticts. Again, a prime
example of Shi'ites uniting with missionaries and orientalists and
their propoganda. I don't understand this logic. So the Sunni Turks
who converted entire populations to Islam in Eastern Europe were
astray but the Khwarezm Shi'ites who allied with Genghis and Hulaku
Khan in order to bring about the greatest slaughter Muslims have ever
seen were noble? It makes one wonder whose side you people are on
after all?
>doctrine preached by Iranian thinkers such as Mowlana Jalal-ad din
>Balkhi(RUMI), who's poetry book has surpassed has surpassed any other
Balkh is an Afghan land currently populated by Uzbeks and Hazaras. It
is a historical piece of Afghanistan and not Iran. Its much like
Iranians claiming everything even to the point of calling Jamal-ud-din
Afghani" as "Jamal-ud-din Irani".
>Why not give the hatred a rest and get rid off the 'Ajam' vs Arab,
>Parsi vs Tazi complexities that exists in many Arabs(such as yourself)
>and many Iranians unfortunately.
I am not an Arab and you, my friend, are again unwittingly displaying
your resistance to an Islam that you see as "Arabic". Its a pure
manifestation to the Iranian feeling towards their conquest at the
hands of the Mujaahideen who happened to be Arab.
E.G. Brown who lived amongst the Iranians in order to compile his
"Literary History of Persia" sites an ancient Farsi couplet of the old
Dari dialect:
"bishikast Omar pasht hazbaraan aham raa, barbaad fana dad rag wa
reshta aajam ra. Ayn aarbada barghosb khelafat az Ali NEEST, ba aale
Omar keenah qadeem ast aajam ra"
This is translated to mean:
"Omar smote the backs of the lions in their dens, and extirpated the
roots of the dynasty of Jam (Jamshed the great King of Persia). THE
STRUGGLE IS *NOT* BECAUSE HE USURPED THE CALIPHATE FROM ALI, BUT
BECAUSE THE AFFAIR IS AS OLD AS HE CONQUERED THE PERSIAN LANDS."
This is what it is all about and this is the origin of modern day
Safavid 12 imam Shi`ism.
Instead of insulting and treating people who obviously have deep
knowledge of a subject like imbeciles, try using a more scholastic
approach next time. It will prevent you from looking silly.
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
qizilbash
In this part we will examine Mr. Zaman's Anti-Iranian and anti-shia
comments. Firstly let us mention Mr. Zaman's comments:
"By 900 the reviving of Persian culture and
directly challenging the Islamic culture and Arabic language took full
fruition. In 1009 Ferdowsi's "Shah Nameh" was composed to directly
challenge the valor of the early Arab Muslim Mujahideen who had
conquered Iran and to elevate the Persian language and culture."
This comment arises from the fruit of Wahabism, a movement created by
the british which is a nationalistc Arab movement mixed with religion.
A dangerous combination for its confused followers.
Mr. Zaman is saying that Persian culture was challenging Islamic
culture and Arabic language.
Dear Reader.
Islam, is a religion, a din. Din is a Arabic word borrowed from the
Avestaan language,meaning religion. People who become muslims do not
necessarily have to become Arabs. For example countries with rich
cultures, like Persia, provided a bulwark against the Arabization of
eastern lands from Iran. On the other hand, when one looks at the
map, the countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Lybia all the way
up to morroco and so on, were not Arab countries before Islam. Islam
turned these countries into Arab countries where people lost their
heritage and culture. Today the muslim
fundamenstalists in Algeria and the Arab governments are massacaring
Berbers and other minorities. There is no verse in the Quran that says
one has to become an Arab to be a muslim.
The author likes to talk about "Islamic Culture" and civilization and
equates it with Arabic. Let us examine some facts. Overwhelmingly,
the Islamic civilization was created by Iranians. Names such as Razi,
Biruni, Avicenna, Khawarzmi, Khayyam, Mowlana Balkhi and even disputed
figures from once Iranian cities like Basra for example Ibn Haytham
were people of Iranian ancestory.
Also we know from history, as related by Ibn-Khaldun that when Iran was
conquered by the Arabs, a large number of books and libraries were
found. An Arab warrior, Sa'ad Ibn Waqas wrote to Caliph Omar about
these and asked if they could be sacked and distributed among the
Muslims. Omar wrote back that: "All these books should be washed
in water and destroyed because if they are books teaching guidance, the
Almighty has already sent us a better guidance through Koran, and if
they are books leading us astray,may the Almighty save us from their
evil teachings."
Ibn-Khaldun also attributes the Islamic civilization to Iranians. In
reality, it should be called an Iranian-Islamic civilization.
Italian scholar Aldo Mieli tells us that: "The principle part of Arab
science of the Orient is created by the Persians. Without any possible
contestation, in fact it is to Persia that belongs the best names of
these greatest of Savants such as Razi, Avicenna and Biruni."
The late Professor Edward Browne says: "Take from what is generally
called Arabian Science, from Exegesis, Tradition, Theology, Philosophy,
Medicine, Lexicography, History, Biography, even Arabic Grammar, the
work contributed by Persians and the
best part is gone."
Professor Rene Grousset writes in L'Ame de l'Iran: "Iran enters in
earnest into Islam and finds in it, Iran. Better still, it finds new
means of action, a new emanation, because Islamisation of Iran had for
its counter-attack, in a large measure,
the penetration of Iranian spirit into vast sectors of the Islamic
world. Besides, history is unanimous in recognizing the capital role
that the Iranian thinkers, authors and artists as well as the Iranian
administrators have played in the Abbassid civilization as much at the
court of Arab Caliphs as at the courts of Turkish Sultanates."
Sir William Muir writes that: "With the rise of Persian influence, the
roughness of Arab life was softened and there opened an era of culture,
toleration and scientific research."
In a comment, Mr. Zaman writes: " Balkh is an Afghan land currently
populated by Uzbeks and Hazaras. It is a historical piece of
Afghanistan and not Iran. Its much like Iranians claiming everything
even to the point of calling Jamal-ud-din Afghani" as "Jamal-ud-din
Irani".
Afghanistan did not exist until 250 years ago. Later on it was
supported by the British and Russians to serve as a buffer zone between
the two colonial powers. It has had a disastarous effect including
genocide because people with different cultures were forced
to live in the same country. The majority of Balkh today are dari
speakrs, Tajiks and Hazaras. Uzbeks as well speak dari as their first
language in afghanistan. Ironically Mowlana Balkhi fled westwary to
escape the mongol persecutions. Except for 200
verses in Turkish, and some 50 in Greek, all his couplets(close to
60000) are in the Persian language which is spoken in Tajikstan, Modern
Iran and parts of Afghanistan (like Balkh). The word Afghan is
equivalent to the word pushtu and Mowlana Balkhi was not from the this
tribe.
All three of these countries are part of the historical name of "Iran".
This convention was followed by muslim historians and scholars as well.
About the city of Balkh, it was just about year and half ago that
fanatical invading wahabis massacared over 10,000 Shia's in that city
by the support of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and covertly the US. Today
they have destroyed the fertile valley of the mountain tajiks, who are
the oldest inhabitants of those regions. That fertile valley used
to be able to provide enough food for most of Afghanistan. Actions, I
am sure you are proud of. As long as the lion of panjshere is around,
life will be miserable for the vahabites.
The land you are claiming is afghanistan has been called Khorasaan
since the dawn of the civilization in Balkh. For example the 10th
century AD poet Onsari writes:
"Khodaayegaan Khorasaan beh dasht pishavar
beh hamleh-I beparakand jam3 An lashkar"
Which refers to the attack by Mahmoud Ghaznavi, the ruler of khorasaan
on the desert of pishewar.
If you look at history books from 1000 years ago, like tarikh
Tabarestaan, Ma3jam al-baladaan, Koosh-nameh(Ze jeyhoon boro dar
daryaayeh paars, hamaan koofah az marz
Iran shenaas) , Khorasaan is an Iranian province.
Another example ma3jam al-baladaan is a book dated over 800 years ago.
On page 626:
"IranShahr,. Qaawl Abu-arayhaan al-khawarazmi, Iran Shahr hey belaad
al-araaq wa faars
wa al-jebaal wa Khorastaan Yajma3haa Kulaha hadhi-al-ism".
Khorasaan is mention as part of Iran.
Also no one I know of has called Jamal-ad-din Afghani, Jamal-ad-din
Irani. He was originally from Astar-Abaad according to some sources.
If you read the book "The mantle of the Prophet", by Roy Motahedeh you
will obtain more information that this
person was actually a shi'ite under taqya. He chose the name
al-afghani to be accepted in the sunni world and Sunni Islamic
universities. There are enough sources on this. It does
not make a diffrence though if he is claimed to be afghani and he did
not contribute anything significant like the Tajik Mowlana Balkhi.
Iranians believed in God while Arabs, Greeks and others were
worshipping idols.
For example:
Herodotus corroborates this when he says that: "the Persians have no
images of the Gods, no temples nor altars, and consider their use a
sign of folly. This comes, I think, from their not believing the Gods
to have the same nature as men, as imagined by the Greeks."
Marcus Cicero, the Roman statesman and author: "the Greeks like us
[Romans], had images and Statues for their Gods, but Iranians were
against worshipping idols and for that reason when Xerxes
[Khshayaarshan in Old Persian] conquered Greece, he ordered
the Statues of the Gods of Greeks to be destroyed and their temples to
be burned. Xerxesbelieved that the God of the universe has no special
place of residence and one cannot imprison him in the form of an idol
in one limited place."
Iranians due to a vastly different culture, think differently than
Arabs. And this is why Sufi Islam and Shii Islam have such a heavy
Persian flavor. Sufi Islam actually was discovered by Persians like
Naqshbandi, Gilaani and developed overwhelmingly by
Iranians except for a few caes.. Shii Islam also has a Iranian flavor
to Iran. The most important moulding would probably be the philosophy
of light of the martyred shaikh Shah Ad-din Sohrovardi. Basically, we
took Islam and moulded it in our culture. We
used Islam to promote our own culture, language and
civilization(Iranian-Islamic civilization). The reason Islam was
moulded into sufism or shiism is because of the fact of the vast
cultural difference between Arabs and Iranians. For example, slavery
was(and
still is in Sudan and other Arab countries) spread in some arab
countries. In Iran for example, burning libraries(like the Taliban
have done recently, and Omar and the mongols did in the past) is not
considered a virtue. For example, as an equivalent to taking slaves,
burning libraries and so on, look at this message
>from the Iranian king Cyrus who actually freed slaves:
Cyrus, King of the world, great King, mighty King, King of Babylon,
King of the land of Sumer and Akkad, King of the four quarters...When
I, well disposed, entered Babylon, I set up the seat of dominion
in the royal palace amidst jubilation and rejoicing. My numerous troops
moved about undisturbed in the midst of Babylon. I did not allow any to
terrorize the land of [Sumer] and Akkad. I kept in view the needs of
Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being. I freed
the citizens of Babylon of their unbecoming yoke. Their dilapidated
dwellings I restored. I put an end to their mis-fortunes. From...to the
cities of Ashur and Susa...as far as the region of the land of Gutium,
the Holy cities beyond the Tigris whose sanctuaries have been in ruins
over a long period, the gods whose abode is in the midst of them, I
returned to their places and housed them in lazing abodes. I gathered
together all their
inhabitants and restored (to them) their dwellings."
So due to a vastly different culture, Islam is moulded diffrently in
Iran than Arabia. We recognize Islam as the same truth revealed by
Christ, Abraham, Zoroaster and so on. The spiritual wisdom in the
Quran is a renewal of the message of the Prophet Zoroaster. The Quran
and true Islam does not diffret from the original teachings and books
of Moses(AS), zoroaster, Abraham(AS) and so on.
The Arab invasion of Iran, after Iran was weakened by wars with Rome,
had a devastating onsequence on the people and country. People were
taken as slaves(one of the slaves, a kurd from ahavand killed Umar
ibn-al-khattab) "those who live by the sword die by the sword". The
libraries were burned(Ibn khaldun, Tabari and many others mention of
this). Women's right in society was also minimized due to the Arab
influence. On the positive side of this invasion, the caste
system was broken.
The modern poet, Bahar explains it well:
Gar cheh Arab zad Harami beh maa,
Yek dineh Geraami daad beh maa. Which means Arabs gave us a good
religion although they did their bad deeds to Iran.
Iranians made the best of the situation. Not only did they build
almost everything that is considered Islamic civilization, but they
were also able to produce great geniuses like the Tajik Mowlana Balkhi
, Avicenna, Attar, Jaami, sohorovardi and the overwhelming majority of
great scholars. They were able to convert the largest muslim
populations in the world India and central Asian Turks through
Sufism and Persian culture. And they cultivated the Persian language
to such an extent, that is surpassed Arabic in cultural and spiritual
richness. Although they contributed the same if not more
than the Arabs to the Arabic language. The first book on Arabic
Grammer was written by an Iranian.
Today that is a relic of the past. Tommorrow's Iran will be free from
the fanaticism that has been imposed on the country, by a few clerics.
We are not interested in becoming Arabs and losing our
heritage like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and so on. Nor are Iranians
interested in some false ideology like Pan-islamism which is a cover
for Arabism as you state covertly above. If you don't like shiism,
sufism, zoroastrianism or other Iranian thoughts, the Quran mentions
that there is no compulsion in religion and this if you are muslim, you
should follow. Sunnism has also a tremendous Iranian
influence, at least two of the sunni Imams had Iranian ancestory, as
well as many great sunni scholars like Raazi, Ghazzali, Zamakhshari and
so on. Also the 6 Sunni hadeeth collectors were all
Iranians.
Conclusion: Mr. Zaman should not major in Iranian History as his work
is too biased to have any worth in this age and he lacks the sufficient
knowledge in this regard and makes too many errors.
Biased Historians have nothing good to contribute today in modern
society, although the works of bias historians from the past are useful
to explain history. A book in response to Mr. Zaman's errors,
misconceptions and distortions of history can be written, but I will
just leave it in this 3 part series.
The reason is as follows:
Mr. Zaman wrote:
"Usually, people arent in the practice of typing out Bibliographies t
the end of a Usenet post. This is the Usenet in case you forgot. not a
library. A lot of this information is from studies and also
occasionally cross referencing books such as "The Concise ncyclopedia
of Islam" and other Encyclopediae. All you had to do was ask. This
abusive style is not appreciated."
This means that Mr. Zaman was not really interested in writing history
>from an objective point of view. His intention was not to write
history, but to defame Iran and shiism. For now , I believe the 3
articles mentioned is a sufficient enough response. If Mr. Zaman
persists, there is saying that : "Javabeh Ablahan khamooshist",
(silence is the best answer to what is said by the ignorant).
Regards.
Some prominent sources among others used:
Arberry, A. J., The Legacy of Persia, Oxford, 1953
Wilber, Donald N., Iran: Past and Present, New Jersey, 1958
qizilbash
This part will be concerned with the anti-Persian, anti-shiite bias
that was raised by Mr. Zaman. I shall respond to one of Mr. Zaman's
responses first and then will make more comments on his ideas. First I
shall touch more upon history.
Mr. Zaman writes:
"
First of all the Bosnians (originally called "Bogumils") were willing
converts to Islam from a monotheistic Catholic sect.
The Albanians were also converted through missionary tacticts. Again, a
prime example of Shi'ites uniting with missionaries and orientalists
and their propoganda. I don't understand this logic. So the Sunni Turks
who converted entire populations to Islam in Eastern Europe were
astray but the Khwarezm Shi'ites who allied with Genghis and Hulaku
Khan in order to bring about the greatest slaughter Muslims have ever
seen were noble? It makes one wonder whose side you people are on
after all?"
Firstly it should be noted that Bosnian was recent ethnic term created
for slavic muslims of mainly serbo-croation background. This is
clearly shows by the post-fix at the end of all Bosnian names.
Majority of the converts were followers of orthodox christian and
then catholicism, but that does not make a difference anyhow for this
thread. What is important is that Mr. Zaman supports the methods of
the Ottomans in converting people to Islam. It should be said that the
Ottomans commited crimes like stealing young
christian boys, and then training them to fight their own country.
This in my opinion is a social and religious crime that is not
supported by Islam. Secondly it should be noted that
a good portion of the Albanian population(15-35 percent) are followers
of the Bektashti order, which is a shi'ite darvish order. It should
also be mentioned that the Jannieserries of the Ottoman empire was
mainly composed of these bektashti dervishesh. As for the
crimes of Ottoman empire, the disbanding of the bektashti order and
subsequent massacarers and pogroms that took place against the alevi
and bektashti population should be mentioned. Ironically with the
disbanding of the Bektashti order, the Ottoman empire started to decay
exponetionally. Also, as a hopefully decent human being, I
condemn the genocide of the 1 million armenians by the ottomans.
It should clearly be mentioned that the Khwarezm's were not shi'ites
but Sunnis. It should be also mentioned that the mongols invaded
Khorasaan because the shafii's opened the cities gate to the mongols
because they thought this would disband the hanafis. Both sects
were wiped off from Khorasaan by the mongols. The mongols only faced
stiff resistance from one place only. That was the Alamut mountains
where the Ismaiili shi'ia sect headquarter was at the time. The sunnis
empires and subkingdoms were not able to put
up a fight in any land, in any where.
The author makes the absurd claim that after the Iranian revolution:
"Once again the Righteous Caliphs were cursed, Sunnis made to be
disbelievers, and Iran isolated as a sea
of Shi`ism."
I responded to the author with : "3. the "righteos caliphs" are not
cursed in Iran, in any mosque, sufi temple, zoroastrian temple and
christian church in Iran. bring proof. It seems like the extremists
love to make an accusation and then claim it as the truth. Why not at
least have one citation in your wrong historical material? Why not
bring one proof for any accusation you are making? "
The historian(no pun intended), Mr. Zaman responded back with some old
shiite hadeeth whose accuracy is unverifiable and supposedly a copy of
something mr. Khomeini has decreed that is only in the hands of Mr
Zaman and a small group of extremists! Afterwards trying to cover up
his weak argument, Mr. Zaman accused me of practicing
taqqiyah, which was sort of humarous.
Mr. Zaman should know that Iran is 90% shia today(CIA factbook). This
means that shi'ites do not need to do taqqiyah in Iran. Iranians also
do not need to please you or any other sunni brothers and hide their
beliefs. I gave you a challenge. I said why not go to
Iran and see if anyone is actually cursing the three caliphs. People
have better things to do. I was in Iran recently and did not hear such
reports. Plus, people are not that naïve to do so anymore. This is a
major accusation. You are accusing Iranians of cursing the
three caliphs. Could you be wrong mr. Zaman? Could your third hand
information be more reliable than sunnis in Iran and people that have
travelled to Iran? Could you actually bring reliable reports that the
three caliphs are being cursed. If so can you show which mosque in
Iran? If khomeini decreed something, why no mosques in Iran follows
this. Your information Mr. Zaman is wrong. Even if there is a false
hadeeth cursing umar or abu bakr, the actual cursing in Iran is not
happening. I invite you to visit personally and bring proof then.
Till then, your proof is on shaky ground.
Iran has nothing to gain by cursing the three caliphs. Such an act,
which was incorrect, was initiated about 500 years ago by fanatical
mullahs whose counterpart in sunnism you have been thought from. This
was more a political act, where at that time, shiites and
sunnis were more polarized than ever. Shii's were massacared in
central Asia andOttoman land, while sunnis were killed in Iran. It was
a big mess, but it is past us and smart people will let the old wounds
heal themselves. Unfortunately, some people do not
really understand the matter and it's implications.
qizilbash
email me at qizi...@yahoo.com
thanks.
Dear Reader,
As you know, there was a recent post by Mr. shibli Zaman about the
"History" of Iran. I had responded to
his article in two parts, but unfortunately part 1 , which was the main
part, was deleted. I shall on today(dec
24, 1999) rewrite my original response, since I lost the post and Mr.
Zaman did not receive it.
Alittle bit about Mr. Zaman is inorder. This biography is not meant to
disrespect Mr. Zaman, but it is important that it will be seen in the
light of this response. Mr. Zaman comes from mixed background of
Iraqi and Afghan . One of Mr. Zaman's parent was originally from a
shi'a Afghan ancestory and another was an Iraqi who turned into
Wahabism. Thus consequently Mr. Zaman was brought into a Wahabist
family, whose influence can be seen throughout this article. Since
some of his forefathers were shi’i, and he
has adopted wahabism, perhaps his hatred against shi’ism and Iran is
understandable.
Since I wrote alittle on Mr. Zaman, I will just mention a few word
about myself. I come from a shi'I Iranian background. I am not
against or for the current government of Iran and personally I support
the peacefull transition to democracy that is happening in Iran today.
Personally, Mr. Zaman is free to follow whatever he likes and this is
not my concern. My concern is the attack on Iran and Shi'a Islam
without any reason or basis on Mr. Zaman's part. Firstly I will
correct some of the Historical mistakes Mr. Zaman made in his article:
Mr Zaman writes:
1-Mr. Zaman's history:
" The Abbasid caliphate ruled Iran under Traditional Sunni Islam from
750 AD."
1-answer:
Firstly it is funny, that Mr. Zaman does not mention anything of the
oppressive ummayyads, who's rulers built castles and suppressed
shi'ism. Iranians and other non-arab's were also 2nd class citizen.
This is actually how the history of Islam starts in Iran.
The Abbasid Caliphate did not rule all parts of Iran. Furthermore,
the Abbasid did not have a traditional sunni root. Sunnism was later
adopted, not at 750 AD.
The Abbasid revolution had been conducted on behalf of an Imam whose
name remained hidden, and therefore Muslims were anxious to meet him.
Al-Mansur realizing this sensitive situation, named his son “Al-Mahdi”
and made him his heir. Hadiths in the name of the Prophet(SAW) were
forged. One such hadeeth said:
“By God, were no more than one day left to the world, God would cause
the downfall of the Ummayyads so that al-Saffah(the bloodshedder),
al-Mansur(he who is rendered victorious) and al-Mahdi would
come”.(Cambridge History of Iran, pg 66).
Considering the above fact, the Abbasid did not rule under traditional
Sunni Islam in 750 AD. Even the four schools of Sunnism were not
developed at this time. Furthermore It must be remembered that the
Abbasid were enthroned by the Shia Iranian, Abu Muslim Khorasaani, who
rid the muslim World of the oppression of the Uymmayad. The Ummayads
not only prosecuted Shia's, but they refused to accept Turks, Iranians
and other muslims as equal to Arab muslim. Abu Muslim Khorasaani was
able to put an end to their oppression and that is why when one visits
the Iranian lands of Iran, Afghanistan, Azarbaijan, Tajikstan and so
on, people like Abu Muslim Khorasaani, Babakh Khoram-din, Yaqub Layth
and others are considered heroes. More will be said about this later.
Due to the eventual corruptness of the Abbasids, the dynasty leaned
towards more of aristocracy disappointing it’s initial peasant(Iranian)
and shia base. This with the combination of the martyrdom of Abu
Muslim, led to many revolution both Shia and Iranian in nature. The
Shia revolutions in the initial stages were more Arab based, but by two
century afterwards the Ismaiili Shia revolutions were led mostly by
Iranians and were Iranians in nature. Another type of revolution was
Iranian in its characteristics and had
the support of the peasant and farmer class. They were Iranian in its
characteristics because they mixed a combination of Mazdakism and
Zoroastrianism religion. The most famous of these revolutions was led by
Babak the Khorram-din. Many other revolutions are mentioned by Islamic
historians of both Shia Arab origin and Iranian origin.
The Abbasids who were most likely of a Kasanite Shia nature in the
beginning(Jafri, 278) eventually leaned towards Sunni Islam by the
middle of the 8th century. This in turn equated the concept of Imamate
with the concept of caliphate for the majority of Muslims and the
obedience to the caliph became an important concept for the majority of
Muslims. This may be reason why Sunni Muslims usually supported the
caliphate, while Shias were always hostile to it.
Mr Zaman writes:
2-Mr. Zaman's history:
"After 821 the Abbasid Caliphate began to severely decline and
suffered pressure and domination by external forces such as the
Zeyarids, Daylamids and other newly converted Turkic tribes who lacked
in basic Islamic knowledge but not in military might. The Daylamids
heralded from the regions of present day Azerbaijan. Their descendents,
the Azeris of today, are the only majority Shi`ite group of Turks in
the world. The weakness and gradual disintegration of the Abbasid
empire led to an Anti-Caliphate sentiment which exists in modern day
Shi`ism."
2-Answer:
The Zayarids, Dalayamiyaan were not turkic tribes. The turks did not
enter the area at that time before the seljuqs arrived. They were
Iranian tribes. The zayarids , daylamiyaan and others were internal
Iranian forces and not external as Mr. Zaman alleges. They are
ancestors of the modern gilak's, talysh and dimilia kurds in North
west-Kurdistan.
3-Mr. Zaman's history:
This movement was pioneered by Yaqub ibn Layh who
placed the Kharijites ("seceders") of Khorasan as his generals and
highest in command. This marriage of a Shi`ite leader and the
Kharijites led to modern day Safavid 12 Imam Shi`ism as we now see it.
He wrested Nishapur, the home of Imam Muslim, from the Tahirids in
873. He was a coppersmith, or "Saffar", so his dynasty is called the
"Saffari" or Saffarid dynasty. He spoke Persian only and had
absolutely no knowledge of the Arabic language."
3-answer:
Not only Yaqub Layth Saffari was not a follower of twelve Imami shiism,
he was not a follower of shiism at all. So Mr. Zaman's theory of a
marriage between 12 Imami shiism and kharajites is just the bogus that
has no proof in any historical books. For example ,
the Cambridge History of Iran nor any other major books on Iran's
history mention this fact. The best source on yaqub layth is the
"tarikh Sistaan", which does not mention any of the accusations alleged
by Mr. Zaman.
4-Mr. Zaman's history:
" The Saffarids were succeeded by the Samanids who were vassals of the
Abbasid state and who brought a brief interruption in the Shi`ite
Persian nationalist revival. The Samanids were a puppet regime for the
Abbasids and were given the entire tracts of Herat, Bukhara,
Samarqand, Khojand, and further, so long as they upheld Traditional
Sunni Islam and paid tribute to the Abbasid Caliphate. By 875 they had
all of Khorasan and Transoxania."
4-answer:
"The Samanids were not puppets of the Abbasids, as Mr. Zaman would like
it. They were a semi-independent empire, where contrary to Mr. Zaman's
opinion, Persian culture was revived again. Great Iranians at that
time, some having secret shi'a tendencies like ferdowsi, Biruni,
Avicenna, Rudaki and so on were the revivers of Persian culture under
Samanids. So Mr. Zaman's assertion that there was an interruption of
persian nationalist revival is quite wrong, the opposite actually
happened. There was an explosion of
Persian revival at that time. Even Zoroastrians were tolerated and
people like Daqiqi were able to part-take in the Persian Revival."
5- Mr. Zaman's history:
" In 1393 a claimant to Genghis Khan's house emerged. His name was
Timur Lang meaning "Timur the Cripple". He defeated the Ottomans on
their own ground and took the Sultan Beyezid captive in Ankara. He had
unusual reasons for his invasions of the numerous Muslim provinces of
the Islamic world. They are a sign of his Shi`ite background. He
claimed to have invaded Damascus to avenge Ali (as) because the
Damasus had sided with Mu`awiya (r) against him.
"
5-Answer:
" Teymur lang was a sunni and this is mentioned in all historical
books of unbias origin. The cambridge history of Iran is clear on this
fact. He did respect shi'ism in general, but knowing that the majority
of people were sunnis, he did the safe thing and stayed sunni. It's
useless to go into the muawiya fiasco in this article,
but one thing is certain, Muawiyah is not liked by many sunnis as
well. Putting an (r) behind his name shows a lack of historical
objectivity on your part. Extreme Arab nationalist, like Saddam
and the ba'th party on the other hand praise everything about the
ummayyad dynastay, I guess since it oppressed Iranians and they have a
inferiority complex. But this is beyond the scope of this article".
6- Mr. Zaman's history:
"Timur gave the territory in and around Ardabil in
Azerbaijan to a Shi`ite extremist named Safi ad-Deen. He was also of a
heretical Sufi order named after him called the "Safavi" order."
6-answer:
"Shaikh Safi ad-deen Ardabili, the founder of the safavid order was a
Sunni Kurd following the shafii school of thought. His shafiism is
proven in the history books written at his own time. His being a Kurd
is proven by the fact that his poems which are in the Pahlavi language
are very similar to Kurdish. Although most of his followers were
turkomens. So the authors lack of knowledge about shaikh safi ad-deen
is an important fact that needs to be cleared up. Since the author has
many opinions to say about Shaikh Safi ad-deen."
7. Mr. Zaman's history: "From the Safavids came the surprise
conversion of a member of one of the original seven Qizl Bash Turkoman
tribes."
7-answer: There was more than seven Qizilbash tribes. The qizilbash
were mainly turkomens, kurds and dalamites(gilanis) who were followes
of shaikh safi-adin. So their tribal organization was not based on
ethnicity, but based on following the safavid sufi order. It is
important to know the role of qizilbash and what they were exactly,
inorder for you to make some opinions on Iran's history.
8. Mr. Zaman's history: "After Nadir Shah came the Zands who were from
another tribe of the Qizl Bash. They were extremely short lived and
defeated by Reza Khan Pahlavi who instituted the Pahlavid dynasty. "
8-answer: The Zands from Lurs-and Bakhtiaris.
9.-answer: The Zands were defeated by the Qizilbash tribe of Qajar who
controlled Iran for 150 years about and not the Pahlavis!
10.- Mr. Zaman's history: " History has shown that the
Shi`ite dynasties have contributed NOTHING to Jihad in foreign lands
but only to "Jihad" against Sunni regimes and even their own fellow
Shi`ites on occasion."
10- Answer: Shiite dynasties like the fatimids did spread Islam in
north-africa. Furthemore, the Bektashti order also called the
janniessaries, were the main force in the ottoman warfare. The
Bektashti are called qizilbash today in turkey and they are followers
of the 12-Imams(AS). Furthermore, the conquest of andalusia was lead
by a shi'ite commander.
Dear Reader, my intention was not to bore you. I just wanted to prove
to you that there was an ulterior motive in writing this history book.
If the author really wanted to write about Iran's history, his tone
would be more objective. He will back up his sources with unbiased
materials and he would not make so many crucial
mistakes in Iran's history. I shall write about the ulterior motive
and the false interpretation of history as well as the skewed rhetorics
of Mr. Zaman in part two and three.
May God be with you.
Some Books used to respond to Mr. Zaman:
Tabari's History,
Tarikh Sistaan,
Cambridge history of Iran
Ali Abbas
assalam o alaikum.
please see my comments below.
This is taken from this title
al Khutoot al Areedah - Broad Aspects of Shi'ite Religion
[Exposition and Refutation], Muhibbudeen al Khateeeb [and not al Kanadi]
translated by Mahmoud Murad
Printed at the Cost of Some Beneficent Trusts.
National Offset Printing Press, Riyadh, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Section: Malice Against Abu Bakr and Umar, pp11-12
I am looking at the page, with a photocopy from a title called 'Tuhfa tul
awam Maqbool' crudely translated as Popular Gift to the Populace, Iftikhar
Book Depot, Islam Pura Lahore. I did not find any of the insertion of names
of the first and second Caliphs of Islam, as the author has suggested.
> There is your proof. Did you honestly not know all this or was it
> concealment on your part? I even have a scan of the actual document
> signed by Khomeini which means this is a practice as recent as this
> century. How would you, with your DEEEEEEEEEP knowledge of Iran and
> its history not know this? This is not meant to be offensive, as
> "Toqiyah" is a big part of the Shi'ite faith. "Toqiyah" is to hide
> one's true beliefs to please others.
> E.G. Brown who lived amongst the Iranians in order to compile his
> "Literary History of Persia" sites an ancient Farsi couplet of the old
> Dari dialect:
>
> "bishikast Omar pasht hazbaraan aham raa, barbaad fana dad rag wa
> reshta aajam ra. Ayn aarbada barghosb khelafat az Ali NEEST, ba aale
> Omar keenah qadeem ast aajam ra"
>
> This is translated to mean:
> "Omar smote the backs of the lions in their dens, and extirpated the
> roots of the dynasty of Jam (Jamshed the great King of Persia). THE
> STRUGGLE IS *NOT* BECAUSE HE USURPED THE CALIPHATE FROM ALI, BUT
> BECAUSE THE AFFAIR IS AS OLD AS HE CONQUERED THE PERSIAN LANDS."
Again this is taken from the title,
The Shi'ites and the Sunna, Ihsan Elahi Zaheer
editor Idara Tarjaman al Hadith Lahore
Translated by Prof. Dr Rana M.N Ehsan Elahie
Published by Idara Tarjuman al Sunnah, 475 Shadman Lahore, Pakistan
English translation: Section: Cause of the Propagation of Shi'asm in Persian
and Hatred of the Shi'a for the Companions, pp.78-79
Original Arabic: Dar al Ansar, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 50
> This is what it is all about and this is the origin of modern day
> Safavid 12 imam Shi`ism.
>
> Instead of insulting and treating people who obviously have deep
> knowledge of a subject like imbeciles, try using a more scholastic
> approach next time. It will prevent you from looking silly.
> Shibli Zaman
> Shi...@Zaman.Net
>
if time permits, there is a 11 series article by the late Murtadha Mutahhari
that sheds light on the non-sense suggested by the author, under the title
'Islam and Iran: A Historical Study of Mutual Services', al Tawhid Islamic
Journal, Iran that we shall post, since we have copyright permission. the
first three series will suffice, insha 'Allah.
regards
abu Kumayl.
Shibli Zaman
>Firstly it should be noted that Bosnian was recent ethnic term created
>for slavic muslims of mainly serbo-croation background. This is
>clearly shows by the post-fix at the end of all Bosnian names.
>Majority of the converts were followers of orthodox christian and
>then catholicism, but that does not make a difference anyhow for this
>thread. What is important is that Mr. Zaman supports the methods of
And how does it benefit you to repeat exactly what I said?
>the Ottomans in converting people to Islam. It should be said that the
>Ottomans commited crimes like stealing young
>christian boys, and then training them to fight their own country.
The Prophet (s) did this in the battle of Khaybar when the Muslims
defeated and crushed the Jews and took their women and children. Every
contention of yours is based on the Pre-Islamic Khosrow's hostility
towards the Muslims who defeated them and brought an end to their fire
worshipping Persian Empire. Will you now attack the Prophet (s) for
this practice like your predecessors did? Will you attack Ali (as)
whom you all nearly deify who lead the onslaught against those Jews?
You have a chronic habit of cornering yourself with your own words.
>This in my opinion is a social and religious crime that is not
>supported by Islam. Secondly it should be noted that
You mean not supported by your ethnocentric Persian fanaticism. You
accuse me of being a racist Arab Wahhabi throughout your posts as part
of your argument. The funny thing is that, first of all, I am not even
an Arab. Second of all I am far from a Wahhabi. I am a Sunni of the
traditional Shafi`ee mathhab. I celebrate no culture over another and
this is evident in whatever I have written. However your abhorrence
for anything you see as "Arabic" is quite obvious. You are pointing
out your own biases by accusing me of having them.
>a good portion of the Albanian population(15-35 percent) are followers
>of the Bektashti order, which is a shi'ite darvish order. It should
To call this fabricated statistic hilarious is to put it mildly. The
Balkan Muslims (Albanians, Sanjaks, Bosnians, etc) are and have always
been overwhelmingly Hanafi Sunni Muslim. Islam was introduced to them
at the hands of the Seljuq and Ottoman Turks both of whom were
severely Sunni of the Hanafi branch. To say that 15-35 (!!!!!) percent
of the Albanians are Shi`ites is pure statistic retardation. I
challenge you to produce a single valid resource which states that the
Albanians are 15-25% Shi`ite. There exists no such thing.
>It should clearly be mentioned that the Khwarezm's were not shi'ites
>but Sunnis. It should be also mentioned that the mongols invaded
>Khorasaan because the shafii's opened the cities gate to the mongols
>because they thought this would disband the hanafis. Both sects
>were wiped off from Khorasaan by the mongols. The mongols only faced
>stiff resistance from one place only. That was the Alamut mountains
>where the Ismaiili shi'ia sect headquarter was at the time. The sunnis
>empires and subkingdoms were not able to put
>up a fight in any land, in any where.
Where the author received his information on history is beyond me.
However, he persists in using an extremely abusive tone in spite of
his constant use of comical information which he tries to pass off as
history. There never was any alliance between the Shafi`ees and the
Mongols against the Hanafis. This is mere fairy tale found in not even
a single history book. The author received this myth from the silly
pamphlet (not worth being called a book) "Peshawar Nights" which is
full of completely ridiculous information. This is the only place
anyone has ever seen this fairy tale incident about the Shafi`ees
uniting with the Mongols against the Hanafis. Please get your
information from actual studies or books. Not from pamphlets you find
scanned at al-islam.org.
Here is the actual event which enabled Hulagu Khan to raze the Muslim
Empire to the ground and establish the Il-Khan domain in vassalage to
Hulahu's brother Kublai. This is an incident extremely backed by the
unanimity of scholarship on the subject.
"Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi (Born February 18, 1201 in Tus, Khorasan, now in
Iran; Died June 26, 1274, Baghdad, Iraq), outstanding Persian
philosopher, scientist, and mathematician.
Tusi became astrologer to the Isma`ili governor Nasir ad-Din `Abd
ar-Rahim, but his attempts to join the caliph's court at Baghdad led
to his being detained in Alamu, headquarters of the Isma`ili terrorist
sect, the Assassins. In 1256 HE BETRAYED THE DEFENSES OF THE FORTRESS
TO THE INVADING MONGOLS, WHOSE ARMY HE JOINED; HULEGU KHAN TOOK HIM AS
A CONFIDENTIAL ADVISER WHEN HE ATTACKED BAGHDAD IN 1258."
[Biography of Nasir ad-Din al Tusi; Encyclopedia Brittanica, Reference
and Index X (10) T-Z, page 205, 1978 edition]
"An example of this is seen in the behavior of the Shi'ite philosopher
and scholar An-Naseer At-Toosi. He composed poetry in praise of
Al-Musta'sim, the Abbasid Caliph, then in 65 A.H. executed a complete
turn about, instigating revolution against his patron, thereby
hastening the catastrophe which befell Islam in Baghdad, where he
headed the butcher Hulago's blood-letting procession. In fact he
personally supervised the slaughter of Muslims, sparing none, not even
women, children, or the aged. This same At-Toosi also approved of
wholesale dumping of valuable texts of Islamic literature in the
Tigris River; its waters ran black for days from the ink of the
innumerable manuscripts. Thus vanished a great treasure of the Islamic
heritage consisting of works in history, literature, language and
poetry, not to mention those in the Islamic religious sciences, which
had been passed down from the pious of the first generation of
Muslims, and which could be found in abundance until that time when
they were destroyed in a cultural holocaust the like of which had
never been seen before."
[Khutoot al Areedah; Muhibbud-din al Khateeb; Edited by al Kanadi]
This person whom I am ashamed to even call a human, Nasir ad-Din al
Tusi, is a hero to the Shi`ites to this day. He plotted to use the
Mongols to destroy Islam at the heart of its Caliphate and make
Shi`ism rule supreme. In this slaughter which he personally led and
supervised at the forefront, all Muslim men, women, and children were
murdered in utter humiliation. Pregnant women were torn open forced to
walk around dragging their babies dangling by the umbilical cord until
they both died. The mongols violated young Muslim girls using their
horses and dogs to rape them. A pyramid of the skulls of Muslims was
built in honor of Hulegu all under the supervision of the Iranian
hero, Nasir ad-Din al Tusi, who dreamed of an end to the ahl as-sunnah
forever.
I expect a typically nonsense response denying the murderer al Toosi
is a Shi`ite and Iranian hero to this day. In response I have a very
1999 response:
http://www.kntu.ac.ir/html/aboute.html
Its a major University standing right now in Iran named after him. You
don't name monuments and universities after someone for any reason
other than adoration and praise.
Please produce references similar to these or I implore you to PLEASE
not waste my time. As you can see I have gone to great lengths to END
this discussion IRREFUTABLY so you may not invent anymore nonsense. I
welcome intelligent dialog. Not fairy tales. All these references
point to the Shi`ite zeal to help the Mongols annihilate the Muslims.
You write lengthy "part one, part two, part three" posts with nothing
but nonsense and quote two silly sources on subject matter that does
not even pertain to the subject. This is my final reply to this until
I see something worth refutation. I simply don't have the time to
waste and I will not respond to nonsense.
I noticed the author even had the audacity to blindly challenge me to
produce proof that the 3 caliphs were cursed in Iran in the present
day even though I provided PHOTO proof of it. He says that the Hadith
is "old". This made me laugh. Obviously it would have to be "old" or
else it would not be authentic. Would he rather I bring a "newer"
invention? I know the Shi`ites are quite used to this but it is not
the practice of any serious student of history. Here is the URL AGAIN:
http://www.zaman.net/lies2.jpg
Please bring forth information of merit and substance and I will
celebrate such dialog. Otherwise, please desist. As a Muslim, It is my
duty to correct misinformation but please don't task me unnecessarily.
However, just for grins....here's some more just to make even the more
sure you will be silenced:
SHI`ITES ON THE FIRST CALIPH:
"Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (son of Abu Bakr the First Caliph) said to the
Commander of the Faithful, Ali (as) on a certain day, 'Hold out your
hand, I take the oath of allegiance to you.' He asked him if he had
not already taken the oath. He replied, 'Not so far.' Thereupon he
held out his hand and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr uttered these words, 'I
stand witness to the fact that you are the Leader and that obedience
to you is incumbent on us; BUT MY FATHER (Abu Bakr the First Caliph)
IS IN THE FIRE..."
[Ar-Rejal al Kaashshi; pages 60,61; Tehran edition; pages vary by
publication but are cited by request]
SHI`ITES ON THE SECOND CALIPH:
"Al Baaqir said to al Kumait, 'No blood that has been shed in Islam,
nor any property that has been taken into possession unlawfully, not
any woman taken illegally for sexual intercourse, but that the burden
of that shall be on the shoulders of those two (Abu Bakr, the First
Caliph and Umar, the Second Caliph) until the Day of
Resurrection....'"
[Ar-Rejal al Kashshi; pages 179,180; Tehran edition; pages vary by
publication but are cited by request]
SHI`ITES ON THE THIRD CALIPH:
Al Kaafi says in his "al Kaafi min al Usool al Arba`ah" in the Chapter
of "al Hujja" vol. 1, page 420; Tehran edition; (pages vary by
publication but are cited by request) that Abu Abdullah (as) stated in
reference to the Qur'anic verse,
"Moreover, they who believed and afterwards became disbelievers and
then believed again and after that disbelieved and increased in
infidelity theyir repentance shall in no wise be accepted from any of
them" [Qur'an 4:136]
"This verse was revealed about 'so and so'..." The commentary narrates
that "so and so" is Abu Bakr, the First Caliph, Omar, the Second
Caliph and Uthman, the Third Caliph.
These are all extremely well known facts amongst both Shi`ites and
Sunnis yet I have been burdened to produce the obvious due to certain
individuals' senseless persistence.
was-salaamu `alaykum
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
MORE REFERENCES ON THE SHI`ITES ALLIANCE WITH THE MONGOLS
[EXTREMELY lengthy and mostly from the Central Asian historians
themselves from the lands where this actually took place]:
Biography in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York 1970-1990).
Biography in Encyclopaedia Britannica.
G D Mamedbeii, Muhammed Nasir al-Din al-Tusi on the theory of parallel
lines and the theory of ratios (Azerbaijani), Izdat. Akad. Nauk
Azerbaijzansk. SSR (Baku 1959).
F J Ragep, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi's Memoir on Astronomy Vol I, Vol II
(New York, 1993).
Articles:
N A Abdulkasumova, The 'Tahrir al-Majisti [Commentary on the
Almagest]' of Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi (first book), Izv. Akad. Nauk
Azerbaidzan. SSR Ser. Fiz.-Tehn. Mat. Nauk (4) (1977), 114-121.
S A Ahmedov, Extraction of a root of any order and the binomial
formula in the work of Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi, Mat. v Skole (5) (1970),
80-82.
U Ataev, The commentary of Kazi -zade ar-Rumi on the astronomical
treatise of Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi, Questions on the history of
mathematics and astronomy I, Trudy Samarkand. Gos. Univ. (N.S.) Vyp.
229 (1972), 124-127.
U Ataev, The mathematician and astronomer Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi,
Questions on the history of mathematics and astronomy I, Trudy
Samarkand. Gos. Univ. (N.S.) Vyp. 229 (1972), 119-123.
J L Berggren, al-Kuhi's "Filling a lacuna in Book II of Archimedes" in
the version of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Centaurus 38 (2-3) (1996),
140-207.
N Berozashvili, The Tbilisi manuscripts of Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi's
commentaries to Euclid's 'Elements' (Georgian), Sakharth. SSR Mecn.
Akad. Moambe 89 (2) (1978), 497-500.
M di Bono, Copernicus, Amico, Fracastoro and the mechanism of al-Tusi
: observations on the use and the transmission of a model (Italian),
in Copernicus and the Copernican question in Italy from the sixteenth
to the nineteenth century, Ferrara, 1993 (Florence, 1996), 69-96.
M di Bono, Mario Copernicus, Amico, Fracastoro and Tusi's device:
observations on the use and transmission of a model, J. Hist.
Astronom. 26 (2) (1995) 133-154.
A V Dorofeeva, Nasir ad-Din at Tusi (1201-1274), Mat. v Shkole (3)
(1989), i, 145-146.
L I Dovlatova, Basic objects in the "introduction" to the first book
of 'Tahrir Ugli dis' by Muhammed Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi, Azerbaidzan.
Gos. Univ. Ucen. Zap. Ser. Fiz.-Mat. Nauk (2) (1969), 83-86.
N G Hairetdinova, On the history of Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi 's 'Treatise
on the quadrilateral', Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (1)(54)
(1976), 42-43, 97, 107.
O Gingerich, A Tusi couple from Schöner's "De revolutionibus"?, J.
Hist. Astronom. 15 (2) (1984), 128-133.
W Hartner, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi 's lunar theory, Physis - Riv.
Internaz. Storia Sci. 11 (1-4) (1969), 287-304.
R I Ibadov, Determination of the sine of one degree by Nasir ad-Din
at-Tusi, Izv. Akad. Nauk Azerbaidzan. SSR Ser. Fiz.-Tehn. Mat. Nauk
1968 (1) (1968), 49-54.
F A Kasumhanov, The theory of continuous quantities and the study of
number in the works of Muhammad Nasir-al-din Tusi, Trudy Inst. Istor.
Estest. Tehn. 1 (1954), 128-145.
E S Kennedy, Two Persian astronomical treatises by Nasir al-Din
al-Tusi, Centaurus 27 (2) (1984), 109-120.
A Kubesov, The commentaries of Nasi ad-Din at-Tusi on the treatise of
Archimedes "On the sphere and cylinder", Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan.
i Tehn. Vyp. 2 (1969), 23-28.
T Lévy, Gersonide, le pseudo-Tusi, et le postulat des parallèles. Les
mathématiques en Hébreu et leurs sources arabes, Arabic Sci. Philos. 2
(1) (1992), 39-82.
J W Livingston, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi's 'al-Tadhkirah' : A category of
Islamic astronomical literature, Centaurus 17 (4) (1973), 260-275.
K M Mamedov, On the commentaries of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi in Books
I-III of "Tahrir Eglidis" in the "Elements" of Euclid (Azerbaijani),
Akad. Nauk Azerbaijzan. SSR Trudy Inst. Mat. Meh. 2 (10) (1963),
147-158.
J F Ragep, The two versions of the Tusi couple, in From deferent to
equant (New York, 1987), 329-356.
G Rosi'nska, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Ibn al-Shatir in Cracow?, Isis
65 (1974), 239-243.
B A Rozenfeld, New information concerning the authorship of the Rome
edition of Euclid's 'Elements' by Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi, Voprosy Istor.
Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (1)(42) (1972), 36, 95, 103.
B A Rozenfeld, On the mathematical works of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi,
Istor.-Mat. Issled. 4 (1951), 489-512.
B A Rozenfeld and A P Yushkevich, Notes au traité de Nasir al-Din
al-Tusi sur les lignes parallèles, Istor.-Mat. Issled. 13 (1960),
525-532.
G Saliba, The role of the "Almagest" commentaries in medieval Arabic
astronomy : a preliminary survey of Tusi's redaction of Ptolemy's
"Almagest", Arch. Internat. Hist. Sci. 37 (118) (1987), 3-20.
B H Siddiqui, Nasir al-Din Tusi, A History of Muslim Philosophy I
(Wiesbaden, 1963), 564-580.
H Tllasev, Certain mathematical and astronomical manuscripts of Nasir
ad-Din at-Tusi in the collection of the Institute of Oriental Studies
of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR, Izv. Akad. Nauk UzSSR
Ser. Fiz.-Mat. Nauk 16 (4) (1972), 63-65.
T Street, Tusi on Avicenna's logical connectives, Hist. Philos. Logic
16 (2) (1995), 257-268.
Kh Kh Tllashev, Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi and his algebraic treatise, in
Mathematics and astronomy in the works of Ibn Sina, his contemporaries
and successors (Tashkent, 1981), 126-135, 157.
Kh Kh Tllashev, Certain mathematical and astronomical manuscripts of
Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi in the collection of the Institute of Oriental
Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR, Izv. Akad. Nauk
UzSSR Ser. Fiz.-Mat. Nauk 16 (4) (1972), 63-65.
A U Usamanov, Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi's astronomical tract "Muiniya", in
Mathematics in the East in the Middle Ages (Tashkent, 1978), 113-126,
195.
A U Usmanov, The theory of eclipses of Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi in the
light of al-Khwarizmi's "Zij", in The great medieval scientist
al-Khwarizmi (Tashkent, 1985), 183-191.
I N Veselovsky, Copernicus and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, J. Hist.
Astronom. 4 (2) (1973), 128-130.
B van Dalen, E S Kennedy and M K Saiyid, The Chinese-Uighur calendar
in Tusi's "Zij-i Ilkhani", Z. Gesch. Arab.-Islam. Wiss. 11 (1997),
111-152, 9.
V S Vladimirov, The great Azerbaijani scholar Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi,
Izv. Akad. Nauk Azerbaidzhan. SSR Ser. Fiz.-Tekhn. Mat. Nauk 6 (1)
(1985), 3-9.
G E Yusupova, Commentaries to Menelaus' "Spherics" by al-Tusi and
al-Yazdi, Izv. Akad. Nauk UzSSR Ser. Fiz.-Mat. Nauk (6) (1990), 40-43,
80.
Shibli Zaman
>Part 3-conclusion.
>
>In this part we will examine Mr. Zaman's Anti-Iranian and anti-shia
>comments. Firstly let us mention Mr. Zaman's comments:
>
>"By 900 the reviving of Persian culture and
> directly challenging the Islamic culture and Arabic language took full
> fruition. In 1009 Ferdowsi's "Shah Nameh" was composed to directly
>challenge the valor of the early Arab Muslim Mujahideen who had
>conquered Iran and to elevate the Persian language and culture."
>
>This comment arises from the fruit of Wahabism, a movement created by
>the british which is a nationalistc Arab movement mixed with religion.
>A dangerous combination for its confused followers.
>
>Mr. Zaman is saying that Persian culture was challenging Islamic
>culture and Arabic language.
>
>Dear Reader.
[nonsense snipped]
The author of this post wasted a tremendous amount of time trying to
make Persian culture out to be the kiln that civilized the barbaric
Arabs. This waste of time was done with his ridiculous assumption that
I am 1) an Arab 2) a Wahhabi/Salafi. All he had to do was ask and he
would have saved the hours he spent wasting on this lengthy
dissertation on the superiority of Persian civilization and culture
over others. Since there is an air of insipidity thickening the air
allow me to answer the necessary, yet unasked, question: Who Am I?
I was born of and raised in the United States. My mother's family
heralds from the Shi`ite areas East of Basra, Iraq who are Shi`ite
Arabs bilingual in Persian and Iraqi Arabic. My father heralds from
the Pashtoon tribe areas of NW Pakistan. Both families had settled in
India's far North. Thus, I have an Arabic, Persian, and Pashtoon
background and speak the above languages. I also speak Urdu since my
family had settled in India. I learned Turkish out of mere interest
and luxury. My mother's family left Shi`ism and joined the main body
of Muslims, Ahl as-Sunnah wa-l Jama`ah, after my maternal
grandfather's deep studies under various Shi`ite and Sunni Shaykhs
throughout the Muslim world ranging from Iraq to what was then
Afghanistan. My knowledge of Shi`ism sprouts from my familly's deep
lineage in Shi`ism and the studies of my forefathers.
I personally studied Islam under a few Shaykhs most of whom were
Egyptian and Shafi`ee. In spite of my family's Hanafi background I
spent most my time with Shafi`ee scholars incidentally. This was not
due to my preference of one over the other. My father is a Hanafi yet
encouraged me to study Shafi`ee fiqh as he believed Imam Shafi`ee to
be talented in the skill of assessment and deduction, a quality which
he believed he saw in me as well. The most major shaykh I have sat
with was Shaykh Muhammad Badr-ud-Deen of Makkah who is a high and
eminent Sufi Shaykh of the Naqshabandi Tareeqah. I have studied mostly
with Ash`ari shaykhs but my deepest study of `Aqeedah was with a
Hanafi scholar who's knowledge of `Aqeedah was from a Hanbali
perspective. Such scholars have existed such as Imam Abu Zaid al
Qayrawani the great Maliki shaykh who penned his "ar-Risala". He was a
staunch Maliki yet his perspective of `Aqeedah was much closer to that
of the Hanbalis. Thus my `Aqeedah is closer with the Hanbalis rather
than the Ash`aris though I have a deep respect and appreciation for
the Ash`ari group. Many of our great scholars and heros were
Ash`ariyya such as Imam Jalal ad-Deen Suyuti and the great warrior
Salah ad-Deen al Ayyubi. I do not believe one group or mathhab within
the ahl as-sunnah to be superior over the other but I enjoy the
straightforward attitude of the Hanabil in regards to Allah's Divine
Names and Attributes. Much of my education was under the Scholars of
Tasawwuf mostly of the Naqshabandi Tareeqah. So to say I am a Wahhabi
is truly laughable as the Wahhabis themselves have been quick to call
me a "Sufi Deviant" or "Innovator".
Thus, all you had to do was ask and not assumed that I was 1) an Arab
which I am not and 2) a Wahhabi which I am not. You could have saved a
lot of time. Now please....get OFF the racist issues. They are
EXTREMELY irrelevant. Persia's role in decaying the Muslim ummah was
not RACIAL but was due to their Shi`ite rulers and was of purely
IDEOLOGICAL reasons. Reading anything I have written with eyes open
would make this obvious. One of the main compilers of Sunnah Imam
Muslim was from Nayshapur, Iran and was a Persian. Most of the
brilliant scholars of the early period following the Tabi`een were all
Persians staunch in the ahl as-sunnah
So lets put this ridiculous issue of race to rest now that you know
you were wrong about my background. I notice you use the name
"Qizlbash". Ironically the Qizil bash were not Persians but Turks. I
notice quite a bit of inconsistency in you and your empty statements
such as "Mr. Zaman should not major in Iranian history", "A book could
be written on Mr. Zaman's errors" etc make you look like you just
graduated from Kindergarten. If there are errors then refute them. Its
a simple thing which you fail to do yet you insist on childish
rhetoric. Then you go on to state that silence is the best policy for
the ignorrant. As you quote your Persian deities, I would like to
quote the Muslims' beloved Sayidina Ali (as), "I can not win an
argument with a JAHIL." Your demanded I present a Bibliography at the
footer of a Usenet post. Now that I have, you simply can't match my
references and sources. In the previous post I provided a list of
references close to 2 pages long. So please stop being so silly
already. I remember you from my college days on IRC. You used to curse
Sunnis until you were banned by the moderators there. Those were your
"Noshirvan" days. It seems you haven't evolved from that since then.
That was close to 5 years ago. We are adults now and we must keep the
discussions free from insults, rhetoric and hot air. At this age we
must keep it civilized and use material only. Culture is beautiful and
to be celebrated...Nationalism is a sickness and a disease. You have
always suffered from the latter. Let us please stick to the subject
and not turn this into a "Arabs are animals and Persians are
gentlemen" debate which is so commonplace amongst Iranians. I am
neither Arab nor Persian. I am Muslim. I suggest you follow suit.
qizilbash
Mr. Zaman said about his background and I appreciate that. I reiterate
my position that Mr. Zaman's anti-shi and anti-Iranian background does
come from the fact that he was a salafi at one time. This was until
two years ago when Mr. Zaman mentioned to me on irc that he has turned
to "tassawuf". Mr. Zaman, you should be honest and explain how many
years you were salafi, before you changed to "tassawuf".
Lets answer some rhetorics before we get into facts:
"Now please....get OFF the racist issues. They are
EXTREMELY irrelevant."
Mr. Zaman, you accused Persian language of challenging Islamic culture
and equated Arabic language with Islamic civlization.
Here is the exact quote for the reader to judge:
"By 900 the reviving of Persian culture and
directly challenging the Islamic culture and Arabic language took full
fruition. "
Religion is part of the culture Mr. Zaman. Would you reread your
statement, before accusing me of being a racist?
Alittle more rhetoric+fact:
Mr Zaman writes:
"Your demanded I present a Bibliography at the
footer of a Usenet post. Now that I have, you simply can't match my
references and sources."
Mr. Zaman, anyone can produce refrences. I want correct refrences.
For example, you falsely claim that a certain dowa exists in
Mafitihul-janaan, and it didn't. You claimed that khomeini wrote some
decree but it is never found. Do you know if khomeini did write such a
degree it would have been followed?
I do not find your evidence as credible.
" In the previous post I provided a list of
references close to 2 pages long."
I looked up just one and it wasn't correct. You didn't produce those
refrences, you just copied it from anti-shi'i source.
"I remember you from my college days on IRC. You used to curse
Sunnis until you were banned by the moderators there."
As far as I remember, you were part of the salafi movement then. The
channel was used as a place to curse shi'ites, sufis and anyone who
diasgreed. I responded with materials and I was banned many times.
You were banned later on once you turned from salafism to "tassawuf".
That is the honest truth, and God knows best those that hide it.
"Culture is beautiful and to be celebrated...Nationalism is a sickness
and a disease. You have always suffered from the latter. "
Nationalism can be a positive factor or negetive. Pan-Islamism is not
a solution for countries like Iran and Khomeini took it to the grave
with himself. Unfortunately, Iran had to take the brunt for his
mistakes.
Countries that are made artificially by the colonialist like Iraq,
Afghanistan or African countries have many problems. Because diffrent
people, with diffrent culture, which shapes one's mindset, were forced
to live together, massive genocides(rwanda and unfortunately many
others in the future), chemical bombs(Iraq against the kurds), ethnic
cleansing and religious killings(Taliban against the Hazaras, Uzbeks
and recently the destruction of the fertile valley of the Tajiks).
Under pan-islamism, countries with a diffrent culture like Turkey or
Iran will become like Egypt, Syria and others who lost their culture.
In countries were there is a good amount of shi'ites and sunnis, like
turkey, secularism provides a great solution. Else we have a situation
like Pakistan(an artificial state where ethnic minorities like
pushtoons, baluchis and religious minorities are oppressed) or
Afghanistan(recent massacares). That is why for example Islamist don't
muster more than 15% of the votes in Turkey.
Sorry to drag the issue somewhere else, but I was just supporting
healthy nationalism.
>
> The Prophet (s) did this in the battle of Khaybar when the Muslims
> defeated and crushed the Jews and took their women and children. >
Did the Prophet (PBUH&HP) actually took their women and children or did
the Arabs around him do that? Did he defeat them for the sake of
taking their women and children or for the sake of the welfare of the
women and children? Was the war DEFENSIVE or OFFENSIVE?
The ottomans did it for the sake of taking women and children and
expanding their lands. In shi'i Islam, war is not declared unless for
defensive purposes. This is not the case in Sunni Islam and that
should answer why when shi'i are in power, they not start wars and try
to conquer more territory. I am sure both sides have their reasons.
>Every
> contention of yours is based on the Pre-Islamic Khosrow's hostility
> towards the Muslims who defeated them and brought an end to their fire
> worshipping Persian Empire.
I am sorry but this is just empty rhetoric on your part. I am
interested in facts and have backed up my statements with sources so
far.
> Will you now attack the Prophet (s) for
> this practice like your predecessors did? Will you attack Ali (as)
> whom you all nearly deify who lead the onslaught against those Jews?
I interpret it diffrently. While you believe that war is done(as it
was by sunni rulers) for the sake of taking others property , women and
children(and that is why sunni empires were expansionist), I believe in
a war in defensive manner, and if there is women and children to be
taken care of, then let it be. I hope you understand the diffrence.
> You have a chronic habit of cornering yourself with your own words.
We'll see about that :)
>
> Second of all I am far from a Wahhabi. I am a Sunni of the
> traditional Shafi`ee mathhab. I celebrate no culture over another and
> this is evident in whatever I have written. However your abhorrence
> for anything you see as "Arabic" is quite obvious. You are pointing
> out your own biases by accusing me of having them.
Why deny the fact that you were part of the salafi movement until three
years ago. I reiterate my position that your hate for shi'ism and Iran
comes from this factor.
>
> >a good portion of the Albanian population(15-35 percent) are followers
> >of the Bektashti order, which is a shi'ite darvish order. It should
>
> To call this fabricated statistic hilarious is to put it mildly. The
> Balkan Muslims (Albanians, Sanjaks, Bosnians, etc) are and have always
> been overwhelmingly Hanafi Sunni Muslim. Islam was introduced to them
> at the hands of the Seljuq and Ottoman Turks both of whom were
> severely Sunni of the Hanafi branch. To say that 15-35 (!!!!!) percent
> of the Albanians are Shi`ites is pure statistic retardation. I
> challenge you to produce a single valid resource which states that the
> Albanians are 15-25% Shi`ite. There exists no such thing.
Oh oh! :) I think you just cornered yourself. Let me quickly look
done(took less than 1 minute):
"No census taken by the communist regime after it assumed power in 1944
indicated the religious affiliations of the people. It has been
estimated that of a total population of 1,180,500 at the end of World
War II, about 826,000 were Muslims, 212,500 were Orthodox, and 142,000
were Roman Catholics. The Muslims were divided into two groups: about
600,000 adherents of the Sunni (see Glossary) branch and more than
220,000 followers of a dervish order known as Bektashi (see Glossary),
which was an offshoot of the Shia (see Glossary) branch. " (Library of
congress, Handbook series, country studies)
There are other sources which put it at 35%, check your local library,
if you can't find more sources, let me know.
Mr. Zaman then goes on and blames shaikh tusi for the mongol invasion
and then provides sources wich base their claim on sunni historical
books. Shi'i scholars have provided responses to the claim that tusi
was responsible for the mongol invasion. I will just show one and then
will write more on Tusi and what exactly was his role and let the
reader judge. I will use the response of a recently deceased shia
scholar who used sunni history books in response.
"This prophecy of Amir al-mu'minin is about the attack of the Tartars
(Mongols) who were inhabitants of the Mongolian desert in the north
west of Turkistan. These semi-savage tribes lived by marauding, killing
and devastating. They used to fight among themselves and attack
neighbouring areas. Each tribe had a separate chief who was deemed
responsible for their protection. Chingiz Khan (Temujin) who was one of
the ruling chiefs of these tribes and was very brave and courageous had
risen to organise all their divided tribes into one, and, despite their
opposition he succeeded in overpowering them through his might and
sagacity. Collecting a large number under his banner he rose in 606
A.H. like a torrent and went on dominating cities and ruining
populations till he conquered the area upto North China.
When his authority was established he offered his terms of settlement
to `Alau'd-Din Khwarazm Shah, ruler of the neighbouring country of
Turkistan, and through a deputation concluded an agreement with him
that the Tartar traders would be allowed to visit his country for trade
and their life and property would not be subject to any harm. For some
time they traded freely without fear but on one occasion `Alau'd-Din
accused them of spying, seized their goods and had them killed by the
Chief of Atrar. When Chingiz Khan learnt of the breach of the agreement
and the killing of Tartar merchants his eyes cast forth flames and he
began trembling with rage.
He sent word to `Alau'd-Din to return the goods of the Tartar merchants
and to hand over to him the ruler of Atrar. `Alau'd-Din, who was mad
with power and authority, did not pay any heed, and acting
short-sightedly killed even the plenipotentiary of Chingiz Khan. Now
Chingiz Khan lost all patience and his eyes filled with blood. He rose
with his sword in hand, and the Tartar warriors leapt towards Bukhara
on their speedy stallions. `Alau'd-Din came out with four hundred
thousand combatants to face him but could not resist the incessant
assaults of the Tartars, and having been vanquished only after a few
attacks ran away to Nishabur across the river Jaxartes (Sihun). The
Tartars smashed Bukhara and razed it to the ground. They pulled down
schools and mosques, burning to ashes the houses and killing men and
women without distinction. Next year they assaulted Samarqand and
devastated it completely. After the flight of `Alau'd-Din, his son
Jalalu'd-Din Khwarazm Shah had assumed the reins of government The
Tartars chased him also, and for ten years he fled from one place to
the other but did not fall in their hands. At last he crossed over the
river out of the boundaries of his realm. During this time the Tartars
did their utmost to ruin populated lands and to annihilate humanity. No
city escaped their ruining and no populace could avoid their trampling.
Wherever they went they upset the kingdom, overthrew governments, and
in a short time established their authority over the northern portion
of Asia.
When Chingiz Khan died in 622 A.H. his own son Ogedei Khan succeeded
him. He searched out Jalalu'd-Din in 628 A.H. and killed him. After him
Mongka Khan, the son of the other son of Chingiz Khan, occupied the
throne. After Mongka Khan, Qubilai Khan succeeded to a part of the
country and the control of Asia fell to the share of his brother Hulagu
Khan. On the division of the whole realm among the grandsons of Chingiz
Khan, Hulagu Khan was thinking of conquering Muslims areas when the
Hanafite of Khurasan in enmity with the Shafi`ite invited him to attack
Khurasan. He therefore led an assault on Khurasan, and the Hanafite,
thinking themselves to be safe from the Tartars, opened the city gates
for them. But the Tartars did not make any distinction between Hanafite
and Shafi`ite and killed whoever fell to their hands. After killing
most of its population they took it in occupation. These very
differences between the Hanafite and the Shafi`ite opened for him the
door of conquest upto Iraq. Consequently, after conquering Khurasan his
courage increased and in 656 A.H. he marched on Baghdad with two
hundred thousand Tartars. al-Musta`sim Billah's army and the people of
Baghdad jointly faced them, but it was not in their power to stop this
torrent of calamity. The result was that the Tartars entered Baghdad on
the day of `Ashura' carrying with them bloodshed and ruin. They
remained busy in killing for forty days. Rivers of blood flowed in the
streets and all the alleys were filled with dead bodies. Hundred of
thousands of people were put to the sword while al-Musta`sim Billah was
trampled to death under foot. Only those people who hid themselves in
wells or underground places and hid from their sight could survive.
This was the devastation of Baghdad which shook the `Abbasid Kingdom to
its foundation, so that its flag could never fly thereafter.
Some historians have laid the blame of this ruin on Ibn al-`Alqami (Abu
Talib, Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Baghdadi), the minister of al-Musta`sim
Billah, by holding that, moved by the general masses of the Shi`ahs and
the ruin of al-Karkh sector (of Baghdad), he invited Hulagu Khan
through the latter's minister, the great scholar Nasiru'd-Din Muhammad
ibn Muhammad at-Tusi, to march on Baghdad. Even if it be so, it is not
possible to ignore the historical fact that before this the `Abbasid
Caliph an-Nasir Lidini'llah had initiated the move for the attack on
the Muslim areas. When the Khwarazm Shahs declined to acknowledge the
authority of the Caliphate he had sent word to Chingiz Khan to march on
Khwarazm, from which the Tartars had understood that there was no unity
and co-operation among the Muslims. Thereafter the Hanafite had sent
for Hulagu Khan to crush the Shafi`ite as a consequence of which the
Tartars secured control over Khurasan, and prepared the way to march
towards Baghdad. In these circumstances to hold only Ibn al-`Alqami
responsible for the ruination of Baghdad and to ignore the move of
an-Nasir Lidini'llah and the dispute between the Hanafite and the
Shafi`ite would be covering up the facts, when in fact the cause for
the ruin of Baghdad was this very conquest of Khurasan, whose real
movers were the Hanafite inhabitants of the place. It was by this
conquest that Hulagu Khan had the courage to march on the centre of
Islam; otherwise it cannot have been the result of a single
individual's message that he assaulted an old capital like Baghdad, the
awe of whose power and grandeur was seated in the hearts of a large
part of the world."
Who is exactly shaikh tusi?
SHaikh Nasir tusi was one of the greatest scienists, mathematicians,
atronomers, philosophers, theoligians and physicans of the
Iranian-Islamic civilization. Here is alittle short info:
Abu Jafar Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan Nasir al-Din al-Tusi was
born in Tus, Khurasan (present Iran) in 1201 C.E. He studied sciences
and philosophy under the tutelage of Kamal al-Din Ibn Yunus. Al-Tusi
was kidnaped by the Isma'ili Hasan Bin Sabah's agents and sent to
Alamut where he remained until its capture by the Mongol Halagu Khan in
1256 C.E.
Impressed by Al-Tusi's exceptional abilities and astrological
competency, Ilkhanid Halagu Khan appointed him as one of his ministers.
Later, he served as an administrator of Auqaf. In 1262, he built an
observatory at Meragha and directed its activity. It was equipped with
the best instruments from Baghdad and other Islamic centers of
learning. It contained a twelve-feet wall quadrant made from copper and
an azimuth quadrant and 'turquet' invented by Al-Tusi. Other
instruments included Astrolabes, representations of constellation,
epicycles, and shapes of spheres. Al-Tusi designed several other
instruments for the Observatory." (3. Thomas Arnold, "The Legacy of
Islam," Oxford University Press, 1960.
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~azahoor/tusi.html
)
Alittle on his scienitific achievements:
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~azahoor/tusi.html
So is shaikh tusi responsible for the mongol invasion. We can see that
he did not have anything to do with the mongol invasion until the
destruction of alamut. By that time Khorasaan, Khawarzm and so on were
already destroyed. Alamut, was actually the only place where the
mongols faced any resistances. The sunni subkingdoms did not provide
any resistance to this terror, until it was too late.
Shaikh tusi was a realistc person.
Some facts:
He knew that the shi'ites were oppressed heavily by the abbasids(in
reality should be called seljulk as they ran the affair of the empire).
He knew the mongols were going to invade Baghdad. So he used this
oppurtinity, to become the mongols minister. Due to his effort, he
actually saved a lot of the sciences from destruction. Although he did
probably get rid off a lot of the polemics againts shiism.
One important contribution of al-tusi is that he : "
pioneered spherical trigonometry which includes six fundamental
formulas for the solution of spherical right-angled triangles. One of
his most important mathematical contributions was the treatment of
trigonometry as a new mathematical discipline. He wrote on binomial
coefficients which Pascal later introduced"
Others include his contribution to Islamic-Shia philosophy. If a
person travels around the world, there are two places where Islamic
philosophy is being thought. Iran and the western world. Al-tusi
revived avvicennian philosophy and his students revived sohrovardi's
philosophy. Later on, Mulla Sadra, the biggest name in islamic
philosophy, combined this into a cohesive logical shi'i philosophy,
which is being thaugh today. This Philosophy combines intuition and
logic and provides a logical answer from a shii perspective. It is of
tremendous important because most muslims today are not able to provide
a logical answer to attacks on islam and only use "faith" to do so.
So in short- al-tusi revived this important knowledge.
Now here is a short logical question.
If an invading force comes in and there was a minority which was being
oppressed heavily, would that minority welcome the invading force? The
answer is a resounding "absolutely".
So Mr. Zaman gives the credit of the fall of the Abbasid empire to
shaikh tusi. If this is true, meaning that shaikh tusi was such a
powerfull man that he didn't use a sword and became the ruler of the
new empire(he ran the affairs afterwards and not the mongols), and he
did this because he saw the shi'ites were being oppressed, I must say
that he did an extremly good thing for the shi'ites.
But unfortunately, being objective, I can not give all the credit to
Tusi as the mongols had already ran over central Asia , Khorasaan and
other muslim lands and they were poised to take over Baghdad, it was
just a matter of time. Shaikh tusi just used this oppurtinity for the
betterment of shi'ites. A very natural and logical thing that any
human would have done.
If we look at history objectively, we can see that most of the time ,
the shi'ites were being oppressed from the begining of Islam. The
ummayads came in first. Then the shi'ites overthrew the ummayads under
abu muslim khorasaani and the abbasids who murdered abu muslim, came
into power and eventually turned into exoteric sunnism and started
persecuting sunnis. Then alittle peace comes under buvoyids and the
seljuks, and ghaznavids again started oppressing shi'ites.
With this in mind, thanks goes to shaikh tusi for bringing an end to
this historical period of genocide against shiism.
I believe I approached the manner in an objective fashion. I did not
start an attack on sunnism because history will decide who was
oppressive. I do not believe in a shi'i or sunni unity, but I do
believe in tolerance of others belief wether they be sunni , christian
or atheist. Today shi'ites are being prosecuted by sunnis in such
places as Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was just 1 and half years ago
when 10,000 shi'ites men, women and children were killed for their
faith in Afghanistan.
Taking another example. Iraq was a country created by a wealthy
british lady in the early part of the century out of former ottoman
lands. The texts are widely available, but this artificial country was
created in a way at that time so that shi'i do not have a state.
At that time, the shi'i arabs where the majority of the arab population
in the land. The british seeing this, scrapped their plan for a
kurdish state and forecfully made people with many diffrences(kurds,
Arab sunnis and shi'ites) to live together. They made the Kurds who
were majority sunni to live in Iraq inorder to keep a balance between
the two religions. Even after the gulf-war, the allies turned their
back and supported Saddam, inorder that a shi'i state is not created.
Who is liked by the colonialist, orientalist and so on? How come
shi'ites are disfavoured even if they form a majority in such countries
as Bahrain, Iraq and so on?
let the objective person judge.
I am not for further dividing shi'ism and sunnism and starting silly
arguments with full of rhetorics on both parts. Not that I believe in
unity, because there is no tolerance. Tolerance and objectivity should
be the priority. Unity is a myth because people with diffrent mindsets
will not unite, but they can be made tolerant of each other.
I believe if you followed true tassawuf, you would learn real tolerance
as in true tassawuf, the diffrence between christian, muslim and so on
becomes null, so the diffrence between shi'i and sunni is null too.
Shaikh sa3di, a great poet and mystic of the 12th century saw a sunni
and a shi'i disputing and they asked whose side he was on. He replied,
"I am not a donkey nor a dog".
I propose a truce for Ramadhan. It is not that I have the upperhand or
you have the upperhand, I just believe that the argument is becoming
silly because of the lack of objectivity which equates to a waste of
time. If you are further interested into continuing the argument, send
me an email qizi...@yahoo.com
If any reader is interested in a comprehensive history of shi'ism
online, feel free to refer to:
http://www2.mozcom.com/~habib/islamstu.htm
Vassalam.
Dr. Christoph Heger
"qizilbash" <qizi...@yahoo.com> on 25 Dec 1999 22:45:13 GMT wrote:
> >... It should be said that the Ottomans commited crimes like
> >stealing young christian boys, and then training them
> >to fight their own country.
Now Shibli Zaman <Shi...@Zaman.Net> in his posting of 27 Dec 1999
10:57:42 GMT defended this behaviour:
> The Prophet (s) did this in the battle of Khaybar when the Muslims
> defeated and crushed the Jews and took their women and children...
> ... Will you now attack the Prophet (s) for
> this practice like your predecessors did? Will you attack Ali (as)
> whom you all nearly deify who lead the onslaught against those Jews?
Muhammad, indeed, is reported to have done so.
That, however, is not exactly what "qizilbash" is speaking about. What
the Ottomans did is a bit different from what Shibli Zaman is referring
to. They for some centuries had the custom to enslave children from
their subjects, the dhimmi population (the Osmanli term was "devshirme")
and to recruit them for state service, especially in the so called "new
troups", the janizary troups.
This costum was strictly against Islamic law, but was approved by the
highest Islamic authorities in the Ottoman Empire, nevertheless.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Shibli Zaman
as-salaamu `alaykum,
Being that it is, as of this night, the beginning of the last 10
nights of Ramadan I will not be engaging this discussion any further
than this for at least the next 10 days. I will be back after the `Eid
Holiday. However, I don't think much will be necessary after what I
have posted in the past 2 days, inshaa' Allah.
Also, I am unable to go to larger libraries than I have at home so I
will resort to fewer sources than normal. However, these are sources
which Qizlbash has used himself so any contention over that would be
self-damaging for him. These sources are enough to end this. This post
is extremely long but must be read as it is an utter and irrefutable
end to this debate. It is 100% based on quotes from historical
sources, thus, no argument is possible. If he has any further
contention he must track down the scholars of history and take up his
insipid arguments with them.
On 27 Dec 1999 08:21:47 GMT, "qizilbash" <qizi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Alittle bit about Mr. Zaman is inorder. This biography is not meant to
>disrespect Mr. Zaman, but it is important that it will be seen in the
>light of this response. Mr. Zaman comes from mixed background of
>Iraqi and Afghan . One of Mr. Zaman's parent was originally from a
>shi'a Afghan ancestory and another was an Iraqi who turned into
>Wahabism. Thus consequently Mr. Zaman was brought into a Wahabist
>family, whose influence can be seen throughout this article. Since
>some of his forefathers were shi'i, and he
>has adopted wahabism, perhaps his hatred against shi'ism and Iran is
>understandable.
This is false and obviously not first hand information and has been
twisted along the grape vine. I think I would know since its me thats
being falsely represented. I have already posted who I am and where I
am from in the painful "part three" of his attempt at historical
analysis without any references other than 1 or 2 Encyclopediae. I
will say again for the millionth time, I am not an Arab. I am not a
Wahhabi. I request all to read my reply to "part three" of his part 1,
2, 3 string in order to see who I am and where I am from. It is
utterly unnecessary information, yet a sad attempt by Qizlbash to make
this into an Arab vs. Persian conflict which it is not.
I have a love for the land which sprouted the flowers of knowledge
such as Salman al Farsi, Abdullah ibn Mubarak, Imam Muslim al
Nayshapuri, Abu Hamed al Ghazzali, Imam Isma`eel al Bukhari, Abu
Hanifa, and many other stellar names in orthodox Islamic history, all
of whom were from regions which have at one point in time been part of
Iran. However, I have a hatred for any element calling for the
cursing of the Prophet's (s) wives and companions in the name of an
Ali (as) whom their own predecessors betrayed nearly 1500 years ago.
Race or nationality has nothing to do with it.
Now from here on out I will use little of my own words and quote
mostly valid sources. If the author wishes to argue further then he is
not arguing with me....he is arguing with solid established history
written and recorded NOT by me but by the unanimity of scholars. He
would also be arguing with himself since he himself quotes these
sources. I hope he does not suffer from this form of schizophrenia.
>1-answer:
>Firstly it is funny, that Mr. Zaman does not mention anything of the
>oppressive ummayyads, who's rulers built castles and suppressed
>shi'ism. Iranians and other non-arab's were also 2nd class citizen.
>This is actually how the history of Islam starts in Iran.
"In Iran, the first Arab conquerors had concluded treaties with local
Iranian magnates who had assumed authority when the Sassanid Imperial
government disintegrated. The notables - the "Marzbans" and landlords
("Dehqans") - undertook to continue tax collection on behalf of the
new Muslim power. , the advent of Arab colonizers, who preferred to
cultivate the land rather than campaign farther into Asia, produced a
further complication. Once the Arabs had settled in Iranian lands,
they were required to pay the "kharaj", or land tax, collected by
Iranian notables and their agents under treaty with the Muslim
government. The Iranian collectors proved extortionate and aroused the
hostility of both Arab and Persian"
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
As one can obviously see it was the Persian fiefs themselves who were
actually persecuting both their own fellow Persian as well as Arab
serfs. The Shi`ite myth of Umayyad totalitarian persecution is based
on fairy tale and not history. Shi`ism as it is known today did not
even exist until nearly 1000 years later.
"This Shi`ism CENTURIES LATER became the official Islamic sect of
Iran"
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852] note: my
emphasis
That statement right there should end the entire discussion. However,
I will entertain this further in hopes that kicking this dead horse
will keep it from rising again.
>The Abbasid Caliphate did not rule all parts of Iran. Furthermore,
"Yazdegerd fled to the empire's northeastern outpost, Merv.."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
"Other Zoroastrians migrated to West India..."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 851]
If the Abassids did not rule all of Iran then why did the last
remaining Zoroastrians flee to Western India forming what is known as
the Parsi religion in Gujurat, India today? Why was Yazdegerd, the
final Persian ruler, fleeing one province after another, assassinated
in Merv in the Eastern most outskirts of Iran? Were they travel buffs
on a hiking trip? You can not produce a SINGLE book of Iranian history
which documents the existence of ANY other Empire in Iran by 700 AD
other than the Abbasid. This is one of Qizlbash's more ridiculous
statements. As we will see further...there are many more.
>the Abbasid did not have a traditional sunni root. Sunnism was later
>adopted, not at 750 AD.
The Alids who supported rule by a descendent of Ali (as) were crushed
by the Abbasid, Abu-l Abbas as-Saffah in 749 AD.
"The caliphate fell to the `Abbasids......The mood of frustration and
anger engendered among the numerous `Alids and their followers was to
persist for centuries to come; it was to cause periodic `Alid risings
and martyrdoms of `Alid claimants. More important in the long run was
that it brought about the crystallization of vague, emotional feelings
for the `Alids into a distinct sect, the Shi`ah, with its own seperate
theology and body of law and hostile to the orthodox majority of
Sunnis.."
[Encyclopedia Britannica; volume 3; Page 635]
So the Abbasids were Shia`ah were they? This is by far not the last
historical faux pas of Qizlbash, who has come to correct me in Iranian
history [sarcasm].
"This Shi`ism CENTURIES LATER became the official Islamic sect of
Iran"
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852] note: my
emphasis
You will watch me have to repeat this quote over and over and over
again in this post. Hopefully, the repetition will sink in.
>The Abbasid revolution had been conducted on behalf of an Imam whose
>name remained hidden, and therefore Muslims were anxious to meet him.
This statement is a blurry reference to al-Muqanna` "The Veiled
Prophet of Khorasan". Qizlbash alleges that the Abbasid revolution was
conducted on his behalf. Let us look at some chronology:
1) The Abbasid revolution of Abu Muslim ocurred in 747. "...Abu
Muslim's movement, which began in Khorasan, in 747...."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
2) Abu Muslim was executed by the very forces he made victorious in
755. "Abu Muslim, executed in 755..."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 853]
3) al-Muqanna` rose in 777. Twenty years after Abu Muslim was killed.
"Another was al Muqanna`, 'The Veiled Prophet of Khorasan,' who used
Abu Muslim's mystique and whose movement lasted from 777 to 780."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 853]
Note: It seems apparent that Qizlbash read this paragraph in
Encyclopedia Britannica and thought "..who used Abu Muslim's
mystique.." as meaning there was some alliance between the two, not
realizing that Abu Muslim was already long dead for 20 years when
al-Muqanna` arose. What the reference meant was that "The Veiled
Prophet" used Abu Muslim's messianic style. This is what happens when
you engage in a debate regarding a particular subject without any
qualifications or scholastic knowledge regarding it.
Qizlbash also tries to make the Abbasid revolution into something with
religious messianic overtones. He is suffering from messianic
propoganda that died nearly 1400 years ago. The Abbasid revolution was
PURELY economic in nature.
"Abu Muslim's revolutionary movement was as much as anything
representing Medinese mercantile interests in the Hejaz, dissatisfied
with Umayyad inability to shelter Middle Eastern trade under a Pax
Islamica."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
It had little to do with Imamate or Shi`ism. None of this even existed
back then as it is known today. It was about money as are most wars in
history whether they have religious propoganda involved or not.
>Al-Mansur realizing this sensitive situation, named his son "Al-Mahdi"
>and made him his heir. Hadiths in the name of the Prophet(SAW) were
>forged. One such hadeeth said:
>"By God, were no more than one day left to the world, God would cause
>the downfall of the Ummayyads so that al-Saffah(the bloodshedder),
>al-Mansur(he who is rendered victorious) and al-Mahdi would
>come".(Cambridge History of Iran, pg 66).
Finally we see a source. However, this is not an arguable point as
this Hadeeth is regarded as "Da`eef" meaning "Weak" and not authentic
by all Sunni scholars of Hadeeth. No point.
>Considering the above fact, the Abbasid did not rule under traditional
>Sunni Islam in 750 AD. Even the four schools of Sunnism were not
"This Shi`ism CENTURIES LATER became the official Islamic sect of
Iran"
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852] note: my
emphasis
I told you I would have to repeat it.
>developed at this time. Furthermore It must be remembered that the
>Abbasid were enthroned by the Shia Iranian, Abu Muslim Khorasaani, who
According to Qizlbash's mythology, Abu Muslim al Khorasani was a "Shia
Iranian". Let us see what actual history has to say about this:
"Abu Muslim, a revolutionary of unknown origin.."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
"Abu Muslim, an Iranian of obscure origin.."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; Reference Index volume I; Page
39]
"Of obscure origins, perhaps from Kufah, Abu Muslim set in motion the
propoganda in Khorasan.."
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page 10]
"Eventually, however, the Shi`ites, who wished to see a descendant of
the Prophet, the progeny of Ali and Fatima as ruler, came to look upon
the Abbasids as persecutors of Shi`ism"
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page 12]
So no historian knows where Abu Muslim was from, but Qizlbash has come
with a revelation that he was an "Iranian Shia". If Abu Muslim was an
Iranian Shi`ite and begat a regime that oppressed Shi`ites this is
akin to Sir William Wallace of Braveheart fame begetting a regime that
oppressed the Scotts. It makes no sense. However, sadly, there is a
lot more that Qizlbash writes that doesn't make sense...read on.
>rid the muslim World of the oppression of the Uymmayad. The Ummayads
>not only prosecuted Shia's, but they refused to accept Turks, Iranians
>and other muslims as equal to Arab muslim. Abu Muslim Khorasaani was
"In Iran, the first Arab conquerors had concluded treaties with local
Iranian magnates who had assumed authority when the Sassanid Imperial
government disintegrated. The notables - the "Marzbans" and landlords
("Dehqans") - undertook to continue tax collection on behalf of the
new Muslim power. , the advent of Arab colonizers, who preferred to
cultivate the land rather than campaign farther into Asia, produced a
further complication. Once the Arabs had settled in Iranian lands,
they were required to pay the "kharaj", or land tax, collected by
Iranian notables and their agents under treaty with the Muslim
government. The Iranian collectors proved extortionate and aroused the
hostility of both Arab and Persian"
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
Again, repetition....as one can read above not only were the Iranians
treated as equals they were actually placed as bully mafioso tax
collectors over the ARABS! This myth that the Umayyads were the rapers
and pillagers of Iranian society is mere Shi`ite fairy tale. History
tells a different story.
>and others are considered heroes. More will be said about this later.
More? God forbid! I hope he will stop while he has the chance. I do
not wish to demean him but I don't want to end up teaching him a class
for the last 10 days of Ramadan.
>The Abbasids who were most likely of a Kasanite Shia nature in the
>beginning(Jafri, 278) eventually leaned towards Sunni Islam by the
>middle of the 8th century. This in turn equated the concept of Imamate
Is this "(Jafri, 278)" an attempt at a reference? I have already shown
that there was nothing Shi`ite about the Abbasid empire in origin or
legacy. Actually, the Abbasids are recorded in Shi`ite history as
being persecutors of Shi`ism from they VERY START as their early
leader "as-Saffah" crushed the `Alids who believed in the tenant of
rulership from the house of Ali (as). This has already been cited
irrefutably perviously in this same post.
>2-Answer:
>The Zayarids, Dalayamiyaan were not turkic tribes. The turks did not
>enter the area at that time before the seljuqs arrived. They were
"Rudaki (died 940/941)......Rudaki, in a poem about the Samanid emir's
court, describes how 'row upon row' of Turkish slave guards were part
of its adornment."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol 9; page 854]
Turks were in Iran as early as 850 AD. This particular report is from
940 AD.
The Ghaznavid Turks of Iran rose as early as 962 AD.
"Alptegin founded the Ghaznavid fortunes when he established himself
at Ghazna (modern Ghazni, Afghanistan) in 962."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol 9; page 854]
This is all well known history. Well known to people who actually
study history. The Seljuqs were one of the LATE Turkish incursions
into Iran ocurring in 1038.
"The Seljuqs. Toghril I had proclaimed himself sultan at Nishapur in
1038..."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol 9; page 856]
>Iranian tribes. The zayarids , daylamiyaan and others were internal
>Iranian forces and not external as Mr. Zaman alleges. They are
>ancestors of the modern gilak's, talysh and dimilia kurds in North
>west-Kurdistan.
"The homeland of the Buyids (or Buwayhids) was Daylam, in the Gilan
uplands in northern Iran..."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol 9; page 856]
This is modern day neighboring Azeri territory on the south shores of
the Caspian Sea and has always had Turkic elements since even before
Islam's appearance in the area. The Kurds ancestors date back to BC
times even before the birth of Christ (as).
"They (the Kurds) appear to have occupied their mountains since
prehistoric times..."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; Reference Index vol. 5; page 948]
To claim that a people from the 10th century AD are the ancestors of
Kurds, a people who were a political power conducting military
campaigns as early as 401 BC [ibid.] is to be chronologically
retarded.
>4-answer:
>
>"The Samanids were not puppets of the Abbasids, as Mr. Zaman would like
>it. They were a semi-independent empire, where contrary to Mr. Zaman's
"The Samanids ruled in Khorasan and Transoxania as vassals of the
Abbasids..."
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page351]
Clear enough. No further explanation needed.
>but one thing is certain, Muawiyah is not liked by many sunnis as
>well. Putting an (r) behind his name shows a lack of historical
"Muawiya offered one Rak`a Witr prayer after the `Isha prayer, and at
that time a freed slave of Ibn `Abbas was present. He (i.e. the slave)
went to Ibn `Abbas (and told him that Muawiya offered one Rak`a Witr
prayer). Ibn `Abbas said, "Leave him, for he was in the company of the
Messenger of Allah (s)"
[Narrated by Ibn Abu Mulaika (r); Saheeh al Bukhari; Volume 5, Book
57, Number 108]
Thus, as anyone can see Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) is a
Companion of the Prophet (s) whose fiqh was condoned by even Ibn Abbas
(r) who on another occasion said "innahu faqeeh" meaning "verily he is
a master of jurisprudence."
>objectivity on your part. Extreme Arab nationalist, like Saddam
>and the ba'th party on the other hand praise everything about the
Now he is comparing me to Saddam Hussain and the Ba`ath party. Can you
say "Iranian paranoia"?
>inferiority complex. But this is beyond the scope of this article".
Then why did he mention it?
>6-answer:
>"Shaikh Safi ad-deen Ardabili, the founder of the safavid order was a
>Sunni Kurd following the shafii school of thought. His shafiism is
"The Safavid dynasty originates from Shaykh Ishaq Safi ad-Din (d.
1334) who lived in Ardabil in Azerbaijan. He was the head of a Sufi
order called after the Shaykh, the Safavi Order; this name was adopted
to designate the dynasty....The order was associated with Shi`ism and
its adherents were seven Turkic tribes called the Qizil Bash.."
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, page 341]
No further explanation necessary...
>7-answer: There was more than seven Qizilbash tribes. The qizilbash
>were mainly turkomens, kurds and dalamites(gilanis) who were followes
>of shaikh safi-adin. So their tribal organization was not based on
>ethnicity, but based on following the safavid sufi order. It is
>important to know the role of qizilbash and what they were exactly,
>inorder for you to make some opinions on Iran's history.
It is indeed incredibly important as I will now point out that
Qizlbash has absolutely no clue who they are or where those he named
himself after came from.
"...its adherents were seven Turkic tribes called the Qizil Bash.."
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, page 341]
"Kizilbash, a nickname meaning Redheads given by orthodox Turks to
members of the sevent Turkmen tribes who supported the founders of the
Safavid dynasty in Iran..."
[Encyclopedia Britannica; Reference Index vol. 5; page 845]
He names himself "Qizilbash" yet doesn't even know who they are, where
they came from, or what they stood for. "Qizil Bash" are two words in
Turkish meaning "Red Heads". This was not because they had red hair
but because they wore red Turkish fezzes with 12 tassels dangling from
the apex representing the 12 imams.
>
>8-answer: The Zands from Lurs-and Bakhtiaris.
"Mohammad Karim Khan Zand began his careeer as an ally of the
Bakhtyari chief Ali Mardan Khan in a bid to oust Shah Rokh's nominee,
Abu ol-Fath Bakhtyari, from Isfahan."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol. 9; page 859]
The Zands are of relatively obscure origin as are many in Iranian
history and are assumed by some historians to be either of a lesser
Lur tribe or perhaps related to one of the 7 original Turkic Qizilbash
tribes. They were not Bakhtiyaris, who are the greater Lur tribe, but
intervened in a conflict between two Bakhtiyari tribes as is seen in
the reference above.
>9.-answer: The Zands were defeated by the Qizilbash tribe of Qajar who
>controlled Iran for 150 years about and not the Pahlavis!
This was a mistake in the original article which escaped my proof
reading and closer analysis and I concede this. However, this is
completely irrelevant to the subject (as have almost all of your
contentions been) which is Shi`ism's role in attacking the Muslims
>from within and being a religion forcefully imposed on Iran as a state
religion.
>10- Answer: Shiite dynasties like the fatimids did spread Islam in
First of all, the Fatimids did not acquire a single inch of Africa
>from the disbelievers and bring it into the fold of Islam. Their focus
was eastward towards the Abbasid Caliphate.
"..the Fatimids never lost sight of their ultimate aim, expansion to
the East, where the center of `Abbasid strength lay."
[Encyclopedia Britannica; vol. 7; page 193]
The Fatimids didn't "spread islam in north-africa" as you say. They
spread bloodshed throughout the entire Muslim world in true Shi`ite
style.
Second, The Fatimids were Isma`ilis who eventually deified their boy
king, al Hakim, at the turn of the 11th century and declared him as
god.
"In the year 1017 al-Hakim was publicly proclaimed as the incarnation
of God."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol. 5; page 1061]
The Druze still believe him to be a god. They were declared
non-Muslims by both Sunni and 12'er Shi`ite alike.
Does Qizlbash still want to use them as an example? I didn't think
so...
>north-africa. Furthemore, the Bektashti order also called the
>janniessaries, were the main force in the ottoman warfare. The
>Bektashti are called qizilbash today in turkey and they are followers
>of the 12-Imams(AS). Furthermore, the conquest of andalusia was lead
>by a shi'ite commander.
The Bektashi was a confused religious heresy which was more Christian
than Shi`ite. As the Janissaries (a term coming from "yeni ceri" which
in Turkish means "new recruits") were young Christian boys they often
pursued their Christianity in the guise of this "Sufi order".
"The Bektashis are sometimes considered to be a Sufi Tariqah, since
they are organized as such. Rather than an esoterism, however, they
represent instead a mixture of beliefs and practices which includes
elements from Shi`ism, Christianity and other sources, including
Buddhism."
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page 71]
Albania's independence movement from the Ottoman state was at the
hands of one of these "Bektashis" named Sikander Beg who openly
declared his rejection of Islam and adherence to Christianity.
The elements of Shi`ism were purely a result of the Mu`tazilite and
Shi`ite philosophies common in Gnostic Christo-Islamic Sufist
heresies. They do not exist today and the Qizl Bash are mere name
sakes unrelated to the Qizlbash loyalists of the Safavid Empire of
Eastern Turkey are all Sunnis. They are not followers of the 12 imams.
"The Bektashi religious confraternity which was peculiar to the
Janissaries was outlawed."
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, page 206]
The conquest of Spain was done under the Umayyad's with the leadership
of Tariq ibn Zayd and Musa ibn Nusayr both loyal to the Umayyad
government which he says was focused on oppressing Shi`ites. Is
consistency too much to ask for?
>would be more objective. He will back up his sources with unbiased
>materials and he would not make so many crucial
I have given enough sources to make up a small book in itself. I
wonder if he just doesn't read the posts before he responds to them or
if he just has an extremely short memory. I ask him to look at the end
of my reply to his irritating "part two" and then dare say I don't
have unbiased sources? The sources on Nassir ad-Din al Toosi are 2
pages long in themselves. Many of those are not even Muslim, Sunni or
Shi`ite, in Italian, Russian, etc.
>mistakes in Iran's history. I shall write about the ulterior motive
Mistakes? Every single one of his "mistakes" ended up being extremely
ridiculous mistakes on his part which I used only quotes to dismantle.
>and the false interpretation of history as well as the skewed rhetorics
>of Mr. Zaman in part two and three.
God forbid! Two and three more? I pray he stops while he has the
chance.
NOW BACK TO THE SUBJECT: Iran, Shi`ism and History. Shi`ism's role in
constantly eating away at the Muslims from within, impeding Islam's
expansion into new frontiers, and its forced imposition on the country
of Iran.
Can anyone name a single Shi`ite regime that warred with disbelievers
and not their fellow Muslims? This has been my open challenge for
years and is to this day unanswered. They have always from the
beginning concerned themselves with making the Muslim ummah bleed.
Every SINGLE INCH of land acquired for Islam was under the Muslims of
ahl as-sunnah wa-l jama`ah. EVERY SINGLE INCH. All this has been done
while the Shi`ites have simultaneously attacked the Muslims.
Nasir ad-Deen al Toosi the Shi`ite scholar led Hulagu's Mongol hordes
into Baghdad where the entire population was raped and murdered. All
in the dream of an end to Sunnism and a new dawn of Shi`ite rule. As
recent as this century the Shi`ite Hazaras of Northern Afghanistan
were slaughtering the Afghan Mujaahideen who were fighting the
Russians. All in the dream of an end to Pashtoon Sunni rule and a new
dawn of Hazara Shi`ite supremacy. Even now as I should be focusing my
knowledge on refuting the Christian attacks on the Prophet (s) and his
marriage to Ayesha (r) I am being dragged into this debate with these
Shi`ites who are the self proclaimed enemies of the Prophet's (s)
beloved wife Ayesha (r). They even have the audacity to devote an
entire section of their disgusting "Shi`ite Encyclopedia" at
al-islam.org to prove that the Prophet (s) didn't love Ayesha (r).
What the heck is wrong with these people? Why has the flesh and blood
of the Wives of the Prophet (s), his Companions (r), and the Muslim
majority always tasted so good to them? When one truly studies the
history of Shi`ism since its dawn, one is led to ponder "Whose side
are they really on?"
Our beloved 4th Caliph Ali (as) said it best when he complained about
those who claimed to be his "Shi`ites" or "Partisans",
"Oh Allah, I am tired of them. They have vexed me. They are tired of
me. Oh Allah, give me better men in their place and grant them a
harsher man to lead them. Oh Allah, destroy their hearts as salt is
dissolved and lost in water."
[Nahju-l Balagha p.67]
qizilbash
Tajdehu Aunan laka fin-nawaib"
Avval o Akhar yaar,
Ya ALI Madad,
A note to the reader: this is the last article posted from me in
soc.religion.islam under this heading. I have moved the location of
the article in alt.religion.islam . The reason is the slow impulse
response of the newsgroup due to the posts. I understand that the
moderators are very busy people, so I will do them a favor and move
this into alt.religion.islam for faster response from our friend Mr.
Zaman. SO I will burden them with this last one.
> However, I have a hatred for any element calling for the
> cursing of the Prophet's (s) wives and companions in the name of an
> Ali (as) whom their own predecessors betrayed nearly 1500 years ago.
That is extremly hillarious. The reason is that certain elements of
shi’ites curse those who cursed Ali(AS) (like muawiyah, ayesha) and
then you curse them. I don’t know, I found that funny. I will not go
into this thread though, because shi’i scholars have sufficiently
responded to this accusation. Two of the sources you tried to prove
this case with , were unfortunately for you, falsified(pointed out by
brother Abbas and your mafituhul janaan source by someone else).
Actually I have the mafatih and I also did not find such a thing.
Which means you copied them from some website. If you are honest,
please tell us where you got those sources :) ?
Personally, if it makes you feel better, I am against the cursing of
anyone in history and do not have a personal enmity. But I do
understand that some people need to be intolerant, that is the way God
has created them, so they have to prop up hatred in their
heart.
Of course in real tassawuf, hatred has no place in the heart.
> Now from here on out I will use little of my own words and quote
> mostly valid sources.
“mostly valid” is the key problem here. But let us take your
hypothesis that all is valid for granted and try to see if the proof
comes out. So far two of your sources that has been checked had
falsified information.
>
> "In Iran, the first Arab conquerors had concluded treaties with >local Iranian magnates who had assumed authority when the Sassanid >Imperial government disintegrated. The notables - the "Marzbans" and >landlords ("Dehqans") - undertook to continue tax collection on >behalf of the new Muslim power. , the advent of Arab colonizers, >who
>preferred to cultivate the land rather than campaign farther into >Asia, produced a further complication. Once the Arabs had settled >in Iranian lands, they were required to pay the "kharaj", or land >tax, collected by Iranian notables and their agents under treaty >with the Muslim government. The Iranian collectors proved >extortionate and aroused the hostility of both Arab and Persian"
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
The author likes to bring quotes from the Encyclopedia, but he does not
show where I disagreed with this fact. Those taxes went directed to
the ummayads and that is why today we can extremely magnificant castles
built under their kingdom in Syria and so on. If the british had a few
Indians here and there to colonize the population of India, that does
not mean that the british themselves had nothing to do with it!
Of course there was a few Iranians in the lower end of the government
of the ummayyads. They were better at handling the Iranian population.
But the vast majority of the peasents were taxed and the money was
given to the Arab rulers. The Iranians were also
called “mawali”, a term that signified they were not equal to the
Arabs. It is sufficient to say that at this time, groups like the
Ayyars(chivarlous bandits) arose from amongst the
peaseants. Later on during the Abbasids, one of the Ayyars named Yaqub
Latyh WHO was NOT a 12-Imami shi’i challenged the Abbasid caliphate.
We can see evidence in Hanafi fiqh books that the word “khawarij” was
later on a coined term for outlaws. So
just to improve your historical knowledge, Yaqub layth most likely did
not have anything to do with the khawarij at the time of Imam Ali(AS),
but khawarij as an “outlaw” term was a term used against bandits.
Yaqub Latyh before trying to conquer the Abbasid
empire, would actually rob the Arabs and give the money to the poor.
This is why he and his men are associated with “khawarij”, meaning
outlaw! not the khawarij of the time of
Imam Ali(AS). Few scholars have not made this mistake and today this
mistake is slowly being corrected. The sufi story in the conference of
the bird of Attar, regarding the Arab who has got his good stolen in
Persia has a similar chivarlous bandit theme, but that is
beyond the scope of the article (for now).
Anyways to sum it up: The treatment of Iranians was not equal to the
Arabs at the time of the Ummayads. Iranian-secular-cultural ceremonies
were banned(nowruz, sedeh, chaharshanbeh soori, mehregaan, tiregaan)
and Iranians were made to pay heavy taxes
while the Ummayads were building awesome castles. A very tiny fraction
of Iranians
became tax collectors under the Ummayads. BUT THIS FACT DOES NOT
CONTRADICT THE FACT THAT THE UMMAYADS WERE THE ONES DIRECTLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS TAXTATION WITHOUT REPRESANTATION. Just like the
British had their stooges, but they were the instigators of the
colanization policies in much of the 3rd World.
SO lets bring this small issue to the close. I hope Mr. Zaman will
agree that Iranians (called mawali at that time) were not under
favourable condition during the ummayyad. At least, I hope, he will
have the honesty to agree that they were discriminated againts.
Let us talk now about shi’ism under ummayyads. From the start of the
muawiyah's battle against Ali(AS), the event of Karbala, the revolution
of Mukhtar and so on, there was persecutions against shiism. I will
give a more detailed exposition, but this should be
sufficient.
Firstly I want to quote a german writer named Kurt Ferishler(which I
will have to translate from Persian): "Wherever and whenever there was
a oppressive govement, the base of that government was on the factor of
fear. The ruler tried to cast fear in the heart of the people and keep
this fear in their heart. Because he knew that the day when there is
no fear, he will not be the ruler anymore. The
great oppression and torture that happened before at the hands of the
rulers against people, was only for the reason so that the populace
should be scared and the rulers thought that the more fear they cast in
people's heart, the stronger they(the rulers) will become."
Now for some oppression against shi'ites during ummayads:
1. The event of Karbala and the torture against the followers of
Hussain.
2. THE revolution of Mokhtar Taghafi. It was not more than a few
years after the event of karbala that a secret organization of 100
shi'ites was setup. Soleyman ibn Sord who was an old companion from
the time of Ali(AS) and Muhammad(PBUH&HP) was chosen to be the leader.
The motto of this organization was "revenge for
Hussain(AS)". The popularity of this organization accelerated
tremendsouly. In the middle of the fall 65 Hejra, four thousand men
>from this organization arrived in Karbala to seek revenge. Outnumbered
and outweaponed, they lost and by the winter
of 66 hejra, their army was totally gone. This important revolution
sprayed the seeds for more revolutions.
The revolution of Mokhtar was next. Mokhtar was one of the commanders
of Yazid ibn Muawiya. He was present at the court of Yazid when
Zainab(AS) delivered that magnificent speech which started to shake the
foundation of the Ummayyads.
Mokhtar after hearing this speech, decided that he will seek revenge
for Ali(AS) and his son Hussain(AS). For this reason, Mokhtar started
to propagate shi'ism for the masses and tried to convincepeople to
follow Mohammad ibn Hanifa(the third son of
Hazrat Ali(AS)). Mokhtar than went to Mecca, where he met Abdullah ibn
Zubayr, who was not following Yazid anymore. Here Mokhtar publically
started his call for the revolution. Yazid lead a lot of the soldiers
>from Syria to quell this uprising, but Mokhtar showed a lot of the
courage and killed many from the Syrian soldiers. Yazid
was also killed in the middle. Then Mokhtar travelled towards Kufah,
which was an Iranian city at that time and gave them the good news that
he has risen to seek revenge for Hussain(AS). 17,000 from the cities
of Madaiin, Kufah and Iranian villages
around joined Mokhtar. Mokhtar defeated the ruler of Kufah and killed
everyone that was in the army of Yazid during the time of Karbala. He
then cut off the head of Omar ibn Se3ad and his son, who were the
commanders that fought against Hussain(AS). Mokhtar afterwards
captured all of the fertile cresent and conquered up
to modern day Armenia. After a natural death, Abdullah ibn Khazem
Salmi revolted against the Ummayads, but unfortunately he lost and the
power was once against back in the hands of the Ummayads.
Some sources:
Islam in Iran, ilia Petroshowfsky(spelling of last name could be
incorrect), translated in
Persian by Karim Keshavarz, Payam publishing, Tehran 1353(Persian
calendar), page 56.
The notes of the translater of Al-fargh beynal-fargh, page 302.
Shahrestani, volume 1 , page 195.
and of course:
The Cambridge History of Iran
Other revolutions against the Ummayads took place, a famous one being
the Khoram-dini and others.
> The Shi`ite myth of Umayyad totalitarian persecution is based
> on fairy tale and not history. Shi`ism as it is known today did not
> even exist until nearly 1000 years later.
That is for the objective people to decide. Your job is to display the
facts for the reader. The Ummayyads are actually the main factor for
the division of sunnism and shi'ism.
Shi’ism did not exist until 1000 years later is also an incorrect
statemet! The author is saying that shi’ism was created in about 1600
AD. Then why did you bother to write your falsified history and
not start from 1600 AD?
>
> "This Shi`ism CENTURIES LATER became the official Islamic sect of
> Iran"
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852] note: my
> emphasis
Becoming OFFICIAL sect and not existing is two diffrent things!
Shi’ism became the official religion of Persia in 1501 AD. Even then
you are 99 years wrong! Plus you can read my posts, and I didn't deny
such a fact. If you are interested I will delve into it more, when
time permits.
> That statement right there should end the entire discussion.
I believe you are mistaken :)
Our discussion is just beginning.
> >The Abbasid Caliphate did not rule all parts of Iran. Furthermore,
>
> "Yazdegerd fled to the empire's northeastern outpost, Merv.."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
>
> "Other Zoroastrians migrated to West India..."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 851]
This is a very small quote. Not even the sentence is quoted. But let
us examine your claim. Firstly inorder to keep the issue convergent,
the zoroastrians migrated in the 9th and 10th century AD to India.
This has nothing to do with Yazdegerd. So forget about
that please! The modern ancestors of those zoroastrians are the Parsis
of India, who have contributed much more than their small population to
India. They are out of this discussion.(at least for now it seems).
YAZDEGERD ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ABBASSIDS. The
Ummayads did not even exist during his time. Looks like you are at
least 200 years apart from the argument. The counter-argument I made
is:
"The Abbasid Caliphate did not rule all parts of Iran."
Now let us see if ALL of Iran was occupied by the Abbassids. Has the
author ever heared of Gilan, Mazandaran, Tabarestaan? How about at
least the Alamut?
Did he know that during the rule of the Taherian, Hossain ibn zeyed
al-alavi, the Imam of zeydiyeh , who fled to Deylam(Gilan) and hid in
that place. Did he know that his revolution succeseeded and Hossein
ibn Zeyyed ruled the area from 250 to 271 Hejri independent of the
caliphate. Furthermore does he know that afterwards, the Samanids
took this area for 13 years. Did the author also know afterwards that
the Zeyarids, and then later the Al-boviyah took this area independtly
and ruled it independently from the Abbassid Caliphate!
Does the author know this history? It should be in the later
Britannica's I hope(1979 is kind of old) or maybe the author hasn't
really read it. Either way, the cases above pointout that not all
parts of Iran were under Abbassid control. In fact to say that
something is under Abassid control is incorrect for 2/3 of the Abassid
period as the Abassid were made puppets.
Did the author know that Alamut followed next in this area and it
extended from the Hindu Kush all the way to the Syrian mountains. It
crossed Qazvin, Kermanshah, Tabaristan, Gilan and other areas of Iran
as well.
you did not at all attempt to refute my statement, you just quote
something that has nothing to do with the statement and call it a
refutation!
> If the Abassids did not rule all of Iran then why did the last
> remaining Zoroastrians flee to Western India forming what is known as
> the Parsi religion in Gujurat, India today?
Simply because the zeyarids, Ismaiilis and others lived in the harsher
areas of Iran and since India is a tolerant country, they fled to this
area. There still remains 30,000 zoroastrians that survived the Sunni
nightmare of the Abbasids and other calamities of
history in Iran.
And the author I must thank as he is showing the true face of his
beloved Abassid. They made people with diffrent beliefs like
Zoroastrians, Shi'ites and so on to flee from their land or take refuge
in parts controled by them(Gilan, Tabaristan which contained
Mazandaran) and so on.
> Why was Yazdegerd, the
> final Persian ruler, fleeing one province after another, >assassinated
>in Merv in the Eastern most outskirts of Iran?
Interesting enough, Yazdegerd was offered refuge in Tabarestan, but he
refused and this is out of this question.
But here is the major question!!
WHAT DOES YAZDEGERD HAVE TO DO WITH THE ABBASSIDS!
We are in a different time zone here! 150-200 years apart! :)
> Were they travel buffs
> on a hiking trip? You can not produce a SINGLE book of Iranian >history
> which documents the existence of ANY other Empire in Iran by 700 AD
> other than the Abbasid. This is one of Qizlbash's more ridiculous
>statements. As we will see further...there are many more.
THIS was not my statement. Reread it my statement:
"The Abbasid Caliphate did not rule all parts of Iran."
I provided sources as welland named areas they did not control. But if
that is not sufficient, I believe the normal reader has
heared of the Alamut and the areas extending from the syrian mountains
to hindu kush which were under Ismaiili control. This is sufficient to
prove my case.
>
> >the Abbasid did not have a traditional sunni root. Sunnism was later
> >adopted, not at 750 AD.
>
> The Alids who supported rule by a descendent of Ali (as) were crushed
>by the Abbasid, Abu-l Abbas as-Saffah in 749 AD.
>No argument here.
>
>"The caliphate fell to the `Abbasids......
Why all the" …". ?
>The mood of frustration and
> anger engendered among the numerous `Alids and their followers was >to persist for centuries to come; it was to cause periodic `Alid >risings and martyrdoms of `Alid claimants. More important in the >long run was that it brought about the crystallization of vague, >emotional feelings for the `Alids into a distinct sect, the Shi`ah, >with its own seperate theology and body of law and hostile to the >orthodox majority of Sunnis.." [Encyclopedia Britannica; volume 3; Page 635]
>
>So the Abbasids were Shia`ah were they?
They were Kasanites according to some texts in the beginning. Please
refer to the cambridge history of Iran, page 61. It seems when you are
losing an argument, the bestthing to do is to accuse a person of making
a ridicolous statement and then providing a counter-argument!
> This is by far not the last
> historical faux pas of Qizlbash, who has come to correct me in >Iranian history [sarcasm].
It is not smart to laugh when you haven't finished an argument.
>
> "This Shi`ism CENTURIES LATER became the official Islamic sect of
> Iran"
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852] note: my
>emphasis
DID anyone disagree with this fact?
>
> You will watch me have to repeat this quote over and over and over
>again in this post. Hopefully, the repetition will sink in.
I am not sure who you are repeating it too.
>
> >The Abbasid revolution had been conducted on behalf of an Imam whose
> >name remained hidden, and therefore Muslims were anxious to meet him.
>
> This statement is a blurry reference to al-Muqanna` "The Veiled
> Prophet of Khorasan". Qizlbash alleges that the Abbasid revolution was
> conducted on his behalf. Let us look at some chronology:
>
> 1) The Abbasid revolution of Abu Muslim ocurred in 747. "...Abu
> Muslim's movement, which began in Khorasan, in 747...."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
Agreeable
>
> 2) Abu Muslim was executed by the very forces he made victorious in
> 755. "Abu Muslim, executed in 755..."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 853]
Agreeable.
>
> 3) al-Muqanna` rose in 777. Twenty years after Abu Muslim was killed.
> "Another was al Muqanna`, 'The Veiled Prophet of Khorasan,' who used
> Abu Muslim's mystique and whose movement lasted from 777 to 780."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 853]
Who mentioned Al-Muqanna?!
>
> Note: It seems apparent that Qizlbash read this paragraph in
> Encyclopedia Britannica and thought "..who used Abu Muslim's
> mystique.." as meaning there was some alliance between the two, not
> realizing that Abu Muslim was already long dead for 20 years when
> al-Muqanna` arose. What the reference meant was that "The Veiled
> Prophet" used Abu Muslim's messianic style. This is what happens when
> you engage in a debate regarding a particular subject without any
>qualifications or scholastic knowledge regarding it.
You are full of rhetorics my friend. I did not make any statements
about al-Muqanna. I challenge you to bring forward your proof. This
is the third statement so far that you are accusing me of, which I have
not made.
The hidden Abbassid Imam I was refering to, and so does the Cambridge
History of Iran, in case you are wondering is: tada reread my statement:
"The Abbasid revolution had been conducted on behalf of an Imam whose
name remained hidden, and therefore Muslims were anxious to meet him.
Al-Mansur realizing this sensitive situation, named his son “Al-Mahdi”
and made him his heir. Hadiths in the name of the Prophet(SAW) were
forged. One suchhadeeth said: “By God, were no more than one day left
to the world, God would cause the downfall of the Ummayyads so that
al-Saffah(the bloodshedder), al-Mansur(he who is rendered victorious)
and al-Mahdi would come”.(Cambridge
History of Iran, pg 66)".
> Qizlbash also tries to make the Abbasid revolution into something >with
> religious messianic overtones. He is suffering from messianic
> propoganda that died nearly 1400 years ago. The Abbasid revolution was
>PURELY economic in nature.
The abbassid revolution was not purely economic in nature. It was
religious, ethnic, economics and every other factor you can think off.
The cambridge history of Iran on
page 63 has a detailed background, you might want to look at.
I will reiterate my claim, that the Abbassids were not initially under
a sunni title. This happened alittle later in their rule.
> "Abu Muslim's revolutionary movement was as much as anything
> representing Medinese mercantile interests in the Hejaz, >dissatisfied
> with Umayyad inability to shelter Middle Eastern trade under a Pax
> Islamica."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
This does not say purely economic! "As much as anything" and "Purely"
are two diffrent words.
>
> It had little to do with Imamate or Shi`ism. None of this even existed
> back then as it is known today. It was about money as are most wars in
>history whether they have religious propoganda involved or not.
We will never know if religion was the reason and economics was on the
background or vice versa. It is sufficient as I already have proved
that the Abbassids did not have a sunni-beginning.
>
> >Al-Mansur realizing this sensitive situation, named his son "Al-Mahdi"
> >and made him his heir. Hadiths in the name of the Prophet(SAW) were
> >forged. One such hadeeth said:
> >"By God, were no more than one day left to the world, God would cause
> >the downfall of the Ummayyads so that al-Saffah(the bloodshedder),
> >al-Mansur(he who is rendered victorious) and al-Mahdi would
> >come".(Cambridge History of Iran, pg 66).
>
> Finally we see a source. However, this is not an arguable point as
> this Hadeeth is regarded as "Da`eef" meaning "Weak" and not authentic
>by all Sunni scholars of Hadeeth. No point.
Dear reader, this is a clear example of twisting an argument. I point
out at a historical source and this person replies back that the
hadeeth is Da'eef. I do not care if the hadeeth is weak or strong.
What matters is that this hadeeth was propogated by the Abbassids!
This is sufficient historical proof to show that they were not
initially a sunni empire.
COULD YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT THIS HISTORICAL ISSUE HAS TO DO
WITH the weakness or strenght of the hadeeth.
Let me make it more clear:
A hadeeth regardless of it being strong or weak was coined with the
above title according to history books. This historical distortion and
hadeeth distortion is sufficient enough to prove my point that the
Abbassids did not have a sunni beginning. It does not
necessarily mean that they were shi'i. My argument is that they were
not initially sunni.
You have so far shown nothing to counter it.
Your only argument has been that they started to prosecute Alids and
then mention something about prosecuting zoroastrians in the later
period of Abbassids, which there is no disagreement. This again does
not mean that they were sunni. But they
wanted power. Most likely they became sunni to solidify their support
against the Alids and this is in most history book.
SO again, PROSECUTING the Alids does not make you a Sunni, although
persecution of others under sunni regimes has for the most part been a
habit.
>
> >Considering the above fact, the Abbasid did not rule under traditional
> >Sunni Islam in 750 AD. Even the four schools of Sunnism were not
>
> "This Shi`ism CENTURIES LATER became the official Islamic sect of
> Iran"
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852] note: my
> emphasis
>
>I told you I would have to repeat it.
What does one issue have to do with the other! I prove that the
Abbasids were not under traditional sunni Islam in 750 AD. And then
you are about 800 years away, screaming that shi'ism became the
official sect of Iran! If you are not interested in an
argument, please do not twist it by 800 years.
> According to Qizlbash's mythology, Abu Muslim al Khorasani was a "Shia
> Iranian". Let us see what actual history has to say about this:
>
> "Abu Muslim, a revolutionary of unknown origin.."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
>
> "Abu Muslim, an Iranian of obscure origin.."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; Reference Index volume I; Page
> 39]
>
> "Of obscure origins, perhaps from Kufah, Abu Muslim set in motion the
> propoganda in Khorasan.."
>[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page 10]
>
> "Eventually, however, the Shi`ites, who wished to see a descendant of
> the Prophet, the progeny of Ali and Fatima as ruler, came to look upon
> the Abbasids as persecutors of Shi`ism"
> [The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page 12]
>
>So no historian knows where Abu Muslim was from,
Many sources point to his Iranian origin. The cambridge history of
Iran volume 3 page 58 has mentioned him being either turk, kurd,
persian or Arab. But most likely the Persian or Kurd,(Iranian stock)
is the case as more evidence exists in this regard. One of the Abassid
caliph is quoted as saying : "He was a Kurd". This is mentioned in
Tabari's history and I will recount it, if anyone is interested.
> but Qizlbash has come
> with a revelation that he was an "Iranian Shia". If Abu Muslim was >an
> Iranian Shi`ite and begat a regime that oppressed Shi`ites this is
> akin to Sir William Wallace of Braveheart fame begetting a regime that
> oppressed the Scotts. It makes no sense. However, sadly, there is a
>lot more that Qizlbash writes that doesn't make sense...read on.
The abbassids were not sunni in the beginning as I proved above. In
case you forgot the Abbassids also murdered Abu Muslim. So let us see
your statement: "If Abu Muslim was an Iranian Shi`ite and begat a
regime that oppressed Shi`ites".
Abu muslim was killed by this regime. SO is there any nonsense in
this. Didn't they according to you (which I agreed with) crush the
pro-alids? This will make my case even stronger and I have you to
thank for it. Let the reader judge.
>
> "In Iran, the first Arab conquerors had concluded treaties with local
> Iranian magnates who had assumed authority when the Sassanid Imperial
> government disintegrated. The notables - the "Marzbans" and landlords
> ("Dehqans") - undertook to continue tax collection on behalf of the
> new Muslim power. , the advent of Arab colonizers, who preferred to
> cultivate the land rather than campaign farther into Asia, produced a
> further complication. Once the Arabs had settled in Iranian lands,
> they were required to pay the "kharaj", or land tax, collected by
> Iranian notables and their agents under treaty with the Muslim
> government. The Iranian collectors proved extortionate and aroused the
> hostility of both Arab and Persian"
>[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 852]
I already provided the counter-argument to this above.
>
>Again, repetition
There is no need for repetition. It will only waste bandwith.
Repetition is an act of parrots, they hear something and just repeat
it. Anyways:
>....as one can read above not only were the Iranians
> treated as equals they were actually placed as bully mafioso tax
> collectors over the ARABS! This myth that the Umayyads were the rapers
> and pillagers of Iranian society is mere Shi`ite fairy tale. History
>tells a different story.
I provided answer to both accusations above in the same article. The
reader is to decide who is providing fairly tails. Your job is to not
falsify facts and produce them to back up your evidence.
> More? God forbid! I hope he will stop while he has the chance. I do
> not wish to demean him but I don't want to end up teaching him a class
>for the last 10 days of Ramadan.
You are not very knowledagble as you claim. Humility is an important
concept, specially in real tassawuf. First provide an answer to basic
historical mistakes that you make , then please try to teach a class.
>
> Is this "(Jafri, 278)" an attempt at a reference? I have already shown
> that there was nothing Shi`ite about the Abbasid empire in origin or
>legacy.
You didn't show anything! I actually provided two sources. The jafri
source is an english book on the history of shi'ism(which anyone that
wants to write a book on shi'ite history should have knowledge about).
Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam by S. H. Jafri
I have seen it quoted in the cambridge history of Iran. If you lookat
that first one, you will get more information. It is a relatively
objective book written in the manner of western scholarship.
>Actually, the Abbasids are recorded in Shi`ite history as
> being persecutors of Shi`ism from they VERY START as their early
> leader "as-Saffah" crushed the `Alids who believed in the tenant of
> rulership from the house of Ali (as). This has already been cited
>irrefutably perviously in this same post.
No doubt. But this does not make them sunnis! Furthermore, your only
evidence for them being sunnis was the crusing of the Alid revolt.
This is not sufficient. I provided two sources in this regard about
the Abbassids not being sunnis initially. You haven't
really provided sources. Just made a weak argument that they crushed
Alids. Furthmore you shot yourself in the feet, when you said that: If
abu muslim was a shi'I, why did he bring them to power. You provided
your own answer: The alids were crushed. SO consequently,
Abu muslim murdered my friend. DO you see a connection now?
> >2-Answer:
> >The Zayarids, Dalayamiyaan were not turkic tribes. The turks did not
> >enter the area at that time before the seljuqs arrived. They were
>
> "Rudaki (died 940/941)......Rudaki, in a poem about the Samanid emir's
> court, describes how 'row upon row' of Turkish slave guards were part
> of its adornment."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol 9; page 854]
I am talking about turks in Gilan not in the court of the amir of
Samaan! Not even in Khorasaan! Please reread the statement.
Furthermore, the Zayarids and Daylamiyaan were not turkic tribes. The
turks that were part of the muslim empire at that time were nearly all
slaves. The first turkish force that
was independent that entered the area of the muslim empire was the
ghaznavids. Their reach did not fetch Gilaan.
I hope that is sufficient.
> Turks were in Iran as early as 850 AD. This particular report is from
>940 AD.
Turks as slave were in Khorasaan. Not in Gilaan. There was no
independent turkish movement. Just bunch of slaves. Unfortunately the
treacherous slavey, which the Prophet tried to stop, was added in as
part of Islam. We can see it today in Sunni countries like Sudan.
>
> The Ghaznavid Turks of Iran rose as early as 962 AD.
> "Alptegin founded the Ghaznavid fortunes when he established himself
> at Ghazna (modern Ghazni, Afghanistan) in 962."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol 9; page 854]
No one disputed this fact.
>
> This is all well known history. Well known to people who actually
> study history. The Seljuqs were one of the LATE Turkish incursions
into Iran ocurring in 1038.
The seljuks, were the first turks into Azarbaijan, Gilan and so on.
>
> "The Seljuqs. Toghril I had proclaimed himself sultan at Nishapur in
> 1038..."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol 9; page 856]
>
That is agreeable. Where is the disagreement? What does this have to
do with Gilan and Tabaristan. They daylam and Zeyarids.
The question is where the "Daylam and Zeyarids turkish". The daylam
for your information is linguisticly diffrent from any dialect of
turkish. Its descendants as I mentioned are the Gilaks, dimila Kurds
of anatolia and the Talysh of Azarbaijan.
>Iranian tribes. The zayarids , daylamiyaan and others were internal
> >Iranian forces and not external as Mr. Zaman alleges. They are
> >ancestors of the modern gilak's, talysh and dimilia kurds in North
> >west-Kurdistan.
>This is modern day neighboring Azeri territory on the south
>shores of
>the Caspian Sea and has always had Turkic elements since
even before
>Islam's appearance in the area. The Kurds ancestors date
back to BC
>times even before the birth of Christ (as).
Gilan is not modern day azeri territory. Looks like we need a
geographical map for you too look at.
About Azerbaijan the area was under the Persian empire before Islam.
The Azeri territory that you are refering to that had
turkish influence was the north of the Aras river, but even that was
mostly Armenian at the time. Please do not make the fundamental
mistake of not being able to diffrentiate between the Azarbaijan
province of Iran and the Azerbaijan republic.
The turkification of the area started with the seljuks coming in. For
example history books say that shaikh safi ad-din was a kurd while we
can see that his descendants became turkophones. This was an ongoing
process at that time.
So back to square one for you, please provided evidence that "the
daylam were turkish". I have provided evidence to the contrary. Since
I am partly from the northern region of Iran(Azerbaijan), I do not
think you want to step into this territory.
>"They (the Kurds) appear to have occupied their mountains
since
>prehistoric times..."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; Reference Index vol. 5; page
948]
Who argued with that? I am not sure where you are taking
this argument. Lets see what I said. I said that the
zayarids and daylamiyaan were not Turks. For god's sake,
the daylamiyaan language is still spoken in Gilan and it is
not turkish. anyone with a basic knowledge of the region
knows this.
>To claim that a people from the 10th century AD are the
ancestors of
>Kurds, a people who were a political power conducting
military
>campaigns as early as 401 BC [ibid.] is to be
chronologically
>retarded.
I said the daylamiyaan are the ancestors of the Gilaks and
also the dimila kurds. This is also in Mehrdad Izadi's
books : "The Kurds, a concise handbook".
>"The Samanids ruled in Khorasan and Transoxania as vassals
of the
>Abbasids..."
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page351]
>Clear enough. No further explanation needed.
But still, they were their own subkingdom. If anything at
that time the Abbassids were themselves puppets to you know
who, bovayids. Specially during the latter time of the
samanids. You are only mentioning a brief period of the Samanids
above. Not all of its period. All I need to show you is just a small
period where they weren't puppets to win the argument regarding this
sentence. Since we know the Abbassids where themselves puppets, at
some part in the samanid dynasties history, this is sufficient enough.
>>but one thing is certain, Muawiyah is not liked by many
sunnis as
>>well. Putting an (r) behind his name shows a lack of
historical
>"Muawiya offered one Rak`a Witr prayer after the `Isha
prayer, and at
>that time a freed slave of Ibn `Abbas was present. He (i.e.
>the slave)
>went to Ibn `Abbas (and told him that Muawiya offered one
>Rak`a Witr
>prayer). Ibn `Abbas said, "Leave him, for he was in the
company of the
>Messenger of Allah (s)"
>[Narrated by Ibn Abu Mulaika (r); Saheeh al Bukhari; Volume
>5, Book57, Number 108]
We are looking at historical sources. Not sunni hadeeth whose veracity
is in question. Muawiyah cursed Hazrat Ali(AS) and also declared war
on him. This is found in Tabari's history. My focus is on historical
inconsistensies in your argument. It is sufficient to say that
disliking Muawiyah, will not make you a shi'I necessarily. For example
Hasan Basri and teymur lang both disliked muawiyah. Actually anyone
that is just to himself, and is not bounded by some sort of
prejudice(ta3sob) will see that moaviyah was not such a great person.
>Thus, as anyone can see Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased
>with him) is a
>Companion of the Prophet (s) whose fiqh was condoned by
>even Ibn Abbas
>(r) who on another occasion said "innahu faqeeh" meaning
>"verily he is
>a master of jurisprudence."
Anyone that believes in Hadeeth of Bukhari of course. Please do not
diverge the issue into hadeeths of Bukhari. I am interested in
history. I do not care what bukhari said about this and that, because
it was written during the time of sunni control under heavy
ta3sob(prejudice). History on the other hand seems to be more
objective. History is a better judge than hadeeth on the actions of
the people. Suppose 500 years from now, someone in taking a german
newspaper about hilter during world war II and comparing it with what
history has written. This is your case. Please do not inject hadeeth
>from any book (shi'i) or (sunni) into this argument.
>6-answer:
>>"Shaikh Safi ad-deen Ardabili, the founder of the safavid
order was >>a Sunni Kurd following the shafii school of
thought. His shafiism is
>"The Safavid dynasty originates from Shaykh Ishaq Safi
>ad-Din (d.
>1334) who lived in Ardabil in Azerbaijan. He was the head
>of a Sufi
>order called after the Shaykh, the Safavi Order; this name
>was adopted
>to designate the dynasty....The order was associated with
>Shi`ism and
>its adherents were seven Turkic tribes called the Qizil
>Bash.."
>[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, page 341]
Unfortunately for you, the encyclopedia does not mention
when the order was associatd with shi'ism. So what you are
forced to do is to name shaikh safi ad-din, put couple of "...." and
then associate the safavid order with shi’ism. The safavid order
turned to shi’ism at the time of the grandfather of Shah
Ismaiil. This was alittle bit after shaikh safi-ad-din.
Shaikh safi-ad-din himself was a sunni.
If you actually read the books that you quotes in your
refrences (Safavids until afghan invasion, cambridge history
of Iran and one of the most comprehensive one : "Iran Under the
Safavids by Roger Savory"), you will see that Shaikh Safi-ad-din
himself was a sunni shafiite Kurd.
Even much much better than these sources, is the history
book of Hamdollah Mostavafi who wrote his history book only
6 years after the death of shaikh safi ad-din. In this book
shaikh safi-ad-din is a kurd of the shafiite rite. This
book is what all the safavids historians base their claim on
the sunnism of shaikh safi ad-din. So the order was
originally sunni, but at the time of junayd it became a
shi’ite order. So given the three books above I named, it
should be sufficient enough to prove this fact. Furthemore
the work you quoted(concise encyclopedia of Islam), does
not mention the religion of shaikh safi ad-din, but the
religion of the order, which turned to 12-Imami shi’ism at
the time of junayd, a descendant of shaikh safi-ad-din.
>No further explanation necessary...
Oh yes, there was much more explananing to do. And
fortunately for you and the reader that sincerely wanted to learn, this
material was explained. So in your distorted history pamphlet , please
mention junayd.
>It is indeed incredibly important as I will now point out
>that
>Qizlbash has absolutely no clue who they are or where those
>he named
>himself after came from.
>"...its adherents were seven Turkic tribes called the Qizil
>Bash.."
>[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, page 341]
Unfortunately for you, the encyclopedia is too concise. Furthermore it
is important that you quote the whole sentence. Also so far I have
shown that two of your sources were inaccurate(they did not contain
what they were supposed to). Furthermore, let us quote some newer
sources than your encyclopedia, since new research has been done while
your "concise" encyclopedia is older.
The 7 here are also what is called in Bektashtism : "Haft sardaar din".
They were loyal and close companions to shah Imsaiil. It is a
symbolic number and also has a certain mystical denotation in
Qizilbash/Alevi/Bektashism.
with the exception of cambridge history of Iran, I will now
name more sources on what the qizilbash were. They were
more than 7 tribes and they were not all turkic. Let me look on the
web so that the reader can have a first hand look without going to the
library.
Done,
http://kurdish.com/kurdistan/religion/alevism.htm
"The early patrons of this Alevism, better known to historians as
extremist Shi'ites, were the Turkmen royal house of Qara Qoyunlu, which
ruled basically the entire area of contemporary Iran, as well as the
Caucasus and eastern Anatolia (see Medieval History). The inclinations
of the Qara Qoyunlu toward the Cult of Angels and away from Islam were
too clear at their own time. Even today, the last remnant of the royal
Turkmen Qara Qoyunlu tribe living in exSoviet and ranian Azerbaijan are
followers of the Cult of Angels according to Minorsky. The list of the
primary Kurdish tribes that participated in the Safavid Alevi
revolution included the Shamlu, Shaykhawand, Shadlu, Khajawand,
Zafranlu (Za'faranlu), Stajlu
(Istajlu),
and Quvanlu (Qova). All these tribes are still extant and Kurdish (see
Table 1).
The red headgear that gave the name Qizilbdsh, Turkic for "red heads,"
to these socioreligious revolutionaries, are still worn among the Alevi
Dimila Kurds. Among the non-Alevi Kurds, it finds its last remnants in
the tradition of the Barzanis. The chiefs of the Barzani Confederacy,
who have traditionally commanded high religious leadership as well,
carry the exclusive privilege of wearing red turbans to their family as
a sacred tradition (see Costumes & jewelry). This red color was also
the
hallmark of the Mazdakite and the Khurramite movements, which are the
direct predecessors of Alevism. "(The Kurds, a concise handbook)
This should be sufficient enough as Mehrdad Izadi has named many more
sources which you can look up. I told you my friend, I come from this
area. I wouldn't chose a name like "qizilbash", unless I know what it
is. Today this term is used and alive, for the same alevis in turkey,
whose number is estimated to be 1/3 of the population. This is after
all the pogroms conducted on the Bektashti order and so on. The source
I refered to is a more reliable source than the encyclopedia of Islam
because it is newer, and the research is more specilized to this area
than that of the encyclopedia.
So here is the conclusion: there was more than 7 qizilbash tribes.
The qizilbash are followers of the safavid order, and they come from a
mainly turkoman and kurdish background. ALthough there was others in
there,(like the dimilia kurds).
It is up to the reader to decide if Mr. Zamans source or the source I
shown on the web is correct. Again , my source is newer and is
reacheable, it is also more specilized toward this specific area. The
qizilbash still exist today and many of them are still kurdish tribes.
This term today has taken a sort of derogotory manner and used for the
alevis in Turkey.
>"Kizilbash, a nickname meaning Redheads given by orthodox
>Turks to
>members of the sevent Turkmen tribes who supported the
>founders of the
>Safavid dynasty in Iran..."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica; Reference Index vol. 5; page 845]
Please refer to:
http://kurdish.com/kurdistan/religion/alevism.htm
As I explained the number "seven" is symbolic to the alevi/bektashti
order and this was the 7 companions of shah Ismaiil and the safavid
pirs before him. A sufficient proof that my source is right is that
there exists people in the region today who speak kurdish and identify
themselves as qizilbash. This also exists in western Iran as well.
>He names himself "Qizilbash" yet doesn't even know who they
>are, where
>they came from, or what they stood for.
Unfortunately for you, the above should make you reconsider
next time you try to throw rhetorics. As I said, the job for you
to bring facts , not rhetorics. Rhetoric comes when you
have proved a fact correctly without a shadow of a doubt.
You were not able to do so :)
> "Qizil Bash" are >two words in
>Turkish meaning "Red Heads". This was not because they had
>red hair
>but because they wore red Turkish fezzes with 12 tassels
>dangling from
>the apex representing the 12 imams.
No disagreement here. I have a hat myself.
>
>8-answer: The Zands from Lurs-and Bakhtiaris.
>"Mohammad Karim Khan Zand began his careeer as an ally of
the
>Bakhtyari chief Ali Mardan Khan in a bid to oust Shah
Rokh's nominee,
>Abu ol-Fath Bakhtyari, from Isfahan."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol. 9; page 859]
>The Zands are of relatively obscure origin as are many in
Iranian
>history and are assumed by some historians to be either of
a lesser
>Lur tribe or perhaps related to one of the 7 original
Turkic Qizilbash
>tribes. They were not Bakhtiyaris, who are the greater Lur
tribe, but
>intervened in a conflict between two Bakhtiyari tribes as
is seen in
>the reference above.
There is no obscurity about the zands! They are lurs.
Please see the cambridge history of Iran. Or even "modern
Iran", by peter Avery. Please do not try to obscure history
more than it already is. Even the "Kurds, a concise handbook",
mentions that they are lurs. The word “zand”, should be sufficient
enough if the author knows his Iranian linguistics.
>9.-answer: The Zands were defeated by the Qizilbash tribe
of Qajar who
>controlled Iran for 150 years about and not the Pahlavis!
>This was a mistake in the original article which escaped my
>proof
>reading and closer analysis and I concede this.
This is not a war for you to make concessions. It is just a "friendly"
rivarly in displaying facts for the objective reader who wants to learn
his history.
>10- Answer: Shiite dynasties like the fatimids did spread
>Islam in
>First of all, the Fatimids did not acquire a single inch of
Africa
>from the disbelievers and bring it into the fold of Islam.
>Their focus
>was eastward towards the Abbasid Caliphate.
Spreading Islam means producing culture in my opinion also.
Meaning they expanded upon islamic culture. I am not sure
if they actually expanded landwise. If they did, it was
probably insignificant. But they did produce a rich culture
and this in my opinion is also “spreading” Islam.
>>"..the Fatimids never lost sight of their ultimate aim,
>expansion to
>the East, where the center of `Abbasid strength lay."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica; vol. 7; page 193]
It does not say that they did not have other aims.
>The Fatimids didn't "spread islam in north-africa" as you
>say. They spread bloodshed throughout the entire Muslim
>world in true Shi`ite style.
What is your point? It is like me saying the Abbassids
spread bloodshed in true sunni style! Let the objective reader decide.
When a sunni says that shi'ite are outthere to spread the blood of the
sunnis, history has shown that most of the time it was usually the
sunnis spreading shi'ite blood. I don't blame the sunnis, as
according to Mr. Zaman, one important thing is to expand their land.
But today, there should be a call for tolerance. If tolerance does not
exist, than for example a shi'i area can be created in smaller
countries or given a federal status. Fortunately enough, healthy
nationalism to most Iranians as well as Turks and other countries has
put aside the shi'i vs sunni conflict.
>Second, The Fatimids were Isma`ilis who eventually deified
>their boy king, al Hakim, at the turn of the 11th century
>and declared him as god.
You have mistaken the Druze with the Ismai’ilis. The
Ismai’ilis like the Bohra’s today are not defiers of
al-hakim. Please correct this minor mistake.
>"In the year 1017 al-Hakim was publicly proclaimed as the
>incarnation
>of God."
>[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979; vol. 5; page 1061]
>The Druze still believe him to be a god. They were declared
>non-Muslims by both Sunni and 12'er Shi`ite alike.
>Does Qizlbash still want to use them as an example? I
>didn't think so...
I stand on my position that they did a tremendous amount for Islamic
culture. Specially Islamic philosophy. This for me is more
important than just conquering lands. Also you mistaked the
druze with the ismaiilis which unfortunately I believe it
was deliberate.
>The Bektashi was a confused religious heresy which was more
>Christian
>than Shi`ite.
proof please. I will write more about the bektashti in the
end.
> As the Janissaries (a term coming from "yeni >ceri" which
>in Turkish means "new recruits") were young Christian boys
>they often
>pursued their Christianity in the guise of this "Sufi
>order".
The Bektashti does have a "christian influence" in couple of
minor aspects. But its core is shiism. What I mean by christian
influence is that they believe in a virgin bith of certain so this is
where it is similar to christianity. But again christianity itself
according to some scholars got this idea, from the zoroastrian
sayoshant who is supposed to have a virgin birth.
This is like when scholars say that zoroastrianism has had an influence
on judaism, Islam and christianity, because zoroastrianism was first in
having a hell and heaven, a messiah, an evil and good.. and so on.
The ideas in bektashism are original. For example visiting a lodge,
one can see :
"Shir Mardaan, Shah Yazdaan, Ali
Pir tariqat, Haji bektash vali"
It's founder, Haji Bektash vali , whose tomb I had a chance to pay
respect to, and there are qizilbash both Kurds and Turks every year
paying homage to this great saint. I will post two quick poems in the
end of the post by Bektashti saints which reaffirm their belief in the
12 Imams(AS). The Bektashti according to Henry Corbin are more in line
with the true message of "shi'ism", than the exoteric Ulama. Their
core though is the belief in the 12 Imams(AS) and like other shi'ites,
they believe that Ali(AS) was designated as the caliph. They are the
beacons of shi'ism in the Balkan lands such as Bulgaria, Bosna, Albania
and so on. They were also the main force that the Ottoman used to do
Mr. Zaman's faviorate thing : conquer.
I doubt a small artile from some concise encyclopedia is sufficient
enough to shed light on their belief. Personally being with them I
believe will shed more light. Also if a reader is interested, there is
a classical work on Bektashism which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt
that they are "heterothodox" 12 Imami shi'ites. They also exist in
western Iran under a diffrent name.
If anyone is interested on this 12 Imami shi'ite sect which sometimes
is belittled by exoteric shi'i and sunni Ulama, please refer to the
classic:
Bektashi Order of Dervishes
by John K. Birge
The best source on bektashism would be to read the turkish work
"Velayat nameh", by Haci Bektas himself.
>"The Bektashis are sometimes considered to be a Sufi
>Tariqah, since
>they are organized as such. Rather than an esoterism,
>however, they
>represent instead a mixture of beliefs and practices which
>includes
>elements from Shi`ism, Christianity and other sources,
>including Buddhism."
>[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page 71]
Unfortunately for you, Islam is also according to many scholars a
mixture of judaism, christianity and some zoroastrian. You need to
provide better refrences.
The "buddhism" aspect mentioned here is because of the bektashti belief
in the principle of sucessive life. This is a orginal bektashti belief
and does not mean that it was influenced by buddhism. We can see this
belief in earlier form of variants of ismai'ilsm.
>Albania's independence movement from the Ottoman state was
>at the hands of one of these "Bektashis" named Sikander Beg
>who openly declared his rejection of Islam and adherence to
>Christianity.
>The elements of Shi`ism were purely a result of the
>Mu`tazilite and
>Shi`ite philosophies common in Gnostic Christo-Islamic
>Sufist
>heresies. They do not exist today and the Qizl Bash are
>mere name
>sakes unrelated to the Qizlbash loyalists of the Safavid
>Empire of
>Eastern Turkey are all Sunnis. They are not followers of
>the 12 imams.
The Bektashtis are the followers of the 12 Imams(AS). One
of their saints is actually the safavid Pir, Shah Ismaiil
Safavi.
>"The Bektashi religious confraternity which was peculiar to the
>Janissaries was outlawed."
>[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, page 206]
Very good, that is why the Ottoman declined. DO you know why the
Ottomans never tried to conquer Safavid Iran? It was because they
always feared the loyalty of the janissaries to the safavid order.
Even today among the bektashi, Shah Ismaiil Safavi is considered a
great leader and poet.
>The conquest of Spain was done under the Umayyad's with the eadership
>of Tariq ibn Zayd and Musa ibn Nusayr both loyal to the
>Umayyad
>government which he says was focused on oppressing Shi`ites.
>Isconsistency too much to ask for?
Definitely not, that is why just like the abu muslim case, tariq ibn
zayd himself was murdered. Sources say he was a ismaiili berber. I am
not even interested though in the conquest of spain, because shi'ism
itself is not a religion of conquest.
>I have given enough sources to make up a small book in
>itself. I wonder if he just doesn't read the posts before he responds
>to them or if he just has an extremely short memory. I ask him to >look at the end of my reply to his irritating "part two" and then >dare say I don't have unbiased sources? The sources on Nassir ad-Din >al Toosi are 2
>pages long in themselves. Many of those are not even Muslim,
>Sunni or Shi`ite, in Italian, Russian, etc.
Unfortunately, people had two of your sources on hand, and they found
that what you alleged against shi'ites did not exist. I have already
explained the Nassir ad-din tusi sotry in another article and I will
not delve into it here, as this is getting extremly long.
>Mistakes? Every single one of his "mistakes" ended up being extremely
>ridiculous mistakes on his part which I used only quotes to
>dismantle.
I do not believe you are arguing, but just throwing rhetorics. You
didn't even mention any sources on yaqub layth being a 12 Imam shi'ite!
And then you create a bogus idea : "The wedding between 12 Imami
shi'ism and kharajites under yaqub layth". Looks like you had nothing
to comment on in this article about that.
>NOW BACK TO THE SUBJECT: Iran, Shi`ism and History.
>Shi`ism's role in
>constantly eating away at the Muslims from within, impedingIslam's
>expansion into new frontiers, and its forced imposition on the >country of Iran.
That is too bad for sunnism. Today you will have to adopt tolerance.
I am glad Shah Abbas the Safavids stopped the Ottomans from conquering
Vienna. Imagine what kind of a city it would have been today!
At the time when shi'ism was declared in Iran, 12 Imami shi'ites did
not make more than 3% of the population. Probably less. The people
were not strong in their sunni belief. Plus shi'ism has a closer
connection to the Iranian mind than sunnism. One main pillar of
shi'ism is Adl and the other is Imamate. These two along make shi'ism
closer to the Iranian thought.
Although I agree that sunnis were prosecuted when the 14 year old Sufi
master, Shah Ismaiil safavi declared 12-Imami shi'ism as the official
religion of Iran and was able to ruserrect Persia from centuries of
sleep, but at the same time shi'ites were killed savagely in the Uzbek
and Ottoman land. In fact during the time of chaldran a massive pogrom
against the alavis took place. In the Uzbek land: "Whenever there was
any sort of quarell among two person, one person would get two witness
and say that the other person cursed the first two caliph. On the
testomines of those two witnesses, the other person would be hanged."
(Ahsan al-tavarikh, page 114).
So it was called a "mutual respect" thing. Shi'ites were massacared in
Uzbek and Ottoman land and Sunnis where killed in Iran. Ironically
when the Afghans and Nader Shah were in power for a brief time, shi'ism
was such a part of the population that nobody turned back to
sunnism(and they were free to do so at that time).
If we go back to history, Sunni Islam itself was imposed in many
places. Sometimes the imposition came in terms of social benefits.
Because the muslims benefited more socially, lot of people turned to
Islam in this way. Actually, it would not be far fetched that Islam
was imposed in this relatively peacefull method and also more brutual
fashion in many places(like Iran).
>Can anyone name a single Shi`ite regime that warred with
>disbelievers
>and not their fellow Muslims?
I explained before, shi’ism is not an expanisionist religion. War is
only done in defense, unless it is under the command of a shi'ite
Imam(AS). If any shi'ite in history has done War, it has been mostly
for defensive purposes. If they diverged from this method, than they
are not following shi'ism.
>This has been my open challenge for
>years and is to this day unanswered.
It will probably go unanswered. I wonder if for the author
that inorder for an certain type of Islam to be legitimate,
it has to be expansionist!
> They have always from the
>beginning concerned themselves with making the Muslim ummah
>bleed.
Unfortunately you didn’t bring proof. If the objective
reader actually studies history, he will see that shi’ism
was always made to bleed. My good friends own great grandfather had to
relocate due to the Ottoman occupation of western Iran for a brief
period during world war I. The reason is that at that time, the
followers of the bektashti in Iran(called ahl-i-haq) were being killed
by the sunnis of the area. The sunnis thought that if they killed
three of the bektashtis in the area, they would automatically go to
heaven without any question asked..
>Every SINGLE INCH of land acquired for Islam was under the
>Muslims of
>ahl as-sunnah wa-l jama`ah. EVERY SINGLE INCH. All this has
>been done
>while the Shi`ites have simultaneously attacked the
>Muslims.
As I explained, the Ottoman used the Bektashti order which
is shi’ite order. I must also say that shi’ism was a
minority. Also shi’ism only fights defensively. So their
aim is not to take over the world. Shi’ites believe this
will happen during the time of the Mahdi(AS).
>Nasir ad-Deen al Toosi the Shi`ite scholar
This has been address to in another post. So let us keep it in that
thread..
> As
>recent as this century the Shi`ite Hazaras of Northern
>Afghanistan
>were slaughtering the Afghan Mujaahideen who were fighting
>the
>Russians. All in the dream of an end to Pashtoon Sunni rule
>and a new
>dawn of Hazara Shi`ite supremacy.
Actually the pashtuns were allied with the british. I am
not a hazara nor pushtoon, so I will just say a few word.
There is amazing ethnic blood between these two groups. As
recent as 1 1/2 years ago 10,000 Hazaras mostly women and
children and old men were killed by the Taliban.
Furthermore, during the time of amir rahman khan, a massive
genocide was committed against the Hazaras, where a million
perished and those that were left were taken slaves. Today
the descendants of Hazaras are found in Khorasaan province
of Iran and Quettaa and others parts of pakistan. We can
see that the pushtoon tribe recently made 100,000 sunni
tajik refugees from the fertile valley of the tajiks. The
Uzbeks are also taken and harassed massively. With all this
in background, Islam is being used as a tool to do ethnic
cleansing in Afghanistan. I am not sure if any other group
has suffered more than the Hazaras in afghanistan.
If anyone is interested, I recommend:
The Hazaras of Afghanistan : An Historical, Cultural, Economic and
Political Study by Sayed Askar Mousavi
The book address the genocide against the Hazara population, taking
away their land and women, making the children slaves and so on, very
objectively and with diffrent sources.
The best solution for that country would be for the tajik,
hazaras and uzbeks to unite and split afghanistan into two
parts, as the ethnic problem is a curse. This will probably will be
the eventual course. Using “Islam” to do ethnic cleansing is beyond
any human decency, since there are no hazaras left anymore, now it is
the turn of the sunni tajiks and uzbeks it seems.
I am not interested about the rest of the rhetoric of the
author. I am only interested in proving historical facts.
When your axioms are wrong, your rhetorics(theorems) are
wrong as well. So I will only address the axioms and leave your
rhetorics for the likes of yourself..
As for the christians which you complain. Stop crying
please. You started the attack on shi’ism. Now you
complain about the lack of time to address them. I have been reading
the newsgroup before Katz even showed up. I believe at that time,
there was a tremendous amount of attack on christianity(mostly done by
your likes). So Mr. Katz responded back. I doubt you will able to
debate him, because the man has probably a phd or a sort in
mathematics. Take a course in mathematical logic, Godel's
incompletness theorem and so on so you won't lose in your debates :)
a friendly advice. The rest of the theorms(rhetorics) have been
deleted, since your axioms are incomplete.
ps. again, I have posted this artile to alt.religion.islam as well as
soc.religion.islam. I am going to move my answers into that forum
because I do not want to overburden the moderator and I am also
impatient and like to provide answers and facts fast. Please keep away
>from the rhetorics, display the facts for the public and let them be
the judge.
Vassalam
Gholam Ali Qizilbash
qizi...@yahoo.com
Ali Abbas
assalam o alaikum
see my comments below.
> SHI`ITES ON THE FIRST CALIPH:
> "Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (son of Abu Bakr the First Caliph) said to the
> Commander of the Faithful, Ali (as) on a certain day, 'Hold out your
> hand, I take the oath of allegiance to you.' He asked him if he had
> not already taken the oath. He replied, 'Not so far.' Thereupon he
> held out his hand and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr uttered these words, 'I
> stand witness to the fact that you are the Leader and that obedience
> to you is incumbent on us; BUT MY FATHER (Abu Bakr the First Caliph)
> IS IN THE FIRE..."
> [Ar-Rejal al Kaashshi; pages 60,61; Tehran edition; pages vary by
> publication but are cited by request]
again, this is not taken from the above source, but copied from
The Shi'ites and the Sunna, Ihsan Elahi Zaheer
editor Idara Tarjaman al Hadith Lahore
Translated by Prof. Dr Rana M.N Ehsan Elahie
Published by Idara Tarjuman al Sunnah, 475 Shadman Lahore, Pakistan
SECTION: Abu Bakr, pp43-44
> SHI`ITES ON THE SECOND CALIPH:
> "Al Baaqir said to al Kumait, 'No blood that has been shed in Islam,
> nor any property that has been taken into possession unlawfully, not
> any woman taken illegally for sexual intercourse, but that the burden
> of that shall be on the shoulders of those two (Abu Bakr, the First
> Caliph and Umar, the Second Caliph) until the Day of
> Resurrection....'"
> [Ar-Rejal al Kashshi; pages 179,180; Tehran edition; pages vary by
> publication but are cited by request]
again, this is not taken from the above source, but copied from
The Shi'ites and the Sunna, Ihsan Elahi Zaheer
editor Idara Tarjaman al Hadith Lahore
Translated by Prof. Dr Rana M.N Ehsan Elahie
Published by Idara Tarjuman al Sunnah, 475 Shadman Lahore, Pakistan
SECTION: The Great al Faruq, pp. 50-51
> SHI`ITES ON THE THIRD CALIPH:
> Al Kaafi says in his "al Kaafi min al Usool al Arba`ah" in the Chapter
> of "al Hujja" vol. 1, page 420; Tehran edition; (pages vary by
> publication but are cited by request) that Abu Abdullah (as) stated in
> reference to the Qur'anic verse,
> "Moreover, they who believed and afterwards became disbelievers and
> then believed again and after that disbelieved and increased in
> infidelity theyir repentance shall in no wise be accepted from any of
> them" [Qur'an 4:136]
> "This verse was revealed about 'so and so'..." The commentary narrates
> that "so and so" is Abu Bakr, the First Caliph, Omar, the Second
> Caliph and Uthman, the Third Caliph.
again, this is not taken from the above source, but copied from
The Shi'ites and the Sunna, Ihsan Elahi Zaheer
editor Idara Tarjaman al Hadith Lahore
Translated by Prof. Dr Rana M.N Ehsan Elahie
Published by Idara Tarjuman al Sunnah, 475 Shadman Lahore, Pakistan
SECTION: Uthman Ibn Affan, pp. 58
would request if the originals are shared to begin with, then we can begin
to examine them.
regards
abu Kumayl!
Shibli Zaman
Obviously, this individual could not respect my request to save this
until the end of the `Eid holiday which is less than 10 days away. I
believe this subject was closed with my last article which was nothing
but quotes. I wrote it in that fashion so that he would finally see
these are not points that can be argued, as any reasonable and logical
person would do. Sadly, it seems I am not dealing with such an
individual. As I said in that post if "Qizlbash" wishes to argue he
can hunt down the scholars who I quoted and argue with them. This
reply of his is laden with abuses and accusations of me "falsifying"
and not using enough sources. He replies with a much longer post with
barely 2 references. Amazing. Everyone is welcome to verify my
sources. I read Ali Abbas' post and only saw him refer to one and even
then he did not accuse me of "falsifying" but just that he didn't see
the same thing that I had written which happens very often when
verifying sources due to variant publications. These were not my words
but quoted from the book Khutoot al Areeda which a friend sent me in
Microsoft Word format. I simply cut and paste. So if there is any
falsification then my mouse would be guilty of that charge [sarcasm].
You may download it yourself from the following location to see
exactly what I quoted at the following URL:
Now let us delete all of Qizlbash's excessive and unnecessary personal
exegesis and analyze a few key points. The end of this post is the
most amusing:
>Ya ALI Madad,
"Ya Ali Madad" means "Oh Ali help (me)".
Let us see what Allah Himself has to say about this Shi`ite practice
also found amongst some misinformed Sunnis:
"Knowest thou not that to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens
and the earth? AND BESIDES HIM YE HAVE NEITHER PATRON NOR HELPER."
[Qur'an 2:107]
I'm sorry, is the Qur'an not a good enough reference? Do you perhaps
have a web page with better information? [sarcasm]
>> However, I have a hatred for any element calling for the
>> cursing of the Prophet's (s) wives and companions in the name of an
>> Ali (as) whom their own predecessors betrayed nearly 1500 years ago.
>
>That is extremly hillarious. The reason is that certain elements of
>shi’ites curse those who cursed Ali(AS) (like muawiyah, ayesha) and
>then you curse them. I don’t know, I found that funny.
If the above statement of his made any sense whatsoever to any of the
readers please let me know...because it made absolutely no sense to
me, and I say that without sarcasm.
>> "Other Zoroastrians migrated to West India..."
>> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 851]
>
>This is a very small quote. Not even the sentence is quoted. But let
"Little by little it (Zoroastrianism) vanished from Iran, except for a
few surviving adherents who remain to the present day in Yazd and a
few other places.*Other Zoroastrians migrated to West India*, where
they are now chiefly concentrated in Bombay. These Parsis (Persians)
have preserved only a relatively small portion of tier sacred
writings."
[Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 851]
Okay, there is the full sentence typed with its preceeding and
succeeding sentences so anyone can see its context. Did there end up
being some secret evidence in there that will support you which I
intentionally left out or "falsified"? No, there wasn't. This behavior
only hurts you, it does not help you.
>Why all the" …". ?
Its called being "considerate" to the reader. As I have displayed
above there are no secret weapons for you hidden behind the "...." its
simply the use of brevity for the sake of the reader. Something which
is an alien concept to you.
>>This is modern day neighboring Azeri territory on the south
>>shores of
>>the Caspian Sea and has always had Turkic elements since
>even before
>>Islam's appearance in the area. The Kurds ancestors date
>back to BC
>>times even before the birth of Christ (as).
>
>Gilan is not modern day azeri territory. Looks like we need a
>geographical map for you too look at.
Or perhaps an English grammar book for you. Note I said "modern day
NEIGHBORING Azeri territory".
"Neighbor: 1. One who is situated or lives near another..." [Webster's
New World Dictionary]
It is to the East of modern day Azerbaijan to the South of the Caspian
Sea as I already said but you failed to understand.
>http://kurdish.com/kurdistan/religion/alevism.htm
You point to a web page as a reference and source yet you question the
veracity of the "Concise Encyclopedia of Islam"? Amazing.
>sources which you can look up. I told you my friend, I come from this
>area. I wouldn't chose a name like "qizilbash", unless I know what it
Aggar tu aslee Azeri astee to mumkin turkche mefamee....
Neyse, kardesim "Qizilbash", Turkce biliyur musunuz? Hayir? Dogru,
Zarari yok. [sarcasm]
As you have stated that you are Azeri and, thus an authority on the
matter of the Northern Turkic areas of Iran and its history, it would
be nice if you could respond to the above in Turkish. I have never met
an Azeri who could not communicate with me in Turkish in spite of the
variant dialect.
>>"The Bektashis are sometimes considered to be a Sufi
>>Tariqah, since
>>they are organized as such. Rather than an esoterism,
>>however, they
>>represent instead a mixture of beliefs and practices which
>>includes
>>elements from Shi`ism, Christianity and other sources,
>>including Buddhism."
>>[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam; page 71]
>
>
>Unfortunately for you, Islam is also according to many scholars a
>mixture of judaism, christianity and some zoroastrian. You need to
>provide better refrences.
So now scholars are dismissed as a source and we are to accept "web
pages" as sources for historical information.
AND NOW FOR THE FINALE:
Below we will see Qizilbash acknowledging the end of the entire
subject himself by making confessions which were my intial points to
begin with:
>I am glad Shah Abbas the Safavids stopped the Ottomans from conquering
>Vienna. Imagine what kind of a city it would have been today!
1) The Shi`ites wanton sabotage of the Muslim Empires wish struggled
to Spread Islam to new lands
He is admitting that the Shi`ites sabotaged the jihad into Europe and
he is actually "glad" that the Ottoman Muslims were defeated at Vienna
due to the Shi`ites fighting them from the East simultaneously, thus
weakening their spread into Europe. Again, we are forced to ask "whose
side are these Shi`ites really on?"
>At the time when shi'ism was declared in Iran, 12 Imami shi'ites did
>not make more than 3% of the population. Probably less. The people
2) Shi`ism was not the original religion of Iran but was superimposed
by the Safavids in the 16th century.
Then why did you argue for so long nitpicking about little points such
as what race such and such group were and what mountains they lived in
when you ADMITTED all of my points in the end? You wasted so much of
your own time as well as mine only to finally admit the 2 main ideas
of my initial article?
Finally, the subject has been closed not only by me but by the jester
who dragged this subject so long only to end up right where I started
by his own confession in the end.
If anyone believes that I have not closed the subject (other than
Qizlbash, Ali Abbas, or nasirulmahdi, or the likes) then please say so
then I will continue until I close it. Otherwise, I personally feel
its over and the facts have been represented without a shred of doubt.
I do not appreciate that Qizlbash could not respect my request to wait
just 10 days until after `Eid but this is their tradition and legacy
since the days they pained the heart of our beloved Ali (as) under the
scorching sun of Basra.
"Oh Allah, I am tired of them. They have vexed me. They are tired of
me. Oh Allah, give me better men in their place and grant them a
harsher man to lead them. Oh Allah, destroy their hearts as salt is
dissolved and lost in water."
[Nahju-l Balagha p.67; Beirut Edition]
qizilbash
> He replies with a much longer post with
> barely 2 references.
I replied with more than 5 refrences in the past post. Let the readers
count them. Probably you did not read my post. I will show you some
refrences below.
> Amazing. Everyone is welcome to verify my
> sources. I read Ali Abbas' post and only saw him refer to one and >even then he did not
>accuse me of "falsifying" but just that he
>didn't see the same thing that I had written which happens very
>often when verifying sources due to variant publications.
unfortunately the source contained "crucial information" to attack
shi'i Islam with. While you had never seen the source, you quoted it
>from an anti-shi'i writing. But others were able to verify that it
didn't contain such nonsense that you quoted.
> Now let us delete all of Qizlbash's excessive and unnecessary >personal exegesis and analyze a few key points. The end of this post
>is the most amusing:
For now, I consider the historical part closed as you did not analyze
and backup your arguments in my past post. All of the 10 facts I
challenged on your history book is there. You provided a response and
I provided one back. The ball is in your court.
> "Ya Ali Madad" means "Oh Ali help (me)".
>
> Let us see what Allah Himself has to say about this Shi`ite practice
> also found amongst some misinformed Sunnis:
>
> "Knowest thou not that to Allah belongeth the dominion of the >heavens and the earth?
>AND BESIDES HIM YE HAVE NEITHER PATRON NOR >HELPER." [Qur'an
>2:107]
I am interested in your article's historical errors.
But for a small response's sake,
During the battle of Uhud, the Prophet (PBUH&HP) was seeing his army
being overtaken by the Kaffar. At that time, the Prophet(PBUH&HP)
asked God for help, and he was given this prayer: "Nadeh Aliyyan Mazhar
Al-ajayeb.."..
God has created diffrent tools for help for mankind: cows, iron... For
example, the staff of Moses(AS) was a tool that helped him. So Ali(AS)
is a tool to help us. Infact the Prophet(PBUH&HP) said he has left his
progeny and the quran for us. And muslims today use the quran foor
help while shi'ites additionaly incoporate the ahlul-bayt ithin their
belief system. That is understatement actually. The shi'ite principle
is based on the ahlul-bayt.
In fact let us take an example of going to the doctor. you go to the
doctor if your sick, because he cures you. The true person, who
believes in the unity of God will also know that, if he gets
fixed up, it was because God did it. The doctor is just a tool or
means. So without knowing the intention, it is wrong to judge.
Calling muslims Rock worshippers for example is such a erroneous case
and a parrallel example.
The problem is your interpretation of the Quran which is porportional
to the capacity of the mind to interpret it. This theological
discussion has been addressed so many times by diffrent muslims and as
well as other religions that there is absolutely no point to delve into
it.
It has nothing to do with the present article, whose topic is : your
mistakes on history of Iran and shi'ism, which you are not an authority
on!
If this is not sufficient, here we’ll try a different method:
"rava bashad ana-al-haq ze derakhti
chera rava nabashad ze nikbakhti"(rumi)
“Agar dast Ali, dast khoda nist
cheraa dast digar, moshgel-gusha nist”(a modern poet)
if that is not enough:
“Anaan keh ziyaad mast gashtand,
raftand o Ali parast gashtand”.(another modern poet)
excuse me for the lack of 'soberiety'.
>
> I'm sorry, is the Qur'an not a good enough reference? Do you perhaps
> have a web page with better information? [sarcasm]
I am sure you have heared of tassawul. This concept has been discussed
many times in this newsgroup. You can take either side of the issue on
this. There are sunnis that are on diffrent sides on this
issue(wahabis against it and sufis for it). Shi'ites are all for it
except a very few minor cases.
If you are interested , start a theological thread and others will
respond to this. I find history more important, specially regarding.
this thread.
> >
> >That is extremly hillarious. The reason is that certain elements of
> >shi’ites curse those who cursed Ali(AS) (like muawiyah, ayesha) and
> >then you curse them. I don’t know, I found that funny.
>
> If the above statement of his made any sense whatsoever to any of >the readers please let me know...because it made absolutely no
>sense to me, and I say that withoutsarcasm.
Let me try again. It is humarous because you are just adding to the
cycle of hate. Let me make it simpler for you: You hate those that
hate those that hate! Yet you claim that hate
is bad. I hope you can understand this simple logic. Take a modolus
2(for obvious reasons) and you will be the initiator. Muawiyah was the
initiator of this hate, as he cursed our Imam Ali(AS) first.
Today, unfortunately, many muslims(both shi'i and sunni) are not
educated enough to examine this objectivetly, instead they have to
resort to hate.
>
> "Little by little it (Zoroastrianism) vanished from Iran, except >for a few surviving
>adherents who remain to the present day in Yazd
>and a few other places.*Other Zoroastrians migrated to West India*, >where they are now chiefly concentrated in Bombay. These Parsis
> (Persians) have preserved only a relatively small portion of tier >sacred writings."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica 1979 edition; volume 9; Page 851]
Read the past post. You stated that all of Iran was under Abbassid
control. I proved you wrong and showed you subkingdoms in Tabaristan,
Gilan and also the Alamut that were not under the Abbassid control.
Infact the Abbassid(in reality the Seljuks) were at a juncture to
disappear because of the guerilla style tactics of the Alamut, until
both were vanished by the mongols. This issue is like the issue you
raised about yazdegerd which was even a pre-ummayad era thing. Even
during the ummayyads, we can argue about if
you like. Babakh Khoram-din from Ardabil comes to mind.
Please do not quote part of my statement on this issue, I wrote two
pages on the Abbassid not taking control of all of Iran.
This on your part is not a chivarlous act.
>
> Okay, there is the full sentence typed with its preceeding and
> succeeding sentences so anyone can see its context. Did there end up
> being some secret evidence in there that will support you which I
> intentionally left out or "falsified"? No, there wasn't. This >behavior only hurts you, it does not help you.
Two of your sources that you quoted did not contain the text that they
should have. I am not saying you falsified it yourself. I am saying
you just presented to the group without reading it yourself. Basically
you cut&pasted a very pro-wahabi article(read the
introduction of it as it was sponsered by the saudi government) on the
newsgroup and then claimed it without mentioning the wahabi source.
This is called falsifying. Somebody falsified it and you followed it.
Also we can order 20 diffrent mafituhul
janan(its on you) if you like from 20 publishers in Iran and see if any
of them have what you quoted. So far two of them didn't.
> Its called being "considerate" to the reader. As I have displayed
> above there are no secret weapons for you hidden behind the "...." >its simply the use f brevity for the sake of the reader. Something >which is an alien concept to you.
You used the "..." when you tried to associate Shaikh Safi-ad-din with
extreme shi'ism. This was to coverup the associating the order, which
became shi'ite during two generations after shaikh
safi-ad-din. I provided 3 sources specifically on this matter. You
needed to be corrected. The best source was the tarikh of mostavafi,
who's book is written only 6 years after shaikh safi-ad-din's death!
In it he mentions the shaikh and his shafi'ite background.
No other book is more authoratative on this matter, and it is quoted by
all Safavid scholars.
> >Gilan is not modern day azeri territory. Looks like we need a
> >geographical map for you too look at.
>
> Or perhaps an English grammar book for you. Note I said "modern day
> NEIGHBORING Azeri territory".
But you associated the territory of daylamites with Turks. I think you
need the geographical map more :)
>
> "Neighbor: 1. One who is situated or lives near another..."
>[Webster's New World Dictionary]
very good. I am suprised you knew the meaning!
That means that we should be able to diffrentiate the neighbors. I
pointed out to you that they are not the sames! SO I made it explicitly
clear that this is not Azeri territory. This
was to backup my claim (which I also provided refrences) that the
daylam were not turkic tribes as they come from Gilan originally.
I hope the logic is clear now.
>
> It is to the East of modern day Azerbaijan to the South of the >Caspian Sea as I already said but you failed to understand.
>
> >http://kurdish.com/kurdistan/religion/alevism.htm
>
> You point to a web page as a reference and source yet you question the
> veracity of the "Concise Encyclopedia of Islam"? Amazing.
The website is just a small piece from Mehrdad Izadi's book : "The
Kurds, a concise handbook". I provided this source and another
source(Cambridge History of Iran) to prove that there was more than 7
qizilbash tribes. This book and the cambridge history of
Iran are more specilized to this area than the "concise Encyclopedia of
Islam". While these two books might have a total of 20 pages devoted
to this area, your encyclopedia
has no more than a paragraph. Does it even name the "7" tribes. I will
let the reader judge this issue. Here I will name more 7 qizilbash
tribes from the top of my head. Most are
turkish and some are kurdish.
Afshar,
Moghadam,
Istanjlu,
Ghoradaji,
Shahsevaan,
Qajar,
Shamlu,
shaykhawand,
shadlu,
zarfanlu,
quvalu,
there is/was more, but that is more than 7. Here are the sources that
the website quoted:
"Further Readings and Bibliography: P.j. Buinke, "Kizilbas Kurden in
Dersim (Tunçeli,Ttirkei):Marginalität und Häresie," Anthropos 74
(1979); "The Kurdish Alevis:Boundaries and Perceptions," in Peter
Andrews> ed., Ethtiic Groups in the Republic ofTurkey (Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 1989); N. Yalman, "Islamic Reform and the Mystic Tradition in
Eastern Turkey," European Journal of Sociology 10 (1969); F.W. Hasluck,
"Heterodox Tribes of Asia Minor," Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 51 (1921); Matti Moosa,
Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects (Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press, 1988); James Reid, Tribalism and Society in
Islamic Iran, 1500- 1629 (Malibu: Undena, 1983); Klaus MWler,
ulturhistorische Studien zur Genese pseudo-islamischer Sektekigebilde
in Vorderasien (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1967); P. Butyka, "Das
ehemalige Vdayet Dersim," Mitteilungen der
kaielich-königlichen Geographischen Gesellschaft 35 (Berlin, 1892);
Peter J. Bumke, "Kizflbase-Kurden in Dersim (Tunceli, T(irkei):
Marginalität und Häresie," Anthropos 74 (1979); Krisztina Kehl-Bodrogi,
Die KizilbasflAlei4tcn: Untersuchungen iiber eine
esoterische Glaubensgemeinschaft in Anatolien (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz
Verlag, 1988); Rev. Henry H. Riggs, "Ile Religion of the Dersim Kurds,"
Missionary Review of the World 24 (191 1); Hanna Sohrweide, "Der Sieg
der Safaviden in Persien und seine
Riickwirkungen auf die Shiiten Anatoliens im 16. Jahrhundert,' Der
Islam 41 (1965); Melville Charter, "Tbe Kizdbash Clans of Kurdistan,"
National Geograpliic Magazine 54 (1928); Trowbridge, "The Alevis,"
Harvard Theological Review (1909); Helmut Nickel,
"The Dawn of Chivalry," in Ann Farkas et al., eds., From the Land of
the Scythians (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Arts, n.d.); Richard
Antoun and Donald Quataert, eds., Syria, Society, Gulture, and Polity
(Albany: SUNY Press, 1991); Albert Hourani, Minoritics in the Arab
World (London: Oxford University Press, 1947); L. MolyneuxSteell
"journey into Dersim," Geographical Journal 44-1 (London: 1914); M.
Rekaya, <'Mise au point sur Théophobe et I'alliancc de Bâbek avec
Théophde (839/840),"
Byzantion 44 (1974); j. Rosser, "Theophdus' Khurramite Policy and Its
Finale:ne Revolt of Theophobus' Persian Troops in 838," Byzantia 6
(1974); Hans Jonas, T7ie Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1963)."
Good enough? Now that is called making it long, since you asked for and
you accuse me of not being brief.
DO you now see that the website is just alittle part of that book and
how much refrences that book used to just write this small section!
I believe since my sources are more specilized towards this specific
area, if you integrate the joint pdf under my sources and your sources,
the region over my area is greater than .5
..
>
> Neyse, kardesim "Qizilbash", Turkce biliyur musunuz? Hayir? Dogru,
> Zarari yok. [sarcasm]
Look where you take the issue. There is no zarari here nor anger, I'll
be nice and befiref: My father was from ardabil(east azarbaijan
province), my mom is from isfahan. I was born in tehran and only
spoke Persian in the household. Like many in Iran, intermarriage is
very common thing between diffrent regions. This is not the case
for example in some other muslim countries. Lets see how rusty I am
though:
Bu pish mish keleyeh qardishe menin Aqa Zaman. Hem da cox istedadi
dalqaki. Ama, Ne ekersen, onu bijershin.
( I Introduced my friend Mr. Zaman, who some times does not know that
he changes fact, but we see the fruit of this in these long series of
articles.. I said he is good at "sarcasm", which he made a small one
above.)
Hablo espaneol alittle also.
Alittle sprinkle of Arabic and kurdish here and there too.
I can write educated arguments only in Persian and English, so I hope
these two are sufficient for us to continue the argument and put away
sarcasm.
So I ask you to limit yourself to these two for now.
Let's proceed:
> >
> >
> >Unfortunately for you, Islam is also according to many scholars a
> >mixture of judaism, christianity and some zoroastrian. You need to
> >provide better refrences.
>
> So now scholars are dismissed as a source and we are to accept "web
> pages" as sources for historical information.
I showed you the reference as a book, and I said fortunately part of it
is on a webpage for the reader who wants to tap into it. The book is
more SPECILIZED toward this specific area. Maybe some readers do not
have access to the encyclopedia of Islam.
I also did write a small article on the bektashti, and showed that it
is placed under shi'ism. I also refered to two books I have read most
of , for further interest.
>
> AND NOW FOR THE FINALE:
>
> Below we will see Qizilbash acknowledging the end of the entire
> subject himself by making confessions which were my intial points to
> begin with:
The subject of the matter, which I responded to, was the historical
mistakes you made my friend. Once your axioms are wrong, why should I
delve into your theorem.
> >I am glad Shah Abbas the Safavids stopped the Ottomans from conquering
> >Vienna. Imagine what kind of a city it would have been today!
>
> 1) The Shi`ites wanton sabotage of the Muslim Empires wish struggled
> to Spread Islam to new lands
Yes, a very good thing. As the Ottomans were conquering people, and
doing various crimes as taking people's childrens away, Shah Abbas did
the people of Vienna a favor. Else they would have seen their
children, women taken away, their men massaccared and
so on.. Shah Abbas the great was also able to wrest control of the
caucaus from the Ottomans and also Bahrain from the portoguese.
Imagine what would have happened to classical music world , if vienna
was under Ottoman empire. I don't think you care though, but it is
important for some of us that like music and the arts.
I also mentioned that the sunni rulers were not the ones doing the
conquering. They were just taking the spoils and loot once the war was
done. It was the Janniserary who were affiliated with the Bektashti
order that were used to expand the sunni empire.. Even if
you want to argue that this order is not shi'i, nor even
hetero-orthodox shi'i, at least it definitely is not Sunni!
> He is admitting that the Shi`ites sabotaged the jihad into Europe
Yes, I am admitting the fact but not the way you word it. The safavid
sabatoged the offensive transaggression into europe. It was a
chivarlous act which started the slow downfall of the Ottomans. Of
course the reader should know that the Ottomans started to do massive
pogroms on their alevi population every once in a while, there was no
friendship between the Ottomans and the Safavids. No love lost.
Again, it was the bektashti that were mainly doing the fighting, not
the sunnis.
>and
> he is actually "glad" that the Ottoman Muslims were defeated at >Vienna due to the
Shi`ites fighting them from the East
>simultaneously, thus weakening their spread into Europe.
yes, an extremly good thing indeed. I respect people to have their own
belief and not impose Islam or christianity on people. Again, image
what state classical music would have been in. All the arts that
would have been banned.
Imagine all the children that forcefully would have been taken away to
fight against their own people. Even if one kid was saved from being
seperated from his mother and raised up to fight for the Ottomans, a
good deed was done. Plus it saved the lives of some bektashtis that
were fighting for the Ottomans.
What could have been better ? :)
I repeat, shi'ism only declares Jihad during a defensive war. This is
more in line with the way the Prophet(PBUH&HP) conducted Jihad Asghar.
If we look at history objectively, none of the wars of the
Prophet(PBUH&HP) was offensive either.
Neither were the wars during the time of Hazrat Ali(AS).
So here is my question to you:
Who gives YOU the authority to conquer(and initiate the attack) on
other people's land and then call it an Islamic act. Take their women
away, forcefully convert their kids and then kill their men and destroy
other people's culture. Worst of all, you are not even doing the
fighting, but people of a diffrent sect are!
I am just interested in your reasoning and justification, from
the quran only. It is a very unfortunate interpretation or I am not
sure what else.
> Again, we are forced to ask "whose
> side are these Shi`ites really on?"
Real shi’ism is on the side to strive for what is the right thing to
do, not what gains you wealth, women , land and children.
>
> >At the time when shi'ism was declared in Iran, 12 Imami shi'ites did
> >not make more than 3% of the population. Probably less. The people
>
> 2) Shi`ism was not the original religion of Iran but was
> superimposed by the Safavids in the 16th century.
I didn't argue with this fact, so you should be happy.
I argued with your interpretation of this fact. But you cut out the
other facts, that went along with this fact as well. You also forget
to mention at the same time, there was massacares againts shi’ites in
the Uzbek lands. As well as pogroms againts the alavi
population. These events must go hand in hand when mentioned!
About Iran. The people were not strong in their sunnism and were more
Iranian at the time. Except for sunni scholars in shiraz(the center of
shafii fiqh at that time) and tabriz not too many people put up
resistance, and Iran was probably 90% or more sunni at the
time, while today is reversed. The people it seems were ready for
such a social change as it is hard to impose your belief (less than 3%)
on over 90%. Infact shi'ism produced the golden age of Iran after
Islam under Shah Abbas the great.
Iranians from the very begining were proto-shi'ites in their thought
pattern. Sufism was oneway they expressed this feeling.
Shi'ism has the main pillars(5 total) of Adl(justice) and Imamate which
go hand in hand with Iranian thought. There is sense of chivarly in
it, which has deep roots in the culture.
So considering the above facts, let us retell it.
Shah Ismaiil , the 14 year old Sufi Master, got revenge for his
brother, father and grandfather who were killed in the sunni-shi'i
wars. Iran's main benefit was that it was able to russerect like a
phoenix, and was able to create the distintice idendity within a
national entity.
Looking at it objectively, when the Afghans(linguistically an Iranian
tribe) and Nader shah 250 years later had control of Iran, no one went
back to Sunni Islam. My own pespective is that Sunni Islam(not the
sufi minority variants of it) is not a dynamic
religion like shi'ism, so it was not compatible with the thought of the
population.
Furthermore, it does not emphasize the concept of Javanmardi
(chivarly) as much which is engrained in Shi'i Islam and has deep roots
in the Iranian culture.. It also lacks an elaborative and coherent
philosophy which shi'ism was able to produce , like Mulla Sadra. O Of
course I do not want to argue what is better, each religion is good and
just a vehile to the truth. But shi'i Islam, I feel is more related to
Iranian thought pattern than sunni Islam.
Again I am not saying it is better, but for some people it is more
appropriate for them to be closer to God and know themselves better.
It's for those certain people, a faster vehile towards God.
If we talk about the lands Sunni Islam was imposed, we would have a
long article. But it is sufficient to say , that in some places where
Sunni Islam had power, people who converted were given some social and
economical benefits. It is like the christian
missionaries in Africa, Bangeldesh and other places. Those that go to
christian missionary schools, get a good education, get food , clothes
and so on..so most people would say what is the loss?
Also you would move up socially if you had the belief of the ruler.
This in my opinion is a "forcefull" tactic, slowly to convert people.
Meaning the social benefits made it worth it for people to convert.
One can argue that virtually many religions were imposed one way or
another. An emperor might convert and then force his whole people to
convert.. it is not uncommon.
In the case of Iran converting to shi'i Islam, it was simply because it
made more sense for that specific population. It rejunavated a distinct
Iranian idendity. One was already there:
language. The other one was religion. It also russerect an historic
entity back to life.
>
> Then why did you argue for so long nitpicking about little points >such as what race
such and such group were and what mountains they
> lived in when you ADMITTED all of my points in the end?
I agree that three of my points were nitpicking. The reason is because
I wanted to make it equal to 10(I could have made it equal to dozen or
so).
Others were important points. Your interpretation of the points in the
end where drawn up from your history book. For example like the false
statement about yaqub layth and "12 Imami shi'i wedding with
kharajites during his time"!. This is an important misinformation!
I am an objective(at least try to be) person and did not disagree with
the fact that Iran was majority sunni before the safavid's came.
Let the reader be the judge. Your small history book, was nothing an
attack on shi'ism and Iran. It is probably formatted into a pamphlet to
be distrubted among the hate pamphlets that are seen in some mosques
and "sunni" websites.
You did not challenge any of the 10 mistakes I mentioned. You didn't
bother to delve into some like the yaqub layth example. Others you
provided a source that has a paragraph on the topic while I provided
books that will have 40 pages on it.
Others you quoted from sources that did not exist. Yet others you were
in a diffrent timezone(200 years), for example the topic is Abbassids,
and you mention Yazdegerd at the time of the Abbassids, while this was
before the Ummayyads!
>You wasted so much of
> your own time as well as mine only to finally admit the 2 main ideas
> of my initial article?
If one reader learned anything about Iran's history and shi'ism, I feel
like I did not waste my time. If I made a reader or two have a
diffrent pespective on shi’ism and Iran, then I didn’t waste my time
either. I never disagreed with the facts of those two themes that
you mention also and some others. I disagreed with your interpretation
which required other axioms, which were proven false by contradiction.
>
> Finally, the subject has been closed not only by me but by the >jester who dragged this subject so long only to end up right where I >started by his own confession in the end.
It is your option to close the subject. I am always ready to continue
it. If you do not want to provide responses, then don't write the
original article! I can afford to spend the rest of
my life arguing on this manner :)
I find it fun.
>
> If anyone believes that I have not closed the subject (other than
> Qizlbash, Ali Abbas, or nasirulmahdi, or the likes) then please say >so then I will continue until I close it. Otherwise, I personally >feel its over and the facts have been represented without a shred >of doubt.
>From my perspective, it is also over till you respond back. I
presented my facts and will let the objective reader(those that I write
for ) judge.
> I do not appreciate that Qizlbash could not respect my request to
>wait just 10 days until after `Eid
When people initiate an attack(notice the word ATTACK) Iran or shi'ism,
it is natural for me not to wait. I will always be ready to provide
responses. I have all the time in the world to do so. Nothing is more
important.
About abusive language, you used an abbusive language as well. I did
too, but it was to be more humarous than to be mean( I am suprised your
comparison of donkey got by the moderator, while some smaller and more
humarous things did not get by from me). Plus, lets be fair, you
offered your truce after you had the last laugh. I offered mine after
I had the last laugh.
> but this is their tradition and legacy
> since the days they pained the heart of our beloved Ali (as) under
Look at the shi'i influence! we see Ali(AS). In almost all sunni
writings we see : Ali(R). I think you are the first person I have
seen(that claims to be sunni) that has written this
statement. That is enough for me to say that shi'ism had a positive
influence!
>the
> scorching sun of Basra.
>
> "Oh Allah, I am tired of them. They have vexed me. They are tired of
> me. Oh Allah, give me better men in their place and grant them a
> harsher man to lead them. Oh Allah, destroy their hearts as salt is
> dissolved and lost in water."
> [Nahju-l Balagha p.67; Beirut Edition]
These people are not the true shi'ites of Ali(AS), they could have
been his followers by name. Just like when the followers of the
Prophet(PBUH&HP) sometimes turned their back on him. In that time, I
could only name a dozen or so shi'ites that were models for
shi'ite muslims today. Some are:
Salmaan Parsi,
Abudhar ghaffaari,
Miqdad,
amar,
Kumayl,
There are 2 billion christians and 1.3 billion muslims, how many of
them actually practice what their religion preaches. Your argument to
connect shi'ism to some of its followers is like me connecting the
Taliban to Sunnism. For example given their treatement of
women, ethnic cleansing and so on, no one is simple-minded enough to
blame sunni Islam, which is a great scholarship it its own right. Even
there is hadeeth in bukhari 1/1000 will make it.
Most the attacks on shi’ism on the authors website has been responded
to. I invite the objective reader to tap into the following sources:
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia
On shi'ism(history, theology, philosophy, spiritual message..) in
general, a very nicely written article:
http://www2.mozcom.com/~habib/islamstu.htm
Furthermore, I have access to many articles on Iran and shi'ism, which
if I see necessary, I will post.
Let me end with this for now:
I respect Sunni islam as a religion and my only intention in these
arguments was to provide a response for the objective reader to the
vicious attack made by Mr. Zaman. Mr. Zaman , was the initiator of
these attacks. I stood by several days and did not see anyone
responding to his attacks. So my only intention was to provide a
reader, a defence(not offense) argument for Iran and Shi'ism.
If Mr. Zaman had any respect for the feelings of muslims, he would have
initiated his personal attack after Ramadhan.
Mr. Zaman probably believes shi'ism to be a false religion. If that is
so, and if we are kaffars, why waste your time on attacking us? Follow
this guideline : "Lakom Dinakom wali-u din". It will save us both time,
to do more productive things.
The christians(catholics and protestants) have more blood in between
them, and we can see how they coexist peacefull with tolerance today
for the most part in a progressive manner. I only wish it could have
been the same for the two sects(and others like ismaillis, wahabis and
sufis, shaykhism, bektashti..) that have much more in common, but
instead due to the lack of education this is not the case.
Unfortunately , the ones that are educated like Mr. Zaman, would rather
also manipulate the minds of the uneducated to create endless hate.
One can check all the shi'i websites, none of them attack sunni Islam,
even though they could with full force(like the "christian" website
do). All of the websites just provide a defense to the attack and
clarification of the shi'ite belief. We can see that in the history of
SRI, the great majority of the attacks that come on shi'ism are from
the sunni side.
www.al-islam.com/encyclopedia
has provided responses to most attacks, although I hope the people that
run the site, will add more on the great Mathematician(above all other
sciences) Nasir ad-din Tusi.
>
> was-salaamu `alaykum
I wish everyone a happy eid(once it arrives) and Mr. Zaman as well.
I apologize for my “abusive” language and did not mean any harm except
to defend concepts that are dear to my heart and I believe in them.
cox sag ol. Bayraminiz ve Ramadhan Mobarak.
(thanks. happy ramadhan and eid fetr).
Sepaasgozaarim. Jashnetaan va maaheh roozatan Khojasteh Baad.
Ramadhan Mobarak.