One who has me as his master has ‘Ali- as his master.
ahlulb...@yahoo.com
salaam 'alaykum,
A Very thought provoking book on the neglected topic of the Ghadir
Declaration:
http://www.research.com.pk/home/fmri/books/eng/ghadir/index.minhaj?id=0
Dr. Tahir al-Qadri, a sunni 'Alim of the Qadiri Sufi Order states in his
Preface:
"This was the declaration of 羨li-痴 spiritual sovereignty and its
unconditional acceptance is binding on the believers till the Day of
Judgment. It clearly proves that anyone who denies 羨li-痴 spiritual
leadership in fact denies the Prophetç—´ leadership."
Then he quotes 51 authentic ahaadeeth on the topic with full references
and commentary.
Abu Muhammad
Kleinecke
> salaam 'alaykum,
>
> A Very thought provoking book on the neglected topic of the Ghadir
> Declaration:
>
> http://www.research.com.pk/home/fmri/books/eng/ghadir/index.minhaj?id=0
my eye. So I did a little research:
The "slogan" of Ghadir Khum is (in Arabic, written without vowels) MN
KNT MWLAE FOLY MWLAE. The individual words are usually read to mean
"Who I-am his-maula, so-Ali his-maula". The speaker is said to have
been the Prophet and the slogan translates into English as "If I am
one's maula then Ali is his maula". Obviously any reading of this will
hinge on what the word maula means. Unfortunately we can easily find
different meanings.
In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul-Allah and Malik's Muwatta it seems to
always mean freed slave. That seems to have been the way the word was
used in Madina around 100 AH. In Iraq and Iran it is used to mean
"Master" or "Patron". That is, in Madina it seems have meant the slave
who was freed and in Kufa it meant the master who freed the slave. The
Slogan of Ghadir Khum seems to have originated in Iraq. It is nonsense
read in Madina fashion.
With a minimum of discussion I will conclude the Day of Ghadir Khum
never happened. There are two principle reasons: (1) Ibn Ishaq does
not mention it and (2) it uses the word "maula" in a way that the
Prophet would not have used it.
How would the Prophet have used it? He would have used it in the same
way that the Qur'an used it. How did the Qur'an use the word "maula".
I look at all the uses of "maula" in the Qur'an and I find:
A. Allah is a Muslim's Maula (2.286, 3.149, 6.62. 8.40, twice, 9.51,
10.38, 22.78, twice, 47.11, 66.2, 66.4)
B. Unbeliever's will have no Maula on Judgement Day (47.11)
C. Shaitan is the unbeliever's Maula (22.13)
D. Hell Fire is the unbeliver's Maula (57.14)
E. Fellow Muslims are your Maulas (33.5)
F. Your Maulas handle the inheritance of your estate (4.33, 19.5)
G. On Judgement Day Maulas will be unable to help one another (44.41,
twice)
H. A man is of no use to his Maula. This is usually interpreted as
referring to a useless slave and his master. But it can be read to
refer to a useless non-deity, such as Shaitan, that a disbeliever
adopts as his Maula, thereby becoming a Maula of. (16.76)
Case A might mean Muslims are all slaves of Allah (defendable
theologically) or it might mean Muslims are freed slaves of Allah
(whatever that might mean). As we will see it could easily mean no
more than "helper". The most interesting case is G (44.41) which shows
that maulas could call on each other for help. Hence "maula" is, at
least sometimes, a reciprocal relationship. If you are my maula then I
can call on you for help and you can call on me for help.
Is it blasphemous to suggest that, if Allah is my maula, then Allah
can call on me for help? Certainly God needs no help from me. But the
relationship could be one of courtesy rather than of obligation. If
Allah is my maula then Allah and I are in a courteous relationship
with one another. An excellent thing. Even if I can supply no useful
help.
Cases E and F are more examples of maula as a symmetrical social
relationship between approximate equals. Cases C and D are examples
where the maula relationship is a bad idea. Case H, as noted, is not
clear.
I consider the etymolgy of "Maula" obscure. It is usually read as from
a root WLY. But, it seems to me that the root could just as well be
MWL and the root WLY deduced from MWL by folk-etymology. So etymology
is of no assistance. There is some chance that the word "Maula" and
the institution were borrowed into Arabic only a little while before
the time of the Prophet, but I have no suggestion about from where.
I conclude that, in the days of the Prophet, the maula relationship
was a kind of artificial family relationship. Maulas owed obligations
to one another comparable to obligations of blood kin. Over the first
century AH the word drifted and, before long, all maulas were pairs of
masters and freed slaves. But they still used the word "maula" as
though they were social equals. Eventually in Madina "maula" came to
mean the freedman and in Iraq the master.
The slogan of Ghadir Khum was probably never uttered by the Prophet
because, in terms of his time and place, it makes no sense. Moreover,
there is no suggestion in the Qur'an that the Prophet was anybody's
maula (so the slogan might be true but empty). However it is easy to
imagine the Prophet casually saying to some one who criticized Ali and
using the word "maula" carelessly, "If anybody wants to be my maula
they have to be Ali's maula, too". Some such off-hand comment,
elaborated by diligent Shi'ite story-tellers, could give raise to the
slogan of Ghadir Khum.
ahlulb...@yahoo.com
>With a minimum of discussion I will conclude the Day of Ghadir Khum
>never happened.
>
salaam 'alaykum,
You seem to be unaware how powerful the tawatur of the narration is.
There nearly 100 independent chains for the hadeeth.
http://al-islam.org/ghadir/ details the incident going back to 79
companions.
Sahih Muslim mentions the occurance of the Ghadir Khumm Declaration:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.html#031.5920
If you know Arabic I suggest you study 11 volume book "Ghadir" by Amini:
http://shiasearch.com/ARABIC/alkotob/hadith/ghein.htm
If you don't know Arabic see http://al-islam.org/murajaat/
If you reject Ghadeer you might as well reject 99% percent of the
recorded Sunnah because hardly anything else comes even close to its
tawatur.
Abu Muhammad
John Berg
questions.
What dates would you assign the Qur'an which I assume has contents
indentical to those being published today? (Say, 570 AD to 622 AD?) Are
there uses of
"maula" in Arabic or other documents prior to that date? In what
contemporary languages would "maula" be found? Aramaic, Syrian, or others
whose meaning would be helpful?
Another possible line of inquiry might use "tribal chieftain" which
incorporates the Arabic sense of "patron," "champion," "sponsor," "liege,"
"master," with the added sense of patrionic or familial two-way obligations.
I suppose in your point your making more of the "relationship" than the
binary roles. ("love" is the relationship between "lover" and "loved one.")
I think you have established that "maula" was subject to semantic changes
over time. However, although in mentioning some contemporary writers, you
were not specific when the meaning changed. With the expectation of
regional isolation in the ancient Middle East, one might find meaning
changes from region to region as well as through time.
--
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
"Kleinecke" <klei...@astound.net> wrote in message
news:e545c6ce.03123...@posting.google.com...
Kleinecke
> If you reject Ghadeer you might as well reject 99% percent of the
> recorded Sunnah because hardly anything else comes even close to its
> tawatur.
The problem between us is evident. I place no value at all on tawatur.
I do place value on chronological priority and consistency with the
Qur'an. I feel that Ibn Ishaq (which is not just a collection of
hadiths) is more authoritive than Bukhari or Muslim and that there is
no reason to waste time with any other hadith collections. The only
other document I would use with anywhere near as much confidence as
Ibn Ishaq is the Muwatta (also not just a collection of hadiths).
Ibn Ishaq and Malik together present the traditional learning of Islam
as that learning was understood in Madina about 125 AH. Both are
obviously trying to be inclusive and cover everything worth knowing. I
can see little or no profit to be gained by extracting later writers
who know nothing except what they read in Ibn Ishaq or the Muwatta or
invented by themselves.
Consistency with the Qur'an is even more important. If a word, such as
"maula" turns up in a discussion we need to know what it means. If we
are free to alter the meanings of words chaos is sure to follow. The
preferred meaning of a word is the Qur'an's meaning. We MUST explicate
the Qur'an on the basis of the Qur'an.
ahlulb...@yahoo.com
Why only stick to Ibn Ishaq and Muwatta' and reject Tawatur? Did you not
consider the possibility that material that was against the Umayyad
agenda would be screened out from the collections of 125 AH (Umayyad
Era)? The Umayyads were notorious for vilifying 'Ali and and
discrediting anything related to his praise.
I guess that explains why your views about the Shi'ites are so
Umayyad-like, because you rely exclusively on works written under their
auspiciouses.
Please see
http://www.research.com.pk/home/fmri/books/eng/ghadir/index.minhaj?id=2
The apparent meaning of Mawla as used in the context of the Ghadeer
Delcaration directly related to meaning of Awla as used in 33:6
_Ibn Wa-thilah is reported to have heard from Zayd bin Arqam (??? ????
???) that the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ???? ????) was camping between
Makkah and Medina near five dense trees. The people cleaned the place
under the trees and he rested there for some time. He offered the prayer
and then stood up to address the people. He praised Alla-h , gave some
advice to the audience and then said whatever Alla-h wanted him to say.
He said: O people! I am leaving two things with you. You will never go
astray as long as you follow them and these (two things) are Alla-h_s
Book and my progeny. He then added: Don_t you know I am nearer than the
lives of the believers (allusion to 33:6 of the Qur'an)? He repeated it
three times. Everyone said: yes. Then he said: One who has me as his
master has _Ali- as his master._[8] <#_ftn8>
Ha-kim related it in al-Mustadrak (3:109, 110 # 4577); Hindi-,
Kanz-ul-_umma-l (1:381 # 1657); Ibn _Asa-kir, Ta-ri-kh Dimashq al-kabi-r
(45:164); and Ibn Kathi-r in al-Bida-yah wan-niha-yah (4:168).
Also see hadeeth #24 in Dr. Tahir's collection on Ghadeer to see the
link between the meaning of Mawla and Wali as used in 5:55
Most of the hadi-th-scholars have described the tradition given below in
the mode of revelation of the verse
(Surely your (helping) friend is Alla-h and His Messenger and (along
with them) are the believers who establish prayers, pay zaka-h and bow
down (in humility before Alla-h (U)). [6] <#_ftn6>
_It is narrated by _Amma-r bin Ya-sir (??? ???? ???) that a beggar came
up to _Ali- (??? ???? ???) and stood beside him. He was kneeling in
prayer. He (the beggar) pulled out his ring and he gave the ring to the
beggar. Then _Ali- (??? ???? ???) called on the Prophet (??? ???? ????
???? ????) and told him the news. At this occasion, this verse was
revealed to him: (Surely your (helping) friend is Alla-h and His
Messenger and (along with them) are the believers who establish prayers,
pay zaka-h and bow down (in humility before Alla-h). Alla-h_s Messenger
(??? ???? ???? ???? ????) read out the verse and said: One who has me as
his master has _Ali- as his master. O Alla-h! Be his friend who
befriends him (_Ali-) and be his enemy who is his enemy._ [7] <#_ftn7>
Lastly the Qur'an is written by Allah and the authentic Hadeeth is
authored by the Prophet (sawa); two different authors.
Just because the word Mawla as used by the Prophet in his hadeeth is not
identical to the way it is used in the Qur'an, that doesn't prove its
inauthenticity, simply because the Qur'an and Hadeeth have seperate
authors.
Yes the Prophetic usage is expected to be similar to the Qur'anic
because the Prophet's speech is influenced by the speech of God. I
believe the similarity and allusions of the Ghadeer Declarations to 33:6
and 5:55 of the Qur'an are close enough.
Otherwise there are hundreds of vocabulary words used by the Prophet,
even as recorded by Ibn Ishaaq and Malik in his Muwatta that don't exist
in the Qur'an, so are you going to now dismiss those traditions as
inauthentic too? If not why not?
I am truely amused by you preference of those Umayyad texts over
Mutawaatir Traditions. I almost thought you were joking!. I am sure if
you rethink your evaluations and are really searching for the truth,
inshallah, Allah will guide you to what yo seek.
Abu Muhammad
asimm...@yahoo.com
> salaam 'alaykum,
>
> You seem to be unaware how powerful the tawatur of the narration is.
> There nearly 100 independent chains for the hadeeth.
>
These are clearly distortions of the reality. Open up any sunni book
and one will find varying accounts. Further, many of these chains are
weak and baseless and have clear liars. Further, many of them have
the same links in the chain, thus reducing the number. All of these
alleged narrations in books that are not even authoritative are
baseless. Some of these authors are known for their shiaism.
Refer to the following link as to how the situation is manipulated by
the site.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:x71Jb.35218$xX.115245@attbi_s02...
<snip>
> What dates would you assign the Qur'an which I assume has contents
> indentical to those being published today? (Say, 570 AD to 622 AD?)
Question:-
Why don't you tell us? Have you done a 'search' on the internet? What were
the 'balanced' results? To save you time you can click this link as a
starting point:
http://www.search.com/search?q=Crone+Cook+Wansbrough&int.1436=on&channel=1&cat=118
Let us know the results of your investigation by citing the links used to
establish your musings?
> Are there uses of "maula" in Arabic or other documents prior to that
date?
> In what contemporary languages would "maula" be found? Aramaic,
> Syrian, or others whose meaning would be helpful?
Comment:-
Excellent proposition! Why don't you do this 'academic' research for us
rather than spending your time in otiose ramblings and conjecturing? You
could then, possibly, broaden your education by learning all these ancient
languages, cultures, linguistics, history, and religions, meet many ordinary
Muslims, and even, perhaps, get a degree, does that interest you? At least
you would be credible and qualified to comment on these complex Islamic
issues, agreed? Maybe you could then distinguish between the various
'cognate' languages of the Middle East. A starting point would be the
'Original Semitic Language' and, the 'Original Hamito-Semitic Language',
obviously, drawing from them as distinct 'language' families.
Does the term 'maula' [mawla]] mean 'master', 'servant' or both? Can it be
used ambiguously and in what Islamic context? Do people, Muslim or
otherwise, play with words? What is its etymological root [include date and
time stamp ... LOL ;-)]? Is it a loan word?
BTW, it would appear, based on motifs contained your posts, that your
background is in 'Quality Assurance' and, functional 'Standards', is this
assumption correct? Which industry? I bet it's in IT, is this guess correct?
> Another possible line of inquiry might use ...
<snip>
Comment:-
If that seriously 'interests' you then why not publish a erudite monograph
for us?
<snip>
> With the expectation of regional isolation in the ancient Middle East, one
might > find meaning changes from region to region as well as through time.
Questions:-
Do you have an "expectation"? Does this mean you don't know or too lazy to
corroborate?
--
Peace
--
It takes a long time to acquire the art, but life is short, the crisis
rapid, experimentation dangerous, the cure uncertain.[Hippocrates: The first
Aphorism]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Kleinecke
> salaam 'alaykum,
>
> Why only stick to Ibn Ishaq and Muwatta' and reject Tawatur? Did you not
> consider the possibility that material that was against the Umayyad
> agenda would be screened out from the collections of 125 AH (Umayyad
> Era)? The Umayyads were notorious for vilifying 'Ali and and
> discrediting anything related to his praise.
I agree that Malik is notably cool on the subject of Ali, but Ibn
Ishaq is equally notably supportive of Ali. There were early
commentators who considered Ibn Ishaq a Shi'ite (impossible IMHO
because in his day nobody was a Shi'ite). Both the Sirat Rasul Allah
and the Muwatta were finalized under the Abbascids. I used 125 AH as
their date because the learning must have been collected around that
date. There was time to revise it later.
Consider, for example, the incident mentioned in Hadiths 10, 11 and 12
of the book which tell about "Today I shall bestow the flag on the
person who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His
Messenger love him too." This incident is in Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Ishaq's
version is extremely Alid. There is a fortress in Khaybar to capture.
Abu Bakr leads an attack and fails. The next day Umar leads an attack
and fails. Then Ali is handed the flag and succeeds. This is clearly
intended to prove that Ali is not only honored but honored above both
Abu Bakr and Umar (Ibn Ishaq does admit Uthman existed - but mostly
ignores him).
I don't even believe the Umayyads ever wasted any time vilifying Ali.
Too late to get into Ibn Ishaq but nothing at all in the Muwatta which
appears to err against Ali rather than for him and would be expected
to support the vilification if there had been a vilification.
John Berg
concious of events on this world? Is Muhammad an exception?
--
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
"Kleinecke" <klei...@astound.net> wrote in message
news:e545c6ce.04010...@posting.google.com...
Yusuf B Gursey
> "maula" in Arabic or other documents prior to that date? In what
see Enc. of Islam Ii "Mawla"
earliest is just "friend", later more usually one of the parties in a
more unequal relationship.
it denotes "closeness"
> contemporary languages would "maula" be found? Aramaic, Syrian, or others
> whose meaning would be helpful?
you mean "Syriac" rather than "Syrian". Syriac is jsut a form of
Aramaic.
it doesn't coem from Aramaic or Hebrew (because it is from an initail
w- root).
>
> Another possible line of inquiry might use "tribal chieftain" which
> incorporates the Arabic sense of "patron," "champion," "sponsor," "liege,"
> "master," with the added sense of patrionic or familial two-way obligations.
this is closer to the truth. the relationships it is uusually used for
implies some reciprocity so it was used for both ends of these
relationships from earely times.
> I suppose in your point your making more of the "relationship" than the
> binary roles. ("love" is the relationship between "lover" and "loved one.")
well, something along these lines.
abid
Ali is always contradicted by those who have hijacked Sunni Islam,
need to read the above reply against the Shahee hadith that Ali is
'mawla!' Even though this hadith is in both shahees it is refuted by
hijacker of Sunni Islam! This shows how the hate against the Ahlul
Baith reaches us in the modern times!
Now let us look at the argument presented above:
1. First the writer insists that the word 'mawla' is iraqi! But then
he says that the Qur'an uses the word mawla to mean 'guardian,
intercessor etc!' So it is not confusing to say that the word is used
in the Iraqi context and then apply a new context from the Qur'an! How
can a person carry two contradictory concepts of Mawla in the same
mind and not relate to the fact that Ali is mawla in the same context
that the Prophet is mawla!
2. True Sunni Islam is in the Shahees, no matter how much the wahabis
detest it! So please, if you represent Sunni Islam, then do not refute
what is in the Shahees! May be you are not true sunnis! You are just
using the name of Sunni islam in order to mislead the true sunnis!
3. Now answer us these: 'Did Umar not doubt the Prophet in the treaty
of Hudaibiya?' Or is there an Iraqi angle to this also! Did not Aiesah
gather an Iraqi army to fight Ali! Now go on, refute the Iraqis! Did
Muawiya not set up a dynasty rule on Islam! Who was he to do such an
injustice on Islam? please answer! If Ali had done it then all Wahabis
would go against Ali! But if Muawiya does the worst thing to islam
then Sunni Mosques are used to create a zombie style attitude among
Muslims! Did not wahabis also try to destroy the Prophet's tomb in
medina? Leave Islam alone you wahabis! And leave Ali alone! He is
mawla because the prophet said the following:
" I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate!"
"There is no man like Ali and no sword like Zulfikar!"
"Ali is the hand of God!"
"Ali is my inheritor!"
"Ali is from me and I am from him"
"If it was not for Ali, my daughter would not have a suitor, and I
would be without decendants!"
"Ali is to me like Harun was to Musa ....!"
All these are in the Shahees! Go on bring some Iraqi angle to these
also!
Please do come back with answers!
Abdalla Alothman
abid...@lycos.co.uk (abid) wrote in message news:<bd9aa1e0.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>[...] And leave Ali alone! He is
> mawla because the prophet said the following:
> " I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate!"
> "There is no man like Ali and no sword like Zulfikar!"
> "Ali is the hand of God!"
[...]
Okay, you also call Ali karramma Allahu wajhu the Lion of
Allah. Do you know that Ali married his daughter to someone
you and the rest of the shee'ah don't like?
When the shee'ah are reminded of this single fact, their moves
get disoriented. They suddenly claim that the Hand of Allah, the
Lion of Allah, Thul-Fiqaar becomes a weak man who was forced to
marry his daughter to the SaHaabi they don't like. They even go
further and attack the honor of Ahl Al-Albait by claiming that
this marriage is illegitimate.
As for Ali being our Mawla, we have absolutely no problem with
that. Allah (tt) tells us in Surat Al-Maa-ida innama walayukum
Allah wa rasuuluhu wallatheena aamanu, allatheena yuqeemuna
aSSalaata wa y-utuuna azzakata wa hum raki'uun. This includes
Ali karramma Allahu wajhuhu no doubt.
(Note, however, he is our mawla after Allah (tt) and the Messenger
(s). This is an automatic relationship between Allah (tt) the
Messenger (s) and the believers; One of characteristics of the
believers is that they don't do fitna!)
Because Ali is the fourth khaleefa, he is our mawla. He is also
our mawla because he was one of the first believers in Islam. He
is also our mawla for many other reasons. So what's the next step?
Should we be shee'ah? No. Ali wasn't a shee'i. He didn't believe
in the 12 imams. He didn't do strange rituals in the grave of the
Messenger, neither did his sons do any of those rituals in the grave
of their father or the Messenger (same applies to all of the 12
Imams of the shee'ah; none of them did what the shee'ah do these
days.)
Should we hate Umar and Abu Bakr and the rest of the saHaaba? No.
Ali didn't hate them, so why should we? But you are free to be and
do whatever you want.
As for your other question related to inheritance: "Didn't Sulayman
inherit Dawood?" This is a misunderstanding from your side. The Prophet
Zakariya was not a rich person (he was a servant in the temple). When
he asked Allah for a son in Surat Maryam, he asked for a son who would
inherit him and inherit from Aal Ya'qoub. Now, what could he inherit from
a poor man and a poor family? Knowledge, wisdom, and prophethood.
In the same Sura (Surat Maryam), Allah (tt) also says: Inna naHnu narithu
(it is WE who inherit) al ardth (the Earth). How could Allah (tt) inherit
something that he already owns?
According to a hadeeth that was given to you, property is not inherited
among the prophets. A proof can be given to you from the same subject in
your question: The Prophet Sulayman. Please see his du'aa in Surat Saad:
Rabbi ighfirli wa hab li mulkan la yambaghi li aHadin min ba'dee innaka
anta alwahhaab (Forgive me, and grant me a mulk that is not to be given
to anyone after me.)
Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
abid
notice that I was writing to prove Ali is Mawla! You have added to
this arguement! But what are you going to do with those so called
Sunnis who are saying that the Hadith that says: 'For whosoever I am
mawla of, Ali too is their Mawla?' Please reply to this!
You said you are not shia! But who is telling you to convert! As long
as you love the ahlul baith and love those who love the ahlul baith
then we do not have any problems! In fact we love you too for your
love of the ahlul baith and we love all those who stood by them and
not make them displeased!
So this now leaves the ball in your court! Do you love Muawiya? Do you
love Yazid? Okay, let ask this also! Do you love Abu Bakr when Fatima
died displeased with him? Okay, do you love Aiesah when she waged war
on the Mawla of all Muslims, Ali? Or are there excuses you make to
side with those who hurt the Ahlul Baith? Let's see!
Now come to the inheritance! You said that Abu Bakr hadith that was
challenged by Fatimah Zahrah is true and is not in contradiction to
the Qur'an even thought he Qur'an says that prophets do inherit! I do
not understand this! Please clarify as if the Qur'an says that
Prophets did inherit and wanted their children to have heritance then
why was Abu Bakr refusing it to Fatimah?
You also mentioned that P Suliman said that he did not want anybody to
inherit his kingdom! That was his wish! But actually he wanted such a
vast kingdown that his own son, David, could not inherit all of it!
This was his wish! He infact left inheritance as declared by the
Qur'an but his kingdom was so vast that not all of his kingdown was
inherited as it was hidden by God! This is clear from the Qur'anic
ayat you quoted! So this again shows that Prophets did leave things in
heritance! But this is in contradiction to what Abu Bakr said!
You also mentioned Allahs' will inherit! But here the meaning is that
all things will 'return' to Allah! Here inheritance is not of the
Prophets but of Allah! So please stick to the issue of Prophets
inheriting and leaving things in heritance!
Now back to Abu Bakr's hadith! If Prophets did not leave anything in
heritance then why did Suilamn, zakaria etc leave things for
inheritance! This is the isssue! furthermore, why was inheritance only
denied to Fatimah, but not to Aiesha to inherit the Prophet's house!
Was one law emplyed by Abu Bakr for Fatimah and anotehr for Aiesah?
I know these are very sensitive questions for you, but you claim to
love the Ahlul Baith like we Shias do! Prove it by standing my Fatimah
and standing against all those who went against them and even fought
them and finallly slaughtered them!
O yes our rituals in the grave! What are these! Please let me know for
I am unaware of them! I too can mention rituals of Sunnis I disagree
with, but the real debate in Abu Bakrs contadictions with the Qur'an,
Umar doubting the Prophet, Aiesah making false accusations agaisnt
Ali, Muawiya starting a dynasty etc!
Now come on my fellow Muslims! How can you not come to Islam when You
call yourselves Muslims! I am asking you to follow the Qur'an! You are
saying to me to follow the companions who fought among themselves,
slaughtered the family fo the Prophet and created neopotism in Islam!
You can clearly see for yourself that you have turned far away from
Islam! Go on answer me and do not change the goal post on the
companions who contradicted the Qur;an, doubted the Prophet etc!
Remember, we are not personality worshippers and we should be able to
say that Abu Bakr was wrong to contracit Fatiman and umar was wrong to
doubt the Prophet in Hudaybiya ..... Where is your Iman, I ask!
Yes thankyou for wishing sallams to me and my family" I return sallams
to you and your family but please think of the issues! Ultimately,
even the Hindus justify worshipping cows! There are justications for
even fighting Mawla Ali and slaughering Imam Hussain! And these
justifications come from the house of Sunnis Islam! Can't you see
Sunni islam has been hijacked?
Kleinecke
[All the old material removed]
In my previous post I expressed the opinion that the "Day of Ghadhir
Khum" was unknown to Ibn Ishaq. I believe I have now identified the
story that evolved into the story of the "Day of Ghadir Khum" in Ibn
Ishaq.
Immediately after the Constituion of Madina Ibn Ishaq has a section
with the title (in Guillaume's translation) "Brotherhood between
Emigrants abd Helpers". The section starts "The apostle instituted
brotherhood between his fellow emigrants and the helpers and he said
according to what I have heard, and I appeal to God lest I should
attribute to him words that he did not say, "Let each of you take a
brother in God." After a few sentences, which I will come back to, the
text continues, "The pairs were arranged thus" and fifteen pairs of
names followed headed by Abu-Bakr and Kharija ibn Zuhayr. This list
deserves critical attention, but that is a matter for another time.
Some important Muslim names are missing from the list - Ali ibn Talib,
Zayd ibn Haritha and the apostle's uncle Hamza, among others. And,
sure enough, some later hand has supplied these names. Immediately
after the first sentence Ibn Ishaq says "He himself [meaning the
apostle] took Ali by the hand and said, "This is my brother." A little
later he says Hamza and Zayd became brothers.
But whoever created this addendum to the original text ignored the
significance of the original brotherhood. By changing the brotherhood
to a brotherhood between two emigrants he gave away the fact that he
was an interpolator.
Furthermore, I believe we can reconstruct the original text as not
referring to some abstract "brotherhood" not known elsewhere in
Islamic tradition but rather to "maulas". As I concluded in my
previous post, based on the evidence of the Qur'an, in the time of the
apostle "maula" was used for a symmetric relationship stronger than
anything except blood kinship.
Hence the "brotherhood" was originally a "maula" relationship. But as
the significance of the word "maula" changed during the first century
AH this use of "maula" became obsolete and the tradition was updated
by someone (someone like Urwa ibn alZubayr). About the same time this
was happening, the interpolator invented the story about Ali. So, in
its original form, the interpolation was 'He took Ali by the hand and
said "This is my maula"' (or words to that effect). To people in Iraq
for whom "maula" had come to mean "master" the original form was an
obvious error for "This is YOUR master" and we have the slogan of
Ghadir Khum. The tradition in Iraq has preserved the word "maula" lost
in the tradition in Madina.
Yusuf B Gursey
looking up "Ghadir Khumm" in Enc. Of Islam II the incident is believed
by western historians, as it is so much repeated, and by those potentially
even against their self-interest.
>Furthermore, I believe we can reconstruct the original text as not
>referring to some abstract "brotherhood" not known elsewhere in
it was an unuusal situation.
>Islamic tradition but rather to "maulas". As I concluded in my
it may be partly based on a mawla relationship but
>previous post, based on the evidence of the Qur'an, in the time of the
>apostle "maula" was used for a symmetric relationship stronger than
>anything except blood kinship.
NO! most of the occurences of mawla" in the Qur'an refer to God.
it is not symmetric at all, except (perhaps partly) in one verse, and
in a very few cases it refers to a client.
it refers to either end of a (theoretically) non-coercive, beneficial
relationship but not neccessarily symmetric (more often, not).
furthermore, there is no confusion as to its etymology from wly ,
mawla" takes nunation - mawla'(n) in the indefinite, if it
were derived from mwl (meaning? ma:l "property"- which really
seems to come from ma: li- "what belongs to -" ) and it were of the
measure fa3la" it would not take nunation and would be feminine.
>Hence the "brotherhood" was originally a "maula" relationship. But as
in this case an egalitarianism had to be observed.
as for the "anomally" of Muhammad being paired with Ali,
it may be ebcause no Medinian of their stature existed,
and this is underestandable. Muhammad coudln't be paired
with any other person other than whom he was already
related to.
>the significance of the word "maula" changed during the first century
NO! see the Qur'an!
>AH this use of "maula" became obsolete and the tradition was updated
>by someone (someone like Urwa ibn alZubayr). About the same time this
>was happening, the interpolator invented the story about Ali. So, in
>its original form, the interpolation was 'He took Ali by the hand and
>said "This is my maula"' (or words to that effect). To people in Iraq
but that is not what he said! even though they could be in a potentially
in a mawla relationship.
>for whom "maula" had come to mean "master" the original form was an
>obvious error for "This is YOUR master" and we have the slogan of
it makes perfect sense. besides, it is not quite "master" but rather
"Protector".
Kleinecke
Comments on my treatment of the word "maula" which you can read in his
post.
The problem with the word is that (1) in early Madinan sources (by
which I mean specifically Ibn Ishaq and Malik) the word is used to
mean "freed slave" and (2) in Iraqi sources the word is used to mean
"master".
I do not see how such a differentiation could have come about unless
the meaning of the word had changed very recently and the differences
had not yet been leveled out. The only document we can turn to provide
an older meaning is the Qur'an. In the Qur'an the evidence is
ambiguous because calling Allah one's "maula" is theologically
implausible if "maula" means "freed slave". My hypothesis that the
older meaning was symmetrical is supported by some lexicographers who
calmly listing "master" and "freed slave" as alternative meanings for
"maula". I do not see how such a contradiction could have been reached
except on the hypothesis of an older symmetrical meaning.
As to whether the root of the word is MWL or WLY I have no problem
with either form. I was just pointing out the possibility. We have no
valid evidence about how the nunation was used in Madina in this
period. The nunation and all the other niceties of classical Arabic
were constructed in Iraq on the basis of the speech of the Iraqian
bedouin tribesmen. If there was a difference in Madinan speech we
would not have heard about it. By around 300 AH all the differences in
classical Arabic had been leveled out into the ancestor of modern
"standard" Arabic.
If the root really was originally MWL, that fact was forgotten even
before the Qur'an and the root WLY constructed and used (even in the
Qur'an) as though a freed slave was someone who had a "WaLiY". In the
Muwatta, at least, being a WaLiY was an important matter. As I read
the Muwatta if the slogan of Ghadir Khum had originated in Madina it
would have used "waliy" rather than "maula".
Theologically the matter is significant because it impacts on the
significance of "abd". That is, just how seriously was the expression
abdu-Allah "slave(?) of Allah" taken by the earliest Muslims? If it
was taken literally then what would have been the significance of
being a maula of Allah? I observe that Abdullah was used as a Proper
Name before the time of the Prophet.
ahlulb...@yahoo.com
Another book worth checking out is Wilferd Madelung's "The Succession to
Muhammad : A Study of the Early Caliphate"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521646960/
It proves that there is much more to the Shi'ite stance on the issue
then what Sunnis claim. The issue is not trivial.
How could the greatest leader that humanity has ever know leave the
matter of of leadership of his nation after his demise undecided? It is
simply not a thing that prudent leaders do. The result would be chaos.
Upon reflecting on all the evidence it becomes clear that he didn't
leave it undecided at all. His decision was simply not followed.
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 325:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
It was said to 'Umar, "Will you appoint your successor?" Umar said,
"If I appoint a Caliph (as my successor) it is true that somebody
who was better than I (i.e., Abu Bakr) did so, and if I leave the
matter undecided, it is true that somebody who was better than I
(i.e., Allah's Apostle) did so!
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.325
Book 020, Number 4486:
It has been reported on the authority of Ibn 'Umar who said: I
entered the apartment of (my sister) Hafsa. She said: Do yoa
know that your father is not going to nominate his successor? I
said: He won't do that (i. e. he would nominate). She said: He
is going to do that. The narrator said: I took an oath that I
will talk to him about the matter. I kept quiet until the next
morning, still I did not talk to him, and I felt as if I were
carryint, a mountain on my right hand. At last I came to him and
entered his apartment. (Seeing me) he began to ask me about the
condition of the people, and I informed him (about them). Then I
said to him: I heard something from the people and took an oath
that I will communicate it to you. They presume that you are not
going to nominate a successor.
IF A GRAZER OF CAMELS AND SHEEP THAT YOU HAD APPOINTED COMES
BACK TO YOU LEAVING THE CATTLE, YOU WILL (CERTAINLY) THINK THAT
THE CATTLE ARE LOST. TO LOOK AFTER THE PEOPLE IS MORE SERIOUS
AND GRAVE.
(The dying Caliph) was moved at my words. He bent his head in a
thoughtful mood for some time and raised it to me and said: God
will doubtlessly protect His religion. If I do not nominate a
successor (I have a precedent before me), for the Messenger of
Allah (may peace be upon him) did not nominate his successor.
And if I nominate one (I have a precedent), for Abu Bakr did
nominate. The narrator (Ibn Umar) said: By God. when he
mentioned the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu
Bakr, I (at once) understood that he would not place anyone at a
par with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and
would not nominate anyone.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/020.smt.html#020.4486
The uppercase text above is ironically exactly what the Sunnis
claim the Prophet (sawa).
Abu Bakr appointing a successor is quite odd . Why did Abu Bakr
appoint a successor while the Prophet allegedly didn't? If what
the Prophet allegedly did was right (eg. not appointing a
successor and leaving it undecided) then Abu Bakr should have
done likewise.
Amazingly 'Umar didn't do what the Prophet allegedly did (not
appoint) nor what Abu Bakr did (appoint) but he chose 6 people
to decide among themselves who should be the successor! If the
6 failed to select someone in 3 days all of them should be
beheaded and the Muslims should be left free to select their
caliph. [see Ibn Qutaybah: al-Imamah wa 's-siyasah, vol. 1, pp.
23-7; and at-Tabari: at-Tarikh, (Egypt, n.d.), vol.5, pp.33-41. ]
http://www.al-islam.org/imamate/ gives an excellent synopsis of
the arguments.
Abu Muhammad
Kleinecke
> How could the greatest leader that humanity has ever know leave the
> matter of of leadership of his nation after his demise undecided? It is
> simply not a thing that prudent leaders do. The result would be chaos.
>
> Upon reflecting on all the evidence it becomes clear that he didn't
> leave it undecided at all.
Reflecting on all the RELIABLE evidence indeed makes he didn't leave
it undecided at all. He nominated Abu-Bakr.
Consider Ibn Ishaq's version of the hadith ahlulbayt786 quotes from
Bukhari:
Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Harith told me from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad
that when the Messenger heard 'Umar saying Allah Akbar in the prayer
he asked where Abu Bakr was, "God and the Muslims forbid this," Had it
not been for what 'Umar said when he died, the Muslims would not have
doubted that the Messenger would not have doubted that the Messenger
had appointed Abu-Bakr his successor. But he said when he died, "If I
appoint a successor, one better than I did so. And if I leave them one
better than I did so.
Hence for twelve years after the death of the Messenger there was no
doubt among the Muslims that Abu Bakr was appointed successor. Doubt
only arose when the rather cryptic statement by 'Umar was circulated.
The story of Umar's deathbed "confession" originated with narrators
from the Alid community and could easily have been concocted to
advance the idea that Ali had just as good as claim as Abu-Bakr. The
entire account of 'Umar's asassination and 'Uthman's succession has a
very unreal ring about it. I see no reason not to suppose that 'Umar
died almost instantly and power was seized by a "junta" who named one
of their number as commander of the faithful. I suspect Ali was not a
member of the junta.
If Ibn Isahq, a known pro-Ali propagandist, had not included the story
I copied above there would be no doubt in his narrative that the
Messenger intended Abu-Bakr to take charge of the community. All of
his actions pointed in that direction. I think we can discount the
story of 'Umar's confession and follow the obvious narrative line. The
Messenger appointed Abu-Bakr as his successor. Abu-Bakr appointed
'Umar. 'Umar was asassinated and named no sucessor. The junta that
seized power selected 'Uthman. Ali was probably not a member of the
junta but went along with them.
And on a different but related subject:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:27:49 CST, klei...@astound.net (Kleinecke) wrote:
> >
> >looking up "Ghadir Khumm" in Enc. Of Islam II the incident is believed
> >by western historians, as it is so much repeated, and by those potentially
> >even against their self-interest.
The western historians are mostly bunglers. Muir has the excuse that
he was a pioneer (which doesn't make his history one iota more valid).
People like Martin Lings do not count as western. Do you imagine that
Wansbrough believed in the day of Ghadir Khum?
Anyway the argument from authority is a muslim thing and not real
scholarship. If there is aa actual consensus among western scholars
that fact should be, if not proven, at least exemplified. What western
scholars do you have in mind? The Enc. of Islam is not, in my opinion,
the last word on western scholarship.
ahlulb...@yahoo.com
Kleinecke wrote:
>Consider Ibn Ishaq's version of the hadith ahlulbayt786 quotes from
>Bukhari:
>
>Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Harith told me from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad
>that when the Messenger heard 'Umar saying Allah Akbar in the prayer
>he asked where Abu Bakr was, "God and the Muslims forbid this," Had it
>not been for what 'Umar said when he died, the Muslims would not have
>doubted that the Messenger would not have doubted that the Messenger
>had appointed Abu-Bakr his successor. But he said when he died, "If I
>appoint a successor, one better than I did so. And if I leave them one
>better than I did so.
>
What you quoted is the same thing that Bukhari and Muslim record.
"And if I leave them one
better than I did so."
If I leave them, (without nominating a successor), one better, meaning the Prophet, did so (not nominate).
If what you allege, that the Prophet nominated Abu Bakr, was true then there would be absolutely no sense in the conflict at Saqifah taking place.
If the Prophet nominated Abu Bakr then there would be no sense in 'Ali and those who supported him withholding their pledges of allegiance to him for at least six months.
Here are a few quotes from Bukhari about Saqifah for you to look up.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/043.sbt.html#003.043.642
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/057.sbt.html#005.057.019
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.817
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.326
Amazingly, no one at Saqifah mentioned anything about Abu Bakr being nominated by the Prophet.
There wasn't even any mention of him being appointed to lead prayers either.
Do you accept the incident of Saqifah as a reality or do you dismiss it as a Shi'ite concoction?
Does not Ibn Ishaq mention anything about the event of Saqifah Bani Saa'idah?
Abu Muhammad
Yusuf B Gursey
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:27:49 CST, klei...@astound.net (Kleinecke)
wrote:
>> >
>> >looking up "Ghadir Khumm" in Enc. Of Islam II the incident is believed
>> >by western historians, as it is so much repeated, and by those
potentially
>> >even against their self-interest.
>
>The western historians are mostly bunglers. Muir has the excuse that
as de Blois said it is easy to criticize sources but more difficult
to say something substantial in the ensuing vaccum.
I have worse things to say about many internet posters.
>he was a pioneer (which doesn't make his history one iota more valid).
>People like Martin Lings do not count as western. Do you imagine that
>Wansbrough believed in the day of Ghadir Khum?
he is a case in point of critism without offering a substantial
replacement.
>
>Anyway the argument from authority is a muslim thing and not real
citicism just for its own sake isn't real scholarship either.
at least quoting a standard source gives a reference point for what
can't be dissmissed offhand.
and arguing from authority is done day to day. it does provide
a reference point in an environment like the interent where any
loon can post any crackpot idea over and over again.
>scholarship. If there is aa actual consensus among western scholars
I didn't use the word "concensus".
>that fact should be, if not proven, at least exemplified. What western
>scholars do you have in mind? The Enc. of Islam is not, in my opinion,
like the author of the article, Vaglieri, and rhe editors of the volume
who found the article fit to be included.
>the last word on western scholarship.
I didn't say it was, but it is a standard source.
>
the article views the variant with waliyy as an attempt to explain
mawla" , which had different usages later (when the event was discussed
the Tradionalists.
the author agrees with Ibn Kathir that it was uttered to support
Ali against certain charges that had levied against him.
abid
1. Ibn Ishaq is a source before 125 AH and as he left out that Ali is
Mawla so it canot be true that Ali is mawla!Ali is Mawla is only a
legend!
2. Ibn Ishaq left out that Ali is Mawla even though he was Alid (and
most likely a Shia)!
3. Other narrators like Bukhari and Muslim do indeed say that Ali is
Mawla but these two, and any others, don’t matter because they
came after Ibn Ishaq. Hence any thing ‘high ranking about
Ali’ said in Bukhari or Muslim cannot be trusted especially if
they put Ali above Abu Bakr and Umar!
3. In Ibn Ishaq the word Mawla means ‘freed slave!’
MY ANSWERS ARE THESE:
1. At least you have agreed that the first historians in Islam (like
Ibn Ishaq and Malik) were either Shias or at least very pro Ali! This
kills the argument that Shia Islam came many centuries after the
Prophet! Also if the first historians were pro Ali or shias then
surely they must have a good reason to be so! What did they know that
you don’t care to admit?
2. You have shown that you are not a Sunni as you have casted doubt on
Bukhari and Muslim!
3. You have not answered properly the suggestion that as the work of
Ibn Ishaq passed though the Umayad era it was naturally to assume that
many other praises of Ali were left out of Ibn Ishaq!
4. If you say that mawla means freed slave in Ibn Ishaq then no wonder
Ibn Ishaq did not mention Ali as Mawla.
KLEINECKE ALSO SAYS THE FOLLOWING
Because Ibn Ishaq was pro Ali so he left out the details of saying
that Abu Bakr was chosen as successor by the Prophet!
MY ANSWER TO THIS IS: (wait for it!)
This conclusion of yours is based on what is not in Ibn Ishaq! No
hadith, not even a weak one, even in Sunni books ever say this! Not
even Aiesah said this! Not even did Umar ever said it! So how quickly
you have drawn a conclusion that is not even hinted on by any
narrations!
But let us assume that there is some substance to Abu Bakr was chosen
as successor! Then it begs the question that where did the story of
Shakifa start! Or is that another interpolation by early Muslim
narrators?
And then why did Abu Bakr not tell Fatimah: “I am the chosen
successor chosen by your father! So do not contradict me!” I
conclude that he would have said this if he was ever chosen as
successor!
But best of all, why did the Prophet send both Abu Bakr and Umar to
fight under Osama? Yes under Osama! Why also he put Osama above Abu
Bakr if Abu Bakr was his successor! Was he not senting a bad
presidence! In fact why ever send Abu Bakr out of Medina at the time
of his death if he was successor!
May be another conclusion is this: As Bukhari and Muslim have not said
anything about the Prophet choosing Abu Bakr as successor then may be
your type of conclusion should be that they too were Alid or pro Shias
or Shias! May be all historians were Alid and Shias!
THEN KLEINECKE SAYS THE FOLLOWING:
"We should take the meaning of Mawla from the Qur’an!"
MY REPLY TO THIS IS:
1. You purport to use the Qur’an but you then you refuse to
derive any understanding from it!
Here is the evidence:
Qur’an says ‘ Hellfire is Mawla of unbelievers!’ My
understanding of this is ‘Heaven is Mawla of believers!’
Qur’an says that Satan is Mawla of unbelievers. My understanding
is that The Prophet and Ali are malwa of believers (backed up by
Bukhari and Muslim)!
KLEINECKE ALSO SAYS
1. Prophet used the word Mawla 'carelessly' and in an ‘off
hand’ manner and the shias later 'elaborated' it to meaning that
Ali is Mawla!
MY RESPONSE TO THIS IS:
1. This shows you have come a whole circle from saying that the people
of Medina never used the word Mawla for anything but 'freed slave' to
saying that the Prophet did indeed say that Ali is Mawla! Do you know
what you are taking about, or will you keep going round in circles! Is
this not an indication of your desperation!
2. You also make the Prophet look as though he was making 'off hand'
and 'careless' remarks! Are you sure you are a Muslim! How can you
hold such an opinion of the Prophet if you are! No wonder you are anti
Ali praise!
3. You also came up with some interpolating and connected up the event
where Ali is declared as brother of the Prophet in medina with Ali
being called Mawla in Ghadeer! Your seem to have interpolations your
arguments like this and connected things which don’t connect!
Then you accuse others of interpolation! But now look at this:
The Prophet declared Ali as brother showing to the Emigrants and
Ansars that their brotherhood has to be true like his and Ali’s!
The Emigrants and Anasars knew by this act of the Prophet what kind of
brotherhood was being asked for from them! It therefore made complete
sense that the Prophet show to the Muslims what kind of brotherhood he
expected of them!
Now please, do not ignore this! Come on, come up with some other wild
theories and interpolation and going round the circle! Please make us
laugh!
Yusuf B Gursey
>Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in message
news:<bvrrt5$bjh$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
>
>Comments on my treatment of the word "maula" which you can read in his
>post.
which you really don't respond to, but repeat yourself.
also most Sunnis also have high regard of `Ali, so I don't see
any problem.
>
>The problem with the word is that (1) in early Madinan sources (by
>which I mean specifically Ibn Ishaq and Malik) the word is used to
well, Ibn Ishaq by including the incident in question does
imply a different usage by him. the only reason for rejecting
it is your own a priori dismissal.
when you look at *writers* you must consider that they are
skewed to a particular context or material.
>mean "freed slave" and (2) in Iraqi sources the word is used to mean
if you look closely, it is *freed* slave, not slave. so
the relationship is not (supposed to be) devoid of all
reciprocity and it is not supposed to be coercive.
it indicates that the freed slave has entered the protection
of the former master on a less unequal footing.
>"master".
neither would this meaning imply a coercive master.
>
>I do not see how such a differentiation could have come about unless
>the meaning of the word had changed very recently and the differences
OK. according to the article in pre-Islamic poetry the relationship
was more egalitarian, a relationship based on mutual help,
kinship or confederacy. be as it may, these quite often lead to
and involve unequal social standing (or in terms of "calling the
shots") that I need not elaborate.
for the meaning of the word as uttered by (or attributed to)
Muhammad, the best document is the Qur'an.
in the Qur'an one finds it usually applied to God (i.e. master). one
also finds it in a somewhat egalitarian context or which
can be interpreted as having both meanings (master and client),
Q 41:14.
>had not yet been leveled out. The only document we can turn to provide
>an older meaning is the Qur'an. In the Qur'an the evidence is
>ambiguous because calling Allah one's "maula" is theologically
>implausible if "maula" means "freed slave". My hypothesis that the
the meaning "freed slave" was a specialized meaning, when the
freed slave entered a mawla" relationship and thus entered a
tribe or family and it was part of a proccess of entering arab
society.
it became a "topical" issue as Islam expanded and converts from
the conquered peopels were given mawla (in this sense) status
and thus entered arab society (and became somewhat of a challenge
to it as well).
>older meaning was symmetrical is supported by some lexicographers who
>calmly listing "master" and "freed slave" as alternative meanings for
yes, and these are lexicographers.
the relationships mentioned are not entirely devoid of any
reciprocity either. though they are not absolutley "egalitarian"
either.
a better translation than "master" is "protector, gaurdian".
Muhammad in this context characterizes himself as the mawla"
of the muslim community, as its benevolent Master, i.e.
Protector, rather than a potentially despotic ruler. but
he isn't addressing them as "Comrades" either. (now
Cromwell's title "Lord Proector of the Commonwealth" springs
to mind but I won't go off in a tangent but I will say "tawba(t)!"
(repentance!) if I have been offensive).
I don't see any inconsistency in the Qur'anic usage and the
report. and it is not inconsistent to turn to Qur'anic usage
for a word uttered by Muhammad in anoher context.
>"maula". I do not see how such a contradiction could have been reached
>except on the hypothesis of an older symmetrical meaning.
partly true, see above discussion.
>
>As to whether the root of the word is MWL or WLY I have no problem
>with either form. I was just pointing out the possibility. We have no
>valid evidence about how the nunation was used in Madina in this
if there were no nunation, it would be a feminine!
>period. The nunation and all the other niceties of classical Arabic
>were constructed in Iraq on the basis of the speech of the Iraqian
that's untrue, the grammarians and lexicographers collected
material from all Arab - bedouin tribes, (as much as possible).
in more complex sentences some differences in the case system is
occassionally noted.
Old Hijazi dialect was one of the more thoroughly studied and
documented of the Old Dialects, and for obvious reasons they
were interested in it.
classical arabic wasn't based on a particular dialect. the
grammarians chose what was deemed "elegant", and some eastern
(usually called Tamimi / tami:miyy by the medieval grammarians)
features such as the /i/ vowel of imperfect prefixes were rejected.
finally, one has to say "everything is possible" but one has to
present valid reasons for one's suppositions, otherwise there is
no end to speculation.
>bedouin tribesmen. If there was a difference in Madinan speech we
untrue.
>would not have heard about it. By around 300 AH all the differences in
>classical Arabic had been leveled out into the ancestor of modern
as classical arabic (together with is spoken dialects) declined as
a spoken language (giving way to the colloquials) differences
in dialect were replaced by differences of literary usage in a
vaster area.
>"standard" Arabic.
>
>If the root really was originally MWL, that fact was forgotten even
>before the Qur'an and the root WLY constructed and used (even in the
what do you mean by "constructed and used"? (rhetorical question)
there is no reason to believe the "root" < wly > was not part of the
original vocabulary of arabic.
OTOH < mwl > is abstracted from ma:l "property" which many believe
is a formation from ma: li- "what (belongs) to".
>Qur'an) as though a freed slave was someone who had a "WaLiY". In the
the idea is that the freed slave retains a reltionship of "closeness"
(wila:ya(t) or wala:ya(t) ) to the former master.
waliyy (you really don't have to seperate the consonantal skeleton
by using caps, which are then freed to represent emphatics) also
exhibits some ambiguity. it is attested in the Qur'an as an
epithet of God, and also means "protector", "legal guardian,"
"parent"; but also can mean "friend", sometimes in an inferior
posiion as in waliyyu-~lla:h (in short, waliyy) waliyy (freend)
of God, approx. "saint".
>Muwatta, at least, being a WaLiY was an important matter. As I read
remember that "technical" texts mat be skewed to a particular
usage.
>the Muwatta if the slogan of Ghadir Khum had originated in Madina it
>would have used "waliy" rather than "maula".
there is no reason to suppose that mawla", attested in the Qur'an
was not used. (repeating myself)
>
>Theologically the matter is significant because it impacts on the
>significance of "abd". That is, just how seriously was the expression
>abdu-Allah "slave(?) of Allah" taken by the earliest Muslims? If it
when `abd means "slave" (in the sense of devotee) of God (or for
pagans, any deity, idol) the plural is 3iba:d , for an ordinary
slave it 3abi:d or other forms.
>was taken literally then what would have been the significance of
>being a maula of Allah? I observe that Abdullah was used as a Proper
the closest thing is waliyy of God (see above), but a waliyy'
is still a devotee (`abd) of God, as is even a prophet.
to my knowledge, there was no concept in arab paganism either
of getting dispensation from being and `abd of a deity by
entering a relationship of "closeness". if there were, we would
probably have heard about it.
>Name before the time of the Prophet.
>
yes. his father. (supported perhaps by the grafitto near Medina).
abid
for you to create some ivory tower intellectual diversion in order to
dismiss that Ali is indeed the Mawla! This is very simlar to what the
Kafir did to the name Muhammad! They used their short circuited
arguments to say that it was Mohand! The Yahudis too played with words
and said RAEENA to the Prophet! You and your friend Keinecke have
followed the Sunnah of Kafirs of Mecca and Yahudis of Medina in your
twist that Mawla means Freed Slave!
Well say, you desperately insist that malwa means freed slave and that
it was interpolatyed by Iraqies and Iranian tribesmen (as suggested by
Keinecke) to mean leader! Well after all your pretence of being such
great intellectuals you lot stil need to answer this:
Why does the Qur'an use the word Mawla for Allah! If it meant freed
slave then itwould mean that Allah is a Freed Slave! Now would that
not be a kind of conclusion that Orientalists would draw!
Since you hastily accepted that Mawla means Freed Slave then you may
want to defend your position on why then should Allah not be a freed
slave!Or will you lot once again put cotton wool in your ears and run!
But just look at your EMAN in the truth! When history is there in
front of you,you lot seems to insist on your desires! But your desires
cannot become truth! The Fact is: Ali is Mawla, like it or not!
Now what is the meaning of Mawla as applied in the Qur'an!
It means DESTINATION!
So 'Allah is mawla of believers' means that Allah is the Destination
of Believers!
Satan is mawla of the liars means that satan is destination of the
liars!
Hell is the mawla of kafirs means that hell is destination of Kafirs!
Now whose definition is better and better explains the Qur'an: The
JOhn Berg and Keinecke definition that it means Freed Slave or the
Shia definition that it means Destination! Go on answer back,but
remember your desires will not become truth!
Nima Rezai
> his actions pointed in that direction. I think we can discount the
> story of 'Umar's confession and follow the obvious narrative line.
The
> Messenger appointed Abu-Bakr as his successor. Abu-Bakr appointed
> 'Umar. 'Umar was asassinated and named no sucessor. The junta that
> seized power selected 'Uthman. Ali was probably not a member of the
> junta but went along with them.
Herr (Mr.) Kleinecke,
the story of Umars assassination is narrated else than by Ibn Ishaq,
too.
How do you so easily claim that it was a hoax?
Nima
abid
discussion and realised how Sunni Islam has been hijacked by those who
want to do the utmost to deny Ali, even at the expence of Bukhari and
Muslim! How do you as a Sunni feel about this? Tell us because the
lack of response from true Sunnis on this matter has been the main
reason why other pretence Sunnis have hijacked Sunni Islam!
The historical evidence that Ali is indeed Mawla is too enormous for
anybody to reject! Great Sunni peers, Saheeh Sunni narrations,
analytical history etc have all said that Ali is Mawla! This title was
not given to others! It is bidaa to say that Abu Bakr is Mawla when
the Prophet did not say it!
But please defend your position on this point, and do it from your
books! Do not go in to wild theory making like John Berg and
Kleicenke! Please do not pretend to be one of those false
intellectuals who just quotes books like the way the Christians quote
the Bible without actually representing it properly!
Also tell us how do you feel when your fellow Sunnis are saying the
following about the Prophet and his chosen ahlul baith!
1. The Prophet made off hand and careless remarks!
2. It was okay for Umar to doubt the Prophet during Hudabiya!
3. It was okay for Abu Bakr to go against Fatemah!
4. It was okay for Aiesha and Muawiya to commit treason against Ali
and against the Islamic state!
5. It was foolish for Imam Hussain to go to Karbala!
6. There are satanic verses in the Qur'an!
7. To celebrate the birthday of the Prophet is bidaa!
8. It is complusory to regard Abu Bakr as first caliph and to include
his name in the Juma Khutaba even though the Prophet did not!
9. The Prophet made many mistakes concerning his wives!
10. The Prophet did not know what would happen to him, but he still
knew that Abu Bakr, Umar and Aiesah will enter heaven!
Please tell us your views on all these matters! Please do not put
cotton wool in your ears as this is the Sunnah of the Kafirs of Mecca!