70,000 Jews and Shibli and Iran
rja...@cfl.rr.com
You brought up some issues in your other "Refutations", actually I
would prefer to call them "Refutations of yourself" as most of the time
you prove our case, but there were quite a few errors in your posts and
maybe this is the place to bring them up:
You quoted a hadeeth that Dajjal will come from Khurasan followed by 70K
jews. Your conclusion was that Khurasan is in Iran therefore the Shi'ah
in Iran today are all really Jews and followers of Dajjal.
Here you witness one of the most unique revolutions in all of human
history and you try discrediting the Islamic Republic of Iran with your
pitiful conclusions. It is so sad that your utter contempt for your
Shi'ah muslim brothers and sisters has led you to such hate and
deception, May Allah forgive and guide.
I guarantee that it will be such enemies of the Shi'ah that will be the
ones that will reject the Mahdi when he appears because on realizing
that this is a "Shi'ah" Mahdi, they will go to Dajjal instead.
Such people will be be among the first who will prostrate before
the shin of Dajjal (see my post about KhiDr and Dajjaal). This because
most Muslims today believe that Allah can be seen and when Dajjal comes
he will convince most muslims that he is their God and they will worship
him.
Actually even today there are quite a few jews in Iran and if I said
that there are probably at least a Million Jews today I don't think that
would be innaccurate. Even then for there to be 70,000 Jewish followers
of Dajjal from Khurasaan is nothing compared to the present day
poplulation of Iran which is in excess of 63,000,000. So what is 70
thousand compared to 63 Million? That is not even 1 percent.
So you are making your deceptive point saying that the Iranians will be
followers of Dajjal because less than 1 percent of them will follow
Dajjal, this while the majority of the Arab world (rather of the whole
muslim world), according to so many traditions, will be deceived by
Dajjal.
This you say while ignoring some crucial facts as related from the
Prophet and I will give you a few examples:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khurasan.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ice.jpg
The traditions from the Prophet (sawa) mention that the Mahdi himself
will come from the direction of Khurasaan with black flags.
The Prophet (sawa) furthermore says that when you see this happen go and
do bay'ah of the Mahdi, the Khaleefah of Allah on the earth even if you
have to CRAWL ON ICE.
Now, please name me one arab country associated with Ice? It is highly
unlikely that it could be referring to other than Iran, for those that
have insight.
Furthermore:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/salmaan1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/salmaan2.jpg
When the following verse was revealed:
If ye turn back (from the Path), He will substitute in your stead
another people; then they would not be like you 47:38
The Prophet patted the shoulder of Salmaan al Farsi and said, "It will
be his people". (The Persians).
When this verse of Surah al Jum'ah was revealed:
As well as (to confer all these benefits upon) others of them, who have
not already joined them: And He is exalted in Might, Wise. 62:3
The Prophet was asked, "Who are they?" Again the Prophet patted the
shoulder of Salmaan al Farsi and said, Even if faith was at Thurayya (a
distant star) people from the Persians would get that faith.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/salmaan2.jpg
The Prophet (sawa) furthermore describes these people:
Tender Hearts, THEY WILL FOLLOW MY SUNNAH AND THEY WILL CONSTANTLY SEND
SALUTATIONS ON ME.
The Shi'ah are known mostly for this mark today, they constantly say:
Allahumma Salli 'Ala Muhammad wa Aali Muhammad (constantly).
That is their Shi'aar (there motto and sign).
This while most of the Muslim world has abandoned the proper Salaat on
the Prophet because they only say:
Allahumma Salli 'Ala Muhammad wa Sallim.
This while the Prophet has specifically instructed not to send upon him
the Salaat al Batraa (cut off salaat).
He was asked, what is that? and he said that you say "Oh Allah bless
Muhammad and you leave out the Aal" (as recorded by Ibn Hajr in his
Sawaa'iq al Muhriqah)
This while muslims know that even your prayers can not be accepted if
you leave them out and even your supplications are Mahjoob (debarred)
from being answered until you send salutations on Muhammad and HIS
AHLUL-BAYT (AS). see http://al-islam.org/real/default.asp?urlĸ42.htm
chapter 42.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mahjoob.jpg
Concerning your "refutation" of the 12 Imams, this is a funny:
You say:
"The 12 imams of the Shi`ites never even ruled a small town
in all of history"
Don't you know that we believe that Imam 'Ali and Imam Hasan are the
first two Khaleefahas and they were rulers of much much more than a
small town. They were rulers of the Islamic Kingdom. Everyone knows
that, at least I though everyone knew that!
But that error of yours is beside the point. You think rulership is the
criteria of assertaining the true 12 successors but that is not the
case.
here is the text of the traditions:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/twelve.jpg
The affairs of this Ummah will always go right so long as there are 12
people who are their wali. You translate "maa wallaahum" as "rule over
them" but this is not necessarily the correct meaning.
The Prophet further mentions that the whole muslim Ummah will
acknowledge them.
This WILL happen when the Mahdi appears and relate the truth about the
previous 11 successors namely Imam 'Ali, al Hasan, al Husayn...upto
himself (aj). Wait, you will see.
Please also see the article about "who are the twelve" at
http://al-islam.org/nutshell/
and also see http://al-islam.org/twelve
You try to disprove that the 12 Imams of the Shi'ah are the real
successors but you offer no alternative names of possible candidates to
fit the description of the 12 successors unless you include you Ummayyad
heroes
such as Mu'awiyah and Yazid and Marwaan etc.
For those that have read the traditions related to Dajjal and the Mahdi
it is very clear that the side of Dajjal (Sufyaani) will be an Umayyad
ruler and enemy of the Mahdi. No doubt the truth is with 'Ali and the
Shi'ah of 'Ali. (see my post about The Shi'ah, Qur'an and Hadeeth).
--
The Messenger Of Allah Said (sawa)
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
Two
Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan TaDilluu Ba'di
Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hattaa
Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
References:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with
reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of
Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic
(Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and
Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5,
pp 182,189,350,366,419
Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 21,30
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti'sam bi Habl
Allah,v1,p44.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of
verse 42:23
of Quran (four traditions)
al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder,
Lebanon.
al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
Majma' al-Zawa'id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
Usdul Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
Jami' al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
al-Taj al-Jami' Lil Usul, v3, p308
al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16
The Prophet also said (sawa):
Behold! My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah, whoever embarked in it
was saved, and whoever turned away from it was drowned.
Inna Mathala Ahli Baytee Feekum Mathalu Safeenati NuH man rakibaha najaa
Wa Man Takhallafa 'Anhaa halak
References:
AlĸHakim records this tradition of the Prophet (S) in his Mustadrak, ii,
343, iii, 150:
Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat alĸ'awliya', iv, 306;
alĸKhatib in Ta'rikh Baghdad, xii, 19;
alĸSuyuti in alĸDurr alĸmanthur (al-Matba`at alĸMaymaniyyah,
Egypt,1314),
under verse 2:58 also in his Jami' al Sagheer.
alĸMuttaqi in Kanz alĸ`ummal, i, 250, vi, 216;
alĸHaythami in Majma` alĸzawa'id, ix, 167, 168;
alĸMuHibb alĸTabari in Dhakha'ir alĸ`uqba, 20; alĸManawi in Kunuz
alĸHaqa'iq, 132.
Yanabi Muwaddah, Qundoozi Hanafi, p 30, 370
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 184, 234
sample of Arabic text taken from http://www.muhaddith.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/safinah.jpg
salaam,
cb...@my-deja.com
rja...@cfl.rr.com wrote:
> salaam
>
> You brought up some issues in your other "Refutations", actually I
> would prefer to call them "Refutations of yourself" as most of the
time
> you prove our case, but there were quite a few errors in your posts
and
> maybe this is the place to bring them up:
>
> You quoted a hadeeth that Dajjal will come from Khurasan followed by
70K
> jews. Your conclusion was that Khurasan is in Iran therefore the
Shi'ah
> in Iran today are all really Jews and followers of Dajjal.
>
If dajjal came in our time, your objection would have been valid. He is
referring to the time when Dajjal is going to be around.
> Here you witness one of the most unique revolutions in all of human
> history and you try discrediting the Islamic Republic of Iran with
your
> pitiful conclusions. It is so sad that your utter contempt for your
> Shi'ah muslim brothers and sisters has led you to such hate and
> deception, May Allah forgive and guide.
>
Referring to Khomeini's Revolution where he sacrificed the Iranians
youth with the Help of the Iraqi devil. Many sensible Muslims were
attracted to Khomeini's false call of unity -
they may have believed that he has abandoned his rafida Shia belief.
Alhamdulllah, the deception has dissipated, now. Only Khomeini and his
followers can raise the slogan of unity while at the same time attack
the vanguard of Islam (the companions of the Messenger of Allah) - a
mockery of sincerity which is a sure sign of misguidance:
"And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they
say: "We are only peacemakers."
Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.
And when it is said to them (hypocrites): "Believe as the people
(followers of Muhammad Peace be upon him , Al-Ansār and Al-Muhajirūn)
have believed," they say: "Shall we believe as the fools have
believed?" Verily, they are the fools, but they know not.
And when they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe," but when
they are alone with their Shayātin (devils - polytheists, hypocrites,
etc.), they say: "Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but
mocking."
Allāh mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to
wander blindly.
These are they who have purchased error for guidance, so their
commerce
was profitless. And they were not guided.
Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindled a fire; then,
when
it lighted all around him, Allāh took away their light and left them
in
darkness. (So) they could not see.
They are deaf, dumb, and blind, so they return not (to the Right
Path). " - Al Baqara 11 - 18.
> salaam,
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
corr...@my-deja.com
Add to this the disgusting racist hatred he has shown to Persians, whom
the Prophet praised, he has again refuted himself. For any knowledgable
man knows that the sunni religion rests on persian pillars.
Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nisa'i, Ibn Majah, Ghazali, Abu
Hanifa, al-Farabi and countless others of the sunni 'Ulama in the past
have been persians. But maybe he is right about one thing. He says the
persians hated Islam and wanted to destroy it. If the product of that
hatred is Sunnism, then he may be correct, for they (=the persians who
hated islam - the persian sunni Ulama)have indeed succeeded in
perverting the religion and raising the enemies of Muhammad and Islam,
Banu Ummayah in particular, to extreme hights.
But praise be to the Lord of the Worlds that the Persians returned to
the Islam of Muhammad Wa Ale Muhammad, and not to their murderers and
persecutors!
And the most perfect example of that is the fact that the vast majority
of the offspring of our noble Master Muhammad Mustafa, May Allah shower
his blessing upon him and his blessed family, follow the religion of
Muhammad wa Ale Muhammad.
And May Allah guide us all
Ameen
W'salam
In article <suud0g...@corp.supernews.com>,
rja...@cfl.rr.com wrote:
> salaam
>
> You brought up some issues in your other "Refutations", actually I
> would prefer to call them "Refutations of yourself" as most of the
time
> you prove our case, but there were quite a few errors in your posts
and
> maybe this is the place to bring them up:
>
> You quoted a hadeeth that Dajjal will come from Khurasan followed by
70K
> jews. Your conclusion was that Khurasan is in Iran therefore the
Shi'ah
> in Iran today are all really Jews and followers of Dajjal.
>
qizilbash
you are correct, Shi'i vs sunni schism is not an ethnic problem from a
foundation point of view.
Also all the major sufis that are recorded to be founders of
significant orders were persians as well, examples include: ABu Yazid
Bistaami, Abdul Qadir Gilaani(from Gilaan province), Shah Naqshbandi,
Ahmad Rafaaii, Shibli, junayd, Hallaj, Rumi.. So sufism is another
sect (with many pre-islamic ideas from zoroastrianism and manicheism)
that was developed by Iranians. I was reading a book about egypt and
the text described how in the 12 century, virtually all the members of
the sufi worshipping places were persians.
Although I disagree with you on Farabi(from Faryaab), he was an
Ismaiili and he was too smart to be associated with such hatred. For
example he wrote his most significant treatise on music and was too
much into the platonic philosophy to be considered a sunni. He is
called Mo3alam thaani and believe me if he was living in egypt, sudan
or afghanistan, he would have been hanged.
The only significant arab scholar of sunni Islam I can think if is Ibn
Arabi. Although he was at least part spanish. His spiritual master
was persian also. And even he by definition of the majority belief of
sunnis would not fit in the category. He is one of the best among all
people that lived in the golden age of Islam.. He accompolished what
almost no shi'i person accomplishes in their lifetime, which is he met
the 12th Imam(AS) and this is mentioned in his book Fusus al-hikam .
God really bless this men. If only all muslims can be like him.
In Shi'i Islam, the authority rests with the 12 Arab Imams from Quraysh.
If Persians were racist, they would have followed Salman Parsi, who is
respected by all muslims.
Imam Ali(AS) treated Iranians well, designated zoroastrians ancestors
of Iranian as a people of the book and won the hearts of Iranians with
his justice.
I guess a person can't go any lower than to inspite hatred and claim
that persian made up shi'ism!
Either way, as a Persian I would never accept Sunni islam, as its
caliph Umar, Muawiyah are just like hitler. I would rather follow
anything else, as it is the most un-natural religion to Iran and the
Persian soul.. It might work in other places, but it will not work in
Iran, once the person knows alittle history.
No iranian can praise someone that destroys villages, took young girls
from their home and made them sex slaves, destroyed art and burned
libraries.. History has documented these criminals, who would be in
the UN tribunal for war crimes if they were alive.. But at least one of
these criminals Umar, was turned into chop sui, by Pirooz Nahavandi,
god bless him.
I bet these animals of ahl-i-zulmat are feeling the heat in hell now.
Good riddance. And god bless freedom of speech, cause if I said this
in another country, I would be hanged :)
Regards
In article <sv0u2t...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > salaam
> >
> > You brought up some issues in your other "Refutations", actually I
> > would prefer to call them "Refutations of yourself" as most of the
> time
> > you prove our case, but there were quite a few errors in your posts
> and
> > maybe this is the place to bring them up:
> >
> > You quoted a hadeeth that Dajjal will come from Khurasan followed by
> 70K
> > jews. Your conclusion was that Khurasan is in Iran therefore the
> Shi'ah
> > in Iran today are all really Jews and followers of Dajjal.
> >
>
Shibli Zaman
utterly disgusting posts they approve.
Mr. Qizlbash makes a repeated claim about the Khulafaa' ar-Raashidoon:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:22:31 -0000, qizilbash <qizi...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>No iranian can praise someone that destroys villages, took young girls
>from their home and made them sex slaves, destroyed art and burned
>libraries.. History has documented these criminals, who would be in
If these practices of the first 3 Caliphs are so well documented, why
have you not presented a shred of evidence? I challenge you to produce
a shred of viable historical evidence that states that `Umar either:
1) "Destroyed villages"
2) "Took young girls from their homes and made them sex slaves"
3) "Destroyed art and burned libraries"
You go on to state: "History has documented these criminals.."
Now I challenge you to produce even one sentence that can justify
these utterly ahistorical falsehoods.
If you can't, then please state that you can't so that I can go on to
produce historical documents which state `Umar did the OPPOSITE of
what you allege. So don't take too long.
Waiting...
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
http://shibli.zaman.net
Shibli Zaman
Now rjaffer also brings up a Hadeeth:
>This you say while ignoring some crucial facts as related from the
>Prophet and I will give you a few examples:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khurasan.jpg
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ice.jpg
>
>The traditions from the Prophet (sawa) mention that the Mahdi himself
>will come from the direction of Khurasaan with black flags.
>The Prophet (sawa) furthermore says that when you see this happen go and
>do bay'ah of the Mahdi, the Khaleefah of Allah on the earth even if you
>have to CRAWL ON ICE.
>
>Now, please name me one arab country associated with Ice? It is highly
>unlikely that it could be referring to other than Iran, for those that
>have insight.
Hmmmmmm...I won't give you an Arab country affiliated with ice but I
will give you a few names:
DA`EEF MUNKAR and Abu Muslim al-Khorasani.
Da`eef Munkar: This is the classification of the Hadeeth meaning "Weak
and Errant". Its chain of transmission is full of unknown narrators
and its content is erroneous.
Abu Muslim al-Khorasani: He is the one for whom this Hadeeth was
fabricated. In case you don't know, he was the revolutionary leader
who brought about the Abbasid revolution which replaced the Ummayyad
Empire. Hence his name, his army marched over ice from Khorasan with
tall black flags, banners and standards.
Also, rjaffer, I really wish you would learn Arabic. You'd save
yourself some serious embarassment, and all of us, a lot of TIME. Look
on the URL you gave us:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ice.jpg
This is not a Hadeeth that you highlighted but a COMMENTARY from the
SharH Jaami` aS-Sagheer of Jalal ad-Deen Suyuti regarding the Hadeeth
of crawling over ice. This COMMENTARY states:
"This is in reference to Abu Muslim al-Khorasani who overtook the
Umayyad State.."
Are you embarassed? You should be...
More of this slapstick in episode III of this satire...
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Oh gosh, there's more...
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/salmaan1.jpg
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/salmaan2.jpg
>
>When the following verse was revealed:
>
>If ye turn back (from the Path), He will substitute in your stead
>another people; then they would not be like you 47:38
>
>The Prophet patted the shoulder of Salmaan al Farsi and said, "It will
>be his people". (The Persians).
This Hadeeth is mistranslated, seemingly, on purpose. It says, "haatha
wa qawmuh, haatha wa qawmuh" which means "him and his people, him and
his people" and mentions absolutely NOTHING about Persia. The word
"Persia" or "Persian" is not even in this Hadeeth. "Him and his QAWM"
could be a reference to the Sahaba who were definitely his "qawm".
However, even it meant "Persians" it only supports the Sunnah.
Another thing rjaffer might want to know is that Iran was Sunni for
nearly 1000 years after Islam. It became Shi`ite by forceful Safavid
conversion in the 16th century. The Persians did inherit the Arabs and
ruled wonderfully for hundreds of years under the SUNNAH. `Abdullaah
ibn Mubaarak, Imam Abu Haneefa, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, and many
more scholars of the Sunnah were all from Persia.
Also, another great figure was from Persia:
"Abu Maymunah Salma, client of the people of Medina, stated: While I
was sitting with Abu Hurayrah, a Persian woman came to him along with
a son of hers. She had been divorced by her husband and they both
claimed him.
SHE SAID, 'ABU HURAYRAH,' SPEAKING TO HIM IN PERSIAN, my husband
wishes to take my son away.
ABU HURAYRAH SAID,'Cast lots for him', SAYING IT TO HER IN A FOREIGN
LANGUAGE.."
[Sunan Abi Dawud 12:2270]
Yes, Abu Hurayrah was of Persian origin as well. So I guess now
rjaffer can apply this Hadeeth to Abu Hurayrah as well since the
Prophet's (peace be upon him) words were "HIM AND HIS PEOPLE, HIM AND
HIS PEOPLE". So if this means "Salman and the Persians" then this
means "Salman, Abu Hurayrah, and the other Persians". I wonder if
rjaffer is now ready to accept Abu Hurayrah and all of his Hadeeth.
Now for the REALLY FUNNY part:
If rjaffer only knew what he was quoting was actually refuting his own
lengthy posts. I've never actually seen such self-defeatism like this
before. Allow me to translate what the compiler HIMSELF says about
this Hadeeth:
"This Hadeeth is Ghareeb in its chain of transmission it says, 'and we
received this narration from Abdullah ibn Ja`far.."
In case rjaffer does not know, the Hadeeth which are classified as
Ghareeb are mostly very weak Hadeeth. They are called "Ghareeb"
meaning "scarce or foreign" because their isnaad contain only one
reporter per stage rather than multiple reporters as authentic Hadeeth
generally have.
About the Ghareeb Narrations Imam Ahmad has said,
"Do not write these gharib ahadith because they are unacceptable, and
most of them are weak."
[as-San`ani 2:409]
>When this verse of Surah al Jum'ah was revealed:
>
>As well as (to confer all these benefits upon) others of them, who have
>not already joined them: And He is exalted in Might, Wise. 62:3
>
>The Prophet was asked, "Who are they?" Again the Prophet patted the
>shoulder of Salmaan al Farsi and said, Even if faith was at Thurayya (a
>distant star) people from the Persians would get that faith.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/salmaan2.jpg
>The Prophet (sawa) furthermore describes these people:
>
>Tender Hearts, THEY WILL FOLLOW MY SUNNAH AND THEY WILL CONSTANTLY SEND
>SALUTATIONS ON ME.
As above. The Persians produced the greatest scholars of the Sunnah in
history.
I feel this is satisfactory enough to end this series of comical
episodes based on rjaffer's satire. May Allah give him some reasonable
acumen. Hopefully, his barrage will end soon (for his own good!),
inshaa' Allah.
Shibli Zaman
simple matters. He is confused and voices his frustration in the
following statement:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:49:04 -0000, rja...@cfl.rr.com wrote:
>You quoted a hadeeth that Dajjal will come from Khurasan followed by 70K
>jews. Your conclusion was that Khurasan is in Iran therefore the Shi'ah
>in Iran today are all really Jews and followers of Dajjal.
The Hadeeth is as follows:
"Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, 'The Dajjal would be
followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls."
[Saheeh al-Muslim, 41:7034]
I think there is a reading problem here. The Hadeeth states:
1) 70,000 Jews
2) From ISFAHAN (NOT KHORASAN...areh baba...shaid maghzet najoor
shud...Isfahan wa Khorasan yak cheez nest! ...areh? ;) Ee to Farsi
mefama! wa Shia nest?! Ayyy toba!)
3) Wearing PERSIAN SHAWLS
Now I don't see how rjaffer got that the Hadeeth was saying all of
Iran's population is 70,000 Jews who come from Khorasan. But I hope
now that I broke it down for him he understands.
There is a rule in Arabic (here we go again..teach him Arabic again)
of "ta`addud al-`aam" which is "general enumeration". This general
enumeration is based on the number 7 in Arabic as well as Hebrew. When
the Bible says Solomon had 7,000 wives it means he had tens, hundreds,
or thousands. Having 7,000 wives is not humanly possible. It simply
means "many". Likewise, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that
Judaism would split into 71 sects, Christianity into 72 sects and
Islam into 73 sects this is not a concrete number. We all know that
there are more than 73 sects in Islam. This is the use of general
enumeration to say that Judaism will split into many sects,
Christianity will split into many MORE sects, and Islam will split to
even more sects than that.
I hope rjaffer will seriously consider taking a class in Classical
Arabic. It would save us all a lot of time and trouble.
Now back to the Hadeeth's interpretation:
"Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, 'The Dajjal would be
followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls."
[Saheeh al-Muslim, 41:7034]
This MAY or MAY NOT be talking about a certain number of Shi`ites from
Iran. When dealing with prophecies we Muslims must say "Only Allah
knows". We may say, "such and such MAY mean this or that". However,
the uncanny applicability of this Hadeeth to the Shi`ites of Iran is
uncanny to say the least.
So based on this, lets look at the Hadeeth.
1) DAJJAAL: Antichrist
2) 70,000 JEWS: Many, many Jews from Isfahan.
Its interesting to note that the Shi`ites venerate the number 12 very
much. Based on their 12 Imams they compare this to the 12 tribes of
Israel. You will even find the Shi`ites trying to justify this using
the examples of the Bani Isra'eel in the Qur'an.
The sacred number of 12:
12 Imams.
12 Tribes of Israel.
12 Sons of Isaac.
12 Sons of Ishmael.
12 Sons of Jacob.
12 Pillars in Moses' Temple. etc.
Judaism's holy number is 12. I can write pages and pages from the Old
Testament about the Jews and the number 12.
This right here will show that the Shi`ite's emulation of the Jews is
not an allegation but a WANTON reference of their own. I have taken
this from the Shi`ite encyclopedia:
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1b/8.html
[begin quote]
"There is an interesting tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari as well as
Sahih Muslim, in which the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said the following:
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.422
Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "You will follow the ways of those nations who were
before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so
much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure (lizard), you
would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the
Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?"
As the above tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari confirms, the Prophet
stated that the history of the Children of Israel will be repeated for
Muslims. In fact, Quran has mentioned the stories of the Children of
Israel to give us a way to understand the true history of Islam
itself. There are many striking similarities in this regard written in
Quran including the similarities of the leaders and the similarities
of the people. I just mention few of them here. Allah, to whom belong
Might and Majesty, said:
"Surely Allah aforetime took a covenant from the Children of Israel
and We appointed twelve leaders among them" (Quran 5:12) "
[end quote]
The horrifying thing is that the author of this thinks that the
Prophet (peace be upon him) was saying that copying the Jews was a
good thing!!
Now sit back and watch the denials come rolling in from the Shi`ite
camp. I did this one time a few years ago and the page I quoted
vanished off the site mysteriously (sarcasm).
As we see, the fact that the Shi`ites are a Judaic emulatory movement
is not an allegation but something they themselves are PROUD of.
3) WEARING PERSIAN SHAWLS: Without even going into detail, I want the
readers to think about this one. Who in Iran wears black cloaks? If
you don't automatically imagine the Iranian Ayatollahs and scholars,
then you don't know Iran.
The Iranian `ulemaa' have been characterized in the "Islamic Republic
of Iran" to wear long black draping shawls. In case you haven't
watched CNN lately or need a memory refresher click here:
http://search.corbis.com/default.asp?i=10084142&vID=1&rID=101
And another...
http://www.viewimages.com/viewimage/?imageid=NM003993&partnerid=2&promotionid=1
Coincidence? Did the Prophet (peace be upon him) just HAPPEN to warn
about a type of Jew from from Isfahan who wore PERSIAN SHAWLS and
these people just HAPPENED to end up following Jewish traditions and
looking EXACTLY like the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned? You
decide...
There are definitely thousands and thousands of Shi`ite scholars in
Isfahan who would gladly take up arms against the Sunnis behind a
returned "Mahdi".
This rjaffer talks about Sunnis following Dajjal and Shining shins and
silly things like that. We are talking about Ahadeeth which LITERALLY
are coming true. Here is the scariest part of it all that proves many
Shi`ites will be duped into following Dajjaal:
"The Dajjal will emerge in a land in the east called Khorasan ..."
[Saheeh al-Muslim, 30:4072]
And the Shi`ites are waiting for Mahdi to come out of Khorasan. Forget
insipid talk about glowing shins, this is to the point and literal.
Now that I have addressed this I will address the rest in another
post. Its easier to digest all this information that way.
qizilbash
Wrong, I did not make any claims on Abu Bakr and Uthman.. In fact it
was Ayesha that made comments about Uthman and the moderators should
have done something about her and remove her name cause she said
nasty things..
:)
About Abu Bakr, I won't judge the man. God knows best. I don't know
too much about him. My gut feeling tells me that he was a good man.
God knows best. Except for the caliphate incident, I do not see any
other problems , but God knows best.
Uthman was an incompent and if it was not for Umar, he would not have
even dreamt about the caliphate.. Either way Uthman was killed by the
same companions that you hold dear and was cursed by Ayesha..
I did not say anything about Harzat Ali(AS) either, Iranians respect
Hazrat Ali(AS) and later on shi'ism which was originally an arab
movement, found its home in Iran, for various religious and national
reason. For example no one resisted the safavids when they tried to
make the country shi'ite, except a few sunni ulama. If Iran was strong
in its sunnism, it would not become a shi'ite country by a mere force of
5000 to 10000 people!
So Umar and muawiyah are the only ones. So your statement about
khulafaa ar-rashidoon is wrong, as I only made statements about one of
them.
We must remember one does not represent an all nor an all does repesent
a one.. Basically a difference between a universal and existential
quantifiers which anyone knows about.
Back to the matter at hand,
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:22:31 -0000, qizilbash <qizi...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >No iranian can praise someone that destroys villages, took young
girls
> >from their home and made them sex slaves, destroyed art and burned
> >libraries.. History has documented these criminals, who would be in
>
> If these practices of the first 3 Caliphs are so well documented, why
> have you not presented a shred of evidence?
Again, please do not put words in my mouth.. I did not say the first 3
caliphs. I am only sure about one. If I do research about the others,
perhaps some materials can be found as well.
The library burning of this criminal, Umar Khattab in Alexandria and
Persia has been well document and I'll go in more detail later..
Before going further, in Mongola ghenghis Khan is seen as a great heroe.
The same goes with for example Teymur Lang in Uzbekistan. So one
person's heroe could be another person's killer.. A more modern example
, Hitler is a heroe to some remnants of the Nazi movements, but he is a
killer to most of the world.. Or Ariel Sharon is a heroe to some jews
but he is a killer of 2000 palestinians..
So basically in this type of argument, which judges a person's character
one must have a definiton of a criminal or one could become ambigous.
By Criminal, I mean here a person that takes slaves, burns villages,
loots peoples lands and burns library.
In another culture, such a thing could be okay as long as it does not
happen to your people.. God knows best.
So basically it could be the case that one man's heroe(specially from
his own gang : Ahl-sunnah) is another mans criminal.
Let us see what this criminal Umar has to say. Unfortunately I do not
have the english version of history books with me, but I will translate
the persians with sources.. If anyone but Mr. Zaman is not convinced, I
will get the english versions from the Princeton Library when time
permits.
Narrated Abu Ja3far: "when Umar became the Caliph, he said: Now that god
has given us victory over other lands, it is not right for an arab to be
rulers over each other".
The History of Tabari, fourth volume, pg 1317
Translation of AbulQasem Payandeh, fifth edition, Asatir publications,
Tehran.
What the racist Umar is implying here is that Arabs should become the
rulers of other lands.. Just like foreign invaders.
I am sure Persians should thank Umar for imposing foreign rulers in
their land.. I hope the palestinians thank the israelis also.
I will only mention several instances as if I had to write all the
criminalities of this Umar, I would waste too much time.
Azarbaijan is a province from my dad is from. lets see what these
criminal arab invaders and Umar brought:
"The people of Azarbaijan, many times revolted against the Arabs, and
fought hard against the Arabs during the time of Umar. ... walid ibn
aqabah went to fight them and he took a lot of money and slaves from
this province"..
(Fotooh Al-baladaan, page 165, 166)
"The influx of Arabs in Iran resulted many times in taking the money,
the land of the village and farming people of Iran. Just like balazari
and ibn fiqiyeh narrated: "When the arabs came to Azarbaijan, the arabs
tribes from shaam(syria), kufeh, basraa were moved there, and each tribe
took whatever they desired"
(Mokhtaser al-baladaan, pg 126)
Imagine that!
These criminals come to your land, claiming that God gave them a right
to kick farming people of their land and take their money and women.
It makes you wonder if the israelis are also justified.. In fact
tommorow I will declare Mexico my land and kick everyone of their land,
take sex slaves and take over their farms and treat the people like
dirt!
Yes, Iranians again should follow Umar , thanks Umar..
not!
Due to lack of time and thanks to Mr. Zaman who said:
> Now I challenge you to produce even one sentence that can justify
> these utterly ahistorical falsehoods.
One sentence is all he asked for and there you have it. I thought I
would have to write book on these criminals(Muawiyah and Umar) and if
anyone but mr. Zaman is interested, I can give much more examples. I
will give a few more examples, but believe me, if I was payed for doing
this, I would produce more than 100.
>I challenge you to produce
> a shred of viable historical evidence that states that `Umar either:
>
> 1) "Destroyed villages"
> 2) "Took young girls from their homes and made them sex slaves"
"khaaled those those people as slaves and the muslims too all their land
and wealth".(Tabari) Of course we don't have to look further than Sudan
or Afghanistan in the early 20th century to see such examples in Sunni
Islam..Or perhaps go into the Harems of one of those lovely Sunni
Caliphs.
Asides from sex slaves.. The killer of Umar was a slave. God bless the
man. That is how you kill someone that takes another Human as slave.
Umar told him , what skills he has.
Pirooz said: I know how to built windmills. Umar said: Then go and
build winmills. Pirooz said: I will make a windmill that will rotate
till the end of time.. and then pirooz stabbed umar into pieces..
Thanks Pirooz , for teaching people how to deal with slave owners.
>
> 3) "Destroyed art and burned libraries"
Umar told his troops to destroy every painting because in their limited
mind, they thought some idiot was going to worship this!
In the book kashf al-zonoon(written by Haji khalifeh in the 1064 of
Hejra): "There is no need to repeat the stories how the Arabs took over
Iran and every book of Iranians that they found ttheir hands on , they
throw in the water or burned it.. "
In another part of the book : "The arabs wherever they were victorious,
burned the books of those places.."
Ibn Khaldoon: " So what happened to the sciences of the Persians when
omar took over Iran and commanded that the books be destroyed.."
Abul-al-faraj maaleti ibn ebri , in the book mokhtaser al-dowl talks
about the invasions of the arabs in Alexandria:
"Yahyaa geraamaatiki was alive at the time of omroo wa3aas(sorry as I do
not know how to prounouce his name) va3aas.. He was at the service of
Omroo va3aas at that time. Omroo, liked the pleasent philosophy that
Yaha was talking about and at that time the Arabs did not hear such a
philosophy. Omroo liked Yahya a lot and had him in his court. One day
Yahya told omroo: You(arabs) have conquered all the corners of
alexandriya and everything is under your control.. Of course anything
that is usefull to you, let it be in your hand but what ever is not
usefull , please let us keep it.. Omroo asked : "What things do you
need?" Yahya responded: " The books of wisdom that is in the kings
treasure room.." Omroo said: "I can't do anything without the
permission of the caliphate".. Then he wrote a letter to Umar and
relayed to him what Yahya had said. Umar in response to the letter
wrote: "If those books agree with the book of God, then we don't need
and if those books are opposite to what is in the book of God, then we
don't need it. so in both cases we don't need it. So please destroy
them.."
This is also mentioned in jorgi zeydan's the history of Islamic
Civlization.
Ibn Khaldoun: " It is said that, when Iran was conquered, a lot of books
fell in the hands of Arabs. Sa3d ibn abi waqas told Omar ibn Al-khataab
about the books and asked him permission to translate those books for
muslims.. Omar told him : throw those books in the water, since if they
have guidence, the book that God has sent has better guidance, and if
they have misguidance, then we will not be misguied.. and from that the
sciences of Iranians which was written in those books, did not reach our
hands.."
Also i can give historical examples(not just early arabs, but europeans,
mongols, romans) that at one time in history, it was the custom that
when you took over, you would destroy the other cultures books.. It is
the same as destroying their civilization..
Either way, some of the Abbassid caliphs, Seljuk, Samanian and Ghaznavid
Sultans must be praised for not destroying byzantium and Indian
libraries as well or else lots of knowledge to humanity for example the
decimal numbers would not have gone through..
thanks to the safavids, and some Uzbek kings, the art of painting was
brought back to Iran after several centuries of silence as well.
>
> You go on to state: "History has documented these criminals.."
>
>
> If you can't, then please state that you can't so that I can go on to
> produce historical documents which state `Umar did the OPPOSITE of
> what you allege. So don't take too long.
>
> Waiting...
Either way, I think I have shown enough proof for the reader, it is up
to the fair minded to decide. If anyone pays me some money to take off
>from my work, I will write a good book with many refrences. The above is
sufficent for now..
I am not going to try to prove to an Mongolian person that ghenghis was
bad.. I am sure they have their evidence. The same with Teymur lang,
which there is phony evidence in Sunni Books that he was a good person.
Nader Shah is seen as a good king among some muslims, but he butched
hindus left and right..
I am not also interested about hadeeths, as any hadeeths that praises
criminals is false..
I provided diffrent books(fotooh, tabari, mokhtaser, mokhtaser al-dowl,
ibn khaldoon..)
I short I believe I have established my point and believe me, I have
access to at least 100 sources about this criminal and another one named
muawiyah..
I think this was enough.
By the way don't give us that nonsense that if it wasn't for Umar we
would be worshipping the cross or the fire.. By this statement, which
you made in another thread you are saying that Islam can only be imposed
through force.. So you are downgrading Islam.
Furthermore worshipping a black rock, is no diffrent than worshipping a
cross or fire.. They are all symbols for God's, peculiar to a certain
culture. It is just an temporal thing that mecca contains a black rock,
depending on a diffrent culture, it could for example hold a white rock
or a tree. For example Moses bowed down the fire..but the fire was not
god, but a manifestation or symbol of God.. This story is mentioned in
the Quran..
Since Mr. Zaman has been giving biased views on Iran and it seems I am
the only Iranian that participates here, I will just try to give my
point of view.
Now I will describe too reasons why I feel sunnism is not compatible
with Iran.
1. No one likes a person that enslaves, destroys, burns libraries,
specially if their ancestors were the victims. It is a natural
reaction. We can't expect Palestinians to love the founders of the
state of Israel. And we can't except the serbs and albanians to love
the Ottomans or jews to love hitler...
2. Sunni Islam has not produced one notable mathematicians. In my
opinion this is because it is too rigid and you need some creativity to
become a mathematician.
In Mathematics, Iranian contributions are indeed exceptional. In
Algebra, Professor Aldo Mieli tells us that: "Al-Khwarazmi's
book on Algebra has not only created the term 'algebra', and given it
its actual meaning but has really inaugurated a new era in the science
of mathematics even if we find some fore-runners in this type of
calculation".
The late German Orientalist, Paul Luckey, tells us that Ghiyath-Oddin
Kashani in his book 'Miftah-ol-Hissab' (the key of arithmetic), defined
and used the decimal fractions 160 years before the Belgian
mathematician Simon Stevin published his book in 1585 A.D. discussing
the same notions.
In Trigonometry the contribution of Iranian mathematicians is
monumental. In fact they developed and perfected both the
Plane and the Spherical Trigonometry. Names of eminent Iranian
scientists such as Abolvafa (940 - 998 A.D.), Battani and Khawjeh Nassir
Tusi (1201 - 1273 A.D.) are quite conspicuous in this branch of science.
The latter's book "Treatise on Quadrilateral" is considered as one of
the most illuminating scientific books on spherical Trigonometry.
Ibn Khaldoun as well gives the credit for the glory of the Islamic
Civilization to iranians..All the mathematicians above, were either
Ismaiilis, shi'ites, or zoroastrians.. Even the ones that there could be
a case for their sunnism , only accepted it so that can pursue
knowledge.. For example khwarazmi is called "ibn majoosi", in some
literatures..
In Astronomy, Baron Carra de Vaux tells us that "whatever be the renown
of the Orientals such as philosophers, physicians and alchemists, one
can say that in no other branch of science, have they intermingled in
the intellectual life of the Occidentals as they have done in
astronomy". These scientists improved and perfected the Astronomical
instruments. They have made some new and improved methods and made many
new observations. They were keen researches who considered and
discussed theories proposed by their predecessors with a critical mind.
The science of astronomy was indeed enriched by their works. Walter
Fischel tells us that the calendar devised by the well-known Iranian
philosopher and mathematician of the 11th century A.D., Omar Khayyam,
may have been more accurate than the Gregorian one designed 5
centuries later.
It was through Tusi's effort that the building of an observatory as an
independent institution came to be recognized. The Observatories in
which the Danish and the German astronomers, Tycho Brahe and Johannes
Kepler worked in the 16th century A.D. were a direct continuation of the
Maragheh Observatory (in Northwestern Iran), built 3 centuries earlier.
It was through Khawjeh Nassir Tusi's effort and speculative insight that
the "Tusi Couple" was discovered. Tusi's revolutionary invention has
been the basis for all the computations made by Copernicus, Galileo and
other European Astronomers up to the advent of Kepler.
While the Sunni world was dead intellectually , Iranians created a
tremendous intellectual atmosphere during the safavid period as well and
western scholars use the term "renaisance" to describe it..So one
perhaps can argue that the reason for the intellectual atomosphere of
the Abbassids and the numerous scientist was because of Iranians.
Ibn Khaldoun himself who was a great arab sociologist agrees with this
view.
If Iranians were strong in their sunnism, a band of 10,000 qizilbash's
would not be able to convert a country of at least several million and
make it into 90% shi'ite
Either way, Sunni Islam is a good religion and works for some people,
but it is not compatible for Iran. Obviously it has worked for some
people in reaching God(like Ibn Arabi).
We can't praise caliphs that killed our people like Umar or Muawiyah..
Shi'ism is more natural in Iran, because Umar is despised for a
religious(for example not heeding the Prophets words on Ghadir Khumm
www.al-islam.org\ghadir) reasons. Shi'ism also is a religion more
concerned about justice, than conquering lands and spreading Islam by
sword point..
I can give more examples why it is more natural in Iran for any reader
that is interested.
> Shibli Zaman
> Shi...@Zaman.Net
> http://shibli.zaman.net
>
Best regards to everyone,
Qizilbash
qizilbash
In article <sv44fjp...@corp.supernews.com>,
Shibli Zaman <Shi...@Zaman.Net> wrote:
> Now we shall help rjaffer in his constant struggle with understanding
> simple matters. He is confused and voices his frustration in the
> following statement:
If the above is not an abusive language towards another user of SRI, I
am not sure what is. Why not just state your point instead of all this
personal attack?
>
> I think there is a reading problem here. The Hadeeth states:
>
> 1) 70,000 Jews
>
> 2) From ISFAHAN (NOT KHORASAN...areh baba...shaid maghzet najoor
> shud...Isfahan wa Khorasan yak cheez nest! ...areh? ;) Ee to Farsi
> mefama! wa Shia nest?! Ayyy toba!)
Yes Isfahan is not KhorAsan. But the moderatore should have access to
some translations. Mr. Shibli is saying : Shayad Maghezt najoor shud"
which literally means "Maybe your brain is messed up"..
Everyone makes mistakes and we should correct them, but not in this
manner.
But this is a mistake on the part of rjaffer. Judgding by the
prounounciation of his name jaffer, he is most likely from the
sub-continent, so he is excused for not knowing the difference between
the Persian province of Sepahaan and Khorasan.
Historically the Persian province of KhorAsan also contained most of
Afghanistan, parts of Uzbekistan and also Turkomanistan..
Now let us discuss the point of the topic alittle bit. Since it is a
hadeeth, its authencity is not 100% percent and doubt can always be put
on it.
>
> 3) Wearing PERSIAN SHAWLS
>
> Now I don't see how rjaffer got that the Hadeeth was saying all of
> Iran's population is 70,000 Jews who come from Khorasan.
I do not think rjaffer said such a thing. rjaffer explicitly said that
today's population of Iran is more than 61 million. Actually it is
between 65 -70 million range.
> But I hope
> now that I broke it down for him he understands.
moderator?
>
> There is a rule in Arabic (here we go again..teach him Arabic again)
> of "ta`addud al-`aam" which is "general enumeration". This general
> enumeration is based on the number 7 in Arabic as well as Hebrew. When
> the Bible says Solomon had 7,000 wives it means he had tens, hundreds,
> or thousands. Having 7,000 wives is not humanly possible.
Actually it is very possible to have 7000 wives. Sleeping with all of
them is also humanly possible. Just 25*365>7000, so just sleep with
each one from the age of 30 to 55, for almost every night.
> It simply
> means "many". Likewise, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that
> Judaism would split into 71 sects, Christianity into 72 sects and
> Islam into 73 sects this is not a concrete number. We all know that
> there are more than 73 sects in Islam. This is the use of general
> enumeration to say that Judaism will split into many sects,
> Christianity will split into many MORE sects, and Islam will split to
> even more sects than that.
Actually Christianity has more sects than Islam.
> I hope rjaffer will seriously consider taking a class in Classical
> Arabic. It would save us all a lot of time and trouble.
again, this sort of language is abusive.. If I say Omar was a criminal
and back it up with proof, that is not abusive.
>
> Now back to the Hadeeth's interpretation:
>
> "Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, 'The Dajjal would be
> followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls."
> [Saheeh al-Muslim, 41:7034]
>
> This MAY or MAY NOT be talking about a certain number of Shi`ites from
> Iran. When dealing with prophecies we Muslims must say "Only Allah
> knows".
That is good approach. The shi'ite approach I believe is the same.
>We may say, "such and such MAY mean this or that". However,
> the uncanny applicability of this Hadeeth to the Shi`ites of Iran is
> uncanny to say the least.
>
> So based on this, lets look at the Hadeeth.
>
> 1) DAJJAAL: Antichrist
>
> 2) 70,000 JEWS: Many, many Jews from Isfahan.
>
> Its interesting to note that the Shi`ites venerate the number 12 very
> much. Based on their 12 Imams they compare this to the 12 tribes of
> Israel. You will even find the Shi`ites trying to justify this using
> the examples of the Bani Isra'eel in the Qur'an.
Yes, but also they justify it by the 12 apostles of Jesus.
So does make them Christians.
>
> The sacred number of 12:
> 12 Imams.
> 12 Tribes of Israel.
> 12 Sons of Isaac.
> 12 Sons of Ishmael.
> 12 Sons of Jacob.
> 12 Pillars in Moses' Temple. etc.
>
> Judaism's holy number is 12. I can write pages and pages from the Old
> Testament about the Jews and the number 12.
Yes, 12 is also mentioned in Saheeh Bukhari. What is the point. So is
saheeh bukhari a jew or those that believe in the book "Bukhari", are
they jews?
>
> This right here will show that the Shi`ite's emulation of the Jews is
> not an allegation but a WANTON reference of their own.
These are such weak evidence.
First of all, assuming this hadeeth is correct(which is up in the air)
the Prophet specifically mentions jews. He could have mentioned
something : "A group that will claim to be my followers...", that would
be more factual.
>
> Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
>
> The Prophet said, "You will follow the ways of those nations who were
> before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so
> much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure (lizard), you
> would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the
> Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?"
Considering that shi'ite were always a minority and before the safavid
state, they probably made around 5% at best of all muslims in the world,
I guess this applies more to sunnis than shi'ites.
> As the above tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari confirms, the Prophet
> stated that the history of the Children of Israel will be repeated for
> Muslims.
He also states the history of Christians will be repeated, so that does
make shi'ites chritians? In fact , shi'ite believe that Hussain(AS)
sacrified himself for Islam and christians also believe Jesus(AS)
sacrificed himself for man kind..
Also sunnis believe in one god (so do shi'ites) , just like jews and
christians. Does that make sunnis jews or chritians..
your argument is very unsound.
>In fact, Quran has mentioned the stories of the Children of
> Israel to give us a way to understand the true history of Islam
> itself. There are many striking similarities in this regard written in
> Quran including the similarities of the leaders and the similarities
> of the people. I just mention few of them here. Allah, to whom belong
> Might and Majesty, said:
>
> "Surely Allah aforetime took a covenant from the Children of Israel
> and We appointed twelve leaders among them" (Quran 5:12) "
> [end quote]
>
> The horrifying thing is that the author of this thinks that the
> Prophet (peace be upon him) was saying that copying the Jews was a
> good thing!!
What do you mean by copying the jews.. are you copying the jews by
worshipping one god? Then you are doing a bad thing! Are you copying
the jews by believing moses(As)? then you are doing a bad thing!
Again, your arguments are vagues, and there are lots of counterexamples
for each one.
>
> Now sit back and watch the denials come rolling in from the Shi`ite
> camp. I did this one time a few years ago and the page I quoted
> vanished off the site mysteriously (sarcasm).
It must be fun talking to yourself.
>
> As we see, the fact that the Shi`ites are a Judaic emulatory movement
> is not an allegation but something they themselves are PROUD of.
All the examples above had a counterexamples..
>
> 3) WEARING PERSIAN SHAWLS: Without even going into detail, I want the
> readers to think about this one. Who in Iran wears black cloaks? If
> you don't automatically imagine the Iranian Ayatollahs and scholars,
> then you don't know Iran.
>
> The Iranian `ulemaa' have been characterized in the "Islamic Republic
> of Iran" to wear long black draping shawls. In case you haven't
> watched CNN lately or need a memory refresher click here:
>
> http://search.corbis.com/default.asp?i=10084142&vID=1&rID=101
>
> And another...
>
>
>http://www.viewimages.com/viewimage/?imageid=NM003993&partnerid=2&promo
>tionid=1
Thanks for the ugly pictures.
>
> Coincidence? Did the Prophet (peace be upon him) just HAPPEN to warn
> about a type of Jew from from Isfahan who wore PERSIAN SHAWLS and
> these people just HAPPENED to end up following Jewish traditions and
> looking EXACTLY like the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned? You
> decide...
Of course this is an interesting interpretations. But let us reflect on
some facts.. The Ulamas and Ayatollahs that control the government are
hated by the majority of Iranians . The Ayatollah and Ulamas contradict
at least two of the five basic pillars of shi'ism(Adl(justice) and
Imamat(leadership)).
In justice, they have one of the worst human rights records.
In leadership, the concept of velayate motlaqeh faqih(VMF), which means
the leadership of the supreme jurist contradicts shi'ite hadeeths that
Imam Mahdi(AS) is the leader of the muslim nations. In fact the VMF has
killed thousands of people(including many shi'ite Ulama).
Most of these Ulama's also were the black turban and are s called
"seyyeds".. although one can never be sure, except by oppressing
Iranians and their culture(their attempts to get rid of pre-islamic
architecture, art, literature and festivals), these guys are very
foreign..
Also some of the top leaders of the govenment like asgar-owlaadi, are
people with jewish background.
SO perhaps Mr. Zaman has a point , although linking Shi'ism with
Judaism, through a prophecy, was too much predicting and the counter
examples above were sufficient...
So in some aspects, if these guys were the followers of Dajjal, I would
not be suprised. And their linking to jews might be their exoteric and
narrow interpretation of the Quran..
While we are at prophecies, I have my hunch that the Taliban
leader(MULLAH OMAR), from KHorasan is the dajjal, because he has one
eye, he has as worst a human rights records as the Iranian regime, and
he is a lunatic.
> There are definitely thousands and thousands of Shi`ite scholars in
> Isfahan who would gladly take up arms against the Sunnis behind a
> returned "Mahdi".
Actually, these idiots would not be taking up arms against sunnis. They
have killed about 100,000 shi'ites since the begining of the revolution.
At most they have killed 1000 to 10000 sunnis..
Also if they would take arms against sunnis, they would not be so
anti-israeli, but would support israel in getting rid of the sunnis,
which clearly they do not.
>
> This rjaffer talks about Sunnis following Dajjal and Shining shins and
> silly things like that. We are talking about Ahadeeth which LITERALLY
> are coming true. Here is the scariest part of it all that proves many
> Shi`ites will be duped into following Dajjaal:
You sound like a christian trying to interpret the book of the
revolution, claiming the year 2000 is the end of the world..
These hadeeths, assuming they are correct, can be intrepreted in
thousands of ways, it is best to ask someone with spiritual knowledge on
what they mean, instead of gusessing.
>
> "The Dajjal will emerge in a land in the east called Khorasan ..."
> [Saheeh al-Muslim, 30:4072]
Mullah Omar fits perfectly, but God knows best.
Either way, the shi'ite Ulama in Iran, have destroyed shi'ism in Iran..
The population was much religious before the revolution.. Now if you go
to Iran , no one goes to mosques, according to the
governments statistics, 86% of people do not do their daily prayers..
In fact, the narrow minded "shi'ite" ulama have succeseeded in what no
one else can do, destroying shi'ism within Iran and killing close
to 100,000 people since the begining of the revolution and creating at
least 4 million refugees..
Most likely if Iran survives their cruel rule, shi'ism like sunni Islam
will be marginal.
Regards
qizilbash
Shibli Zaman <Shi...@Zaman.Net> wrote:
> >Furthermore:
>
> Oh gosh, there's more...
Dear reader , please read my previous response to this post under this
thread. Gosh though , there is more :)
The following hadeeths were found in the MSA sunni group of USC, under
the sunni translation of Bukhari. I was looking for information on
Persia and Persian. Some of the stuff is fun to read :)
The prophet(PBUH&HP) was a persian! My gosh:
"Narrated Abu Huraira:
Al-Hasan bin 'All took a date from the dates of the Sadaqa and put
it in his mouth. The Prophet said (to him) in
Persian, "Kakh, kakh! (i.e. Don't you know that we do not eat the
Sadaqa (i.e. what is given in charity) (charity is
the dirt of the people))."
:) Although I never heared such a phrase in Persian, I guess it is
either not there or it is out of the language..Perhaps Kakh has turned
into Akh, in persian today. Since Abu Huraira knew a word persian and so
did the Prophet, I guess they become automatically persian according to
Shibli's argumentation.
Here is a contradiction of the Quran.
"
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219:
Narrated Abu Bakra:
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I
heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet
heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter
of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said,
"Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."
"
How soon we forget the story of Makeda, the great Queen Shebaa(AS).
This (although there is many more examples) should be sufficient for
Bukhari not being saheeh. What else can we except when there are
illogical hadeeths that same most inhabitants of hell would be women..
I guess Islam's strong point(both sunni and shi'ite) was never women's
rights. Back to the topic.
In the previous post Shibli mentioned that Persia was not mentioned and
the word "qawm" did not mean the people of Persia. The following from
Saheeh muslim should clear things up.
"
Abu Huraira reported Allah's messenger(may peace be upon him) as
saying: If the din (religion) were at the pleiades, even then a
person from Persia would have taken hold of it, or one amongst the
Persian descent would have surely found it.
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter MLI, titled as:
The merit of the people of Persia, Tradition #6177
"
So Persia is clearly mentioned here and nothing of companions. So in
light of this hadeeth, it should be clear that by "his people", it is
meant the Persians. Ibn Khaldoun gives the credit of the Islamic
Civlization to Persians as well, and we can see that this hadeeth
actually did come true.
History is the best judge..
I challenge the reader to read the book, Hikmat Ishraaq and compare it
to the fairy tail hadeeths of bukhari and other hadeeths(some shii as
well) and see if Sohrovardi is the man or among those men, or is it
people that repeat and write things like muslim and bukhaari.
>From Saheeh Muslim, same as above and same website:
Book 031, Number 6177:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying: If the din were at the Pleiades, eventhen a person from Persia
would have taken hold of it, or one amongst the Persian descent would
have surely found it.
Book 031, Number 6178:
Abu Huraira reported: We were sitting in the company of Allah's
Apostle (may peace be upon him) that Sura al-Jumu'a was revealed to him
and when he recited (these words):" Other from amongst them who have not
yet joined them," a person amongst them (those who were sitting there)
said: Allah's Messenger! But Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him)
made no reply, until he questioned him once, twice or thrice. And there
was amongst us Salman the Persian. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be
upon him) placed his hand on Salman and then said: Even if faith were
near the Pleiades, a man from amongst these would surely find it.
It is interesting that the same hadeeth that is found in muslim is also
found in bukhari.. I guess logically that makes it stronger.
Best Regards to All.
qizilbash
> wa qawmuh, haatha wa qawmuh" which means "him and his people, him and
> his people" and mentions absolutely NOTHING about Persia.
It says his people. SO we can not rule out that it does not mention
anything indirectly about Persian. Persia is a land , so of course his
people are not a land. If you mean persians, then it does indirectly
refer persians.
Maybe this hadeeth will make it clearer.
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 6.420
Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were sitting with the Prophet Surat al-Jumu'a was revealed to
him, and when the Verse, "And He (Allah) has sent him (Muhammad) also
to other (Muslims).....' (62:3) was recited by the Prophet, I said,
"Who are they, O Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet did not reply till I
repeated my question thrice. At that time, Salman al-Farisi was with us.
So Allah's Apostle put his hand on Salman, saying, "Even if Faith were
at (the place of) Ath-Thuraiya (pleiades, the highest star), then some
men or man from these people (i.e. Salman's folk) would attain it."
Now I am using a sunni translation, so please do not tell us about
learning classical Arabic. I trust the translation more than your
knowledge of classic Arabic..
If Abu Hurairah was among those people, the Prophet would include him in
Salman's group and he did not. So Abu Hurairah is not from Salman's
people. Also if he was among those people, there is no need to repeat
things thrice!. There is nothing about companions in these verse..
Specially since it would be ambigious since some of the companions
fought against Ali(AS) who was always the truth. In fact some of them
fought against Salman in the civil wars..
> Another thing rjaffer might want to know is that Iran was Sunni for
> nearly 1000 years after Islam.
Iran was sunni until the 13th century. After the mongol invasion,
shi'ism and proto-shi'ite sufi hetero-orthodox sects grew as well.
So sunnism started to lose ground slowly.
>It became Shi`ite by forceful Safavid
> conversion in the 16th century.
Although we forget to mention that nobody resisted these bands of 5000
to 10000 Qizilbash's except a few sunni scholars.. If people in Iran
were strong in their sunnism, it would not have been this easy.
> `Abdullaah
> ibn Mubaarak, Imam Abu Haneefa, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, and many
> more scholars of the Sunnah were all from Persia.
Who are these names above? None of them have contributed anything
usefull. Let us talk about real scholars like Abu Ali Sina, Farabi,
Sistaani, Toosi, khwarazmi, Raazi the chemist, Mulla Sadra, Mir
Damaad..and of course the great Sohrovardi.. These were men of
knowledge.
Sohrovardi can put all ibn this and imam that in his pocket, for his
philosophy of illumination was something original and creative. None of
these guys haneefa, bukhari, muslim did something original.
Bukhari didn't do anything, he just wrote false hadeeths based on a
narration of a jew (abu Hurayrah) and Aisha.
>
> Also, another great figure was from Persia:
>
> "Abu Maymunah Salma, client of the people of Medina, stated: While I
> was sitting with Abu Hurayrah, a Persian woman came to him along with
> a son of hers. She had been divorced by her husband and they both
> claimed him.
>
> SHE SAID, 'ABU HURAYRAH,' SPEAKING TO HIM IN PERSIAN, my husband
> wishes to take my son away.
>
> ABU HURAYRAH SAID,'Cast lots for him', SAYING IT TO HER IN A FOREIGN
> LANGUAGE.."
> [Sunan Abi Dawud 12:2270]
>
> Yes, Abu Hurayrah was of Persian origin as well.
Now we are supposed to believe based on the Sunan of Abi Dawud that Abu
Hurayrah was a persian. Just because I can speak english or say "Ahlan
wa sahlan","shalom", it does not make me into an englishmen or an arab
or jew. Abu Hurayrah was a jew and not a persian most likely. What is
funny is that sunnism would not stand without this clever person. And
sunnism does not have any answer to claim credibility for this man.
Here is why..
>From the shi'ite encyclopedia:
"Do you know for how long Abu-Hurirah Has stayed with the Prophet?
The answer is found in the following sunni referances:
1. al-Milala wa al-Nihal, by iben al-Jawzia, Pub. Egypt.
2. Sirat iben Hisham, Pub. Egypt.
Abu-Hurirah became a moslem only two years before the Prophet (s.a.w)
died."
Narrators of Hadeeths from "Saheeh" Bukhari :
http://al-islam1.org/encyclopedia/chapter9/3.html
"-----------------------------------------------
Aisha the mother of faithful: 1250 (17.68%)
Abu Hurairah: 1100 (15.56%)
Ibn-Umar, son of Umar: 1100 (15.56%)
-----------------------------------------------
Anas-Ibn-Malik: 900 (12.73%)
Abdullah-Ibn-Abbas: 700 (9.9%)
-----------------------------------------------
Jobair-Ibn-Abdullah: 275 (3.89%)
Abu-Musa-Ashari: 165 (2.33%)
Abu-Said-Al-Khedri: 130 (1.84%)
-----------------------------------------------
Ali-Ibn-Abitaleeb: 79 (1.11%)
Umar-Ibn-Khattab: 50 (0.71%)
Umm Salamh: 48 (0.68%)
Abdullah-Ibn-Masud: 45 (0.64%)
Muawiyah-Ibn-Abusofyan: 10 (0.14%)
----------------------------------------------
Hasan-Ibn-Ali: 8 (0.11%)
Ali-Ibn-Husain: 6 (0.08%)
Husain-Ibn-Ali: 2 (0.03%)
"
So Ali(AS) that spent all his life with the prophet is to become so
marginal while Abu Hurayrah who converted to Islam after the battle of
Khaybar is made the foundation of the sunni religion. The other
foundation is Ayesha that fought against the Manifestaion of Truth,
Ali(AS).
Since the Quran is viewed through the narrow lense of Bukhari in the
sunni religion, this is another reason for Iranians to reject this
nonsense. Bukhari contains the same nonsenses as many shi'ite hadeeths.
But the shi'ite hadeeths are not given the title of saheeh and only 390
of Osool Kaafi is claimed saheeh by some shi'ite scholars.
>So I guess now
> rjaffer can apply this Hadeeth to Abu Hurayrah as well since the
> Prophet's (peace be upon him) words were "HIM AND HIS PEOPLE, HIM AND
> HIS PEOPLE". So if this means "Salman and the Persians" then this
> means "Salman, Abu Hurayrah, and the other Persians". I wonder if
> rjaffer is now ready to accept Abu Hurayrah and all of his Hadeeth.
nonsense. You did not provide any evidence that Abu Hurayrah is
persian. Speaking a word or too in Persian to your sex slave from War,
does not make you persian! What kind of persian name is Abu Hurayrah?
Salman Farsi is clear. For example his method of Khandagh makes him a
clear candidate. Plus history is still shrouded around this man Abu
Hurayrah. But there are more evidence suggesting he is a jew, since his
conversion is mentioned in Bukhari. "Abu Hurayrah came to the prophet
during the day of khaybar..." Bukhari 5.458..
It amazes me, that there is no fair minded sunni person asking why
Ali(AS) is marginilized and Abu Hurayrah is given such a big spot in the
most important work after the Quran for Sunni Islam.."Saheeh" Bukhari is
a direct work against Ali(AS).. It narrates more hadeeths from people
that fought Ali(AS), than Ali(AS), the master of all muslims.
Wasn't Ali(AS) superior to all the companions? Abu Bakr and Umar could
not open the gate of khaybar, but Ali(AS) did it all himself. Of course
faith has a direct impact on how muslims did in the early battles . The
incident of Khayar, around the time Abu Huraryah became a muslim, shows
clearly the superiority of Ali(AS) over Abu Bakr and Umar.
Amadeh shabeh zolmaani, raft rooze nooraani,
>
> Now for the REALLY FUNNY part:
The really funny parts is all the comical hadeeths narrated by Abu
Hurayrah and is called "saheeh".
> I've never actually seen such self-defeatism like this
> before.
Believe me buddy, your pride is going to bring you down. Your methods
of proving things has easy counter examples. If all your "refutations"
are like this, then they do not even deserve time.
>
> "Do not write these gharib ahadith because they are unacceptable, and
> most of them are weak."
> [as-San`ani 2:409]
I guess the self-deafitism comes to those that claim bukhari is
"saheeh"..
>
> I feel this is satisfactory enough to end this series of comical
> episodes based on rjaffer's satire. May Allah give him some reasonable
> acumen. Hopefully, his barrage will end soon (for his own good!),
> inshaa' Allah.
I think you are making fun of yourself by downgrading others. I think
it would be funny to cut and paste all such comical statements you make
when arguing.. IF it wasn't for such statements, you would make it
boring. Thanks for making it fun.
Regards to everyone
ps. I won't ask why there is more hadeeths from Muawiyah than
Hussain(AS).. let the fair minded person answer it to himself.
GF Haddad
> Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nisa'i, Ibn Majah, Ghazali, Abu
> Hanifa, al-Farabi and countless others of the sunni 'Ulama in the past
> have been persians.
You mean Nasa'i (from Nasa).
But Muslim was a Qurashi Arab, Abu Dawud was an Arab from the tribe of Azd,
al-Tirmidhi was a Sulami from the Arab Banu Sulaym, Ibn Majah was a Raba`i
>from the Arab tribe of Rabi`a ibn Nizar, and Abu Hanifa is Taymi, from the
Arab tribe of Taym although some said he was of Persian descent. As for `Abd
Allah ibn al-Mubarak (for Brother Shibli), he was of Turkish descent.
Brother Shibli: as for Abu Hurayra - radyAllahu `anh - even if he spoke
Persian (the Prophet (SAWS) himself sometimes used Persian expressions), he
was not a Persian but an (ummi) Yemeni nobleman from the tribe of Daws, and
the Prophet (SAWS) calls him al-ghulam al-dawsi in the Sahih. WAllahu a`lam.
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
www.sunnah.org
Catherine Hampton
line:
"Either way, as a Persian I would never accept Sunni islam, as its
caliph Umar, Muawiyah are just like hitler."
I missed that last comparison, and approved the post when I shouldn't
have. Comparisons to Hitler, except when discussing the NAZIs
themselves (and not someone whom you believe is acting just
like them) are generally considered blatant attempts to inflame
or insult. They don't belong in SRI. I apologize.
--
Catherine Hampton <sri-...@hrweb.org>
Interim Moderator, soc.religion.islam
qizilbash
Shibli Zaman <Shi...@Zaman.Net> wrote:
> He is confused and voices his frustration in the
"He doesn know classical arabic..", "now he is showing self-deafitism.."
, "he just blah blah...". It is good to stick to the point for the sake
of bandwidth.
Here I am going to bring a diffrent intrepretation of the hadeeth.. Like
Mr. Zaman's intrepretation it is in the ball park, but it is somewhat
closer to homebase and might be more convergent to the hadeeth.
>
> The Iranian `ulemaa' have been characterized in the "Islamic Republic
> of Iran" to wear long black draping shawls. In case you haven't
> watched CNN lately or need a memory refresher click here:
>
> http://search.corbis.com/default.asp?i=10084142&vID=1&rID=101
>
> And another...
Dear reader , please also check :
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/ra_wa/murder-w.htm
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/ra_wa/execute9.htm
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/ra_wa/2hang.htm
These shaul's are not any diffrent than the Persian shauls,. they are
worn by the Pushtun Taliban...
Given that these shaul's are worn by the Pashtun tribes, which has
subtribes claiming to be descendants of jews and have many practices
similar to jews. And also given the fact that the pashtun leader is mr.
Molla Ommar, a one-eyed person(just like a dajjal), responsible for
horrible crimes in the true nature of Sunni orthodoxy: And given hadeeth
that the Dajjal himself will come from KhorAsan(which covers the area of
Afghanistan, NE Iran, Tajikstan and parts of Turkomanistan+Uzbekistan)
and given the taliban's dismall record in human rights and their
destruction of non-sunni people in Afghanistan by methods of genocide,
we can paint a more clear picture as to who the prophet might be
referring to..
These people that represent sunni Islam like Taliban make the unsaintly
shi'ite mullahs of Iran look like saints. Either way, supposing that
Iran gets into a war with the US and is weakened to an extent that these
jewish afghan tribes take over Iran and its main cities, isfahan, tehran
like they did during the safavids, we have a possible scenario of the
hadeeth.
Now assuming the hadeeth is correct, the above scenario is closer to
reality than Mr. Zaman's claiming that a population of 60 million
shi'ites in Iran are followers of dajjal , when the hadeeth says 70,000
jews from Isfahan which makes less than 1% of the total population!
And it could very well be that the mullahs in Iran, who are disliked by
the people follow the taliban mollah, in the path of oppression, their
not that behind.
Of course to someone that believes that Khomeini is a Sikh(becase he was
born in India) and the flag of Iran resembles the signs of sikhism, any
weird twisted intrepretation of the hadeeth will make sense to them.
Regards
Shibli Zaman
Lets note something about this Hadeeth's narrator:
> Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 6.420
> Narrated Abu Huraira:
"Narrated Abu Huraira". EVERY SINGLE report of this Hadeeth from
Bukhari, Muslim and other sources is narrated by Abu Hurayra. If you
were from Texas and God's Messenger said people from Texas would be
good people, you would definitely brag about it. The ONLY narrator for
all the reports of this Hadeeth is Abu Hurayrah, the Persian.
"..she said: AbuHurayrah, speaking to him in Persian, my husband
wishes to take my son away. Abu Hurayrah said, 'Cast lots for him',
saying it to her in a foreign language."
[Sunan Abi Dawud, 12:2270]
As is obvious, Abu Hurayrah conducted an entire conversation with the
Persian woman in Farsi. This was the very reason that the woman
approached Abu Hurayrah is because she knew he was of her kind and
could communicate with her in her native tongue.
This is not speaking a "word or two" as qizilbash capriciously infers.
>So Allah's Apostle put his hand on Salman, saying, "Even if Faith were
>at (the place of) Ath-Thuraiya (pleiades, the highest star), then some
>men or man from these people (i.e. Salman's folk) would attain it."
I have already substantiated time and time again that the greatest
names in the history of the Ahl as-Sunnah came from Persia aside from
Abu Hurayrah, Salmaan al-Faarisi, and the Tabi`i `Abdullaah ibn
Mubaarak such as Imam Abu Haneefa, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim,
Persia was also the the first land the Muslims conquered. This Hadeeth
is a prophecy regarding the conquest of Persia and its uninimous
conversion from Zoroastrianism to Islam (something qizilbash seems to
be upset about).
When was did this Hadeeth occur? It occurred at the revelation of
Surat al-Jumu`ah at the verse:
"wa aakhareena min-hum lamma yalHaqoo bi-him; wa huwa-l `Azeezu-l
Hakeem." meaning,
"And He has sent him (The Prophet, peace be upon him) also to others
among them (Muslims) who have not yet joined them (but they will
come). And He (Allah) is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise."
[al-Qur'aan, Surat al-Jumu`ah 62:3]
At the specific reference to "..who have not yet joined him" the
Companions asked who this is talking about. Then the Prophet (peace be
upon him) placed his hand on Salmaan's back and said either,
"lanaalahu rijaalum-min haa'ulaa'" or "lanaalahu rajulum-min
haa'ulaa'" (the narrator says it may have been either). This basically
means either "some man from among these" or "some men from among
these".
PERSIANS FROM THE PROPHET'S COMPANIONS (peace be upon them)
- Abu `Uqbah who fought at Uhud:
"I was present at Uhud along with Allah's Messenger (peace be upon
him), and on smiting one of the polytheists I said, 'TAKE THIS FORM ME
WHO IS THE YOUNG PERSIAN!' Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) then
turned to me and said, 'Why did you not say: Take this from me who is
the young Ansari?
[Sunan Abi Dawud 41:5104]
-`Abdur-Rahman ibn Abi `Uqbah - the aforementioned's son.
- Abu Hurayrah:
"..she said: AbuHurayrah, speaking to him in Persian, my husband
wishes to take my son away. Abu Hurayrah said, 'Cast lots for him',
saying it to her in a foreign language."
[Sunan Abi Dawud, 12:2270]
- Salmaan al-Faarisi:
"Salmaan said, 'I am from Ram-Hurmuz (a Persian town)."
[Saheeh al-Bukhari 5:283]
Taabi`een (The Companion's students)
- `Abdullaah ibn Mubaarak (Tabi`i)
- Abus--Sa`ib, the slave of Hisham ibn Zuhra:
"(Abus-Sa`ib heard) Abu Hurayra say, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah
(peace be upon him) say, 'Whoever prays a prayer without reciting the
umm al-Qur'an in it, his prayer is aborted, it is aborted, it is
aborted, incomplete.' So I said, 'Abu Hurayra, sometimes I am behind
the imam.' He then pulled my forearm and said, 'Recite it to yourself,
O Persian.."
[Muwatta Imam Malik, 3:3.10.41]
These are just a few names of Persians who were either close
companions of the Prophet (peace be upon them), or children who lived
in companionship with the Prophet (peace be upon them), or students of
Abu Hurayrah. As we can see, Persians have always been around the
Prophet (peace be upon him) hundreds of years before Shi`ism as we
know it today even existed. The Prophet's (peace be upon him)
mentioning Persia has absolutely nothing to do with Shi`ism which
evolved hundreds of years later, nor does it have anything to do with
modern-day Iran which was Sunni up until the 16th century.
The first nation to be conquered and converted to Islam was Persia.
Another prophecy of this conquest of the fire-worshippers is as
follows:
"..You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it,
then you would attack Persia and He would make you to Conquer it."
[Saheeh al-Muslim 41:6930]
Zoroastrianism was completely extinguished and its remnants fled to
India and are to this day a minority of Gujurati merchants. Now we
have people like qizilbash reverting back to Zoroastrianism. It is
truly sad how nationalism and ethnocentrism can lead to such an ill
fate.
>If Abu Hurairah was among those people, the Prophet would include him in
>Salman's group and he did not. So Abu Hurairah is not from Salman's
In case you missed it, the very Hadeeth you quoted states at the
onset:
"Narrated Abu Huraira: WHILE WE WERE SITTING WITH THE PROPHET, Surat
Al-Jumu'a was revealed to him.."
Perhaps READING before cutting and pasting would be a better idea? A
whole lot of self-defeatism again. All I can say is, al-Hamdu lillaah.
I will address the rest of this pro-Iranian nationalist ethnocentric
propoganda nonsense in parts. Please stick to one subject per post.
Don't burden the readers.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
This one will be sadly lengthy due to the enormous amount of
fallacious information which qizilbash presents . Unfortunately,
qizilbash's knowledge is patchy at best. His mind holds a great deal
of information, but the tragedy is in that it is neither accurate nor
consistent. It is most probably the result of years of tea time
conversation amongst racist ethnocentric Iranians boasting about the
nobility of their heritage. This is a common practice amongst people
whose "present" is nothing to brag about. As we will see, each and
every one of his historical assertions is erroneous at best.
>> `Abdullaah
>> ibn Mubaarak, Imam Abu Haneefa, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, and many
>> more scholars of the Sunnah were all from Persia.
>
>Who are these names above? None of them have contributed anything
First of all, allow me to repeat the names above:
`Abdullaah ibn Mubarak - A student of the Companions and child
companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Imam Abu Haneefa - From Balkh, Persia which is modern day
Uzbek-Afghanistan. Student of Imam Ja`far aS-Saadiq, great-grandson of
the Prophet (peace be upon them) as well as numerous other Companions
and Tabi`een. His closeness to the family of the Prophet as well as
the Companions and their students (peace be upon them) led him to
develop the Islamic jurisprudence which nearly 75% of the world's
Sunni Muslims follow today, calling themselves "Hanafi".
Imam al-Bukhari - From Bukhara, Persia which is modern day Uzbekistan.
Compiler of the Sunnah which is adhered to strictly by 85-90% of the
world's nominally Muslim population as the most authentic source of
Prophetic traditions and history.
Imam al-Muslim - From Nayshapur, Persia. Student of Imam al-Bukhari
who further scrutinized the compilation of Imam al-Bukhari. His
collection is, likewise, adhered to strictly by 85-90% of the world's
nominally Muslim population as the most authentic source of Prophetic
traditions and history.
Every single person on this newsgroup, whether Shi`ite or Sunni, has
heard of every single one of these people.
>usefull. Let us talk about real scholars like Abu Ali Sina, Farabi,
>Sistaani, Toosi, khwarazmi, Raazi the chemist, Mulla Sadra, Mir
>Damaad..and of course the great Sohrovardi.. These were men of
>knowledge.
Aside from the fact that not one single person in this newsgroup
recognizes a single name you mentioned, you have mixed up names of
people who do NOT belong to the same group of individuals.
Abu `Ali al-Hussayn ibn-`Abdullaah ibn-Sina (aka "Avicenna") - Student
of Abur-RayHaan Muhammad ibn-Ahmad al-Biruni (aka "al-Biruni"). He was
born in modern-day Bukhara, Uzbekistan and died in Hamadan, Iran. The
funny thing is that this man had absolutely NOTHING to do with
religious scholarship. He was a scientist and mathematician. He wrote
450 works in his lifetime of which only 240 have survived. Not a
single one is about religion or religious history. If qizilbash tries
to state otherwise I would like him to quote from such non-existent
books. He was actually a rationalist and attempted to explain all
spiritual matters in a scientifically tangible manner. This earned him
the title of "kaafir" from Shi`ites and Sunnis alike. He was a of a
traditional Sunni background and him and his teacher courted and
favored the Sunni Afghan Ghaznavids whom they served. His
contemporaries were al-Buruni, al-Sijzi, al-Khwarezmi, al-Khujandi,
al-Khazin, and other famous Persians of nominally SUNNI background.
They were all scientists and none of these men had anything to do with
religious scholarship, nor claimed anything akin to that. If anyone
says otherwise I would request that they please present the title of a
SINGLE book that any of them has written on religious matters
pertaining to Shi`ism.
Abu NaSr Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ibn Uzalagh al-Farabi -
About him it is stated:
"..he was of Turkic origin. His father was probably the Turkish
bodyguard of the Caliph."
[Encyclopedia Brittanica, Referece Index IV, page 51, under
"al-Farabi"]
>From his parentage deduced from his name we find names such as
"Tarkhan" and "Uzulagh" both of which are Mongolo-Turkic.
So much for claiming him as an Iranian. One of his life's main focus
was the establishment of the "Ideal State" in which he deemed Shari`ah
to be the law and its ruler must be an intellectual. If no
intellectual was to be found then there must be a body of governing
intellectuals. This is all stated in his book "Ara Ahl al-Madeenatu-l
FaDeelah". He was also branded a "kaafir" by both Shi`tes and Sunnis
when he concluded that primal philosophy had priority over Divine
revelation and by this all religions are united. So much for him
representing Iran or Shi`ism. He died amongst the Hamdani Shi`ites in
Allepo, Syria.
Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn-Moosa al-Khwarizmi - He was born in Baghdad
and lived in the Caliphate of al-Ma`moon in the late 8th century. His
connection to Khwarezm is also suspect since al-Tabari records him as
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi and al-Majusi al-Qutrubbulli. The name
"al-Majoosi" denotes being of Zoroastrian background and
"al-Qurtubbulli" is a reference to a town in Northern Iraq. It is
possible that he was an Iraqi Kurd from a Zoroastrian family. There is
also evidence that he was of Jewish origin as well since he so closely
studied the Hebrew text "Mishnat ha Middot" on early Geometry from 150
AD. The title "al-Khwarezmi" could have been earned via later
migrations and/or travels. His deepest studies were in Euclid's
"Elements". Abu Ja`far al-Khwarezmi was a MATHEMITICIAN and the term
"algorithm" is named after him. If qizilbash or any other Iranian
wishes to state that he had anything to do with religion at all, let
him produce the title of a single book he had written having anything
to do with religion out of his hundreds of works.
When qizilbash says "Raazi" he is talking about either Fakhr ad-Deen
ar-Raazi, Tammam ar-Raazi, Ali Sa`eed ar-Raazi, Abu Haatim ar-Raazi,
and many others in history. Again, this is evidence of extremely
patchy historical knowledge.
I believe he is referring to Muhammad ibn `Umar ibn al-Hasan ibn
al-Husayn Abu `Abdullaah al-Quraishi al-Bakri at-Taymi at-Tabaristani
al-Shafi`i who was from Tabaristan which is in the Caucasian region of
modern day North Iran. AS is obvious from his name he was not only
Iranian but also a Sunni of the Shafi`ee mathhab. The work he is best
known for is "al-Tafseer al-Kabeer" meaning "The Great Exegesis".
I already addressed these Iranian Hindus named "Mulla Sadra" and "Mir
Damaad" last year:
http://x69.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=606566156&CONTEXT=972618790.714473499&hitnum=2
Here are some excerpts:
"Towards the end of his life, Mulla Sadra returned to Shiraz to teach.
His teachings, however, were suspect by the orthodox Muslim
theologians who considered him a heretic and persecuted him."
[Encyclopedia Britannica, Reference Index, vol. 7, page 91]
"This is strikingly reminiscent of the Mahayanist concept of
Bodhisattva. Mulla Sadra's philosophy is extolled by himself as 'the
sublime wisdom' (al-Hikmah al-Muta`aaliyah), the title of one of his
writings which cannot but recall the title of the Mahayanist Sutra,
"the perfection of wisdom" (Prajnpaparamita)."
[The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, page 286]
As I said this is an old argument resurrected. Sadly, it seems
qizilbash hasn't learned anything new in the past year.
>Sohrovardi can put all ibn this and imam that in his pocket, for his
>philosophy of illumination was something original and creative. None of
>these guys haneefa, bukhari, muslim did something original.
His name is Shahaabud-deen al-Sohravardi. He is a little known Iranian
Shi`ite philosopher and scientists (but significant to the world of
philosophy). For some odd reason qizilbash believes that this little
known man dwarfs the world's most influential scholars. Even the other
names he mentioned like al-Khwarezmi make Sohrevardi look extremely
small.
As I mentioned earlier, for some very strange reason, qizilbash enjoys
causing very long threads of ahistorical fallacious nonsense. He
revels in back-and-forth arguments no matter how badly he loses due to
his very limited knowledge of history. For a good example of this, do
a search on deja.com for "Shibli" and "qizilbash". You will see
several extremely long threads from last year. They are very, very
boring and mundane in their repetition. I refuse to entertain his
historical impedements every single year he gets free time and is
bored. Considering how thoroughly I have displayed his weak knowledge
in Iranian, Shi`ite or Islamic history, these posts will be my last to
him on these subjects.
Shibli Zaman
>>From the shi'ite encyclopedia:
>
>"Do you know for how long Abu-Hurirah Has stayed with the Prophet?
>
>The answer is found in the following sunni referances:
>
>1. al-Milala wa al-Nihal, by iben al-Jawzia, Pub. Egypt.
>2. Sirat iben Hisham, Pub. Egypt.
First of all, the following is an extremely dishonest and fallacious
approach:
>Abu-Hurirah became a moslem only two years before the Prophet (s.a.w)
>died."
Many of the Hadeeth that Abu Hurayrah narrates take place AFTER the
Prophet (peace be upon him) had already passed away. He lived for a
long time thereafter. So to apply the entirety of his narrations
within the two remaining years of the Prophet's (peace be upon him)
lifetime is wanton misrepresentation and a dishonest polemic.
Here are some narrations AFTER the death of the Prophet (peace be upon
him):
"(Abus-Sa`ib heard) Abu Hurayra say, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah
(peace be upon him) say, 'Whoever prays a prayer without reciting the
umm al-Qur'an in it, his prayer is aborted, it is aborted, it is
aborted, incomplete.' So I said, 'Abu Hurayra, sometimes I am behind
the imam.' He then pulled my forearm and said, 'Recite it to yourself,
O Persian.."
[Muwatta Imam Malik, 3:3.10.41]
"The Prophet used to perform I`tikaaf every year in the month of
RamaDaan for ten days, AND WHEN IT WAS THE YEAR OF HIS DEATH, he
stayed in Itikaf for twenty days."
[Narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Saheeh al-Bukhari 3:260]
Now to display whether these statistics elucidate a conspiracy or
utterly refute any such notion..
>Aisha the mother of faithful: 1250 (17.68%)
This is obvious as she was the Wife of the Prophet (peace be upon
him). Aside from spending day and night with him she lived for a very
long time after he passed away and witnessed the sucession of 5
Caliphs. For her to have narrated 1250 Hadeeth (most of which are
repeated numerous times) is a very SMALL number considering that she
lived with the Prophet for 9 years which is 3285 days. Out of those
1250 an average of repetition is 3 times, so approximately 500 of
those 1250 narrations are unique. This means that out of the 3285 days
that she lived with the Prophet (peace be upon him) only 500
narrations are mentioned in Bukhari. This is a VERY infinitesimal
number. This reality shows the weakness and deceptive nature of these
arguments.
>Abu Hurairah: 1100 (15.56%)
This is because he accepted Islam after the establishment of the
Islamic state, finality of the Shari`ah and its full implementation.
He lived in the Masjid alongside a pillar therein, and spent the
entirety of his time with the Prophet (peace be upon him). He lived on
for a long time after the Prophet (peace be upon him) passed away and
witnessed the succeeding Caliphate. Many of the Hadeeth are narrated
long after the Prophet (peace be upon him) had already passed away, so
the fraudulent attempt to calculate the number of Hadeeth he narrates
with the years he spent with the Prophet (peace be upon him) are
fallacious and dubious.
Abu Hurayrah's Hadeeth are the most authentic archaeologically as well
as historically. I would advise qizilbash to do a little research on
the Musannaf of `Abdur-Razzaq as well as the Sahifa of Hammam ibn
Munnabih both of which were recently discovered and dated to only 53
years after the Hajj. They both substantiate the veracity of Abu
Hurayrah and not a single one of the pro-Shi`ite fabrications are
found therein. These two codices have caused the Orientalists to turn
back on their heels and has stumped them to the point of admission
that the Sunnah IS INDEED a body of historically sound evidence.
The Musannaf of `Abd ar-Razzaq as-Sanani, which is now in printed
edition, was discussed by Harald Motzki in detail in, "The Musannaf of
`Abd ar-Razzaq as-Sanani As A Source of Authentic Ahadith of The First
Century A.H.", Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, Volume 50.
"While studying the Musannaf of `Abd ar-Razzaq, I came to the
conclusion that the theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht, and in
their footsteps, many others - myself included - which in general,
reject hadith literature as a historically reliable sources for the
first century AH, deprives the historical study of early Islam of an
important and a useful type of source."
Refer to M.S.M. Saifullah's copious research on the subject (may Allah
reward him). These establish Abu Hurayrah historically the MOST
authentic source of Prophetic narrations.
Now lets look at these inconclusive statistics:
>Ibn-Umar, son of Umar: 1100 (15.56%)
>-----------------------------------------------
>Anas-Ibn-Malik: 900 (12.73%)
>
>Abdullah-Ibn-Abbas: 700 (9.9%)
Was the a conspiracy to place Ibn `Abbas over `Ali? Was Ibn `Abbas a
co-conspirator against Ali? This is qizilbash's logic.
>Ali-Ibn-Abitaleeb: 79 (1.11%)
>
>Umar-Ibn-Khattab: 50 (0.71%)
Aah, but now we see Ali mentioned MORE than `Umar! What happened to
the pro-Caliphate/anti-Ali conspiracy? This daft logic is even more
sorely refuted by these statistics.
>Umm Salamh: 48 (0.68%)
And here we have a WIFE of the Prophet (peace be upon him them) quoted
even less than `Ali. Does this mean `Ali spent more time with the
Prophet (peace be upon him) than his own wife? Of course not.
>Abdullah-Ibn-Masud: 45 (0.64%)
>
>Muawiyah-Ibn-Abusofyan: 10 (0.14%)
And finally we have Mu`awiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan. What happened to the
anti-Ali conspiracy? Didn't `Ali and Mu`awiyah go to war? So why is
`Ali quoted more than Mu`awiyah? Is this now an anti-Mu`awiyah
conspiracy?!
>Hasan-Ibn-Ali: 8 (0.11%)
>
>Ali-Ibn-Husain: 6 (0.08%)
>
>Husain-Ibn-Ali: 2 (0.03%)
These were just babies in the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon
him). Aside from narrating about sitting in his lap and playing games
there is not much more they could relate due to their young age before
his (peace be upon him) death.
These statistics are as inconclusive as they are contradictory to the
point which is trying to be made. If the number of Hadeeths means that
there was a conspiracy to place one person in preference over another
than these statistics state that there was a conspiracy to place Ali
in preference over `Umar and Mu`awiyah, and a conspiracy to place ibn
`Abbas in preference over `Ali. This is ridiculous. Also note that the
names "Abu Bakr" and "`Uthmaan" are completely ABSENT. These
statistics only serve as a proof AGAINST the allegation that Bukhari
and Muslim were bias in their compilation. As anyone can see both
Imams simply collected what authentic narrations they came across. The
fact that there are so many quoted from Ali should actually be
surprising considering the political nature of the era and the
numerous fabrications that were circulating for and against him. This
also serves as a proof against this insipid theory.
Now for the next useless argument...
>does not make you persian! What kind of persian name is Abu Hurayrah?
Again, a sad display of qizilbash's willingness to argue matters he
knows nothing about. His name was originally "Abdush-Shams" meaning
"Servant of the Sun". The Prophet (peace be upon him) told him to
change his name to "`Abdur-RaHmaan" upon his conversion to Islam.
Later when the Prophet (peace be upon him) noticed how he cared for
kittens, he gave him the title "Abu Hurayrah" meaning "Father of the
Kitten". This is how he got the name "Abu Hurayrah". This was not his
actual name which was "`Abdur-Rahmaan".
>clear candidate. Plus history is still shrouded around this man Abu
>Hurayrah. But there are more evidence suggesting he is a jew, since his
>conversion is mentioned in Bukhari. "Abu Hurayrah came to the prophet
>during the day of khaybar..." Bukhari 5.458..
First of all the only thing shrouded is your access to historical
sources. I don't know if this is a limited or intentional access. Read
the following:
"Narrated Abu Hurayrah, 'WE witnessed (the battle of) Khaybar.."
[Saheeh al-Bukhari 5:515]
"Narrated Abu Hurayrah, 'WE witnessed along with Allah's Messenger,
the Khaibar (campaign).."
[Saheeh al-Bukhari 8:603]
Here the "WE" is the Muslim army fighting at Khaybar. Had Abu Hurayrah
been a Jew, "WE" would be the Jews and not the Muslims.
"Narrated Abu Hurayrah, 'WHEN WE CONQUERED KHAYBAR, we gained neither
gold nor silver as booty, but we gained cows, camels, goods and
gardens.."
[Saheeh al-Bukhari 5:541]
I am not sure if qizilbash knows or not but the MUSLIMS conquered
Khaybar and not the Jews. Abu Hurayrah was already a Muslim at this
time.
Also, about the Battle of Khaybar Abu Hurayrah states praises of Ali:
"Suhayl reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that Allah's
Messenger (peace be upon him) said on the Day of Khaybar, 'I shall
certainly give this standard in the hand of one who loves Allah and
His Messenger and Allah will grant victory at his hand.' Umar ibn
al-Khattab said, 'Never did I cherish for leadership but on that day.'
I came before him with the hope that I may be called for this, but
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) called `Ali ibn Abi Talib and he
conferred (this honour) upon him.."
[Saheeh al-Muslim 31:5917]
One is left to ask why, if there was some alleged anti-Ali conspiracy,
would Abu Hurayrah give such blatant praises to him? The reason is
obvious. Ali loved Abu Hurayrah as did the entire Muslim ummah.
>> I've never actually seen such self-defeatism like this
>> before.
>
>Believe me buddy, your pride is going to bring you down. Your methods
I have never heard anything so prepubescent and juvenile since I was
playing in the elementary school yards 20 years ago.
>ps. I won't ask why there is more hadeeths from Muawiyah than
>Hussain(AS).. let the fair minded person answer it to himself.
Mu`awiyah was the secretary of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and
carried his miswaak behind his ear, took notes for him, groomed his
hair, and medicinally drew his blood.
Imam Hussayn (peace be upon him) was a child when the Prophet (peace
be upon him) passed away.
I sincerely request qizilbash to study the elementary and basic
history of Islam as well as Iran and to please not engage in such
frivolous wastes of time again. The time he spent typing this nonsense
he could have been reading.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
http://shibli.zaman.net
GF Haddad
Some information about the issue from the hadith scholars:
Ibn Hajar said "it is established that the Dajjal will come out from the
East for sure, and one narration [from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq in Tirmidhi-hasan,
Ibn Majah, Ahmad, and al-Hakim] specifies from Khurasan, while another [in
Muslim] states Asbahan." Asbahan borders Khurasan.
Al-Mubarakfuri commented that Muslim's narration does not specify that the
Dajjal will come out from Asbahan but that "70,000 of the Jews of Asbahan
will be following him, wearing head-and-shoulder shawls (tayâlisa, sing.
taylasân)." The latter is narrated from Anas by Muslim and Ahmad, and from
`A'isha by Ahmad, Ibn Hibban, and Abu `Amr al-Dani in al-Fitan.
Another very long sahih narration in Ibn Majah and Sahih Ibn Khuzayma
specifies that the Dajjal will come out "from a crack (khilla) between Sham
and Iraq."
> Now let us discuss the point of the topic alittle bit. Since it is a
> hadeeth, its authencity is not 100% percent and doubt can always be put
> on it.
This is false. Technically speaking, mutawâtir hadith - i.e.
mass-transmitted - has the same 100% authenticity as the Holy Qur'an. To put
it in a different way: denial of a mutawâtir hadith is kufr, like denial of
one letter of the Qur'an.
> again, this sort of language is abusive.. If I say Omar was a criminal
> and back it up with proof, that is not abusive.
It is abusive of `Umar, of `Ali who made bay`a to him as well as all the
Muslims of that time [i.e. the best of the Umma], of the Prophet (SAWS) who
praised his integrity, and of Allah Most High who confirmed him in so many
instances in His Book.
> You sound like a christian trying to interpret the book of the
> revolution, claiming the year 2000 is the end of the world..
That's: Revelation.
GF Haddad
news:8t6hnj$b8m$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> What else can we except when there are
> illogical hadeeths that same most inhabitants of hell would be women..
If it were a question of logic, then there should be no doubt about it,
since most of the inhabitants of the earth are women also.
> I guess Islam's strong point(both sunni and shi'ite) was never women's
> rights.
The picture of the speaker becomes clearer...
> So Persia is clearly mentioned here and nothing of companions. So in
> light of this hadeeth, it should be clear that by "his people", it is
> meant the Persians. Ibn Khaldoun gives the credit of the Islamic
> Civlization to Persians as well, and we can see that this hadeeth
> actually did come true.
First of all, the Companion referred to in this hadith is Salman al-Farisi -
Allah be well-pleased with him. Second, Ibn Khaldun made big blunders in his
examples of "famous Persians" since he cited Arabs mostly, yet his mistake
is perpetuated to our time. Third, the later archetype of the Pleiades
hadith is not "Persian civilization" but Imam Abu Hanifa - Allah be
well-pleased with him.
> I challenge the reader to read the book, Hikmat Ishraaq and compare it
> to the fairy tail hadeeths of bukhari and other hadeeths(some shii as
> well) and see if Sohrovardi is the man or among those men, or is it
> people that repeat and write things like muslim and bukhaari.
Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi the magician? He was executed in Aleppo. He
considered that Prophetship is acquired, not bestowed. He was reported to
say: "I must possess the entire world" on the basis of seeing himself drink
the sea in a dream. Al-Amidi said: "I found him very learned but of little
intelligence." On the other hand, billions of people have relied and
continue to rely on Muslim [an Arab] and Bukhari.
Shibli Zaman
My Dearest Brother,
With all due respect, the Prophet (peace be upon him) used Ethiopic
expressions as well as Persian.
"I went to Allah's Apostle with my father and I was Nearing a yellow
shirt. Allah's Apostle said, 'Sanah, Sanah!' ('Abdullah, the narrator,
said that 'Sanah' meant 'good' in the Ethiopian language).."
[Saheeh al-Bukhari 4:305]
"al-Hasan inn `Ali took a date from the dates of the Sadaqah and put
it in his mouth. The Prophet said in Persian, "Kakh, kakh! (i.e. Don't
you know that we do not eat the Sadaqah)."
[Narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Saheeh al-Bukhari 4:306]
These are single word expressions which had found there way into the
Arabic vernacular of the time. This is much like Americans saying the
Spanish word "Adios" for "Goodbye". However, having an entire deep
conversation in another language is a completely different story.
"While I was sitting with Abu Hurayrah, a Persian woman came to him
along with a son of hers. She had been divorced by her husband and
they both claimed him. She said, 'Abu Hurayrah', speaking to him in
Persian, 'My husband wishes to take my son away.' Abu Hurayrah said,
'Cast lots for him', saying it to her in a foreign language..."
[Narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Sunan Abi Dawud 12:2270]
The Hadeeth goes on to narrate an in depth dispute which took place in
Farsi. This is more than using a foreign word or two.
Also, regarding the Imams which you stated were all Arabs, this is not
entirely accurate.
Imam Abu Dawud Sulaymaan as-Sijistani was more than likely a Persian
as his name denotes "Sijistaan" which is in Iran. There are reports
that he was born in Basra which to this day has a high population of
Iranian descendents. The Zahran in particular are a people who live
around Basra and are Persian as well as Arabic speaking. Abu Dawud may
or may not have been an Arab. His origins are ambiguous historically.
Regarding Imam Muslim I believe this may have been something you
misread. His name is actually Abu-l Hussayn al-Muslim ibn al-Hallaaj
al-QUSHAYRI and not "Qurayshi". He had no connection to the tribe of
Quraysh as he was born in Nayshapur, Iran (817 AD) and traveled widely
only to return to Iran and spend the end of his life there in
Nasrabad, Iran (875 AD).
One things that must be noted and is of great importance is the
culture of the tribal Arabs. We find figures in history who are
obviously non-Arab but have tribal epithets such as "al-Sulami". This
is because non-Arabs, even to this day amongst the tribals, are forced
to affiliate with a tribe for security in Arabia. This is the case in
Yemen and you can't travel freely there without affiliation to a
tribe. It is like this in all tribal societies such as Afghanistan.
Thus, someone whose name is "Tirmizi" after Tirmiz, Iran having the
tribal epithet "al-Sulami" is not unusual at all.
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) calls Abu Hurayrah, "Ghulam
ad-Dawsi" this means he is a persona grata for the tribe of ad-Daws.
Abu Hurayrah was also called a "Wabr", which I believe is a rodent, by
one of the sons of Sa`eed ibn al-`Aas at the battle of Khaybar while
they argued over the spoils of war. This is not the way one would
address a person who was originally of ad-Daws.
Allah knows best, and this is indeed a fascinating subject to study
and find more information about. I hope you don't mind this
clarification, as you do know I respect you and your knowledge very
much.
In the end none of this really matters. Its just interesting to know
if you ever engage in a game of "Islamic Trivial Pursuit". Whether
`Abdullaah ibn Mubaarak was a Turk or an Iranian is of no consequence.
He, like the others we have mentioned, were strong pillars of imaan
and taqwah and this is what they will carry with them on the Day of
Judgement, inshaa' Allah. May Allah make us and them among the
Prophet, his family, and his companions (peace be upon them).
Jazaakum Allaah khayr,
was-salaamu `alaykum wa raHmatullaahee wa barakaatuhu,
Shibli Zaman
information which is tragically founded on fairy tales and ahistorical
mythology.
On 25 Oct 2000 04:00:47 GMT, qizilbash <qizi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>If Iranians were strong in their sunnism, a band of 10,000 qizilbash's
>would not be able to convert a country of at least several million and
>make it into 90% shi'ite
This is an extremely erroneous claim which qizilbash repeats over and
over again throughout several of his painfully incognizable posts. Let
us see if it is based on fact or fiction:
These quotes are taken from Chapter 12 "Shah Isma'il and the
Establishment of Shi'ism" of "Medieval Persia: 1040-1797", by David
Morgan, Longman, New York, 1988, pages 112-123.
SHAH ISMA`IL OF THE SAFAVIDS
"Safawid rule over Persia is conventionally dated from Shah Isma'ils
capture of Tabriz.."
WHAT FUELED THE SAFAVID SHI`ISM TO BECOME SO VENEMOUS AND ANTI-SUNNI?
The Safavids were Turkish heretics from the mountains of Azerbaijan.
Their unorthodox Sufism led them to believe in an extreme form of
Shi`ism which sought the death and destruction of the majority Sunni
Muslims. This is the foundation for Iranian Shi`ism as we know it
today. What caused this Shi`ism to become so venemously anti-Sunni?
"Selim (16th century Sultan of the Ottoman Empire) first of all
inaugurated a savage repression of the Qizilbash, executing many and
deporting others. He then prepared to confront Shah Isma'il
directly...Nevertheless Isma'il chose to accept battle at Chaldiran,
AN ENCOUNTER WHICH WAS TO HAVE PERMANENT CONSEQUENCES BOTH FOR THE
FUTURE OF THE SAFAWID EMPIRE AND FOR THE POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE
MIDDLE EAST DOWN TO THE PRESENT DAY."
"The Ottoman victory was total. Shah Isma'il escaped from the field,
but his army was crushed and many of his highranking officers
killed..."
"...What, then, were the consequences of the battle of Chaldiran?"
"The second consequence, the one most frequently remarked on, is the
effect the defeat had on Shah Isma'il himself and on his status in the
eyes of his Qizilbash followers. We read that Ismal sank into a deep
depression, that he never smiled again...It is indeed true that he did
not, in the ten remaining years of his life, take the field again in
person, and this may be significant."
After this crushing defeat he swore an all out campaign of revenge
against the entire World of Sunni Muslims and cowardly never dared
face any Sunni armies on the field again. He had his Pagan butchers,
the Qizilbash do that in his stead.
WERE THE QIZILBASH EVEN MUSLIMS OR WERE THEY HERETICS TO BOTH SUNNIS
AND SHI`ITES?
I find it most interesting that anyone claiming to be Muslim would
find any pride whatsoever in the "Qizilbash". The fact is that these
wiley Turks were uneducated, incompassionate beasts who worshipped
their Kings. To say they were Muslims is a stretch not allowed by any
faculty of reason.
"So far as his (Shah Isma`il) status is concerned, belief among the
Qizilbash in the SHAH'S DIVINITY must certainly have been damaged by
the defeat: gods are not usually expected to lose battles, and
Chaldiran cost Isma'il his previously well-deserved reputation for
invincibility."
So this coward took his anger out on the peaceful and defenseless
population of Iran.
"The Safawid state established by Shah Isma'il relied on three
elements for the maintenance of its power. The first, without which
the Safawid family could never have seized control of Persia, was the
loyalty of the Qizilbash tribesmen to the shah in his capacity as head
of the Safawid order, descendant of 'Ali, EVEN A DIVINE BEING."
"The advent of the Safawid dynasty brought with it compulsory
conversion to Shi'ism. Why this should have been so is not immediately
obvious: THE FORM OF SHI`ISM (12 Imam Shi`ism) CHOSEN BY SHAH ISMA`IL
WAS NOT THE FAITH OF HIS QIZILBASH FOLLOWERS."
WAS IRAN CONVERTED TO SHI`ISM AT THE SWORD OR DID THE IRANIANS ACCEPT
SHI`ISM WILLINGLY?
Here we see the full fruition of something initiating the downfall of
the Muslim Ummah. In 16th century Iran, an entire population of
Muslims forcefully were converted to a dark and dreary religion
focusing on slaughters of the past and little hope for the future.
This "SAFAVID INQUISITION" is second only in tragedy to the "Spanish
Inquisition" in which the entirety of Muslim Spain was converted to
Catholocism by the sword. The ridiculous notion that the Safavid and
Qizilbash gangsters were only a few thousand is a claim made at the
cost of any single piece of historical information. Needless to say,
the Castillian forces who drove the final Spanish Caliph from Grenada
were far less in number than their Muslim populace. This did not
prevent them from slaughtering all the Muslims who did not choose to
live under Christianity.
"The Safawid state's third and most distinctive foundation was its new
official faith, the Twelver variety of Shi'ism...Everybody is now well
aware that late-twentieth-century Iran is a Shi'i country, AND FOR
THIS THE RELIGIOUS POLICY OF SHAH ISMA`IL IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE."
"THERE SEEMS NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE PERSIAN
PEOPLE IN 1501 ADHERED TO THE SUNNI BRANCH OF THE ISLAMIC FAITH. The
advent of the Safawid dynasty brought with it COMPULSORY CONVERSION TO
SHI`ISM...."
"But THERE WAS NO SHI`I RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT IN PERSIA on which
Shah Isma'il could call for assistance when, on taking possession of
Tabriz in 1501, he declared Twelver Shi'ism not only the official but
the COMPULSORY religion of his new empire. "
"THE SHAH IS SAID TO HAVE THREATENED THAT DEATH WOULD BE THE PENALTY
FOR ANY OPPOSITION TO HIS WISHES WITH RESPECT TO RELIGION. If anyone
had thought this an empty threat, they were soon to be disabused. AS
THE SAFAWID FORCES MARCHED ACROSS PERSIA, SHI`ISM WAS IMPOSED AT THE
POINT OF THE SWORD. Sunnis who were reluctant to see the error of
their ways were treated with great brutality. Many were executed."
WHO CHOSE TO ESCAPE DEATH AND BECOME SHI`ITE AND WHY?
The conversions to Shi`ism from their traditional school of the Sunnah
was done for only 2 reasons:
1) To save one's life, family and property
"If Shah Isma'il's motives are unlikely to have been 'secular', the
same may well not have been true of all those Persians who hastened to
declare their allegiance to the official faith. They had that most
powerful of motives, the wish to save their own lives and property."
2) Power hungry Mullahs.
"Before long we see the emergence of a class of what have been called
Persian 'clerical notables' - wealthy 'Ulama, originally Sunni, who
adhered to Shi'ism and rose to high rank in the new religious
establishment, holding positions as qadis and even the supreme
religious dignity, that of sadr."
The tradition exists today in Iran. The sooner these clerics are
exterminated, the sooner Iran can POSSIBLY begin its reformation
(Inshaa' Allah).
"But such opportunistic defectors from Sunnism, useful and indeed
essential as they were, could not provide the theological and legal
backbone for the new Shi'i establishment. NO ONE IN PERSIAN COULD DO
THIS. SHAH ISMA`IL HAD TO LOOK ELSEWHERE."
"At what stage the majority of the Persian people became actually, as
well as nominally, attached to the Shi'i version of their faith is
impossible to say without the ability to make windows into the souls
of men long dead. THE PROCESS WAS PROBABLY A SLOW ONE, AND WAS NEVER
TOTAL. SUNNI COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY AMONG SOME OF THE TRIBAL PEOPLES,
REMAIN IN PERSIA TO THE PRESENT DAY."
If anyone Iranian, Zoroastrian, Shi`ite, or any other, has any shred
of proof in opposition to what is clearly recorded in history, I would
be the first interested in reading it. There exists no such thing, no
matter how many tea time fairy tales about the supposed grandeur of
his ancestors qizilbash has heard.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
His stories get sillier and sillier...
On 29 Oct 2000 15:36:45 GMT, qizilbash <qizi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Given that these shaul's are worn by the Pashtun tribes, which has
>subtribes claiming to be descendants of jews and have many practices
>similar to jews. And also given the fact that the pashtun leader is mr.
I challenge qizilbash to present even one single sentence from a
reliable source of historical data that states that even one single
Pashtoon is of Jewish descent. Its a very easy challenge to meet if
you are telling the truth, isn't it?
>that the Dajjal himself will come from KhorAsan(which covers the area of
>Afghanistan, NE Iran, Tajikstan and parts of Turkomanistan+Uzbekistan)
This is an intentionally deceptive and incorrect definition of
historical "Khorasan". Notice how he sneakily bulks "Afghanistan" in
the middle of the rest.
The only parts of Afghanistan that can be historically attributed to
the land of "Khorasan" are the far Northwest regions of Herat,
Mazar-Shareef, and PARTS of Tajikstan.
The Pashtoon areas are SOUTHEAST Afghanistan and spread along the
Pakistan border. The Pashtoons have always been considered an INDIC
people historically. The Pashto language is VERY dissimilar from Farsi
and its grammar has closer ties with the Altaic linguistic group. It
has, however, been categorized as part of the Indo-European linguistic
group because of the inclusion of many Farsi words in its vocabulary
due to exposure. Its grammar structure is unlike any other
Indo-European or Iranian language.
For the last nail in this coffin of lies, let us see what is
documented about the populace of "Khorasan":
"Khorasan constaints many ethnic groups: Turkmen in the northwest;
Kurds around Bojnurd and Quchan; Timuris and Jamshidis (chahar Aimak)
in the East, some of whom are still nomadic; farther southwest are
Heydaris; and the southeast, Baluchis. The Kuhestan is people by a
people of old Iranian stock. Other groups include Berberis of Mongol
origin, Arabs, Gypsies, and some Jews."
[Encyclopedia Britannica, Rererence Index, Volume 5, page 793]
Where are the Pashtoons? Pashtoons are not and were never a part of
Khorasan. He knows this.
"In ancient times, Khorasan (Land of the Rising Sun) signified a vast
tract of country comprising lands within the U.S.S.R. and Afghanistan.
It was an integral part of the Achaemenid (559-330 BC) and Sasanid
(224-651 AD) Empires..."
[Encyclopedia Britannica, Rererence Index, Volume 5, page 793]
Neither of which ever covered the Pashtoon areas who historically
speaking may not have even EXISTED in this time period.
>shi'ite mullahs of Iran look like saints. Either way, supposing that
>Iran gets into a war with the US and is weakened to an extent that these
>jewish afghan tribes take over Iran and its main cities, isfahan, tehran
>like they did during the safavids, we have a possible scenario of the
>hadeeth.
This is a fairy tale the likes of which I have not even heard conjured
by the worst Opium trips of Edgar Allen Poe.
The likelihood of a US/Iran war are as likely as a Cuban/Mexican war.
The U.S. has already conquered Iran. His name is KHATAMI. Since the
initiation of his leadership US/Iranian ties have warmed up more than
any other region in the Middle East. Russia and Iran are even
cooperating on military and scientific technology. All while the
Iranians are crying foul, they are dealing with Russia quite cordially
as advisors and business partners while they are slaughtering the
Chechens.
Let us take a look at REALITY, after having heard qizilbash's jokes:
U.S., IRAN TO MAKE DIPLOMATIC CONTACT
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/15/us.iran/
"U.S. officials see Kharrazi's expected attendance at Friday's meeting
as a positive sign that Iran may be willing to respond to the Clinton
administration's call for a renewed dialogue between the two
countries."
"Albright will sit across the table from Iranian Foreign Minister
Kamal Kharrazi at the 5 p.m. meeting to discuss the Taliban, the
conservative Islamic movement that rules most of Afghanistan. The
nations attending the meeting, known as the "Six Plus-Two," also
include Afghanistan's neighbors - China, Pakistan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - and Russia."
"A U.S. official said the meeting is a 'second signal' from Iran's
supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, that Iran's Islamic
hard-liners approve of a gradual rapprochement.
The first signal was the visit a few weeks ago by the Iranian
parliamentary speaker to a New York meeting of Iranian-Americans,
which was attended by several U.S. officials and members of Congress.
Both the United States and Iran have taken tentative steps toward a
warming of relations since the election of President Mohammad Khatami
in 1997. Earlier this year, the United States lifted an embargo on
imports of some Iranian goods, and Albright delivered a speech calling
for a new relationship between the two countries."
Seems like Albright is earning a warm place in her heart for Iran and
we all know how loving Madelein Albright is towards Islam and Muslims
right? She just LOOOOVES us! (extreme sarcasm)
So according to qizilbash's theory, the Taliban are followers of
Dajjal, their leader is Dajjal, and Madelein Albright, the USA, Iran,
China, Russian, etc are all the champions of the Mahdi who are going
to save the day! (????) Does this sound like a corroboration of
nations for the Mahdi or for Dajjal. I'll let the readers think about
it. You don't have to be a genius to figure it out.
Also:
IRAN POLL SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR U.S. TIES
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/12/iran.usa.reut/
"TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- An opinion poll carried out by Iran's
culture ministry shows that only 8.1 percent of Iranians perceive the
United States as an enemy, newspapers reported on Tuesday."
"Contrary to the official no-compromise line pushed by establishment
hardliners, 55.7 percent said they wanted the restoration of full
diplomatic ties with the United States, the daily Entekhab said."
"But Iran's speaker of parliament, Mehdi Karroubi, who was recently in
New York for a world inter-parliamentary meeting, said he was told
that 77 percent of Americans believed that U.S. sanctions against Iran
should be lifted."
So qizilbash says there will be a US/Iran war. I think this is a
result of long periods of time spent in isolation from the world. Its
called "Internet Khulwa". It doesn't fill your heart with Noor if
thats any hint.
There are sources which allege that the Pashtoons MAY have been one of
the lost tribe of Israel. You know what this source is? The A&E
Channel's Zionist special: "In Search of the Lost Tribes" (laugh).
I hope qizilbash won't start quoting A&E now (though it would be a
step up from his current sources).
qizilbash
I do not like to repeat the same argument again , I believe the last one
was sufficient. But I will again dispute the claim that abu hurayrah
was persian.
>
> "..she said: AbuHurayrah, speaking to him in Persian, my husband
> wishes to take my son away. Abu Hurayrah said, 'Cast lots for him',
> saying it to her in a foreign language."
> [Sunan Abi Dawud, 12:2270]
>
> As is obvious, Abu Hurayrah conducted an entire conversation with the
> Persian woman in Farsi.
We are conducting an entire conversation in english. That is not a basis
for someone's ethncity. For example the Prophet even used Persian
phrases, that does not make him Persian either. So speaking, or knowing
a phrase in a certain language does not make that language your mother
tongue. This argument was present in more detail in my previous
response. This is not a proof at all and it would not pass for any sort
of proof.
> approached Abu Hurayrah is because she knew he was of her kind and
> could communicate with her in her native tongue.
She approached her perhaps because he knew persian, or it was reputed
that abu hurayrah knew persian. Again, this does not prove that abu
hurayrah was persian. For example Mr. Haddaad said he was yemenite. I
claim that he was a jew based on the timining of his conversion due to
Khaybar Ordeal.
>
> This is not speaking a "word or two" as qizilbash capriciously infers.
It doesn't matter. Speaking a word or two or speaking a sentence or
even writining a book does in a certain not make a person's mother
tongue that language. This method of proof is really weak.
>
>
>
> Persia was also the the first land the Muslims conquered. This Hadeeth
> is a prophecy regarding the conquest of Persia and its uninimous
> conversion from Zoroastrianism to Islam (something qizilbash seems to
> be upset about).
I am against the historical attrocities created by the invasion. I have
pointed that in the post about burning libraries, taking slaves... You
did not provide a response to that.
>
> "(Abus-Sa`ib heard) Abu Hurayra say, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah
> (peace be upon him) say, 'Whoever prays a prayer without reciting the
> umm al-Qur'an in it, his prayer is aborted, it is aborted, it is
> aborted, incomplete.' So I said, 'Abu Hurayra, sometimes I am behind
> the imam.' He then pulled my forearm and said, 'Recite it to yourself,
> O Persian.."
> [Muwatta Imam Malik, 3:3.10.41]
Again, this does not prove that abu hurayrah was persian. Making a
statement like "Recite it to yourself O persian.." is even a weaker
criterion. Because Abu Hurayrah is calling the other guy "O Persian",
perhaps indicating that he himself is not Persian.
>
>
> Zoroastrianism was completely extinguished and its remnants fled to
> India and are to this day a minority of Gujurati merchants. Now we
> have people like qizilbash reverting back to Zoroastrianism. It is
> truly sad how nationalism and ethnocentrism can lead to such an ill
> fate.
I am not Zoroastrian, so your claim is nonsense.
Zoroastrianism was the majority religion until the 9th century in many
areas, so it was not extinguished. Furthermore the remnants of
Zoroastrianism still exist in Persia, in cities like Yazd, Kermaan right
now, and even in Azarbaijan until the 19th century.
Also Zoroastrianism and its subsequent manicheism, has had major
influences in world religions. For example while the Quran mentions
praying three times a day, sunnis pray 5 times a day, which is what
zoroastrians did and do. Manicheism's influence on sufism can not be
dismissed either, but I will not go into details as this would be
getting off the topic..
Also most famous sufis like Rumi, Attar, Sanaii, Bayzid.. have used
zoroastrian symbols in their poetry. Zoroastrianism is a montheistic
religion and the Prophet also mentions that they are to be treated as
Ahl-i-Ketaab.
I do not think Zoroastrianism is dead at all, as Iranian culture is
based on Zoroastrianism. For example the shi'ite view of Imam
Hussain(AS) as a great martyr or the shi'ite view of Hazrat Ali(AS) as
the champion of Chivarly.. IN sunni Islam, Hazrat Ali(AS) is just a
companion lower in rank than the first three caliphs.. The reason for
the viewpoint can be found in the Pahlavani culture of Iran.
>
> "Narrated Abu Huraira: WHILE WE WERE SITTING WITH THE PROPHET, Surat
> Al-Jumu'a was revealed to him.."
I was refering to the fact that Abu Hurayrah was not among those people
that the prophet mentioned(the people of Persia that is). Because he
had to repeat it three times, until Salmaan came. If he was from
Persia, the prophet would not wait until Salmaan comes!
>
> Perhaps READING before cutting and pasting would be a better idea? A
> whole lot of self-defeatism again. All I can say is, al-Hamdu lillaah.
Perhaps , reading carefully would be a better idea, to see what the
other writes of SRI are saying.
>
> Don't burden the readers.
:) so far I have gotten several emails that people thanked for me for
explaining some stuff.
So please do not assume that you can speak for all the "readers"!
>
> Regards,
Same here, do not take it personally.
Regards
qizilbash
"GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> wrote:
> qizilbash <qizi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8t6hnj$b8m$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> If it were a question of logic, then there should be no doubt about
it,
> since most of the inhabitants of the earth are women also.
Dear readers,
This is not true. Specially right now also, we can check the stats of
populus countries : India, Indonesia, China and the ratio of men to
women is higher. See CIA world factbook. Also the hadeeths claimed 2/3
and ratio of men to women was not usually 2/3.
Also for the sake of brevity, I'll respond to some points you raised in
the other point.
> This is false. Technically speaking, mutawâtir hadith - i.e.
> mass-transmitted - has the same 100% authenticity as the Holy Qur'an.
Salaam,
No thanks. There is a lot of absurd hadeeth out there and the hadeeth
have been at least 4 generation after the prophet. See also my stats
about the narrators, like Abu Hurayra and Ayesha vs the number of
hadeeths recorded by Ali(AS).
>To put
> it in a different way: denial of a mutawâtir hadith is kufr, like
denial of
> one letter of the Qur'an.
That is not mentioned in the Quran. This is silly to thing to say. I
don't care if this scholar or that great scholar made such claim. God
in the Qur'an does not make such a claim. He saids follow the Prophets
example, but many those hadeeth in Bukhari are baseless.
> The picture of the speaker becomes clearer...
Thanks, I speak my opinion. I, as a shi'ite person claim that Sunni and
12 Imam Orthodox Shi'ite Islam fiqh and scholars, do not respect
women position for modern society. For example Fakhr raazi believed that
women were less intelligent than men.
>
> First of all, the Companion referred to in this hadith is Salman
al-Farisi -
> Allah be well-pleased with him. Second, Ibn Khaldun made big blunders
in his
> examples of "famous Persians" since he cited Arabs mostly, yet his
mistake
> is perpetuated to our time.
Ibn Khaldun, the greatest sociologer from the muslim world makes a
mistake and an unknown sociologist like Mr. GF Hadad claims that most of
those guys are arabs! There is a lot of books that mention
unfortunately the author of the saheeh sittah were persians.
>Third, the later archetype of the Pleiades
> hadith is not "Persian civilization" but Imam Abu Hanifa - Allah be
> well-pleased with him.
It's silly to say who is that person as this is just your guess.
"Hanafi taught us nothing about love, there is nothing in the records
of shafii either"(Rumi).
I can also make a claim is Shaikh Shahab-ad-din Sohrowardi was superior
to all your four Imams, 6 collectors put together. God knows best.
>
> Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi the magician?
>He was executed in Aleppo. He
> considered that Prophetship is acquired, not bestowed. He was reported
to
> say: "I must possess the entire world" on the basis of seeing himself
drink
> the sea in a dream.
> Al-Amidi said: "I found him very learned but of little
> intelligence."
He found him to be very learned but of little intelligence? Perhaps it
is a typo on your part. It's funny that a guy that claims to be a
follower of tassawuf, uses such quotes as above, but when the exoterict
say stuff like Hallaj says "Ana-al-.." or Bayzid bistaami said "Laysa.."
you guys are there vigorously saying that person X does not understand
their arguments.
Perhaps if person reads Suhrawardi's Hikmat Ishraaq, we could understand
something that we might feel was absurd before.
>On the other hand, billions of people have relied and
> continue to rely on Muslim [an Arab] and Bukhari.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible." Bertrand Russel
I disagree with muslim being an arab and I have sources that claim to be
a persian, but either way, it's silly to argue about it as he is not a
suhrawardi.
Here I'll quote it two more times, so that I have more written texts as
well so the moderator does not cut me off.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible." Bertrand Russel
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible." Bertrand Russel
Best Regards
qizilbash
> Pakistan border.
The pashtun peole have been spread towards all parts of Afghanistan, for
example kundoz is a majority pashtu province. We are not talking about
historical areas, but areas today in Afghanistan.
>
> There are sources which allege that the Pashtoons MAY have been one of
> the lost tribe of Israel. You know what this source is? The A&E
> Channel's Zionist special: "In Search of the Lost Tribes" (laugh).
>
> I hope qizilbash won't start quoting A&E now (though it would be a
> step up from his current sources).
No need to quote A&E sources. History books claim that the person
called Afghan(who was the father of pusthuns) was a jew. This is
mentioned in reputable historic books and I will get more information if
necessary. There is no doubt that some of pushtun subtribes of the
pushtun confederation are of jewish origin. THere is sasying in urdu
called "damagh gondeh" as well, although I am not sure how related this
is.
Furthermore, here are few more excerpts:
"Why do certain members of the Pathan tribe, many of whom belong to the
fundamentalist Muslim Taleban movement in Afganistan, call themselves
the "people of Moses"? Why do they light oil lamps on Friday nights, as
per the Jewish tradition, to ask God's forgiveness? "
" The other children of Moses
National Post
Isabel Vincent
Saturday, April 15, 2000"
Here is another link
http://www.moshiach.com/tribes/ns/3.html
and yet another one.
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/pashtuns.html
SO we are not just talking an A&E show. We are talking about historical
books!
"Tareekh-e-Sher Shahi states that Bakht Nasr who invaded Jerusalem and
destroyed it, expelled Jewish tribes, including sons of Afghan, from
their homeland. During the days of the Babylonian captivity when the
jews were scattered, one of the tribes settled in the Hari Rud area of
modern (south) Afghanistan. Pathan legend states that they accepted
Islam during the time of the Prophet when a group of their kinsmen
(Jews) living in Arabia sent word to them that the true Prophet of God
as prophesied in their scriptures had appeared in Mecca"
Let us see what jewls of knowledge mr. Zaman says about Iran:
">
> "Khorasan constaints many ethnic groups: Turkmen in the northwest;
> Kurds around Bojnurd and Quchan; Timuris and Jamshidis (chahar Aimak)
> in the East, some of whom are still nomadic; farther southwest are
> Heydaris; and the southeast, Baluchis. The Kuhestan is people by a
> people of old Iranian stock. Other groups include Berberis of Mongol
> origin, Arabs, Gypsies, and some Jews."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica, Rererence Index, Volume 5, page 793]"
Out of all the people in the world, I thought Mr. Zaman would know that
historical KhorAsan is not Iranian KhorAsan and the encyclopedia
Brittannica which Mr. Zaman uses often(also controlled by jews today) is
referring to modern Iran's province of KhorAsan.
> "In ancient times, Khorasan (Land of the Rising Sun) signified a vast
> tract of country comprising lands within the U.S.S.R. and Afghanistan.
> It was an integral part of the Achaemenid (559-330 BC) and Sasanid
> (224-651 AD) Empires..."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica, Rererence Index, Volume 5, page 793]
>
> Neither of which ever covered the Pashtoon areas who historically
> speaking may not have even EXISTED in this time period.
Today, they do cover the Pushtun tribe. Amir Rahmaan Khaan settled
Pushtun tribes around major cities in the North, and even a province
like Kundooz is majority pushtun and even Badakhshaan has a 5% pushtun
population.
We are talking about modern pushtuns in historical KhorAsan. This is
because the prophets hadeeths refer to historical KhorAsan. But the
hadeeths forcast the future, so we have to refer to jews in these areas.
We are not talking about a modern province in iran whose name was given
in the 19th century and which is only a portion of historical KhorAsan.
Also we are not talking about historical pushtun demography, but modern.
I think that should be enough about jews and KhorAsan.
Let us see what jewels this guy has to say about Iran and US!
This person is claiming the US has conquered Iran. This is funny while
Iran is under US sanctions. And while Iran, created the only force in
since the creation of zionism that was able to hurt zionism.
Here is another jewel from mr. Zaman, in our previous arguments. Just
search under "shibli and Hezbollah" in dejal. Lets see if he eats his
words. This was before the israeli pullout
" What on EARTH have Hezbollah achieved in the past 20 years other than
inistigating the Israeli's to annihilate
villages in Southern Lebanon? They have achieved NOTHING. Did you ever
study the case of the bomb
expert, Miqdad, who remains in Israeli custody to this day? Do you know
how he was busted? Israeli agents
within the ELITE of Hezbollah."
Yes my friend, eat your words and do not tell us Iran is the friend
of the US :)
No matter how much you try to extrapolate and makeup facts, it won't
hide reality.
As for the Russians, Iran views the Russian-Chechen conflict, as a
western ploy to secure the pipelines and make sure russia has no
influence in the caucus.. And this is the abstract and correct view.
It is the sunni wahabis and sufis fighting amongthemselves that brought
the death of Chechnya.. Furthermore, if the wahabis did not agress on
Daghestan, where the local people hated them, this would not have
happened..
The rest of the "Islam", "chechen", "russian" is just a cover, just like
"Islam" was used as a cover and propaged by the US in Afghanistan,
causing 3 million deaths(while the soviet collapse would have been
imminent and there was no need to destroy such a nation).. In fact
Afghanistan was 100x better under communism(no credit to communism, but
it shows you how Islam can be used as a tool to manipulate people's mind
to achieve the geopolitical interests of the super-powers..)
The afghans and chechens are more like chess pieces for the US and
Russians.. Iran will not get involved in these issues and does not have
the capability to get involved in these issues. Iran is not a major
player right now.
> "U.S. officials see Kharrazi's expected attendance at Friday's meeting
> as a positive sign that Iran may be willing to respond to the Clinton
> administration's call for a renewed dialogue between the two
> countries."
It won't happen , these are just words. As long as AIPAC is around,
Iran-US relationships will be on the ebb until Iran curbs the Hezbollah.
> Seems like Albright is earning a warm place in her heart for Iran and
> we all know how loving Madelein Albright is towards Islam and Muslims
> right? She just LOOOOVES us! (extreme sarcasm)
Yes and she loves the Hezbollah even more, for kidnapping the 4 jews..
What has sunni Islam ever done to curb Israel? Look at your leaders,
their the most ridicolous leaders for mankind..
Its funny, that the Iranian government and shi'ites constantly support
Palestinians while the arab sunni governments just don't care!
I have argued many times that it is based on Iran's interest not to get
involved in lebanon, because pan-islamism is not healthy for Iran as we
will be minorities in religion and culture.. But unfortunately the
mullahs who are the most unpopular people in Iran, don't hear this..
The reason I argue against pan-islamism is specifically because of
people like yourself.. I do not feel safe in an pan-islamic state and I
will do my best to educate others and prevent it.
Political Islam and pan-islamism has nothing good for shi'ites or
Iranians. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are perfect
example of what happens to shi'ites.
Either way, my argument has gone to deaf ears, because those in
power(who have the support of 5%) are not friends of Iran.
>
> So according to qizilbash's theory, the Taliban are followers of
> Dajjal, their leader is Dajjal,
> and Madelein Albright, the USA, Iran,
> China, Russian, etc are all the champions of the Mahdi who are going
> to save the day!
Please don't put words in my mouth. First eat your words above.
If Iran supports Hezbollah at the same time, it can't be the US's friend
due to AIPAC pressure. Hopefully , Iran's policy maker will be more
pragmatical thanks to people like yourself.
The one-eyed mullah omar, the dajjal .. his time will come to. The
Mahdi(AS) will make sushi out of the taleban, their jewish supporters
and the mullah's of Iran, inshallah.
qizilbash
> within the two remaining years of the Prophet's (peace be upon him)
> lifetime is wanton misrepresentation and a dishonest polemic.
But this man has narrated about at least 6000 hadeeths that are
diffrent. He spend two years with the prophet! That is about 9 hadeeths
per day for 730 days! It is up to the reader to decide.
In my opinion that is ridicolous.
>
> >Aisha the mother of faithful: 1250 (17.68%)
>
> This is obvious as she was the Wife of the Prophet (peace be upon
> him).
Let us not forget she was also the enemy of Hazrat Ali(AS) in the battle
of Camel. So why is Ali(AS) marginilized to such an extent against
Aisha?
> Aside from spending day and night with him she lived for a very
> long time after he passed away and witnessed the sucession of 5
> Caliphs.
So I thought the Prophet(PBUH&HP) spent most of his time with Abu
Hurayrah as you allege above! So now it becomes Aisha..
ived with the Prophet for 9 years which is 3285 days. Out of those
> 1250 an average of repetition is 3 times, so approximately 500 of
> those 1250 narrations are unique. This means that out of the 3285 days
> that she lived with the Prophet (peace be upon him) only 500
> narrations are mentioned in Bukhari.
Let us not forget about the other 5 "saheeh" books as well. Let us say
6 other Sunni books(not just the saheeh) have 500 hadeeth from Her. A
total of 3000. And we know that the prophet did not see her every day
as he had 14 wives total and 1000's of companions, it is impossible that
he spend all of his time with Abu Hurayrah or Aisha. So again the
figure of 1 hadeeth per day is absured in my opinion.
>
> >Abu Hurairah: 1100 (15.56%)
> He lived in the Masjid alongside a pillar therein, and spent the
> entirety of his time with the Prophet (peace be upon him).
I thought Aisha spend all the time with the prophet(day and night). So
since Aisha is not supposed to bee seen by Abu Hurairah, then both cases
can not be true! :)
> He lived on
> for a long time after the Prophet (peace be upon him) passed away and
> witnessed the succeeding Caliphate. Many of the Hadeeth are narrated
> long after the Prophet (peace be upon him) had already passed away, so
> the fraudulent attempt to calculate the number of Hadeeth he narrates
> with the years he spent with the Prophet (peace be upon him) are
> fallacious and dubious.
No they are not, because the hadeeths clearly say "Narrated Abu
Hurayrah.."
>
> Abu Hurayrah's Hadeeth are the most authentic archaeologically as well
> as historically. I would advise qizilbash to do a little research on
> the Musannaf of `Abdur-Razzaq as well as the Sahifa of Hammam ibn
> Munnabih both of which were recently discovered and dated to only 53
> years after the Hajj.
This is something new and I do not know too much about. But I doubt
they were discovered 53 years after the haaj! It is most like a hoax or
else it would have made wide headlines and I have not seen any of my
sunni friends talk about it.
Nevertheless, I won't count it out and will look into it if times
permits. Thanks for mentioning it.
>
> The Musannaf of `Abd ar-Razzaq as-Sanani, which is now in printed
> edition, was discussed by Harald Motzki in detail in, "The Musannaf of
> `Abd ar-Razzaq as-Sanani As A Source of Authentic Ahadith of The First
> Century A.H.", Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, Volume 50.
Thanks for the citation. Right now I can not comment on this.
>
> Refer to M.S.M. Saifullah's copious research on the subject (may Allah
> reward him). These establish Abu Hurayrah historically the MOST
> authentic source of Prophetic narrations.
thanks for the source. I can not accept this claim right now, until I
see it.
>
> >
> >Abdullah-Ibn-Abbas: 700 (9.9%)
>
> Was the a conspiracy to place Ibn `Abbas over `Ali? Was Ibn `Abbas a
> co-conspirator against Ali? This is qizilbash's logic.
Ibn Abbas was pretty much unbiased, so including him is not a big deal.
This has nothing to do with my point that Ali(AS) is marginilized
compared to Aisha and Abu Hurayrah.
>
> >Ali-Ibn-Abitaleeb: 79 (1.11%)
> >
> >Umar-Ibn-Khattab: 50 (0.71%)
>
> Aah, but now we see Ali mentioned MORE than `Umar! What happened to
> the pro-Caliphate/anti-Ali conspiracy? This daft logic is even more
> sorely refuted by these statistics.
This has nothing to do with my point that Ali(AS) is marginilized
compared to Aisha and Abu Hurayrah. Look at the statistics above, aisha
was an enemy of Ali(AS) and she has 17 times more hadeeths than
Ali(AS). So the bukhari in my opinion is invalid, because to be fair,
Hazrat Ali(AS) spent more time than Aisha and Abu Hurayrah combined with
the prophet. But Ali(AS) is given such an insignificant share, in the
sunni's most important book after the Quran.
> And here we have a WIFE of the Prophet (peace be upon him them) quoted
> even less than `Ali. Does this mean `Ali spent more time with the
> Prophet (peace be upon him) than his own wife? Of course not.
Extrapolating from my statement will not answer the question why is
there 17 times more hadeeths from Aisha than Ali(AS). Knowing that
aisha had a very grudge against Ali(AS) and lost in the battle of camel
as well, I take bukhari to be against Ali(AS).
The other narrators don't count, since the above example is sufficent to
make it against Ali(AS). Since we know that if we consider the time
spent with the Prophet, Ali(AS) has much more than Abu Hurayrah and
Aisha combined.
>
> >Abdullah-Ibn-Masud: 45 (0.64%)
> >
> >Muawiyah-Ibn-Abusofyan: 10 (0.14%)
>
> And finally we have Mu`awiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan. What happened to the
> anti-Ali conspiracy? Didn't `Ali and Mu`awiyah go to war? So why is
> `Ali quoted more than Mu`awiyah? Is this now an anti-Mu`awiyah
> conspiracy?!
>
The fact that such disgracefull people like muawiyah and abusofyaan who
did not spend a minute amount of time with the prophet are quoted is
sufficent to prove that Bukhari is against Ali(AS).
If we look at it in another way, we can see this:
Enemeis that fought against Ali or whom shi'ites believe were not pro
Ali(AS): around > 20%.
People that were Alids much less than 20%.
Ali=1% and Aisha=17%, Abuhurayrah=15%.
That is what I call a bias. I don't think all your extrapolating will
help either. Furthermore, Ali(AS) spent more than with the prophet than
Aisha+abuhurayrah combined!
> >Hasan-Ibn-Ali: 8 (0.11%)
> >
> >Ali-Ibn-Husain: 6 (0.08%)
> >
> >Husain-Ibn-Ali: 2 (0.03%)
>
> These were just babies in the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon
> him). Aside from narrating about sitting in his lap and playing games
> there is not much more they could relate due to their young age before
> his (peace be upon him) death.
A baby can be superior to a man. For example Jesus(AS) being a baby and
speaking and being intelligent at young age is mentioned in the Quran.
So again, this is not a proof.
If the number of Hadeeths means that
> there was a conspiracy to place one person in preference over another
> than these statistics state that there was a conspiracy to place Ali
> in preference over `Umar and Mu`awiyah, and a conspiracy to place ibn
> `Abbas in preference over `Ali.
Your way of extrapolating it is individually. Our way is that we sum up
the ProAlids and the anti-Alids. And we can see that the pro-alids are
not even given 1/10 of the share of the Anti-Alids.
This makes it a bias book, specially since the pro-Alids spent more
time with the prophet.
> names "Abu Bakr" and "`Uthmaan" are completely ABSENT.
Perhaps you were not able to see that the stats do not add up to a 100%.
This is to your benefit, as the pro-alid camp would have even been
given a less of the share! :)
>These
> statistics only serve as a proof AGAINST the allegation that Bukhari
> and Muslim were bias in their compilation.
Given the above argument, I do not think it is so easy for you to claim
as such. Its up to the reader.
> This was not his
> actual name which was "`Abdur-Rahmaan".
Again this is not a persian name. Salman Farsi is clear persian name.,
So name Abu Hurayrah does not give any indication of him being a
persian, in fact it is more likely an indication of an arab origin.
>
>
> "Narrated Abu Hurayrah, 'WE witnessed (the battle of) Khaybar.."
> [Saheeh al-Bukhari 5:515]
Exactly , so Abu Hurayrah came to the prophet(PBUH&HP) around the time
of Khaybar. This is exactly what the sunni sources above and the
bukhari hadeeths I mentoned said.
> Here the "WE" is the Muslim army fighting at Khaybar. Had Abu Hurayrah
> been a Jew, "WE" would be the Jews and not the Muslims.
Perhaps he converted at that time. Also witnessing a battle does not
give an indication of his religion. SInce he converted around that
time, he was most likely a jew who either converted before the battle or
after the battle or in the middle!
So this gives a more indication why we say he was jewish, because he
witnessed the battle and he converted at that time.
Of course Mr. Haddad says he was yemenite(I am not sure based on what
source) and you say he was a persian because he can speak some
sentences.
But our source is based on your own hadeeths. That :
A. Abu Hurayrah converted at the time of khaybar
B. He witnessed the battle.
I believe our proof has more weight.
> Abu Hurayrah was already a Muslim at this
> time.
You did not give any proof of this. while I mentioned hadeeths clearly
that says abu hurayrah converted at the time of khaybar!
> Also, about the Battle of Khaybar Abu Hurayrah states praises of Ali:
>
> "Suhayl reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that Allah's
> Messenger (peace be upon him) said on the Day of Khaybar, 'I shall
> certainly give this standard in the hand of one who loves Allah and
> His Messenger and Allah will grant victory at his hand.' Umar ibn
> al-Khattab said, 'Never did I cherish for leadership but on that day.'
> I came before him with the hope that I may be called for this, but
> Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) called `Ali ibn Abi Talib and he
> conferred (this honour) upon him.."
> [Saheeh al-Muslim 31:5917]
>
> One is left to ask why, if there was some alleged anti-Ali conspiracy,
> would Abu Hurayrah give such blatant praises to him? The reason is
> obvious. Ali loved Abu Hurayrah as did the entire Muslim ummah.
This is a historical incident that thousands of others have also
narrated. Plus we never claimed that Abu Hurayrah was against or for
Ali(AS). I specifically did not put him in the anti-alid camp above, so
your charge that I said abu hurayrah was against Ali(AS) is absurd.
Specially since, the history surrounding abu hurayrah is shrouded and
there are good articles on the rashad caliphate "submitter" sites on
this, but we'll leave it here. So the basis of bukhari is Abu Hurayrah
and Aisha in our opinion do not hold sufficient ground to be valid.
1. Aisha fought against Ali(AS), who is with the truth and superior to
all companions. I will not go into details of the superiority of Hazrat
Ali(AS), the person that is Mazhar Haq in the world, does not need my
complements.
2. Abu Hurayrah? Who is he?
I specifically mentioned that those that fought against Ali(AS) were
given much bigger share of Bukhari than those that fought for Ali(AS).
I did not think you addressed this argument, and extrapolating other
arguments while not discussing the specific issue at hand does not
constitude any sort of proof in favor of Bukhari.
> >ps. I won't ask why there is more hadeeths from Muawiyah than
> >Hussain(AS).. let the fair minded person answer it to himself.
>
> Mu`awiyah was the secretary of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and
> carried his miswaak behind his ear, took notes for him, groomed his
> hair, and medicinally drew his blood.
But Bukhari was collected much after Mu'awiyah and Hussain(AS). And also
the Prophet(PBUH&HP) spent more time with Hussain(AS) than mu'awiyah.
Even if Hossein(AS) was a child, so was Aisha! ("self deafitism"!)
Furthermore, Imam Hossein(AS) was not just any child. He was a holy
Imam(AS), whom like Jesus(AS) could understand important matters while
being a child.
In fact if you read a better book than Bukhari, for example tazakurat
al-awliyaa by Shaikh Attar, you will see that there is a lot of matters
mentioned about Hossein(AS) during the prophets time(for example on
wudhu..).
Conclusion: my claim against Bukhari still stands. The reason being
that hadeeth narrated by the friends of Ali(AS) is not 1/10 of the share
of the hadeeths done by the enemies of Ali(AS). I do not think anyone
addressed this argument, and you can't address this argument this is not
a proposition, it is fundamental nature of Bukhari itself.
Also we did not mention zubayr, talha, uthman , abubakr as most people
should have been able to see the percent above does not sum to a 100%.
Best of Regards
qizilbash
I made the statement: "If Iranians were strong in their sunnism, a band
of 10,000 qizilbash's would not be able to convert a country of at least
several million and make it into 90% shi'ite"
Shah Ismaiil, whom I admire for his poetry was able to conquer Iran
initially with 5,000 qizilbash men. He was a great leader and God bless
him. He founded the safavid dynasty and spread shi'ism. No one
resisted his spreading of shi'ism.
In article <8tivff$o10$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
>The ridiculous notion that the Safavid and
> Qizilbash gangsters were only a few thousand is a claim made at the
> cost of any single piece of historical information.
Every book on Safavid mentions that Shah Ismaiil fought his first battle
with 5000 men without armor, against 20,000 men of the black sheeps.
See "shi'ite Islam" by Moojaan Momen, "SHah Ismaiil, Rahbar Sorkh
Kholahaan", Roger Savory's books on safavids..This was the first famous
battle were the 13 year old Ismaiil became victorious.
This is basic historical knowledge.
I will cut out any unrelated comments to my statement above and will see
if mr. zaman address my point. I am not interested in spain or
chaldaraan.
I have already answered the nonsense he writes about the great safavid
dynasties and there is no need to repeat them here.
Please do a search under "Qizilbash and shibli".
So I will do my best to address the above point only.
>
> "THERE SEEMS NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE PERSIAN
> PEOPLE IN 1501 ADHERED TO THE SUNNI BRANCH OF THE ISLAMIC FAITH. The
> advent of the Safawid dynasty brought with it COMPULSORY CONVERSION TO
> SHI`ISM...."
As I said, if Iranians were strong in their sunnism they would have
resisted.. Look at alem araayeh Safavi, or any books written by
Historians. Almost no-one resisted the safavid invasion and died for
their faith, except some high shafi'ite clergy in Shiraaz.
Furthermore, when Afghans took Iran for a while or the Ottomans took
over Azarbaijan, no one converted back to sunnism.
>
> "THE SHAH IS SAID TO HAVE THREATENED THAT DEATH WOULD BE THE PENALTY
> FOR ANY OPPOSITION TO HIS WISHES WITH RESPECT TO RELIGION. If anyone
> had thought this an empty threat, they were soon to be disabused. AS
> THE SAFAWID FORCES MARCHED ACROSS PERSIA, SHI`ISM WAS IMPOSED AT THE
> POINT OF THE SWORD. Sunnis who were reluctant to see the error of
> their ways were treated with great brutality. Many were executed."
>
> WHO CHOSE TO ESCAPE DEATH AND BECOME SHI`ITE AND WHY?
>
> The conversions to Shi`ism from their traditional school of the Sunnah
> was done for only 2 reasons:
>
> 1) To save one's life, family and property
Exactly, if shi'ites were such a minority(even less than 5%) , and
Iranians were strong in their sunnism, they would have rather died for
it. But no history book mentions any great massacares that took place
among's Iran's populus. In fact the Iranian population saw this
oppurtinity to re-establish themselves as the distinct people that they
were.
>
> 2) Power hungry Mullahs.
Again Mr. Zaman makes a historical mistake.
> "Before long we see the emergence of a class of what have been called
> Persian 'clerical notables' - wealthy 'Ulama, originally Sunni, who
> adhered to Shi'ism and rose to high rank in the new religious
> establishment, holding positions as qadis and even the supreme
> religious dignity, that of sadr."
Actually at the time of Shah Ismaiil, there not that many shi'ite
Mullahs. The most important mullahs were imported from Lebanon and
Bahrain. The only high ranking mullah during shah ismaiil's time was
moqaddas ardabili(see Qiyaam shah ismaiil, rahavard, by R.N Bostan), who
followed him everywhere to convert people to shi'ism.
> The tradition exists today in Iran. The sooner these clerics are
> exterminated, the sooner Iran can POSSIBLY begin its reformation
> (Inshaa' Allah).
Inshallah.. But the class of clergy was created in the last 300 years
and they are responsible for crashing the safavid state and are almost
crashing Iran. The problem of mullahism is a cancer to our society and
we are doing our best to remove it. In the future I look for a secular
Iran, streching from Kurdistan to Bukhara where everyone including
Sunnis can be Iranians first.
Pan-Islamism is dead though as a political tool.. It died with the
Ottoman caliphate and sunni political theory of caliphate went dead with
it as well. And also created contradictions within sunni political
theory. Iranians are fed up with the mullah garbage, and trust me, the
mullah garbage of the taliban are even worst :)
Religion in the future won't be so dogmatic as the people of SRI. :)
Back to the point:
> "But such opportunistic defectors from Sunnism, useful and indeed
> essential as they were, could not provide the theological and legal
> backbone for the new Shi'i establishment. NO ONE IN PERSIAN COULD DO
> THIS. SHAH ISMA`IL HAD TO LOOK ELSEWHERE."
So you contradict that high ranking sunni ulamas becoming shi'ites.
Either way,
>
> "At what stage the majority of the Persian people became actually, as
> well as nominally, attached to the Shi'i version of their faith is
> impossible to say without the ability to make windows into the souls
> of men long dead. THE PROCESS WAS PROBABLY A SLOW ONE, AND WAS NEVER
> TOTAL. SUNNI COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY AMONG SOME OF THE TRIBAL PEOPLES,
> REMAIN IN PERSIA TO THE PRESENT DAY."
No one disputed this either. I have many evidence to prove that
Iranians were not strong in their sunnism and for the most part at least
(98%) of the people did not resist the conversion to shi'ism. A force
of initial 7, then 3000 and then 5000 men took over all of Azarbaijan.
More people joined and all of Iran was taken.
As for tribal people, the turkmen are arrivals from communist invasions
of Russia. The kurds wre mostly followers of the cult of angels before
the 20th century(see Izadi, Kurds concise handbook). The baluchis who
number about a million are manily sunnis, although a sect called
"zikris" is a branch of the same faith as that of safavids.
The arab tribes are mainly shi'ite like their ancestors in the area and
southern Iraq.
Shaikh Safi Ad-din Ardabili , may god bless his soul said :.."I had a
dream that one of my descendants will convert the people of Iran to
shi'ism.." This is mentioned before the time of Shah Ismaiil.
It was a great blessing, else Iran would have been another Ottoman
colony.
>
> If anyone Iranian, Zoroastrian, Shi`ite, or any other, has any shred
> of proof in opposition to what is clearly recorded in history, I would
> be the first interested in reading it. There exists no such thing,
except for the contradiction on Ulamas above, your facts were correct
and I do not deny the truth. But you did not address my statement:
Actually it was 5000 qizilbash's according to Momen whom started to join
the 13 year old sufi master Ismaiil.. And they made less than 5% of
the population. Actually I have seen some sources say that 12 Imam
shi'ites made only 2% of the population at best.(there was zaydis and
ismaiilis as well)
Iran was dead after the mongol invasion and thanks to the safavids it
was rewakened and a great intellectual renaisance took place. The
amount of good books written during the times of safavids on various
subjects is really amazing. Ask any orientalist and you would not find
someone like Mulla Sadra, Shaikh Bahai, Mir Damad, Mulla Hadi Sabzvari
in the Sunni World,
The young 14 year old king of Persia, the great sufi master Shah Ismaiil
was a rarity amongst mankind and his act was a miracle comparable to the
battles of early muslims. He was outnumbered many times 4 to 1 and was
able to win.
In the time of Shah Abbas the great, Iran had more intellectuals,
philosophers and mystics than any other time in its history.
I have given reasons for conversions to shi'ism:
1. Many people had sufi leanings which makes it easy to convert to
shi'ism, since Ali(AS) is the leader of all sufi orders. Even the
Naqshbandi's in iran, claimed their order from AlI(AS).
See for example, Shaikh Abdul Rahman Jami's works, who was the leader of
the Naqshbandis of KhurAsan at the time right before the safavids.
2. Many people were weak in their sunnism
3. Iran was a hotbed for "extremist" movements after the mongols and
such beliefs started to spread among farmers.
4. It was a great oppurtinity for us to be seperated from the
coloniolism of foreigners.
5. Shi'ism is closer to the Iranian soul.(see Nasr's article on this
specific matter, sunnism and shi'ism)
6. Historical crimes by Muawiyah, and Umar were not anymore justified
by religion.
For example, on number 5, we have to look into zoroastrian sedentary
culture.
Either way, I do not think Mr. Zaman addressed :
"If Iranians were strong in their sunnism, a band of 10,000 qizilbash's
would not be able to convert a country of at least several million and
make it into 90% shi'ite"
A faith not worth dying for is fake.
By the way , how come we don't mention the ottoman and uzbek pogroms
on shi'ites and alavites while discussing the safavids. These two
things are related and the cruetly of the ottoman and ubzeks is ever
greater.
Then again, I don't expect bias people to look at everything.
God bless shaikh safi ad-din ardabili.
Regards to all.
qizilbash
The following post can be summarized in this way. The post was an
opinion on who is the prophet(PBUH&HP) referring to when he says if
faith was in Thuraya, a Persian or people from the Persian would surely
find it. THe word faith=Imaan does not necessarily mean Fiqh and
hadeeth writes. Infact writing books on Fiqh or Hadeeth does not show a
person's Imaan. A Person's Imaan is shown by the spiritual
contributions they can make to mankind.
My personal belief is that science requires it's own faith(Iman) and I
was intrepreting this hadeeth to mean some of the great person
mathematicians and scientist. I consider the science of mathematics in
very high esteem and higher than fiqh and hadeeth sciences. In fact
only second to the science of spirituality. This is my view and that is
how , partly , I intrepreted the hadeeth.
I also intrepreted this hadeeth to mean Men that have created and helped
out others in the spiritual domain. Men that have become Insaan
al-kaamil.
Such a man was Shaikh Shihab al-din Abu al-futuh Yahya ibn Habash ibn
Amirak al-Suhrawardi. Ironically this man was killed on the grounds of
being a batini although he was born into the shafii fiqh..
"The lighs of realities shone from the all-highest spot with the
manifestation of our master. He is the king of reality and the guide on
the path, the place where subtle truths become evident, the source of
the emanation of realities, the mine of wisdom, the master of spiritual
resolve. He was strengthened by the Kingdom and joined himself to the
world of might.(note: a good intrepretation for the text quotes by
shaykh sayf al-din al-amidi..by Mr. Hadad) He was the remnant of the
pious forefathers, the prince of the learned of the latter generation,
the most learned of the ancients and moderfns, ...Shihab al-milla wa
al-Haqq wa al-din Al-suhrawardi-May GOd make holy his soul and let the
spirit flow over his resting place.."
Amen. The following was a translation of Shahrazui's introduction .
Let us see what the fuss about my interpretation is about :)
> First of all, allow me to repeat the names above:
Mr. Zaman's interpretation was that the men below were the ones the
Prophet(PBUH&HP) predicted. Allah knows best and this certainly is not
something we can be dogmatic about.
>
> `Abdullaah ibn Mubarak - A student of the Companions and child
> companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
I do not know too much about the person above. But if he fought for
Ali(AS) may god bless him and if he didn't , may god forgive him.
> Imam Abu Haneefa - From Balkh, Persia which is modern day
> Uzbek-Afghanistan. Student of Imam Ja`far aS-Saadiq, great-grandson of
> the Prophet (peace be upon them) as well as numerous other Companions
> and Tabi`een.
Some of his views were contradictions of those of ja3far sadiq. Most
people know who was Behlul MahAbadi, the closest companion of Ja3far
Sadiiq(AS). There is a lot of humor in this man and some of the stories
on his argument of defeating abu hanifa, mutazalittes.. Either way,
Imam Ja3far(AS) had thousands of students.
> His closeness to the family of the Prophet as well as
> the Companions and their students (peace be upon them) led him to
> develop the Islamic jurisprudence which nearly 75% of the world's
> Sunni Muslims follow today, calling themselves "Hanafi".
I don't get the obsession about numbers and followers. It is a major
weak point"..aktharum la ya3qulun.."
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in
view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief
is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russel
Either way, Abu Hanifah is someone respectable for two reasons. He is
mention sometimes in tazakurat al-awliyaa and also he saw nothing wrong
about praying in another language other than classical arabic.
But he did not contribute anything significant to the spiritual
knowledges and Rumi said : "hanifah said nothing about ishq.."
So in my opinion he could fit in Suhrawardi's or Shams Tabrizi's pocket.
>
> Imam al-Bukhari - From Bukhara, Persia which is modern day Uzbekistan.
> Compiler of the Sunnah which is adhered to strictly by 85-90% of the
> world's nominally Muslim population as the most authentic source of
> Prophetic traditions and history.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in
view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief
is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russel
>
> Imam al-Muslim - From Nayshapur, Persia. Student of Imam al-Bukhari
> who further scrutinized the compilation of Imam al-Bukhari. His
> collection is, likewise, adhered to strictly by 85-90% of the world's
> nominally Muslim population as the most authentic source of Prophetic
> traditions and history.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in
view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief
is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russel
"..Aktharum la ya3qulun.."
"You will be a believer, when 1000 people call you kaffar"(attributed to
the great saint Mansur Hallaj).
>
> Every single person on this newsgroup, whether Shi`ite or Sunni, has
> heard of every single one of these people.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible." Bertrand Russel
>
> Aside from the fact that not one single person in this newsgroup
> recognizes a single name you mentioned, you have mixed up names of
> people who do NOT belong to the same group of individuals.
Now Mr. Zaman is becoming the spoke men of everybody in these
newsgroup. This is not an emotional issue like the other threads, it is
just an interpretation and I consider it actually better than the other
threads as it gives people something to learn.
Thanks to Mr. Zaman for cuting and pasting some facts from Encyclopedia
Britannica, let see where I mess up.
>
> Abu `Ali al-Hussayn ibn-`Abdullaah ibn-Sina (aka "Avicenna") - Student
> of Abur-RayHaan Muhammad ibn-Ahmad al-Biruni (aka "al-Biruni"). He was
> born in modern-day Bukhara, Uzbekistan and died in Hamadan, Iran. The
> funny thing is that this man had absolutely NOTHING to do with
> religious scholarship. He was a scientist and mathematician. He wrote
> 450 works in his lifetime of which only 240 have survived. Not a
> single one is about religion or religious history. If qizilbash tries
> to state otherwise I would like him to quote from such non-existent
> books.
Many of Ibn Sina's book was about spirituality and the reason for the
creation of the universe. SO to claim that spirituality is not part of
religion is erroneous. FOr example:
In his Risalat-al-fi-ishgh ibn Sina considers love as the reason for
existence(Islamic Cosmological Doctrines, Seyyed Hossein Nasr)
"At the end of the Isharat, Ibn Sina describes the categories of those
wh know.... The zahid, who practices asceticism and is pios, the abid,
who turns his thought to the sancity of the divine, and the arif, who
knows through illumination and ectasy.." same as above.
OKay, the above might not be part of religion by sunni standards.. let
me see.
"Ibn Sina, in the last section of risalat al-nairuziyah, seeks to
interpret the meaning of the letters at the begining of the surah
maryam(XIX) and al-shawra(XLII) of the Quran.."
So if writing a tafsir on these surah is not a religious work, than I am
not sure what is.
Let us see what Mr. Zaman's rewording of encyclopedia Britannica has to
say.
> He was actually a rationalist and attempted to explain all
> spiritual matters in a scientifically tangible manner. This earned him
> the title of "kaafir" from Shi`ites and Sunnis alike.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in
view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief
is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russel
Lets see what ibn sina has to say:
"Kufr chon mani gozaaf o Asaan nabood
Mohkamtar az Imaan man, Imaan nabood
dar dahr chon yeki va Anham Kaffar
Pas dar hameh dar , Yek mosalmaan nabood"
"It is not so easy and trifiling to call me a heretic;
No belief in religion is firmer than min e own.
I am a unique person in the whole world and if I am a heretic,
then there is not a single Muslim anywhere in the world"(Islamic
Cosmological doctorines)
> He was a of a
> traditional Sunni background
Actually he was of ismaiili background(see the source above or any other
source on Avicenna). His father was an Ismaiili and his mother
according to some sources was a Zoroastrian.
Although he did hide his idendity perhaps as a hanafi.. As taqqiyah is
common.
>and him and his teacher courted and
> favored the Sunni Afghan Ghaznavids whom they served.
This person obviously does not know anything about Abu Ali Sina. Abu
Ali Sina served Nuh Mansour Ibn Samaani of the Samaanid dynasty. After
wards, when the ghaznavids came into power, he started packing his bags.
The ghaznavids were not Afghans, they were clearly turks and I have
poems which I will not post for now, unless requested that shows how Mr.
Mahmoud was waging wars and killing Afghans. Many of his soldiers and
slaves were Afghans and Turks, but mr. Mahmoud was a turk.
>His
> contemporaries were al-Buruni, al-Sijzi, al-Khwarezmi, al-Khujandi,
> al-Khazin, and other famous Persians of nominally SUNNI background.
I am not sure which sijzi you are talking about. But the person known
as al-sijzi was an ismaiili. Infact many of the above names could have
been ismaiili as well, but we can't be sure anymore as records don't
exist.
> They were all scientists and none of these men had anything to do with
> religious scholarship, nor claimed anything akin to that.
Al-sijzi and al-raazi(also known as rhazes in the west) have a whole
book on their diologue about religion.. THe bible , the Quran among
other things are discussed..
Abu Yaqub, even makes the bible story of crucification compatible with
the Quran, when Mohammad Zakariyaa, raises these points up.
I am sorry, you did not know this as well. Please do not lecture me
about my history as your mistakes are very frequent.
>If anyone
> says otherwise I would request that they please present the title of a
> SINGLE book that any of them has written on religious matters
> pertaining to Shi`ism.
I have shown Abu Ali Sinna. I have mention the discussion of Abu Yaqub
Al-sijzi with Mohammad Zakariyaa al-Raazi.
FOr Biruni:
"..including the Old and New Testaments, the Avesta and, of course, the
Quran with which Abu Raihan was very well acquianted.. And in his
treatise Irfad al-maqal fi amr al-dalal, in discussing the times of
prayer, he cites prophetic hadeeth.. al-ashari, al-shafii and many other
muslim religious authorities, demonstrating further his pround knowledge
of many of the source of muslim law and theology.."(same as above)
For your own sake, Mr. Zaman, please look at more books than
Encyclopedia Brittanica.
>
>
> So much for claiming him as an Iranian.
This is one source and I have seen some sources. But if he was of
turkish origin, that is fine and well.
He was also branded a "kaafir" by both Shi`tes and Sunnis
> when he concluded that primal philosophy had priority over Divine
> revelation and by this all religions are united. So much for him
> representing Iran or Shi`ism. He died amongst the Hamdani Shi`ites in
> Allepo, Syria.
He reperesnt Iran and shi'ism, because his ideas, avicenna ideas,
sohrovardi's ideas have influenced shi'ite philosophy very deeply. SO
has ibn arabi's ideas. Avicenna was an ismaiili. Sohrovardi was born a
shafi'ite, although he was a sohrovardi :) Farabi most likely a hanafi
and ibn arabi also.
But their ideas while branded kufr by most muslims, have been
incorporated into shi'ite philosophy and have left a deep imprint.
And Shi'ites do not consider any of the above as kaffar.
>
> Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn-Moosa al-Khwarizmi -
See my comments about mathematics above.
>
> When qizilbash says "Raazi" he is talking about either Fakhr ad-Deen
> ar-Raazi, Tammam ar-Raazi, Ali Sa`eed ar-Raazi, Abu Haatim ar-Raazi,
> and many others in history. Again, this is evidence of extremely
> patchy historical knowledge.
When I talk about al-raazi, I am talking about Rhazes, the famous
chemist who came from Baghdad to the Ismaiili Fatimid courts and had
many intellectual conversations with Abu Yaqub al-sijzistani about the
Quran and I have one of the main books, if anyone wants to describe it ,
I will.
Both Mohammad Zakariya and Abu Yaqub were most likely Ismaiilis.
>
> I believe he is referring to Muhammad ibn `Umar ibn al-Hasan ibn
Nope we live in the US. We study english literature. And Rhazes and
Avicenna, Averroes are the mentioned ones. Either way, I should have
cleared it up, but the very fact that mr. Zaman does not bring the most
famous raazi (or perhaps second to fakhr al-din raazi if you are sunni),
makes me wonder about his "patchy" history.
> I already addressed these Iranian Hindus named "Mulla Sadra" and "Mir
> Damaad" last year:
>
>
>http://x69.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=606566156&CONTEXT=972618790.714473499&
h
>itnum=2
>
> Here are some excerpts:
>
> "Towards the end of his life, Mulla Sadra returned to Shiraz to teach.
> His teachings, however, were suspect by the orthodox Muslim
> theologians who considered him a heretic and persecuted him."
> [Encyclopedia Britannica, Reference Index, vol. 7, page 91]
Very funny, while Mr. Khatami just gave a talk on Mulla Sadra. Mulla
Sadra's philosophy is very deep and in his afsaar al-araba3(the four
journeys, from man to divine, from divine to divine, from divine to man
and man to man is very deep philosophy)..
I doubt you have even read it, so please before talking about the issue
just read a small portion of his works. I have tried to read a big
portion and did not understand most of it. I did understand small
pieces but it takes some training.
> As I said this is an old argument resurrected. Sadly, it seems
> qizilbash hasn't learned anything new in the past year.
Sadly, Mr. Zaman does not know a thing about Mulla Sadra. He just knows
how to quote Encyclopedia Britannica and concise encyclopedia of Islam.
I have answered former threads, and I won't go back unless I have to.
>
>
> He is a little known Iranian
> Shi`ite philosopher
He was born a shafiite. As for him being shi'ite, perhaps this is true,
because his ideas were incorporated into shi'ite Islam.
I rather think of him as an Ishraaqi, and not a sunnite or shi'ite. As
he is one of the few people in history that had the creativity, the
revelation and the wisdom to revive the heritage of ancient saints and
create their own philosophy.
> For some odd reason qizilbash believes that this little
> known man dwarfs the world's most influential scholars.
Influential as in numbers?
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in
view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief
is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russel
The fact the muslim world is in such a horrible shape, is because of
dogmatic people who won't let go of the erroneous words of "influential
scholars.."
It will remain so, and the Mahdi(AS) is the muslim worlds only chance.
They don't have the capability, intelligence, and open mindness to pull
themselves together from this mess, due to dogma.
>Even the other
> names he mentioned like al-Khwarezmi make Sohrevardi look extremely
> small.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. As this post is about opinion. I
consider Spirituality as one level higher than the science of math.
This is also mentioned in Qutb Al-din Shiraazi's commentary of Hikmat
Al-Ishraaq.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, for some very strange reason, qizilbash enjoys
> causing very long threads of ahistorical fallacious nonsense.
Mr. Zaman's numerous mistakes on history should be sufficient for him to
stop the personal attacks..
I have no time to respond back to the personal attacks. This current
thread is a matter of opinion.
I will now explain alittle more about our master, Sohrovardi. Mr Hadad
made a point about a story mentioned by Ibn Khallikan:
"Shaykh sayf al-din al-amidi.. said , "I met Al-suhrawardi in Aleppo.
He said to me, "Without doubt I will rule the earth", I said to him:
'But how will that be?', He said, 'I had a dream in which I drank the
water of the sea.' I said, 'Perhaps this means the fame of knowledge and
what is connected with that.' But I saw that he did not turn away from
what he had thought, and I realized that he had much knowledge and
little prudence"
Assuming this source, to be correct, the introduction by Shahrazuri I
quoted above, should explain this statement..
About prophethood, sohrovardi said: "The verse of love's prophethood
became manifest to me. Before me theyy were sealed, but in my they were
noised abrod.."
This refers to his dream in the reviving of the knowledge of
illumination.
According to Shahrazuri: "All of the books of this great man are noble
and profitable, but especially the book 'The Wisdom of
Illumination(Hikmat al-ishraaq) '- that treasury of wonders, laden with
rare subtleties and useful points. On the science of theology or other
sciences no book greater than it has been seen on the face of the earth,
nor one nobler, sounder, more complete or more exact..In my commentary I
would seek to determine the reality, to hit upon the truth, to record
the proof, and to ease the path for the wayfarers to the court of
holiness and the presence of the Friend.."
> I refuse to entertain his
> historical impedements every single year he gets free time and is
> bored.
Suit yourself. I consider that an excuse for not being able to respond.
>Considering how thoroughly I have displayed his weak knowledge
> in Iranian, Shi`ite or Islamic history,
Or perhaps how thorougly you have displayed your own weak knowledge of
it.
I am really amused by your personal comments that you make on every
argument, no matter whom your arguing..At first, I would not like it,
but now I am enjoying it, because they are just funny.
I urge the reader to read any diologue of Mr. Shibli with anyone whom he
disagree's with.. Forget about the object of the argument, just look at
his personal comments and you will find they amusing.
But if someone does take them serisouly,
A person that doesn't anything about Avicenna or Biruni or Raazi or
Sohrovardi , or their works and religions and who keeps making
historical mistakes should not be attacking others for their lack of
knowledge. Instead of Encyclopedia Britannica, please refer to some
real books next time we discuss these topics.
We all can learn something from one another, but what is in the
encylopedia britannica is just the surface of the surface.
>these posts will be my last to
> him on these subjects.
Well, thank God. Because I was getting bored correcting your mistakes.
Regards
Shibli Zaman
> Dear Reader,
>
> I do not like to repeat the same argument again , I believe the last one
A deja.com search on "qizilbash" will prove otherwise. Its not a disease
exclusive to this news group either.
> She approached her perhaps because he knew persian, or it was reputed
> that abu hurayrah knew persian. Again, this does not prove that abu
> hurayrah was persian. For example Mr. Haddaad said he was yemenite. I
> claim that he was a jew based on the timining of his conversion due to
> Khaybar Ordeal.
First off, it is entirely possible that Abu Hurayrah was a Yemeni who knew
Persian as to this day there are many Yemenis who speak Persian. However,
the assertion that he was a jew has absolutely ZERO historical evidence. Mr.
qizilbash repeats this allegation but has provided absolutely no evidece. He
alleges that Abu Hurayrah converted at Khaybar. This is false and has
already been pointed out to him but he still repeats the same daft
allegation!
Perhaps, its either his own oversite or a problem with his news server.
Check the following URL:
http://x65.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687208257.3&CONTEXT=972919779.883490831&hit
num=0
Here are the pertinent excerpts:
"Narrated Abu Hurayrah, 'WE witnessed (the battle of) Khaybar.." [Saheeh
al-Bukhari 5:515]
"Narrated Abu Hurayrah, 'WE witnessed along with Allah's Messenger, the
Khaybar (campaign).."
[Saheeh al-Bukhari 8:603]
Here the "WE" is the Muslim army fighting at Khaybar. Had Abu Hurayrah been
a Jew. "WE" would be the Jews and not the Muslims.
"Narrated Abu Hurayrah, 'WHEN WE CONQUERED KHAYBAR, we gained neither gold
nor silver as booty, but we gained cows, camels, goods and gardens.."
[Saheeh al-Bukhari 5:541]
I am not sure if qizilbash knows or not but the MUSLIMS conquered Khaybar
and not the Jews. Abu Hurayrah as already a Muslim at this time. The only
evidence of his origin is in regards to his fluency in Persian. He has also
been called "Ghareeb ad-Daws" which could mean he was an Arab of that tribe
or he was a "persona grata" of that tribe. A safe guess would be that he was
either a Persian or an Arab from around the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf
(khaleej).
I have a question for Mr. qizilbash. What was the ethnic origin of Bilal? Do
you have any evidence to say he was of Ethiopian Jew ancestry as much of
Ethiopia's population was Jewish at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon
him). Of course he was not of Jewish origin and there is no evidence to say
so. Thus, I hope qizilbash will see the insipidity of such allegation. The
claim that Abu Hurayrah was a jew is made in the complete absence of any
evidence whatsoever.
> I am against the historical attrocities created by the invasion. I have
> pointed that in the post about burning libraries, taking slaves... You
> did not provide a response to that.
I just noticed that the moderators never posted this refutation in spite of
it being approved. I'll post it again. They're only human.
> Again, this does not prove that abu hurayrah was persian. Making a
> statement like "Recite it to yourself O persian.." is even a weaker
> criterion. Because Abu Hurayrah is calling the other guy "O Persian",
> perhaps indicating that he himself is not Persian.
Again, I think you need to read a little more carefully before replying.
This seems to be a categorical problem:
http://x51.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687191652.1&CONTEXT=972924508.1700462608&hi
tnum=1
"- Abus--Sa`ib, the slave of Hisham ibn Zuhra:
"(Abus-Sa`ib heard) Abu Hurayra say, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace
be upon him) say, 'Whoever prays a prayer without reciting the umm al-Qur'an
in it, his prayer is aborted, it is aborted, it is aborted, incomplete.' So
I said, 'Abu Hurayra, sometimes I am behind the imam.' He then pulled my
forearm and said, 'Recite it to yourself, O Persian.."
[Muwatta Imam Malik, 3:3.10.41]"
As you can see this was quoted about Abus-Sa`ib the slave of Hisham ibn
Zuhra and NOT Abu Hurayrah. Please read the posts before responding to them.
> > "Narrated Abu Huraira: WHILE WE WERE SITTING WITH THE PROPHET, Surat
> > Al-Jumu'a was revealed to him.."
>
> I was refering to the fact that Abu Hurayrah was not among those people
> that the prophet mentioned(the people of Persia that is). Because he
> had to repeat it three times, until Salmaan came. If he was from
> Persia, the prophet would not wait until Salmaan comes!
Abu Hurayrah narrated:
"While WE WERE SITTING with the Prophet Surat Al-Jumu'a was revealed to him,
and when the Verse, "And He (Allah) has sent (Muhammad) also to other
(Muslims).....' [62:3] was recited by the Prophet, I said, "Who are they, O
Messenger of Allah?" The Prophet did not reply till I repeated my question
thrice. At that time, Salman Al-Farisi was with us. So Allah's Messenger put
his hand on Salman, saying, "If faith were at ath-Thuraiya (pleiades, the
highest star), even then some men or man from these people would attain it."
[Saheeh al-Bukhari, 6:420]
Where is any mention of Salman walking in on them? There is none. I don't
know where he got this understanding of the Hadeeth.
Also, it is important to mention that it has been reported that the father
of Abu Haneefa asked Ali (peace be upon him) to make du`aa' that he have a
son. From this du`aa', Abu Haneefa was born. Jalal ad-Deen as-Suyuti states
about this subject of the people of Salman:
"It has been communicated unanimously that this hadeeth refers to Imam Abu
Haneefah."
The Hadeeth says "rijaal aw rujul.." meaning "a man or men.." which was
based on the doubt of the reporter.
> Perhaps , reading carefully would be a better idea, to see what the
> other writes of SRI are saying.
What are they saying? Maybe I missed the post on my server, but to my
knowledge no one has commented on either side. Quite frankly, I don't think
anyone besides myself and qizilbash are reading this mundane thread he has
typically strung out. No one is contributing to it other than the two
aforementioned. End it already.
> :) so far I have gotten several emails that people thanked for me for
> explaining some stuff.
> So please do not assume that you can speak for all the "readers"!
Aah, and now we have the mythical emails of support. I hardly believe he
received any emails other than from two other similar posters on this
newsgroup. A monkey scratching the other monkey's back hardly makes them an
assembly of intelligentsia.
Shibli Zaman
Here I will address qizlbash's unnecessarily lengthy reply to my challenge
that he substantiate his false allegations that Umar:
1) "Destroyed villages"
2) "Took young girls from their homes and made them sex slaves"
3) "Destroyed art and burned libraries"
Let us see if he fulfilled the request or if he dodged it with erroneous and
irrelevant details.
"qizilbash" <qizi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8t5ltf$67o$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> The library burning of this criminal, Umar Khattab in Alexandria and
> Persia has been well document and I'll go in more detail later..
And lets see his "detail"
> Narrated Abu Ja3far: "when Umar became the Caliph, he said: Now that god
> has given us victory over other lands, it is not right for an arab to be
> rulers over each other".
>
> The History of Tabari, fourth volume, pg 1317
> Translation of AbulQasem Payandeh, fifth edition, Asatir publications,
> Tehran.
Aside from this not presenting a single ounce of relevance to the subject,
it is spurious in nature.
Imam al-Tabari states in the preface about his own work of "Taareekh" or
"History" the following:
"Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards
everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely
upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein
and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what
may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except
in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the
past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one
who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the
accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion
of rational deduction and mental inference. HENCE, IF I MENTION IN THIS BOOK
A REPORT ABOUT SOME MEN OF THE PAST, WHICH THE READER OR LISTENER FINDS
OBJECTIONABLE OR WORTHY OF CENSURE BECAUSE HE CAN SEE NO APSECT OF TRUTH NOR
ANY FACTUAL SUBSTANCE THEREIN, LET HIM KNOW THAT THIS NOT TO BE ATTRIBUTED
TO US BUT TO THOSE WHO TRANSMITTED IT TO US AND WE HAVE MERELY PASSED THIS
ON AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO US."
[Abu Ja`far Muhammad bin Jareer al-Tabari, Taareekh al-Tabari (History of
Tabari) Taareekh al-Umam wal-Mulook, 1997, Volume I, Daar al-Kutub
al-`Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 550.]
Imam al-Tabari, as is seen in his own admission, recorded every single
narration he ever came across without scrutinizing the source simply for
reference of what stories were out there. Using these references his
students learned the arts of Jarh wa Ta`deel (discriminating the authentic
>from faulty narrators) and were able to produce counter arguments for the
fabrications contained therein.
I have already posted this quote numerous times before. However, in spite of
this, the Shi`ites continue to quote from Tabari without specifying the
validity of its source simply because it is the only source they have. They
know it is fabricated but they cling to their heretical stories in spite of
the truth. After the truth has been shown, they will lie in wait until it is
either forgotten or they come across someone who did not hear it. Then they
will repeat the same refuted argument over again.
> "The people of Azarbaijan, many times revolted against the Arabs, and
> fought hard against the Arabs during the time of Umar. ... walid ibn
> aqabah went to fight them and he took a lot of money and slaves from
> this province"..
>
> (Fotooh Al-baladaan, page 165, 166)
> "The influx of Arabs in Iran resulted many times in taking the money,
> the land of the village and farming people of Iran. Just like balazari
> and ibn fiqiyeh narrated: "When the arabs came to Azarbaijan, the arabs
> tribes from shaam(syria), kufeh, basraa were moved there, and each tribe
> took whatever they desired"
> (Mokhtaser al-baladaan, pg 126)
Last time qizlbash chose to quote Moojan Momen, he put "Momem" as his
source. Not only was he unfamiliar with the source but even the name of the
person who wrote it. Here we have another classic blunder of qizlbash. Allow
me to clarify who he is trying to quoting. The person he is errantly quoting
is Ahmed ibn-Yahya ibn-Jabir al-Baladhuri who lived during the reign of
al-Mutawakkil (845-860 AD) and died around 900 AD. He is most well known for
his voluminous work of history "Ansab al-Ashraf".
This work of history that qizlbash is trying to quote is "FutooH al-Buldaan
al-Baladhuri" and not "Fotooh Al-baladaan" as he erroneously and ambiguously
writes. Also, his supposed source "Mokhtaser al-Baladan" is actually
"MokhtaSer FutooH al-Buldaan al-Baladhuri" which is a COMMENTARY of the
ABRIDGED VERSION of "al-FutooH al-Buldaan al-Baladhuri". Why is it that
qizlbash did not know his own source? It is because he has no source. Its
obvious he is quoting other Shi`ite polemic material that has loose
references to this information.
Now let us discuss the History of al-Baladhuri and his methods. Let us quote
>from a noteworthy SHI`ITE historical source, "Origins and Early Development
of Shia Islam" by S. H. Jafri:
"Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir al-Baladhuri (died 279/892-3), whose voluminous
Ansab al-Ashraf is perhaps the most important historico biographical (sic)
work of the third century. On the one hand, he follows ibn Sa`d in technique
and incorporates much of his material; ON THE OTHER HAND, HE GOES MUCH
DEEPER AND COLLECTS EVERY POSSIBLE REPORT AND VERSION OF THE SAQIFA EVENT
>FROM DIVERGENT SOURCES AND DIFFERENT SCHOOL."
"While Ibn Sa'd depends mainly on Medinese informants, Baladhuri finds them
unsatisfactory; he goes further and frequently quotes Mada'ini; who takes up
a kind of middle position between Kufan and Medinese traditionists. He also
narrates from Ibn al-Kalbi, Abu Ma`shar, `Awana, and, in at least two cases,
EVEN FROM THE SHI`I ABU MIKHNAF."
"...his sources, such as Mada'ini and ABU MIKHNAF, are the same as those
used by Tabari."
"One might, therefore, suspect the reports of the historians of Shi'i
sympathies such as Ibn Ishaq, Ya'qubi, and Mas`udi as being biased in favour
of the Shi`is; and similarly the writings of Ibn Sa'd, Baladhuri, and even
Tabari..."
"He (Imam Tabari) builds his narrative by recording several parallel and
co-ordinated traditions or, wherever necessary, by giving divergent reports
coming to him from different sources."
["Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam" by S. H. Jafri]
As is obvious, al-Baladhuri (whom qizlbash was trying to quote) resorted to
the same methods as Tabari which was to report EVERY possible narration
available from all schools of thought without scrutinizing the source. This
is even reported in Shi`ite sources aside from his partiality for Shi`ite
positions.
In spite of this book being an attempt to validate the origins of Shi`ism in
light of the Prophetic traditions and history, it is an excellent book which
is generally free from grossly opinionated presentation of the facts. You
may purchase this book from the following URL:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0866855955/o/qid=972585388/sr=8-2/ref
=aps_sr_b_1_4/104-0636627-4719125
> Imagine that!
Yes. It is amazing to even imagine that qizlbash thinks the readers are so
stupid that they won't know if he presents faulty information and fabricated
sources.
> >I challenge you to produce
> > a shred of viable historical evidence that states that `Umar either:
> >
> > 1) "Destroyed villages"
>
>
> > 2) "Took young girls from their homes and made them sex slaves"
>
> "khaaled those those people as slaves and the muslims too all their land
> and wealth".(Tabari) Of course we don't have to look further than Sudan
> or Afghanistan in the early 20th century to see such examples in Sunni
> Islam..Or perhaps go into the Harems of one of those lovely Sunni
> Caliphs.
This is about Khaalid ibn al-Waleed. What does this have to do with `Umar
ibn al-Khattab?! Absolutely nothing. It is also interesting to note that he
left #1 blank. This is short of an admission that he has absolutely no proof
on this matter. Then he goes on to quote something about Khalid
ibn-al-Waleed from TABARI (AGAIN!). As you will notice Tabari's Tareekh is
their only source and after referring to my copious presentation on the
facts behind Tabari's work of history you will see WHY it is their only
source. Also, Khalid ibn al-Waleed is not `Umar ibn al-Khattab. I hope this
isn't another historical blunder of qizlbash.
> > 3) "Destroyed art and burned libraries"
>
> Umar told his troops to destroy every painting because in their limited
> mind, they thought some idiot was going to worship this!
>
> In the book kashf al-zonoon(written by Haji khalifeh in the 1064 of
> Hejra): "There is no need to repeat the stories how the Arabs took over
> Iran and every book of Iranians that they found ttheir hands on , they
> throw in the water or burned it.. "
>
> In another part of the book : "The arabs wherever they were victorious,
> burned the books of those places.."
This is not a "book" as he calls it but a set of volumes called "Kashf
ath-Thunoon `an Asami al-Kutub wal-Funoon" by Haji Khalifa Mustafa ibn
`Abdullah whose nickname was "Katib Chalbi". In most cases I have seen this
set to be between 5-7 volumes (the Dar al-Fikr press version is 6 volumes,
but I have seen some Arabic copies that are 7). I have a copy of this and if
he would provide me with a VALID REFERENCE I could easily verify it. As of
now I could find no such reference or anything even similar to it.
This silly practice of...
"So and so was an idiot"
["al-Kitaab" by Ali]
...has to STOP. Now I would request that he present his material properly in
the future. That is if he has direct access to that material and isn't just
quoting someone else. Those are "answering-islam.org" tactics which the
Christian and Shi`ite Missionaries are famed for..
> Abul-al-faraj maaleti ibn ebri , in the book mokhtaser al-dowl talks
> about the invasions of the arabs in Alexandria:
>
> "Yahyaa geraamaatiki was alive at the time of omroo wa3aas(sorry as I do
> not know how to prounouce his name) va3aas.. He was at the service of
His name was `Amr ibn al-`AaS and if someone doesn't know this Companion of
the Prophet (peace be upon them) and historical figure who conquered Egypt
then such a person should not be debating history but READING it. I refuse
to believe that any reliable book in ANY language recorded the name of `Amr
ibn al-`AaS as insipidly as "Omroo va`aas". In Farsi it is, "Aamru
ibn-e-Aas" as it is in all Persianesque languages such as Urdu. I strongly
suspect this information is not directly read information.
> permission of the caliphate".. Then he wrote a letter to Umar and
> relayed to him what Yahya had said. Umar in response to the letter
> wrote: "If those books agree with the book of God, then we don't need
> and if those books are opposite to what is in the book of God, then we
> don't need it. so in both cases we don't need it. So please destroy
> them.."
This was a decision based on `Umar's personal Qiyas (analogical deduction in
religious matters) which was his right as the Caliph of the Muslims. His
reasoning is absolutely sound according to the Qur'an:
"..fa bi ayyi Hadeethim-ba`dahu yu'minoon"
"Do they not look in the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all
things that Allah has created, and that it may be that the end of their
lives is near. In what message after this will they then believe?"
[al-Qur'aan, Surat al-A`raaf, 7:185]
The amusing thing is that the Shi`ites use this exact same verse as proof
that "Hadeeth" are to be rejected since they are knowledge which came after
the Qur'an. However, they want us to reject Prophetic Hadeeth, but accept
Zoroastrian pagan books instead? This is a point so silly its not even worth
discussion.
> muslims.. Omar told him : throw those books in the water, since if they
> have guidence, the book that God has sent has better guidance, and if
> they have misguidance, then we will not be misguied.. and from that the
A beautiful quote and had I been there I would have likewise ordered that
the books of the Pagans be burned to the ground and that only a select FEW
study them if they had any scientific or medical information. This indeed
happened as is obvious that the sciences DID survive and led to the greatest
discoveries in the areas of medicine and mathematics which was spearheaded
>from SUNNI Iran. This qizlbash amusingly says that the decimal system's
survival was as a result of the Seljuq's, Ghaznavids, etc being tolerant.
These dynasties lived scores AFTER the the decimal system was perfected by
the Muslims scholars in the Abbasid Caliphate.
As a conclusion qizlbash goes on to cite numerous examples of Persian
Muslims who were scientific geniuses. However, he fails to mention that
almost NONE of them were Shi`ites. Al-Khwarethmi (after whom "algorithm" was
named), etc were all Iranian Sunnis.
Both rjaffer and qizlbash seem to suffer from a common practice of severely
misrepresenting and misquoting sources as well as committing hysterical
blunders in quoting them. This makes their information "Hysterical" as
opposed to "Historical". This terminal case of poor access and/or
representation of historical resources is something you will find that all
Missionaries from all cult-like religious movements have in common.
This person qizlbash enjoys lengthy and drawn out back-and-forth arguments.
Everything he is stating is just a rehash of information I refuted last year
with a source and reference for every single point. Just do a search on
deja.com for the keywords "Shibli" and "qizlbash" together. You will find
the refutations to all his ethnocentric pro-Iran propoganda in those
threads. You will see how ill he fared in those debates. Though he enjoys
it, for some very odd reason, there is no need to repeat it all over again.
Shibli Zaman
Having dealt with qizilbash's take on history with a sore stomach, we
now move to his perception of current events.
>This person is claiming the US has conquered Iran. This is funny while
>Iran is under US sanctions. And while Iran, created the only force in
>since the creation of zionism that was able to hurt zionism.
Aside from the fact that Zionism doesn't seem very hurt to anyone of
sane mind, let us look at the news:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/09/iran.khatami.ap/
"Relations have thawed since the election of the reformist Khatami,
who has sought better relations with Western countries. The United
States has taken some concrete steps in the area of trade and
people-to-people contact, but Khatami said in his U.N. speech that
Iran still had "serious issues" with the United States."
I think our friend should follow the news a little more carefully. His
perception of the world around him is as accurate as his historical
information.
>" What on EARTH have Hezbollah achieved in the past 20 years other than
>inistigating the Israeli's to annihilate
> villages in Southern Lebanon? They have achieved NOTHING. Did you ever
>study the case of the bomb
> expert, Miqdad, who remains in Israeli custody to this day? Do you know
>how he was busted? Israeli agents
> within the ELITE of Hezbollah."
>
>Yes my friend, eat your words and do not tell us Iran is the friend
>of the US :)
Excuse me? What is he talking about? He actually damage himself with
this quote. Hussayn Miqdad was inflitrated and mutilated by a bomb
plot staged by Israeli agents within Hezbollah. He lost all the
functionality of his limbs. After he was critically wounded and
incapacitated he was taken into Israeli custody. Hezbollah denied even
knowing him and left him in Israeli hands.
"Israeli police say the man who was badly injured in an explosion in
the Lawrence Hotel on 12 April was a Hizbullah member named Hussein
Miqdad. He lost his legs, one of his hands, and one of his eyes when
the bomb exploded inside his room in the East Jerusalem hotel. The
Israelis say Miqdad was carrying a stolen British passport and was
hiding explosives in his radio. In a statement, Hizbullah denied any
relationship with the person injured or with the explosion."
[PALESTINE REPORT- MAY 24, 1996; Publisher Ghassan Khatib, Editors
Muhammed Afif al-Hasan, Stephanie Nolen, Salwa Kanaana, ISSN
0793-1301]
Hezbollah has done absolutely NOTHING, but irritate Israel and behave
as a cooperative element in Israel's campaign against Islam and the
Muslims of the region. Their fraudulent claim that Israel withdrew
>from Lebanon was a scheme of Israel which Hezbollah gladly SUPPORTED
by supporting the false reports!
"LEBANON SAYS U.N. WRONG ABOUT ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL
UNITED NATIONS -- Lebanon rejected a U.N. announcement Friday that
Israel had withdrawn from its territory.
Earlier in the day, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan had announced
that the U.N. force in Lebanon had verified Israel's withdrawal from
the southern part of the country,
But Lebanese Prime Minister Salim Hoss said Israeli forces were still
in control of some areas of Lebanese territory in what he described as
'a flagrant act of encroachment."
"Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said earlier Friday, 'We will
consider the Israeli withdrawal to be incomplete if it is confined to
a fictitious, non-existing line that does not reach the existing
internationally recognized frontier,' adding that the border 'is not
up for modification or postponement."
[ Taken from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/06/16/israel.lebanon.03/ ]
This was a cooperative ploy of Hezbollah and Israel, to secure
Israel's image in the world as turning over a new leaf of peace and
Hezbollah securing control over areas of Lebanon the Lebanese would
never give them. Hezbollah obviously has a lot to thank Israel for now
that they have given them what they would have never had from Lebanon.
They deserve as Islamic much credit as the pot smoking Shi`ite
"Assassins" ("al-Hasheeshiyeen") deserved in the war against the
Crusaders and EVERYONE else in Palestine.
>No matter how much you try to extrapolate and makeup facts, it won't
>hide reality.
This is just hilarious as a stand alone comment. No additional comment
necessary.
>As for the Russians, Iran views the Russian-Chechen conflict, as a
>western ploy to secure the pipelines and make sure russia has no
>influence in the caucus.. And this is the abstract and correct view.
Nice that he trivializes the wholesale slaughter, mass deportations,
mass rapes, etc of an entire nation that has been going on since the
mid 19th century as a petrochemical issue.
>It is the sunni wahabis and sufis fighting amongthemselves that brought
>the death of Chechnya.. Furthermore, if the wahabis did not agress on
>Daghestan, where the local people hated them, this would not have
>happened..
The Wahhabi movement spread beyond Arabia in the early 20th century.
Shaykh Shamil al-Naqshabandi, the Lion of the Caucasus, was fighting
the Russians for Independence in the 18th century. The Chechen-Russian
war has been going on for 200 years. The Wahhabi movement didn't even
exist outside of the Arabian peninsula for over half that time period.
I think there is a very severe chronilogical as well as historical
impediment we are dealing with here.
>Afghanistan was 100x better under communism(no credit to communism, but
This statement makes him not only an enemy of Islam, but a clear one.
>> and Madelein Albright, the USA, Iran,
>> China, Russian, etc are all the champions of the Mahdi who are going
>> to save the day!
>
>Please don't put words in my mouth. First eat your words above.
I would be interested to know how old qizilbash is. He sounds very
young.
Yes...to be continued...unfortunately,
GF Haddad
news:8thjfs$g88$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Imam Abu Dawud Sulaymaan as-Sijistani was more than likely a Persian
> as his name denotes "Sijistaan" which is in Iran.
There is no question he was an Azdi of Arab stock, as I stated before.
Concerning Imam Muslim:
> His name is actually Abu-l Hussayn al-Muslim ibn al-Hallaaj
You mean: Abu-l Husayn Muslim [not al-Muslim] ibn al-Hajjaaj.
> al-QUSHAYRI and not "Qurayshi". He had no connection to the tribe of
> Quraysh as he was born in Nayshapur, Iran (817 AD)
I did make a mistake and should have written Qushayr. But the result is the
same, since Qushayr is an Arab tribe. Similarly Imam Abu al-Qasim
al-Qushayri was born in Naysabur but was of Arab stock, a descendent of Arab
emigrants to Khurasan,Qushayr on his father's side and Sulaym on his
mother's.
> When the Prophet (peace be upon him) calls Abu Hurayrah, "Ghulam
> ad-Dawsi" this means he is a persona grata for the tribe of ad-Daws.
He did not call him Ghulam al-Dawsi. He called al-ghulam al-dawsi (name and
adjective), in Sahih al-Bukhari. Here also, there is no doubt Abu Hurayra
was a Yemeni and not a Persian. If not, please explain to me why al-Dhahabi
calls him "Abu Hurayra al-Dawsi al-Yamani, Sayyid al-Huffaz" in his
chapter-title in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala'?
> Abu Hurayrah was also called a "Wabr", which I believe is a rodent, by
> one of the sons of Sa`eed ibn al-`Aas at the battle of Khaybar while
> they argued over the spoils of war. This is not the way one would
> address a person who was originally of ad-Daws.
Perhaps not, but the above is spurious anyway. Abu Hurayra himself said: "I
came to Madina [for the first time] at the time the Prophet (SAWS) was in
Khaybar." Sahih Ibn Hibban (16:110 #7156) with a sound chain as per Shaykh
Shu`ayb Arna'ut and by al-Bazzar in his Musnad with a sound chain as per
al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa'id.
Underwood
on the (largely shuabiyyah) allegations about the Muslim conquest of Iran,
particularly the burning of libraries, the Iranian alim, Murtada Mutahhari
wrote a short paper on this, refuting it. I believe it was called "The
burning of the libraries of Alexandria and Iran". Perhaps it is on the
web. He certainly is a good scholar.
wasalam
Ibrahim Underwood
Shibli Zaman
I will never fully understand why these guys defame Shi`ites and
Shi`ism by representing them so POORLY. They do not READ what they are
quoting before they cite it and end up quoting sources that say the
OPPOSITE of what they are saying! I have never witnessed such severe
self-defeatist tendencies in any group other than this one.
First off, qizilbash quotes WEB PAGES as his source of history. This
was funny in itself. However, the even FUNNIER part was that what he
was quoting actually REFUTED what he was saying. He quoted small
paragraphs out of context hoping the readers wouldn't actually READ
the articles he was giving the URL's to. Big, big mistake.
>No need to quote A&E sources. History books claim that the person
>called Afghan(who was the father of pusthuns) was a jew. This is
So then why didn't he quote a single "history book"? (laugh) As we
will see below he had plenty of reason to quote A&E.
>mentioned in reputable historic books and I will get more information if
>necessary. There is no doubt that some of pushtun subtribes of the
Nice to know that he chose to WRITE before actually GETTING the
information.
What happened to the "Princeton Library" he supposedly frequents? If
his resources are any measure of the "Princeton Library" I would say
"Princeton" needs a new "Library".
>pushtun confederation are of jewish origin. THere is sasying in urdu
>called "damagh gondeh" as well, although I am not sure how related this
>is.
I speak Urdu fluently and have never heard any such term in my life.
If he is trying to say "demagh gandeh" meaning "big nose" this is
FARSI. It is not Urdu.
>Furthermore, here are few more excerpts:
>
>"Why do certain members of the Pathan tribe, many of whom belong to the
>fundamentalist Muslim Taleban movement in Afganistan, call themselves
>the "people of Moses"? Why do they light oil lamps on Friday nights, as
>per the Jewish tradition, to ask God's forgiveness? "
>
>" The other children of Moses
> National Post
> Isabel Vincent
> Saturday, April 15, 2000"
Asking "Why do yadda yadda" is not statement of historical fact.
Sadly, this article is no reference for historical information. I
happened to find this article. Allow me to quote from the article
itself:
"Quest for the Lost Tribes of Israel, his latest film, WHICH AIRS
SUNDAY EVENING ON THE U.S. CABLE NETWORK A&E, is no exception. In it,
Mr. Jacobovici, a self-described Indiana Jones with a video camera,
travels to some of the world's remotest places and meets people who
practise certain Israelite customs. Some of them even believe they are
Jewish."
This is an article about the A&E special! Yet, qizilbash says:
>No need to quote A&E sources. History books claim that the person
>called Afghan(who was the father of pusthuns) was a jew. This is
He just quoted an A&E source and did not even know it. I will never
understand this severe scholastic irresponsibility that these
particular Shi`ites have (whose errors I will not attribute the
Shi`ite world, but to their own individual intellectual ignominy).
Now for his next erroneous "Web" source!
>Here is another link
>
>http://www.moshiach.com/tribes/ns/3.html
This is from "Moshiach.com" which is a Zionist propoganda medium. This
web page is so moronically put together it actually serves as comedy
relief. Lets look at some of the insipid statements in this "Web"
source:
"Muslims have custom of circumcision but it is not on the 8th day, and
usually at the age of 12."
*OUCH* Excuse me? Muslims don't get circumcision until the age of
TWELVE? This is hilarious to say the least.
"They also have bigger Tallit which they call Joy-Namaz. It is a
garment 2-3 meters sq., and it is made to cover the head and part of
the shoulders, and is used for prayer by spreading on the ground in
the Muslim fashion. It has no fringes."
If this didn't make you laugh out loud then you don't have a sense of
humor! A "Joy-namaz" is a "Jai-namaz" meaning "Place of Prayer" and it
is a PRAYER RUG! LOL! Every single Muslim from Sri Lanka to India to
Pakistan to Afghanistan knows this! You don't wear it on your head and
shoulders unless you are insane!
"There are pages and even complete books among the pathans and they
honor greatly what is called Tavrad El Sharif (the Torah of Moses),
and they rise at the mention of the name of Moses even though it is
not important in Islam."
First of all, this Zionist ignoramus probably doesn't realize that the
"Tawraat Shareef" is considered the scripture of Moses in the QUR'AN.
Second, note that he says, "they rise at the mention of the name of
Moses even though it is not important in Islam." This guy doesn't even
know that the Muslims revere the Israelite chain of prophets!
I could go on forever as every other sentence in this article was
equally if not more ridiculous. I think this is enough to deal with
this Zionist "Web" source of qizilbash.
And, next, qizilbash should have READ this source before quoting it.
>and yet another one.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/pashtuns.html
This URL is from a Pakistani young man who has a bunch of
self-authored essays on his geocities web site about Pakistan. I don't
think this would meet the criteria of historically binding information
(laugh). With all due respect to the Pakistani gentleman, I think even
he himself would agree with me.
Nonetheless, this article actually REFUTES him. Check this out. Its
funny.
Here it states that there its next to impossible to tell where the
Pashtoons came from:
"The difficulty arises because of the fact that the area is inhabited
by a large number of tribes each of which makes different claims about
its origin. The confusion becomes worse confounded when it is found
that these claims do not conform to historical evidence and do not
agree with the conclusions arrived at by the researchers."
Here he states that scholars dismiss all these claims of Pashtoon
origin, including the Jewish one, and believe they are Aryans.
"Of late, scholars in Afghanistan are seriously absorbed in research
to prove that Afghans are neither of Jewish, nor Turkish nor Mongol
nor Greek origin but of pure Aryan stock. They are taking pains to
demonstrate original home of Aryans was Afghanistan by pointing out
the similarity in the names of several places in their country with
those mentioned in the Rig Veda.
Thus, the different tribes of Afghans/Pathans have different claims,
racially as divergent as the Semitics and the Aryans, Greeks and the
Turks, Mongols and the Caucasians."
Here he cites what scholars ACTUALLY say: That they are early Rajputs
whose descendents now inhabit Rajasthan, India:
"WESTERN SCHOLARS, THEREFORE, MAINTAIN THAT AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
OF THE AFGHAN/PATHAN TRIBES ARE POSITIVELY DESCENDED FROM THE SAKAS,
KUSHANS, HUNS AND GUJJARS...Bellew, one of the greatest authorities on
Pathans, notes that several characteristics are common to both the
Rajputs and Afghans and suggests that Sarban, one of the ancestors of
the Afghans, was a corruption of the word Suryabans (solar race) from
which many Rajputs claim descent (Bellew: Races of Afghanistan). The
great Muslim historian Masudi writes that Qandahar was a separate
kingdom with a non-Muslim ruler and states that 'it is a country of
Rajputs'. It would be pertinent to mention here that at the time of
Masudi most of the Afghans were concentrated in Qandahar and adjacent
areas and had not expanded to the north. Therefore, it is highly
significant that Masudi should call Qandahar a Rajput country."
What happened to the Jewish theory? This pathetic practice of not even
reading sources carefully before quoting them, claiming "history says
so!" without even quoting anything, and most of all, using references
that REFUTE what you are saying will never cease to amaze me. He does
it EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Also regarding the story of a Jew named Qais accepting Islam and
founding the Pashtoon nationality, this article states:
"Similarly, the story of Qais Abdur Rashid having gone from
Afghanistan to Arabia to meet the Prophet and after returning to his
country having converted the Afghans to Islam also DOES NOT STAND THE
SCRUTINY OF HISTORY. Muslim historians Ibn Haukal, Utbi and Alberuni
are unanimous in the view that uptill the time of Mahmud Ghaznavi i.e.
almost four hundred years after the death of the Prophet, MOST OF THE
AFGHANS WERE STILL BUDDHISTS OR HINDUS/PAGANS/AMINISTS."
Now for the conlcusion from qizilbash's OWN source:
"Since the modern state of Afghanistan and the N.W.F.P. province of
Pakistan were the main regions through which Central Asian tribes
passed and in which they settled down, it is impossible that these
areas should have remained uncolonised and the blood of their
inhabitants unsullied. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE
PRESENT DAY AFGHANS/PATHANS ARE MOSTLY, NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR CLAIMS,
THE DESCENDANTS OF CENTRAL ASIAN TRIBES OF SAKAS, KUSHANS, HUNS AND
GUJJARS. It need hardly be pointed out that from them are also
descended the major tribes of the Kashmir, Punjab, Sind and
Baluchistan."
End of story, using qizilbashs' own source.
>SO we are not just talking an A&E show. We are talking about historical
>books!
No, we are talking about an article ABOUT an A&E special, a Zionist
web page and a Pakistani lad's personal web page. It seems the
"Princeton Library" did not avail him.
To be continued...unfortunately..
Jaafar Karouni
Assalaam Alaikum,
I understand your point, However, if you see the islamic history,
Moaweyah has done all what he could to derail Islam and to venge the
killing of his relatives in the first battle of Badr. The horrors of the
muslim world today and its tragediers came from Moaweyah and those who
prepared the road for him.
It was Moaweyah who created the secret services in the Islamic state and
they existed since that time. He then appointed his son Yazeed who
massacred the prophet's family and then asked the people of Madeenah to
give him allegiance that they are Yazeed's slaves.
So curse of Allah be on Moaweyah and those who brought him.
Jaafar
qizilbash
this thread is becoming time-costing on both of our parts(Mr. Zaman
complained about this as well). I will summarize my argument about Abu
Hurayrah's origin.
1. Speaking a certain tongue does not make that tongue, one's mother
tongue. There is evidence that the prophet spoke some persian as well.
2. Abu Hurayrah came to the prophet at the of Khaybar.
And although this is not mean he was jewish, the timing of this event
gives us an indication.
3. Mr. Zaman suggested below:
> First off, it is entirely possible that Abu Hurayrah was a Yemeni who
knew
> Persian as to this day there are many Yemenis who speak Persian.
Well, Yemen was a colony of Persia at that time and this can very well
be true.
4. Conclusion: The history surrounding abu hurayrah is still shrouded.
But there are many interesting hadeeths suggesting he was jewish:
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter9/3.html
> This is false and has
> already been pointed out to him but he still repeats the same daft
> allegation!
I do not think Mr. Zaman is reading carefully.
I do not have time to refer people to the same article,
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter9/3.html
All the statements regarding the time, place and origin of abu hurayrah
that I have asserted in my article is there.
> Here the "WE" is the Muslim army fighting at Khaybar. Had Abu
>Hurayrah been
> a Jew. "WE" would be the Jews and not the Muslims.
Not really. If the translation is "we".
Me and my enemy could witness the same thing. Again, this shows that
your proof method is very weak.
>
> "Narrated Abu Hurayrah, 'WHEN WE CONQUERED KHAYBAR, we gained
neither gold
> nor silver as booty, but we gained cows, camels, goods and gardens.."
> [Saheeh al-Bukhari 5:541]
Over here is more implicit. But as I asserted before, Abu Hurayrah
came to the Prophet during the time of Khaybar.
> Abu Hurayrah as already a Muslim at this time.
Yes, the exact timing when he became muslim is in the duration of the
battle of Khaybar. For sake of brevity(the whole hadeeth is on that
site).
"..Abu Huraira came to the Prophet during the day of Khaibar" bukharri
5.458
>The only
> evidence of his origin is in regards to his fluency in Persian.
This does not constitude any sort of evidence.
> He has also
> > Again, this does not prove that abu hurayrah was persian. Making a
> > statement like "Recite it to yourself O persian.." is even a weaker
> > criterion. Because Abu Hurayrah is calling the other guy "O
Persian",
> > perhaps indicating that he himself is not Persian.
>
> Again, I think you need to read a little more carefully before
replying.
> This seems to be a categorical problem:
>
> At that time, Salman Al-Farisi was with us. So Allah's Messenger put
> his hand on Salman, saying, "If faith were at ath-Thuraiya (pleiades,
the
> highest star), even then some men or man from these people would
attain it."
> [Saheeh al-Bukhari, 6:420]
>
> Where is any mention of Salman walking in on them?
> There is none. I don't
> know where he got this understanding of the Hadeeth.
The prophet did not respond to Abu Hurayrah. So my understanding of
abu hurayrah repeating the same thing thrice, means that Salman just
came upon. Salman was amongst them
here is the hadeeth (the muslim version):
"Book 031, Number 6178:
Abu Huraira reported: We were sitting in the company of Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him) that Sura al-Jumu'a was revealed to him and
when he recited (these words):" Others from amongst them who have not
yet joined them," a person amongst them (those who were sitting there)
said: Allah's Messenger! But Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him)
made no reply, until he questioned him once, twice or thrice. And there
was amongst us Salman the Persian. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be
upon him) placed his hand on Salman and then said: Even if faith were
near the Pleiades, a man from amongst these would surely find it."
As you can see, he said "there was amonst us Salam the Persian". It
does not indicate if Salman was there from the begining, the first time
Abu hurayrah asks the question, or the third time.
So I took this to mean that Salman did not come in the very begining of
the hadeeth, and this is because abu hurayrah says: "there was amongst
us Salman.." later on in this hadeeth. Of course this might not be the
case.
Either way, the main point was that, why didn't the Prophet put his
hand on Abu Hurayrah? Why just Salman? Why not both.
The reason probably, that abu hurayrah was not persian.
Still, as it stands right now, Mr. Zaman's only proof that abu hurayrah
was persian was because he spoke persian.
This does not constitude a proof, and the proofs for the link of jewish
origin given in the site above is stronger.
I'll end the thread on the origin of abu hurayrah now. Either way, the
amount of hadeeths attributed to this man, is an impossibility for a
period of 2 years.
And God knows best.
GF Haddad
> But this man has narrated about at least 6000 hadeeths that are
> diffrent. He spend two years with the prophet! That is about 9 hadeeths
> per day for 730 days! It is up to the reader to decide.
That's two lies and a crock. He narrated a little over 4,000 narrations and
came to meet the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace - in Madina four
years before the latter's death, the year of Khaybar.
> In my opinion that is ridicolous.
Who cares about your or my opinion.
qizilbash
<personal attacks snipped
>
> First off, qizilbash quotes WEB PAGES as his source of history.
This is a newsgroup, not a journal. The webpages had articles, not
pictures or graphics. In fact, many journals also have now gone on
webpages and there is nothing wrong with quoting them.
Please look at the entropy of the information instead of it being a
webpage or not.
One of the webpages mentions a pathan history book claiming that
pathans are from a jewish origin. It is very funny(it seems you like to
use that word funny) :) that you intentionally made no mention of the
book.
"Tareekh-e-Sher Shahi states that Bakht Nasr who invaded Jerusalem and
destroyed it, expelled Jewish tribes, including sons of Afghan, from
their homeland. During the days of the Babylonian captivity when the
jews were scattered, one of the tribes settled in the Hari Rud area of
modern (south) Afghanistan. Pathan legend states that they accepted
Islam during the time of the Prophet when a group of their kinsmen
(Jews) living in Arabia sent word to them that the true Prophet of God
as prophesied in their scriptures had appeared in Mecca"
This is from a pathan history source. Any comments mr. Zaman?
Now let us see what the fuss is about. My claim was that we can
speculate who the dajjal is and who the jews are. The articles below,
mentioned that some jewish customs are similar to pathan culture.
They were witnessed by the authors.
>
>
> So then why didn't he quote a single "history book"? (laugh)
Why did you not read the above, which clearly mentions a history book.
It is not my fault that you want to intentionally ignore the book.
>As we
> will see below he had plenty of reason to quote A&E.
None of the articles where taken from A&E, but A&E itslef is not an
invalid source. Based on your request I did not use A&E. I did not
know A&E did do a video on this. That makes the case somewhat stronger.
> >
> >" The other children of Moses
> > National Post
> > Isabel Vincent
> > Saturday, April 15, 2000"
>
> Asking "Why do yadda yadda" is not statement of historical fact.
> Sadly, this article is no reference for historical information. I
> happened to find this article. Allow me to quote from the article
> itself:
It seems that salt has been poured on the wound. The author here is not
saying "yadda yadda..". She is saying that some of the customs of
pathans resemble the israelities. Mr. Zaman does not address this point
and only address the comparisons that might possibly be wrong.
> "Quest for the Lost Tribes of Israel, his latest film, WHICH AIRS
> SUNDAY EVENING ON THE U.S. CABLE NETWORK A&E, is no exception. In it,
> Mr. Jacobovici, a self-described Indiana Jones with a video camera,
> travels to some of the world's remotest places and meets people who
> practise certain Israelite customs. Some of them even believe they are
> Jewish."
I am sorry, but the above source I gave was not A&E! If you having
trouble detecting the diffrence between A&E and the National Post,
please give it a break for your own sake.
Would you also please make a comment on that history book mentioned.
When people claim they are jewish, I as an outsider am not going to say,
no you are wrong.
>
> >Here is another link
> >
> >http://www.moshiach.com/tribes/ns/3.html
>
> This is from "Moshiach.com" which is a Zionist propoganda medium. This
> web page is so moronically put together it actually serves as comedy
> relief. Lets look at some of the insipid statements in this "Web"
> source:
The author makes some mistakes, but some of his comparions are valid.
Since he was an eyewitness account, we can not rule this out either.
the following is another website:
http://www.dangoor.com/71page33.html
> >
> >http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/pashtuns.html
>
> This URL is from a Pakistani young man who has a bunch of
> self-authored essays on his geocities web site about Pakistan.
Actually the article comes from the magazine Jang and was published
there.
I do not disagree with the author. Nevertheless. This is what I
claimed: We can not rule out the possibility of some pathan tribes
being of jewish origin. From books I have read, the pathan is a
confederation. Usually many confederations specially in the persian
lands are not uniform, for example qashqaii is composed of turks, arabs
and persians, lurs. The same with Quchaan tribes. The same can be
said about the pathan tribe.
It was probably the case that many subtribes gathered around and created
a confederation. In the case of the pathans, I will not argue that the
majority of these subtribes were of Aryan origin, mainly Sakas and
Parthians. But since some of their customs are like jews and one
history book above(there are some more) claims the historic/mythological
figure "Afghan"(the alleged father of the pathans) to be a jew,
we can not easily disclaim this source.
>
> Nonetheless, this article actually REFUTES him. Check this out. Its
> funny.
It is not a refutation. It seems in your binary world, everything is
either a refutation or not a refutation. The author is discussing
multiple sources. We can not claim one origin for a confederation.
Also the author most likely is mentioning the language factor. Haitians
speak french, but they are not french. So language does not necessarily
show light on the origin of the certain people.
Since the pathan history book and some pathans have claimed openly
of jewish ancestory, this claim can not be ruled out.
Either way, the point of this useless thread is this. Mr. Zaman
speculates that shi'ites are actually the jews that will follow dajjal.
I just countered his argument by giving another intrepretation of a
hadeeth.
I am also speculating based on some facts though(as small as they be).
I am saying IFF(if and only if) the dajjal is to come now or has come,
the land of KhoRasan is occupied by a one-eyed person named Mullah Omar
who is a pathan. Since the Dajjal will have jewish followers wearing
the "persian shaul" which interestingly is worn by almost all pathans,
while only mullahs in Iran wear it, then the possibility that mullah
omar is the dajjal can not ruled out. Also a jew in the islamic sense
according to some tafsirs, can be taken as a person that takes the
Quran and the law too literally and harshly , and this is the case of
the Taleban. Given his heinous crimes documented by Human Rights
organization, again the possibility can not be ruled.
All of the above is just a speculation based on a hadeeth(not
necessarily correct).
Mr. Zaman did not convince us that the possibility of jewishness in the
pathan confederation does not exist. More studies need to take place,
but so far some sources have been found. In fact since some pathans
claim to be jewish, this could be sufficient from our viewpoint, since
we are speaking relative to that person and not our view of that person.
In short, this thread was unnecassry and it was to illustrate a point
that one can not be dogmatic about the intrepretation of hadeeths that
talk about the future. Because:
1. a human does not know the future unless they are saints or
prophets(given by Mr. Zaman's personal attacks , I doubt he fits in the
category).
2. There could be 1001 intrepretation of such hadeeths.
3. Hadeeth as whole might not be reliable.
I consider this thread done, as further speculations about hadeeth
talking about the future, is not something one can be sure of.
qizilbash
Mr. Zaman admitted to item number 3. The funny thing is that , this has
the least sources also.
>
> 3) "Destroyed art and burned libraries"
Furthermore he said:
" A beautiful quote and had I been there I would have likewise ordered
that the books of the Pagans be burned to the ground and that only a
select FEW study them if they had any scientific or medical information.
"
This is pure arrogance. First of all Umar did not read any of the
books, and he just said, we don't need them. So we are not even sure
about the contents of the books. Secondly Mr. Zaman's way of thinking
contradicts Umar's way of thinking, since Umar burned the books while
Mr. Zaman would have kep a few of them.
By burning books, you destroy a civilization. One can not be objective
sometimes on considering a book pagan or not. Specially if they do not
even read the book. Also if Islam is such a weak religion, to be
threatened by a few pagan books, it would not have survived so long. So
the caliphs move was shear stupidity.
Mr. Zaman further continues:
"This indeed happened as is obvious that the sciences DID survive and
led to the greatest discoveries in the areas of medicine and mathematics
which was spearheadedfrom SUNNI Iran. This qizlbash amusingly says that
the decimal system's survival was as a result of the Seljuq's,
Ghaznavids, etc being tolerant. These dynasties lived scores AFTER the
the decimal system was perfected by the Muslims scholars in the Abbasid
Caliphate. "
Avicenna=Ismaiili father, zoroastrian mother. "considered a kaffar by
both sunnis and shi'ites"..Mr. Zaman wrongfully thought he was of a
sunni background.
Nasir Al-din tusi=Imami shi'ite. Mr. Zama's faviorate :)
Khayyam=most likely born a sunni, but his ideas are in direct conflict
with sunnism. This should be sufficient:
"Khayyam agar ze baadeh masti khosh baash.."
His thoughts are very similar to that of Naser Khosrow the ismaiili in
regards to desinity vs freewill, cosmology and regards for Mathematics.
Abu Yaqub Sijistaani=ismaiili
Naser Khosrow=ismaiili
Biruni="declared kaffars by both sunnites and shi'ites" according to Mr.
Zaman. I never heared a shi'ite condemn him as kaffar.
Farabi=claimed by ismaiilis as well. "Declared kaffar by both sunnites
and shi'ites" according to Mr. Zaman. Although this is not true, as his
ideas have directly influenced shi'ite philosophy.
Zakariya Raazi=an ismaiili
Al-khwarzami=of zoroastrian ancestors, the ismaillis claim them as their
own, but one can't be sure and there is no sources to say what he was.
Even if he was a sunni, it was probably due to gaining access to books
in the great libraries, and feeling no disadvantage while claiming
Sohrovardi=Sohrovardi
Either way, all of these men were product of Iranian culture(Farabi
could have been turkish) and wether they are sunni or shi'ite is of
secondary importance. If the muslims had burnt the hindu books(which
they could have, but thanks to abbassids, ghaznavids and seljuks they
didn't it), we might possibly not have the decimal system, as it is the
invention of the hindus which passed onto the muslims.
Before going back the point of the thread, I have made some spelling
typos and pronounciation mistakes. For example the word "momen" has two
m's and an n and we can easily type "momem", due to proximatiy of m and
n and also the repetitivity of "m". It would be a nice experiment to
see how many people make that mistake.
I have also made a mistake on pronounciation of two arabic names. This
is because I am not a native speaker of Arabic. To pick on these silly
points and not the content of the argument, is to hide away from the
main course of the thread.
Now going back to the point:
1) "Destroyed villages"
Mr. Zaman claims that sources like Tabari and Baladhuri are unreliable.
Of course we have other sources as well, the kamel of ibn asir, the
tarikh of sistaan, ibn fiqiyeh, lab-al-tawarikh, Tarikh Tabarestan..
Mr. Zaman in the previous post had asked for one source and I gave him
more. Afterwards he seems to attack the source.
But unfortunately for Mr. Zaman, there are hundreds of reports of
attrocities commited by the invading army.
some of them have been gathered(around 100) at this site:
http://www.golshan.com/Pazhoohesh/PazhEslam/Iran/main.html
such books as tarikh qom, tarikh sistan, tarikh dah hezaar saleyeh Iran,
tarikh Tabari, Tarikh Bal3ami, Kamel by Ibn Asir,Fotooh al-buladaan..
have been used.
I will quote some more materials, but the shear number of reports in
these books is enough to convince almost anyone that the conquest of
Iran was not peacefull. I will go into more details on who were the
narrators of these history as well.
the city of gorgaan, in Iran.
"..After many battles, the people of gorgaan wanted peace. Said ibn Aas
gave them refuge and said : "he won't kill a signle person". So the
people agreed and gave up fighting. But then Said ibn Aas killed
everyone of the town except one person! And about the break of his
promise he said: " I sweared I won't kill a single person". The number
of arab troops attacking gorgaan was 80,000"
(Kamel ibn asir pg 291-292)"
The same is reported in tabari.
<some personal attacks and comments deleted for sake of brevity>
Mr Zaman writes:
> Yes. It is amazing to even imagine that qizlbash thinks the readers
>are so
> stupid that they won't know if he presents faulty information and
>fabricated
> sources.
The sources can not so easily be disclaimed as falsely when there are
hundreds of reports of attrocities commited by Arabs in Iran. Many of
those that reported on these atrocities where arab tribes in KhurAsAn.
Unbiased scholars as well as Armenian historians of the time have
mentioned this as well. We are mainly concerned with muslim historians
here, but we can quote armenian and western historians as well.
"While there is no evidence that the Muslim armies actively tried to
make conversions, it appears that the caliph Umar was already seeking to
restrict conversions to islam only to the Arabs. One tradition claims
that he stopped the victorious Arabs from invading the Iranian plateu
after the battle Jalua' because he did not wish to convert Persians to
Islam"(Frye, Heritage of Persian, pg 62 quoted from Baladhuri).
"The conquests in central Asia was quite frankly intended to raise new
revenues and conversion to Islam was a secondary factor. Naturally the
native population did not appreciate this exploitation. Their treatment
at the hands of the Arabs, much more severe than, for example that of
the people western Iran, sure hlped to bring an end to ancient Sogdian,
khwarazmian and Bactrian cultures.."(Frye, 95)
"..The harshness of Qutaiba is amply reported and his son in the year
90/708 cucified thousands of the inhabitants of taliqan who had
revolted, the length of the row of poles on which the people were fixed
extending four farsakh(1 farsakh=6km about).."
The counter argument of Mr. Zaman on Tabari can also be dismissed by the
fact that the main narrators for the conquest of KhurAsAn were members
of the Tamim tribe, who were foreigners and actual conquerors of these
lands. So most of the narrators to Tabari in the regards of the
conquest were Sunnis and Arabs, not shi'ites nor Iranians. See Frye, pg
94: "Tabari, reports only the tribal narratives about the conquest, as
reported by the members of the Tamim tribe.."
We do not completely trust Tabari's history, but when the same thing is
said in diffrent history books, and also tabari and many others mention
these crimes in many diffrent places several dozens of time, then we
take it as the truth. Specially when many of them are narrated by sunni
arabs.
> This is about Khaalid ibn al-Waleed.
Khaalid ibn al-waleed was the general in the battle of al-hira during
the time of abubakr. We are examining the role of the arab invasion in
Iran, and Al-waleed was also a leader in the time of Umar as well.
So he is directly under the caliphate. I hope that is enough
connections.
2) taking slaves.
Slavery is still a common practice at least in one part of the sunni
world, Sudan. It was common among the arabs in north africa and it
seems that this cruel practice was even more widely common at one time.
For example Omar had a Kurdish Slave named Pirooz Nahavandi and was
killed by this man.
On women slaves, any men that was killed, their wive was already taken
as slave if she was a non-muslim.
We will just give couple of examples again. On the battle of
Ain-al-tamar, "Arabs in this battle like the previous battle became
sucessfull and their opponents took refugre in the castle of
ayn-al-tamar and stood up to the Arabs for four days of siege. Mehran
after four days, asked for peace from Khaled. Khaled accepted on the
condition that all the people in castle become muslims. Mehran who had
no choice, accepted this compromise and with his men, came out of the
castle unarmed. Khaled took those people as slaves and the Arabs took
their property.."(Tarikh Dah Hezaar Saaleyeh Iran, Abdol Azim Rezaaii).
On Muawiya, there is no need to go into details for brevity. Sufficient
to say that Persians were second clients and were taxed heavily under
his rule. This can be one of the reasons for the leaning of Persians to
shi'ism in cities like rayy, kufeh, qom, kashan..
The funniest thing is that Mr. Zaman thinks I am quoting Shi'ite
Polemics. Actually if Mr. Zaman knew anything, he would know that the
current Iranian government and books written by biased shi'ite scholars
maintain that Iranians accepted Islam with open arms. Mr. Zaman should
know that Ayatollah Motahari wrote a book propagating the fact that
Iranians accepted Islam with open arms. This book is propagated by the
current government as well.
I , who stand for the truth on this matter, seeing the hundreds of
sources on these brutalities had to accept the truth that Islam was
brought with the sword into Iran. Most people became muslims because of
heavy taxation and social benefits, not to mention the corruption of the
sassanian dynasty. Also finding that armenian historian from the time,
western sources and non-biased sources agree with this assertion, I had
no reason to deny the truth.
I think I have had enough discussions with sunni apologist in this
newsgroup. Seeing the political and social shame the sunni world
nto(Taliban, Sudan, Saudi Arabia) and lack of democracy and the
political and social shame pan-islamism has brought to Iran, I have
embarked on a task to scrutinize history truthfully. And then when they
discuss modern politics, it is all about conspiracy theories, the most
ridicolous one I have heared: "Hezbollah is used by zionist to undermine
muslim influence.."
The disgusting comments on book burning, is even more unfortunate.
Every book like every matter has truth in it, or else it would not
exist. We have to find out what the truth of that book is.
I have came with the conclusion that Islam had many positive
effects(Quran, Nahjul Balaqah, Sohrovardi, Avicenna, Rumi, Hallaj,
Bayzid Bistaami..), the greatest being Mazhar Haq, Ali and his
descendants and many negative effects(polygammy, disrespect towards
women, discrimination against religious minorities and non-arab
muslims,) due to its social background. We should take the positives
and filter out the negatives. This can only happen through a democracy.
This will be my last email to sunni apologist, as I am taking a
vacation. If anyone is interested in reading history free bias, they
can email me: qizi...@yahoo.com
Ya Ali Madad,
Best Regards
Shibli Zaman
Taliban and Sushi
>The one-eyed mullah omar, the dajjal .. his time will come to. The
>Mahdi(AS) will make sushi out of the taleban, their jewish supporters
>and the mullah's of Iran, inshallah.
Now thats what I call an acid trip!
Here is reality:
In August of 1998 the Taliban executed 8 Iranians who they claimed
were spies:
"Tensions between Iran and the Taliban have been escalating since
August, when eight Iranian diplomats and a journalist were slain in
the Afghan town of Mazar-i-Sharif after it fell to the Taliban."
So Iran threatened retaliation in October of 1998:
"After the slayings, Iran announced that it would conduct a massive
military exercise, called Zolfaqar-2, near the Afghan border. Defense
Minister Ali Shamkhani said last Saturday that the exercises would
begin within a week."
So the Taliban mobilized a mere force of 14,000 to the Iranian border:
"The Taliban are believed to have deployed 10,000 soldiers at the
border. Earlier this week, 4,000 fresh troops were reportedly sent
into the border region."
So Iran lined up their force of more than a quarter of a million
troops:
"Iran has massed 270,000 troops along its border with Afghanistan and
has been preparing for a full-scale military exercise that could begin
as soon as Saturday. Iranian television Friday showed footage of
aircraft and helicopters dropping bombs and firing rockets in what was
described as preparations for war games."
[ Taken from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/02/iran.afghanistan/ ]
Then the world waited, waited, and waited. A week came and went.
Nothing happened. Then in the following month of November:
"Iranian army forces paraded on Sunday near the Afghan border ahead of
the final phase of major military exercises, the country's state-run
television reported."
They decided to have a parade instead.
"Iranian television showed tanks, armored personnel carriers, towed
and self-propelled guns, as well as rocket launchers lined up in a
desert area in the province of Sistan-Baluchestan.
Fighter planes and helicopters were shown flying over the parade,
which Iranian TV said was overseen by the army's commander-in-chief,
Brigadier-General Ali Shahbazi."
A quarter of a million soldiers:
"In addition to the 200,000 army troops, Iran has massed 70,000
Revolutionary Guards in the border area covering 19,300 square miles
(50,000 sq kms)."
For a parade?! LOL!
[ Take from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/01/iran.wargames/index.html ]
What happened after that? Absolutely NOTHING. So much for the brave
and bold "Islamic Republic of Iran". It took just 14,000 Taliban
soldiers to scare 270,000 Iranian soldiers into aborting the operation
and having a PARADE instead (laugh). They quickly rushed to hold talks
with the Taliban the following months in February 1999. But, of
course, Iran being a neighbor who supported the Russian allied
Isma`ilis and other Russian allies during the 79-89 war, they know
full well what happens when you wander unwelcomed into Afghanistan.
Thus, concludes the satire of qizilbash and his "hysterical" sources
and references.
Now just wait and see....he will actually continue to respond! It
reminds me much of the "Black Knight" scene towards the beginning of
"Monty Python's: The Holy Grail". However, I think I have squeezed as
much fun out of this as was possible. Time to wrap it up.
GF Haddad
[on Abu Hurayra, Allah be well-pleased with him]
> He has also
> been called "Ghareeb ad-Daws"
Where?
Underwood
> knew
> > Persian as to this day there are many Yemenis who speak Persian.
>
> Well, Yemen was a colony of Persia at that time and this can very well
> be true.
the same manner as colonies of the modern period. Persia was not exactly
a naval power and Yemen was quite a distance from Persia, combined with
the fact that Persia had been involved in a costly war with the Romans in
the period immediately before the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Undoubtedly
some of the ruling classes in Yemen understood Persian, but the exact
degree of the "Persianness" would be questionable, and the degree of
fluency in Persian among many Yemenis then would be even more
interesting. What Persian was spoken by the average Yemeni would possible
be more akin to bazaar or kitchen Farsi than the sort of fluency required
to read the Zoroastrian scriptures. In reality Yemen was more of a client
state, with Persia in the early period of its' ascendency over Yemen
supporting parties opposed to Abyssinian influence.
wasalam
Ibrahim Underwood
Shibli Zaman
information on purpose with intent to deceive. I'll leave it up to you
all to decide for yourselves which one he is guilty of.
> "Tareekh-e-Sher Shahi states that Bakht Nasr who invaded Jerusalem and
>destroyed it, expelled Jewish tribes, including sons of Afghan, from
>their homeland. During the days of the Babylonian captivity when the
>jews were scattered, one of the tribes settled in the Hari Rud area of
>modern (south) Afghanistan. Pathan legend states that they accepted
>Islam during the time of the Prophet when a group of their kinsmen
>(Jews) living in Arabia sent word to them that the true Prophet of God
>as prophesied in their scriptures had appeared in Mecca"
>
>This is from a pathan history source. Any comments mr. Zaman?
>Would you also please make a comment on that history book mentioned.
>When people claim they are jewish, I as an outsider am not going to say,
>no you are wrong.
Yes, its 13 paragraphs after this quote of yours and you would have
seen the comments in MY POST YOU ARE RESPONDING TO. Why don't you read
the posts properly before replying? It makes no sense and makes you
out to look utterly incompetent and daft.
"Similarly, the story of Qais Abdur Rashid having gone from
Afghanistan to Arabia to meet the Prophet and after returning to his
country having converted the Afghans to Islam also DOES NOT STAND THE
SCRUTINY OF HISTORY. Muslim historians Ibn Haukal, Utbi and Alberuni
are unanimous in the view that uptill the time of Mahmud Ghaznavi i.e.
almost four hundred years after the death of the Prophet, MOST OF THE
AFGHANS WERE STILL BUDDHISTS OR HINDUS/PAGANS/ANIMISTS."
This is just found 13 paragraphs down from your quote in an answer and
refutation to the PRESENTATION of the theory. All theories are
presented in this artcle then they are each addressed at the end. I
contacted the author of this article and he was utterly dismayed. Here
is what he had to say:
"Actually the article on my website shows evidence that Pashtuns are
NOT descended from Jews/Hebrews."
[capitalization his own]
All are free to contact him at pak_h...@yahoo.com
I honestly don't think qizilbash "missed" this paragraph just 13
paragraphs below his quote. Its intentional and another classic
example of what kind of unethical scholastic gymnastics they pull.
Their positions are weak and they cling upon those weak ideologies
with undying tenacity. I, for one, am very happy this person is going
on "vacation".
Shibli Zaman
moderators' standards]
Again, more comedy. Now that I have a few minutes I'll kill some
time...
> Such a man was Shaikh Shihab al-din Abu al-futuh Yahya ibn Habash ibn
> Amirak al-Suhrawardi. Ironically this man was killed on the grounds of
> being a batini although he was born into the shafii fiqh..
Let us see if this hero of qizilbash was any kind of Muslim or if what
he believed and taught was Islam or a mix of the Judaic angel worship
cult of the Kabbala, Greek Gnosis, Zoroastrianism, etc.
Suhrawardi is coined as an "Illuminist" meaning that he gives divinity
to light in itself and sees it as the source of all good and truth
based upon a hierarchy of God and a sub-pantheon of divine Archangels
which provide these lights to the cosmos.
"The Essence of the First Absolute Light, God, gives constant
illumination, whereby it is manifested and it brings all things into
existence, giving life to them by its rays. Everything in theworld is
derived from the Light of His essence and all beauty and perfection
are the gift of His bounty, and to attain fully to this illumination
is salvation."
["Readings from the Mystics of Islam", page 53, Margret Smith"]
According to him, these lights are the source of everything.
"In fact, all things are made evident by it and should be identified
in reference to it." ["3 Muslim Sages", page 69, Syyed Hussayn Nasr]
According to Suhrawardi there is a parellel between the Sun and the
Mysticism of the Orient (East) since the sun rises in the East being
symbolic of spirit. This is in large part why his philosophy or
"Theosophy" as it is specifically called "Ishraaqiyah" meaning
"Illuminism" (not to be confused with "Istishraaq" which is
"Orientalism").
>From this "Divine Light", Suhrawardi presents a hierarchy of Divine
Archangels of Light along the latitude and longitude poles. The first
Archangel is the Lord of the highest and darkest reaches of the
heavens. His sole presence is said to illuminate the darkness. This
archangel receives its light from the Light of Lights which is said to
be the Godhead and then passes it on to the remaining pantheon of
Archangel. Finally there is the Archangel of the Latitude. Suhrawardi
called him the "Lord of the Species".
["The Science of Mystic Lights", pages 55-73, John Walbridge; and, "3
Muslim Sages", Syyed Hussayn Nasr, pages 71-72]
The readers should no ask themselves if this is Islam or some other
religion? I don't even need to elaborate or comment.
> "You will be a believer, when 1000 people call you kaffar"(attributed to
> the great saint Mansur Hallaj).
1000 people did not call Adam (peace be upon him) a kaafir. This quote
of Hallaj is as stupid as the quote which earned him execution: "I am
al-Haqq!" "al-Haqq" is one of Allah's Divine Names and means "The
Truth". He was executed and his body cut and then incinerated.
> Many of Ibn Sina's book was about spirituality and the reason for the
> creation of the universe. SO to claim that spirituality is not part of
> religion is erroneous. FOr example:
> In his Risalat-al-fi-ishgh ibn Sina considers love as the reason for
> existence(Islamic Cosmological Doctrines, Seyyed Hossein Nasr)
> "At the end of the Isharat, Ibn Sina describes the categories of those
> wh know.... The zahid, who practices asceticism and is pios, the abid,
> who turns his thought to the sancity of the divine, and the arif, who
> knows through illumination and ectasy.." same as above.
Again! We have qizilbash's art form of not having a clue about the
sources he quotes. This quote is not of Ibn Sina nor is Ibn Sina
quoted anywhere in the quote itself. This quote is from Syyed Hussayn
Nasr's book "Islamic Cosmological Doctrines" which talks about Ibn
Sina's works found in, "Tarjumati-l Isharah wa Tanbiha". What on earth
is this "Risalat-al-fi-ishgh" that qizilbash is referring to? LOL! It
is so errenous a name that, when translated, it comes out to: "The
Message The In Love". He may be referring to the "Risaalah fee
Mahiyati-l `Ishq" of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) which is about his philosophy
of "Love". "`Ishq" is Arabic for "Passionate Love". Again, how does
this qualify Ibn Sina as a religious scholar? He was not, as has
already been established in the last post in clear detail.
> OKay, the above might not be part of religion by sunni standards.. let
> me see.
>
> "Ibn Sina, in the last section of risalat al-nairuziyah, seeks to
> interpret the meaning of the letters at the begining of the surah
> maryam(XIX) and al-shawra(XLII) of the Quran.."
>
> So if writing a tafsir on these surah is not a religious work, than I am
> not sure what is.
The source of this is not qizilbash's "al-nairuziya" source but is
found in "Asbaab Huduth al-Huruf". This is not a tafseer of the
Qur'an. Its a book about the science of ARABIC PHONETICS. In this
book, Ibn Sina postulates the mathematical values of these cryptic
letters. Its such an infinitesimal piece of the overall work that one
who has read this must laugh. Its far from a Tafseer of the Qur'an!
> The ghaznavids were not Afghans, they were clearly turks and I have
The comedy keeps rolling in. The entirety of Northwest Afghanistan are
Uzbek, Turkomans, and other Turkish groups. The name "Ghaznavid" comes
>from "Ghazna". Any one who has a elementary school level world map can
see that "Ghazna" is in Afghanistan.
> > I refuse to entertain his
> > historical impedements every single year he gets free time and is
> > bored.
>
> Suit yourself. I consider that an excuse for not being able to respond.
No, he should consider that "having a life". I honestly don't know how
these Shi`ite proselytizers have so much time to waste. Their tenacity
in attacking the Sunni Muslims is startling. I'll be very honest and
say that I am actually upset with myself for the time I spent on these
refutations which I could have spent in my research projects for
da`wah. Everyone who reads this newsgroup knows that this is my normal
focus.
Allah is my witness at how many people I know of personally that have
accepted Islam by the efforts of people on this newsgroup such as
Saifullah, GF Haddad, and others. The Shi`ites only goal seems to be
to divert the Muslims from this endeavor.
I swear by Allah you will rarely see the Shi`ites engaging in writing
material to spread Islam amongst the non-Muslims. All throughout
history their focus has been brutalizing and harassing the Sunni
majority and causing schism.
> I urge the reader to read any diologue of Mr. Shibli with anyone whom he
> disagree's with.. Forget about the object of the argument, just look at
> his personal comments and you will find they amusing.
Yes, at this point I don't blame qizilbash's request to ignore the
"object of the argument" and focus on supposed "personal" matters.
After his daft display of quoting errant and non-existent sources as
well as the fabled "Princeton Library" (from where he might surf the
web, but thats about it), "escaping" would be a good course of action.
This qizilbash has a miserable lack of sources which I have chosen to
ILLUSTRATE IN DETAIL in each post. Of course I could, instead, say "HE
MAKES LOTS OF MISTAKES" without any further detail, but then again,
that would be completely daft and idiotic.
May Allah give qizilbash something more productive to do.
[Note: At the time of reposting this article, qizilbash posted that he
chose to take a "vacation".]
GF Haddad
Jaafar Karouni <karo...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:8tqgqk$9lg$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> So curse of Allah be on [...] and those who brought him.
It is a dark time for SRI when a moderator's "apology" (recirculating the
original offense, thus insuring its greater exposure) brings on a reply in
which a person curses God, attributes partners to Him, curses one of the
trusted Companions of His Prophet - upon him peace -, and receives no rebuke
>from his Rafidi co-religionists. And yet the moderators will be on their
toes to block a post cursing the liars among us. For shame!
Shibli Zaman
Allah). However, qizilbash found it necessary to exit declaring his
dissatisfaction with Islam:
> I have came with the conclusion that Islam had many positive
> effects(Quran, Nahjul Balaqah, Sohrovardi, Avicenna, Rumi, Hallaj,
> Bayzid Bistaami..), the greatest being Mazhar Haq, Ali and his
> descendants and many negative effects(polygammy, disrespect towards
"..Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear
that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one,
or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more
suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."
[al-Qur'aan, Surat an-Nisaa', 4:3]
> women, discrimination against religious minorities and non-arab
> muslims,) due to its social background. We should take the positives
> and filter out the negatives. This can only happen through a democracy.
Islam is not a religion you can "filter" into 50% satisfaction and 50%
dissatisfaction. Allah says:
"..This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your
religion: yet fear them not but fear Me (Allah). THIS DAY HAVE I
PERFECTED YOUR RELIGION FOR YOU, COMPLETED MY FAVOR UPON YOU, AND HAVE
CHOSE FOR YOU AL-ISLAM AS YOUR RELIGION...."
[al-Qur'aan, Surat al-Maa'idah 5:3]
Obviously, qizilbash chose to "filter" this out, thereby "filtering"
himself out of the realm of Islam. I will write a post that takes a
look at the beliefs of this shady and anonymous person who claims to
be representative of Shi`ism and Iranians (he is neither).
> This will be my last email to sunni apologist, as I am taking a
> vacation. If anyone is interested in reading history free bias, they
> can email me: qizi...@yahoo.com
Thank God, finally.
However, I expect to see him again next year when he gets bored and
thinks that no one reading SRI witnessed his ignominy this year or the
previous one.
> Ya Ali Madad,
This means "O Ali, Help me!"
"Say: Think ye to yourselves, if there come upon you the wrath of
Allah, or the Hour (that ye dread), would ye then call upon other than
Allah?- (reply) if ye are truthful!"
[al-Qur'aan, Surat al-An`aam, 6:40]
"But those ye call upon besides Him, are unable to help you, and
indeed to help themselves."
[al-Qur'aan, Surat al-A`raaf, 7:197]
Jaafar Karouni
It is normal now that every time some brothers find nothing to argument, they
take it on the Moderator. Indeed Truth is hard to take. But before you accuse
the Moderator, can you provide some answers to the following:
Why dear brother you insist on eclipting the history ?
Did Allah ask us not to understand our living and our history ?
Didn't Moaweyah Yes or No derail Islaam from its right track ?
Didn't Moaweyah and his succession massacre the prophet household to venge the
Umayyads Kafirs who were killed by Imam Ali in Badr ?
Didn't Umar tell Moaweyah that he will be the first king in Islaam ?
Didn't Moaweyah appoint his son Yazeed before his death ?
Didn't Yazeed send his monsters to Madeenah and took allegiance from people that
they are Yazeed's slaves ?
Didn't the Madeenah women get pregnant from rape by Yazeeds men and many were
born no one knows their fathers, because the Madeenah supported Imam Hussein ?
Did Moaweyah and his succession come to power by themselves ?
Someone brought them, and you know whom and why.
So I am sure it is not Allah or the SRI Moderator who brought Moaweyah and
Yazeed to destroy Islaam.
Wassalaam
Jaafar
GF Haddad
> So I am sure it is not Allah or the SRI Moderator who brought Moaweyah and
> Yazeed to destroy Islaam.
Islam is greater and more exalted than to be destroyed by anyone on earth or
in heaven. I bear witness that Allah creates and decrees everything, the
good and the bad, and that whoever denies it is a Kafir without the least
doubt. I invite you to repent from such self-harmful statements and to hold
your tongue.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
www.sunnah.org
Jaafar Karouni
GF Haddad wrote:
> As-Salamu `alaykum:
>
> > So I am sure it is not Allah or the SRI Moderator who brought Moaweyah and
> > Yazeed to destroy Islaam.
>
> Islam is greater and more exalted than to be destroyed by anyone on earth or
> in heaven. I bear witness that Allah creates and decrees everything, the
> good and the bad, and that whoever denies it is a Kafir without the least
> doubt.
First, for the sake of truth, the issue is not prsonal, it is not me. Did yes
or no Yazeed requested allegiance from Madeenah peoples that they are his slave
?
Please answer.
Well, Islaam has been destroyed in the soles of those who faught Imam Ali, and
in the soles of those who faught Imam Hussein, and more importantly in the soles
of those who knew all about the crimes committed against the prophet's household
and try to find good exits and face saving for the the true kafirs who faught
Ahlubait by their soards and those who fight their truth by their tongues.
> I invite you to repent from such self-harmful statements and to hold
> your tongue.
>
I invite you to repent from helping the ennemies of the prophet, and I will
enjoy the reward, and I will not hold my tongue until Allah (SW) decides it.
This is SRI, and it loves the prophet's household.
Dear Hajj,
South Lebanon became muslim and belong to Ahlubait and liberated from Israel
just because of the tongue of Abu Thar L Ghefari, who spread the love of
prophet's household in Jabal Amel, this great Sahabi was exiled by Othmaan first
to Damascus than to the Ribthah (because of his truthful tongue).
Ammar Bin Yasser was beaten by Othaman and his men because of his tongue.
And Maytham Ttammar was killed by the cursed Yazeed because of his tongue.
What is wrong if jaafar Karouni's tonge joins that of Ammar, Abu Thar and
Maytham ?
What is wrong with your tongue joining ours ?
Wassalaam,
Jaafar
khan.ai...@gmail.com
Hubb-e-Sahaba (R.A) Rehamtullah - Bughz-e-Sahaba (R.A) Lanatullah
I think persians had make their own islam, and they hate Hazrat Umar (r.a) =
because he was the one who conquered persia and destroyed persia with their=
pagan beliefs. and don't worry even after him there are people working to =
keep the fitna of Shiaa at bay, In Pakistan we have Lashkare-Jahangvi, Sipa=
h-e-Sahaba, in Afghanistan Talibans, and rest of the middle east Al Qaida i=
s there, and now very famous Daesh is making the hell of these bloody Shiaa=
s and day is not far when they will be destroyed with their false belief.