New Age Islam
Tue Aug 04 2020, 07:44 PM

Radical Islamism and Jihad ( 7 March 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com)

Comment | Comment

Arab wars for power were not Islamic jihad

CENTRALITY OF JIHAD IN THE POST-QUR’ANIC PERIOD

By Asghar Ali Engineer

(Islam and Modern Age, March 09)

 

 Jihad in Islam has acquired centrality in history of Islam. In Qur’an it is not jihad but values like justice, compassion and forgiveness are more prominent. While these values are permanent and transcendent, war (for which Qur’an uses the word qital, not jihad) is contextual and defensive only when such situation arises. Rahmah (compassion) is quite central to Islam as it is one of the most prominent names of Allah. Compassion, in fact, is as central to Islamic value-system as in Buddhism. But then question arises why jihad, that too, in the sense of war, became so central to Islam? It is an important question and we must seek answer to this question in the history of Islam.

 

I think, the whole problem begins with the doctrine though not Qur’anic and which developed over a period of time, that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. This doctrine assumed great importance in Muslim countries and all sorts of rulers, monarchs, sultans and sheikhs exploited it to hilt to establish authoritarian regimes which violated all Qur’anic values.

 

This doctrine that religion and politics cannot be separated was result of religion becoming instrument of seeking power rather than seeking the truth (Haq). The most fundamental purpose of religion is seeking truth, not power. Though ideally power must be based on truth but it is not. Power often results in serious compromises with truth and hence truth is compromised in search of power.

 

 Now the question is how religion in Islamic history came to be associated with power? When the Prophet (PBUH) died there was no state structure. All services were performed by the people purely voluntarily including war services and services for maintaining order in the society. It was purely people’s state, if at all we can call it a state. But after the death of the Holy Prophet the character of the state began to be transformed and by the time of 2nd caliph it acquired all the feature of a formal state structure.

 

Before we proceed any further we must note that when the Prophet of Islam began to preach in Mecca, Mecca was a stateless tribal society governed by tribal customs and traditions and through consensus of tribal chiefs in policy matters. There was no ruler or ruling class. It was tribal chiefs and traders who had formed their own inter-tribal trade corporations who wielded tremendous clout.

 

Thus it would be seen that Islam appeared in a society which had no state structure, no army, no policing services and no bureaucracy. Prophet’s mission was to cleanse the society of all moral corruption, obsession with material wealth, neglect of weaker sections of society and promoting belief in one God (tawhid) as belief in multiple gods in Arab society in general and in Mecca in particular, had resulted in mutual tribal conflicts and superstitious practices, some of which has been mentioned in the Qur’an.

 

 Thus it was difficult to build unity among all the people who worshipped different gods and associated different practices and superstitions with different gods. It was also resulting in moral corruption. Accumulation of wealth also came under strong denunciation as it had divided society into rich and powerful and poor, weak and orphans and widows and slaves. These weaker sections of society had no human worth and dignity. They simply provided cheap source of labor.

 

Islam’s main concern was to promote belief in one God, build unity among all people irrespective of tribal and other affiliations and restore human dignity to all. Piety and moral rectitude, guaranteed nearness to Allah, not riches or tribal affiliations. The Prophet’s whole struggle was to set up such a society of good human beings and hence emphasized equality of all human beings, including of men and women, Arab and non-Arab, rich and poor. This was the main mission of Allah’s Messenger.

 

And it is for this precise reason that Qur’an made it obligatory for all men and women to enforce evil and contain evil. It is not state’s duty but an individual moral obligation in the Qur’an. This also shows there is no concept of state but concept of society. Also, it would be individual who would be responsible for his/her good or bad deeds before Allah. State’s function is to maintain law and order.

 

But after death of the Prophet (PBUH) there was no great moral authority to influence people and since there was no formal state structure, it became necessary to evolve a formal state structure. Since there was no available model among Arabs, much had to be copied from Persian and Roman state structures. As there was no fixed model of deciding as to who will head the new fledging state Muslim opinion got divided, some accepting Prophet’s son-in-law as head of the state appointed by the Prophet and some said the Prophet Abu Bakr to succeed him. Shi’ahs accepted Ali as successor and Sunnis Abu Bakr as successor to the Prophet to tackle the affairs of the new community.

 

Pursuit of power or building up a state was not and cannot be the purpose of any religion. In case of Islam it was mere historical circumstances that brought newly emerging religion and fledgling state together. Thus it cannot be treated as doctrine but historical coincidence. And it was struggle for power which sharply divided Muslims into two major sects and also it was power struggle which resulted in civil war after assassination of third caliph and more than 70 thousand Muslims died in the civil war.

 

 This is the most tragic phase of early history of Islam. Though state had become historical necessity for Muslims in Madina which emerged as centre of power after the death of the Prophet (PBUH) its association with Islam was neither inevitable nor desirable. Pursuit for power, became the main preoccupation of many Muslims Rather than pursuit for truth and moral obligations.

 

 Thus despite the doctrine of fusing religion with politics, urge for power remained strong rather than urge for moral rectitude and truth. Religion and religiosity did not dominate but urge for power did. Ultimately the institution of khilafah which was more democratic and was based on religious values to a great extent was soon replaced by feudal monarchy on the Roman and Sassanid pattern and monarchy was based only on power and religious element totally disappeared. It became dynastic rule first of Umayyads and then of Abbasids.

 

 The first casualty of transformation of khilafah into monarchy was battle of Karbala which is great tragedy of early history of Islam. It was greed for power on the part of Yazid, son of first Umayyad ruler Mu’awiyah that led to martyrdom of Imam Husain, the grandson of the Prophet (PBUH). Husain stood for Islam and Islamic values and Yazid for power. It was Umayyad greed for power which resulted in killing of members of Prophet’s family.

 

 It is unfortunate that these wars for power were often called ‘jihad’ and not only meaning of jihad which originally means struggle for truth was corrupted to mean war in the way of Allah. These wars were anything but war in the way of Allah. Qur’anic doctrine nowhere requires war with sword to spread Islam. So all conquests that took place had nothing to do with religion and were anything but jihad.

 

 In fact the series of conquests begin with the 2nd Caliph Umar and Sassanid and parts of Roman Empire were conquered. Unfortunately we do not find much on reasons for these conquests in early sources. It was certainly not for spread of Islam or spread of truth. The text of treaties mentioned by Baladhuri, the author of Futuh al-Buldan clearly indicate that conquered people were not asked to convert to Islam but negotiated with them the terms of jizya, supply of military provisions, slaves etc. Nowhere are they invited to convert to Islam. If some people convert it was purely a voluntary act.

 

Yet for all these wars Tabari (the eminent historian) and others have used the term ‘jihad’ which no where comes near the sense in which Qur’an uses the term. The act of conquest was thus a political, not a religious act. The Prophet’s whole struggle (jihad) was for creating a new human being who would be morally upright imbibing values of Qur’an like justice, equality, compassion, wisdom, knowledge truth etc.

 

 It is important to note that for this new human being Qur’an uses the word mu’min often translated as ‘believer’. But the Qur’anic term mu’min is far more comprehensive and refers to qualitative transformation of person’s inner being than simple belief. The Qur’anic term m’umin refers to a new human being fully transformed qualitatively who would be engaged with his society to fight all that is evil which leads to conflict, oppression and exploitation.

 

However this project of creating new human beings with inner qualities of heart and mind was seriously compromised with the pursuit of power. The word jihad which was originally meant for this inner struggle for moral transformation and creation of new human being, came to be used for wars of conquests and desire for more and more power. The Qur’an was basically addressing these issues of moral and ethical values and permitting war only in defense. This permission was also granted as rich and powerful of the Quraysh were against qualitative transformation of society as it seriously affected their powerful vested interests.

 

Their whole preoccupation was accumulation of wealth and this was not possible without exploitation and oppression and insensitivity to sufferings of weaker sections of society. The new human being, a mu’min would have been a great danger to their interests and hence they intensified their opposition to emergence of such a movement based on justice, equality and compassion which were central values of this newly emerging movement in Mecca.

 

When the Prophet (PBUH) migrated to Madina this movement still posed danger to kuffar (unbelievers, rejecters or opponents) of Mecca. They knew Muhammad (PBUH) would be safe and at ease in Madina and will consolidate this position. Hence they entered into an understanding with Jews of Madina who were also unhappy with the new community of believers which was becoming dominant posing threat to their interests (though much closer to them religion-wise but it is conflict of interests which mattered, not similarities of religion).

 

 The kuffars of Mecca began attacking Madina to harass the Prophet and his followers and thus make success of the new movement most difficult, if not impossible. Thus Qur’an permitted Muslims to fight in the way of Allah those who fought against them (Muslims) but cautioned them not to be aggressors as Allah does not love aggressors. Thus no war could not be waged by Muslims unless attacked.

 

But most of the wars fought by Muslims after the death of the Prophet (PBUH) were not defensive wars as permitted by the Qur’an but aggressive or acquisitive. Moreover, Qur’an never used the word ‘jihad’ for war but it uses the word ‘qital’ for such wars. The word jihad had religious appeal and was used in the Qur’an and hadith for striving for good, for justice, for ushering in non-discriminatory, non-hierarchical society.

 

Since jihad had great religious appeal the word jihad began to be used for all such wars and that is how jihad began to be used very loosely by Muslim rulers and even wars of aggression and territorial aggrendisement began to be described as jihad by Umayyads and Abbasids and subsequently other rulers which multiplied with weakening of centralized Abbasid state from later part of 10th century onwards. Even when ambitious ruling dynasties of Muslims fought against each other it was called jihad.

 

Since these rulers were highly influential even among theological circles and subsequent generations were highly ignorant of original meanings of the Qur’anic words and terminologies, jihad ultimately came to be accepted as religious war and any war became religious war in subsequent history of Islam.

 

Islam had originally emerged among the community of traders and it had adopted a middle path and Qur’an had described Muslims as ummatan wasatat (community of middle path). We also find in hadith literature that middle path is the best path morally and ethically and Muslims were urged to avoid either extremes. Middle path always leads to stability and extremism leads to turmoil and upheavals. Middle path, moreover is the most desirable path for a trading society which prefers stability and seeks to avoid extremes.

 

 But with wars of conquests and expansions of empire, trading society was transformed into a community of warriors. Arabs did indulge into inter-tribal ghazwa (raids) but had no trained armies and the Quraysh of Mecca, who initially became principal opponents of Islam, were mostly traders and were not much interested in warfare. But when their interests were threatened, as pointed out above, they assembled some loosely fighting force and attacked Madina. But they had neither a trained army nor they intended one as they thought Muslims could be finished off with ease.

 

 When parts of Roman Empire and Iran were conquered during Hazrat Umar’s time then also Muslims had no trained and disciplined army. Bedouins and Urban Arabs constituted loose fighting force and it was mere zeal and determination and also support of common oppressed people of these countries that they could win against powerful and well-trained armies. It was nothing short of miracle.

 

However, such miracles do not recur nor such enthusiasm and determination lasts for ever, and once Arabs tested political power they were tempted to acquire more and more power and gradually that became their preoccupation. Thus the nation of traders was transformed into nation of conquerors. Soon people of conquered countries began to embrace Islam for variety of reasons and they joined Muslims with their martial traditions.

 

Now Muslim ruling classes acquired all the traits of martial races with hierarchical feudal values and Islamic values began to be sidelined. Islam had laid great emphasis on equality and new martial cum feudal society replaced original Islamic society with its own weltanschauung. The new society was hierarchical with emphasis on superiority of ruling class rather than of pious.

 

Compassion, mercy, benevolence wisdom were less important that war like virtues and ruthlessness of rulers. Exploitation and oppression are characteristics of those with lust for power and wealth. Centrality of compassion and mercy which are divine virtues was lost and centrality of war in the garb of jihad occupied its place. Islam became now religion of rulers rather than of the oppressed as in the Qur’an.

 

 It was not something unique with Islam. Other religions like Christianity had met the same fate earlier. Christianity too was religion of love, compassion and peace during the time of the Christ and it again it was the poor and the oppressed who had adopted Christianity. Like in the Qur’an Bible also talked about the meek inheriting the earth. The Christians remained most oppressed for about two to three centuries.

 

 However, when Roman emperor embraced Christianity its character was transformed and from religion of the oppressed it became religion of oppressors and subsequent history of Christianity is history of bloodshed and warfare. Its central values were also sidelined. Those who were sincerely religious among Christians began to live life of renunciation and retreats and isolation.

 

 Likewise among Muslims there emerged a group of Sufis who equally resented warfare and bloodshed for political power among Muslims, especially among Umayyads and Abbasids initially and among other non-Arab Muslims subsequently and they too adopted simpler and what they considered as Islamic way of life. For Sufis therefore, real jihad was fighting against ones own desire and lust for power and they termed this jihad as jihad-e-akbar (the greatest jihad). They battled their own desire so that they could imbibe Islamic values and create a society based on compassion, justice and equality.

 

 Their religion, unlike religion of rulers, was not religion of mere rituals but of values. For a ruling class religion is mere bundle of rituals but for those who resist lust for power and battle their own desire, religion is religion of values. For them all human beings are worthy of respect irrespective of their station in life and irrespective of their ethnic origin or religious persuasion. It is for this reason that people of different faiths and social status visit their hospices or graves.

 

 Today in our own times jihad is being grossly misused by power seekers and modern highly destructive weapons like bombs are used to kill innocent people for their political struggle. This is what Qur’an calls fasad (when something goes beyond moderation and causes disorder and mischief), not jihad. Thousands of innocent people are being killed and many youth are made to lay down their lives in the hope of getting paradise in the life hereafter.

In fact these brainwashed youth, falsely enticed by powerful vested interests, waste their life and kill innocent people and cause so much mischief and destruction of life and properties (fasad). It is all because of the misuse of the Qur’anic term jihad which Qur’an uses for creating a just, peaceful and compassionate society sensitive to others suffering. In fact compassion in this sense is as central to Islam as in Buddhism or Christianity.

 

Now it is for those youth who are properly educated in Islamic values to dedicate themselves to promote compassion and respect for human life and stop monstrosities being committed in the name of Islam. It would be real jihad and it is this jihad which will earn the whole humanity paradise. A truly Islamic society will be one where all are free, free from fear, free from oppression and exploitation.

 

To pursue such a goal one has to use religion for pursuit of truth, not pursuit for power. When religion is used for pursuit for power, it results in bloodshed and war and when religion is used for pursuit of truth it results in peaceful and compassionate society. Unfortunately ruling classes use religion for pursuit of power by projecting themselves as champions and protectors of religion.

 

Those who use religion in pursuit of truth carry on their struggle and dedicate themselves for removing sufferings from society and make society humane and worthy of peaceful coexistence for all. Let us bring values of justice, equality, compassion and peace at the centre as it was intended by Islam.

 

Asghar Ali Engineer is a renowned Islamic scholar and author of several books on Islamic law and politics. He is with the Institute of Islamic Studies, Mumbai. E-mail: <csss@mtnl.net.in

 

 URL: http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/arab-wars-for-power-were-not-islamic-jihad---/d/1232

 

Loading..

Total Comments (10)

  • 10 .

    from    Ayesha Ali

    reply-to           ayesha_nazi@yahoo.com

    to         Sultan Shahin

    date    9 March 2009 13:37

    subject           Re: Mainstream Islam needs to condemn Jihadism more clearly , NewAgeIslam.Com - 23 Feb, 2009

    u mother fucker................ jihad is in our nerves..................

     tell me who r u? r u muslim..christian or hindu?

     we cannot leave jihad as it is in our religion.............................. u understand u bitch

     hindus are killing muslims..hindus have occupied kashmir..christians have occupied afghanistan...and iraq.........u non-muslims are grabbing everything from muslims and u still want us to leave jihad........ go to hell u mother fuckers

    By Ayesha Ali
  • 9 .

    I think, the whole problem begins with the doctrine though not Qur’anic and which developed over a period of time, that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. This doctrine assumed great importance in Muslim countries and all sorts of rulers, monarchs, sultans and sheikhs exploited it to hilt to establish authoritarian regimes which violated all Qur’anic values. [Asghar Ali Engineer]

    ==================================================

     

    Dear Sir,

     

    Before 1979 [the start of Afghan War 1979 - 2001 - 911] the Militancy in the Muslim world particularly in the Middle East had always been associated with the Left Wing Guerrilla Warfare [Purely Secular and Marxist and in some cases Atheist]. The so-called Islamic Militancy which we have been facing nowadays is the direct result of Unholy Alliance of Mullahs-Jamat-e-Islamic-Ikhwanul Muslimeen-Rafiidites of Ayatullahs-CIA-ISI-MI6-MOSSAD and last but not the least Saudi Mukhbirat.

     

    Read the thread and entries and posts:

     

    How ‘Pakistan’s Switzerland’ became Taliban land

     http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1167

    Details are as under:

    Go through the youtube audio and transcript below to learn as to how These Zbigniew Brzezinski [Former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, who is now a backbone on Foreign Poilcy for Obama - The President of the USA] helped Afghan Mullahs and Ayatullah Khomeini for "Cause of Islam". Khomeini [a brother of Mawdudi - The Founder of Jamat-e-Islami] was helped by the US CIA during IRAN-IRAQ WAR [READ THE US CONGRESS PROCEEDINGS ON IRAN CONTRA AFFAIRS] AND ALSO VISIT US NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/[ The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
    [DECLASSIFIED US GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT ON THIS WHOLE OPERATION OF US Central Intelligence http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB40/

    Barack Obama, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Al Qaeda

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V-bxx7OyZ0

    The Taliban Phenomenon - 23

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/taliban-phenomenon-23.html

    Regarding Turkmenistan's Oil and Gas Deal and UNOCAL:


    In 1995, the Unocal oil company signed a tentative agreement with the Turkmenistan government to research the possibilities of constructing an oil pipeline to Pakistan by way of Afghanistan.

    As the project developed, Unocal began to seek the agreement of the Taliban, who had seized power in Kabul in September 1996. On two separate occasions, in February and December 1997, Taliban officials were flown to the US to meet with, and be wined and dined by, Unocal executives.

    Up until 1998, when it became clear that the Taliban were in alliance with the al Qaeda terrorist network, Clinton administration officials actively lobbied Taliban officials on behalf of Unocal.

    In 1997, Zalmay Khalilzad, at that time a consultant with Cambridge Energy Research Associates, conducted risk assessments for Unocal on their proposed 1440 kilometre pipeline project to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan.

    A member of the Project for a New American Century lobby group set up by current US Vice-President Dick Cheney and US war secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 1997, Khalilzad was appointed by President George Bush in December 2001 to be the US Special Envoy to Afghanistan, supervising the creation of Karzai's regime.

    The Taliban Phenomenon - 22

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/taliban-phenomenon-22.html

    U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 12, 1998

    The two claim that the US government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia. They affirm that until August [2001], the US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, "the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that."

    13 Questions for Bush about America's Anti-terrorism Crusade By Martin A. Lee, AlterNet. Posted September 28, 2001.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/11600/


    http://www.alternet.org/story/11600/?page=2

    As per Alternet Media

    Four months ago, U.S. officials announced that Washington was giving $43 million to the Taliban for its role in reducing the cultivation of opium poppies, despite the Taliban's heinous human rights record and its sheltering of Islamic terrorists of many nationalities. Doesn't this make the U.S. government guilty of supporting a country that harbors terrorists? Do you think your obsession with the "war on drugs" has distorted U.S. foreign policy in Southwest Asia and other regions?

    When the CIA was busy doling out an estimated $2 billion to support the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden and his colleagues were hailed as anti-communist freedom fighters. During the cold war, U.S. national security strategists, many of whom are riding top saddle once again in your administration, didn't view bin Laden's fanatical religious beliefs as diametrically opposed to western civilization. But now bin Laden and his ilk are unabashed terrorists. Definitions of what constitutes terror and terrorism seem to change with the times. Before he became vice president, Dick Cheney and the U.S. State Department denounced Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress, as a terrorist. Today Mandela, South Africa's president emeritus, is considered a great and dignified statesman. And what about Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who bears significant responsibility for the 1982 massacre of 1,800 innocents at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. What role will Sharon play in your crusade against international terrorism?

    It has become Taliban Land because 'God' was and is on Taliban Side:

    Zbigniew Brzezinski to Jihadists: Your cause is right!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk&feature=related

    God is on your side! Zbigniew Brzezinski

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaiJtLrEwVU&feature=related

    Brzezinski: "What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

     

    http://hnn.us/articles/8438.html

     

    Are We to Blame for Afghanistan? By Chalmers Johnson

     

    Mr. Johnson's latest books are Blowback (Metropolitan, 2000) and The Sorrows of Empire (Metropolitan, 2004), the first two volumes in a trilogy on American imperial policies. The final volume is now being written. From 1967 to 1973, Johnson served as a consultant to the CIA's Office of National Estimates.

     

    This article first appeared on www.tomdispatch.com,  a weblog of the Nation Institute, which offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news and opinion from Tom Engelhardt, a long time editor in publishing, the author of The End of Victory Culture, and a fellow of the Nation Institute.

     

    http://hnn.us/articles/8438.html

     

    Indepth details [Blast from the Past]

    Mullah Military Alliance [1999-2007] - 1

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-pakistani-mullahs-connived-with.html

    Mullah Military Alliance [1999-2007] - 2

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-pakistani-mullahs-connived-with_26.html

    Mullah Military Alliance [1999-2007] - 3

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-pakistani-mullahs-connived-with_679.html 

    READ THE DETAILS....

     Confident Musharraf On Bin Laden!

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/01/confident-musharraf-on-bin-laden.html

    Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks  by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

    Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001

    Pakistan's chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad "was in the US when the attacks occurred." He arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks. He had meetings at the State Department "after" the attacks on the WTC. But he also had "a regular visit of consultations" with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

    "And this takes me back to Pervez Musharraf’s first visit to the US after his coup. At a meeting with a group of journalists among whom I was present, my dear and much lamented friend Tahir Mirza, then the Dawn correspondent, asked Musharraf why he was not acting against Lashkar-e Tayba and Jaish-e Muhammad. Musharraf went red in the face and shot back, “They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”

    Pakistani neocons and UN sanctions BY Khalid Hasan [May Allah have mercy on his soul] http://www.khalidhasan.net/2008/12/28/pakistani-neocons-and-un-sanctions/ Khalid Hasan is Daily Times’ US-based correspondent. His e-mail is khasan2@cox.net

    Ex-generals’ wisdom February 07, 2008 

    http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/07/ed.htm#1

     

     

     

    By Aamir Mughal
  • 8 .

    But after death of the Prophet (PBUH) there was no great moral authority to influence people and since there was no formal state structure, it became necessary to evolve a formal state structure. Since there was no available model among Arabs, much had to be copied from Persian and Roman state structures. [Asghar Ali Engineer].

    It is unfortunate that these wars for power were often called ‘jihad’ and not only meaning of jihad which originally means struggle for truth was corrupted to mean war in the way of Allah. These wars were anything but war in the way of Allah. Qur’anic doctrine nowhere requires war with sword to spread Islam. So all conquests that took place had nothing to do with religion and were anything but jihad.  In fact the series of conquests begin with the 2nd Caliph Umar and Sassanid and parts of Roman Empire were conquered. Unfortunately we do not find much on reasons for these conquests in early sources. It was certainly not for spread of Islam or spread of truth. [Asghar Ali Engineer].

    ============================================

    Dear Editor,

    I wonder if Mr Asgher Ali Engineer has even read the Volumes number 2, 3, and 4 of Tabari [he relied on Tabari to condemn Muawiyah and Yazeed] wherein a complete State Structure is given which was left by Prophet Mohammad [PBUH], Mr Asgher Ali should also have tried first two volumes of Tabaqat-e-Ibn-e-Sa'ad, and should also have read Ibn Khaldun's Volume [Rasool and Khulafa-e-Rasool] before passing the comment that;

    "QUOTE"

    But after death of the Prophet (PBUH) there was no great moral authority to influence people and since there was no formal state structure, it became necessary to evolve a formal state structure. Since there was no available model among Arabs, much had to be copied from Persian and Roman state structures.

    "UNQUOTE"

    Some of the important facts that need to be kept in mind while passing any judgments about the expidition of Persia (often termed forced conversion) [by the Companions] and killing and expelling the Jews of the Banu Qurayzah and other tribes from Arabia:


    The Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] was the last messenger of Allah. With his status as a Rasul, the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] was in a position to do Itmamu'l-Hujjah [Final Argument] even as an individual. No one after him has that privilege. No individual can do Itmamu'l-Hujjah now because no individual can claim that his propagation has manifested the truth to the extent that no excuse is left to deny it. Indeed, an individual cannot even be absolutely certain of having understood the truth absolutely correctly. He can only be certain that God will reward him for doing his duty as he has 'been given the light to see it'. Only the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]'s word are final in religion. After the Prophet [PBUH], the responsibility of bearing witness to the truth of Islam was passed on to his Companions [May Allah be pleased with them], who were declared Ummah Wasat (the intermediate people) and the shuhada 'ala'l-Nas (witnesses over people).

    The Qur'an says:

    And strive for Allah with the endeavour which is His right. He hath chosen you and hath not laid upon you in religion any hardship; the faith of your father Abraham (is yours). He hath named you Muslims of old time and in this (Scripture), that the messenger may be a witness against you, and that ye may be witnesses against mankind. So establish worship, pay the poor-due, and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protecting friend. A blessed Patron and a blessed Helper!  [AL-HAJJ (THE PILGRIMAGE) Chapter 22 - Verse 78]

    Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. [AL-BAQARA (THE COW) Chapter 2 Verse 143]

    Killing and Expelling the Jews of the Banu Qurayzah:

    1- After the Prophet’s migration to Medinah, the Banu Qurayzah, with the other Jewish tribes of the locality, became a party to the Medinah declaration, according to which, these Jewish tribes and the Muslim state of Medinah were to act as alliances against any foreign attacks. According to this declaration, the Jews were allowed complete religious freedom and were granted protection of life and wealth as long as they honored the declaration;

    2- Previously, the Banu Qurayzah were given a lesser status than the other Jewish tribe – the Banu Nadheer – which is evident from the fact that the blood money that they were granted, if any of their tribesman was killed by Banu Nadheer was half that of what was granted to Banu Nadheer. The Prophet (pbuh) corrected this injustice and granted the Banu Qurayzah the same political status as that of Banu Nadheer. (Abu Dawood, Kitaab al-Diyyaat, Baab al-Nafs bi al-Nafs, Hadith No. 3896)

    3- The Jewish tribes did not honor their part of the Medinah declaration and on the instigation of the Qureish broke the agreement. At this the Banu Nadheer were sent into exile; while the Banu Qurayzah asked forgiveness and requested a renewal of the agreement, to which the Prophet (pbuh) agreed and allowed them another chance (Muslim, Kitaab al-Jihaad wa al-Siyar, Baab Ijlaa al-Yahood min al-Hijaaz, Hadith No. 3312)

    4- Even after all this, the Banu Qurayzah joined the alliance that was gathered by the Qureish against the Muslims.

    It was in this background that immediately after the confrontation with the confederates (Ahzaab), the Prophet (pbuh) decided to take the Banu Qurayzah to task. Even then, had the Banu Qurayzah sought forgiveness for their betrayal, the Prophet (pbuh) may have given them respite, as he did so in the past. Nevertheless, the Banu Qurayzah had decided to fight the Muslims. This was evident from the fact that when Ali (ra) reached their fort, they openly abused the Prophet (pbuh).

    The Muslims kept the forts of Banu Qurayzah under siege for about one month. Ultimately, the Banu Qurayzah requested the arbitration of Sa`d Ibn Mu`aaz (ra) – one of the leaders of the tribe of Aws – a traditional ally of the Banu Qurayzah

    and promised that they would accept whatever Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz decides for them. Later on, Sa`d decided that all those among the Banu Qurayzah, who could fight be killed, while all their women and children be taken as slaves and all their wealth and property be confiscated and distributed among the Muslims. Subsequently, the sentence pronounced by Sa`d was implemented by the Muslims.

    It should be clear from the facts given above that in the light of their behavior preceding the judgment the Banu Qurayzah deserved a very strict punishment. Furthermore, it is also clear that the punishment was not decided by the Prophet (pbuh), but was actually decided by a person, who was appointed as arbitrator, by the Banu Qurayzah, themselves.

    However, one may still be of the opinion that the Prophet (pbuh) should have softened the punishment, even if it was pronounced by an arbitrator, who was appointed by the Banu Qurayzah themselves. On the contrary, the Prophet (pbuh) not only upheld and implemented the decision pronounced by the arbitrator, but also commended it as: ‘in accordance with God’s law’.

    To fully understand why the Prophet (pbuh) did not soften or alter the sentence pronounced by Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz, we should keep in mind that Banu Qurayzah were actually Jews, who were subject to the laws of the
    Torah.

    Deuteronomy 20: 10 – 14 says:

    When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.

    It was in accordance with this law that Moses (pbuh) ordered the killing of all the men of Midian and taking all their women and children as captives. 

    Numbers 31: 7 – 11 read as:

    They did battle against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and killed every male… The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals.

    Obviously, on reciprocal basis, the Israelites themselves were subject to the same divine law. Thus, Sa`d Ibn Mu`aaz pronounced his judgment according to this law, upon which, the Prophet (pbuh) declared that his decision was 'in accordance with God's law'.  Furthermore, because of this particular nature and basis of the judgment, the Prophet (pbuh) neither had the right nor the authority to alter it.

    Because Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz’s decision was in accordance with the directives of the Torah, which the Jews accepted to be divine and were, therefore, subject to, the Prophet (pbuh) did not alter the decision. It was, in fact, because of this background of the judgment that when Hayee ibn Akhtab – one of the Jewish leaders – was brought to the place where he was to be killed, he looked at the Prophet (pbuh) and said:

    By God, I have no regrets in opposing you, but the fact is that whoever tries to deceive God is Himself, ultimately, deceived.

    Then he turned toward his people and said:

    People, there is no harm in the implementation of God’s laws. This was a directive of God, it was decided, it is a punishment, which God had prescribed for the Israelites.

    Thus, the Banu Qurayzah were, in fact, slaughtered by the sword of the Torah – the book, which they, themselves, held to be divine.

    References:

    This response is primarily based on Shibli Naumani’s “Seerat al-Nabiy”. [History is used as per the criteria used by Asghar Ali Engineer]

    The Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] sent Ali Ibn Abi Talib [May Allah be pleased with him] with his flag to the Banu Qurayzah and people started moving toward them. When Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] came close to their forts, he heard them say despicable things about the Prophet [May Allah be pleased with him].

    According to Ibn Katheer’s Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaayah [History is used as per the criteria used by Asghar Ali Engineer to curse not only Yazeed and Muwaiyah but indirectly Hazrat Omar], the Banu Qurayzah were misguided by some of their allies that if the Prophet (pbuh) were to decide their fate, he would kill them all.

    Life of the Prophet [Seeratul Alnabwiya by Ibn-e-Hisham Volume 4 Page 201][History is used as per the criteria used by Asghar Ali Engineer]

    By Aamir Mughal
  • 7 .

    The first casualty of transformation of khilafah into monarchy was battle of Karbala which is great tragedy of early history of Islam. It was greed for power on the part of Yazid, son of first Umayyad ruler Mu’awiyah that led to martyrdom of Imam Husain, the grandson of the Prophet (PBUH). Husain stood for Islam and Islamic values and Yazid for power. It was Umayyad greed for power which resulted in killing of members of Prophet’s family. [Asghar Ali Engineer]

    =============================================

    Yet for all these wars Tabari (the eminent historian) and others have used the term ‘jihad’ which no where comes near the sense in which Qur’an uses the term. [Asghar Ali Engineer]

    ============================================================

     

    Dear Editor,

     

    Asgher Sahab has relied upon "Duobtful History" to condemn Muawiyah and Yazeed but as per the same so-called Eminent Historian Tabari narrates that Muhammad Bin Abu Bakar [s/o Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddiq - May Allah be pleased with him and was adopted by Hazrat Ali May Allah be pleased with him] was amongst the Murderer of Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with] but I dont believe this narration because it is an indirect slander upon Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] but since criteria by Mr Asghar Ali Engineer [Bohri Shia - A Sect of Mainstream Shia and followers of Zaid Bin Ali bin Zain Al Abidin bin Hussein bin Ali bin Abi Talib] is History through which he condemned Muawiyah and Yazeed and when Criteria is History then the Veracity of History is as under:

     

    To repeat a post from another thread of www.newageislam.com

     

    Quran cannot be tempered and Hadith can be verified through matching it with Quran and then Chains of Narrations. Regarding Biography of Mohammad [PBUH], how can one be so sure that LIFE SKETCH of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] is not tempered because it's not Quran. Historian collect everything and one should be very careful when Historian discuss Prophets [PBUT], their Companions [May Allah be pleased with them]

     

    Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari: “I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all errors or blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.” Tabari's Tareekhil Umam Wal Mulook (The History of Nations and Kings) popularly called "Mother of All Histories" is the first ever "History of Islam" written by 'Imam' Tabari (839-923 CE) at the junction of the third and fourth century AH. He died in 310 AH. [Preface of Tareekhil Umam Wal Mulook (The History of Nations and Kings) by Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari.]

     

    Ahmed Bin Hanbal says:Three kinds of books are absolutely unfounded, Maghazi, Malahem and Tafseer.” (The exalted Prophet's Battles, Dreams and Prophecies, and Expositions of the Qur’an). [Ahmed Bin Hanbal as quoted by ibn Rajab al-Hanbali in Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Appendage to the Encyclopedia of Hanbali Scholars)]

     

    Hafiz Ibn Kathir says: Had Ibn Jareer Tabari not recorded the strange reports, I would never have done so. [Tafseer Ibn Katheer (Commentary on Quran) and Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya (History - From Start to End)]

     

    Ibn Khaldun says: The Muslim historians have made a mockery of history by filling it with fabrications and senseless lies. (Muqaddama Ibn Khaldun)

     

    Shah Abdul Aziz Dehelvi says: Six pages of Ibn Khaldoon's History have been deliberately removed since the earliest times. These pages had questioned the most critical juncture of Islamic history i.e. the Emirate of Yazeed and the fiction of Karbala. [Even the modern editions admit in the side-notes that those pages have been mysteriously missing from the ancient original book. [Tohfa Ithna Ashri by Shah Abdul Aziz Dehelvi]

     

    Shah Waliullah Dehelvi says: Imam Jalaluddin Sayyuti's Tarikh-ul-Khulafa is the prime example of how our Historians, Muhaddithin and Mufassirin, each has played like Haatib-il-Lail (One who collects firewood at night not knowing which piece is good and which one is bad). [Izalatul Khifa A'N Khilaafatil Khulafaa by Shah Waliullah]

     

    Example is as under:

     

    "QUOTE"

    Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar [Birth:85 AH 704 CE Death: 150-153 AH (767)] 

    The earliest is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him. [Uyun al-athar, I, 7, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (d. 734A.H.)

    A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Imam Malik [d 179 AH], the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor" just for transmitting such stories. [`Uyun al-athar, I and ibid, I, 16].

    It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the stories has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon and outright rejection.

    The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later generations without the meticulous care or the application of the critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed. It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life.[Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (op. cit., I, 121)]

    It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira. On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq. [Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila - Liar and Liar amongst Liars]

    His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor"[Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila - Liar and Liar amongst Liars] "who transmits his stories from the Jews".[`Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7 by Ibn Sayyid al-Nas].

    In a later age Ibn Hajar Asqalani further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said,[Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7] condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. [ibid.]

     

    By Aamir Mughal
  • 6 .

    The first casualty of transformation of khilafah into monarchy was battle of Karbala which is great tragedy of early history of Islam. It was greed for power on the part of Yazid, son of first Umayyad ruler Mu’awiyah that led to martyrdom of Imam Husain, the grandson of the Prophet (PBUH). Husain stood for Islam and Islamic values and Yazid for power. It was Umayyad greed for power which resulted in killing of members of Prophet’s family. [New Age Islam]

    ==========================================

     

    The first casualty of transformation of khilafah into monarchy was battle of Karbala which is great tragedy of early history of Islam. It was greed for power on the part of Yazid, son of first Umayyad ruler Mu’awiyah that led to martyrdom of Imam Husain, the grandson of the Prophet (PBUH). Husain stood for Islam and Islamic values and Yazid for power. It was Umayyad greed for power which resulted in killing of members of Prophet’s family. [Asghar Ali Engineer]

    =============================================

    Yet for all these wars Tabari (the eminent historian) and others have used the term ‘jihad’ which no where comes near the sense in which Qur’an uses the term. [Asghar Ali Engineer]

    ============================================================

     

    Dear Editor,

     

    Asgher Sahab has relied upon "Duobtful History" to condemn Muawiyah and Yazeed but as per the same so-called Eminent Historian Tabari narrates that Muhammad Bin Abu Bakar [s/o Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddiq - May Allah be pleased with him and was adopted by Hazrat Ali May Allah be pleased with him] was amongst the Murderer of Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with] but I dont believe this narration because it is an indirect slander upon Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] but since criteria by Mr Asghar Ali Engineer [Bohri Shia - A Sect of Mainstream Shia and followers of Zaid Bin Ali bin Zain Al Abidin bin Hussein bin Ali bin Abi Talib] is History through which he condemned Muawiyah and Yazeed and when Criteria is History then History also tells us:

     

     

    Since History is quoted here to curse Yazid therefore I will also quote History!

    Shia and Sunni Sources on Hasnain's acceptance of Muawiyah's Khilafa:

    [Akhbar Al Tawal Al Denwary page 234, Tabari Page 62 Volume 6, Al Imama Wal Siyasa page 173, Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf page 4 published in Najaf]

    Hazrat Muawiya [May Allah be pleased with him]'s Excellent Treatment with Hasan and Hussain [May Allah be pleased with both of them]:

    Hussain used to go with Hasan to meet Muawiyah in Damascus and at one stance Muawiyah gifted 2 Million Dirham to both and at anothe ocassion he gifted Hazrat Hasan 4 Million Dirham [Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya by Ibn Kathir Page 150 and Page 127 Volume 8] This narration is confirmed by Ibn Abi Al Hadid (Mutazilli Shia) in his translation of Nehjul Balagha page 823 Volume 2] and this further confirmed by Extremist Shias like Abu Mikhnaf in his book Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf page 7].

    Note: Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf is a book by Abu Mikhnaf specially written on Karbala Tragedy and from Tabari to present day Speakers of Shia Majlis, this book is quoted for narrating the Tragedy of Karbala.

    "QUOTE"

    Excerpts from DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER by QADI ABU BAKR IBN AL-`ARABI Accurately Determining The Position Of The Companions After The Death Of The Prophet, May Allah Bless Him And Grant Him Peace AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM

    The first to write to him from the shaykhs of the party, according to what their historian Lut b. Yahya related, were Salman b. Surad, al-Musayyib b. Najba, Rifâ b. Shaddad and Habib b. Muzahir. They sent their letter with `Abdullah b. Sabâ al-Hamdani, and `Abdullah b. Wali. They came to Husayn in Makka on the tenth of Ramadan, 60 A.H. After two days, Qays b. Mushir al-Saydawi, `Abdu’r-Rahman b. `Abdullah b. al-Kadn al-Arhaji and `Umara as-Saluli went to him with fifty-three pages. After another two days, Haniâ b. Haniâ as-Subay’i and Sa`id b. `Abdullah al-Hanafi hurried to him. (at-Tabari, 6:197 has the texts of some of their letters and the names of some of its people). This continued until they would not meet with their Amir, an-Nu`man b. Bashir on Friday. They called al-Husayn to them. Then when he came, they would expel their Amir and hold him in Syria. They said to one of them, "So the fruits will grow. If you so wish, you will find a large army for you." Al-Husayn sent them his nephew Muslim b. `Uqayl to see if they would be loyal and gather so that he could come to them later. Muslim b. `Uqayl got lost on the way and those with him died of thirst. He wrote to al-Husayn asking him to relieve him of this task. He answered him, "I fear that only cowardice has led you to ask to be excused." Muslim continued until he reached Kufa and twelve thousand of them offered homage to him.

    The Amir of Kufa, an-Nu`man b. Bashir, became aware of their movements. He spoke to them and forbade sedition and division. He told them, "I only fight the one who fights me. I will not punish by supposition or suspicion. If you show me your page and you break your pledge of homage, then I will strike you with my sword as long as it is firm in my hand." Yazid knew that an-Nu`man b. Bashir was a forbearing man of piety not suited to opposing a movement like this. He therefore wrote to `Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, his governor over Basra ordering him to take charge of Kufa as well. He commanded him to go to Kufa and to seek out Ibn `Uqayl as the pearl is sought until it is found. Then he should bind him and kill or exile him. `Ubaydullah appointed his brother over Basra and went to Kufa. He met its leaders and took hold of the crisis. It was not long before Muslim b. `Uqayl saw that the opinion of the twelve thousand who had given him allegiance was as thin as air. He found himself alone and cast out. Then he was taken and executed.

    Al-Husayn had received the letters of Muslim b. `Uqayl before that, saying that twelve thousand had offered homage to him until death. At the end of the Hajj `Id, he left for Kufa. Ibn az-Zubayr was the only one to encourage him to go out because he knew that the people of the Hijaz would not give him homage as long as al-Husayn was with them. Al-Husayn was the heaviest of people for Ibn az-Zubayr, (At-Tabari, 6:196-197 and look at 6:216-217) and his nephew `Abdullah b. Ja`far b. Abi Talib (2:219). `Abdullah b. Ja`far asked the governor of Yazid over Makka, `Amr b. Sa`id b. al-`As, to write a letter of safe-conduct for al-Husayn to give him hopes of kindness and connection and to ask him to come back. The Governor of Makka granted all that he sought. He told him, "Write whatever you wish and I will seal the letter." He wrote to him and the governor sealed it. He sent it to al-Husayn with his brother Yahya b. Sa`id b. `Is. `Abdullah b. Ja`far went with Yahya. They tried to dissuade al-Husayn from travelling. He refused. (The Governor’s letter is in ‘The History’ of at-Tabari, 6:219-220). No one was above these counsellors in their intellect, knowledge, position and sincerity. `Abdullah b. Muti`, the agent of Ibn az-Zubayr, was one of his advisers who had intellect and sincerity (at-Tabari, 6:196). `Umar b. `Abdu’r-Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hishan al-Makhzumi held this opinion (at-Tabari, 6125-126), and al-Harith b. Khalid b. al-`As b. Hisham did not neglect to give him counsel (6:216). Even al-Farazdaq the poet told him, "The hearts of the people are with you, but their swords are with the Banu Umayya." (at-Tabari, 6:218). None of this effort turned al-Husayn from this journey which was ill-omened for him, for Islam, and for the Islamic community until this very day and will be until the Last Day.

    All of this was due to the crime of his party who encouraged him to rashness, delusion and desire for civil strife, division and evil. Then they disappointed him through their cowardice, baseness, treachery and perfidy. Their heirs were not content with what their ancestors did. They devoted themselves to clouding history and changing the truth and to reversing things. and he sent Muslim b. `Uqayl, his nephew, to them to take allegiance from them and to investigate his followers. Ibn `Abbas forbade him and told him that they had disappointed his father and his brother. Ibn az-Zubayr indicated to him that he should go out, so he went out. When he reached Kufa, Muslim b. `Uqayl had been slain and all of those who had invited him surrendered him. It is enough for you in this to have the warning of the one who is warned.

    He persisted and continued out of anger for the deen and to establish the truth. But he, may Allah be pleased with him, did not accept the good advice of the man with the most knowledge among the people of his time. That was Ibn `Abbas. He turned away from the opinion of the shaykh of the Companions, Ibn `Umar.

    Well-being lay in what he preferred and his encouraging the unity of the muslims and their devotion to the spread of the call and conquest. He sought the beginning in the end and the straight in the crooked and the greenness of youth in the white hair of old age. His power was not like that nor did he have any helpers who guarded his right or who expended themselves for him. We wanted to purify the earth of the wine of Yazid,

    By the claim of those who provoked the sedition who testified to something which they did not know. so we shed the blood of al-Husayn. A calamity came to us which the happiness of time cannot heal. No one came out to him except by using interpretation. They all fought him with what they had heard from his grandfather, the master of the messengers who mentioned the corruption of the situation and warned about getting involved in seditions. He said a lot about that. They included his words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

    From the hadith of `Arfaja in ‘The Book of the Amirate’ in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim: The chapter of ‘The Judgments of the One who Divides the Muslims when they are United’ (book 33, hadith 59, pt. 6, p. 22). "There will be defects and flaws. Whoever wants to divide the business of this community when it is united should be struck with the sword, whoever he is." People only presented this and things like it. Even if their leader and the son of their noble al-Husayn expanded his house, his estate or his camels, and even if people came to him to establish the truth and they included Ibn `Abbas, and Ibn `Umar, one should not turn to them. He should remember what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, warned about and what he said about his brother.

    i.e "this son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two large groups of muslims." He saw that it had left his brother while the armies of the land and the great men were seeking him out. How then could it return to him by the dregs of Kufa while the great companions forbade him and held aloof from him? I do not think that this is anything other than submission to the decree of Allah and sorrow for the grandson of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for all time. If it had not been for the fact that the shaykhs and notables of the community recognised that it was a matter which Allah had taken away from the people of the House and a state of civil strife which no one should become involved in, they would never have surrendered it.

    Ahmad b. Hanbal, in spite of his asceticism and his immense position in the deen and his scrupulousness, still included Yazid b. Mu`awiya in ‘The Book of Zuhd’ and mentioned what he used to say in his khutba, "When one of you falls ill, is treated and recovers, he should look to the best action he has and cling to it. He should look to the worst thing he has done and leave it." This indicates his immense position with Ibn Hanbal since he included him among the men of Zuhd of the Companions and the Tabi`un whose words were followed and those who are not warned. Indeed, he included him in the group of companions before he proceeded to mention the Tabi`un. Where is this in relation to what the historians say about him and wine and types of corruption? Are they not ashamed? When Allah strips them of virtue and modesty, why do you not desist and hold back when they follow the rabbis and monks rather than the men of excellence of the community? You should reject the heretics and impudent men who are affiliated with the community. "This is a clarification for people and guidance and warning for the fearfully aware." Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds."

    "UNQUOTE"

    Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] had indeed named his sons after Sheikhain i.e. Hazrat Abu Bakar, Hazrat Omar and Hazrat Usman [May Allah be pleased with all of them]. As per Authentic Shia Sources Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] did have biological daugthers [May Allah be pleased with them] besides Hazrat Fatimah [May Allah be pleased with her] and these daugthers were married later to Hazrat Usman [May Allah be pleased with him]. Not only that Authentic Shia Sources also accept that Hazrat Ali's Daughter Syeda Kulsoom [May Allah have mercy on his soul] was married to Hazrat Omar [May Allah be pleased with him]. Read the details below:

    1 - Hazrat Ali's Family.

    2 - Hazrat Ali Relationship with Hazrat Omar.

    3 - Hazrat Usman's Relation with Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] and Hazrat Ali [Shia Sources]

    4 - Aal-e-Ali's relationship with Bannu Ummayya and Aal Marwan [After the Tragedy of Karbala]

    Now Read........ ........

    Wives and Children of Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him:

    1 - Hazrat Fatimah Bin Mohammad [May Allah be pleased with her]:

    Hassan, Hussain, Zainab ul Kubra and Umme Kulthum [she became wife of Hazrat Omar (May Allah be pleased with him and all those who were mentioned earlier.

    2 - Umm-ul-Bunian Bin Haram Bin Kalabia [she was related with Shimar Bin Zil Joshan (the alleged Criminal of Karabala){Ref: Jumhartul Ansab by Ibn Hazm}] who was the daughter of Hazam b. Khalid. Hadrat Ali had five sons from her, namely: Abdullah, Jafar, Abbas, Othman, and Umar. All of them were martyred in the battle of Karbala along with Hadhrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him].

    3 - Laila Bin Masood Bint Khalid Nehshaliya Tameema who was the daughter of Masud. She was the mother of two sons, namely Ubaidullah and Abu Bakr. Both of them were martyred in Karbala.

    4 - Asma who was the daughter of Umais. She was in the first instance married to Hadrat Jafar, an elder brother of Hadrat Ali. On the death of Hadrat Jafar, Hadrat Abu Bakr married her. After the death of Hadrat Abu Bakr she married Hadrat Ali. She had to sons from Hadrat Ali, namely: Yahya and Muhammad Al Asghar who martyred in Karbala.

    5 - Umama [her mother Zainab was the daughter of Prophet Mohammad - PBUH]d/o of Abi Al Aa's. Her son from Hadrat Ali bore the name of Muhammad Awsat.

    6 - Khaula Bin Jafariya was the daughter of Jafar Hanfiyah. She was the mother of the son known as Muhammad b. Hanfiyah aka Mohammad Al Akbar.

    7 - Sehba Bin Rabia Taghlibiya who was the daughter of Rabiah. She gave birth to a son Umar, in the daughter Ruqiya.

    8 - Umm Saeed Bin Urwa Bin Masood Thaqeefa who was a daughter of Urwa. She bore Hadrat Ali three daughters, namely: Umm-ul-Hasan, Ramlatul Kubra and Rumia.

    9 - Mukhbita Bin Amral Qais Bin Adi Al Kalbiya Muhyat was a daughter of the famous Arab poet Imra-ul-Qais. She gave birth to a daughter who expired in infancy.

    Hadrat Ali married nine wives in all including Hadrat Fatima. The number of wives at a time however did not exceed four. He had a few slave girls of whom Humia and Umm Shuaib bore him 12 daughters, Nafisa, Zainab, Ruqiya, Umm-ul-Karaam, Humaira, Umm Salma, Sughra, Khadija, Umm Hani, Umm Kulthum Jamana and Maimuna. Hadrat Ali was, in all, the father of 15 sons and 18 daughters. [total = 33 children]

    Those who were martyred at Karbala are as under:

    Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] son's:

    Jafar, Abdullah and Usman [sons of Ummul Banin Bin Hazam], Mohammad [son of Ummul Wald], Abu Bakar [son of Laila Bin Masood Armiya], Abbas.

    Sons of Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]:

    Ali [Laila Bin Marra bin Arwa Thaqafi (Saqaf: tribe of Shia Hero Mukhtar and Sunni Nasibi Hajjaj Bin Yousuf), Abdullah (son of Rubab Bin Umral Qais Kalbi)

    Sons of Hazrat Hasan bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]:

    Abu Bakar and Qasim.

    Sons of Abdullah Bin Jafar Bin Abi Talib:

    Aun and Mohammad.

    Aqeel Bin Abi Talib:

    Jafar, Abdul Rahman, and Abdullah

    Sources: [Al Milal Wan Nahal by Ibn Hazm, Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm, History by Ibn-e-Khaldun and Ansab Aal-e-Abi Talib]

    Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]'s real cousin and Brother In Law Hazrat Abdullah bin Jafar Tayyar Bin Abi Talib [May Allah have mercy on his soul]'s second daughter Syeda Umme Mohammad [May Allah have mercy on her soul] was the wife of Hazrat Ameer Yazeed Bin Muawiyah [May Allah have mercy on his soul]

    Source:

    {Kitab Nasbul Quraish and Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    1 - Syeda Umme Kulsoom Ibn Ali Bin Abi Talib [May Allah have mercy on her soul] was the wife of Hazrat Omar [May Allah be pleased with him]

    Sources:

    {Khulaini reports through Muawiyah Bin Ammar, Abu Jafer Tusi in Tehzeeb Al Ahkam, Tusi reports through Hazrat Baqar, Al Kafi has whole chapter on this marriage "Bab Fi Tarweej Umme Kulsoom", Faroogh Kafi, Ibnen Shehr Ashob Mazandarani, Zainuddin Amili, Manaqib-e-Aal- e-Abi Talib}

    Relationship of Hazrat Ali Ibn Talib [May Allah be pleased with him] with Banu Ummayya [Ummayyads] and that relationship through marriages after the Incidents of Siffin and Karbala.

    1- Three daughters of Hazrat Ali Ibn Talib [May Allah be pleased with him] were married to Muawiyah bin Marwan, Abdulmalik Bin Marwan, and Amir Kuraiz Ummavi respectively. [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm and Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya by Ibn Kathir]

    2- Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]'s son Hazrat Hasan [May Allah be pleased with him]'s grand-daughters married in Banu Ummayya:

    3 - Syeda Nafeesa Bin Zaid Bin Hassan w/o Alwalid Bin Abdul Malik Bin Marwan [Shia Source Umdatul Talib Fi Ansab Aal Abi Talib published in India]

    4- Zainab Bin Hassan Masanna w/o Alwalid Bin Abdul Malik Bin Marwan [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    5 - Umme Qasim Bin Hassan Masanna w/o Marwan bin Aban [Grandson of Hazrat Usman (May Allah be pleased with him)] and after he died she married to Ali Bin Hussain aka Zainul Abideen [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    6 - Hammada Bin Hassan Massanna w/o Ismail Bin Abdul Malik Bin Abdul Haris Bin Al Hakam [nephew of Marwan Bin Al Hakam (May Allah be pleased with him)] [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    7- Khadija Bin Hussain Bin Hassan Bin Ali w/o Ismail Bin Abdul Malik Bin Abdul Haris Bin Al Hakam (that was before the marriage of Hammada with him) [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    8- Most of the daughters [Non Fatimid] of Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] married in Banu Jafar, Banu Aqeel, Banu Abbas and Banu Marwan [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    9 - Syeda Sakina d/o Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] after the death of Muasab Bin Zubair, married Marwan Bin Al Hakam's grandson Al Asbagh Bin Abdul Aziz Bin Marwan, his econd wife was Umme Yazeed d/o Yazid Bin Muawiyah [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm, Al Muarif Ibn Qutaiba, Kitab Nasbul Quraish]

    10 - Rabia bint Syeda Sakin Bint Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] w/o Abbas Bin Al Walid Bin Abdul Malik Bin Marwan [Kitab Nasb Quraish]

    Hazrat Uthman Ibn Affan [May Allah be pleased with him] by being son-in-law of Mohammad [PBUH] was also amongst The Ahl Al-Bayt.

    As per Shia Books:

    A Rafizi Abul Qasim Ali Bin Ahmed Bin Musa [Death: 352 Hijri] in his book Al Istighasa Fi Bidah-es-Salasa had denied that Ruqqaya [May Allah be pleased with her], Umme Kulthum [May Allah be pleased with her], and Zainab [May Allah be pleased with her] were also the daugthers of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] besides Hazrat Fatimah [May Allah be pleased with her] from Hazrat Khadija [May Allah be pleased with her] whereas Ruqqayya, Zainab and Umme Kulthum were the daughters of Mohammad [PBUH] from Khadija and all three were borne before the Prophethood [Bu'saat]. Abul Qasim above meant to say that these three daughters were borne to Khadija from her earlier husband. Abul Qasim's claims are rejected by books like Nasb Al Quraish, Kashf Al Ghamma Fi Maarifatul Aimma, Umdatut Talib Fi Ansab Aal Abi Talib.

    The claim of the above Rafizi was thoroughly rejected by a noted Shia Scholar Abdullah Mamqani in his book Tanqeeh ul Maqal Fi Ahwal Ir Rijal and declared that Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] had four daughters [May Allah be pleased with all of them]. Rafizi Abul Qasim was declared apostate by several noted Shia Scholars like Sheikh Abbas Al Qumi in his Tatamma Al Muntaha, and by another Shia Scholar Allama Aaqa Meer in his Naqd ur Rijal and by another Giant Shia Scholar Mohammad Bin Yaquob Al Kulaini in his Usool ul Kafi's Chapter Bab-e-Tareekh also accepted that Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] has four daughters from Khadija [May All be pleased with her].

    Following Shia Books accpeted that Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] had four daughters from Khadjia [[May All be pleased with her].

    1- Kitaabul Khisal by Sheikh Sadooq.

    2- Tazkaratul Masoomeen.

    3- Tuhfatul Awam.

    4- Manaqib Ibn-e-Sheher Ashoob.

    5- Hayatul Quloob.

    6- Jilaul Uyoon.

    7- Tehzeeb Al Ahkam.

    8- Al Istabsar Mara'atul Uqool.

    9- Firoo Kafi.

    10- Saafi Sharah Kafi.

    11- Kashful Ghama.

    12- Qarbul Asnad.

    13- Majalisul Momineen.

    14- Ailaam ul Wari.

    15- Anwaar-e-Naimania.

    16- Rijal-e-Kashi.

    17- Amali Sheikh Toosi.

    "UNQUOTE"


    "QUOTE"

    Maliki scholar Qadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-’Arabi in AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM [DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER] says

    He was killed by the sword of his Grandfather's . Yet, ibn al-Arabi did say something very similar. See the text below taken from al-Awasim min al-Qawasim, (pg 231-236, Maktaba al-Asriyyah, Beirut, 2004).

    Hanafi School of thought on Khurooj:

    Hazrat Hussain Ibn-e-Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] going against Ameer Yazid [May Allah have mercy on his soul] and the Sunni view on Yazid:

    O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.[AN-NISA (WOMEN) Chapter 4 Verse 59]

    2) Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. And whoever obeys my ruler (amir), obeys me, and whoever disobeys my ruler, disobeys me†(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6718 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1835).

    3) Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is an Abyssinian slave whose head looks like a raisin†(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6723 & Sahih Muslim).

    4) Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Whoever sees his ruler doing something he disapproves of, he should be patient, for no one separates from the (Muslim) group even for a span and then dies, except that he will die a death of (pre-Islamic) ignorance. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6724 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1849).

    5) Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “A Muslim must listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839).

    The above evidences are clear in establishing the fact that one must obey the ruler even if he is corrupt or a sinner (fasiq). The reason for this, in the words of Allama al-Ghunaymi, is that, there have been many corrupt rulers in Islamic history and never did the predecessors (salaf) rebel against them, rather they used to submit to their rule and establish Jumu’ah and Eid prayers with their permission. Also, piety is not a pre-requisite for leadership. (Sharh al-Ghunaymi, p. 110).

    Other scholars emphasize that uprising against corrupt leadership results in more tribulation and destruction then the initial oppression of the ruler. With forbearance and tolerance, one’s sins will be forgiven. And in reality, the corrupt ruler is imposed by Allah due to our own wrongdoings, thus it becomes necessary that we repent and seek Allah’s forgiveness coupled with good actions, as Allah Most High says: “Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of the things your hands have wrought†(42:30)…….. And He says: “Thus do we make the wrongdoers turn to each other, because of what they earn†(6:129). Therefore, if a nation wants to free themselves from the oppression of their leader, they must refrain themselves from oppressing others.

    Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya:

    “We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their wrongdoings to be pardoned†. (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111).

    363. Well-being lay in what he preferred and his encouraging the unity of the muslims and their devotion to the spread of the call and conquest. He sought the beginning in the end and the straight in the crooked and the greenness of youth in the white hair of old age. His power was not like that nor did he have any helpers who guarded his right or who expended themselves for him. We wanted to purify the earth of the wine of Yazid,

    364. By the claim of those who provoked the sedition who testified to something which they did not know. so we shed the blood of al-Husayn. A calamity came to us which the happiness of time cannot heal. No one came out to him except by using interpretation. They all fought him with what they had heard from his grandfather, the master of the messengers who mentioned the corruption of the situation and warned about getting involved in seditions. He said a lot about that. They included his words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

    365. From the hadith of `Arfaja in ‘The Book of the Amirate’ in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim: The chapter of ‘The Judgments of the One who Divides the Muslims when they are United’ (book 33, hadith 59, pt. 6, p. 22). "There will be defects and flaws. Whoever wants to divide the business of this community when it is united should be struck with the sword, whoever he is." People only presented this and things like it. Even if their leader and the son of their noble al-Husayn expanded his house, his estate or his camels, and even if people came to him to establish the truth and they included Ibn `Abbas, and Ibn `Umar, one should not turn to them. He should remember what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, warned about and what he said about his brother.

    366. i.e "this son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two large groups of muslims." He saw that it had left his brother while the armies of the land and the great men were seeking him out. How then could it return to him by the dregs of Kufa while the great companions forbade him and held aloof from him? I do not think that this is anything other than submission to the decree of Allah and sorrow for the grandson of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for all time. If it had not been for the fact that the shaykhs and notables of the community recognised that it was a matter which Allah had taken away from the people of the House and a state of civil strife which no one should become involved in, they would never have surrendered it.

    Ahmad b. Hanbal, in spite of his asceticism and his immense position in the deen and his scrupulousness, still included Yazid b. Mu`awiya in ‘The Book of Zuhd’ and mentioned what he used to say in his khutba, "When one of you falls ill, is treated and recovers, he should look to the best action he has and cling to it. He should look to the worst thing he has done and leave it." This indicates his immense position with Ibn Hanbal since he included him among the men of Zuhd of the Companions and the Tabi`un whose words were followed and those who are not warned. Indeed, he included him in the group of companions before he proceeded to mention the Tabi`un. Where is this in relation to what the historians say about him and wine and types of corruption? Are they not ashamed? When Allah strips them of virtue and modesty, why do you not desist and hold back when they follow the rabbis and monks rather than the men of excellence of the community? You should reject the heretics and impudent men who are affiliated with the community. "This is a clarification for people and guidance and warning for the fearfully aware." Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds."

    UNQUOTE"
    By Aamir Mughal