إرسال موضوع جديد الرد على الموضوع  [ 17 مشاركة ]  الانتقال إلى صفحة 1, 2  التالي
نسخة للطباعة
الكاتب رسالة
 عنوان المشاركة: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الاثنين مايو 03, 2010 3:22 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
I've seen this term used by the Shia sects and the Sufi schools.
In 12r Shiaism Waliyah is God given status which is restricted to 12 Imams.
In Sufis there is major Waliyah which is a spiritual status with the 12 Imams then there are other level of Waliyah which is given to the Sufi Saints.

I've never asked a Zaydi Shia what Waliyah is ?
In the Nagh Al Balagah I see the term used by Imam Ali (as)
"The only factor that overcame, surprised, overwhelmed or intimidated me was the streaming of Muslims towards Abi Bakr giving him the bai'ah. I (literally) withheld my hands, I checked myself until I saw this wave of people contracting away or stepping away from Islam. I was apprehensive or sort of afraid that if I was not, to come to support Islam and it's folks or people that I will wind up seeing that there is a hole in Islam or an Islam that is destroyed. And now, I would wind up with a larger and more significant catastrophe or problem. If I were not to partake, now, in the established order- the khilafah of Abi Bakr, the khilafah of Umar and the khilafah of Uthman, and do my duty with these facts around, then this wilayah that, I qualify more for than the others, the damage in me concentrating on my wilayah by being apart from the rest of the Muslims will bring about more damage than anything else. This wilayah is just a matter of an enjoyable few days, if that, it will drift away just like a phantom in the desert disappears or just like a cloud in the sky moves on, so I took a position within the event of these times until this structure of falsehood was moved away. Now, there's no longer the immediate danger that was there during the time of this potential early civil war in Islam, the 1st manifestations of which was this hurub ar ridda- and this deen of Allah has now settled in a somewhat comfortable manner." (Nahj al Balagha)


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الثلاثاء مايو 04, 2010 4:58 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل
as salamau alaykum.

As far as I know, according to the Zaydiyya, Wilaya refers to the general leadership of Imam Ali, alayhi salam, which was bestowed on him by the Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa alihi wa salam, in Ghadir. It does not carry a mystic significance as does the 12ers or sufis.

The term imama is used for those Fatimi imams after Amir al-Mumineen, alayhi salam.

Allah knows best!


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الثلاثاء مايو 11, 2010 12:41 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
If that's the case did the first 3 calipahs disobey the Prophet's (pbuh) command when they didn't allow Imam Ali (as) to become the first calipah ?


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الثلاثاء مايو 11, 2010 4:13 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل
Well, the answer you get will depend on who you ask.

The most extreme of the spectrum says that the first three caliphs knowingly disobeyed the command of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, and thereby are guilty of a major sin. If they did not repent from it before dying...well, you know the rest! صورة

The more lenient view says that the Prophet's command wasn't explicit and therefore subject to ineterpretation. Therefore, their assuming of the position of caliph was based on their understanding and ijtihad. This view posits that they are not guilty of sin but rewarded for the exercising of independent judgment. صورة

However, the middle view says that the first three heard the command of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, understood it, but decided that it was one of those matters that they could take in their own hands. This view posits that although, they violated the command of the Prophet, they did so without the apparent intention of hurting or destroying Islam. Therefore, their judgment is left to Allah. صورة

There are various other views in between those three but this is the basic spectrum of the opinions regarding the caliphate.

I remember a wise brother once advised me when I asked him how should one view the first three caliphs, that the important thing to the Zaydi is not what you say about the first three, but rather what you say about Imam Ali, may Allah bless him. I think this is the best policy!

And Allah knows best!


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الأربعاء مايو 12, 2010 1:08 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Salaam I have some narrations from the 12rs books tell me if they hold any value.
Imam al-Baqir (as) explains the reason why Imam Ali (as) didn't explicitly protested, nor invited people for his khilafah. Imam Baqir (as) said that he (Ali (as)) preferred that they should err and not forsake Islam rather than that he should call upon them and that they should refuse him and thereby become unbelievers.


أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال: حدثنا احمد بن محمد ابن عيسى، عن العباس بن معروف، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن أبى جعفر " ع " قال: ان عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من ان يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من ان يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.



10- أبي رحمه الله قال حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن العباس بن معروف عن حماد بن عيسى عن حريز عن بريد بن معاوية عن أبي جعفر ع قال إن عليا ع لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا أنهم إن يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الإسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم

Source:
* Al-Sadooq, 'ilal Al-Sharaa-', vol. 1, pg. 150, hadeeth #10
* Al-Majlisi, Bihaar Al-Anwaar, vol. 29, pg. 440


Shaykh al Mufid narrated on the Authority of Imam Sadiq (as) "News came to the Prophet of Allah (sawas) pertaining to the people of Qurash who said "Does Muhammad consider or view that he has now wrapped up this affair in his household pertaining to governance, to power, to rule ? He thinks that now he has placed it within the confines of his household ? If he is dies and when he dies we will extricate this from them (the Ahul Bayt), and we will place in power others besides them. (Shaykh Al Mufid, Al Amali pg 113)


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الأربعاء مايو 12, 2010 7:12 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأربعاء فبراير 25, 2009 5:59 pm
مشاركات: 104
مكان: مجالس ال محمد
غير متصل
Thank you Imam Rassi Society for this information. I'm not sure about the 2nd "theory". Is it a Zaydi one??


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الأربعاء مايو 12, 2010 8:19 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل
Re: ياقوت
Yes, the second view was adapted by Zaydis who were more Mu'tazili influenced. They were known as the Jaririyya. I dont think that they are around anymore, but it was a view that was held.

Re: Mystic
Regarding this narration from the 12ers, it might be true or it might not. Im not sure.
The best explanation was by Amir al-Muminin, alayhi salam, himself in Nahj al-Balagha. In the sermon of Shiqshiqiyya, he explained that the first two caliphs knowingly deprived him of his right to rule. But he chose patience over fighting because he would have fought "with a broken hand" which means that he didnt have supporters that would have helped him. He patiently endured the rule of the first three caliphs but helped when someones right was threatened.
Whether he feared apostasy for the early Muslims, I dont know about that.


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الجمعة مايو 14, 2010 2:24 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Do the Zaydis accept Ibn Hadid's (ra) interpretation of sermon of Shiqshiqiyya ?
Is the 12rs translation accurate online accurate.
Also is this sermon below a partial translation of Shiqshiqiyya ?

"The only factor that overcame, surprised, overwhelmed or intimidated me was the streaming of Muslims towards Abi Bakr giving him the bai'ah. I (literally) withheld my hands, I checked myself until I saw this wave of people contracting away or stepping away from Islam. I was apprehensive or sort of afraid that if I was not, to come to support Islam and it's folks or people that I will wind up seeing that there is a hole in Islam or an Islam that is destroyed. And now, I would wind up with a larger and more significant catastrophe or problem. If I were not to partake, now, in the established order- the khilafah of Abi Bakr, the khilafah of Umar and the khilafah of Uthman, and do my duty with these facts around, then this wilayah that, I qualify more for than the others, the damage in me concentrating on my wilayah by being apart from the rest of the Muslims will bring about more damage than anything else. This wilayah is just a matter of an enjoyable few days, if that, it will drift away just like a phantom in the desert disappears or just like a cloud in the sky moves on, so I took a position within the event of these times until this structure of falsehood was moved away. Now, there's no longer the immediate danger that was there during the time of this potential early civil war in Islam, the 1st manifestations of which was this hurub ar ridda- and this deen of Allah has now settled in a somewhat comfortable manner." (Nahj al Balagha


Also I would like to know the Zaydi view on the following companions:
Ayesha (ra), Talha (ra) Zubair (ra), Abdullah ibn Zubair and Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra).


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الأحد مايو 16, 2010 12:54 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل
Regarding your first question, as far as I know, the commentary of Ibn Abi Hadid is acceptable and referenced in Zaydi works. There is also a Zaydi commentary of Nahj al-Balagha called Ad-Dibaaj al-Waadi fil-Kashf 'an Asraar Kalaam Waasii by Qutb ad-Din ash-Sharwani. Much of it conforms to Ibn Abi Hadid's.

Regarding your second question, as far as I know, the 12er's translation is accurate.

Regarding your third question, I dont believe that this is from Shiqshiqiyya. It might be from another sermon.

Regarding the Zaydi view of the aforementioned Companions: let me first start by saying that the historical sources are very conflicting so it is difficult to assess many things accurately. However, at the same time, there are things that happened in history that are beyond dispute. The general zaydi view of the Companions is that all of them are just except those that manifested open hostility towards Imam Ali, alayhi as salam, and the Ahl al-Bayt. All of that withstanding...

Umm al-Muminin, A'isha, Talha; and az-Zubayr are held in a neutral light. The imams have reserved from judging them because although they fought against Amir al-Muminin, there are narrations that says that they repented. In the book, Kashf al-Amin, a book of Zaydi aqida, it says that and then says "Allahu Alim" regarding its authenticity. Regarding az-Zubayr, our imams narrate that Imam Ali, alayhi as salam, said regarding his killer: "Give him the good news that he will enter the Fire!" This is narrated by Imam Majiddin al-Mu'ayyidi, rahim Allah, in his Lawama al-Anwar.

Regarding Abdullah bin az-Zubayr, his enmity and animosity towards Amir al-Muminiin, alayhi as salam, is well known. Insomuch, that Imam al-Muayyidi related historical sources that mentioned that he refused to do the prayer upon the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, in his Friday sermons for forty consecutive Fridays so that he could avoid mentioning the Progeny! We also have the account in the historical sources that he made the people falsely swear that they were not in Haw'ab to persuade A'isha to continue to al-Jamal.

Regarding Abdullah bin Abbas (ra), he is viewed as a loyal and faithful Companion of Amir al-Muminin, alayhi as salam. Those historical narrations that mention that he and Ali got into a conflict and that he ran away with the Bayt al Mal of Basra, are dismissed by the imams as fabrications.

Allah knows best!


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الثلاثاء مايو 18, 2010 1:16 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Salaam
If Ibn Hadid's interpretation is accurate on Shiqshiqiyya why do the 12rs Shias reject it ?


Also the the reason I question the 12rs translation is because they insult the sahaba in the letter. Take this letter for example.


Quraysh was our tribe, but they wanted to kill the Holy Prophet (s) and to exterminate our family. They conspired against us and made plots after plots to harm us. They tried their best to frighten and injure us. They forced us to leave our homes and to retire to the cave of Shi'b Abi Taalib. It was a very rough and hard place to live in, and we were forced to lead a very harsh life. Their instigated their tribe as well as other clans to fight against us. The Merciful Allah came to our help. He protected and defended us. From amongst us those who had faith in the Holy Prophet (s) and Islam stood up to defend him and his cause; their desire was to achieve the favour of the Lord; and those of Bani Hashim who had not embraced Islam as yet like Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib also came to our help because we belonged to them and they to us. From amongst the Quraysh, the condition of those who had embraced Islam, was not as bad as ours.

Either they had defensive alliance with the non-believers or some tribes decided to defend them despite their differences in religion. While it was the practice of the Holy Prophet (s) that whenever a battle was raged and his companions behaved cowardly or ran away from the battlefield (as in Badr, Uhud and Hunayn) which was usually the case or started making the Muslims nervous (as in Khandaq), he sent members of his family (Bani Hashim) to fight out the battle to protect his companions. These members of Bani Hashim often fought single handed and some even met martyrdom as for instance, Ubayda bin Haarith was killed in the Battle of Badr, Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib in Uhud and Ja'far bin Abu Taalib in the Battle of Mu'tah. Besides these three, there was another person (here Imam Ali (a) meant himself) who also tried his best to meet martyrdom. I could name him but the date of his death had not yet approached and he passed through these terrible ordeals alive.
O time! O world! How could I wonder at your vagaries? People have started considering such a person (Mu'awiya) equal to me! He in his whole lifetime never exerted himself in the service of Islam and Allah as I have done at every moment of my life. In Islam there is no rank, no honour, no position and no merit for him as there is for me. No one can pretend to claim any superiority and excellence over me but a pretender. I do not know of anyone who served Islam and the Holy Prophet (s) as sincerely and as constantly as I have. The Almighty Lord knows that I am not wrong in claiming what I have said and no one can be compared to me in this respect. All Glory, Praise and Greatness belongs to Him and to nobody else.

You have requested me to send to you all those people who were responsible for the murder of Uthman. I pondered over your request and found that it was not in my power to send them to you or to anybody else.

I swear by my life that if you do not leave your hypocrisy, avarice and your rebellious activities they will make themselves known to you. Instead of your demanding them they will demand for you. On the sea and land and in the plains and on the hills they will make their presence known to you and you will not find it easy or pleasant to face them and will curse the day when you demanded to see them.




Now compare this with a Sunni version


This narration can be found in the Ansab of al-Baladhuri and the Wa'qat Siffin by al-Minqari.

Ali AS.gif starts the letter by praising Allah, and sending prayers and blessings on the Messenger (saws), He then writes

"You mentioned that Allah chose for him helpers from the Muslims who supported him, and that they were ranked to Him according to their merits in Islam. You asserted that the most excellent of them in Islam, and the most sincere to Allah and the Messenger (saws) were the caliph [i.e. Abu Bakr] and his caliph [i.e. Umar]. I swear by my life, their stations were indeed great, and the loss of them was a great wound! May Allah be merciful to them and grant them a great reward! You also mentioned that Uthman was third in excellence. If Uthman was good then Allah will reward him for that; if not, he will encounter a Lord who is Most Merciful and forgives any sin, no matter how great. I swear by Allah, I am hopeful that when people are rewarded by Allah for their excellence and sincerity to Him and His Messenger, our share will be the most abundant!

Indeed, when Muhammad first proclaimed belief in Allah and His Oneness, we, the People of his House (Ahlul Baytihi), were the first to believe in him and declare him as truthful. We continued [supporting him] for a long time when no one from the Arabs worshipped Allah but us. Our people then tried to kill him and destroy our base. They plotted against us and carried them out. They withheld provisions and water from us, spread fear amongst us, set up guards and spies against us, forced us into a rugged mountain, incited war against us, and contracted amongst themselves to not eat, drink, trade, or intermarry with us. We could not count on safety until we have surrendered the Prophet to them to torture and kill...

As for those from the Quraysh who embraced Islam afterwards, they were relieved from the trials that we went through. Because from among them were protected tribes and individuals that had protection from their clans so that no one [from the pagan Quraysh] would do to them what they did to us. They were in asylum and were saved from being killed. This was as Allah willed. Then He ordered His Messenger to emigrate and later allowed him to fight against the polytheists. Whenever matters got tough and the battles began, he sent the people of his family to the forefront in order to protect the Companions from the heat of the battle. Thus, Ubayda [bin Harith bin al-Muttalib] was sacrificed at Badr, Hamza at Uhud, and Ja'far and Zayd at Mu'ta. The one whose name I would mention [i.e. Ali himself], more than once, sought martyrdom for the sake of Allah similar to these, yet there time was expedited and his [mine] was prolonged. Allah now grants them provision and rewards them for that which they have done. Consequently, I have not heard of or seen anyone from the people who was more sincere to Allah through obedience to His Messenger or more submissive to the Messenger in obedience to his Lord, more steadfast during hardships and times of distress than those who I have just named! Although, there were good people amongst the Muhajirun as well, may Allah reward them.

You mentioned me having envy of, holding back from, and opposition to the caliphs. As far as opposition towards them, Allah forbid that! As far as my holding back from them and loathing their affair, I do not apologize for that to anyone; because when Allah received His Prophet back unto Him, the Quraysh said: 'Let there be an amir from us.' The Ansar said: 'Let there be an amir from us.' The Quraysh replied: 'Muhammad is from us, so we are more entitled to this affair!' The Ansar recognized this, submitted to them, and accepted their authority. However, if they [the Quraysh] deserved it to the exclusion of the Ansar because of their closeness to the Prophet, how much more so do those who are closer than they?! If not, than the Ansar have a greater claim than any of the Arabs. Thus, I do not know if my companions feel blameless for taking my right or wronging the Ansar. Whether my right was taken or not, I left it to them, may Allah pass over their errors!
Regarding your mention of Uthman and my opposition against him, you have heard what he did. The people then did to him what you have seen and know. I was free from that, unless you would like to falsely accuse me. If so, then accuse me. Regarding those who killed Uthman, I don't know any specific killer. I have considered the matter thoroughly and it would be impossible for me to surrender those to you whom you have accused or placed in suspicion. I swear by Allah, if you do not retract from your aggression and rebellion, they will seek you out so that you will not have to seek them out by land or sea, mountain or plain.
Your own father [Abu Sufyan] came to me when the people installed Abu Bakr as their ruler and said: 'You are more entitled to this matter [i.e. rule] after Muhammad! I will back you in this against anyone who may oppose you! Stretch out your hand so that I may give you the bayah!' But I did not do it. You know that your father said this and desired it; however, it was I who declined because the people were so close to turning to apostasy and I feared division from the people of Islam. Thus, your father was more ready to accept my right than you! If you accept my right as your father did, you would've come to your senses! If not, then Allah will allow us to dispense with you.

As for Ibn Abbas' (ra) case there is a letter in Nagh Al Balagha which states the Imam Ali (as) had a dispute with one of his relatives. The 12r Marja rejected this letter by saying its has Sunni chains. Do the Zaydis have the same view to why they reject that letter?


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الثلاثاء مايو 18, 2010 4:11 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل
The Zaydi narration of Nahj al-Balagha is pretty identical to the 12er narration.

Regarding who is referred to in the letter, it's possible that it may be one of the other relatives.

Regarding Ibn Abi Hadid's interpretation, I dont think that the 12ers reject it. I think that they may just reject his defence of the actions of the first three caliphs.

Imam Ali, alayhi as salam, seems to be addressing the Quraysh and not specific companions. Even if he was addressing particular Companions, I don't think that Imam Ali's tone towards the sahabah should be a reason to reject it. Keep in mind that the sahabah fought each other, accused each other of kufr, and the like. It shouldn't suprise us that they would insult one another!

I dont think that we should idealize the situation after the death of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, or the things that some Companions did afterwards! I think that the Shia view of the Companions is closer to that of the Companions views of themselves. It is only when we hold them against unreal standards that we run into difficulties confronting history. They were human beings with the capacity to sin, make mistakes, and even contravene the explicit commands of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny!

Remember the hadith of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, where he said that he feared success and power for his Companions more than fearing poverty for them. This fear manifested itself when some Companions grabbed power and ambition and began to lose focus.

At the same time, we do not say that they were devils who conspired to destroy Islam from within as others say! Many of them sacrificed their lives, comfort, wealth, family relations, etc for this religion and we are indebted to them for that!

The reason why I adopted the Zaydi position is because it places these things in proper balance. Not over-idealization that makes the Companions angels, nor over-codemnation that makes them devils. Rather, a balance that makes them human beings!

Allah knows best!


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الأربعاء مايو 19, 2010 1:08 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Yes the Zaydi and the Mutazilli view seems much more balanced as compared to the Sunni and 12r view. I read Shaykh Mufid's biography, and he didn't have much trouble refuting the Sunni position. However the Zaydis and Mutazillis gave him a hard time. However, I am convinced that Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) and Aqeel ibn Abi Talib betrayed Imam Ali (as) too. I think the shia sects are just trying to cover them up because they are either related to Imam Ali (as) or they accepted his Waliyah and later rejected it.


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الأربعاء مايو 19, 2010 3:27 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Here is what the 12rs say in regards to ibn Hadid's interpretation of that sermon.


9. Sharh 'Izz al-Din ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mu'tazili(d. 656/1258).
This is the most famous commentary on which several
commentaries have been written. This has been translated into
Persian, French and most probably in Urdu. Its selection
Iltiqat al-durar al-nukhab was compiled in 1283/1866-67.
Commentaries written on it number at least fifteen, among the
authors of which are such eminent names as Ahmad ibn Tawus
(d. 637/1239), Sayyid Hashim al-Bahrani (d. 1107/i695-96),
Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani (1186!1772-3), Shaykh Muhsin Karim
'Abd al-Husayn ibn Musa, Mahmud Mallah and others. Critiques
of his commentary were mainly directed against his position
regarding the caliphate. Though Ibn Abi al-Hadid recognized
al-Khutbat al-Shiqshiqiyyah as genuinely attributed to al-'Imam
'Ali (as), he, however, tried to interpret it in accordance
with Sunni belief in the legitimacy of al-Khilafat al-Rashidah
..


http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/commentaries.htm

Its seems like they are rejecting his exegesis for this sermon. Are Zaydis in agreement with the 12rs for the statement above ?.


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الأحد مايو 23, 2010 12:43 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل

Salaams!

Yeah, as far as I know, the Zaydi opinion on Ibn Abi al-Hadid's interpretation is rejected by Zaydi authorities. This is one of the places where the Zaydi position differs from the Mu'tazilis.

Regarding your statement concerning Abdullah bin al-Abbas (ra), you are free to have your opinion. However, your assertion that the Shi'a adopted their position to cover anything up is incorrect.

The Shi'a (at least, the Zaydis) reject the view that Ibn Abbas rebelled against Imam Ali, alayhi as salaam, for other reasons. One of which is that such action would have merited that Amir al-Muminin, alayhi as salam, would have removed him as his deputy from Basra. However, he didn't. Ibn Abbas (ra) faithfully served as the governor of Basra up even til the time of Sayyidna al-Hassan bin Ali, alayhuma as salaam. There are also letters written by Ibn Abbas to Imam al-Hassan (as) from Basra. If he took the money from Basra and went to Mecca, why would there still be letters written to Imam al-Hassan (as) from Basra?!

There are also the various statements from Ibn al-Abbas (ra) narrated in which he praises the virtues and knowledge of Amir al-Muminin (as) after the latter's death. We have the famous narration from him in books such as Taariikh al-Khulafaa by as-Suyuti in which Ibn Abbass said that there was no verse in the Qur'aan that begins with {O you who believe...} except that Imam Ali, alayhi as salaam, is the head and foremost. If they had a falling out, why would he still praise him for his virtue and knowledge?!

Also, our imams as well as some scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah, like Ibn Hajar in his Al-Isaaba narrate: "Abdullah bin al-Abbas remained in Basra up until the killing of Imam 'Ali."

Therefore, it would be a mistake to assume that the Shi'a adopted this position to save face and protect a personality who later rejected the Wilaayat of Amir al-Muminin, alayhi as salam. If there was an instance where a relative of Imam Ali, alayhi as salam, rejected his Wilaayat and rebelled against him, we would not hesitate to identify him as such.

Case in point, Az-Zubayr bin al-Awwam. He was a relative of Amir al-Muminin, alayhi as salam, who initially accepted his Wilaayat but later rebelled and fought against him! All historians narrate that when the first two caliphs attempted to force Imam Ali, alayhi as salam, and the Bani Hashim to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, Az-Zubayr pulled his sword on Umar and the others. This shows that he believed in the Wilaayat. But as the testimony of al-Jamal demonstrates, he later rejected and rebelled.

Allah knows best!



أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: What is Waliyah ?
مشاركةمرسل: الثلاثاء مايو 25, 2010 2:01 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Wa Salaam
Jazakallah for giving me the freedom to express my views. This is very difficult to do in the Muslim world today.
You responded by saying that Imam Ali (as) never replaced Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) in Basra. If you read other sources it states that he actually did. When Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) was gone Imam Ali (as) replaced him with Ziyad b Abihi.
This is from Imam Al Asi's lectures.


When Abdullah ibn Abbas abdicated his political responsibilities and left Al Basra to Makkah, a person by the name of Ziyaad, who was loyal to Ali, replaced him; but Muawiyah, having a sense of how the people of Southern Iraq felt at that time, he sent a person by the name of Abdullah Al Hadrami to Al Basra to try to regroup the opposition to Ali. Muawiyyah and his team of consultants pursued a policy of harassment towards the people of Iraq. It was like they dispatched hit-and-run squads to try to weaken whatever was left of the body politic in Iraq. When Ali saw that Al Basra began to fail him, he dispatched one of his confidants to speak to the people of Basra . He had conversations and discussions with them, but being who they are, they waited for an opportune time and then they assassinated that person.


The second defense you gave was that Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) praised Imam Ali (as). I consider this to be a weak defense because even non-shia sahabis praised Imam Ali (as). Umar (ra) is reported to have said if there was no Ali I was doomed.
Abu Bakr (ra) said looking at Imam Ali (as) is an act of worship. Also in Sunni books the strongest narration of the Holy 5 connects to Bibi Ayesha (ra).

Lastly you claim that Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) considered Imam Ali (as) as the imam of the time. For this condition to be met in the shia circles means that no other ijtihad besides is when Imam Ali (as) was present. However, we see that Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) differs from Imam Ali (as) on muta. Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) gave a fatwa saying muta is halaal.
Yet in the zaydi schools the ijma of Ahlul bayt is that muta is haraam.
Can you explain the contradiction ?

I also looked at the 12r sources on the sahabis, and it seems like they only use Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) when it suit their agenda. However, he isn't listed as a top sahabi in their books.
Here is a list of sahabis they respect.

وَالْوَلايَةُ لامِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالَّذِينَ مَضَوْا عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ نَبِيِّهِمْ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَلَمْ يُغَيِّرُوا وَلَمْ يُبَدِّلُوا مِثْلِ سَلْمَانَ الْفَارِسِيِّ وَأَبِي ذَرٍّ الْغِفَارِيِّ وَالْمِقْدَادِ بْنِ الأَسْوَدِ وَعَمَّارِ بْنِ يَاسِرٍ وَحُذَيْفَةَ بْنِ الَْيمَانِ وَأَبِي الْهَيْثَمِ بْنِ التَّيِّهَانِ وَسَهْلِ بْنِ حُنَيْفٍ وَعِبَادَةِ بْنِ الصَّامِتِ وَأَبِي أَيُّوبَ الأَنْصَارِيِّ وَخُزَيْمَةَ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ ذِي الشَّهَادَتَيْن ِ وَأَبِي سَعِيد الْخُدْرِيِّ وَأَمْثَالِهِمْ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَالْوَلايَةُ لاتْبَاعِهِمْ وَأَشْيَاعِهِمْ وَالْمُهْتَدِين َ بِهُدَاهُمْ السَّالِكِينَ مِنْهَاجَهُمْ رِضْوَانُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ

Imaam al-Ridhaa said: And the friendship with the Commander of the Faithful (s) and with those who followed the way of their Prophet (s), and who did not change their way such as Salman al-Farsi, Abu Tharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, Ammar bin Yasir, Hothayfa al-Yamani, Abil Haytham ibn al-Tayyihan, Sahl ibn Honayf, Ubada ibn As-Samit, Abi Ayyoub Al-Ansari, Khozayma ibn Thabit Thull-Shahadatayn, Abi Sa’eed al-Khodri and the like - may God be pleased with and have Mercy upon them - is obligatory. And the friendship with their followers who have been guided along their path - may God be pleased with them - is obligatory.

Also bro you didn't give the Zaydi view on Aqeel ibn Abbas.
Lastly, the Mutazilla seems to praise Saad ibn Waqas (ra) a lot.
What is the Zaydi view on him ?

So far I agree with your views on Ayesha(ra), Talha (ra) and Zubair (ra). In fact, I even agree that Abdullah ibn Zubair was a Nisabi..
,


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
عرض مشاركات سابقة منذ:  مرتبة بواسطة  
إرسال موضوع جديد الرد على الموضوع  [ 17 مشاركة ]  الانتقال إلى صفحة 1, 2  التالي

جميع الأوقات تستخدم GMT + 3 ساعات
اليوم هو الثلاثاء مايو 26, 2020 11:26 pm


الموجودون الآن

المستخدمون المتصفحون لهذا المنتدى: لا يوجد أعضاء مسجلين متصلين و 1 زائر


لا تستطيع كتابة مواضيع جديدة في هذا المنتدى
لا تستطيع كتابة ردود في هذا المنتدى
لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك في هذا المنتدى
لا تستطيع حذف مشاركاتك في هذا المنتدى
لا تستطيع إرفاق ملف في هذا المنتدى

البحث عن:
الانتقال الى:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
ترجم بواسطة phpBBArabia | Design tansformation:bbcolors
  تصميم الستايل علاء الفاتك   http://www.moonsat.net/vb  
jurisdictionbeautifulbakednylongamersparanoidstratfordwinery