Islamic History & Archaeology

[Kompromat]

Cool i got my stuff to read for the next two weeks


Cheers @Azlan Haider

 

[Jazzbot]

Very good effort @Azlan Haider. I couldn't follow along because of very busy schedule these days, will try to read the remaining stuff this weekend. It cleared a lot of questions I had in my mind. Keep it coming..

Oh yes, I have a questions for you. Will send you either via PM or will post them here. Let me do some google on my own first..

ummayads were not shias definitely.
@Azlan Haider @Secur @Armstrong @RAMPAGE

After going through this whole thread, which is very interesting and right to quite an extent. I observed that people are keen to do simple researches. This is one thread where I did not see much of conflicts, altercations and hot talks. Let me recommend two movies these have been made by Iran, but are not religious movies. These movies depict political scenarios and developments of those times. A must watch

1. Imam Ali
2. Mukhtarnama

Both these movies are available on DVDs and are also available in smaller episodes on the net.

I have seen few scenes of Mukhtarnama, are these movies credible as far as history is concerned or are just based on political scenarios?


Also one TV series on Hazrat Omer (r.a) is a must watch:

Farouk Omar (TV Series 2012– ) - IMDb

All episodes are available on youtube with english subtitles, the best series so far that depicted Islamic History without much conflicts or altercations. Highly recommended if you wanna learn about history and events prior to Islam's arrival, during Prophet (p.b.u.h)'s time till Omer (r.a)'s rule. The good thing is, this series covers lives of a lot of Sahabas (R.A): Bilal, Abi Bakar, Omer, Usman, Ali, Khalid bin Waleed (R.A Ajmaeen) are few of them..

@jaibi @Azlan Haider @danish falcon @Alpha1

 

[Hakan]

 

[shuntmaster]

Isn't religious discussions banned topic here?

 

[Kompromat]

Isn't religious discussions banned topic here?

This is anthropology.

 

[syedali73]

@Azlan Haider: You rock my man. Thank you very much indeed.

 

[Multani]

It has been said that daring as it is to investigate the unknown, even more so it is to question the known. Many of the so-called "known facts" in the history of nascent Islam are little more than pious assumptions or even pious wishes which through persistent repetition by the long chain of the generations of Muslims, have acquired the "patina" if not the status of the "articles of faith".
An attempt to interpret the history of Islam, especially the history of its first century, is like stepping into a mine field; it's seething with controversy, diatribes and polemics, and one may approach it only extremely gingerly. Nevertheless, interpretation remains basic to the understanding of history. Without interpretation, history becomes a mass of uncoordinated information and a catalogue of "dead" events and dates unrelated to each other. Yet these "dead" events bounce back to life when effects are related to causes, and a concatenation of facts is established. A fact in correlation with other facts has historical significance; in isolation it may be meaningless. ...


The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the controversial events of the early Islamic era , but to discuss the methodologies and techniques used by the early historians and a critical examination of them ...

Before discussing the Early Muslim Historians , I would like you guys ,@jaibi @Jazzbot @Alpha1 @danish falcon @FaujHistorian @Pakistanisage @Zarvan @Talon and others , to discuss archaeological evidences from the first century of Hijra (7th century)
To start with ;
Archaeological Record Of Early Days of Islam :

Now as we have almost no inscriptions / original writings that can be dated back to the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or the rightly guided caliphs (Khulfa e Rashideen) , All the knowledge of that time and those persons have reached us through 3 different sources(textual) , compiled in later times ;

1) The Holy Quran (word of Allah)
2) The Ahadith (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh)
3) The History Texts (crystallization of popular beliefs)

This led the skeptical scholars like Crone, Wansbrough, and Nevo to argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150–300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events hence unreliable . They also point out that the earliest account of Muhammad's life by Ibn Ishaq was written about a century after Muhammad died and all later narratives by Islamic biographers contain far more details and embellishments about events which are entirely lacking in Ibn Ishaq's text . Also the hadith books were written at least two centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) .
These objections from such scholars are somewhat genuine but the conclusions drawn by them are easily refutable . To understand this in detail , one must try to find answers to following questions first :

1) When was the Holy Quran compiled (into a Book form) ? Has the "Original Text" reached us ?
2) When and Why were the Hadith Books written ?
3) Who wrote the Islamic History and for whom ?

It is incorrect to say the hadith books were written at least 2 centuries after the Passing away of our Habeeb salalaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam.

I have met Patricia Crone face to face. She is woman who has great hate for Islam. Immense hate. I was attending a lecture by her on Muqanna, a figure in Islamic history, who caused an uproar by claiming to be a Prophet.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It is incorrect to say the hadith books were written at least 2 centuries after the Passing away of our Habeeb salalaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam.

You should do some research on it first .

Islamic History & Archaeology

 

[Multani]

s

@

The answer seems to be very simple , They believe in different collections of [B]Ahadith[/B][U] (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh)[/U] , often highly contradicting, and they follow different versions of the `same` Islamic History ...

This answer is not correct. Muslim sects exist because of different interpretations of the Qur'an al kareem itself. Ahadith and Islamic history are used for further corroboration.

 

[M. Sarmad]

s

This answer is not correct. Muslim sects exist because of different interpretations of the Qur'an al kareem itself. Ahadith and Islamic history are used for further corroboration.

And why do they have different interpretations of same Quranic verses ??? It is because they have different Traditions/Ahadith that tend to explain specific verses , their "shaan e nazool" , `real` meanings etc.(verse of purification for example) ... And every sect believes that only their collection of Ahadith is authentic and every one else is "misguided" !!

 

[Multani]

@Aeronaut

But things might not be that simple , The first Islamic civil war (656-661 CE) , also known as the First Fitna , was fought among the Muslims who did not follow different Ahadith or versions of history , They were mostly companions and relatives of the prophet (pbuh) who had learnt Islam directly from the Messenger of Allah !! They did not challenge each other`s faith , They contested for the leadership of the newly born Ummah .. The divide in the Muslims was purely "political" in the beginning , which became "religious" with the passage of time .

The above paragraph is misleading for Muslims. It is overly simplistic, and is based on a common orientalist assumption. Remind of TJ Winters. This is a caution for the unsuspecting reader. Firstly, the guy says that a civil war happened. Fine. Then he says that the war happened for political reasons.

In the world of Islamic learning and bodies of knowledge, no one really cares about political wars. Everything is interpreted based on Islamic rulings. Contesting for leadership is interpreted on the basis of ijtihad.

For example, Sayyiduna Mu'awiya radiallahu anhu was a mujtahid.

@
Ali (r.a) was a cousin and son in law of Muhammad (pbuh) , who fought against Aisha (r.a) [ the beloved wife of prophet (pbuh)] and Zubair bin Awwam (r.a)[also a cousin of prophet as well as Ali himself] in 656 AD , in the "battle of camel" .. Later Ali r.a had to fight Muaviyyah in "battle of siffeen" , Muaviyyah was brother in law of Muhammad (pbuh) and a distant cousin .. So the participants of the First Fitna were all related to each other , and no one tried to prove his superiority over the other claiming a kinship to Muhammad (pbuh) and "religion" stayed out of politics ..

Sayyiduna Maula Ali karamallahu wajhu did not fight against Sayyida Aisha nor did he ever fight for politics. And neither did she fight against him. They did not fight each other.

What happened on the ground cannot be made into a fight between saints. There was ijtihad. Not against each other for political ascension.

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
But in the Second Islamic Civil war (ended 692 AD) , the religion could not stay out of politics . Following the Murder of Imam Hussain and almost all the male members of family of prophet (pbuh) in "battle of kerbala" by the Ummayad troops of Yazid (son of Muaviyyah) in 680 AD(The battle is often cited as the definitive break between the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam) , Yazid faced a second revolt from Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who was the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and the son of Asma bint Abu Bakr. Ibn al-Zubayr's rebellion was seen by many as an attempt to return to the pristine values of the early Islamic community, and his revolt was welcomed by a number of parties that were unhappy with the Umayyad rule for various reasons.
[/quote]

This is a story made up by Azlan unfortunately. Quite a set of assertions and interpretations of Islamic history in such simplistic terms. :lol:

Religion could not stay out of politics? When did Maula Ali karamallahu wajhu ever separate religion out of his actions? This is a total give away

Sayyiduna AbdAllah bin Zubayr fought for the SAME reasons as Imam Husayn alaihisalam and Maula Ali karamallahu wajhu. They all fought for religion.

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
This was the first time that the name of "Muhammad" was used for political purposes . As is evident from archaeological record , The name of Muhammad was not minted on coins or other inscriptions before Abdullah Bin Zubair gained control of Hijaz . The oldest coins with shahada of prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) are from his time . His opponent and the Ummayad leader Abdul Malik , followed him and started using the name of prophet on coins and other inscriptions (a practice his predecessors never approved of) .[U][B] He went on to build a alternative ka`ba in jerusalem as the Ummayads had lost control of Makkah ; The famous Dome Of The Rock , and this was the time when he ordered compiling of Ahadith for political purposes , something forbidden by the messenger of Allah and the Khulfa e Rashideen , .... [/B][/U]
[/quote]

The blessed name of our Prophet salallaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam was on the banners, on signatures of all Sahaba. If later on it progressed to being minted on money or "other inscriptions", does in no way support the proposition that the name of our Habeeb salallaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam was not used before.

Against Musaylima Kadhaab, the Sahaba raised "Wa Muhammadaaa! "

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]


Some of the greatest Sunni scholars of all times did not consider Al Zuhri to be trustworthy

Then why blame Al Yaqubi alone ???
[/quote]

If someone is a Shia Pakistani, there is no harm in being honest and straight forward.


[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
Ibn e Saad is definitely a Sunni !! This confession by Al Zuhri himself is enough as a evidence when considered alongwith other similar reports
[/quote]

Lots of who is a Sunni, and who is a Shia. Lots of copy pastes from certain websites.

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
[B][SIZE=5]Ibne Shihab al-Zuhri was the first historian who wrote the history of Islam under the direct order and fund of Abdul Malik. He also wrote Hadith collection. The works of al-Zuhri was one of the main source for al-Bukhari. al-Zuhri was attached to the royal family of Abdul Malik, and was the tutor of his sons.[/SIZE][/B] [COLOR=rgb(0, 179, 179)](al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah," by Shibli part I, pp.13-17)[/COLOR]

Shibli is also a "great" sunni historian

[/quote]

I knew the above was coming.

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
Among the students of al-Zuhri, two persons, namely[B] Musa Ibn Uqbah[/B], and[B] Mohammad Ibn Ishaq [/B]became famous historians. The former was a slave of the house of Zubair. Although his history is not available today, it had been the most popular work on history for a long time. You will find its references in many history books on different subjects.

[B]The second student, [COLOR=rgb(255, 0, 0)]Mohammad Ibn Ishaq[/COLOR] is the most famous historian . His biography of the Prophet, called "Sirah Rasul Allah", is still the accredited authority on the subject in the shape that was given to it by Ibn Hisham, and is known as "al-Sirah of Ibn Hisham[/B]".


[B][SIZE=5][COLOR=rgb(0, 102, 102)]So Islamic Hadith and History books were first compiled under the direct order of Umayyah Kings for political purposes [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B].............
[/quote]

Islamic Scholars accept Ahadith based on them being the words of our Prophet salallaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam. The Ahle Bayt Kiramayn are our sources.

Imam Ja'far al Sadiq's progeny established themselves in different regions of the Islamic world. And they took the science of Hadith, and the Ahadith of our Prophet salAllaho alaihi wa alihi waslam with them. And they were directly linked to the 'ulama who collected the Ahadith.

This thread is not on anthropology. It is on religion. It is an attack on Ahadith.[/user][/user][/user][/user][/user][/user]

And why do they have different interpretations of same Quranic verses ??? It is because they have different Traditions/Ahadith that tend to explain specific verses , their "shaan e nazool" , `real` meanings etc.(verse of purification for example) ... And every sect believes that only their collection of Ahadith is authentic and every one else is "misguided" !!

I will summarize what this guy is saying in this thread:

1) Qur'an al Majeed is inherently non-disputable
2) Disputes arise due to Ahadith
3) Ahadith were collected under duress from politicians
4) They caused dogmatic wars in latter days

@Aeronaut @jaibi@Jazzbot @Talon@danish falcon @Armstrong

 

[M. Sarmad]

@Multani

Don`t spoil this thread when you have nothing of any academic significance to contribute , Open a new thread for your stupid rants

 

[Multani]

@Multani

Don`t spoil this thread when you have nothing of any academic significance to share , Open a new thread for your stupid rants

I have clearly pointed out the false assumptions on which this thread is based.

 

[syedali73]

@Multani

Don`t spoil this thread when you have nothing of any academic significance to share , Open a new thread for your stupid rants



Yes that is the truth

Unfortunately you cant stop anyone from posting, however irrelevant or stupid it may be. Please ignore such posters and move on. To contribute something of academic relevance/merit, one has to have some academic credentials, which i dont find many to posess. When someone opens up a sentence or paragraph with "lol", you know where he is heading towards. Moawiah was mujtahid... just like Munawwar Hassan, Fazal ur Rahman, Sami ul Haque, Abdul Aziz, and Fazal ul Allah are mujtahid. Continuing any further with some one like this is utter waste of time.

 

[Multani]

Unfortunately you cant stop anyone from posting, however irrelevant or stupid it may be. Please ignore such posters and move on. To contribute something of academic relevance/merit, one has to have some academic credentials, which i dont find many to posess. When someone opens up a sentence or paragraph with "lol", you know where he is heading towards.

This thread is based on these 4 ideas.

1) Qur'an al Kareem is inherently non-disputable, if Muslims care to realize
2) Ahadith have caused the disputes
3) Ahadith were collected under duress by politicians
4) They assumed sectarian dogma later on, which is the cause of wars within Muslim groups

That is all.