CENTRALITY OF JIHAD IN THE POST-QUR’ANIC PERIOD Asghar Ali Engineer
(Islam and Modern Age, March 09)
Husain stood for Islam and Islamic values and Yazid for power
URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1232
Asghar Ali Engineer
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:
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.]
No comments:
Post a Comment