History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Research on approach and understanding of Islamic History, Sunna and Hadith.
adjwi
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:08 am
Contact:

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by adjwi »

Salam,

I appreciated reading this article very much. May Allah increase your rewards for your efforts.

The story of Aaron and his efforts towards keeping unity is very worthy of reminder as well as understanding. Wasn't Moses reprimanded from the part of Allah for leaving so quickly to this meeting?

What this brought up in mind for me was the story that I was told about after Mohammad's death. From what I understand, what became at stake was a political decision, a decision regarding power. This looks to me like the calf. My undertanding is that prophecy is not about power, not about politics, but rather about as you say, deen. Both are opposits in my view. We live in a political world not in a world of deen and in my mind you can't have both.

From what I understand had Ali been after power, the ummah would have exploded into division. Ali's action are a worthy succcession of the work of Mohammed, perhaps in the same manner AAron was with Moses. As for the ummah today, as was with bani-Israel at the time Mohammad received the words of the quran there, there will have to be a movement outside of that limited historical boundry to see new progress. I can't see it otherwise. A calf can do so much for people... Any thoughts?

P.S. Thanks for the offer of writing me in, but as you can see I made my way in the dark. Now I'm in.....

adjwi
Arnold Yasin Mol

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by Arnold Yasin Mol »

Salaam Aleikum dear Bab,

thank you for your feedback. May Allah increase all in knowledge. As for your comments on the Sahaba. You believe the History writers to much. These people tried everything to distort the Truth. Please study Dr.Shabbir's Books on Islamic History to see how many contradictions there are on the stories as Karbala and on the Sahaba.

See for example this post:

http://ourbeacon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=155
adjwi
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:08 am
Contact:

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by adjwi »

Peace Arnold,

I don't think that reference addresses the issue, in fact it seems to deny it.

'''The System of Government inniated by the exalted Prophet remained intact for one century before the Pristene Islam began getting destorted at the hands of ''Imams'' of History, Hadith and Fiqh (Jurisprudence)'' p36

Whereas in the quran at 98:4 ''Now the People of the scripture had divided among themselves even when the Evidence of theTruth had already come to them.'' (QXP version)

My reading on history is the society of Medina can be seen dividing itself right after the prophet's death which would be in accordance to what had happened in the past. Do you acknowledge such possibility or do you refuse it?

adjwi
Arnold Yasin Mol

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by Arnold Yasin Mol »

Salaam Aleikum,

The reference says 100 years. After a 100 years all the Sahaba were dead. I referenced to you the Sahaba. For example Karbala is only recorded by Tabari with a lot of contradictions. I believe the criminals started distorting Islam after Persia was conquered and Persian Elite travelled to Arabia to distort the Deen from within. So I don't believe there were big disputes right after Rasuls death.

Because of the strength in rule and conviction of the first Khalifs, the Deen was upheld and safe in the first years. Only when Persia was conquered is when the trouble started.

The disputes were not because of the Sahaba, the inner factors. It was because of outside factors as the Persians who found their way into the Islamic government.

Later on they distorted History to clean their path. The Quran confirms that the inner core, the Sahaba, were perfect believers. So this means the disruption was due to outside factors.
adjwi
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:08 am
Contact:

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by adjwi »

Salam,

At no time am I questionning the belief of whoever and such action would amount to nothing more than a witch hunt in my view. However a believer doesn't become exempt of mistakes as perfection belongs to Allah. My understanding is that Mohammed was the unifying element in the eyes of some of his contemporaries so that his departure affected the unity.

Now if all are united adoring a calf, that unity is never-the-less flawed in direction. Won't you agree?

adjwi
Arnold Yasin Mol

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by Arnold Yasin Mol »

Salaam,

I believe there is a big difference in having the abillity of making mistakes and disputing the Deen in such a way that it gets destroyed. I don't believe this has happened. I understand your point very good, but these people were united on many fronts, which only was destroyed after their death.

The Khalifs who followed after the Prophet's death did everything to remind people the bond was with Allah and not with Muhammed. I believe they succeeded pretty well. Many History records show this, sadly these History records are ignored and are not commonly known. The Persian History writers try to make it show as if the Umma was disputing from the start, which is not true. This concept was created 200AH to support Fatalism, the idea that without the Prophet we are helpless. So these stories about the Sahaba failing and disputing were only created to hypnotize the masses and give power to the kings. People believed that they themselves couldn't uphold the Deen, because of these tales. And so were passive and did not resist the tirant kings.

Do you believe we are helpless without the Prophet? That we ourselves cannot create the Deen? Because this is why those stories were created...
adjwi
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:08 am
Contact:

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by adjwi »

Salaam,


I'm not sure that I understood you correctly. Would you care if I ask for some explaining?

[but these people were united on many fronts, which only was destroyed after their death.] on which fronts?

What is pretty well?

I need clearance. Is it a historical fact that a group of believers left the community after Abou Bakr became khalif?
Is it a historical fact that Othman was assasinated? From within? Is it a historical fact that Ali was assasinated from within? Surely, if such is true, wouldn't they be signs of division?

As for the Persian historians, I can't establish uniquely a right and a wrong side. Wouldn't the ''islam'' that came to the Persians not have been diluted compared to what was experienced around the presence of Mohammed? Isn't a fact that after a full moon, there is a process of light diminuishing in time? Isn't it true that after the sun sets darkness increases?

Now I believe this is a very important question : [Do you believe we are helpless without the Prophet? That we ourselves cannot create the Deen? Because this is why those stories were created.../quote] Of course not.Furthermore we need not craete the Deen as it exists. The model was successfully fashionned. This was most difficult. We now have the historical challenge of putting the model to production with an understanding of errors past, since.
Arnold Yasin Mol

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by Arnold Yasin Mol »

Salaam,

Dear adjwi, when I replied to you, I made a mistake as I was replying inside your post. I tried to restore the best I can excuse me for that. I did answer all of your questions:


I'm not sure that I understood you correctly. Would you care if I ask for some explaining?

Of course, I'll do my best.

[but these people were united on many fronts, which only was destroyed after their death.]

They had the same goal and the knowledge to uphold the Deen. They all possessed the direct access to the Quran as they all spoke the pure Quranic dialect. Because of this they could not be divided only on small matters as by-laws. After their death, many people in the Ummah did not speak Quranic Arabic and thus were depended on a very small group to help them uphold the Deen according to the Quran.



This is a large subject as this is 60 years of History. But after the death of the Prophet, only small groups tribes to back out of their oaths. These were confronted with it. For the rest, is that all conflicts were fought against outside sources, not within the Ummah itself. So the inner strucutre of the Ummah was strong.

I need clearance. Is it a historical fact that a group of believers left the community after Abou Bakr became khalif?
Yes, a small group of deniers tried to back out of their oaths. This is normal. These were not believers. Momin means 'the convinced'. Muslim means 'one who submits to Allah's Laws'. When you disrupt the Ummah by splitting from it, the Quran calls you Mushrikeen.

Is it a historical fact that Othman was assasinated? From within? Is it a historical fact that Ali was assasinated from within? Surely, if such is true, wouldn't they be signs of division?

They were murdered by assasinaters who were hired by the Persians. So it were outside factors that tried to destroy the inner core. When a president is murdered, does this immediately disrupt the Ummah? No. When JFK was killed, did America split apart? No. Did Democracy fall? No. When Pim Fortyun was killed, did Holland's Democracy system fall apart? No. There is a BIG difference in disputes and disruptions in a Democratic system. Also murdering a leader does not destroy the system or show signs of division in the Ummah.

As for the Persian historians, I can't establish uniquely a right and a wrong side. Wouldn't the ''islam'' that came to the Persians not have been diluted compared to what was experienced around the presence of Mohammed? Isn't a fact that after a full moon, there is a process of light diminuishing in time? Isn't it true that after the sun sets darkness increases?

The sun always shines, depends on where you stand. You try to compare your sayings with the History, but you act like this should be a fact. That after a good time, bad times MUST come. I don't think like that. The Abbasids took control by force. This is not directly a sign of a disrupted Ummah, but an attempt to disrupt it. The Ummayads fled to Spain and created a Heaven on Earth there.

Now I believe this is a very important question : [Do you believe we are helpless without the Prophet? That we ourselves cannot create the Deen? Because this is why those stories were created.../quote] Of course not.Furthermore we need not craete the Deen as it exists. The model was successfully fashionned. This was most difficult. We now have the historical challenge of putting the model to production with an understanding of errors past, since.

I totaly agree on this! We must indeed learn from past errors. We only differ on small details I believe, minor things. Also, there is still so much to learn. It would be nice if we lay down every History part one by one and go through them.
adjwi
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:08 am
Contact:

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by adjwi »

Salam Arnold,

It would be nice if we lay down every History part one by one and go through them.

Sounds good. In fact you moved us before I had a chance to reply. I'll give you my thoughts on this later. However let me address this first:

The sun always shines, depends on where you stand. You try to compare your sayings with the History, but you act like this should be a fact. That after a good time, bad times MUST come. I don't think like that.

So our thought patterns affect the way we percieve reality. The way I percieve reality is: wherever I stand on this planet, it will be day, it will be night. The sun will not always shine where I am. Of course if I go to Los Vegas it may seem as 24 hour daylight, but that is only illusion. However history progresses, in the addition of days and nights and of nights and days.

Now a good time can be maintained time provided the right activity for the day and the right activity for the night, which are not the same right activities... right?

Getting back to the story of Moses; he was indeed successful in withdrawing his people out of Egypt, Aaron was successful in maintaining a unity and where did they go from there? Isn't the desert a close next? How much of a success is the desert? Their limit of success had been attained.

What happened to Solomon's temple, palace or construction after his death. Wasn't it destroyed? When did the split happen? After his death? I see history, through prophecy, as the accumaltion of successes and limits to that success, of days and nights, whose previous limits are in time taken on with success. Abraham had success that Noah didn't. Moses had success that Abraham didn't. Jesus had success that Moses didn't. Mohammed had success that Jesus didn't. Today humanity has the challenge of having success with the quran that Mohammed didn't.

No need to be frustrated with life...

At this point, I don't think that after the prophet's death that the activities of the ummah were necessarly all the right ones for the time. Now, the idea of having a look at history part one by one is in my view a great idea. It would be a mistake im my opinion to impose frontiers to that history by limiting ourselves to looking at the first one hundred years after Mohammed. We should take a look at history beginning with the Creator and his expression about his establishing a khalifa on earth. Haven't you done some work on this already? What do you think?

adjwi
adjwi
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:08 am
Contact:

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH

Post by adjwi »

Salam Arnold,

Putting aside all of history and going along your suggested lines I would need clearance on what happened right after the prophet's death.

Is it a historical fact that there was a gathering of people originally from Yathrib (Madina) who met after the prophet's death to determine a khalif? If I remember correctly, 4 of the sahabas originally from Mecca entered that meeting (including Abu-Bakr and Omar) upon which what seems like a hasty decision was made in difficult circumstances making Abu-Bakr the first khalif. Ali would not have participated in the decision process.

Would would be at stake would be Mohammad's succession and the form it was to take and the form it took. Do you or any other person have the knowledge of this?

adjwi
Post Reply