Title. Curious if there's ever been a theological hypothetical about this, since the Kaaba/Mecca is on Earth. Just, in the direction of the home world? Not sure how you'd do this.

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/comments/1dt9htr/were_the_shiite_leaders_really_responsabile_in/

Although more than 760 years have passed since the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 656 AH/1258 AD, that bloody historical moment still retains a great emotional momentum, mainly due to the bloody fall of the capital of the Caliphate before the devastating Mongol advance.

and the immortalization of this difficult moment in the collective Islamic mind was linked to the Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict, as many Sunni historians elaborated on the "betrayal" of some Shia scholars and scientists who witnessed the fall of Baghdad, and described how they collaborated with the Mongol enemy.

However, many Shiite historians have rejected this accusation, considering it a false slander, lacking objectivity and impartiality, and have worked to debunk and refute it.

A Mongol hurricane in the Islamic East

At the beginning of the seventh century AH, pastoral Mongol tribes united under the leadership of Temujin, who later became known as Genghis Khan, and invaded large areas of Asia. It did not take long until they destroyed the Khwarezmian state in Central Asia and western Iran.

After Genghis Khan's death, the wave of Mongol military expansions in Islamic lands stopped for nearly thirty years, before it was resumed during the reign of his grandson, Möngke Khan, who prepared a strong army led by his brother Hulagu, and ordered him to march on the Hashshashin castles located in Iran.

Hulagu succeeded in capturing nearly fifty of the Hashshashin's fortresses, with Alamut, which he captured in 654 AH, being the most important of these fortresses, due to its known immunity and fortification.

Iranian historian Abbas Iqbal mentions in his book “The History of Iran after Islam” that the Mongols completely eliminated the threat of the Assassins, after they killed their leader, Rukn al-Din Khorshah.

At the same time, Hulagu's capture of Alamut led to his meeting with the well-known Shiite scholar and philosopher Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, who had been held captive in the Alamut fortress for years. Sources recount that the relationship between the two soon solidified, and Tusi became Hulagu's "right hand man and minister," according to Ibn al-Abri in his book "History of the Mukhtar al-Dawl."

Hulagu, ambitious to complete his triumphant conquests, then set his sights on Baghdad. He sent to Caliph al-Mustasim Bellah demanding obedience and surrender, and when he did not receive obedience and surrender from him, he moved his massive armies to Baghdad, entering it after a short period of siege.

The Sunni Narrative : A conspiratorial and treasonous interpretation

The majority of Sunni narratives that presented the events of the Mongol invasion of Baghdad hold that two prominent Shiite men were responsible for this invasion, namely the minister Muayyad al-Din Ibn al-Alqami and the philosopher Nasir al-Din al-Tusi.

Historians who hold this opinion believe that the Twelver Shiite minister, Ibn al-Alqami, was working to destroy the Abbasid Caliphate by every possible means, because of the harm his sect was exposed to before the Mongols arrived in Baghdad.

Dr. Al-Sayyid Al-Baz Al-Arini mentions, in his book “The Mongols,” that the Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict in Baghdad was at its most intense in the short period preceding the Mongol invasion, when a conflict occurred between the two groups, and the Caliphate forces invaded the Karkh neighborhood, which has a Shiite majority population, and Many of the Twelver Shiites were killed at that time.

Both Ibn al-Wardi in his history and Shamsh al-Din al-Dhahabi in his book “Lessons Fi Khabar Min Ghabar” agree that what the Shiites were subjected to in the Karkh neighborhood, in terms of plunder, looting, and abuse, was the main reason for Ibn al-Alqami’s betrayal.

adopting this saying, Ibn Taghri Bardi, in his book “The Bright Stars in the History of Egypt and Cairo,” adds to it that Ibn Al-Alqami betrayed the Abbasid Caliphate, because he was hoping for the demise of the Abbasid king and the installation of one of the Alawites in the position of caliph.

Also many Sunni historians confirm that Ibn al-Alqami exchanged a number of secret letters of a conspiratorial nature with Hulagu. Ibn Aybek al-Safadi mentions the news of some of these correspondences in his book "Al-Wafi al-Wafiyyat". He narrates that the Shiite minister wanted to send a letter to the Mongols, and feared that he would be discovered, so he brought one of the servants

“He shaved his head carefully, and wrote what he wanted on it by pricking needles as one would do with a tattoo, and he dusted the kohl on it and left it with him until his hair grew out, and it covered what he had written. So he prepared it and said, ‘If you reach the ointment, shave your head and let them read what is on it,’ and at the end of the speech they cut the paper, so they struck "His neck."

Ibn al-Wardi mentions in his history:

"The army of Baghdad was one hundred thousand horsemen, so Ibn al-Alqami and his ilk encouraged al-Mustasim to cut them off in order to carry the proceeds of their cuts to the Tartars, so the army of Baghdad became less than twenty thousand."

Taj al-Din al-Subki, in his book "Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya al-Kubra", describes the humiliating state to which the soldiers of the caliphate reached during the reign of al-Mustasim Billah due to Ibn al-Alqami's advice and intrigue, and says that because of that advice

"the soldiers began to ask those who use them to carry garbage, and some of them curry on their horses, so that they can find something to feed themselves with"

As for the Shiite philosopher Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, whom al-Subki described in his book as "the Manifestation of the devil" and "one of the most severe people against Muslims," many Sunni historians considered him to be primarily responsible for pushing Hulagu to go to invade Baghdad, after the latter consulted him, as was his custom in asking astrologers before taking any important action, and they accused him of being the one who advised Hulagu to carry out massacres against Sunni Muslims and kill the caliph and his sons, thus cutting off the Abbasid descendants and collapsing the Abbasid dynasty.

The Shiite Narrative : an approach in a historical context

Contrary to the traditional Sunni view, a group of older Shiite and some Sunni historians refused to go along with the conspiracy theory and argued that there were other, more objective and logical reasons that would explain the fall of the capital of the Abbasid caliphate.

The Shiite version of the fall of Baghdad contradicts the Sunni version on a number of important points

For example, the contemporary Shiite researcher Muhammad Taqi Modarres Razavi, rejects the Sunni historians’ accusation that Nasir al-Din al-Tusi of inciting the bloodshed of the Sunnis during the Mongol invasion. He says in his book “The Allamah Khawaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi : His Life and Effects”:

“There is no doubt that the presence of the Khawaja was very influential in preventing the killing of people and plundering their money, and in preserving many scholars and people of art and saving their lives from the sword of that murderous army.”

He adds that what is evidence of this is that al-Tusi succeeded in saving a large group of the people of Baghdad, regardless of their sectarian affiliations.

He saved the Sunni Hanbali historian Ibn al-Futi from captivity. He also saved the life of the youngest son of the Abbasid Caliph, and took him to work with him in the astronomical observatory that he built later in Maragheh.

In the same context, Ibn Aybak Al-Safadi mentions, in his book Al-Wafiyyat Al-Wafiyyat, that when Hulagu became angry with Aladdin Al-Juwayni, the author of the Diwan, Al-Tusi worked to rid him of the harm that had befallen on him, and he was a Sunni.

As for Vizier Muayyad al-Din Ibn al-Alqami, Ibn al-Taqtaqi, in his book "al-Fakhri fi al-Adab al-Sultaniyya wa al-Dawla al-Islamiyya", praised him on more than one occasion, describing him as "one of the most prominent people and wise men" and "chaste of the funds of the court and the funds of the subjects, ascetic and lofty."

Among the important points that have been debunked by a number of contemporary scholars are the popular claim that al-Alqami was secretly corresponding with Hulagu, and the claim that the Shiite minister was the reason for the weakening of the Caliphate's army.

Regarding the first issue, Muhammad Aidan al-Abbadi states in his book "Ibn al-Alqami and his Political Role" that the nature of Ibn al-Alqami's work and job required him to communicate with all the influential political forces of his time, including, of course, the Mongols.

Al-Abbadi is skeptical of the account of sending a secret message written on a servant's head, and questions its logic, and how this servant could endure the pricking of all those needles to write a full letter.

As for the issue on the weakening of the Abbasid army and Ibn al-Alqami's responsibility for this, it seems to be characterized by exaggeration and clear prejudice against the minister, because it is illogical to admit that the caliph's army reached more than 100,000 fighters in the early years of the rule of Caliph al-Mustansir, as this number is completely disproportionate to the real power that the caliph enjoyed in that period.

It is known that the Abbasid caliph in the 6th and 7th centuries AH imposed his actual influence only on Baghdad and some small cities and villages scattered around it, and if such huge numbers of soldiers were available under the banner of the caliphate, it is certain that the caliphs of that period would have worked to seize more territories.

And Dr. Saad Al-Ghamdi comments on this point, stating that if we accept the argument that there was an actual weakening of the Abbasid army in the era of Al-Mustasim al-Balah, the first responsible for this are the Mamluk princes, such as Mujahid al-Din Aybek, known as Al-Duwaidar al-Saghir, "because they liquidated the Abbasid state army in the last two or three decades of its life, from all other elements, so that Al-Mustasim's forces were limited especially to the Mamluks of their own kind, to have the final say in every matter of the state"

In the same context, a group of researchers argue that Ibn al-Alqami's advice to resort to peace and truce with the Mongols was in the form of accepting the fait accompli that cannot be rejected. He offered the diplomatic option "because the Abbasid caliphate's ability is nullified in the face of the Mongols' growing power, so Ibn al-Alqami chose peace and appeasement of the Mongols to prevent further bloodshed," according to Aidan al-Abadi in his book mentioned in the aforementioned book.

Dr. Rasoul Jafarian in his book "Shiism in Iran" comments on this issue, praising the position of Vizier Ibn al-Alqami, saying: "The prophecy of the astute minister was absolutely correct," he says, adding that those around the Abbasid caliph dragged him to perdition by convincing him not to follow the minister's advice.

This opinion is consistent with a group of narrations reported by Rashid al-Din al-Hamdhani in “Jami` al-Tawarikh,” which mentions that Ibn al-Alqami repeatedly warned Caliph al-Musta’sim of the Mongols approaching Baghdad, and advised him to prepare armies to repel them, but when he did not receive a response from the Caliph, he “despaired, accepted the verdict, and put the eye of waiting on the window of patience”

As for the second point that the Shiite sources paid attention to, it is neglecting the duty of researching the roles of a group of other historical figures who adhere to the Sunni doctrine and had a great deal of influence in shaping and shaping events, the most important of which is the military leader Al-Duwidar Al-Saghir, whose practice of organized violence against The Imami Shiite sect in the Karkh neighborhood, and caused an internal rift in Baghdadi society before the arrival of the Mongols, which negatively affected the resistance of the invading enemy.

In addition, many historical narratives went into detail in explaining the details of the recurring conflict that was taking place in the Caliph’s court, Between al-Duwidar al-Saghir and his followers on the one hand and Ibn al-Alqami and his associates on the other, which gives us a clear picture of the serious and flawed imbalance that affected the Abbasid power structure at that delicate historical moment.

Also, one of the criticisms of the Sunni version of the fall of Baghdad is that it focused on the fact that Ibn al-Alqami and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi joined the Mongol ranks, forgetting or ignoring the frequent reports that a large number of Sunni scholars and princes followed Hulagu and supported him.

Such as According to the contemporary scholar Khamis bin Ali al-Rawahi in his book "Attitude of Muslim’s Scholar’s in Iraq and Sham countries to ward Magholi’s invasion," saying that :

• Fakhr al-Din al-Tahrani al-Hanafi
• Muhyiddin bin al-Zaki al-Shafi'i
• al-Fakhr Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Kanji al-Shafi'i

were among the leading Sunni scholars who supported the Mongols.

And The scholar Abul Fadl al-Qunawi, in his book "Al-Mahul from the Narrative of Those Who Served the Mongols," mentions the names of many senior Sufi sheikhs who joined the ranks of Hulagu, including :

• Taj al-Din al-Rifai
• Muhammad ibn Sukran
• Muhammad al-Rasafi.

In his aforementioned book, Abbas Iqbal also mentions a group of princes and politicians whose Sunni affiliation did not prevent them from serving the Mongols, including :

• Badr al-Din Lulu of Mosul
• Atabek Abu Bakr bin Saad, the Atabek of Persia
• Atta Malik al-Juwaini of Iraq, and his brother Alaa al-Din owner of the Diwan.

In addition to all of the above, it is worth noting that most Islamic historical sources, including Ibn al-Athir's Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, state that the Sunni Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir Din Allah was the first to invite the Mongols to enter the country of Islam, when he sent a letter to Genghis Khan asking him to attack the lands and territories of the Khwarezmian state in the late sixth century AH.

It is also worth noting that the devastating Mongol armies did not reach Sunni Baghdad in Iraq until after they had subjugated the Hashishi Shiite strongholds in Iran, and did not choose or select their victims after conquering Baghdad on the basis of sectarianism, as "the nation was afflicted, and the blood of Shiites and Sunnis was shed" in the words of the Sunni historian Ibn al-Wardi.

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Islamic_History/comments/1dwjwp5/the_fourth_fitna_the_conflict_between_alamin_and/

The first caliph of the Muslims to kill his brother was Al-Ma’mun when he killed his brother Al-Amin and took over the caliphate after him, after a civil war that lasted for years.

It was called the fourth Fitna, after the Fitna of the killing of Uthman (the First Fitna), the Fitna that followed the death of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (the Second Fitna), and the Fitna that followed the overthrown of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid bin Yazid (the Third Fitna).

Al-Amin and Al-Mamun are the sons of the Abbasid Caliph Harun Al-Rashid (died 193 AH - 809 AD), whose reign was called “The Golden Age of the Islamic Civilization,” due to the strength and scientific progress it achieved, but at the same time he sowed with his own hands the seeds of this Fitna between his two sons who would succeed him in power, Even if he's intentions was the stability of his kingdom by what he did.

What are the roots of this strife? and what is the position of the princes of the Abbasid house towards it? how did they deal with Al-Amin and Al-Ma’mun? and how did their positions towards them change? This is what we observe in the following lines.

Persians and Arabs: a conflict that was reflected in the Abbasid house

Reliance on the Persians against the Umayyad Arab tyranny was a pillar of Abbasid propaganda against the Umayyad state (41-132 AH / 662-750 AD), along with another pillar, which was the right of the Prophet’s family from Banu Hashim known as (The Hashimites) to the Caliphate throne. In this way, the Abbasids (descendants of the companion Abdullah al-Abbas, cousin of the Prophet Muhammad) and The Persians in Khorasan fought the Umayyads and defeated them and later the caliphate became theirs.

The Persian element was an essential component of the Abbasid state, especially in its first “golden” era. With their swords, the Abbasids gained power, until their rule worsened during the reign of Harun al-Rashid, and the Barmak family (Barmakids), the Persians, became the first to have the first say and favor with Harun.

Yahya bin Barmak was his educator, minister, and delegate in all matters, and Al-Fadl was his son and also Al-Rashid’s breastfeeding brother.

It is known that the Abbasid house was jealous of this Persian Barmaki influence, and from here was the basis of the strife that made the brother kill his own brother later, which was known as the strife of Al-Amin and Al-Mamun, the two sons of Harun Al-Rashid, to whom he divided his kingdom before he died.

Abdullah Al-Ma’mun was the son of Al-Rashid from the Persian “boilers”, and the Persians considered him their son and his maternal uncles, while Al-Amin was the son of Zubaida bint Jaafar, who was Al-Rashid’s cousin, and the granddaughter of the Great Abbasid Caliph Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur Al-Hashimi Al-Qurashi, and without a doubt the actual founder of the Abbasid Caliphate.

Al-Amin and Al-Ma’mun were born approximately in the same year 170 AH, the year their father Al-Rashid assumed the caliphate, but Al-Ma’mun was older than Al-Amin by months (approximately 6 months), and by virtue of the system of inheritance and succession to the Covenant, Abdullah Al-Ma’mun was more deserving of the succession of the throne, but Al-Rashid didn't do that, and assigned him guardianship, and the Throne was givin to his brother, Muhammad Al-Amin.

The desire of the princes of the Abbasid house, led by Al-Amin’s mother, Zubaida bint Jaafar, and their agreement on Al-Amin’s appointment was behind Al-Rashid’s adoption of their opinion, and their apparent argument was that Al-Amin had Hashemi parents, something that was not found in any other of the Abbasid caliphs, but the hidden reason was their hatred of the Persians and “the Barmak family.” in particular, and their fear of expanding their influence further than it was, and the danger that would pose to them and to their future in power.

After intense deliberations and pressure, Al-Rashid summoned his men and entourage to bear witness to his decision, which was to pledge allegiance to his second son, “Muhammad Al-Amin.” That was Thursday, Shaban 6, 175 AH/ December 8, 791 AD, when he pledged allegiance to him and called him “Al-Amin” that day, declaring him governor of the Levant and Iraq.

Al-Amin was 5 years old at the Time, Therefore, Al-Rashid ordered that his guardianship over the Levant and Iraq be under the administration of his tutor, Al-Fadl bin Yahya Al-Barmaki.

After 7 years, as the influence of Zubaida (mother of Al-Amin), and her Abbasid Obssessesion of her Hashemite Arab race, increased, the Barmakids decided to maintain their influence by choosing a rival to Al-Amin, and it would be better if he had a Persian race in his blood from his mother’s side, So they convinced Al-Rashid to pledge allegiance to his son Al-Ma’mun.

Al-Rashid agreed and pledged allegiance to Al-Ma’mun in the year 182 AH - 798 AD, so that he would have the caliphate after his brother Al-Amin. He took covenants from his two sons, bore witness to them, and hung the covenants in the interior of the Kaaba in Mecca so that they would gain holiness and respect from the people and from his two sons.

Four years later, he took allegiance to a crown prince. His third son was Al-Qasim, whom he called Al-Mu’tamin.

The Mecca Protocol Of 802, signed by Al-Amin and Al-Ma’mun stipulated that Al-Ma’mun would have the state of Khorasan (currently parts of Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkmenistan) and the eastern emirates for the caliphate, and Al-Amin would not dispute them even while he was a caliph.

Further reading : El-Hibri, T. (1992). Harun Al-Rashid and The Mecca Protocol Of 802: A plan For Division Or Succession?

After Al-Rashid's death and Al-Amin's accession, he decided to depose Al-Ma'mun and declare his own son Musa, who was a child, as his crown prince, especially since Al-Amin felt that he was a caliph with incomplete sovereignty, and could not hold his brother "the governor of Khorasan and the eastern provinces" accountable for anything because of his father's covenants.

After verbal battles and soft and rough diplomatic messages between the two brothers, Al-Amin moved his army from Baghdad to bring his brother from Merv (currently located in Turkmenistan), the capital of Khorasan, in shackles, so that the Abbasid Arab army (Al-Amin’s army) met the Persian army (Al-Ma’mun’s army) and later the Persians prevailed.

After more than one battle and the exhaustion of Al-Amin’s armies, and the rebellion of what remained of them against him, the matter ended years later in favor of Al-Ma’mun, and Al-Amin was defeated, killed, and beheaded in 198 AH, that is, 5 years after he assumed power.

By virtue of political interests, there were some Persians with Al-Amin, such as one of his army commanders, "Ali bin Isa bin Mahan", who was of Persian origin, and with Al-Ma’mun were some Arabs, including the military commander "Harthama bin Ayan", but in general, Al-Amin’s Abbasi party was Arab, while Al-Ma’mun’s party was Persian .

The position of the Abbasid house on the fourth Fitna

When Al-Amin thought about deposing his brother Al-Ma’mun from the position of crown prince, most of his advisors who supported this decision were from outside the Abbasid house, and the most prominent among them were his leader and chamberlain "Al-Fadl ibn Al-Rabi’" , "Khazim ibn Khuzaymah" , and "Ali ibn Isa ibn Mahan", but it is certain that all those close to him, including the Abbasids, were against deposing him (Al-Mamun).

and his commander, Khazim bin Khuzaymah, advised him (Al-Amin) saying:

O Commander of the Believers, do not dare the commanders to depose you, lest they dethrone you, and do not force them to break the covenant, lest they break your covenant and pledge of allegiance, for the treacherous one is abandoned and the one who breaks them is shackled.

But Al-Amin did not pay attention to these reasonable words, and Ibn Al-Rabi’ and Ibn Mahan tempted him to fulfill his desire that had come to him since the beginning of his rule, and perhaps had been in his heart since the death of his father Harun Al-Rashid.

The Abbasid house sided with Al-Amin, but they were against harming his brother Al-Ma'mun.

They only did not want him in power, out of obedience to Al-Amin, and hatred towards the Persians, and at the head of this was Zubaida, Al-Amin's mother.

Zubaida's concern for Al-Ma'mun's safety and dignity appears in her will to Ali bin Isa bin Mahan, Al-Amin's commander, when he went out to fight Al-Ma'mun, where she advised him to treat Al-Ma'mun well, and even advised him not to forget that he is the son of the Harun Al-Rashid and that he must be treated in a manner befitting him, so she said:

Indeed, the Commander of the Believers (the Al-Amin), even though he is my son, and for him my compassion is complete, and for him I am completely wary of him. However, I feel compassion for Abdullah (Al-Ma’mun) when calamity and harm happen to him, but my son is a king who competed with his brother in his power and was jealous of what was in his hand, and the noble one ate his flesh and others prevented him, so know. The servant of God has the rights of his father and his brothers. Do not confront him with words, for you are not his equal. Do not force him like a slave, do not burden him with shackles, do not prevent a female servant or servant from him, do not be harsh with him when walking, do not walk with him equally, do not ride before him, and do not ride your animal until you take his ride. If he insults you, bear with him.

At the end of her will, she gave Ibn Mahan a silver handcuff, so that Al-Ma’mun could be tied up with it when he was arrested. Because It is not right for the son of the Commander of the Believers to be handcuffed with an iron handcuff.

Apart from Zubaida, the princes of the Abbasid house were on the side of Al-Amin, and among them who was in a position of responsibility at the time of the Fitna was "Abd al-Malik bin Saleh Al-Abbasi", who went to the Levant to recruit soldiers for Al-Amin after the defeats of his army suffered in Persia.

Among them is "Daoud bin Issa" , the police cheif, who fought fiercely in defense of Baghdad against Al-Ma’mun’s forces.

Aswell "Sulayman bin Abi Jaafar Al-Mansur" , the governor of Damascus, who was attacked by Umayyad supporters in Damascus during the Fitna between Al-Amin and Al-Ma’mun, so he fled to Iraq and joined Al-Amin in his fight.

Among the Abbasids who fought alongside Al-Amin was "Ishaq bin Suleiman Al-Abbasi" , the governor of Armenia, who decided to stand with Al-Amin, and fought against Al-Ma’mun’s forces forcefully when they went to occupy Armenia and annex it to Al-Ma’mun’s kingdom.

The fierce fighting ended with Ishaq’s defeat and the capture of his son Jaafar.

Abbasids turn against Al-Amin and side with Al-Ma'mun

After the war turned in Al-Ma'mun's favor after the defeat of Al-Amin's army led by Ibn Mahan, and with the advance of Al-Ma'mun's armies towards Baghdad led by Taher bin Al-Hussein, the Al-Abbas began to review their position.

At the head of those who turned against Al-Amin among the Abbasids was Daoud bin Isa bin Musa Al-Abbasi, the governor of Mecca, and his son. He saw that Al-Amin was the first to break the covenants that Al-Rashid had taken with him and his brother Al-Amin, and based on that he decided to side with Al-Ma’mun, despite He was appointed governor of Mecca by Al-Amin.

That was in the year 196 AH, and Al-Ma’mun’s forces at that time, led by Taher bin Al-Hussein, were controlling the Eastern Caliphate one country after another, and were on the verge of eliminating Al-Amin once and for all and taking control of Baghdad.

Daoud felt that Al-Ma’mun would be the decisive factor, so he decided to save himself, and in order to find an excuse to save his face, he gathered the people of Quraysh and said to them:

You have known what was taken upon us and upon you of the covenant and covenant at the Sacred House of God, when we pledged allegiance to his two sons (meaning Al-Rashid’s pledge of allegiance to his two sons), that we would be with the oppressed against the oppressor, and with the betrayed against the treacherous. We have seen and you have seen that Muhammad (Al-Amin) began oppressing and oppressing his brothers, Abdullah al-Ma’mun and al-Qasim al-Mu’tmin, and deposed them and pledged allegiance to his child son... I decided to depose him and pledge allegiance to Abdullah al-Ma’mun for the Caliphate, if he was oppressed and oppressed by his oppressor.

The people of Mecca agreed with him and said: Our opinion follows your opinion and we will renounce it with you.

Daoud also wrote to his son Suleiman, who was governor of Medina from the allegiance of Al-Amin, and informed him of his position, and asked him to do the same. Suleiman responded and deposed Al-Amin and pledged allegiance to Al-Ma’mun, and the entire Hijaz became with Al-Ma’mun allegiance.

The same thing was done by the governor of Egypt, Al-Abbas bin Musa bin Isa Al-Abbasi. He was appointed by Al-Amin, one of his supporters, but he changed his allegiance and pledged allegiance to Al-Ma’mun.

With the killing of Al-Amin in 198 AH and the declaration of Al-Ma’mun as Caliph of the Muslims, everyone entered into obedience to him and accepted the status quo, had it not been for Al-Ma’mun who initiated a coup against the entire Abbasid house, and they united against him again.

A New Abbasid Caliph to Oppose Al-Ma'mun

Al-Ma'mun was victorious with the swords of the Persians, so the matter returned to them as it was during the reign of Harun Al-Rashid, and Al-Ma'mun remained among them, ruling from his capital, Merv, and did not go to Baghdad.

Al-Ma'mun wanted to use a new party in the power equation, besides the Persians, to gain influence over the members of the Abbasid house, whom Ibn Marajal did not know what they were hiding inside, even if they surrendered to his authority on the surface

Al-Ma'mun decided to summon the Alawite Imam "Ali ibn Musa al-Kadhim" from his residence in Hijaz to Maru, to entrust him with the mandate of the crown, and called him "al-Ridha."

This decision meant the transfer of the caliphate from the Hashemite Banu al-Abbas to their Alawite cousins with whom they had a historical dispute, and changing the tribal pillar on which the state is based upon.

Ali Al-Rida accepted the mandate of the covenant, and the coin was minted in his name.

He was a pious and devout man, a descendant of Hussein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib. Al-Ma'mun wrapped his choice in a religious cover, saying that he searched among Banu Hashim (the Prophet's tribe) and found no one more pious than Ali al-Rida to take over, and Al-Ma'mun also decided to take off the black color and wear green one.

The Black Color is the official color of the Abbasids; It was the color of their flag and clothing, and they gave it religious sanctity.

Al-Ma’mun’s deposition of him (Ali Al-Rida) was considered a coup against the Abbasid state from its foundations.

As a result, members of the Abbasid house revolted against the authorities affiliated with Al-Ma'mun in Baghdad, expelled them, and offered the caliphate to Al-Mansur ibn Al-Mahdi, Harun Al-Rashid's brother, and uncle of Al-Amin and Al-Ma'mun, but Al-Mansur refused.

Then they presented the matter to his brother Ibrahim bin Al-Mahdi, and he accepted. They declared him caliph, and all the Abbasids pledged allegiance to him, including his brother Mansour, who rejected the caliphate.

Ibrahim was among those who were on Al-Amin’s side, and he even led a movement against Al-Ma’mun, and he had poems eulogizing Al-Amin, to the point that Tahir bin Al-Hussein, the commander of Al-Ma’mun’s army, said to him after entering Baghdad: “I have heard that you are leaning towards the deposed recalcitrant (al-Amin)?"

Ibrahim continued in power for nearly two years. He was a poet, singer, and composer. He was not a seasoned politician, but his age and family situation, being the son of a caliph and the uncle of the caliphs, pushed him to the caliphate.

In contrast, Al-Ma’mun, despite his youth, was more politically astute, and he also had as many armies as he could. He intends to invade Baghdad again and seize power, but he hesitates because he didn't want more blood in his hands.

In the meantime, Imam Ali al-Ridha died under mysterious circumstances, and it was said that he was poisoned and that the Abbasids were the ones who poisoned him.

Seeing that his plans would not work amid such fierce Abbasid resistance, al-Ma'mun retracted his decisions.

Al-Ma'mun appeased the Abbasids by taking off his green robe and returning to black, and decided to return to Baghdad as the capital of his kingdom, so the Abbasids met his decisions with relative satisfaction, but Ibrahim was afraid and fled and hid when he learned that Al-Ma'mun was coming with his army.

After a while, Ibrahim was arrested, but he begged Al-Ma'mun to forgive him, and recited a poem in this regard. and , so He forgave him and the sedition (fourth Fitna) ended.

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/comments/1e1hk0k/how_was_abu_hurairas_biography_written_context_in/

The figure of Abu Huraira is highly regarded by Sunnis, who view him as one of the companions who contributed to the transmission of many of the Prophet's Sunnahs and hadiths to subsequent generations of Muslims.

At the same time, Abu Huraira's personality was politically significant, as he was known for his political allegiance to the Umayyads, to the point that many scholars have cast doubt on his narrations.

According to the Sunnis : the name is unknown and the narrator of most of the hadiths

The biography of Abu Hurairah was mentioned in many historical and hadith sources considered by the Sunnis and the community, including, for example :

• the Sahihs of Al-Bukhari and Muslim
• the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal
• “Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra” by Ibn Saad
• “Al-Isaba fi Tamiyah Al-Sahaba” by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani

These sources agree that Abu Huraira originated from the Yemeni tribe of Dus, and that he came to the Prophet to declare his converting to Islam after the Battle of Khaybar, in the 7th year of the Hijrah. However, they differ on the name of Abu Huraira, and Ibn Hajar in "al-Isaba" lists more than twenty opinions on this.

According to the most likely opinions, the Prophet changed his name after his convertion to Islam, calling him Abdul Rahman or Abdullah, while his nickname "Abu Huraira" was due to his affection for cats.

There is disagreement as to how long Abu Huraira spent in the company of the Prophet.

According to Sahih Bukhari, he himself states that he stayed with the Prophet for three years, while some historical accounts state that he stayed with him for four years.

In his book "Sheikh al-Mudyrah", researcher Mahmoud Abu Rayya questions the authenticity of these statements, and argues that the duration of Abu Huraira's companionship with the Prophet was less than two years, relying on the fact that the Prophet sent him to Bahrain in the company of Alaa ibn al-Hadrami, in the month of Dhu al-Qa'dah in the 8th year of the Hijrah, and he remained there until the death of the Prophet in 11 AH.

Abu Huraira is considered one of the most prolific narrators of the Prophet's hadith according to the Sunni mind.

Al-Dhahabi mentions in his book "Sir al-Alam al-Nubala" that the number of hadiths narrated from him exceeded 5,000 hadiths, 517 of which are mentioned in the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

The question of why the number of hadiths narrated by Abu Huraira increased has been present in most periods of Islamic history, and there is an answer to it quoted by Bukhari in his Sahih, saying that he was with the Prophet most of the time, while most Muslims were busy with their trade and business.

One of the miraculous justifications used by the Sunni mind to explain Abu Hurairah's many narrations is the story narrated by Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih about Abu Hurairah, that he complained to the Prophet that he was afraid he would forget the hadith, and the Prophet said to him, "Spread open your garment," so he spread it, and then the Prophet talked to him all day, and after that he held his garment to his stomach "and he never forgot anything the Prophet told him."

However, Ibn Qutaybah, in his book "The Interpretation of Conflicting Narrations," states that many of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, including Umar, Ali, Aisha, Zubair and Abdullah ibn Masud, were skeptical of some of Abu Hurairah's narrations.

In the Shiite mind : A liar who introduced the Israelite stories into Islam

The Imami Shiites accuse Abu Hurairah of lying and being hostile to the Prophet’s family (Ahl albayt) , especially since he was a supporter of the Umayyads.

Both Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari al-Shi’i (Sometimes an Imami or a Shi'i is added to his name to distinguish him from the Sunni Ibn Jarir al-Tabari) in “Al-Mustarshid” and Al-Majlisi in “Bihar Al-Anwar” mention that Ali bin Abi Talib described Abu Hurairah as :

“the most lying person to the Messenger of Allah.”

Sheikh al-Saduq reported in "al-Khaysal" that Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq counted Abu Huraira as one of the three biggest liars against the Prophet. Among the Shiite accusations against Abu Huraira is what Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi mentioned in his book "Abu Huraira". He said:

"It is the hadiths of Abu Huraira that opened the door to the idea of the infallibility of the prophets."

This, in turn, undermines the infallibility of the Shiite Imams, because according to the Imami Shiite doctrine, the Imams are infallible from mistakes and sins, just like the Prophet, so questioning the infallibility of the Prophet would negate the infallibility of the Imams.

Also, one of the important charges leveled against Abu Huraira by Shiites is the claim that he served as a bridge over which Jewish and Israeli influences known as the Isra'iliyyat (الإسرائيليات) known as the Israelite stories in Islamic Theological fields to cross into the Islamic religion.

Many contemporary Shiite scholars have drawn attention to the relationship between Abu Huraira and Ka'b al-Ahbar, a Yemeni Jew who converted to Islam after the Prophet's death.

For example, Najah al-Ta'i states in his book "Jews in the Clothes of Islam":

"Ka'b unleashed himself to prove whatever he wanted of the myths and Israelisms that distort the glory of the religion, aided by his great disciples such as Abu Huraira."

In the Sufi Imagination : The Most Important Guide to Divine Knowledge

Abu Huraira holds an important place in the collective Sufi imagination for a number of reasons.

The first is that he was one of the People of the Sufah, a group of poor companions whom Sufis used to emulate.

The second reason is the hadith reported by al-Bukhari in his Sahih, in which he quotes Abu Huraira as saying:

"I have memorized two kinds of knowledge from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) . I have propagated one of them to you and if I propagated the second, then my pharynx (throat) would be cut (i.e. killed). (Sahih Bukhari 1:3:121)."

In his book "Fath al-Bari", Ibn Hajar tries to interpret this hadith, commenting on it:

"It is possible that he meant that he wanted the type of things related to the conditions of the hour, the change of conditions and the epics at the end of time."

This interpretation is rejected by Sufis.

Najm al-Din Kabri states in his book "Starry Interpretations in Sufi Icharya" that what is meant by this type of knowledge is the "mystical knowledge," which is one of the "similar sciences that are referred to as special monotheism.

The great Shaykh Muhyiddin ibn 'Arabi describes this type of knowledge in his book "Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyah" as "the inherited prophetic knowledge".

Hence, Sufi scholars have always linked mystical knowledge to the Hadith of Abu Huraira, and have used this hadith to emphasize that there are mystical sciences that cannot be grasped by the people of the external world, which are beyond the comprehension of the general public, and if they were to be revealed to them, they would be accused of blasphemy.

For this reason, Abu Huraira's hadith was cited in several places in the writings of leading Sufi scholars such as Ibn Arabi, Ibn Sabeen, and Suhrawardi.

Abu Huraira and Political Pragmatism

Many scholars who have written about Abu Huraira argue that he was an example of political pragmatism in its clearest form, and that he always favored the party that lavished money and gifts on him.

The most obvious political allegiance in Abu Huraira's biography appears in the period following the death of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and the ascension of 'Uthman ibn Affan to the seat of the caliphate. He found in the new caliph a source of wealth and power, so he defended him with his narrations, which he colored with the prophetic hue.

According to Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, Abu Huraira heard from the Prophet that the Muslims would face strife and disagreement after him, and when he asked him who they should side with at the time, he told him, "You have the prince and his companions." He then referred to Uthman.

In another situation that al-Suyuti mentions in his book "Al-Khasais al-Kubra" , Abu Huraira praised 'Uthman after he wrote the Qur'an and told him that he had heard from the Prophet :

"The most beloved of my nation are those who come after me, who believe in me and have not seen me, and do what is in the hanging paper."

When 'Uthman heard this, he was happy and ordered him ten thousand dirhams, and this hadith was a reason to reduce pressure on the caliph at that time, especially since many of the companions opposed him in the matter of codifying the Qur'an.

After the killing of Uthman, Abu Huraira moved to support Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan.

He supported him in his call for revenge against Uthman's killers, and narrated some hadiths that elevated his religious status, including the report in Al-Ajri's book "Sharia" that the Prophet gave an arrow to Muawiya in some invasions, and told him:

"O Muawiya, take this arrow until you meet me in paradise."

Abu Huraira used to seize every favorable opportunity to praise Muawiya, such as when he saw Aisha bint Talha, who was known for her beauty and grace, he said to her:

"Subhanallah! By God, I have never seen a better face than yours, except the face of Muawiya on the pulpit of the Messenger of God,"

according to Ibn Abd Rabbh in his book "Al-Aqd al-Farid".

One of the important phrases that history books mention about Abu Huraira, which clearly expresses his political ideology, is what Ibn al-Emad al-Hanbali reported in his book "Shadrat al-Dahab in Akhbar al-Mu'min al-Dahab" that he said during the battle of Siffin that broke out between Ali ibn Abi Talib and Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan in 37 AH:

"Praying behind Ali is more perfect, Muawiya's sword is fatter, and leaving the fight is safer."

This statement is consistent with what Mahmoud Abu Rayah mentions in his book, that Abu Huraira was known for his interest in the delicious food that was served on Muawiya's tables, until some historical sources called him "Sheikh al-Mudyrah," and al-Mudyrah was a type of delicious food known to the Arabs at the time.

One of the important situations in which Abu Huraira's purely political loyalty to the Umayyads is shown is that when Bisr ibn Arta'a, the commander of the Levant army, arrived in Medina, he entrusted the task of its governorate to Abu Huraira, who remained its governor and imam for congregational prayers in it, until Ali ibn Abi Talib's army came, and he fled, according to Baladhari in his book "Ansab al-Ashraf". He was granted a palace and estates in Wadi al-Aqiq in Medina and married his former servant Basra bint Ghazwan, according to Ibn Hajar.

Muawiya even recognized him after his death in 59 AH, when he sent to the governor of Medina, al-Walid ibn Utba, to :

"see who he left, pay his heirs ten thousand dirhams, be good to their neighbors, and do them a favor,"

as Ibn Saad mentions in "Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra".

[Note] : I accidentally deleted the post so i repost it again, sorry

In the Sufi Imagination : The Most Important Guide to Divine Knowledge

Abu Huraira holds an important place in the collective Sufi imagination for a number of reasons.

The first is that he was one of the People of the Sufah, a group of poor companions whom Sufis used to emulate.

The second reason is the hadith reported by al-Bukhari in his Sahih, in which he quotes Abu Huraira as saying:

"I have memorized two kinds of knowledge from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) . I have propagated one of them to you and if I propagated the second, then my pharynx (throat) would be cut (i.e. killed). (Sahih Bukhari 1:3:121)."

In his book "Fath al-Bari", Ibn Hajar tries to interpret this hadith, commenting on it:

"It is possible that he meant that he wanted the type of things related to the conditions of the hour, the change of conditions and the epics at the end of time."

This interpretation is rejected by Sufis.

Najm al-Din Kabri states in his book "Starry Interpretations in Sufi Icharya" that what is meant by this type of knowledge is the "mystical knowledge," which is one of the "similar sciences that are referred to as special monotheism.

The great Shaykh Muhyiddin ibn 'Arabi describes this type of knowledge in his book "Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyah" as "the inherited prophetic knowledge".

Hence, Sufi scholars have always linked mystical knowledge to the Hadith of Abu Huraira, and have used this hadith to emphasize that there are mystical sciences that cannot be grasped by the people of the external world, which are beyond the comprehension of the general public, and if they were to be revealed to them, they would be accused of blasphemy.

For this reason, Abu Huraira's hadith was cited in several places in the writings of leading Sufi scholars such as Ibn Arabi, Ibn Sabeen, and Suhrawardi.

Abu Huraira and Political Pragmatism

Many scholars who have written about Abu Huraira argue that he was an example of political pragmatism in its clearest form, and that he always favored the party that lavished money and gifts on him.

The most obvious political allegiance in Abu Huraira's biography appears in the period following the death of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and the ascension of 'Uthman ibn Affan to the seat of the caliphate. He found in the new caliph a source of wealth and power, so he defended him with his narrations, which he colored with the prophetic hue.

According to Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, Abu Huraira heard from the Prophet that the Muslims would face strife and disagreement after him, and when he asked him who they should side with at the time, he told him, "You have the prince and his companions." He then referred to Uthman.

In another situation that al-Suyuti mentions in his book "Al-Khasais al-Kubra" , Abu Huraira praised 'Uthman after he wrote the Qur'an and told him that he had heard from the Prophet :

"The most beloved of my nation are those who come after me, who believe in me and have not seen me, and do what is in the hanging paper."

When 'Uthman heard this, he was happy and ordered him ten thousand dirhams, and this hadith was a reason to reduce pressure on the caliph at that time, especially since many of the companions opposed him in the matter of codifying the Qur'an.

After the killing of Uthman, Abu Huraira moved to support Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan.

He supported him in his call for revenge against Uthman's killers, and narrated some hadiths that elevated his religious status, including the report in Al-Ajri's book "Sharia" that the Prophet gave an arrow to Muawiya in some invasions, and told him:

"O Muawiya, take this arrow until you meet me in paradise."

Abu Huraira used to seize every favorable opportunity to praise Muawiya, such as when he saw Aisha bint Talha, who was known for her beauty and grace, he said to her:

"Subhanallah! By God, I have never seen a better face than yours, except the face of Muawiya on the pulpit of the Messenger of God,"

according to Ibn Abd Rabbh in his book "Al-Aqd al-Farid".

One of the important phrases that history books mention about Abu Huraira, which clearly expresses his political ideology, is what Ibn al-Emad al-Hanbali reported in his book "Shadrat al-Dahab in Akhbar al-Mu'min al-Dahab" that he said during the battle of Siffin that broke out between Ali ibn Abi Talib and Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan in 37 AH:

"Praying behind Ali is more perfect, Muawiya's sword is fatter, and leaving the fight is safer."

This statement is consistent with what Mahmoud Abu Rayah mentions in his book, that Abu Huraira was known for his interest in the delicious food that was served on Muawiya's tables, until some historical sources called him "Sheikh al-Mudyrah," and al-Mudyrah was a type of delicious food known to the Arabs at the time.

One of the important situations in which Abu Huraira's purely political loyalty to the Umayyads is shown is that when Bisr ibn Arta'a, the commander of the Levant army, arrived in Medina, he entrusted the task of its governorate to Abu Huraira, who remained its governor and imam for congregational prayers in it, until Ali ibn Abi Talib's army came, and he fled, according to Baladhari in his book "Ansab al-Ashraf". He was granted a palace and estates in Wadi al-Aqiq in Medina and married his former servant Basra bint Ghazwan, according to Ibn Hajar.

Muawiya even recognized him after his death in 59 AH, when he sent to the governor of Medina, al-Walid ibn Utba, to :

"see who he left, pay his heirs ten thousand dirhams, be good to their neighbors, and do them a favor,"

as Ibn Saad mentions in "Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra".

[Note] : I accidentally deleted the post so i repost it again, sorry

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/comments/1e2bfg3/the_akakiza_muslims_who_rejected_the_qur%C4%81n_%E1%B9%A3al%C4%81h/

The 11th century AH witnessed the emergence of many Sufi groups that served as a refuge for all segments of Maghreb society, especially in light of their prominent social and political roles, but some of them were harshly criticized for beliefs and practices that some saw as a departure from the teachings of the Islamic religion, including the "Akakiza" group, which was called by other names, including "Yusufiya".

In general, the Akakiza sect cannot be isolated from the data of the Moroccan Saadi era (961-1096 AH / 1554-1659 AD) in which it arose, which is rightly called the "Age of Sufism".

In his book "Sufism and Heresy in Morocco", that this period was characterized in its coverage by the character of the Zawiyas and their lords, to whom the reins of the country and the people were entrusted, and they had the upper hand in the major events of the era, as the existing state was of their making, and the entire people were in their company, their followers and their servants, as these mystics answered the needs of individuals and groups in worldly and religious affairs, whether in nomadic or urban areas, in times of security and strife, and the seeker of knowledge, the hungry, the sick, the wayfarer, the merchant to protect his business and the fugitive from the Sultan to seek intercession and ensure safety, would go to them.

In fact, European countries treated some Sufi orders and corners as legitimate authorities by signing treaties and exchanging embassies.

At the same time, Sufis spared no effort in defending Islam and carrying out the function of jihad and defending the Iberians from the country's defenses.

In light of these circumstances, it was natural for some parasites to sprout around the Sufism that sprouted during the Saadis, and a prominent phenomenon arose in this Sufi era, which consisted of defrauding people and deceiving them by pretending to be poor, good, and righteous, and then followed the path of exaggeration and sexual intercourse.

Among the sects that have been accused of such accusations is the Akakiza, which was known by many names, some of which its followers accepted for themselves, such as "Yusufiyya", "Ahmadiyya", and "Malayna", and some of which were given to them by their opponents, such as "Al-Badadawah", "Sharaka", and "Al-Akaza", the name by which the sect was known in the late Saadian state and the early Alawite state.

The creation of the sect

According to Faisal Mubarak in his study, "The Yusufiya Sect a Religious and Social Heresy Through Moroccan Sources," the Akakiza is a deviant sect founded by Ahmad Abdullah al-Manzuli, who claimed mysticism and affiliation with Sheikh Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Rashidi al-Miliani (d. 927 AH), a sheikh of the Shadhiliya order in the 10th century, and therefore they were called "Yusufiya".

According to Mubarak, historical sources state that Ahmad ibn Yusuf al-Miliani was the owner of miraculous karamat and many mystical rituals, which increased the spread of his fame and earned him great fame in both Algeria and the Far West, which led to the growth of his followers, some of whom exalted him and worshipped him to the point of exaggeration.

However, some historians trace the Akaziya to an even older origin among the Soussi tribe of Masmuda.

Among them was al-Mahdi ibn Tumurt, the founder of the Almohad state at the beginning of the sixth century AH/12 AD, who took nothing with him in his travels except a cane [Akaz] and a crock (a small leather vessel in which to drink water), hence the nickname "al-Akaziya." His people and supporters believed in his infallibility, and they saw other Muslims who did not follow their doctrine as takfir.

In the Far Maghreb, this sect has spread widely and is known by many names, including the Banu Umayr, Banu Sro, and the Baddadhwa, who are known as the Sharaka, while in Mount Vazar, the Berber tribes of Zamour are known as the Akakzah, and there are the Za'ir and the Koura tribes.

In Algeria, this sect spread in some of the tribes of Bani Yaznasan near Tlemcen, and it also had a spread in the desert extending from the country of Djelmasa westward in some of the Ghananma tribes in and around the country of Tuat, according to Mubark.

Legalization of adultery

In his book "The Intellectual Movement in Morocco during the Saadian era," Muhammad Hajji writes that Ahmad bin Abdullah al-Manzouli, the founder of the Akaziya order, legislated for his followers - most of whom were nomadic Arabs and Berbers - beliefs and rules that contradict the rules of Islam and the principles of public morality, including denying the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad and even declaring that they hate him and prefer al-Manzouli to him.

They also adopted a book called "Ibn Rabash" as a substitute for the Quran, which contains the monologues of al-Manzouli, which they consider more reliable than the Muhammadan revelation.

They also abandoned prayer and fasting except when necessary to hide from Muslims, and believed in the permissibility of eating dead animals and pigs, and the prohibition of eating the Eid sacrifice, saying that:

"the dead are the sacrifice of God, which is better than the sacrifice of a human being."

According to Hajji, the Akakza allowed adultery, as a man used to visit his mother and sister, and they would leave their women among them, and each one of them would do whatever he wanted to his wife in public and not cover up, and they would gather men and women, beat the tambourine, cry, and mention words that are termed among them in their religion, and if they wanted to sleep after that while they were gathered, they would order the lamp to be extinguished, and each of them would do whatever he wanted in the women among them, and this night is called "the night of mistake" or "the night of mixture."

They became a dangerous anarchic force in the long period of turmoil that followed the death of Saadi Sultan Abu al-Abbas Ahmad al-Mansur in 1012 AH, cutting off strangers, shedding blood, and violating sanctities.

Prophecy and divinity

According to "Najmi" in his aforementioned book, the prophethood of Sheikh Ahmad bin Abdullah al-Manzuli was the realm of "truth" for his followers, and the degree of "truth" is higher than the degree of "law" in the Yusufis' law, and thus it resulted in the privilege of al-Manzuli, the prophet of truth, over Muhammad, the prophet of law, so the Yusufis preferred their prophet to the Prophet whom they disavowed, declared his hatred, and dared to harm and insult him.

The Yusufis were not satisfied with this, and they excessively loved their Sheikh al-Manzouli until they made him into a deity and the conduct of worldly and religious affairs, so they entrusted matters to him, sought his favor and warned of his displeasure, as a metaphor for his being a god.

Najmi notes that the 11th/17th century sources that dealt with the sect, the most important of which is the "Message of the Akazah" by Abu al-Hasan al-Yusi, attribute permissiveness to the founder of the Yusufi sect, as they quote their leader as saying,

"Do whatever sins you want, for I have tolerated you."

Sources attribute to the Yusufis statements indicating the permissibility of adultery, including :

"A woman is like a carpet, pray and give your brother to pray,"

"No one believes until he loves his brother as he loves himself, and the head of that is his wife,"

"We eat from a grain, lie in a jibba, and drink from a quiver."

The Yusufis They share vaginas and refer to it as "we drink from a quiver", they share mouths and lips and refer to it as "we eat from a grain", and they share flesh to flesh without a barrier and refer to it as "we lie down in a quiver".

Repentance by committing obscenity

Some historical sources say that the Yusufis did not engage in fornication just for the sake of fornication, but that they repent of it, which is one of the greatest sacrifices.

If the head of education, called the Qutb, wants to train the mureed and make him stop loving the world and reach the place of annihilation, he orders him to bring his wife, so the mureed brings his wife to the presence of the Qutb and the fakirs, so the mureed sleeps on the ground, his wife lies on him, and the Qutb comes on top of them, lying on top of the wife and has intercourse with her, so that when he has had his fill of her, the poor people come one by one according to their rank from the sheikh, until they all have had their fill of that mureed's wife, and if he does this and his wife, they say that she has reached and died.

Other historical sources say that the legalization of adultery comes at the top of the commands of the Yusufis, and that the opening of their book "Ibn Rabash" written in gold water includes the phrase :

"It is not permissible for a woman who believes in God to prevent her vagina except from her father and her son, and it is permissible for her to allow it to anyone else."

The group allowed what is known as the marriage of an infant to an adult, which was practiced by the Zakara tribe, one of the Akakazi tribes.

When a wealthy family has a boy, his parents can marry him if they wish, from the day he is born, or when he is two or three months old, and the infant's wife is chosen from the daughters of poor families, who are in their second decade of life.

After completing the betrothal ceremony, the bride moves to the marital home, where she may commit adultery, and her children follow her, and their paternity is recognized by the infant husband, according to Najmi.

Also According to dr Najmi, Sunni sources attributed the widespread popularity of the Yusufi sect to this manifestation of its sexual rituals, as common Muslims and disobedient people used to join the Yusufi corners because they found in them adultery and many sins, as well as eating and resting and abandoning prayer and fasting, so they joined them to enjoy abominations and enjoy unemployment.

Monotheists and memorizers of the Quran

Despite this picture presented by Al-Najmi from Sunni historical sources, he tried to stand on the other side, stating that the creators of this picture of the akazah did not derive its primary material from its original sources, namely the Yusufi sheikhs, but rather relied on the narratives of their neighbors, interlocutors and contenders, meaning that these pictures do not reflect a reality that the authors of the texts witnessed, nor do they express a fact that they stood upon, but rather they are merely a recording of news that came to the ears of these recorders and narratives they heard. These images do not reflect a reality witnessed by the authors of the texts, nor do they express a fact that they stood upon, but rather are merely a recording of news that came to the ears of these recorders and accounts they heard, some of which were on the tongues of individuals and some of which reached the amount of tawatur, with different narrators and their varying degrees of verification, investigation, justice, trust, and honesty.

"Najmi" reviews the other opinion on this sect, citing the book "Tabasrah al-Ra'ish al-Amin in mentioning the conditions of the Imam of the Muslims" by an anonymous writer who stated that the Yusufis pronounce the testimony and recite the Quran. The jurist Abu Abdullah bin al-Hassan al-Majassi confirmed this, a fact he witnessed himself and reported in his book "Nawazil al-Majassi", and Abu Ali al-Hassan al-Yusi proved in his mentioned letter about the sect that there are students in the neighborhoods of al-Akkaza who teach their children the Qur'an.

Najmi concludes that the Yusufis' observance of the first pillar of Islam and their pronouncement of the Shahada invalidates the reports of their exaggerated love for Sheikh Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Rashidi or his disciple Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah al-Manzul and their attribution to prophethood and divinity, because the word of sincerity "There is no god but Allah" that they testify to recognizes divinity for God alone and categorically denies the same for God, and their testimony that "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" refutes the belief in the existence of a partner for Muhammad in his prophethood and message.

As for the two pillars of prayer and fasting, these news reports do not deny that the Yusufis pray, but without purity, and that they rise at dawn in Ramadan, but to create the illusion that they are fasting, while these news reports are completely silent about the two pillars of zakat and hajj, and do not refer to the Yusufis giving zakat and performing hajj, or say that they forbid zakat and dispense with hajj, but their emphasis on the care that the Yusufis take in reciting and learning the Quran is enough alone to drop the image of heresy from its foundation, as long as they follow the Book, which is the first source of Sharia and Sunnah.

Regarding the Yusufis' use of Muslim blood and property during the 11th century AH/17 AD, against the backdrop of the Yusufis' hateful religious heterogeneity, this manifestation should be seen in the context of the historical roles of the Yusufi sect in this period, and should be taken as evidence of the remarkable emergence of this sect as a dangerous political force This appearance should be seen in the context of the historical roles of the Yusufi sect in this period, and should be taken as evidence of the remarkable emergence of this sect as a serious political force, which played its part in the events of this time, in which power in Morocco was dispersed by many hands, Zawiyas and sects ruled over worldly and religious affairs, and the country was divided into Sufi states and emirates whose wars did not spare the blood of Muslims, nor forbid their property and honor, and Al-Akazia was part of this scene," Najmi said.

Freedom from Maliki doctrine

In his aforementioned study, Mubarak argues that the Akakzah is a sect that broke free from the Maliki doctrine and the Ash'arite doctrine that prevailed in Morocco at that time, and rebelled against the controls and morals of Moroccan society, after they found justifications for their behaviors in an aberrant religious doctrinal framework full of myths and legends inspired by various doctrines.

Although the followers of Sheikh Ahmed Yusuf al-Miliani were the nucleus of this sect, many heresies, distortions and additions were added to their beliefs, and this is due to the fact that most of the believers of the Akakiza doctrine were ignorant and mobs, and they felt different and distinct from Muslims, and refused to coexist with the rest of society, so their hands extended to property and sanctities, which brought them face to face in wars and troubles with others.

Muhammad al-Saghir al-Afrani, the historian of Morocco in the 11th century AH / AD 17, wrote his books "Nuzhat al-'Awwali with the news of the kings of the eleventh century" and "Safwa who spread from the news of the righteous of the eleventh century", and he did not mention this group in isolation from banditry, looting and corruption He noted that they went to extremes in corruption and tampering with people's money, violated the sanctity of homes and women, openly engaged in corruption, and openly consumed alcohol in the streets and markets, thus contributing to terror in cities and instability in rural and urban areas.

According to Hajji, reformers from the scholars and governors opposed the Akakiza sect throughout the Saadi era, led by Sheikh Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Rashidi al-Milani himself, to whom they attributed themselves, as he disavowed their heresy, fought them and displaced them, and jurists advised successive sultans to change the denial of the Akakiza and eliminate their corruption.

"Najmi" mentions that the Akakza went through many challenges during the 10th and 11th centuries AH / 16 and 17 AD, which affected their activities and practices, so the wahabbi apostasy ruling was implemented against them and they were repented, and a group of their sheikhs were imprisoned in Fez for many months, then released after their repentance was verified, until Sultan Mawla al-Mawla al-Sharif took over the reins of power.

He destroyed their most active and important centers in 1102 AH, executed the sentence of apostasy on their sheikhs, killed sixty-three of them, scattered their heritage, dispersed their commoners, evicted them from their areas to where they have no supportors, and exiled them through tribes that do not profess their faith.

I should start by saying that I'm a revert. I reverted around 2022 in high school after doing a very long research project on different religions. I'm American too, if that's important.

I’m having issues with my faith. Like I don’t understand a lot of things, specifically why everything in Islam is so complicated. Like why do you have to go through a multi-step cleansing ritual just to pray? Why do you have to start every Du’a with specific words? How much of Islam is Allah’s direct will, and how much is the prophet Muhammad Pbuh’s human bias? Why is it so easy to be hated by Allah, but so hard to be loved by him? Why is there only one way to do things? Why would Allah make it so hard to follow Islam correctly? Like if someone does wudu slightly differently, all of their prayers are invalid? Even if they didn’t know? If someone with ADHD can’t focus on prayer, it’s as if he never prayed? Why? I know you can chalk it up to Allah’s tests, but some of these just don’t seem like tests, but complications. Like if someone just mispronounces something in prayer, they’ve possibly committed shirk or something similar. I just feel that Allah wouldn't make worshiping him so complicated. Allah wouldn't want the vast majority of his children to go to hell because they mispronounced a word in a language that they don't know or because they prayed a slightly different way. Allah wouldn't prescribe us specific dates on a man-made calendar to fast. Religion shouldn't be so complicated.

I just don’t get it. It feels like every time I try to take a step in the right direction, Allah is like “ok, good. Now keep doing that, and add these other things.” Like I feel like I never get recognized for my small steps towards good. It’s like having a parent who every time you say you got a B, they say “Well, why didn’t you get an A?” I’m in high school right now, so that puts another complication on things, I feel. Like I just don’t live in a world where I can pray every prayer every day. My mom forces me to not fast. I don’t have the time nor the energy to do wudu 5+ times a day with all of the school work and stuff I’ve got going in. And because of that, I’m going to hell? It just feels so complicated. I truly believe that Allah would want it to be easy for people to worship him. Most religions just require you to believe and attend mass/temple every week, and you’re good. But with Islam, you have to pray every day, fast on certain days and during Ramadan, wear certain things, pray certain prayers with certain phrases, eat certain things, perform hajj and umrah, and say very specific Dua’s when doing everything (leaving, entering, going to the bathroom, eating, etc).

On top of that, I feel like none of my duas are being answered. I know it takes time and can be replaced with something better, but that just sounds like a lousy excuse for why it hasn’t happened. Back when I did less favorable things (Brujeria, stuff like that), things seemed to happen so much faster. I was also SO much happier back then. I feel like Islam has made me feel like there's always someone breathing down my neck, watching me and judging me. To some extent, I know that that's true. It's just that before Islam, I felt so... calm. When I would do tarot readings for my friends and family, I would feel lively. When I would burn sage around my house, I would feel truly clean. Now, I feel like I'm always doing something wrong. I know that this is just the Shaytan/Iblis trying to trick me into doing bad, but I miss feeling carefree. Nothing bad seemed to happen to me back then. Looking back, I can't find a point where I now feel that I was being punished for not believing. Back then, I felt at peace and happy following the Gods I followed.

I don't even believe in things like Judgement Day. I can't help but feel that I know what happens when we die, and it's just calm silence. Just black, nothing more nothing less. I can't help but see Islam as an ethno-centered religion. It was certainly started with only the Middle East in mind, claiming that Arabic is the language of the heavens, and that certain Saudi dishes are holy. It feels like an old look at a permanent idea. It's not timeless at all. The idea is beautiful, but I just can't believe that Allah decided to make the holy land in Saudi Arabia, the holy foods only foods that grow in the Middle East, the holy clothing Arab clothing, and the language of the angels and such Arabic. It just feels like a man that began by glorifying only God, but then began to glorify himself, his family, his country, etc. There's no way that this is the correct way to worship one God.

I just want to leave. I want to have fun with tarot cards and stuff again. I want to belong to a non-ethnocentric religion again. I want to wear what I want and still be seen as worthy in the eyes of God. I want to devote my life to God without following specific rituals and incantations. Faith is about feeling, not what you say. Faith is about the feeling of pure love and admiration you get when you pray to Allah, not the dua that you say afterward. It's about glorifying God in every aspect of your life how you see fit, not having to learn a whole other language just to understand his holy book. Faith is about feeling, not your diction.

I can see why some things are sins. For example, I can see how smoking and drinking are sins because they are harmful to you and those around you. I can see how treating others badly is a sin. I even can see how gluttony is a sin because it exhibits pride and a sense that you can take things that others need to help yourself. However, I don't understand why other things are sinful. For example, I can't see why financial interest is a sin. I can't see why a little jewelry or interesting patterns are a sin, so long as you're not being prideful. I can't see why touching the other gender is a sin. I can't understand why most marriages are sinful. I can't see why drawing or singing is a sin. I just don't get it. I just think that God would be so much more transcendent than this. Why would God care about what kinds of loans we take out? Why would he stick to a *man-made* calendar? He's God!

I feel horrible now, even writing this. I do feel a weight being lifted off of my shoulders because this is the first time I've ever allowed myself to process these feelings fully. Previously I just shut the idea of questioning Islam down every time it popped into my mind. But still, I can't help but feel like I'm going to hell for feeling this way. I feel freer now, but I'm scared. I don't know where I'll even go from here. If I don't believe in Islam, what do I believe? Certainly not Christianity or Judaism; I feel that those are too complicated too. Am I agnostic? Is there an organized religion out there that I do believe in? If not, do I make my own rules? should I write them down? What do I do??? I feel fresh and scared, like a newborn baby. I don't even know what this post is anymore, so I'll end it here. Thank you for reading, and tell me what you make of this. I can tell that this will keep me up at night.

Please be kind.

Have you guys heard of this narrative a lot of Islamophobic/anti-Muslims throw this to undermine anti-muslim attacks. And to align us with people who hate us.

They forgot to remind Serbian orthodox extremist of this before they killed Muslims, after all they are the same race. They are white after all, why didn't the Serbian extremist thirsty for Muslim blood? They all the same race btw. They forgot to remind the the extremist Serbians that the Bosnians were white too. smh.

They also forgot the memo most perpetrators of anti-muslim attacks are so called "brown", many instance of it in Congo, Ethiopia and especially Myanmar.

Why they cant lead a normal life?most are saying they left to listen to music, they dont make friend of opposite gender or do any contact with them,they disregard dating,they lead a steict life which seems to me depressing, why most muslims are like that?

Please consider this title as an essay title not as a judgement. Everyone is free to adhere to the moral theory they find most comfortable with, but with the recent rise of Evangeical propaganda in politics, I think it might be worth a look on "Divine Command Theory".

A recent example is Craig Lane's defense on Genocide in the Torah. The Christian philosopher argues that Morality in order to solve the problem of ought is that there must be an authority which by definition determines what "we should" do. The authority is necessary because only authority can turn a situation as it is into a command "should". Additionally only the highest authority can grand authority to a command.

However, it implies that God can "change", which violates God's simplicity which is arguably a cornerstone, if not the most fundamental principle in Islam (and also for many Christians). Apologetics have argued that God doesn't change, but humans change relative to God in their actions.

A prominent example is in Christian philosophy and apologetics to explain the discrepancy between the Old Testament and the New Testament. They argue that people at the time of the Old Testament are too corrupt to understand the concepts of the New Testament. Since these people are inherently so evil and morally depraved, killing them for smaller mistakes is necessary, but it is not any longer, after Jesus Christ has introduced the holy spirit to the world, thus replacing "eye for an eye" with "mercy on your enemies".

Another objection, and this is what I want to focus on, is that this implies that there is no inherent morality. When an atheist says "this is wrong" this is due to his emotions. For example, an atheist may accuse the deity of the Old Testament of being a cruel being, as Richard Dawkins did, but a Christian will answer that emotions are no valid resource for morality.

In Islam, the opposite seems to be implied. Islam acknowledges intuition given by God to notice morality (fitra) and proposes that fitra can be derranged through indoctrination. Accordingly, Islam allows for Moral intuitionism. However, I argue, a step further, Islam discredits Divine Command theory.

As stated above, Divine Command theory abrogates moral intuitive claims by discrediting intuition as a form of valid moral informant. It can, however, not deny that such intuition exists. Now, the issue arises how this intuition can be explained. For Christianity it is easy, as Christianity proposes the doctrine of "Original Sin". Accordingly, humans are inherently morally corrupt and thus, any of their moral claims and intuitions are ultimately flawed. Even a morally good person, is only good because of ulterior motives and lower desires. Islam has no concept of Original Sin and no inherently negative image of human being. Human beings are capable of understanding and excercising both good and evil in general Islamic Theology (see also Ghazali's Alchemy of Bliss).

Even more, in Islam it is unthinkable that there are two sources of creation (See Classical Sunni Tafsir on 37:158), thus there can be not two sources of creation. In Christianity, at least in Western Christianity, the Devil does have power, he can create evil, and is even credited with being the power behind sin and death. In accordance with Tawhid however, there is only one source and thus, moral intuition is part of God's creation. Divine Command theory violates the unity of God, by proposing that there are two different sources of morality: 1) Moral intuition 2) an authoritive command overwriting the intuition.

By that, there is an attribution to a second power next two God implicit in Divine Command Theory. Therefore, it is most logical to reject Divine Command Theory, despite its popularity in Western theology, as a form of association (shirk).

Thanks for reading :)

From where did this originate from ? Why is it that if all Sahaba agreed on something it automatically means that this thing is True

I know life as a Muslim in the US after 9/11 was hell with them being blamed for everything and being labelled as public enemy number 1. Racism and Islamophobia increased towards American Muslims after 9/11. However what was life like for the British Muslims after 9/11. Did they have it as bad as the American Muslims had it ? Did racism and Islamophobia also increase in Britain after 9/11. I was too young to remember 9/11 so if any of you in this sub remember what life was like comment down below.

Long story short, I showed my mom a picture of a blind Muslim man carrying his friend, a paralyzed Christian dwarf, on his back. I thought it was a beautiful moment showing compassion across religious lines, but her reaction caught me off guard. Instead of seeing it that way, she said the Christian guy was probably using the Muslim man to get around and even suggested it would be better if he converted to Islam.

It really made me wonder why some people see things as ‘us vs. them,’ even in something so simple and positive. There seems to be this constant feeling of needing to defend our beliefs or assume the worst of others, which kind of misses the point of kindness altogether. Why is it so hard to just appreciate a good deed for what it is? Has anyone else noticed this mindset, and where do you think it comes from?

Why is Netflix that always acts pro inclusiveness (actually more pro lgbt) so focused on mocking religion or using Allahs beautiful name in such an haram environment. I mean what is their goal?? I’m really disgusted to see that. I hope i have seen it wrong but it really looks like a chain where Allah is written in arabic.

It is about the girl (2nd from the left) who is sitting and doing her make up.

Ive been wearing the hijab since 6th grade, im now in 12th so graduating this year inshaAllah! I wasnt forced to wear it, but i wwnted to take it off a few months later and my mom didnt let me. I dont blame her, because i understand she said I was too young and I would never put it back on if she let me take it off. Well for the last few months, ive hated hated wearing it. I live in canada, but I went to egypt for a month and it changed my perspective. A seemingly muslim country had less hijabis than ive seen here, some of my cousins dont wear it, and here in Canada its only me and my sister who wore it out of my female cousins here. I feel like because ive worn it for so long, and to an extent i was forced, i feel so disconnected from it. My biggest thing is i genuinely dont know who i am without it, and toh i feel like if i dont take this step now to take it off, im gonna be 25, 30 and feel this need to take it off (if that makes sense). Wallahi i get the concept of it, and i love how i look with it and the friends i have built by wearing it. But i just want a break.. i know i will return one day, but for now i genuinely judt wanna step back and come back to it full force. I think im gonna take it off after graduation, which is still far away so who knows what ill feel then. I dont know how my parents will react, but my dad was actually accepting first time around. However, he tells me to cover my hair any time he sees he sees a bit peeking out, but also just gets over it if i dont do it. My parents are semi-religious i would say, my mom does more "religious" acts than my dad (she reads more Quran, she puts my brother in classes, shes more knowledgable about Islamic facts), but my dad is still really firm on islam. TLDR: Does anyone have any advice on how I can to V my parents about taking off the hijab? Any specific things I should mention or bring up? Any advice is welcome :)

2024 US Presidential election is only 2 days away from now. Since we are getting too many posts on this topic, we created this thread. Use this thread until November 10 to discuss everything related to the US Presidential election.

We understand this election is important for both American & Non-American Muslims since US foreign policy plays a major role in other countries, especially now considering the ongoing crisis in Middle East. But in order to maintain a diverse front page we will be removing all posts regarding the election until November 10 and the user will be asked to defer their discussions here.

Classical sectarian mufasirs took this verse disjointedly, and made this verse as a decree against so called "blasphemy" (which no such thing in the Quran btw) rather than what it was, as consequence aforementioned "punishment" lists of war of bani Israel, rather than a decree from god, as illustrated from context reading from Surah 5:32-34, which is why the verse is past/present tense.

Pharaohs punishment (personified evil of the Quran), correlate with beni israel mischief:

“I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides; then will I crucify you all together.”7:124

Said he: “You have believed him before I gave you leave. He is your chief who taught you sorcery. And you will come to know! I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and crucify you all together.”26:49

Muhammed Asad surprisingly come to the same conclusion recognized it as not a decree from God, but, unfortunately, he inserts extra-hadiths stories into these verse which decontextualized it, but saw the pharaoh correlation. it has nothing to do with what happen during Muhammed's lifetime.

https://preview.redd.it/lxxc1uopskyd1.png?width=1205&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5b22790b766700fc85cb54302df96ed9dda6087

before anyone say anything, I believe it is possible country to have secular laws while being a islamic state it is possible and I can support by the quran verses; here by two brothers who made post on various quranic verses; Commandments from God and His messenger and Commandments that did not come from God and His messenger, lastly What you should (and shouldn't) do according to the Qur'an

u/TheQuranicMumin & u/No_Veterinarian_888 thank you for so much of your work

Were they?

At the one of the lowest points of my life rn. The last 6 months have been very difficult.

I used to be a very much practicing Muslim even from a very young age. Now I don’t even pray and feel like I have no connection to Allah anymore. I need to fix this. How do I return? Watching YouTube videos and shit have done literally nothing so far. I’m afraid things are going to get out of hand if I don’t make an effort to turn my life around soon