nahzaluz posted on 6-11-2003 10:32 AM

Syiah: Dari siapakah mereka mengambil mazhab mereka?

Anda ada jawapan untuk soalan ini? Mari kita kongsi...:bg:

_JC_ posted on 7-11-2003 03:06 PM

Originally posted by nahzaluz at 6-11-2003 10:32 AM:
Anda ada jawapan untuk soalan ini? Mari kita kongsi...:bg:

According to Shi'i belief the Sahaabah in general and Hadhrat Abu Bakar r.a. and Hadhrat Umar r.a. in particular, defied Rasulullah SAW - rejected his appointment of Hadhrat Ali r.a. as the Khalifah after him. Hence, the Shiahs revile, abuse and slander these great Companions of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on the basis of the fallacy concocted by the murderers of Ameerul Mu'mineen Sayyidina Uthmaan r.a.. The actual founders of the Shiah sect were the murderers of Hadhrat Uthman r.a.

[ Last edited by _JC_ on 7-11-2003 at 03:18 PM ]

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 11:02 AM

Originally posted by _JC_ at 7-11-2003 03:06 PM:
According to Shi'i belief the Sahaabah in general and Hadhrat Abu Bakar r.a. and Hadhrat Umar r.a. in particular, defied Rasulullah SAW - rejected his appointment of Hadhrat Ali r.a. as the Khalifa ...

ISLAM DAN MAZHAB
The two biggest are the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Another two most influential sects are the Sufis and the Wahhabis. The Sufis represent a mystical tradition in Islam, whereas the Wahhabis are a strict traditionalist tradition.
The Sunnis being the largest of all and representing the vast majority of Muslims. Shi'ites are a minority everywhere except Iran. The Wahhabis is dominant on the Arabian peninsula, but has little support elsewhere.

Who are the SUNNIS?
Sunnis are Muslims who are considered the more "orthodox" believers. Sunnis follow all of the most traditional beliefs and actions of the Prophet Muhammad SAW.

Who are the SHI'ITES?
The term Shi'a is a shortened form of Shi'at Ali, which means "the party of Ali" - and at the time of Ali's death in 661, that is probably all it was: a party or tendency of people who supported Ali's claims to the caliphate. Over time, they became the largest non-Sunni sect in Islam.

Who are the SUFIS?
Sufism is important to the development of Islam because it is in this tradition that the more spiritual and mystical aspects were preserved. This stands in contrast to the mainstream of Islam which, through its first centuries, was more concerned with the expansion and organization of the general community.

Who are the KAHRIJITES?
In Arabic, their label means "to go out" - they were, in effect, the first Mulism dissidents and rebels, being present almost from the dawn of Islam. Like later dissidents, they chose to separate themselves from the main body of believers, feeling that the majority of Muslims had lost the "true path."

Who are the WAHHABIS?
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab could be considered the first modern Islamic fundamentalist. He made the central point of his reform movement the idea that absolutely every idea added to Islam after the third century of the Muslim era was false and should be eliminated.

Who are the ISMAILIS?
An early Shi'a sect which split from the main group because of a dispute over who should be considered the next Imam.

Who are the ZAIDIS?
Formed by Zaid, a grandson of Husain, the Zaidis have believed that the true Imam must publicly assert his claim to the title and seek to overthrow the corrupt regime run by unacceptable rulers.

Who are the FATIMIDS?
The Fatimids are a successor movement to the Isma'ilis and are descendants of Fatima and Ali through the line of Isma'il. In the tenth century, those descendants asserted themselves as caliphs in North Africa, and ruled Egypt from 969 to 1171.

Who are the NIZARIS?
This sect is actually very well known around the world, but under a different name: the Assassins.

Who are the ALAWIS?
Also known as Nusayris, the Alawis are a branch of Isma'ilism which has gone so far along its own path that many Muslims no longer even regard it as a form of Islam. The term Alawis actually just means "followers of Ali," which is used in some countries to refer to all Shi'a in general. Some think that they worship Ali as God, but that isn't entirely accurate.

Who are the DRUZE?
The Druze comprise another sect which is not widely regarded as being "truly" Muslim. This group diverged from mainstream Islam in the eleventh century when some Isma'ilis started to believe that God became manifest in the personality of a prophet or imam.

Who are the BAHA'I?
Baha'i is another movement which is descended from Islam in Iran, but which most Muslims today no longer regard as authentically Islamic.

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 11:26 AM

SYIAH IMAMATE

Following the death of Hasan al-Askari in 874 AD / 260 AH, life was very hard for the Shi'ite faithful. Even at the death of Hasan, the Shi'a were a small group and divided into five different sects. Shi'a as a religious sect really does not appear until after the death of Husayn, at which point the penitent ceremonies associated with the death of Husayn are regarded as religious in nature by orthodox Muslims.

The 'Abassid dynasty (750-945 AD / 132-334 AH) originally began as a revolution in favor of Shi'ism. When the 'Abassids came to power, though, they turned to Sunni Islam and began themselves to persecute Shi'ites. It is during the 'Abassid persecutions that the last Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, goes into hiding permanently (874 AD / 260 AH). After the Occultation of the Twelfth Imam, the Shi'ites seem to be living in a religious community that the call the Imamiyya; Sunni Muslims called them Rafida or "Rejectors" (referring to the Shi'a rejection of Abu Bakar and the remaining Caliphs). The strongest Imamiyya communities were in Kufa and Qumm in Iraq; Qumm had become the central capital of Imamate theology and philosophy.

The Buyid Period
In 945 AD / 334 AH, the Buyids seized control over Baghdad and the first Shi'ite state was established. Since the Caliph of Islam lived in Baghdad, this meant that the Caliph was being ruled by a Shi'ite. The Buyids ruled central Iraq until 1055 AD / 447 AH, when they were finally overthrown by the Seljuq Turks.

In addition to the Buyids, another Shi'a dynasty, the Hamdanids, came to power in northern Iraq in 944 AD / 333 AH. They eventually extended their rule over Syria. The establishment of two Shi'ite dynasties, the first in history, had far-reaching consequences for Shi'a Islam. Because of these two dynasties, Shi'a began to spread all over the Middle East and the numbers of Shi'ites rose dramatically.

The Medieval Period
The Shi'ite kingdoms came to an end with the rise of the Seljuq Turks as the regional power of the Middle East. The Seljuq Turks adopted Sunni Islam as their faith and subscribed to its harshest and least tolerant form, Hanafism. From the 11th to the 12th centuries (5th to 6th centuries AH), the Seljuqs ruled over Iran and Bagdhad. The Shi'ite communities, however, continued to thrive.

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (fifth and sixth centuries AH), Syria became a dominant battleground in the European Crusades against Islam. The last Syrian Shi'a dynasty had fallen in 1085 AD, and the Seljuqs brutally suppressed the Shi'ites. As a result, many Shi'ites joined the European Crusaders in their wars against Syrians and Seljuqs. These Shi'a were no small part of European victories.

When the Mongols invaded the Islamic world in 1220 AD / 617 AH, their large-scale destruction of Islamic cities and governments threw Sunni Islam into total disarray. Surpirsingly, however, Shi'a Islam was largely unaffected by the Ilkhanate invasions. The Ilkhans were primarily shamanistic or Buddhists, and so they treated Sunni and Shi'a Muslims identically. This meant that the Shi'ites were considerably less persecuted under the non-Muslim Mongols than they had been under the rule of the Seljuq Turks.

The Mongols, it seemed, were more sympathetic to Shi'a Islam than to Sunni Islam. The first Mongol ruler to convert to Islam was Ghazan, who ruled from 1295 to 1304 AD. He converted to Sunni Islam, but his brother and successor, Oljeitu, who ruled from 1304 to 1316, converted to Shi'a Islam and took the name Khudabundha as his Arabic name. From that point on, the Islamic territory became a Shi'ite state and Shi'ism was declared the state religion. Khudabunda's son, Abu Sa'id, however, was a deeply committed Sunni and the universal Shi'a state ended as soon as it began.

The second wave of Mongol invasions occurred under Timur, the great conqueror who rivaled his ancestor, Genghis Khan. Timur invaded Iran and took over territory controlled by Shi'ites. Although Timur was a Sunni, he was very sympathetic to the Shi'ites and allowed Shi'ite nobility to retain their power and lands as long as they became his vassals. The Timurid period (14th-15th centuries AD / 8th-9th centuries AH), was a period of relative calm in Shi'ism that saw its dramatic growth throughout Iran.

...to be continued...

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Panglima Hitam at 8-11-2003 11:26:
..to be continued...

THE SAFAVID
The first large, lasting Shi'ite state was the Safavid state in Iran. The Safavids were originally a Turkish Sufi order; Sufism is a mystical branch of Sunni Islam. The leaders of this movement, the tariqa , passed on this leadership through hereditary means. The Safavids, then, were a kind of hereditary mystical spiritual authority. In the fifteenth century, the Safavids converted to Shi'ism and evolved a militant theology that demanded the supremacy of Shi'ism through force of arms. These militant Safavids claimed to be the direct descenedants of the seventh Imam. As their influence grew, they converted many Turks in Iran, Syria, and Anatolia

Isma'il
Claiming to be the Representative of the Hidden Imam, Isma'il, a young Safavid master, expanded Safavid control over much of Iran, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Azerbaijan, and the Caucusus south of Russia by 1506 AD. He had assumed control of the Safavids in 1494 AD / 900 AH (at the age of seven!), and appears to have gained a fanatical following by not only calling himself the representative of the Hidden Imam, but by claiming to be the Hidden Imam himself (later he would claim divinity). His followers believed that the Hidden Imam had returned and that they were soldiers in the forces of righteousness. Their victory, which was certain, would inaugurate a period of world-wide justice and spirituality.

In 1499 (at the age of twelve!), Isma'il led his army in a war of conquest. In 1500, he conquered the kingdom of Shirvan, and in 1501, he was crowned King of Tabriz (at the age of fourteen). He then declared Shi'a Islam to be the state religion of Tabriz.

By 1512, he controlled all of Iran (do the math yourself). Adopting Persian models of government and bureaucracy, Isma'il declared himself Shah of Iran and became the first Shah of the Safavid dynasty. He enforced Shi'ism on everyone; at the time, Sunni Muslims vastly outnumbered Shi'ites in Iran. He forced them to curse the first three Caliphs and to be ruled under the Shi'ite ulama . Here's a surprise. He succeeded. His efforts to turn Iran into a Shi'ite population was remarkably successful, and Iran to this day is almost entirely Shi'ite.

Isma'il, however, came in conflict with the Ottomans; in a battle at Chaldiran in 1514, Isma'il was defeated by Selim I. From that point onwards, the Safavids and Ottomans were continually at war for more than two hundred years. The Ottomans slowly took territory from the Safavids; Isma'il's successor, Tahmasp I, who ruled from 1524 to 1576, lost enormous amounts of territory to the Ottoman Sultan Suleyman I. The Ottomans, however, never succeeded but they never succeeded in deposing the Safavids.

Isma'il based his political authority on two claims. The first was his claim to inherit the Persian monarchy; the title of the Persian monarch was "Shadow of God on Earth." The second was his claim to be descended from the Seventh Imam and to be the "Representative of the Hidden Imam" (na'ib al-khass ). This latter claim, however, was heretical, for the doctrine of Greater Occultation asserts that the Hidden Imam will have no representative on earth until his reappearance. This heresy, however, was accepted and Shi'ites happily believed the Safavid Shahs to be the Representatives of the Hidden Imam. In the nineteenth century, this title would be transferred to the Shi'ite ulama . This is again heretical, but it lies behind the Iranian respect of the ulama and is a fundamental reason for the position the ulama occupies in the current Shia republic of Iran.

Abbas 1
Both Islamic and Western historians agree that the reign of Shah Abbas I (1588-1629) was the greatest period in Safavid history and culture. He turned back the Ottoman tide and reseized vast amounts of territory, including Azerbaijan and Iraq. He was the first Iranian ruler to turn to Europe; in order to check the Ottomans, he made alliances with European enemies of the Ottoman empire and so forged a long and continuing relationship between Iran and Europe. His greatest achievement, however, was economic. He broke the Portugese monopoly on trade with Asia and forged incredibly productive commercial treaties with Great Britain and the Netherlands. As a result, the Safavid court and territories were rolling in wealth.

This increasing prosperity brought about an energetic period of cultural invention and creativity that rivalled the Italian Renaissance. The greatest of the Safavid arts was architecture; the Safavid mosques, palaces, and parks built during the reign of Abbas I are among the greatest architectural achievements in Islam. The greatest of these architectural triumphs are the monumental buildings built in Isfahan, the center of Shi'ite learning.

Safavid book illuminations are among the most perfect and balanced paintings in the world. These miniature paintings were originally a Timurid art form; the Safavids developed it to its highest form. In textiles and tile-work, the art of the Safavids displays a complexity, balance, and technical genius unrivalled by all their contemporaries.

Isfahan
Perhaps the greatest cultural activity was in the area of Hikmat-i Ilahi , or "Divine Philosophy" in a philosophical movement called "The School of Isfahan" or the Ishraqi (Illuminationist) school. The Illuminationist school believed that true wisdom was the product of both reason and intuition. One could arrive at part of the truth through the philosophy of Aristotle (a Greek rationalist philosopher) and Avicenna (an Arabic rationalist philosopher). This truth, however, was not enough. In order to arrive at full truth, one would have to achieve mystical vision or illumination through fasting, self-denial, and mystic practices. They called this world of visions the "realm of images"; these images gave the individual access to divine truth. The Hikmat-i Ilahi became a vitally important school of philosophy; many of the most prominent officials and members of Iranian society were influenced by Illuminationist principles.

Decline
Both Islamic and Western historians believe that Safavid decline began shortly after the death of Shah Abbas I. The later Shahs were never as firm or disciplined as Abbas, and the Empire slowly disintegrated under the invasive pressures of the Ottomans and the Uzbeks in the north. The economy also declined, primarily because wealth began to concentrate in only a few hands.

The most direct reason for the fall of the Safavids was religious persecution. The Shi'ite ulama enforced Shi'ism ruthlessly and actively stirred up animosity against Sunnis. This produced a series of revolts, especially among the Sunni tribes in Afghanistan. One such tribe, rising up against persecution, conquered Afghanistan itself and in 1722, seized Isfahan and forced Shah Husayn I to abdicate. From this point onwards, the Safavids controlled only a tiny bit of territory, but the real power lay with a new Sunni monarch named Nadir Shah.

...to be continued...

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Panglima Hitam at 8-11-2003 11:36:
..to be continued...

THE MODERN IRAN

The Eighteenth Century
After Iran was conquered by Afghanistan, it looked to Shi'i Muslims that an indepedent Shi'i state was ending. Russia, which had begun expanding in the sixteenth century and accelerated this expansion in the eighteenth, saw its opportunity and invaded Iran from its northern border. The Ottomans, ever eager to seize territory, invaded from the west. The Ottomans justified invading Islamic countries under the pretext of rooting out heresy and heterodoxy; there were no greater heretics in the Islamic world than the Iranians. However, in 1726, Nadir Khan, and Afghani, went over to the Shi'ite cause and, under his leadership, drove the Turks from Iran. Long before this, the Afghanis had split into Iranian and Afghani spheres of influence, and the Russians ceased to expand after the death of Peter the Great. Nadir Khan had himself crowned Shah of Iran and he promptly converted to Sunni Islam, or orthodox Islam, and declared Iran to be a Sunni country. This was done in part to appease the Ottomans, but it appears that he was serious about converting the country. He made several efforts to impose Sunnism on the country, but Shi'ism was too rooted in the character of the country to give in.

Nadir Shah promptly went on a series of wars of invasion, and in the 1730's he captured Dehli in India, as well as seizing Bokhara and Khiva on the eastern border of Iran. He tried invade the Caucusus to the north, but got nowhere, and managed to defeat the Turks again in a massive campaign. Soon, however, his rule fell into a series of executions and massacres. In 1747, he was assassinated by two court officials he had condemned to death.

Iran fell into political chaos, until the monarchy came under the control of Karim Khan for the next thirty years. By the end of the century, infighting and civil produced a new dynasty, the Qajar dynasty, in 1796.

The most important effect of the reign of Nadir Shah was the severance of the ulama from state control. Since Nadir Shah was Sunni and the ulama were Shi'ite, Nadir Shah took little or no interest in them. As a result, the ulama developed a high level of independence and power. This independence would be crucial in the history of Iran in this century.

In India, a new Shi'ite kingdom was established in the eighteenth century, the kingdom of Oudh or Awadh. The first leader of Oudh, Sa'adat Khan, traced his ancestry back to the seventh Imam Musa. In addition, he and his predecessors served as ministers to the Mughal Emperor, who had originally appointed Sa'adat Khan. The Mughal court itself had become terribly divided between Shi'ites and Sunnis and the two factions were constantly at war with one another. At the beginnning of the nineteenth century, the kingdom of Oudh became independent of the Mughals, but in 1856, the British forced the Oudh king to abdicate and annexed the territory. Only Iran remained as the sole Shi'ite state in the world.

The Qajars
When the Safavids came to power, the Qajars were a Turcoman tribe that were instrumental in the Safavid conquest. The Qajars had always been the most significant tribe in Iran since the Safavids had rewarded them with extensive land grants. In 1796, Agha Muhammad, the leader of the Qajars, became Shah of Iran and though he ruled only one year, he managed to firmly establish the Qajars as rulers of Iran. In that short year, he recaptured Georgia from the Russians, lost when the Afghanis invaded Iran. However, in the reign of his successor, Iran lost all of its Caucasian territories.

It was his nephew and successor, Fath Ali Shah (1797-1834), that deferred heavily to the Shi'ite ulama . This continued the process of the steadily rising power and independence of the ulama in state and regional politics in Iran. In relationship to the ulama , the Qajars ceded one half of the Safavid title, "Shadow of God on earth and representative of the Hidden Imam," by declaring the ulama , "Representative of the Hidden Imam." To this day, the ulama of Iran claim this title which gives them tremendous authority over Shi'ite life in Iran.

In the nineteenth century, the Qajars moved the capital from Isfahan to Tehran, where it would remain up to the present day. Fath Ali Shah and his successors endowed a number of colleges in an attempt to lure the most prominent ulama to Tehran, but the Qajars never really established a center of learning in Tehran equal to Isfahan in its most splendid days.

Baha'i Movement - The nineteenth also saw the growth a major schismatic religious movement under the leadership of Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad (1819-1850), who took the title, "The Gate" or Bab.  In 1848, he declared himself to be the Twelfth Imam and that both the Qur'an and the Shari'ah had now been replaced by a new relgious message, a new holy book, and a new Shari'ah . The "The Gate" or "Bab" himself was executed in front of a firing squad in 1850.

The Babi movement inspired a second schismatic movement, the Baha'is. Mirza Husayn 'Ali (1817-1892), who called himself Baha'u'lllah, or "Glory of God," claimed in 1868 to be the messiah that had been foretold by Bab. Baha'u'llah, however, set his eyes on a global messianism and claimed to the Messiah of the Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians. After his death, his religion spread quickly to Europe, India, Asia, and North America and the Baha'i faith is now, for all practical purposes, a world religion completely independent of Islam.

The latter half of the nineteenth century saw the first attempts in Iran to modernize and Westernize aspects of the economy and society. The whole last half of the nineteenth century is dominated by Nasiru 'd-Din Shah, who ruled from 1848 to 1896. He granted several economic concessions to European powers, the most controversial of which was granting a tobacco monopoly to England. Islam, in the last half of the nineteenth century, was in ferment. The nationalist movement in Europe had spread to Islamic countries, and Iran was no exception as Iranians met each concession to Europe with indignation. In addition, the latter half of the nineteenth century saw the growth of the Pan-Islamic Movement, which agitated for a unified Islamic world. Nasiru 'd-Din Shah was assassinated in 1896 by a member of this movement.

The latter half of the nineteenth century also saw the growth a new position among the mujtahid , or judges, of the ulama : the marja at-taqlid . The following discussion may seem a bit too specific for a world history textbook, but this new office would have a far-reaching effect on Iranian history. In Islamic jurisprudential theory, every mujtahid must arrive at a decision independently of all the other mujtahid . They were not allowed to follow (taqlid ) anyone else in their judgement. In Iran, however, there soon developed in the higher class of ulama , called the maraji' , the idea that one of the maraji' was so learned that all others should follow him. He was given marja at-taqlid , or the maraji' to follow. This institution concentrated an enormous amount of power into a single individual, since the ulama essentially co-ruled the Iranian state. In addition, all the zakat , or alms-giving taxes, were directly under the control of the ulama , which meant that the marja' at-taqlid controlled a staggering amount of wealth. The ulama was now ruled by an individual office, and that individual office would become the single most influential force in Iranian history in the modern period.

...to be continued....

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Panglima Hitam at 8-11-2003 11:57:
THE MODERN IRAN ...to be continued... ...

The Constitutional Movement
The beginning decades of the twentieth century saw the growth of the Constitutional Movement which aimed to produce an Iranian constituion that would provide for a parliamentary government along European lines. The ulama participated very energetically in the Constitutional Movement, and Muzaffaru'd-Din Shah granted the constitution in 1907, it looked like Iran would become a constitutional monarchy. Muzaffaru'd-Din Shah, however, died in 1907 and his successor tried to undo the Constitution, but the Constitutionalists raised a rebellion and marched on Tehran and forced the Shah to abdicate in 1909.

The Constitution declared Twelver Shi'ism as the state religion of Iran, set up a National Assembly that was parliamentary in nature, but also set up a committee of five mujtahids in order to ensure that legislation conformed to the Sharia'ah. However, in 1911, the Russians invaded and forced the Constitutionalists out of power and restored the Shah.

The Pahlavi Dynasty
In 1923, Reza Khan seized power over Iran and forced the Shah of Iran to abdicate. Reza Khan was caught up in the new republicanism of Turkey. In 1922, Turkey became a parliamentary republic and forced the Sultan to abdicate. It began Westernizing with a vengeance, throwing the Arabic script, the Arabic call to prayer, and replacing the Shari'ah with a code of law founded on European laws. The mujtahid of Iran were deeply disturbed by these developments, and although passions ran high for declaring Iran a republic, Reza Khan gave in to the mujtahid and became Reza Shah Pahlavi, founding a new dynasty.

Reza Shah Pahlavi, however, spent the rest of his reign trying to decrease the power of the ulama . From 1925 to 1928, he introduced a secular code of laws built off of European civil codes that overrode the Sharia'ah , and he built a secular judicial system that was meant to displace the Sharia'ah courts. In the late 1920's, he required all ulama to be recognized by a government certification, and the Ministry of Education took over the colleges. In addition, he founded an entirely new college, the University of Tehran, which offered a degree in Theology that allowed the Shah to control the curriculum. In 1931, he declared that the ulama courts only had jurisdiction over personal matters, such as divorce. The ulama were divided over these policies. A liberal group supported the Shah and strove to liberalize the ulama itself. An opposition group, however, was soon quelled. The most powerful opposition to the Shah came from Sayyid Hasan Muddaris, who was imprisoned in 1929 and executed eight years later. By the time he abdicated in 1941, Reza Shah had dramatically reduced the power of the ulama .

Reza Shah Pahlavi, though he gave in to the ulama in the matter of retaining the monarchy, was determined to modernize and Westernize Iranian society. In 1932, he replaced the Muslim calendar with the European calendar and in 1936, he declared the wearing of veils by women to be illegal. He tried to do away with many aspects of Shi'ite popular religion but never really met with success.

In 1941, Reza Shah Pahlavi abdicated and was succeeded by his son, Muhammad Reza Shah, who ruled until his abdication in 1979. Muhammad Reza Shah continued the central policies of his father: suppression of the ulama and dramatic modernization and Westernization of Iranian government and society. His initial decade, however, was marked by general powerlessness, for he had joined his father in exile. The British had forced Reza Shah to abdicate, and demanded that the ulama be given more power—this was the British effort to ensure that Iran did not become a communist country. This period saw the rise in power of the Ayatollah Kashani, who led a group of religious delegates in the National Assembly called the Mujahidin-i Islam. He was vastly popular, particularly among the middle classes, and espoused a government whose only law was the Shari'ah and which was administered by the ulama alone. Although Kashani never succeeded in bringing this about, these ideas would become the foundation of the political theory developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, ideas that would drive the Iranian Revolution of the late 1970's. Kashani, however, became increasingly distressed at the growing liberalism of the Iranian assembly and, when the Shah returned to Iran in 1953, Kashani and other ulama welcomed him enthusiastically.

Muhammad Reza Shah returned to Iran in 1953 and instantly set up a dictatorial government with the blessings and help of the United States and Great Britain. Within a few years he dismantled all the democratic institutions of Iran, and brutally suppressed the most extreme parties. The ulama supported the Shah, but took no active role in the new Iranian government. In 1955, he signed a treaty of alliance with Great Britain and the United States, but both of these countries were bitterly hated by the Iranians. In many ways, the close ties of the Shah's government with both America and Britain was primarily responsible for much of the hatred towards the Shah in his later years, and the brutal tactics he used to suppress dissent led to a passionate hatred of America and Britain for providing the Shah the means to stay in power. This anti-British and anti-American feeling is still an integral part of the Iranian world view.

In 1961, the Shah began his "White Revolution". He disbanded the National Assembly and suspended all future elections

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Panglima Hitam at 8-11-2003 11:59:
...to be continued......

THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION
When the Shah relaxed censorship laws in 1977, Iran erupted into a series of demonstrations and dissents. The writings of Ayatollah Khomeini began to circulate widely, and the amount of protest material in general began to flood the country. All through the 1960's and 1970's, Iranians were deeply discontent with the dictatorship of the Shah, but the flood of protest material fanned this discontent into a raging passion. People demanded more reforms, more human rights, more freedom, and more democracy. There were two distinct revolutionary movements. The first was the religious movement headed by the ulama ; this movement demanded the return to a society based on the Shari'ah and ulama administration. The second movement was a liberal movement that wanted Westernization, but also demanded greater democracy, economic freedom, and human rights. As the revolution proceeded, these two groups gradually merged to form a unified front.

The spark that erupted into revolution was a protest in Qumm on January 9, 1978. A group of students protested the visit of Jimmy Carter, the American President, and the governments attacks on Ayatollah Khomeini. In particular, they demanded that Khomeini be allowed to return to the country. The police, in an ill-conceived moment, opened fire on the students and killed seventy.

This set in motion an inescapable pattern that steadily destabilized the Shah's government and reduced its legitimacy in the eyes of both Iranians and the world. In Shi'a tradition, martyrdom requires a commemoration of the martyrs forty days after they have been killed. So forty days after the massacre at Qumm, Iranians took to the streets to commemorate the dead students and, by extension, to protest the government. Again, Iranian police opened fire on the crowd. Over one hundred people were killed in Tabriz on February 18, the fortieth day after the Qumm massacre. On March 30, forty days after the massacre at Tabriz, over one hundred demonstrators were killed in Yazd. And so on. By August, demonstrations had become constant all over Iran.

The Shah was losing control. He appointed a new prime minister and made an attempt to allow demonstrations to proceed without violence. But on September 8, a day Iranian historians call "Black Friday," Iranian troops fired on a Tehran demonstration and killed several hundred people. On September 9, the Shah declared martial law and imprisoned as many opposition leaders as he could lay hands on.

Because of this, the revolutionaries changed tactics from demonstrations to strikes. Beginning in October, a long series of strikes, including oil-workers, began to cripple the nation.

Even though the Shah convinced Iraq to evict Khomeini, when Khomeini moved to France he became more powerful than ever. He suddenly gained an international audience, and the French and British in particular sympathized with his dissent against the Shah. He spoke regularly to Iran through telephones, and these telephone "speeches" were recorded and distributed all throughout Iran. The Shah realized that he would have to let Khomeini return to the country, but Khomeini refused. Since the Shah's government was illegitimate, Khomeini declared that he would never step foot in Iran as long as the Shah was in power.

In November, the Shah turned the government into a military government in order to force strikers back to work. But the worst, everyone knew, was about to come. The month of Muhurram was approaching, the month in which Shi'ites traditionally celebrate the martyrdom of Husayn. It is a passionate and highly religious month, and since the protests against the Shah were largely religious in nature, everyone knew that the country was on the verge of exploding.

Muhurram began on December 2 with demonstrations, and these demonstrations would continue all throughout the month. They were massive, in the millions, and it was clear that the demonstrators, not the government, was in charge. They seized government buildings, shut down businesses with massive strikes, assassinated government officials. Iranian demonstrators knew this was the month of martyrdom and many would dress in white (the garb of martyrs) and try to provoke government troops to fire on them.

On January 16, 1979, the Shah left Iran for good. On February 1, Khomeini returned to Iran to a welcoming crowd of several million people. On February 12, the Prime Minister of Iran fled. The Revolution was over and Khomeini declared a new Shia Republic of Iran.

...to be continued...

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Panglima Hitam at 8-11-2003 12:08:
...to be continued......

THE SHIA REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Velayat-i faqih
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 involved more than Islamic "fundamentalism," or anti-Western sentiment, or reaction against the cruelties of the Pahlavi Shah, which is the popular representation of the Iranian Revolution and the shallow demonization of its central participants, from Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini on down, by the Western press and governments. The Iranian Revolution was about political authority and in particular, what makes political authority legitimate. At the core of the conflict between the Pahlavi regime, with a government and constitution modeled after Western examples, and the clergy, students, farmers, merchants, and middle class, was a question of what Islamic government should look like. And the revolutionary idea which in part animated the revolution and dominated Iran after the fall of the Shah of Iran, was the brainchild of a brilliant and learned Shi'ite, the Ayatullah Khomeini. The idea, misleadingly labelled "fundamentalist" by both Khomeini partisans and by the West, in fact represents a radical departure from Shia tradition; this core idea Khomeini called velayat i-faqih, or "rule by jurisprudence" (sometimes called "Shia republicanism" in the West) and remains the ideological core of Iranian government and has ignited revolution and resistance throughout the Muslim world. It's possible that velayat i-faqih, or some version of it, may become the model of Islamic government in the twenty-first century and beyond. It's equally possible that it will simply represent a blip in Shia history.

All forms of government operate as a form of authority in which an individual or group of individuals wield power over the majority. In order for any government to perform effectively, then, those in power must convince everyone else that they deserve the authority they have. This is called in political science and sociology, legitimation of authority. All forms of government base their political theory on this fundamental question: who deserves to have authority and why? Such legitimations of authority can assert a radically practical justification, such as the use of military force (as in Melian Debate in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War ), but more often involve abstract and religious ideas, such as Ma'at in ancient Egypt or the Mandate of Heaven in China.
Whenever this justification for authority is not accepted by society or by some powerful group in society, there occurs a crisis of legitimation. There are only two alternatives: a change in the form of government, sometimes through revolution, to reflect a different legitimation of authority, or a modification of the current legitimation in an effort to retain unchanged the same structure of governmental authority. The American Revolution is an example of the former; the Republican congressional victories this year is an example of the latter. The Western experience from the Middle Ages onwards has been fraught with such crises. Since foundational Christianity overwhelmingly focusses on the individual to the near complete exclusion of the social and political worlds, much of the history of Christian Europe can be read as one long series of crises of legitimation which steadily dismantled the institution of the monarchy and produced the modern democratic state, where a crisis of legitimation is still acutely happening. Richard Hooker

The principle message of the Qur'an is the unity and absoluteness of God (tawhid) and the duty of the believer to remember God in all actions, thought, and speech (dhikir). But the Qur'an is also meant to be a "guide to life", that is, a moral rule-book governing individual and collective behavior. It is a book of precepts, advice, and prohibitions; Islam itself is an active and practical religion which enjoins on its believers the task of modelling society along Islamic ethical lines. In addition to the Qur'an , Muhammed SAW provided the Islamic community (ummah) with the sinless example of his life and conduct (Sunnah) and his own sayings not directly inspired by God (hadith). So from the beginning of Islam, the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the Hadith, were regarded as the principle or even the sole guide for all ethical, social, and political knowledge. Not only should individual actions be guided by the ethical teachings of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the Hadith, but so should all social and political actions. The Qur'an should serve as a basis for writing laws and for judging disputes.

Out of this general orientation towards the relationship between the Qur'an and government arose the tradition of fiqh or "jurisprudence". It was recognized early on in Islam that certain people, by virtue of the uprightness and their study and scholarship of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Hadith, were more capable of applying these to the messy, everyday issues of society, law, and disputes. This group became the ulama, or "learned clerics," whose job it is to produce Islamic law (Shari'a) from their knowledge of the Islamic religion and traditions. Fiqh is a particular branch of this activity; for our purposes, it would be accurate to say that it is the "judicial" branch. The fuqayah, or clerical judges, function as court, trying crimes, especially moral and religious crimes, and resolving disputes by applying their years of scholarship on the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

So it is scarcely surprising that as Muhammad Reza Shah of Iran began to adopt more and more Western models of society and government, and began to actively oppose the Shi'ite fiqh courts by setting up his own, that the Shi'ite clergy would turn on the regime and eventually declare it to be illegitimate. The Shi'ite clergy, with Khomeini as a popular leader, would use the Shi'ite sense of history as a powerful weapon against the Pahlavi Shah, aligning themselves with figures such as 'Ali and Hussein, the third successor to 'Ali who was killed by the second Umayyad caliph, and aligning the Pahlavi government with the evil forces that through history have oppressed the truly faithful. In 1975, Khomeini declared the Shah's government to be illegitimate and opposed to Islam.

It was at this point that Khomeini developed the theory of government he called velayat i-faqih, which we can now translate as "rule by fiqh". If the Shah's government was illegitimate and the Constitution of Iran, built on Western principles at the beginning of the century, was opposed to Islam, what would a legitimate Islamic government look like? Khomeini theorized that the activity of fiqh, using learned clerics to decide judicial issues, should be the model for the executive branch of government. That is, a group of the most learned clerics, should use their study and knowledge of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the Hadith, to make executive decisions and to veto or pass laws. Ideally, a Shia republic, which is what Khomeini called this new type of state, would have laws written by a Parliament elected in multi-party elections around the country. This Parliament would be made up of people from all walks of life, would be managed by a Prime Minister representing the majority party, and would be responsible for passing laws and budgets. There is an executive branch represented by a President, and the first president of Iran after the Revolution was a non-cleric and socialist, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr. But exercising power over the Parliament and the President would be a Guardian Council, made up of the most learned and intelligent clerics. This Guardian Council would use the judicial principles of fiqh to determine whether laws accord with Islam or are non-Islamic, whether certain measures (such as land reform) are properly Islamic or not. In addition, all secular courts would be replaced by fiqh courts and these fiqh courts, typically independent and decentralized, would all be organized under a Supreme Court, which would, like the courts, be a fiqh court. This judiciary, too, would be ultimatey subject to the Guardian Council. In post-Revolutionary Iran, the Guardian Council was headed by Khomeini himself until his death.

In practice, velayat i-faqih has only been partially implemented and has met with a great deal of opposition from Shi'ite clerics. For the principle is absolutely new in Islamic history; it has no precedent in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Hadith, or the whole of Islamic history. Properly speaking, it is one of the most revolutionary ideas of the twentieth-century; so labeling the concept "Islamic fundamentalism" is somewhat misleading, (it should be "Shia fundamentalism") for it covers up the lack of precedence for most of the political innovations of the Iranian Revolution.


...to be continued......

[ Last edited by Panglima Hitam on 8-11-2003 at 12:43 PM ]

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Panglima Hitam at 8-11-2003 12:37:
THE SHIA REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Velayat-i faqih......to be continued......

There is one significant addition to this picture, and that is the position of the marja-at taqlid . Traditionally, ulama are expected to arrive at their decisions completely independently of one another, that is, no ulama should follow (taqlid) other ulama .. Some schools of Islamic law forbid taqlid outright. In Iran, in the nineteenth century, there developed the notion of the marja-at taqlid; this individual was so learned and so perfect that it was incumbent on the ulama to follow (taqlid ) his decisions. In the realm of Shari'a, the marja-at taqlid is similar to the papacy. In the early years of the Revolution and the Shia Republic, the marja-at taqlid was Khomeini himself. He declared himself to the the "Representative of the Hidden Imam," and many Iranians believed he was the Twelfth Imam revealed. Although he never claimed this, he never denied it either. As marja-at taqlid, Khomeini was functionally the supreme head of the Iranian government, even though he occupied no official position. The President as well as the Guardian Council were for all practical purposes under his direct control; the marja-at taqlid still involves this power even after the death of Khomeini.

Shia Republicanism has several practical difficulties. One issue involves efficiency. At a certain level, government is about solving problems: inequity, disputes, famine, and so forth. Velayat i-faqih puts on top of this problem-solving function the necessity that the solutions also be properly "Islamic," so that a great deal of energy is spent in all branches of government in justifying government programs and laws in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and Islamic tradition. For instance, one of the principle disputes in early post-Revolutionary Iran revolved around economic inequities. Under the Shah of Iran, the gap between the poor and the rich had become unbearably wide; some post-Revolutionary reformers wanted to literally take land away and put it under common use. They were opposed by groups who believed in the Islamic sanctity of private property. Both sides spent years arguing which solution was more properly Islamic and very little was done about the endemic poverty in Iran. Nobody talked about the practical, economic issues; they were too embroiled in theological debates about the status of property. Many critics argue that this has rendered the Iranian government inefficient and distracted.

On the other hand, some Shi'ite clerics believe that political power will distract learned clergy from their real purpose, the study and reasoning over Islamic traditions, and that promotion into the higher ranks of clergy will be based on political and bureaucratic service rather than religious dedication, intellectual achievement, and Islamic knowledge. In other words, the learned clergy will become less religious, less Islamic, and more political and bureaucratic.

So the practical problem Shia republicanism faces, then, has two opposite poles: subjecting practical problems to so much religious dispute that solving the practical problem becomes secondary and, on the other hand, the danger of the higher clergy becoming too secularized and less grounded in the knowledge and virtue that merits their status as clergy in the first place. However this practical problem works itself out, the idea has caught fire throughout the Islamic world and has caused revolutionary fires to break out all around the Middle East and North Africa. We may be at a crossroads in Islamic history in which Islamic government undergoes a change as profound and world-shaking as the political changes which occurred in the European Enlightenment, and Khomeini would achieve the same status as a Rousseau or a Jefferson. Or velayat i-faqih may fold under the weight its many contradictions and dilemmas.

The eND

Panglima Hitam posted on 8-11-2003 12:58 PM

SHRINES OF SHIA

Shrine to Husayn, Third Imam
Karbala, Iraq
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GRAPHICS/GALLERY/SHIA/KARBALA.JPG
Abu 'Abdu'llah Husayn ibn 'Ali, the Third Imam of Shi'a Islam, is the most important figure in Shi'ite history. His martyrdom at Karbala, described in the section on Husayn, is the most significant event in Shi'ite history. This event occurred on 10 Muhurram, and the celebration of this day, Ashura, is one of the most important celebrations of the Shi'ite calendar.

When he was killed at Karbala, he was decapitated (the head was taken to Baghdad), and his body, with more than thirty wounds in it, was trampled by horses. Local villagers buried the bodies, and soon a shrine was erected. This was soon torn down by the Abassids, but another was quickly rebuilt. The current shrine dates from 979 AD / 369 AH and was built during the reign of the Buyid prince, 'Adudu'd-Dawla. It eventually fell to ruin and the dome collapsed in the eleventh century AD (fifth century AH). The whole town of Karbala was sacked and burned by the Wahabis in 1801 and again by the Ottomans in 1843. The shrine was restored in the 1850's by Nasiru'd-Din Shah. The building was significantly rebuilt and the dome was covered in gold.

Karbala is one of the most important religious centers in Shi'a Islam. Because of the war with Iraq, Iranian Shi'ites have little chance to make the pilgrimage there. The shrine is surrounded by an enclosed area, the Hair, which no unbelievers are allowed to enter. Inside is a sarcophagus that contains the body of the slain Husayn.

Shrines to the Seventh and Ninth Imams
Kazimayn, Iraq
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GRAPHICS/GALLERY/SHIA/KAZI.JPG

Kazimayn is now a suburb of Baghdad. The shrines to Imams Musa-al Kazim and Muhaamad at-Taqi, the Seventh and Ninth Imams of Shi'ite belief, was built over the Quraysh cemetery in Baghdad. Abu'l-Hasan Musa ibn Ja'far was called "The Forebearing" (al-Kazim ). He was heavily persecuted by the Abbassid caliphs, and was finally imprisoned and poisoned in Baghdad in 799 AD / 183 AH.

His grandson, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Ali, the ninth Imam, was called "God-Fearing" (at-Taqi) and "The Generous" (al-Jawad). He became Imam at the age of seven, but seems to have live a retired life in Medina. He died in Baghdad in 835 AD / 220 AH. There is no evidence that he died of anything other than natural causes, but Shi'ite history maintains that all the Imams were martyred and so claim that he was poisoned by his wife.

The shrine was erected in a new Baghdad suburb called "Kazimayn," or "The Two Kazims," built during the Buyid dynasty. The current shrine was built in the sixteenth century by Shah Isma'il, the first Shah of the Safavid dynasty in Iran. The domes you see here were tiled with gold in 1796 by the first Qajar ruler of Iran, Agha Muhammad Shah, retiled with gold in the 1850's, and again by the Iraqi government in the 1970's.

Shrine of Fatima, sister of the Eighth Imam,
Qumm, Iran
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GRAPHICS/GALLERY/SHIA/QUMM.JPG
Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali ibn Musa, known as "The Approved One" (ar-Rida ), was the Eighth Imam of Shi'a Islam. While he was with the Caliph, Ma'mun in Marv, his sister, Fatima, called "The Immaculate" (Ma'suma) journeyed to be with him but died in Qumm. The shrine built to her has become the religious center of Qumm, which was founded as a Shi'a city in 712 AD / 94 AH.

The present shrine was built by Shah Bigum, the daughter of Shah Isma'il, in 1519 AD / 925 AH. The dome was covered with gold tiles in the Qajar period.

We are looking at the shrine from the front from the Atabegi Court, which has been recently built. People gather in this court for prayer. Fatima's tomb is directly below the central gold dome. Not shown in the picture are the cloisters around the courtyard in which several Qajar officials are entombed. The inside of the Fatima shrine is decorated with mirrors.

[ Last edited by Panglima Hitam on 8-11-2003 at 01:04 PM ]

paler kembang posted on 8-11-2003 01:03 PM

belum habis membacanya

nahzaluz posted on 9-11-2003 11:16 AM

Saya ni B.I merangkak-rangkak macam kura-kura...kena ambik masa kalau nak perabih ni... :)

nahzaluz posted on 10-11-2003 11:59 AM

Bagus juga ya kalau kita buka thread ttg asal usul Syiah start bila; zaman Nabi ke, saat sebelum pembunuhan S. Uthman ke, zaman S. Ali ke, selepas pembunuhan S. Husain ke.... Lax tentu boleh cerita dari sudut pandangan Ulama' Syiah sendiri. Kita orang cerita dari kacamata Ulama' ASWJ. Amacam lax, setuju ke? :bg:

MENJ posted on 24-12-2003 02:21 AM

Originally posted by nahzaluz at 2003-11-6 10:32 AM:
Anda ada jawapan untuk soalan ini? Mari kita kongsi...:bg:

Ada. Jawapannya adalah...

Abdullah bin Sabaa' and Penubuhan Syiah

- MENJ

Laxamana. posted on 25-12-2003 10:59 AM

Bab Abdullah bin Sabaa' tu bukankah dinafikan oleh golongan Syiah?

dess402 posted on 25-12-2003 04:17 PM

maaf aku cuba memberi sedikit pendapat..
aku rasa pecahan hanya timbul setelah zaman keempat2 khalifah.
kerana sebelum itu Islam bergerak secara hakiki   dan bersatu.
cuma setelah itu baru timbul bibit2 perpecahan yg mana
dan ikut kefahaman aku ,  perpecahan ini tidak pernah
dicadangkan Islam tetapi hanya dicipta oleh pengikut2nya.

[ Last edited by dess402 on 27-12-2003 at 07:10 PM ]

nahzaluz posted on 29-12-2003 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Laxamana. at 2003-12-25 10:59 AM:
Bab Abdullah bin Sabaa' tu bukankah dinafikan oleh golongan Syiah?

Ulama' Syiah terkemudian mcm Murtadha al-'Askari cuba nafi. Tetapi ulama' muktabar Syiah zaman dulu semua kata ada.

anwar66 posted on 29-12-2003 01:03 PM

Boleh ke sesiapa yang ada info mengenai Abdullah bin Saba`secara detail.Nahzaluz ada sumber ke kat net ni..boleh bagi URL nya.Mungkin akhie Moasri(DR Mohd Asri Z ???) ada kitab-kitab rujukan mengenainya.Kita boleh kongsi bersama.

anwar66 posted on 29-12-2003 01:09 PM

Originally posted by dess402 at 25-12-2003 04:17 PM:
maaf aku cuba memberi sedikit pendapat..
aku rasa pecahan hanya timbul setelah zaman keempat2 khalifah.
kerana sebelum itu Islam bergerak secara hakiki   dan bersatu.
cuma setelah itu baru timbu ...


Ye ke camtu..cuba semak balik sejarah mengenai kelahiran Syiah dan Khawarij,zaman Khalifah mana wujudnya dua golongan tu,apa sebab kewujudanya,semak balik isu-isu zaman Sayyidina Othman dan Sayyidina Ali.

Malah ada yang berpandangan  Syiah lahir ketika peristiwa di Saqifah Bani Saidah.

[ Last edited by anwar66 on 29-12-2003 at 01:19 PM ]

nahzaluz posted on 29-12-2003 01:56 PM

Originally posted by anwar66 at 2003-12-29 01:03 PM:
Boleh ke sesiapa yang ada info mengenai Abdullah bin Saba`secara detail.Nahzaluz ada sumber ke kat net ni..boleh bagi URL nya.Mungkin akhie Moasri(DR Mohd Asri Z ???) ada kitab-kitab rujukan mengen ...

Ada. Rujukan syiah ada. Rujukan sunni pun ada. Nanti saya bubuh.

nahzaluz posted on 29-12-2003 04:59 PM

Rujukan Sunni

http://arabic.islamicweb.com/shia/ibn_saba_founder.htm

http://arabic.islamicweb.com/shia/ibn_saba_true.htm

http://www.ansar.org/books/sabaa.htm

Tengok buku صدق النبأ في حقيقة ابن سبأ di http://www.fnoor.com/books.htm

Forum budok-budok Arab Sunni Syiah duk bincang Abdullah bin Saba’
http://www.fnoor.com/fn0386.htm

Dan yang ni kalau ada masa, sambil-sambil duk buat kerja, buka dengar kaset-kaset ni: http://www.shiaa.org/
Click صوتيات أهل السنة

Laman-laman web Syiah.

Anta cari sendirilah kat sini apa yang anda nak tahu. Anda boleh baca tulisan mereka sendiri:  http://www.topshia.com/


WA

Laxamana. posted on 30-12-2003 02:34 PM

Originally posted by nahzaluz at 2003-12-29 10:36 AM:
Ulama' Syiah terkemudian mcm Murtadha al-'Askari cuba nafi. Tetapi ulama' muktabar Syiah zaman dulu semua kata ada.

Tak pernah pun terbaca mahu pun terdengar pendapat mengatakan dari Imam-Imam Syiah terutama nya Imam 12 anak cucu Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. yang mengatakan Abdullah bin Sabaa' adalah pengasas Syiah... dalam salahsilah Imam 12 Mazhab Ahlul Bait pun tak ada nama Abdullah ni.... Betul ke dakwaan Nahzaluz ni? Macam mana Nahzaluz seorang Sunni tahu lebih dari Imam-Imam Syiah? Musykil jugak ana... bukan tak nak percaya... tapi was-was... ada syak.

moasri posted on 30-12-2003 04:02 PM

Tak pernah pun terbaca mahu pun terdengar pendapat mengatakan dari Imam-Imam Syiah terutama nya Imam 12 anak cucu Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. yang mengatakan Abdullah bin Sabaa' adalah pengasas Syiah... dalam salahsilah Imam 12 Mazhab Ahlul Bait pun tak ada nama Abdullah ni.... Betul ke dakwaan Nahzaluz ni? Macam mana Nahzaluz seorang Sunni tahu lebih dari Imam-Imam Syiah? Musykil jugak ana... bukan tak nak percaya... tapi was-was... ada syak.

Abdullah bin Sabaa' bukan dari keturunan Nabi S.A.W. Dia merupakan Yahudi yang memeluk islam ketika zaman pemerintahan Uthman dari San'a, Yaman. Tetapi dia merupakan pencetus gerakan syiah yakni menggunakan Ali sbg Washi Nabi S.A.W sebagaimana semasa ia yahudi mencetuskan idea Yushak bin Nun sebagai washiy Nabi Musa A.S. Peranan Abdullah Ibn Saba' diperakui oleh Ulamak Sunnah mahupun syiah. Peranan Ibn Saba' ini tidak ubah spt St Paul yang menyesatkan pengikut ajaran injil dgn konsep triniti. St Paul juga adalah yahudi yang mengikuti ajaran injil.

Malah Ibn Saba' pernah dibicarakan oleh Saidina Ali A.S. kerana perkataannya yang zindiq. Masalahnya, selama 14 kurun lamanya tidak ada pihak yang mempertikaikan akan kewujudan Ibn Saba'! Dan kenapa baru sekarang mahu mempertikaikan kewujudan Abdullah ibn Saba'?

nahzaluz posted on 31-12-2003 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Laxamana. at 2003-12-30 02:34 PM:
Tak pernah pun terbaca mahu pun terdengar pendapat mengatakan dari Imam-Imam Syiah terutama nya Imam 12 anak cucu Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. yang mengatakan Abdullah bin Sabaa' adalah pengasas Syiah... d ...

Sebabnya mudah saja lax kalau anda faham. Syiah lain, pegangan Imam-Imam tu lain. Syiah percaya S. Ali tu maksum. Imam-Imam tu tak percaya. Syiah percaya Budak yang ghaib tu akan jadi Imam Mahdi. Imam-Imam tu tak percaya......

Gitu ler lebih kurangnya.
Page: [1] 2 3 4
View full: Syiah: Dari siapakah mereka mengambil mazhab mereka?