Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman fled the battlefield
Twelver12
BISM ALLAH ALRAHMAN ALRAHEEM
WA SALAT ALA ASHRAF ALANBIA WA LMOURSALINE NABINA ALMUSTAPHA AL AMIN MOHAMMAD
WA ALA ALE BYTIHI ALTAHEREEN WA SAHBIHEE AL MUNTAJABEEN WA ALA JAMEE ANBIA
ALLAH ALMOURSALEEN
Everyone knows about the battle of Uhud, and it is known what happened to
the muslim army. They were wining at first, but after they disobeyed the
prophet's(PBUH) order in leaving the mount , Khalid Ibn Alwalid got around and
got them from the back . The muslim army started to get defeated, and a lot of
them fled the battlefield like Uthman(see sahih albukhari). Few people from
Ansar and Ali(A,S) stuck with the Prophet (PBUH), and protected him from the
kafers' army that were surrounding them. The kafers wished to killed the
Prophet(PBUH), but " Yamkourouna wa yamkoru Allah Wa Allahu khir Al Makerine".
This is how much i knew about the battlefield, untill I read what Tabri says in
his history, and what the egytpian writer Mohammad Hasanain Haikal said in his
book Hayat Mohammad. When Tabari talked about the battlefield of Uhud, he
stated that Omar fled the battlefield as well as other well known Sahaba. The
Prophet was calling them by their names to come back to the battle but no
response from them. Haikal in his book stated that Abu Bakr fled the
battlefield as well, and they (sahaba that fled) were hoping to get a
connection with Abu sufian for forgivness "La Houla Wala qouata Ela BillAh".
These r some of the sahaba that i thaught they were the best example of Islam,
that is a shame really. that was one example, and there r a lot to come
INSHALLAH.
WAL HAMDULILAHI RABI ALALAMEEN
Wa salaam
SIDD1
Everyone knows about the battle of Uhud, and it is known what
happened to the muslim army. They were wining at first, but after they
disobeyed the prophet's(PBUH) order in leaving the mount , Khalid Ibn
Alwalid got around and got them from the back . The muslim army started
to get defeated, and a lot of them fled the battlefield like Uthman(see
sahih albukhari). Few people from Ansar and Ali(A,S) stuck with the
Prophet (PBUH), and protected him from the kafers' army that were
surrounding them. The kafers wished to killed the Prophet(PBUH), but "
Yamkourouna wa yamkoru Allah Wa Allahu khir Al Makerine". This is how much
i knew about the battlefield, untill I read what Tabri says in his
history, and what the egytpian writer Mohammad Hasanain Haikal said in his
book Hayat Mohammad. When Tabari talked about the battlefield of Uhud, he
stated that Omar fled the battlefield as well as other well known Sahaba.
The Prophet was calling them by their names to come back to the battle but
no response from them. Haikal in his book stated that Abu Bakr fled the
battlefield as well, and they (sahaba that fled) were hoping to get a
connection with Abu sufian for forgivness "La Houla Wala qouata Ela
BillAh". These r some of the sahaba that i thaught they were the best
example of Islam, that is a shame really. that was one example, and there
r a lot to come INSHALLAH.
Siddeeq>
Can some sunnis do some authentic research and come up with
their facts on this? It is INDISPUTABLE that Ali stood there
by the Prophet, and discharged his loyalty. If that, Umar,
Abu Bakr, and Othman impulsively FLED, then that shows the superiority
of Ali vis a vis all of them, and that is all.
Impulse arises from the deepest level of the subconscious. At
the level of conscious people can cook up and fabricate all kinds
of things. I am not saying at all that Abu Bakr, Umar, Othman cooked
up their piety. What I am saying is that the core of a person is
at the level of impulse. One whose impulse is straight or pious,
his whole being is pious. But it is possible for people to be largely
pious, but neither their impulse is pious, nor is their total self.
Still they can be very good.
Any agreements or disagreements of counter ideas?
Twelver12
Salaam bro
If it was just a matter of leaving the battlfield, your explanation can be
accurate. Because people react differntly tocertain matters. The problem here
is not only them leaving the battlefield, but it is their conversation among
themselves(as history books state), they were talking about a connection with
AbdullAh Ibn Ubi, so he can ask Abu Suffian's forgivness for them. I am not
saying that they were the only ones that fled the battlefield, but they were
among those sahaba who did. They fled and hid behind a big rock. As Prophet
Mohammad(PBUH) was getting close to the rock after the battle was over, one of
the sahaba behind the rock tried to shoot him with an arrow. Prophet
Mohammad(PBUH) yelled at him, then that sahabi got happy, and was saying:"i
thaught he was(reffers to the Prophet(PBUH)) one of the enemies". We ask this
sahabi can't you differentiate between your Prophet(PBUH), and yourenemies, or
was it a game, you were playing to gain Abu Suffian's forgivness??? Why didn't
u act like the great Sahaba did, such as Ali Ibn Abi Taleb(A,S), or Uns ibn
Alnadr(R,A), or Abu Dujana AlansariR,A) and others, that gathered around the
prophet(PBUH) trying to protect him(PBUH) with their souls???? The answer is
very clear, the Sahaba that gathered around the Prophet (PBUH) and protected
him are the ones meant in the quran by:" Sadaqu ma Ahadu Allaha Alyh", those r
sahabba that i would always love and respect, because they loved and obeyed
Prophet Mohammad's(PBUH) orders. This should be the scale in our love and
respect to sahaba, not to give them a diplomatic immunity just for the fact
they seen the Prophet(PBUH) once in their life or heard a hadith from
him(PBUH). Please brother, all i am doing is stating historical facts from
books like Tabari, Ibn Alathir, and Sharh Al Nahj. May Allah(SWAT) show us His
guidance
Wal HamdulilAh Rabi Al Alameen
Wa Salaam
Zaharuddin Fikri
as salaamu a'laykum
On 4 Mar 1998 15:10:39 GMT, twel...@aol.com (Twelver12) wrote:
I am not
>saying that they were the only ones that fled the battlefield, but they were
>among those sahaba who did. They fled and hid behind a big rock.
If as you say the first three khulafaa were among some people who
ran away from battle and hid behind a big rock, how is it that
these same people were among the ten promised jannah, without
question, as mentioned in the ahadith? Was there some discrepancy
or untruthfulness (naudzhubillah min dzaalik) to the Qur'an where
it promises the severest penalties to those who flee from battle?
Or could it be more likely that there is some unknown thing about
this report you cite which might have mitigated or explained
those actions to reconcile it with the other ahadith which speak
well of these people?
In any event, whatever these people may have done right or wrong
in those days, it is only for Allah to determine it now and to
forgive them their shortcomings and reward them their successes.
"No soul shall have a burden laid on it greater than it can
bear."
"On no soul doth God Place a burden greater than it can bear. It
gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it
earns."
May we reach even the bootstraps of the likes of abu bakr, umar,
uthman and ali in piety and deeds. inshallah.
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri
Twelver12
P.S. in my first article with the title Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman Fled the
battlefield, i called the egyptian writer Mohammad Hasanain Haikal which was a
mistake, his name is Mohammad Hussein Haikal, so his middle name is Hussein not
Hasanain.
I ask Allah(swat) forgivness for this mistake.
Wal HamdulilAh Rabi Alalameen
Wa Salaam
Twelver12
Salaam Zahar:
First of all, I want u bro to know that i don't have hatred for nobody. All
i am doing is stating historical facts from authentic hadith books such as
Bukhari(which is the most truthfull book after the Quran for ahlul Sunna),
history books such as Al Tabari writen by a sunni author, and the life of
Mohammad(PBUH)by the sunni egyptian writer Mohammad Hussein Haikal.
You stated in your reply the following:"If as you say the first three
Khulafaa were among some people who ran away from the battle and hid behind a
big rock, how is that these same people were among the ten promised Jannah,
without question, as mentioned in the hadith?was there some discrepancy".
Well, the information i stated, i didn't get from my own imagination, I got
them from the books i stated above. Plus u r saying that there's no way the
three caliphs could've escaped the battlefield, for the fact that they were
promised Jannah, without question as mentioned in the ahadith. To you there is
no questions about the hadith of Ashara Mubashara, but to me there r a lot of
questions about that hadith, Allah(swat) gave me a free will to analyze hadith
for the fact that the hadith narrators r human beings, who make mistakes, and r
driven by their emotions. Let us name the ten sahaba that were promised
Janah:"Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Abu Obida, Saeed Ibn
Nofail(narrator of this hadith), Saed Ibn Abi Waqas, and Abdilraman Ibn Aouf.
First of all, this hadith is narrated by Saeed Ibn Nofail only, and in the
science of hadith it is considered Hadith Ahad = hadith narrated by one =weak.
Lets look at the history of some of the promised ones, and start analyzing it
logically, and with an open mind. At first, Talha and Zubair fought the imam
of their time Ali(A,S), in the battlefield of Jammal under the leadership of
Aisha. It was a battle that took away the lives of tens of thousands of
muslims, including Talha, and Zubair. In Islam everyone that revolts against
the imam of his time is considered murtad, a lot of people revolted against Abu
Bakr during his calapha, such as Fujaa and others, and those people r
considered murtad, for revolting against Abu Bakr the caliph of his time. Why
r the people that revolted against Abu Bakr are considered murtad, and the
people that revolted against Ali(A,S) r considered mubashareen????!!!!! this
very unfair, and it is a logic that a little kid wouldn't accept. Then during
the battlefield of Jammal Zubair came to meet with Ali(A,S), and Ali reminded
him of the Prophet's(PBUH) hadith when he (PBUH) told Zubair:"Ya Zubair u will
fight Ali one day and u r going to be the agressive one." The prophet(PBUH)
called Zubair agressive, r the people of Jannah agressive????!!!! no they r not
agressive they r the most forgiving, the most peacefull, agressivness is not
the sign of people of Jannah. Then Zubair told Ali(A,S),:"i am from those that
were promised Jannah". Ali said:" the hadith of Saeed Ibn Nofail tricked u
Zubair"(even Ali(A,S) says that that hadith is a trick and a fabrication), Then
Ali said :" who r the ten promised ones" Zubair named 9 names and ignored Ali's
name, Ali said:"who is the tenth one???" Zubair said:" u r" Ali then answered
:" if u admit that i am one of the ten promised Jannah why r u fighting me
then???!!!!" Zubair had nothing to say, and went back to the battlefield,
where he got killed. Talha on the other hand was killed by Marwan Ibn Alhakam,
who was with him in the same army. Ibn Hijer Alhaythami say:"in the
battlefield of Jammal Marwan threw Talha with an arrow,and said :"i will never
ask revenge for my cousin from nobody else". Marwan's cousin is Uthman, and
Marwan killed Talha as a revenge for his cousin Uthman, which means that Talha
was among those who killed Uthman. How can that be, the people that were
promised Jannah r killing each other????!!!!!!(LA Haola Wala Qouata Illa
BillAh). Then Aisha was ordering the people to revolt and kill Uthman, and she
said:"Kill Na3thal he disbelieved", She reffered to him as Na3thal. A person
that the mother of believers called a disbeliever, how can he be promised
Jannah???!!!! It is a very big discrepancy, the reason they went against
Uthman, is because he used to treat his relatives as a first class, and the
rest of the muslims as.......... Is that how a person who was promised Jannah
treat Allah's creations????!!!!!!(Iza Aradtum Rahmati Farhamou Khalki). For
the same reason, Abdlrahman Ibn Aouf got angry with Uthman, and when Uthman
came to visit AbdulRahman on his death bed, AbdulRahman turned his face the
other way. Is this how people that were promised Jannah treat each
other???!!!! These r the reasons, why we believe that the hadith of Ashara
Mubashara is fabricated. To me, those reasons r more then enough.
Brother u stated that Allah would judge between them, i agree with that 100%,
but Allah(SWAT) gave me a brain, and a free will to analyze, history and
hadiths, because they were written, and narrated by people, that make
mistakes, and commit sins(Wa Ina Alnafsa Laamaraton Bilsu Ila Ma Raheema Rabi).
Bother i repeat myself again, to say these r things i gathered from history
books and hadiths books, so don't judge my honesty,before u search for the
things i have stated above. Thank u bro for ur time and patience.
Wal HamduliLah Rabi Alalameen
Wa Slaam Alikum Wa RahmatulAh
Twelver12
Mehdi
twel...@aol.com (Twelver12) writes:
Let us see how brilliant the following arguments are:
>Salaam Zahar:
> First of all, I want u bro to know that i don't have hatred for nobody. All
>i am doing is stating historical facts from authentic hadith books such as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Authentic means true and verified. Farther down, he will suddenly
change his position to ... maybe :(
>Bukhari(which is the most truthfull book after the Quran for ahlul Sunna),
Starting to shed the authentic title !!!
>history books such as Al Tabari writen by a sunni author, and the life of
Al-Tbaray says in his book more or less : I narrate what I received to
the best of my knowledge. I do not garuntee its authenticity - if you want
to verify it check out my narrators and analyze them ....
>Mohammad(PBUH)by the sunni egyptian writer Mohammad Hussein Haikal.
Hussain Haikal is a writer and literary figure. He is not specialized in
critical historical narration or religion or both.
> to you there is no questions about the hadith of Ashara Mubashara, but to me there r a lot of
>questions about that hadith, Allah(swat) gave me a free will to analyze hadith
So not authentic except what you like. This is called to faced, double speak, etc.
either it is authentic, then you can use it to prove your point, or it is
not .... then let it go .. do not spoil your nice introduction (I hate nobody).
We call this taqiyyah (lying).
You see you start from a premise of certain beliefs that you have: basically
the hatered and despise for the public of the sahabah except a few ... and based
on that you accept or reject authentic narrations ... you will even accept
bold lies as in AL-Kafi .. as it fits your pre-determined prejiduce.
>for the fact that the hadith narrators r human beings, who make mistakes, and r
>driven by their emotions. Let us name the ten sahaba that were promised
And superhuman sir .... you are the objective judge to tell us that since someone
is human ... then he is necessarily lying ... no thanks.
>Janah:"Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Abu Obida, Saeed Ibn
>Nofail(narrator of this hadith), Saed Ibn Abi Waqas, and Abdilraman Ibn Aouf.
>First of all, this hadith is narrated by Saeed Ibn Nofail only, and in the
>science of hadith it is considered Hadith Ahad = hadith narrated by one =weak.
Thanks Mr. Muhaddith sahib. Hadeeth Ahad is defined as one that
narrators at one stage are not numerous enough to prevent a collaboration
on lying. This is usually not applied to the level of Sahabah since they
are considered just and truthful by the statements spread in the Quran.
>Lets look at the history of some of the promised ones, and start analyzing it
>logically, and with an open mind. At first, Talha and Zubair fought the imam
>of their time Ali(A,S), in the battlefield of Jammal under the leadership of
>Aisha. It was a battle that took away the lives of tens of thousands of
Basically - you are saying that Talhah, Zubair and Aiyshah most of All (since
she was the leader of the rebels in your own words) are murtaddeen. You either
have to admit this or forget about your whole logic.
In that case, there is really no point of continuing with you since you do not
only contradict authentic hadeeth but go arguablly against the Quran horns
on ... see the Quran says Ayishah is my mother (the believers mother) .. there
is no way Allah will describe someone as the mother of believers and then she
herself is murtad .... secondly, those were women who at one one time chose Allah
and his prophet over everything else and Allah verified that in the Quran.
There is no way for you to get out of your little trap .. and he says Allah forgive
me for misspelling Husain by Hasanain ... hmmmmm..
>muslims, including Talha, and Zubair. In Islam everyone that revolts against
>the imam of his time is considered murtad, a lot of people revolted against Abu
Which Islam ... we never heard that those who revolt agianst the khalifah
is murtad. We did hear that anyone who denies a pillar of Islam or all of it is ..
as in the case of ABi Bakr (radia Allahu Anhu). The rebeles where not rebeling against
Abu Bakr but against the Zakat .... some of them where rejecting the whole Islam
as those who claimed they were prophets .... etc. ..
And to continue with your (sic) logic ... what do you consider those who
revolted against Uthman ? are they also murtaddeen ? do not you guys consider
them heros ... how double talkative of you ...
If we follow your logic definitely they are. They are an even worse kind of rebels
because they killed their Imam [ I like the peice about the Imam of their time
whatever that may be ....].
Those who revolted against Uthman according to your logic are murtadeen ..
Now you could regress and say ... he is not an "authentic" or approved upon
Imam .. why even though even ALiyy himself gave him his hand in oath of alligience.
Now let us look at Ali's position. He is one who were supported and give
the oath for his Imamah no doubt by many of the Sahabah - including muhajireen
and Ansar (actually what remained to that time) ... however many did not give
him the oath and did not consider him thier Imam so there was no revolt there..
that is actually the premise that Abdullah Ibn Zubair and Husain carried on
their revolt against Bani Umaiiyah .. that they were not revolting and
breaking their oath of allig. since they did not give one.
Actually if we adopt your logic, we will have to look at Ali suspiciously since
he was basically hiring and getting support from the same group of rebels that
killed Uthman (although fiarness to Ali requires that we see his excuse ..
1) the rebels not all intended to kill Uthamn but a handful ... 2) they had the
power (tribal, etc ... ) so it was not wise to antagonize them ..
>Bakr during his calapha, such as Fujaa and others, and those people r
>considered murtad, for revolting against Abu Bakr the caliph of his time. Why
>r the people that revolted against Abu Bakr are considered murtad, and the
>people that revolted against Ali(A,S) r considered mubashareen????!!!!! this
>very unfair, and it is a logic that a little kid wouldn't accept. Then during
>the battlefield of Jammal Zubair came to meet with Ali(A,S), and Ali reminded
>him of the Prophet's(PBUH) hadith when he (PBUH) told Zubair:"Ya Zubair u will
>fight Ali one day and u r going to be the agressive one." The prophet(PBUH)
>called Zubair agressive, r the people of Jannah agressive????!!!! no they r not
Adam and his wife said to their Lord (O our Lord we have transgressed against
ourselves). Transgressed is the same word "Thalam" used in the above hadeeth.
Transgression is not a white and black thing but a relative thing .. we all trangress
at one point or another against our own selves ...
There was a battle between two parties of believers .. Ali on one side and the
others on one side ... one party had the right and the other was mistaken (hence
trangressing) .... now Allah called both believers ..: If two parties of the believers
fight each other make peace between them {declared goal of Ayshah - may Allah be pleased
with her] - if one tranasgress [baghat} against the other, then fight the transgressing
party until it comes back the order of Allah, if they do then make a settlement
between them with justice and be forthcoming with it for Allah loves the just ..
I do not know where you get your religious training ... but definitely you
sound to me to miss few ayat of the Quran here and there ... and to make unheard
of Islam rules.... not to mention your utter disgust with the best human who ever walked
on earth ...
O and before I forget .. the shia themselves have nothing amounting to
a hadeeth collection ... what they did was collect sunni hadeeth and twist them and add
to them in a way to totally disfigure them and erase the original text which might
serve some of their enem,ies ... look what he does to the
following
TRUE NARRATION:
ALi - do you remember when Rasool Allah said to you when you saw walking and said:
Ali does not forsake his pride. "it is not pride O ZUbair" ... do you love
Ali O zubair, and you said: yes
Zubiar - yes - as if I did not hear it except now
and he left to be killed by one person who tricked him and assasinated
him while he was praying.
When Ali was brought the head of Zubair, he said "Do not let him come here
and tell him that the person who kill Zubiar is promised Hellfire"
The man killed himself shortly after.
The shia also have this twist for this narration. They claim Ali said "Al-Zubair
and his killer in the Hellfire ..."
Well, shia have to live with that .. it is a requirement of their deen to lie..
And he keeps talking about historical and traditional analysis, and all he does
is take the weakest of evidence to proof his already decided position against the
best people who walked on the earth who loved each other and respected each other
even in difference and turmoil amongst themselves
Actually your whole logic falls to peices with the adoption of
Hasan Ibn Ali of all that you are fighting against .. by his recinding the Khilafah
to Mu`awiyah - he not only said that Mu`awiyah is believers - but that he is the
Imam and that uthman was killed unjustly .. and that his father's fights was not
against infidels as you claim ... and if you are really serious that they were
infdels when you stated what you stated ... then how come you are saying Assalam ALaikum
Strange - we all support the whole ten mubashhireen ..
>Wal HamduliLah Rabi Alalameen
> Wa Slaam Alikum Wa RahmatulAh
> Twelver12
--
----------------______________--------------------________________
_=asd0g jf kdfjg 9f-f\\ ukjfghsfg 0==0gh -
Mahdiyy ------ Sleep never increases age <> Nor
does lack of it decreases age ....
Zaharuddin Fikri
as salaamu a'laykum
On 9 Mar 1998 03:35:03 GMT, twel...@aol.com (Twelver12) wrote:
> First of all, I want u bro to know that i don't have hatred for nobody.
If you say so, then it must be true. As a matter of fact, I don't
think I even insinuated anything of the sort in my own poor
message. But since you brought it up, might I also inquire
whether your determination to "not having hatred for anyone"
(presumably you mean the people you mentioned, i.e. abu bakr,
umar and uthman (r.a.)) reflected in the kind of thoughts you may
have while reading of their exploits such as these? I am
perfectly willing to concede that I might have misunderstood the
contexts of the report. Would you?
> You stated in your reply the following:"If as you say the first three
>Khulafaa were among some people who ran away from the battle and hid behind a
>big rock, how is that these same people were among the ten promised Jannah,
>without question, as mentioned in the hadith?was there some discrepancy".
>Well, the information i stated, i didn't get from my own imagination,
I have not claimed so ;-)
>I got
>them from the books i stated above. Plus u r saying that there's no way the
>three caliphs could've escaped the battlefield, for the fact that they were
>promised Jannah, without question as mentioned in the ahadith.
I was trying to say, there may have been other details which we
are unaware of pertaining to these incidents which may lead us to
conclude a different conclusion than the one you came up with.
>To you there is
>no questions about the hadith of Ashara Mubashara, but to me there r a lot of
>questions about that hadith, Allah(swat) gave me a free will to analyze hadith
>for the fact that the hadith narrators r human beings, who make mistakes, and r
>driven by their emotions.
I see you are trying to impute ulterior intentions or deficiency
to a narrator sahaba, even more a direct companion of the Prophet
(saws). Have you any sound evidence that this person has been
known to make a mistake, lie or cheat? If so, please share it
with us. You know of course that these would make his hadith
testimony invalid, according to the standards of bukhari and
muslim (the hadith is reported in both these collections). And
then it becomes a wonder how this hadith was even included in the
first place, don't you agree? Unless, of course if you *also*
suspect that these people also had ulterior motives... I am
trying to make you see that if you start thinking like this,
where would it ever stop? :(
>Let us name the ten sahaba that were promised
>Janah:"Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Abu Obida, Saeed Ibn
>Nofail(narrator of this hadith), Saed Ibn Abi Waqas, and Abdilraman Ibn Aouf.
>First of all, this hadith is narrated by Saeed Ibn Nofail only, and in the
>science of hadith it is considered Hadith Ahad = hadith narrated by one =weak.
I believe I touched on this in another post.
>Lets look at the history of some of the promised ones, and start analyzing it
>logically, and with an open mind.
Agreed.
>At first, Talha and Zubair fought the imam
>of their time Ali(A,S), in the battlefield of Jammal under the leadership of
>Aisha.
Was this before or after our Prophet (s) had spoken that hadith?
Remember, I am taking it as authentic until and unless provided
proof that the narrator sahaba was in error.
>It was a battle that took away the lives of tens of thousands of
>muslims, including Talha, and Zubair. In Islam everyone that revolts against
>the imam of his time is considered murtad,
Are you sure you are not making up some sort of new ruling here?
I would strongly advise you to re-consider this statement. I say
no it doesn't but you have made the positive assertion, which I
believe entitles me to request for evidence if not proof.
>a lot of people revolted against Abu
>Bakr during his calapha, such as Fujaa and others, and those people r
>considered murtad, for revolting against Abu Bakr the caliph of his time. Why
>r the people that revolted against Abu Bakr are considered murtad,
Yes, why? I would advise you as I would to myself, to look up the
history as we have it, and see for ourselves the cause and
circumstances relating to that incident. I believe there was some
disagreement about zakat.
>and the
>people that revolted against Ali(A,S) r considered mubashareen????!!!!!
If the Prophet (s) truly said it, then it must be true for me.
You must provide me (and others) with the reasons why you
consider the narrator suspect. Perhaps this would assist me to
see the error of my ways. However, the reason of hadith aHad is
not it.
>this
>very unfair, and it is a logic that a little kid wouldn't accept.
;-)
>Then during
>the battlefield of Jammal Zubair came to meet with Ali(A,S), and Ali reminded
>him of the Prophet's(PBUH) hadith when he (PBUH) told Zubair:"Ya Zubair u will
>fight Ali one day and u r going to be the agressive one." The prophet(PBUH)
>called Zubair agressive, r the people of Jannah agressive????!!!! no they r not
>agressive they r the most forgiving, the most peacefull, agressivness is not
>the sign of people of Jannah.
If we consider Muslims as warrior-priests, then aggression would
have to be a part of our make-up wouldn't you agree? Anyway I
don't think all who will inhabit jannah will be un-aggressive,
but I do not mind to be proven wrong by explicit Qur'anic aayaat
or established ahadith.
That Zubayr was called aggressive by the Prophet (s) or was
prophesied that he would be part of an insurrection can still be
reconciled with the part about him entering jannah. It would mean
that his actions in that incident would be forgiven by Allah for
all the other good things he has done before that in the cause of
Islam. wAllahu a^lam.
>Then Zubair told Ali(A,S),:"i am from those that
>were promised Jannah". Ali said:" the hadith of Saeed Ibn Nofail tricked u
>Zubair"(even Ali(A,S) says that that hadith is a trick and a fabrication), Then
>Ali said :" who r the ten promised ones" Zubair named 9 names and ignored Ali's
>name, Ali said:"who is the tenth one???" Zubair said:" u r" Ali then answered
>:" if u admit that i am one of the ten promised Jannah why r u fighting me
>then???!!!!" Zubair had nothing to say, and went back to the battlefield,
>where he got killed. Talha on the other hand was killed by Marwan Ibn Alhakam,
>who was with him in the same army.
Yes, the deaths of these two people were prophesied by the
Prophet (s) himself. They were the signs that the party they were
supporting were in error. The question is, is this error
sufficient to cause them to enter the Fire? We have the hadith of
ibn Nofail wAllahu a^lam.
Another point I would ask is, where is the source of this
particular report and what is its claim to authenticity, and
chain of narrators?
Let me also remind that it is the view of khawarij that either or
both parties in that battle were apostates. And we know that this
view is insupportable.
>Ibn Hijer Alhaythami say:"in the
>battlefield of Jammal Marwan threw Talha with an arrow,and said :"i will never
>ask revenge for my cousin from nobody else". Marwan's cousin is Uthman, and
>Marwan killed Talha as a revenge for his cousin Uthman, which means that Talha
>was among those who killed Uthman. How can that be, the people that were
>promised Jannah r killing each other????!!!!!!(LA Haola Wala Qouata Illa
>BillAh).
I would ask for the authenticity of this report and chain of
narrators. Sorry to seem so stupid, but I suppose I am.
> Then Aisha was ordering the people to revolt and kill Uthman, and she
>said:"Kill Na3thal he disbelieved", She reffered to him as Na3thal. A person
>that the mother of believers called a disbeliever, how can he be promised
>Jannah???!!!!
Does na^thal mean a disbeliever?
Besides, we all know that it is the right of Allah alone to
invite whom He wills into His heaven, and that when (if?) He told
His Prophet about this beforehand, that is not something
unreasonable or impossible.
>It is a very big discrepancy, the reason they went against
>Uthman, is because he used to treat his relatives as a first class, and the
>rest of the muslims as.......... Is that how a person who was promised Jannah
>treat Allah's creations????!!!!!!(Iza Aradtum Rahmati Farhamou Khalki).
Does being a bad ruler who practiced nepotism entitle anyone to
be condemned to eternal damnation? I am in no position to rule on
that, although agreeably, from our eyes it is not something one
wishes to "aspire" to.
>For
>the same reason, Abdlrahman Ibn Aouf got angry with Uthman, and when Uthman
>came to visit AbdulRahman on his death bed, AbdulRahman turned his face the
>other way. Is this how people that were promised Jannah treat each
>other???!!!!
I am chagrined to have to add I honestly don't know. I am sure it
must be true because you say it is. As for me, I will await to
find out inshallah. May Allah have mercy for all my sins.
I know however that it says in Surah al-a^raf, 7:43 :"And We
remove whatever rancor may be in their hearts. Rivers flow
beneath them. And they say: The praise to Allah, Who hath guided
us to this. We could not truly have been led aright if Allah had
not guided us. Verily the messengers of our Lord did bring the
Truth. And it is cried unto them: This is the Garden. Ye inherit
it for what ye used to do."
>These r the reasons, why we believe that the hadith of Ashara
>Mubashara is fabricated. To me, those reasons r more then enough.
I accept them, as your reasons. I have however tried my best to
persuade you that there may be reasons why your reasons may not
be as strong as you think they are. I would sincerely advise you
not to hold suspicious thoughts about your predecessors in Islam.
Remember, "On no soul doth God Place a burden greater than it can
bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill
that it earns. Robbana! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into
error; Robbana! Lay not on us a burden like that which Thou didst
lay on those before us;"
>Brother u stated that Allah would judge between them, i agree with that 100%,
>but Allah(SWAT) gave me a brain, and a free will to analyze, history and
>hadiths, because they were written, and narrated by people, that make
>mistakes, and commit sins(Wa Ina Alnafsa Laamaraton Bilsu Ila Ma Raheema Rabi).
alHamdullillah we are not all perfect, but we are not all bad
either. We strive to the best of our capabilities and if we err
even after that, it is up to Allah to decide our fate.
>Bother i repeat myself again,
I hope I have not been that much of a *bother* to you (just
joking ;-> )
>to say these r things i gathered from history
>books and hadiths books, so don't judge my honesty,before u search for the
>things i have stated above. Thank u bro for ur time and patience.
And Thank You for you kindly listing your reasons why you believe
as you do. Perhaps we can agree that the "gulf" is too wide for
understanding, but that should not lead us to fanatical or raging
mis-understanding of one another.
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri
Twelver12
Asalaam Alikum:( Wa Tahiyatuhum Fiha Salama)
Hareb said in his article:
>Starting to shed authentic title
i don't understand how am i starting to shed authentic title???
The words authentic, and truthfull r the same, and i never said that Bukhari is
my most truthfull(or authentic) book after the Quran, what i said was, what
ahlul sunna believe in the authenticity of Bukhari. That is fact that noone
can deny, and why ahlul sunna have such belief in sahih Albukhari, is a
question to be answered by their Ulama, not me. Hareb where is the sheding of
authentic title????
>Al-Tabary says in his book more or less: I narrate what i received to the
best of knowledge. I don't garuntee its authenticity-if u want to verify it
check out my narrators and analyze them.........
If Al-Tabari said so that is fine, but why Sunni ulama depends on it to get
historical information, and when the Shia Ulama, get historical information
from Al-Tabari, which oppose those of Sunnis', they get called liars, and every
word in the book, by some people of ahlul Sunna???????????the answer is simple
it is ignorance.
Hareb sent me an e mail and said that:" i should pray to Allah to bring me to
Islam back from where i am". In otherwords, i am not a muslim, because i don't
respect and love all sahabba. My answer was:"We r brothers in Islam, even if
we r frm different Mazhab, or have different opinions about non fundemental
beliefs. It is unfair, and unIslamical from u(Hareb) to call me a murtad, for
the simple fact that i have a special opinion(which is supported by a lot Ayat
from the Holy Quran, and hadith from Prophet Mohammad's(PBUH) Sunna
WalhamdulilAh)) about some sahabba. As we all know Islam has five pillars,
Shahadatan, Salat, Soum, Zakat, and Hajj, and i don't deny none of them, and i
practice them WalhamdulilAh, except for Hajj, which is i haven't been capable
of doing yet, but whenever i am i will go for it InshallAh. I am not aware of
a sixth one which says that i must blindly respect and love all Sahaba". If
brother Hareb knows of a sixth one, please let me know, i am willing to learn.
> Hussain Haikal is a writer and literary figure. He is not specialized in
critical historical narration or religion or both.
I know that religion, is not his speciality. My point was that, some sunni
writers agree with me, about the things i stated. If i had given an example
with a shii scholar, that example would've been rejected by a lot of sunni
brothers/sisters for the fact that he is a shia. Plus it is more effective, if
u proove ur point from the books of the person arguing with u. Offcourse this
works with people that r named in the Quran by:"Ulu Al Nuha", but it wouldn't
work for people who r blind by ignorance, and wouldn't listen to any proof
except what Dady, and Momy, have taught them.
>So not authentic except what you like. This is called to faced, double speak,
etc. either it is authentic, you can use it to prove your point, or it is
not...then let it go...
I never said that the information i gave were authentic for the fact that i
like them, every claim i gave i supported with a proof from history and
hadiths.
>Do not spoil your nice introduction(I hate nobody). We call that Taqiyyah
(lying)
That is very sad brother, u have committed two mistakes, for one u 've called
me a liar(Allah(swat) knows my intentions), then u r using terms that u don't
know, what they mean. Go learn what the word Taqiyyah means first then go to
the Quran,and look it up in Surrah3 aya 28, and Surrah 16 aya106, then look up
the story of Mo"men Al Firaoun in surat Al mo"men(or Ghafer) aya 28. So
Taqiyya is an Islamic concept from the Quran.
> You will even accept bold lies as in Al_Kafi.. as it fits your pre-determined
prejiduce.
If u r talking about the information i stated in my previous articles, u r not
accurate then, because i didn't use no info from Al-Kafi. If u r saying that
taqiuyyah is a bold lie from Al-Kafi, i prooved to u before that Taqyyia is in
the Quran. Do u still believe that Taqiyyah is a bold lie???!!!!!!!!! My
brother i want u to know that the one with pre-determined prejiduce is the one
that calls other muslims murtads, liars, and believe in bold lies.
>For the fact that th hadith narrators r human beings, who make mistakes, and r
driven by their emotions....
I never called myself a superhuman sir... and i didn't say that because we r
humans , we r then liars. U r either misunderstanding me or u r ...... I said
that since those people were not Prophets or Wasiyeen then they capable of
committing sins, and mistakes, and they r not perfect, then we can judge their
actions. Mohammad(PBUH) is a human being but what was his nickname in his
Kaffir environment??? His name (PBUH) was Alsadeq Al Ameen, all other prophets
a well. They were the perfect human beings.
>This is usually not applied to the level of Sahabah since they are considered
just and truthfull by the statements spread in the Quran.
What i find strange is the defenition of a sahabi for ahlulsunna.
Some scholars say that everyone that was born in the Prophets(PBUH) time is
considered a sahabi, so they considerMohammad Ibn Abi Bakr(R,A) a sahabi,
because he was born in the Prophet's(PBUH) time.
another defenition that they use for Shaba is thatwhoever heard a word from the
Prophet(PBUH), and Ibn Hijerr adds:it includes the jinns that believed in the
Prophet(PBUH). Some of them give the titlie of Sahaba to any muslim that
stayed with the ProphetPBUH) for a year, or two. So everyone that seen the
Prophet, or heard a word from him , or a hadith, he is considered a sahabi, and
is granted a diplomatic immunity, and all the sins, and crimes he committed
during the Prophet's (PBUH)time, or after his (PBUH) death, r all forgiven just
for the fact that he seen the Prophet ones in his life time or heard a word or
a hadith!!!!!!!!
I don't deny that some of the sahabah were praised in the Quran.
On the other hand the Quran warns us, from a lot of them, and call them
hypocrites read surrat Altaouba, and Surat Al munafiqeen. Plus read the
hadiths in Albukhari about what happens to the sahabba in the hereafter, and
what the Prophet(PBUH) has to say about them, narrating from AbdullAh Ibn Abbas
said the Prophet(PBUH) said u will be gathered in the hereafter naked and
barefooted, and some of my companions get taken to the left, i say:"my
companions, my companions, He(SWAT) said :"they've went estray since u left
them.So i say :" You r the witness on them...." and a lot of similar hadiths,
whoever wants more reffer to sahih albukhari.
The Quran and sunna tell us, that there was a lot of sahaba that were
hypocrites, and went estray after the Prophet's(PBUH) death. Then we still get
blamed, and get called every name in the book, for our belief , by some
ignorants.
> There's no point in contiuing with u since you do not only contradict
authentic hadeeth but go arguably against the Quran horns on... see the Quran
says Ayishah is my mother( the believers mother)
That is what i used to reffer to Aysha, i used the term belivers mother, nobody
denies that. The Quran reffers to her and the rest of the Prophets wives as
mothers of believers, but the Quran also tells us how she used to treat the
Prophet(PBUH) read Surat Al Tahreem, and its translation from sahih Albukhari.
Plus her being the Prophet's(PBUH) wife alone, with no good deeds and good
intentions> Her maariage to the Prophet (PBUH) alone wouldn't do her any good,
so Islam doesn't look at no relations, it looks at , faith, good deeds, and
intentions, read the Quran surat Al Tahreem verses 10, and 11, when Allah talks
about the wives of Noah, and Lut, versus the wife of the biggest disbeliever
that ever existed Pharoon.
For some more information about Aisha and what she did reffer to shaih
Albukhari bab Fathaeel Aisha, and u would see what she has to say about
Khadijah (A,S), the first women to believe the Prophet(PBUH). Look up more
hadiths, where she angered the Prophet(PBUH), and asked him more than once:" r
u a Prophet of Allah as u claim."
>Which Islam we never heard that rule those who revolt against the Khalifah is
murtad. We did hear that anyone who denies a pillar of Islam or all of it is..
as in the case of Abi Bakr(radiaAllahu Anhu). The rebels where not rebeling
against Abu Bakr but against the Zakat.... some of them where rejecting the
whole Islam as those who claimed they were prophets....etc.
Well if u never heard of it, doesn't proove that it is not there, for the
second time i tell u go and read ur hadith books. Plus the ones that Abu Bakr
fought, didn't deny zakat, but they didn't pay it to Abu Bakr, because they
believe that he was not the legal caliph appointed by the Prophet(PBUH). So
when they refused to pay him zakat he sent Khalid Ibn AlWalid to them(they were
called bani Nuwaira), Khalid killed their leader, and married his wife the same
night..... then there was a big disagreement between Abu Bakr and Omar, about
what Abu Bakr and Khaled did......(see sahih al Bukhari for the detailed story)
>And to continue ur (sic) logic ...what do you consider those who revolted
against Uthman? are they also murtadeen? do not you guys consider them
heros...how double talkative of you
My brother the one with the sick logic is the one, that goes on and on in an
argument without stating proofs, such as refrences ..etc. Alhamdulilah every i
made i supported it with a proof, and a refrence. In your case all u do is
reciete, what u heared from your parents, or your sheik,(don't believe
everything u hear):"Inna Wajadna Abaana Ala Milaten wa Ina Ala Atharehim
Lamohtadoun"
Brother the sick logic is when u accuse a group of people of a belief that they
don't believe in. For ur information, no we don't call the people that killed
Uthman heros, i stated in my previous article who killed Uthman, it was Talha,
and Zubair that did it, and Marwan Ibn Alhakam revenged, and killed Talha in
the battlefield of Jamal. They killed Uthman by the order of mother of
believers Aisha, who used to say:"kill Na3thal, he disbelieved". Then she
contraticted herself, after she heard that Ali(A,S) was appointed as a caliph,
she yelled:"I swear to God that Uthman, was inocant, i going to get revenge".
Talha, Zubair, and Aisha were trying to accuse Ali(A,S) of killing Uthman so
they have a reason to fight him in Jammal, but he always prooved them wrong in
more then one instance. Then how could he be the killer, and he used to tell
both his sons Hasan, and Hussein to take water to Uthman, inside the castle
when he was surrounded with rebells?????
>Adam and his wife said to their Lord:"(O our Lord we have transgressed against
ourselves). Transgressed is the same word "thalam" used in above hadeeth.
Transgression is not a white ........................ etc.
If u want to translate the word transgressed in aya as the same word in
hadith, u r going to have a big problem because Allah(SWAT) says in the Quran
in surat Al Aaraaf aya 44:"......An Laanat U Allhi Ala Althalemeen", which
means Allah's curse should be on Adam and his wife because they were
transgressed, and that is impossible. So the word" thalam" in the hadith is
not the same in the aya.
> There was a battle between two parties of believers.. Ali on one side
>and the
>others on one side ... one party had the right and the other was mistaken
>(hence
>trangressing) .... now Allah called both believers ..: If two parties of the
>believers
>fight each other make peace
I think u forgot the hadith in Sahih Albukhari which says :"If two muslims meet
with their swords the killer and the killed r in hellfire". Talha and Zubair,
were muslims, so was Ali(A,S), they met with their swords in the battlefield of
Jammal, Talha and Zubair got killed in the battlefield, so if we want to
compare it to the hadith they r in hellfire then, why do u insist that they r
from ahlulJanna. That was another proof, that the hadith of Ashara Mubashara
is a fabrication.
>sound to me to miss few ayat of the Quran here and there ... and to make
>unheard
>of Islam rules.... not to mention your utter disgust with the best human who
>ever walked
>on earth ...
>
>
It seems like u have missed more ayat then me, you missed a lot of hadith from
your own books as well. Isn't sad my brother that somebody from a different
Mazhab telling u what is in your books???? and about the Sahabbah being the
best human who ever walked on earth, i answered that above and i gave refrences
from the Quran, and AlBukhari,(so Review). U need to get more education about
religion, and history, before u come in her to talk the Holy Religion(Islam).
I am starting to have doubts whether u know how to pray, and if u do know how,
i don't think u practice it except for the Friday prayer. >O and before I
forget .. the shia themselves have nothing amounting to
>a hadeeth collection ... what they did was collect sunni hadeeth and twist
>them and add
>to them in a way to totally disfigure them and erase the original text whi
>which might
>serve some of their enem,ies ... look what he does to the
>following
>
>
Shia's do have hadith books, and i explained above why we use sunni books in
our arguments. Plus u said that we collect sunni hadith and twist them, and
added to them............. Brother this is a very naiif statement to make,
because this means that sunni hadith books were played with by shia's, so they
were ultered, and changed, which means they r not valuable, and some of the
sunnis believe is not valuable, and false since the shia played with their
hadith and changed as u stated above.
>Actually your whole logic falls to peices with the adoption of
>Hasan Ibn Ali of all that you are fighting against .. by his recinding the
>Khilafah
>to Mu`awiyah - he not only said that Mu`awiyah is believers - but that he is
>the
>Imam and that uthman was killed unjustly .. and that his father's fights was
>not
>against in
>against infidels as you claim ... and if you are really serious that they
>were
>infdels when you stated what you stated ... then how come you are saying
>Assalam ALaikum
>
>
I think i have talked about all that in the above discussion, and it was ur
logic that falls into pieces infront of the Quranic proofs and hadiths as well.
I say Asalaam Alikum because it is the Tahiya of Islam.
Walhhamdulilah Rabil Alameen
twelver12