Who were the ten Ashara Mubashara?
SIDD1
Basically i am looking for their names and profiles or some thing on
their origin, life, death and the circumstances in which the passed
away.
Thanks
siddeeq
Twelver12
Salaam bro:
The names of the Ashara Mubasharine are: Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali Ibn
Abi Taleb, Talha, Alzubire, Abdlrahman Ibn Aouf, Abu Obida, Saeed Ibn Nofail,
and Saed Ibn Abi Waqas.
These r their names, and as far as their origin, life, death and the
circumstances in which they passed away, it for u to find out on your own from
history, and hadith books. What i can tell you is that Talha, and Zubair, died
in the battlefield of Jamal, where the mother of believers Aisha was the leader
of that army, against the Imam of her time Ali(A,S). Like i said before Talha
and Zubair got killed in that battlefield fighting the Imam of their time
Ali(A,S).
I am not sure how can't be that Talha, and Zubair from the Mubashara, and
they were fighting against another Mubashar???????!!!!!!!!!
Plus when Uthman was a caliph, Aisha was telling people to kill him because he
disbelieved. This raises another question how can Uthman be from the
Mubashara, while Aisha the mother of believers accuse him of
disbelieving?????!!!!!!!!
The only person that narrates this hadith is Saeed Ibn Nofail, which means
that hadith is not authentic, because it is called in the science of
hadith:"Khabar Ahad". Wa Salaam
Twelver12
Plus for ur information, in the battlefield of Jamal, Zubair came and met with
Ali(A,S), and Ali reminded him with the hadith of Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) when
he (PBUH) told Zubair:"you will fight Ali, and you re going to be the
agressor".
Zubair replied:"i am from those that were promised Jannah"
Ali said:" Saeed Ibn Nofail tricked u into believing that hadith"
which nobody else narrates but him(Saeed).
Ali then told Zubair:" who r those ten that were promised Jannah"
Zubair counted nine of the names and stoped. Ali(A.S) said:" Zubair who is the
tenth one ????" Zubair said:"you re"
Ali then replied:"if u admit that i was promised Jannah why r u fighting me for
??????"
Zubair didn't have an answer, and he went back to the battlefied where he got
killed fighting the Imam of his time.
Wa Salaam
Zaharuddin Fikri
as salaamu a'laykum
On 6 Mar 1998 05:30:57 GMT, twel...@aol.com (Twelver12) wrote:
> The only person that narrates this hadith is Saeed Ibn Nofail, which means
>that hadith is not authentic, because it is called in the science of
>hadith:"Khabar Ahad".
I do not wish to seem to complain but I feel assertions on
hadithic science based on emotions and trying to win debate
points reflects poorly on the person making those assertions.
I am not sure under which hadith master Twelver12 has studied, or
how many of them, but any twelve-year old who looks through the
most basic texts of ^ulum al-hadith can see for himself that
there is no such ruling in any known hadithic science, known to
the world of Islam that is, where a khabar aHad is automatically
inauthentic. I would respectfully suggest that Twelver12 not be
too proud of his hadith knowledge. Usenet is read by thousands.
I am not sure but I think it even goes against all the teachings
of the Twelve imams to try and "recreate" ^ulum al-hadith.
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri
Zaharuddin Fikri
Twelver12
Asalaam Alikum brother Zahar:
>I do not wish to seem to complain but I feel assertions on
>hadithic science based on emotions and trying to win debate
>points reflects poorly on the person making those assertions
Trust me brother i don't let my emotions act, when i talk about Islamic
matters. I am a firm believer that emotions doesn't get u anywhere. I try
doing it the logical way, and that is, to support what i say with a Quranic
proof, or a hadith Sahih from the Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad(PBUH).
>I am not sure under which hadith master Twelver12 has studied, or
>how many of them, but any twelve-year old who looks through the
Brother i didn't study hadith under a certain master, but what i have r
informations that i gathered from reading hadith books. I am not claiming that
Iam the most knowledgable person. >inauthentic. I would respectfully suggest
that Twelver12 not be
>too proud of his hadith knowledge. Usenet is read by thousands.
>
>
Like i said before i am not claiming , that iam the most knwoldgable person. I
didn't want to get deep into specifics of hadiths Alahad,and its dvisions
into:Mustafith, Mashhour, Gharib, and Daeef, because of the limitions of my
time, and others'. The point i was trying to get across, (in the most
abbreviation possible), was that hadith Alahad is not as strong as the
Mutawater. So the hadiths of Ashara Mubashara is only narrated by one sahabi,
like i stated in my article. One witnesse's testamony is not accepted in
Islam, except for the shahadat of Khuzima, whom the Prophet(PBUH) counted his
shahadat as the shahadat of two. My question is why Saeed is the only one to
narrate such hadith, why didn't anyone from the other nine narrated it, where
were they???Knowing that Saeed was not as close to the Prophet, as some of the
other nine.
I stated in my article that Ali(A,S), told Zubair when he met with him in the
battlefield of Jammal, that such hadith is fabricated, and that is enough
evidence from one the ten, who was for sure closer to the Prophet(PBUH) then
the rest.
Wal HamdulilAh Rabil Alameen
Wa Salaam
twelver12
SIDD1
Twelver, you may be doing a lot of service, but unless you adhere to the
fundamental rule in religious discussion, you may cause more chaos!
The fundamental rule is: Any time you make a claim that the other party
does not agree to or does not easily digest, put the complete reference,
and page number.
Better yet, quote the passage. This is a lot of work, but it will be
a positive contribution. It really educates everyone. That is if you are
doing it to educate paople and not your own ego broadcast.
I never say that you did what I say in the above para, but then you must
do little, if necessary to do it WELL!
Please redo your articles on the Uhud, and others into one coherent
article, put all the references, and then quote the reference so that
we may not have to get them. Without that these things are very hard to
believe and can only cause attacks and counter-attacks. Not the resolution
of disagreements that all the muslims want!
This goes for all the others, shia, sunni, ismaili, sufi and wahabis.
siddeeq
Zaharuddin Fikri
as salaamu a'laykum
On 11 Mar 1998 10:08:52 -0800, twel...@aol.com (Twelver12)
wrote:
> Trust me brother i don't let my emotions act, when i talk about Islamic
>matters.
alHamdullillah.
>Brother i didn't study hadith under a certain master, but what i have r
>informations that i gathered from reading hadith books. I am not claiming that
>Iam the most knowledgable person.
I do not see that you have, claimed for yourself that title, that
is, so if that was the impression which was received I apologize.
However, you here admit that you have gathered much information
from self-study. There is nothing wrong with self-tutoring but
one must not neglect learning from a more knowledgeable one. Good
advice especially directed at my poor self.
>Like i said before i am not claiming , that iam the most knwoldgable person. I
>didn't want to get deep into specifics of hadiths Alahad,and its dvisions
>into:Mustafith, Mashhour, Gharib, and Daeef, because of the limitions of my
>time, and others'.
Perhaps you will verify for me that hadith mustafidh is according
to some, akin to hadith mash-hur, except that mustafidh has equal
numbers of people in the sanad at the beginning, in the middle
and at the end, unlike the "run of the mill," hadith mash-hur?
And is not hadith mah-shur according to ibn hajar "al hadith
al-mash-hur maa lahu thuruwq maHSuuwatu bi akthara min ith-nayn?"
(The hadith mash-hur (is one which) has limited isnad (but) that
is more than two)? That ghareeb (strange / difficult to
understand) is when a hadith is narrated by one chain (isnad),
even when there are a number of people who may not be on one
chain while appearing on another? Also probably instead of
DHo-if, you meant to mention hadith ^aziz, since you already
mentioned the other two categories of hadith aHad (mash-hur /
mustafidh, and ghareeb)? I can understand why you don't want to
elaborate more on this, it would need lots and lots of time and
effort.
However none of the above puts any more credence to your original
claim that al-aHad is in authentic.
BTW, an example of a hadith mash-hur which is DHO-if is the one
we had talked about on this forum some time ago: "uTHlubu
al-^ilma walaw bi-Seen" (look for knowledge even in China). It is
narrated by anas and abu hurayrah, but the isnad is composed of
rawi with serious jarh (deficiency). Among the books in which it
can be found are in the "tarikh" of al-bukhary vol. 2, 2:358 (not
in the saHih,) by ibn ^adi in "al-kamil" no. 207B and by the same
author in "al-la^ali al-mashnu^ah" 1:193, al-uqaily in
"al-DHu^afa" no. 196, al-khatib al-baghdadi in "rihlah fi THolab
al-hadith" no. 1.
>The point i was trying to get across, (in the most
>abbreviation possible), was that hadith Alahad is not as strong as the
>Mutawater.
You first wrote: "...that hadith is not authentic, because it is
called in the science of hadith:"Khabar Ahad"." Now, I was
confused by what you intended to say because when you wrote "not
authentic," I thought you meant *not* authentic but you say you
actually meant not "as strong as" something else. I can accept
that, I too make inadvertent mistakes either from haste or from
the whisperings of undesirable beings.
However, I have heard that even if a hadith is aHad that does not
make it any less authentic than a "mutawwatir" one , because the
saHih-ness of a particular report depends on certain criteria
which I am certain you know more about than someone unlearned
like myself. As for the "strength" of a report, I had always
thought that this refers to authenticity, but I shall await your
further reply on what this means to you.
>So the hadiths of Ashara Mubashara is only narrated by one sahabi,
>like i stated in my article. One witnesse's testamony is not accepted in
>Islam, except for the shahadat of Khuzima, whom the Prophet(PBUH) counted his
>shahadat as the shahadat of two.
This is an entirely new line of argument. But is it absolutely
certain that this qiyaas (of singular testimony) applies to ^ulm
al-hadith?
>My question is why Saeed is the only one to
>narrate such hadith, why didn't anyone from the other nine narrated it, where
>were they???Knowing that Saeed was not as close to the Prophet, as some of the
>other nine.
According to the renowned ahl al-hadith and fuqaha', they prefer
to take hadith "hasan li ghayrih" or even hadith DHO-if to a
qiyaas, and they apply this principle even in matters of
shari^ah. Among them are imam malik and imam abu hanifa. The
latter as is well-known is most famous for depending much on
analogical reasoning, so it is significant that this is also his
opinion in such matters. With all the foregoing, who am I to say
this or that, for example that I cannot accept hadith aHad
*because* it is not mutawwatir? Perhaps those more learned than
my poor self can feel entitled to do so, but all this poor
traveler can do is wait and see.
That people can be or can not be around to hear a particular
hadith should not be something used to cast aspersions on anyone.
For example, a hadith aHad, the ghareeb version, is this: "inna
al a^malu bi al-niyyat" from umar r.a. Can we all throw away this
hadith just because it is hadith aHad? Where were the rest of the
ashaba when this was said by the Prophet (pbuh & hf)?
Also the following: "al muslimu man salima al-muslimuna min
lisaanihi wa yadihi" (The [real] Muslim is the one from whom
other Muslims are safe from his tongue and hands). This is also
hadith aHad, though it is mash-hur and received from abu musa al
a^ashari (muslim), abu hurayrah (tirmidhi) and abdullah bin ^amar
(bukhary).
In reality there is nothing outstanding in this hadith of sa^id,
if one also remember that many people will enter paradise,
according to the Prophet (pbuh & hf), without examination except
this is one hadith where the identities of the persons are known.
For example, anas ibn malik is reported to have said that the
Prophet (pbuh & hf) said, "Allah, Who is Great and Glorious, has
promised me that four hundred thousand of my people will enter
Paradise without being taken to account." abubakr asked Allah's
Messenger to tell them more, and he replied that Allah did thus,
taking up two handfuls and joining his hands together. abubakr
asked him to tell them more, and he did the same again.
umar then said, "Let the matter alone, abubakr," to which abubakr
replied, "What harm would it do you if Allah were to bring us all
into Paradise?" umar replied, "If Allah, Who is Great and
Glorious, wishes to bring all His creatures into Paradise
simultaneously He can do so," and the Prophet said, "umar has
spoken the truth.""
(Mishkat al masabih, no. 5603)
We also know that bilal (the Prophet's muezzin) is also among the
inhabitants of Paradise, by the hadith about the footsteps in
heaven which was "heard" by the Prophet (p).
So I can only repeat what umar r.a. said: "If Allah, Who is Great
and Glorious, wishes to bring all His creatures into Paradise
simultaneously He can do so."
>I stated in my article that Ali(A,S), told Zubair when he met with him in the
>battlefield of Jammal, that such hadith is fabricated, and that is enough
>evidence from one the ten, who was for sure closer to the Prophet(PBUH) then
>the rest.
You wrote about this:"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???!!!!"
When ali a.s. was reported to have said to zubayr r.a., "the
hadith of Saeed Ibn Nofail tricked u Zubair" as you wrote, this
could mean, as you assumed, "even Ali(A,S) says that that hadith
is a trick and a fabrication" or it could mean that ali a.s. was
saying, "zubayr, don't let that promise trick you into thinking
that fighting against me makes you right. Don't you remember that
even I was among the ones promised jannah?". What would make this
interpretation unacceptable in your mind?
I hope you realize that it indirectly supports my contention that
this hadith is well-known, strong and valid because even ali a.s.
himself referred to it by the title, the "hadith of sa'id bin
nofail" as well as making sure that zubayr remembered that he,
ali himself, was among those who were promised jannah. I did not
want to mention it earlier because it seemed to me that it would
have been as clear to everyone who read it, i.e. everyone without
desire for further sectarianism. I merely hinted at it by asking
for verification for its authenticity which I thought would have
been enough to make others reflect on it while they were looking
up the hadith.
One last point: I am almost certain this way the hadith has been
narrated is a synopsis of the whole story but re-told in Twelve12
own words. Please correct me if I am wrong.
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri