Chapter 24
Response to “Hadith Ar-Rayat: A truly messy one”
He started off by quoting (on pg 177) Ibn Taymiyyah’s rejection of the claim of Al-Hilli that ‘Ali (ra) was the bravest. Let me give a brief description of the Ibn Taymiyyah’s objection on Al-Hilli’s statement.
Al-Hilli [Minhaj as-Sunnah (8/75)] said:
الرَّابِعُ: أَنَّهُ كَانَ أَشْجَعَ النَّاسِ، وَبِسَيْفِهِ ثَبَتَتْ قَوَاعِدُ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَتَشَيَّدَتْ أَرْكَانُ الْإِيمَانِ، مَا انْهَزَمَ فِي مَوَاطِنَ قَطُّ، وَلَا ضَرَبَ بِسَيْف إِلَّا قَطَّ، طَالَمَا كَشَفَ الْكَرْبَ عَنْ وَجْهِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وَلَمْ يَفِرَّ كَمَا فَرَّ غَيْرُهُ
“Fourth: He was the bravest of mankind. Through his sword the Islamic principles were established and the pillars of Belief were constructed. He never fled from the battle and he never hit through the sword except cut (it). He would often recognize the sorrow from the face of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). He never fled from the battlefield like others did.”
One can see that according to Al-Hilli it was ‘Ali (ra) who, with his sword, established Islam and constructed its pillars. His description portray the Messenger of Allah (sallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) as a person behind the veil [We seek refuge of Allah] who would only convey the truth and then ‘Ali (ra) would do the job of implementing it, fighting for it and constructing it and likewise protecting the Prophet (‘alaihissalatu wassalam). In light of such description if al-Hilli, or anyone who agrees with him, says that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) was braver than ‘Ali (ra) then he is only contradicting his own statement.
After this if Ibn Taymiyyah contradicted Al-Hilli then it was his right to do so. Toyib said Ibn Taymiyyah misrepresented Al-Hilli’s comment while the objection should have been raised against Al-Hilli who in reality portrayed ‘Ali literally as the real hero in the propagation of Islam and not the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
Toyib quoted a statement narrated from Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas that he said ‘Ali is the bravest of all. If this is authentic then also it cannot be taken to defend the generalization made by Al-Hilli for the reason explained above. However, this narration from al-Mustadrak has some issue with its Isnad which I have notified earlier under chapter 22 under the discussion on Zuhd.
Ibn Taymiyyah describes bravery as follows [Toyib’s translation]:
"And “bravery” is explained with two things. One of them is strength of the heart, and its firmness in the face of fear. The second is great strength in physical fighting, to kill a lot of people. Only the first is bravery. As for the second, it (only) proves physical strength. And, not everyone who is physically strong has a strong heart, and not vice versa."
On this, Toyib respond in his typical frustrated way:
"So, “bravery” is only to have a fearless heart. Whether this translates into action on the battlefield or not is irrelevant. Rather, the warrior who firmly faces multiple enemy fighters in battle, and kills them is not brave at all. He is only “physically strong”."
I say: Ibn Taymiyyah did not say that a brave person never fights or faces his enemies, rather he was saying that a person might have been a strong one and have killed thousands but this is not bravery. While on the other hand a weak person who struggles but could not kill any enemy will be considered a brave person. So, ‘Ali was brave, not because he was able to kill so many disbelievers but rather because he did not have fear to face his enemies. This is the bravery. Therefore if anyone wants to judge the bravery of a person then he must look at his stable and fearless heart not the might with which he killed hundreds and thousands of enemies, for the Pharoah and Nimrod would then be bravest of all.
Besides that let us look at the meaning of Shuja’ah [Arabic of bravery] in Arabic dictionary. Al-Jawhari says in “As-Sihaah” (3/1235):
شدَّة القلب عند البأس
“It is the stability of heart during trial.”
Even the English word bravery means ‘able or ready to face and endure danger, disgrace or pain’. So basically Ibn Taymiyyah’s description very much correct and Toyib’s frustration on it is because of his ignorance. May Allah guide him to the right path.
Responding to the fact that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) himself did not kill any person on the battlefield except Umayyah bin Khalaf, Toyib said (pg.179):
"The Messenger of Allāh was the ruler of Arabia at that time. Heads of state are not expected anywhere to participate in battle like foot soldiers. Rather, they are to be shielded from the enemy as much as possible. As for Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān, they were ordinary soldiers. Therefore, they had every obligation and chance to participate in multiple combats with enemy fighters. But what happened?"
Basically Toyib is saying that bravery is to have physical power in battles and the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) was the bravest of all. But since he was the leader therefore he could not show his bravery and was to remain under protection of other companions.
This is what Toyib clearly implying in opposition to the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, while on the other hand ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) said:
لَمَّا حَضَرَ الْبَأْسُ يَوْمَ بَدْرٍ اتَّقَيْنَا بِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَكَانَ مِنْ أَشَدِّ النَّاسِ، مَا كَانَ - أَوْ: لَمْ يَكُنْ - أَحَدٌ أَقْرَبَ إِلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ مِنْهُ
“When the fighting grew intense on the day of Badr we sought shelter by drawing closer to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), who was one of the strongest of men, and no was closer to the disbeliever than him.” [Musnad Ahmad (1042) (654)]
This was the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). However coming to the issue Toyib did not understand the point mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah or he simply avoided it. The point of Ibn Taymiyyah was that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman cannot be declared coward just because their killing of disbelievers are not reported. This is because the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) also did not kill any disbeliever except Ubayy bin Khalaf during Badr. So such kind of attacks on Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman also falls on the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
If Toyib still claims that the person who has killed most disbelievers is bravest then we will let Ibn Taymiyyah himself answer this. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
فَإِنْ كَانَ مَنْ قَتَلَ أَكْثَرَ يَكُونُ أَشْجَعَ، فَكَثِيرٌ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ أَشْجَعُ مِنْ عَلِيٍّ، فَالْبَرَاءُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ - أَخُو أَنَسٍ - قَتَلَ مِائَةَ رَجُلٍ مُبَارَزَةً، غَيْرَ مَنْ شُورِكَ فِي دَمِهِ. وَأَمَّا خَالِدُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ فَلَا يُحْصِي عَدَدَ مَنْ قَتَلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ، وَقَدِ انْكَسَرَ فِي يَدِهِ فِي غَزْوَةِ مُؤْتَةَ تِسْعَةُ أَسْيَافٍ، وَلَا رَيْبَ أَنَّهُ قَتَلَ أَضْعَافَ مَا قَتَلَهُ عَلِيٌّ
“If the person who has killed more (disbelievers) is the bravest then many of the companions would be braver than ‘Ali. So Bara’ bin ‘Aazib – the brother of Anas – killed hundred people alone leaving aside those whom he killed in association with others. As for Khalid bin Walid then only Allah knows the number of whom he killed. During the battle of Mu’ta nine sword was broken in his hands while fighting. There is no doubt that the number of people he killed was more than those whom ‘Ali killed.”
Who was the bravest companions?
With regards to the first point, Toyib did not actually touched the arguments given by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah. This is the reality of the book of Toyib which is supposed to be a refutation of Ibn Taymiyah but in reality he select a sentence from the Minhaaj and then starts replying to it leaving aside the arguments given by him.
Basically Ibn Taymiyyah (8/87-89) countered the claim of Al-Hilli by quoting Ibn Hazm from “Al-Fisal fi milal ahl al-Ahwa wa An-Nihal” (4/107). I will quote and translate the portion quoted in Minhaj:
We see that they claim that ‘Ali was the greatest in waging Jihad against disbelievers and attacking and fighting them among all the companions.
Abu Muhammad (Ibn Hazm) said: This is wrong as the Jihad is classified in three categories;
1. one of them is calling towards Allah,
2. second is to do Jihad during war by ideas and strategies
3. And the third is to do jihad with hands by killing and hitting.
We find that with regards to the first type of Jihad no person supersedes Abu Bakr and ‘Umar after the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). As for Abu Bakr then we find that the senior companions accepted Islam by his hands. As compared to him, ‘Ali does not have much share in this. As for ‘Umar then we see that the day he became Muslim Islam was strengthened and the worship of Allah was being done openly. This is the greatest Jihad and these two were alone in such Jihad of the first two categories (during the early days) whereas ‘Ali has no participation in it.
With regards to the second category then we find that it is specifically for Abu Bakr and then for ‘Umar.
As for the third category which is stabbing, hitting and combating then we find that it is the lowest level of Jihad because of the obvious reason that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), with the agreement of Muslims, was selective in doing the most virtuous of acts and we see that his – may Allah sends Salaat and salutation upon him – Jihad in most of the cases was restricted within the first two categories which is to call towards Allah – the Mighty and Majestic – and planning strategically and carefully. His least involvement (among the three categories) was in stabbing, hitting and combating. This is not because of cowardice but in reality he was absolutely the bravest of all earthly beings with his hands and soul and the most complete to attain succor. But he would look for the best and then next after it from the acts, and then he would prefer it and get involved with it. We find that, during Badr and other battles, Abu Bakr would not leave him and sometimes even ‘Umar was included in it. They were distinguished in this case unlike ‘Ali and all other companions, except in rare cases.
Then after that we ponder over the third category of Jihad which is to stab, to hit and to combat. We see that ‘Ali was not alone in this, but many other companions also had the same share like Talha, Zubair and Sa’d and those were killed in early Islam like Hamza, ‘Ubaidah bin Harith and Mus’ab bin ‘Umair, and from Ansar Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Simak bin Kharshah Abu Dujanah and others. Also Abu Bakr and ‘Umar do have good share in it even if they did not get involved in it like these people which is because of their participation in a better Jihad in association with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and to aid him during battles. And he sent them for war more than he sent ‘Ali. He sent Abu Bakr towards Bani Fazarah and elsewhere and he sent ‘Umar towards Bani Fulan. On the other hand we do not know ‘Ali was sent for any battle except at some fort of Khaibar which he conquered [and he had sent Abu Bakr and ‘Umar there, before ‘Ali, but they could not conquer it]. So Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were involved in the highest level of Jihad and besides that they have their share with ‘Ali in the lower category of Jihad. – End Quote –
This response from Ibn Hazm is sufficient against the claim that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were coward and that ‘Ali was the bravest of all. May Allah be pleased with all of them.
======================
Struggle of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman for Islam
Here I will quote some narrations which speak about the struggle and hardship they borne while serving this religion.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said addressing people in the Masjid:
إِنَّ مِنْ أَمَنِّ النَّاسِ عَلَيَّ فِي صُحْبَتِهِ وَمَالِهِ أَبَا بَكْرٍ
“Indeed the most favorable person to me with his companionship and wealth is Abu Bakr…” [Bukhari (3654) and others]
It is agreed upon among Muslims that it was Abu Bakr (ra) who accompanied the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) during his migration towards Medina while the blood thirsty disbelievers were following them. The disbelievers of Makkah had put a prize on both the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. Hence, Imam Bukhari (3906), Abdur-Razzaq (5/392), Ahmad (17591) and others narrate through Suraqah bin Ju’sham who said:
“The Messengers of the disbelievers of Quraish came to us declaring that they had assigned for one who would kill or arrest Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and Abu Bakr, a reward equal to their bloodmoney.”
Describing this Allah said in His Book:
إِلَّا تَنْصُرُوهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللَّهُ إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِي الْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَمْ تَرَوْهَا وَجَعَلَ كَلِمَةَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا السُّفْلَى وَكَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ
“If you do not aid him – Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, “Do not grieve, Indeed Allah is with us.” And Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and supported him with His soldiers you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah – that is Highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” [Surah Tawbah 9:40]
Imam Sufyan bin ‘Uyainah [d.198 AH] said: ‘Allah admonished all of Muslims for His Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) except for Abu Bakr alone.’ And then he recited the above verse. [Tarikh Dimashq (30/93)]
Imam Bukhari narrates in his Sahih (3678, 3856 and 4815) as well as many other scholars of hadith through ‘Urwah bin Zubair who said:
سَأَلْتُ ابْنَ عَمْرِو بْنِ العَاصِ: أَخْبِرْنِي بِأَشَدِّ شَيْءٍ صَنَعَهُ المُشْرِكُونَ بِالنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَالَ: «بَيْنَا النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُصَلِّي فِي حِجْرِ الكَعْبَةِ، إِذْ أَقْبَلَ عُقْبَةُ بْنُ أَبِي مُعَيْطٍ، فَوَضَعَ ثَوْبَهُ فِي عُنُقِهِ، فَخَنَقَهُ خَنْقًا شَدِيدًا» فَأَقْبَلَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ حَتَّى أَخَذَ بِمَنْكِبِهِ، وَدَفَعَهُ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَالَ: {أَتَقْتُلُونَ رَجُلًا أَنْ يَقُولَ رَبِّيَ اللَّهُ} [غافر: 28] الآيَةَ
I asked (‘Abdullah) Ibn 'Amr bin Al-'Aas, "Tell me of the worst thing which Al-Mushrikün [polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and in his Messenger Muhammad ()] did to the Prophet 40." He said, "While the Prophet was offering Salãt (prayer) in the Hijr of the Ka'bah, 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait came and put his garment around the Prophet's neck and throttled him violently. Abü Bakr came and caught him by his shoulder and pushed him away from the Prophet and said, "Would you kill a man just because he says, 'My Lord is Allah?'"
Abu ‘Abdullah al-Hakim reports this in “Al-Mustadrak” (4424) through Muhammad bin Abi ‘Ubaidah from his father from A’mash from Abu Sufyan [Talha bin Nafi’] from Jabir bin ‘Abdullah (ra).
Struggles of Abu Bakr (ra) in Makkah is well known and no other companions get closer to him in this regard. His efforts during early Islam were of following nature:
1. He testified for the truthfulness of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and defended him physically and verbally against disbelievers.
2. He spent his money to help those helpless Muslims who were being tortured by their masters. He manumitted many slaves who accepted Islam after buying them. Bilal (ra) was one of such slaves.
3. He worked for the propagation of Islam and hence many senior companions accepted Islam through his effort. For example, ‘Uthman, Talha, Zubair, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Awf and Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas.
Abu Bakr was unique in this regard that no one reaches his status after the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
As for ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) then the word of Ibn Mas’ud (ra) is sufficient here who said:
مَازِلْنَا أَعِزَّةً مُنْذُ أَسْلَمَ عُمَرُ
“We have been powerful since the time ‘Umar accepted Islam.” [Sahih Bukhari (3684) (3863)]
In fact, his entering into Islam was the result of the supplication made by the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Hence Imam Ahmad narrates in Musnad and Ibn Hibban in Sahih (6881) that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said:
اللَّهُمَّ أَعِزَّ الدِّينَ بِأَحَبِّ هَذَيْنِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ إِلَيْكَ: بِأَبِي جَهْلِ بْنِ هِشَامٍ، أَوْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ
“O Allah provide strength to Islam through either of the two whom you love more: Abu Jahl bin Hisham or ‘Umar bin al-Khattab.”
It was Hudhaifah bin Yaman (ra) who after the death of ‘Umar (ra) said:
كَانَ الْإِسْلَامُ فِي زَمَانِ عُمَرَ كَالرَّجُلِ الْمُقْبِلِ لَا يَزْدَادُ إِلَّا قُرْبًا، فَلَمَّا قُتِلَ عُمَرُ كَانَ كَالرَّجُلِ الْمُدْبِرِ لَا يَزْدَادُ إِلَّا بُعْدًا
“The likeness of Islam during the days of ‘Umar is that of a person who keep coming closer and closer but when he was killed it started to move backward.”
It is reported by Ibn Abi Shaibah (32021), Ahmad in Fada’il (473) and Al-Hakim (4488) through Mansur from Rib’iy bin Hirash from Hudhaifah (ra). This isnad is authentic and all of its narrators are highly reliable.
Also, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) used Abu Bakr and ‘Umar for military expedition more than he used ‘Ali as it has been preceded under the statement of Ibn Hazm.
There are many such statement and incidents which establish what I said regarding the struggles of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar for Islam. I do not want to make this refutation to be a compilation on Seerah and Biography.
As for ‘Uthman (ra) then even though he ran away from the battlefield during Uhud for some time but there is no such activity was known in his later days. In fact when he was Caliph he never commanded his companions to wage war against those who were preventing him from even drinking water and finally he was killed by the rebels.
The issue of fleeing from the battle
This is one of the issue which Shi’ites often raise to ridicule companions and call them coward. Toyib did the same and in this regard he brought the case of ‘Uthman. He quotes an authentic narration from Sahih Muslim:
“None remained with the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, on some of the DAYS in which the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, was fighting apart from Ṭalḥah and Sa’d. They both (i.e. Ṭalḥah and Sa’d) narrated that to me.”
He concludes that everyone else fled leaving the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) alone except Talha and Sa’d. Interestingly he did not mention ‘Ali among those people even though this narration does not give exception to him as well.
If we take this narration as per the understanding of “Allamah” Toyib then we have to accept that even ‘Ali, ‘Ammar, Miqdad bin Aswad were among those who fled as they also took part in battle and are not mentioned in the above hadith. However the narration is about that time when the enemy attacked Muslims from behind and they were dispersed. All of them were dispersed and raided by disbelievers including ‘Ali (ra).
Those who fled from the battle include ‘Uthman and some others from Ansar. Many companions were dispersed after the fierce attack of enemies so much so that they couldn't find the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) in rush. For sometimes the rumor was on its peak that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) was martyred. While most of them believed it and were disappointed to not find the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) among them but when they realized the truth they organized themselves against the enemy.
According to a narration even ‘Ali (ra) was not aware of life or death of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Hence, Abu Ya’la relates in his Musnad (546) and ‘Diya Al-Maqdisi in “Al-Mukhtarah” (675) through Muhammad bin Marwan al-‘Uqaili from ‘Umarah bin Abi Hafsah from ‘Ikrimah from ‘Ali (ra) who said:
لَمَّا انْجَلَى النَّاسُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمَ أُحُدٍ، نَظَرْتُ فِي الْقَتْلَى فَلَمْ أَرَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقُلْتُ: وَاللَّهِ مَا كَانَ لِيَفِرَّ، وَمَا أَرَاهُ فِي الْقَتْلَى، وَلَكِنْ أَرَى اللَّهَ غَضِبَ عَلَيْنَا بِمَا صَنَعْنَا فَرَفَعَ نَبِيَّهُ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَمَا فِيَّ خَيْرٌ مِنْ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ حَتَّى أُقْتَلَ، فَكَسَرْتُ جَفْنَ سَيْفِي، ثُمَّ حَمَلْتُ عَلَى الْقَوْمِ فَأَفْرَجُوا لِي، فَإِذَا أَنَا بِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَيْنَهُمْ
“When people disappeared away from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) during the Uhud battle, I looked among the dead people but I did not see the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). I said: ‘By Allah he is not from those who flee and I do not see him among the dead people. But I think Allah is angry on us for what we have done so He has raised back His Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam)…till the complete narration.”
This narration is disconnected between ‘Ikrimah and ‘Ali, but such narrations are often cited especially when they are according to the scenario known already. And Allah knows best.
After all these, people recollected again near the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Those who stood beside the Messenger of Allah (salllahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to defend him were Abu Bakr,’Umar, ‘Ali, Sa’d, Talha, Zubair, Abu ‘Ubaidah and some other companions from Ansar. This is the brief scenario of the battle of Uhud.
As for the case of ‘Uthman (ra), who left the battlefield for some time and then returned back, then the word of Allah is sufficient:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَلَّوْا مِنْكُمْ يَوْمَ الْتَقَى الْجَمْعَانِ إِنَّمَا اسْتَزَلَّهُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ بِبَعْضِ مَا كَسَبُوا وَلَقَدْ عَفَا اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٌ
“Those of you who turned back on the day when the two hosts met it was Satan who caused them to backslide because of some (sins) they had earned. But, Allah indeed has forgiven them. Surely, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing.” [Surah Aal ‘Imran 3:155]
So, when Allah has forgiven him then who is anyone else to raise question on him? Should we now wait until these Rawafidh forgive ‘Uthman (ra) after Allah has already forgiven him? These people accuse us of not following the second Thaqal while they can’t even accept the simple judgment of the greatest Thaqal (Qur’an).
Point of Benefit: Imam Bukhari narrates in Sahih (4043) a narration from Bara bin Malik that he said describing the incident of Uhud:
Ab Sufyan ascended a high place and said, "Is Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) present amongst the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abü Sufyãn said, "Is the son of Abu Quhafa present among the people?" The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, "Do not answer him." Aba Sufyãn said, "Is the son of Al-Khattab amongst the people?" He then added, "All these people have been killed, for, were they alive, they would have replied." On that, 'Umar could not help saying, "You are a liar, O enemy of Allah! Allah has kept what will make you unhappy."
This incident shows that the disbelievers of Makkah were aware of the status of Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) in Muslim army that is why Abu Sufyan the chief of Makkah did not inquire about anybody except Abu Bakr and ‘Umar besides the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
Then Toyib mentioned the incident of Hunain which was the second occasion when Muslims were made to run away from the battlefield. He quotes the verse:
“Truly, Allāh has helped you on many battlefields, and on the Day of Ḥunayn when you rejoiced at your great number but it availed you naught and the earth, as vast as it is, was straitened for you. Then you fled away.” [Surah Tawbah 9:25]
He claims since the statement is general hence everyone must have fled except those regarding whom there is concrete evidence that they remained stable on the battlefield.
I say: We have “the concrete” evidence Toyib is looking for unless if by “concrete evidence” he mean a Qur’anic verse or a Mutawatir hadith. In that case there is no evidence even for ‘Ali that he remained on the battlefield.
Muhammad bin Ishaq, the Imam of Maghazi, narrates from ‘Aasim bin ‘Umar bin Qatadah from Abdur-Rahman bin Jabir bin ‘Abdullah from his father and in it he mentions those who remained with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam):
Among his family members:
1. ‘Ali
2. Abu Sufyan bin Harith bin ‘Abdul Muttalib
3. Rabi’ah bin Harith bin ‘Abdul Muttalib
4. Fadhl bin ‘Abbas
5. ‘Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib
Among others:
1. Abu Bakr
2. ‘Umar
3. Usamah bin Zaid
4. Ayman bin ‘Ubaid
It was recorded by Ibn Hisham in Seerah (2/443), Ahmad bin Hanbal in Musnad (15027) and Al-Bayhaqi in Dalail an-Nubuwwah (5/126-127). Most of the authors on Seerah do mention it.
I say: There is an agreement that a group of companions remained with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and they did not flee. In a tradition narrated by Tirmidhi (1689) – who declared it Hasan Sahih Gharib and Ibn Hajar said it is Hasan and Al-Albani considered it Sahih – through Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that less than hundred people remained with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) during Hunain. Hence, as long as there is a possibility that a companion could be among those who were steady with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) one must abstain from speculating that such and such person fled from the battlefield. If Allah wanted to character-assassin someone He would have done so by taking names but rather He forgave them. We know from the above narration that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were steady in the battlefield but even those who are not mentioned should not be accused directly of fleeing unless if there is a proof that so and so person left the battlefield. This is the best and safe methodology based on Qur’anic principles.
Also, it is to be mentioned that after fleeing from the battlefield they returned back to the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Hence, they were forgiven by Allah.
Another things is that they did not flee because they were coward. Qur’an never calls them coward. If they were coward then how come they come to face the enemy who was larger in number? Even when they left away they returned back again to fight with the enemy? A coward never endangers his life for someone else. We know the cases of hypocrites who used to left the battlefield or rather give excuses to not join the battle. The Hunain incident was in when the army of Hawazin all of a sudden started shooting arrows the Muslims were shattered and dispersed to save their life leaving aside the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). This no doubt was a sin but Allah had forgiven them and they again went for Tabuk to fight for the cause of Allah.
Then to show that ‘Umar (ra) fled from the battlefield Toyib quoted a narrations as follows:
Al-Layth – Yaḥyā b. Sa’īd – ‘Umar b. Kathīr b. Aflaḥ – Abū Muḥammad, freed slave of Abū Qatādah – Abū Qatādah:
On the Day of Ḥunayn, I saw a Muslim fighting with one of the pagans and another pagan was hiding himself behind the Muslim in order to kill him. So I hurried towards the pagan who was hiding behind the Muslim to kill him, and he raised his hand to hit me but I hit his hand and cut it off. That man got hold of me and pressed me so hard that I was afraid, then I knelt down and his grip became loose and I pushed him and killed him. The Muslims fled, and I too fled WITH THEM. Suddenly, I met ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb AMONGST THE PEOPLE and I asked him, “What is wrong with THE PEOPLE?” He said, “It is the Command of Allāh.” Then THE PEOPLE returned to the Messenger of Allāh.
By highlighting the phrase “the people” Toyib here wants to show us that everyone from the companions fled without exception. The only exception he might give to anyone is ‘Ali (ra). This is a fact that by a generalized term many a times a large portion is also intended instead of each and every individual. This is something obvious, not only in Arabic, but in any language.
His second contention in the above hadith is that since Abu Qatadah found ‘Umar (ra) among the people that means he must be running away. I say: Abu Qatadah did not say ‘Umar was also fleeing with others. He only found ‘Umar in the rush of the people. This is all what the narration indicates and whatever these Rawafidh conclude from it is based on mere conjecture and speculation. It is possible that ‘Umar was stopping them and trying to make them silent and steady. Even the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) was calling them and stopping them from running away. This is besides the fact that there is a narration quoted earlier which shows that ‘Umar (ra) did not run away.
وما توفيقي الا بابلله
32 Replies
11576 Views
April 16, 2016, 08:55:15 PM