TwelverShia.net Forum

Refutation of the book "Ali: the best of the Sahabah" of Toyib Olawuyi

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Moin

Re: Refutation of the book "Ali: the best of the Sahabah" of Toyib Olawuyi
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2015, 11:36:43 PM »
Chapter 25
Refutation of “Hadith Al-Rayat: Investigating its authenticity”

Then Toyib claimed that ‘Umar bin Khattab (ra) ran away from Khandaq and Khaibar also before the battle of Hunain.
This is purely his interpretation as none of the historians claimed such a thing.
On page 186-187 he quotes a narration from Musnad Ahmad where ‘Aisha (ra) describes case of Khandaq. In it she said at one place:
I went out on the Day of al-Khandaqand I stood behind the people. So, I heard footsteps coming from behind me. I turnedaround and saw Sa’d b. Mu’ādh, and his nephew al-Ḥārith b. Aws wascarrying his armour. Therefore, I sat down on the ground and Sa’dpassed by, wearing an iron armour from which his limbs had comeout. I was afraid of Sa’d’s limbs. Sa’d was one of the most huge andtallest people. Sa’d passed by, singing a battle song, saying: “Very soonthe battle will meet a camel ... What a good death it is when the timehas come.”
Then I stood up and entered a garden. There was a small group of Muslims there, and ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was amongst them and there was another man who was wearing a mask.‘Umar said: “What brought you here? I swear by my life and I swear byAllāh, you are a reckless woman! What assures you against theoccurrence of a disaster or capture?” He kept blaming me so muchuntil I wished that the earth would split open for me so that I couldenter into it. Then the (masked) man removed the mask from his face,and he was Ṭalḥah b. ‘UbaydAllāh. So he said, “Woe to you, O Umar!You have said too much today! And where is the writhing movementor the flight except to Allāh the Almighty?

One may wonder where in the world this narration indicates that ‘Umar (ra) ran away from the battle of Khandaq. I would respond to Toyib’s contentions one by one:
From the statement of ‘Aisha (ra) that she was behind the people, Toyib concluded that ‘Umar and Talha must be at some safe place as ‘Aisha herself was behind.
However, the hadith did not indicate that where she went. In fact, it indicates that she was somewhere around the battlefield. This is evident from the fact that that ‘Umar scolded her for entering the garden. Hence it is mentioned in the hadith that ‘Umar said to her when he saw her there, “What assures you against the occurrence of a disaster or capture?” Isn’t this enough proof that the garden was within the parameters of the battleground? This single point is enough to destroy the base of satanic assumption of Toyib. Indeed Allah reminded all Muslims to remain careful in this regard:
O you who have believed, avoid much assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. [Qur’an 49:12]

Toyib has some obsession with the hadith is because it mentions that there was a garden around the battlefield. The battle of Khandaq did not occur outside the city or in an open ground like early battles of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) rather Muslims prepared a trench around the city of Madinah and they themselves remain under it. Hence, if there was a garden around the trench then it is not something to be amazed of.

In relation with the battle of Khayber Toyib Olawuyi quoted a narration as follow:
Abū al-‘Abbās Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Maḥbūbī – Sa’īd b. Mas’ūd – ‘Ubayd Allāh b. Mūsā – Na’īm b. Ḥakīm – Abū Mūsā al-Ḥanafī – ‘Alī, may Allāh be pleased with him:
The Prophet, peace be upon him, journeyed to Khaybar. When he arrived there, he appointed ‘Umar (as commander) and appointed some people with him (as his troops) to conquer their city or castle. So, they (‘Umar and his troops) fought them (i.e. the people of Khaybar). But ‘Umar and his troops did not hesitate before fleeing. So, they came back and they (the troops) accused him (‘Umar) of COWARDICE while he too accused them of cowardice. --

The answer to this is as follows:
1.   The narration is not authentically transmitted. Abu Musa al-Hanafi is probably a mistake by a scribe or a misprint otherwise this narrator is unknown. Actual narrator is Abu Maryam. He is Abu Maryam Ah-Thaqafi al-Mada’ini not the one who is called Al-Hanafi. Another narrator is Abu Maryam al-Hanafi al-Kufi whose name was Iyas bin Sabih and he was a Qadhi of Basrah and narrated from ‘Umar. Abu Maryam Ath-Thaqafi was Majhool as per the statement of Ad-Daarqutni. Even though An-Nasai declared a person Abu Maryam Qais al-Hanafi to be Thiqah but according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar it was his mistake when he named him Qais. An-Nasai intended Abu Maryam al-Kufi but mistakenly named him Qais. In the hadith the narrator from Abu Maryam is Nu’aym bin Hakeem an inhabitant of Mada’in. Therefore it is easy to identify his teacher as Abu Maryam al-Mada’ini Ath-Thaqafi. The narration in “Al-Mustadrak” named him as Abu Maryam al-Hanafi however that is most probably from some of the transmitters as Iyas bin Sabeeh was well famous while the teacher of Nu’aim bin Hakeem was hardly known. Refer to Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb by Hafiz bin Hajar al-‘Asqalani.
2.   Toyib translated the verb “Ha za ma” as “to run away” which is not accurate. Rather it should be translated as “to defeat” and in sigha of Majhool as “to be defeated”. Hence the meaning given in the narration is that they were defeated. They did fight but could not conquer Khayber and lost the fight.
3.   If ‘Umar was such a coward then why the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) sent him as an Ameer in expedition towards Najd few months after Khayber?
4.   We see that the narrators were very much frank in narrating about any incident they come to know. Hence, we see that the case of ‘Uthman running from Uhud was well known to the extent that an unknown person came to make argument on it with Abdullah bin ‘Umar. If ‘Umar would have been cowardly then people would have mentioned it even with an excuse they could provide.
5.   The text says that they accused each other of cowardice which is not a proof of declaring one a coward. All this is when the hadith is authentic which is not the case.

On page 191-192 Toyib quotes supposed full version of above narration. However it is with same Isnad therefore the same response applicable on it. Ali Muttaqi declared it Hasan!!! May be he did so but most probably it is the ruling of As-Suyuti whose book was reorganized by ‘Ali Muttaqi as Kanz al-‘Ummal. Whatever the case is, the argument still remains. They might have considered the original narrator to be Abu Maryam al-Kufi instead of Abu Maryam Al-Mada’ini and based on this they could have declared it Hasan.

Another hadih which Toyib quotes (pg.194) is that of Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila from his father. It has been reported in Musnad (778) of Imam Ahmad, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (32080), Ibn Majah (117) and others through the chain of Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah from Minhaal from Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah who report the incident of his father with Ali (ra) which include this hadith of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah was the one regarding whom Shu’bah said, “I have not seen a person who has as bad memory as Ibn Abi Lailah.”
Al-Bazzar also quotes it in Musnad (496) with the same chain of narrators. Toyib quoted it from Kanz al-‘Ummal where it has been copied from Bazzar and Ibn Jareer. The reference of Musnad al-Bazzar has already been given, as for Ibn jareer then most probably he narrated it in his Tahdheeb al-Aathar which unfortunately is partially available now. I could not find it in the available portion of the book but since I have seen the methodology of Ibn Jareer in this book therefore I can say that it is nothing odd if he had declared it authentic. It is his norm in this book to declare a hadith to be authentic with the indication that this could not be authentic as per the standard of other scholars. He has unique methodology in this particular book as far as authenticity is concerned. He narrates a hadith then declare it authentic then points out the defects based on which other scholars might consider it weak, and then he skips without clarifying why he has considered it authentic ignoring the defects he himself pointed out. And Allah knows best.

After quoting this hadith in Majma az-Zawaid (9/124) Hafiz Haythami said: “Al-Bazzar narrated it. It contains Muhammad bin ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila who had bad memory. All other of its narrators were the narrators of Sahih.”
Hafiz Busiri quotes it in Ithaf al-Khirah al-Maharah (6633) and said: Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaibah narrated its Isnad is weak due to weakness of Muhammad Ibn Abi Lailah.”

Other things Toyib mentioned does not need a response from Sunni side as it is either claim based on speculation or it is something which we do not disagree with.

However, I would like to point out something which shows how these Rafidha get crazy while ridiculing Ahlus-Sunnah and personalities respected by them. Hence, Toyib says on page 194:
The Prophet of Allāh testified that Amīr al-Mūminīn ‘Alī, ‘alaihi al-salām, was NOT a person who fled in any circumstance, however difficult. He too demonstrated that by accepting the challenge of Marḥab in a mortal combat. As such, while all the other Ṣaḥābah – including Abū Bakr and ‘Umar – were repeatedly fleeing the battlefields, ‘Alī always stayed till the end.

I say: If that is true then why all these venom and attacks are only directed towards Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman etc and not towards ‘Abbas, Ja’far, Zaid bin Harithah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farisi, Miqdad bin Aswad, Jabir bin ‘Abdullah, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri? Since all the other Sahaba, as per the claim of our Shi’i writer, were repeatedly fleeing therefore these people must also be among those "all the other Sahabah"!!

MuslimAnswers

Re: Refutation of the book "Ali: the best of the Sahabah" of Toyib Olawuyi
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2015, 06:40:44 PM »
Salam Alaykum,

Is there any way that the refutations on the islamic-forum site with regards to this book can be put together with the ones in here?

It also seems that some portions for the refutation are still missing: Especially with regards to the Verse in Surah At-Tawbah (Abu Bakr (RAA) being the Companion of the Cave).

In general, I really do not go very far in refutations nowadays, but just a couple of sentences: The traditional Sunnis do not agree, in the sense of it being indubitable Aqeedah, that only the best person can take up the leadership of the Muslim nation. So if we concede that 'Ali (RAA) was the absolute best of the Ummah, that still does not nullify our beliefs regarding Khilafah.

Rationalist

Re: Refutation of the book "Ali: the best of the Sahabah" of Toyib Olawuyi
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2015, 06:26:49 AM »


I say: If that is true then why all these venom and attacks are only directed towards Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman etc and not towards ‘Abbas, Ja’far, Zaid bin Harithah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farisi, Miqdad bin Aswad, Jabir bin ‘Abdullah, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri? Since all the other Sahaba, as per the claim of our Shi’i writer, were repeatedly fleeing therefore these people must also be among those "all the other Sahabah"!!
[/size]

Good reply. Even in the 12er Shia tafseer it indirectly accuses the Pro Ali sahaba of running away such as Salman Farsi, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, Jabir, Sa'eed.


[Pooya/Ali Commentary 9:25]

12er Shia commentary.
Abu Qatada says:

"The Muslims took to flight. I was also among them. Suddenly I saw Umar ibn Khattab among those who were running away. I asked him: 'What has happened?' He said: 'It is the will of Allah.'"(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 3, p. 45.)

According to some traditions Ali ibn abi Talib, Abbas ibn Abd al Muttalib, Abu Sufyan ibn Harith and Abdullah ibn Masud were the only four persons who stayed with the Holy Prophet. Some say there were ten persons who did not run away. Ali stood in front of the Holy Prophet and stopped every attack made by the enemy to slay him. The Holy Prophet called those who were deserting to come back. Some of them returned and joined Ali to launch a counter attack on the enemy. When Ali killed Abu Jarul, the standard bearer of the enemy army, a general retreat began to take place among the invaders, which soon turned into chaos and then flight. In this way a most crushing defeat was inflicted on the enemy.



Also, Shaykh Mufid confused Abu Sufyan ibn Harith  with Abu Sufyan ibn Harb in his personal attacks to humiliate Umar and Abi Bakr saying even the Ummawis were better than them.

Next, the ahadith the 12ers quoted is a paraphrase twisted to suit their view. In reality they accuse Abu Qatada al Ansari of being a hypocrite when this sahaba supported Imam Ali (as) in both Siffin and Jamal whereas Abu Said Khudri  who they claim was a Shia did not.

MuslimAnswers

Salam Alaykum,

One important point that I think has not been tackled: The author Mr. Olawuyi says that the Prophet (SAW) himself did not know his final destiny, so basically how can we Sunnis be so 'arrogant' about Abu Bakr and 'Umar (RAA)'s destinations. [I do not remember the page number, I will have to check - but I remember something like this was said, since I read it also in Shia Encyclopedia, and it popped into Olawuyi's here as well].

You may expand upon this, but I say: "In their hatred of the Sahabah, whichever Shia mentions this as an argument has tried to refute Islam in its totality; the whole basis of Islam is that we have a God-approved person who will definitely have everlasting favor from Allah, telling us those things of the religion that cannot be derived from the mind alone. This concept of 'Prophethood' such Shias bring up is closer to Zionist Judaism than anything we can call Islam".

MuslimAnswers

Salam Alaykum,

This is the quotation from Mr. Olawuyi's book:

"Therefore, the love of Allah for Muhammad and all His promises of Paradise to him were conditioned upon his continued obedience and servitude to his Lord Alone. Should he have become otherwise during his lifetime, Allah would have hated him and thrown him into Hellfire. As such, Muhammad remained in constant fear of disobeying his Lord till his death. This was the case with the most beloved of all creation to Allah. Apparently, the same condition applied indiscriminately to all the Sahabah, and to all beings till the Hour. So, even if any of them had earned the love of Allah and His Prophet, the story did not end there. If he ever did certain acts, before or after the Messenger’s death, he would forfeit such love."

Even though we do accept the premise that the Prophet (SAW) was extremely zealous in the worship of Allah and worried about disobeying Allah, this is out the extreme humility of the Prophet (SAW) towards Allah the Exalted, not that the promise of Paradise was not absolutely secure for him (SAW). It also seems this Shia author is not very familiar with the Balaghah aspects of the Qur'an, how an impossibility may be brought up in certain cases in order to make a point.

(This again is an important point, since the 'Aqeedah of the Muslims is that if a general statement is there in the Qur'an or in the indubitable Ahadeeth concerning the future state of individuals, we are not in a position to add "ifs" or "buts", since it is understood that the "ifs" and "buts" have already been covered in the general statement, for it is a matter of the Ghayb that we are being informed of, not a matter of potentially changing Shariah laws).
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 08:06:15 AM by MuslimAnswers »

Hani

He says:

"Therefore, the love of Allah for Muhammad and all His promises of Paradise to him were conditioned upon his continued obedience and servitude to his Lord Alone."

I say:

Well Duh!

Although there is a general promise of heaven to every faithful human being in the Qur'an, yet there are specific individuals whom Allah had specifically decided to offer the glad tidings of paradise, do you think Allah in his vast wisdom would select individuals who would ultimately end up as His enemies and give them special glad tidings!?

When the Prophet (saw) told people that even he does not know his own fate, he was teaching them to persevere and to not get lazy in worship and to not be arrogant and assume they will enter heaven.

I add, that if the Rafidi admits that Allah did favor those certain individuals with glad tidings of heaven, then this means they should have been exceptionally pious and loyal, at least at that point, right?

: )

He basically shot himself in the leg by bringing this up. His argument is similar to those who admit Abu Bakr was from the first to embrace Islam yet insist he was a hypocrite.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 03:06:40 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

MuslimAnswers

^

Another similar mention by the Shia Encyclopedia had been posted here: http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=20122

There has to be an in-depth study of the following:

1. What is the Shia definition of a Prophet [if we go with the above, it seems like a Judeo-Christian definition, of a man on whom the 'Spirit descends' and then he plays the harp, or some other musical instrument perhaps, while prophesying about the rise or fall of Israel, Judah, etc.]

2. What is the Shia definition of a Mu'jizah [because according to us, the Mu'jizah guarantees that the person upon whom it appears is God-approved and will be in bliss forever, as opposed to what the above seems to say].

3. Also, is there any other method to know the unique Imaam other than through Nass - because the Mu'jizah does mean that others cannot do what has appeared at the hands of this one person. But the Shia says that there is always that 'one person' whose obedience is obligatory, so a person may ask: 'Where is his Mu'jizah then?' (And yes, in this sense the Imaam is awfully close to being a Prophet).
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 08:29:55 PM by MuslimAnswers »

Hani

By the way, there is a narration where our Prophet (saw) says: "If Allah wanted to judge me and `Isa (as) only by our smallest of actions, we would be from the dwellers of the fire." MEANING, everybody will enter heaven by Allah's vast mercy, not by our super amazing actions.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

MuslimAnswers

^

Of course, but then the issue becomes that the manifestation of how the Mercy of Allah will be shown to the Prophets is known by necessity.

MuslimAnswers

Salam Alaykum,

There is also the issue of the interpretation of "وَفَاكِهَةً وَأَبًّا", of which a big deal is made that neither Abu Bakr nor 'Umar (RAA) knew the most basic Arabic in order to understand what this means.

There seems to be one answer from Ibn 'ashur's (RA) Tafseer: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=7&tTafsirNo=54&tSoraNo=80&tAyahNo=31&tDisplay=yes&Page=3&Size=1&LanguageId=1

maybe some more explanations are given as well in other places? (though the above link seems sufficient).

zichan

Re: Refutation of the book "Ali: the best of the Sahabah" of Toyib Olawuyi
« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2015, 03:54:40 PM »
Is there going to be a PDF-file of this refutation ? I am just curious.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
81 Replies
10964 Views
Last post April 16, 2016, 10:55:15 PM
by Abubakar
2 Replies
2146 Views
Last post June 08, 2015, 11:36:16 PM
by MuslimK
1 Replies
473 Views
Last post November 08, 2015, 08:52:36 AM
by Hani
0 Replies
58 Views
Last post October 26, 2017, 10:55:37 PM
by Link