The myth about the conversion of Khalifah Umar

[whoaretheshia]

In the name of Allah,

We know that there is a myth circulating, that Umar ibn al-Khattab upon converting took out his sword, went to the polytheists and began to brag about being a Muslim. He is then said to have openly and defiantly come out as a Muslim , not fearing anyone. Thus it is said because of this, the Muslims felt safer when Umar ibn al-Khattab became Muslim.

We Saheeh al-Bukhari in our libraries and it was mentioned that within it was a Hadith that absolutely contradicts and refutes this myth. We will present it for you from Saheeh al-Bukhari itself:

"Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:
While `Umar was at home in a state of fear, there came Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr, wearing an embroidered cloak and a shirt having silk hems. He was from the tribe of Bani Sahm who were our allies during the pre-Islamic period of ignorance. Al-`As said to `Umar "What is wrong with you?" He said, "Your people claim that they would kill me if I become a Muslim." Al-`As said, "Nobody will harm you after I have given protection to you." So Al-`As went out and met the people streaming in the whole valley. He said, "Where are you going?" They said, "We want Ibn Al-Khattab who has embraced Islam." Al-`As said, "There is no way for anybody to touch him." So the people retreated."

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عُمَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ فَأَخْبَرَنِي جَدِّي، زَيْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ بَيْنَمَا هُوَ فِي الدَّارِ خَائِفًا، إِذْ جَاءَهُ الْعَاصِ بْنُ وَائِلٍ السَّهْمِيُّ أَبُو عَمْرٍو، عَلَيْهِ حُلَّةُ حِبَرَةٍ، وَقَمِيصٌ مَكْفُوفٌ بِحَرِيرٍ، وَهُوَ مِنْ بَنِي سَهْمٍ، وَهُمْ حُلَفَاؤُنَا فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ فَقَالَ لَهُ مَا بَالُكَ قَالَ زَعَمَ قَوْمُكَ أَنَّهُمْ سَيَقْتُلُونِي إِنْ أَسْلَمْتُ‏.‏ قَالَ لاَ سَبِيلَ إِلَيْكَ‏.‏ بَعْدَ أَنْ قَالَهَا أَمِنْتُ، فَخَرَجَ الْعَاصِ، فَلَقِيَ النَّاسَ قَدْ سَالَ بِهِمُ الْوَادِي فَقَالَ أَيْنَ تُرِيدُونَ فَقَالُوا نُرِيدُ هَذَا ابْنَ الْخَطَّابِ الَّذِي صَبَا‏.‏ قَالَ لاَ سَبِيلَ إِلَيْهِ‏.‏ فَكَرَّ النَّاسُ‏.‏

Points:

1. Rather than being the one through whom the Muslims gained safety , he was the one who himself required safety from the polytheists who were allies.

2. He did not bravely slam the door on the face of polytheists and openly and boldly claim to be Muslim, but was in his home in a state of fear, which is understandable.

3. Rather than the Muslims gaining any semblance of strength, Umar himself relied on the protection of a friendly polytheist ally for his own life and safety.


Why do we hear myths perpetuated on the pulpits?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The argument is based on typical Shia stupidity and dumbness. The hadeeth is cherry picked and painted with stupidity, without even realizing this event occurred due to some reasons. What was that scenario?

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: When Umar became Muslim, Quraysh did not know of that. He said: Who among the people of Makkah is most likely to tell others of what he hears? It was said to him: Jameel ibn Muammar al-Jumahi. So he went out to him, and I followed him to see what he was doing. I was a young boy but I understood everything I saw and heard. He went to him and said, O Jameel, I have become Muslim. By Allah, he did not answer him, but he got up, dragging his garment, and Umar followed him and I followed my father. He went and stood at the door of the mosque and yelled at the top of his voice: O Quraysh! – for they were gathered around the Kabah – Umar ibn al-Khattab has apostatized! Umar said from behind him, He is lying. Rather I have become Muslim and I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his Slave and Messenger. They attacked him, but Umar leapt on Utbah ibn Rabeeah and sat on him; he started to beat him and poke his fingers in his eyes, and Utbah started screaming. Then the people kept away from him. Umar stood up and went around to all the places where he used to sit with people when he had been a disbeliever, and openly declared his Islam. (Ar-Riyad an-Nadrah, page 319). He kept fighting them until the sun reached its zenith, and Umar got tired and sat down. They gathered around him and he said: What do you want? Whilst they were like that, there came a man who was wearing a silken hullah(suit) and an embroidered shirt. He said: What is the matter with you? They said: The son of al-Khattab has changed his religion. He said: So what? A man can choose a religion for himself. Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion? So they dispersed. I [Ibn Umar] said to him in Madeenah: O my father, who was the man who turned the people back from you that day? He said: O my son, that was al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi.[Fadail as-Sahabah by Ahmad, 1/346. Isnad Hasan]

So, unlike what the foolish Shias think, Umar(ra) had the lion's heart to openly declare his conversion to Islam in public, at a time period when doing this would have costed his life. This shows the Bravery and courage of Umar(ra), which haters won't be able to see, as their doors of wisdom has been shut.

And as for the hadeeth in Bukhari, then this is most like the event that occurred after the one which took immediately after Umar(ra) declared his shahadah in public, putting his life at risk. And it seems that things had turned to such an extent that Mushrikeen wanted to kill Umar(ra) because of his conversion, because they knew that this would help the Muslims, and it eventually it turned out to be as the Mushrikeen thought, and the testimony came from other Sahaba, in the Same book, which this shia guy is quoting.

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) said:
مَازِلْنَا أَعِزَّةً مُنْذُ أَسْلَمَ عُمَرُ
“We have been powerful since the time ‘Umar accepted Islam.” [Sahih Bukhari (3684) (3863)]

[Mythbuster1]

The argument is based on typical Shia stupidity and dumbness. The hadeeth is cherry picked and painted with stupidity, without even realizing this event occurred due to some reasons. What was that scenario?

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: When Umar became Muslim, Quraysh did not know of that. He said: Who among the people of Makkah is most likely to tell others of what he hears? It was said to him: Jameel ibn Muammar al-Jumahi. So he went out to him, and I followed him to see what he was doing. I was a young boy but I understood everything I saw and heard. He went to him and said, O Jameel, I have become Muslim. By Allah, he did not answer him, but he got up, dragging his garment, and Umar followed him and I followed my father. He went and stood at the door of the mosque and yelled at the top of his voice: O Quraysh! – for they were gathered around the Kabah – Umar ibn al-Khattab has apostatized! Umar said from behind him, He is lying. Rather I have become Muslim and I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his Slave and Messenger. They attacked him, but Umar leapt on Utbah ibn Rabeeah and sat on him; he started to beat him and poke his fingers in his eyes, and Utbah started screaming. Then the people kept away from him. Umar stood up and went around to all the places where he used to sit with people when he had been a disbeliever, and openly declared his Islam. (Ar-Riyad an-Nadrah, page 319). He kept fighting them until the sun reached its zenith, and Umar got tired and sat down. They gathered around him and he said: What do you want? Whilst they were like that, there came a man who was wearing a silken hullah(suit) and an embroidered shirt. He said: What is the matter with you? They said: The son of al-Khattab has changed his religion. He said: So what? A man can choose a religion for himself. Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion? So they dispersed. I [Ibn Umar] said to him in Madeenah: O my father, who was the man who turned the people back from you that day? He said: O my son, that was al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi.[Fadail as-Sahabah by Ahmad, 1/346. Isnad Hasan]

So, unlike what the foolish Shias think, Umar(ra) had the lion's heart to openly declare his conversion to Islam in public, at a time period when doing this would have costed his life. This shows the Bravery and courage of Umar(ra), which haters won't be able to see, as their doors of wisdom has been shut.

And as for the hadeeth in Bukhari, then this is most like the event that occurred after the one which took immediately after Umar(ra) declared his shahadah in public, putting his life at risk. And it seems that things had turned to such an extent that Mushrikeen wanted to kill Umar(ra) because of his conversion, because they knew that this would help the Muslims, and it eventually it turned out to be as the Mushrikeen thought, and the testimony came from other Sahaba, in the Same book, which this shia guy is quoting.

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) said:
مَازِلْنَا أَعِزَّةً مُنْذُ أَسْلَمَ عُمَرُ
“We have been powerful since the time ‘Umar accepted Islam.” [Sahih Bukhari (3684) (3863)]

Subhanallah.....that should put a stupid and dumb mind to rest...

[Hadrami]

I dont think we even need to mention Umar's bravery when brainless shia starting fear topic about any sahaba. Just mention this should be enough.

al-Tusi in his book al-Ghaybah page 203, al-Murtada in his book al-Shafi volume 4 page 149 and al-Mufid in his book al-Fusoul al-Mukhtarah page 395:

لا سبب للغيبة ولا علة تمنعه من الظهور الا خوف الامام على نفسه من القتل
 
“The only reason behind the ghaybah (occultation) of the Mahdi and the reason that he cannot appear is that he fears that he will be killed.”

Mind you, thats someone who suppose to lead shia to fight their enemies. The fearless warrior of the shia whos been hiding for the last 1300yr 

[Mythbuster1]

I dont think we even need to mention Umar's bravery when brainless shia starting fear topic about any sahaba. Just mention this should be enough.

al-Tusi in his book al-Ghaybah page 203, al-Murtada in his book al-Shafi volume 4 page 149 and al-Mufid in his book al-Fusoul al-Mukhtarah page 395:

لا سبب للغيبة ولا علة تمنعه من الظهور الا خوف الامام على نفسه من القتل
 
“The only reason behind the ghaybah (occultation) of the Mahdi and the reason that he cannot appear is that he fears that he will be killed.”

Mind you, thats someone who suppose to lead shia to fight their enemies. The fearless warrior of the shia whos been hiding for the last 1300yr 

What comparison is a living breathing human with rich history and ample proof of his virtues and achievements compared ......to ....a ....cartoon character at best?....😊

Subhanallah blessed are sahaba ra in Qur’an and sunnah.

[whoaretheshia]

The argument is based on typical Shia stupidity and dumbness. The hadeeth is cherry picked and painted with stupidity, without even realizing this event occurred due to some reasons. What was that scenario? 

You have said what i quoted it based on stupid brother, but then have gone on to present a tradition so far fetched and inconsistent with the authentic narration in al-Bukhari , and i will demonstrate to you how it was so.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: When Umar became Muslim, Quraysh did not know of that. He said: Who among the people of Makkah is most likely to tell others of what he hears? It was said to him: Jameel ibn Muammar al-Jumahi. So he went out to him, and I followed him to see what he was doing. I was a young boy but I understood everything I saw and heard. He went to him and said, O Jameel, I have become Muslim. By Allah, he did not answer him, but he got up, dragging his garment, and Umar followed him and I followed my father. He went and stood at the door of the mosque and yelled at the top of his voice: O Quraysh! – for they were gathered around the Kabah – Umar ibn al-Khattab has apostatized! Umar said from behind him, He is lying. Rather I have become Muslim and I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his Slave and Messenger.

SubhanAllah, on one hand we find he was willing to stand up at the top of mosques and bellow that the was a Muslim in front of others, and on the other, we find him in his house, understandably,  fearing for his life that he may get killed. On one hand he fears people will kill him, and on the other, he is giving the polytheists a beating, left, right and centre. Brother, with due respect, any objective reasoning into this tradition and the authentic one in Saheeh Bukhari will demonstrate gross inconsistencies.

They attacked him,[/color] but Umar leapt on Utbah ibn Rabeeah and sat on him; he started to beat him and poke his fingers in his eyes, and Utbah started screaming. Then the people kept away from him. Umar stood up and went around to all the places where he used to sit with people when he had been a disbeliever, and openly declared his Islam. (Ar-Riyad an-Nadrah, page 319). He kept fighting them until the sun reached its zenith, and Umar got tired and sat down. They gathered around him and he said: What do you want? Whilst they were like that, there came a man who was wearing a silken hullah(suit) and an embroidered shirt. He said: What is the matter with you? They said: The son of al-Khattab has changed his religion. He said: So what? A man can choose a religion for himself. Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion? So they dispersed. I [Ibn Umar] said to him in Madeenah: O my father, who was the man who turned the people back from you that day? He said: O my son, that was al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi.[Fadail as-Sahabah by Ahmad, 1/346. Isnad Hasan]

SubhanAllah, do you really think i merely cherrypicked and that i had not been through the traditions? My dear brother, there are some gross inconsistencies between this, and between the tradition in al-Bukhari.  I am actually glad you decided to post this. Let me demonstrate so that is is evidently clear:

1. In the tradition of al-Bukahri, Umar ibn al-Khattab is in his home in a state of fear, and  al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi comes to him in his home and asks him why he fears. In your tradition he fights the polytheists from dusk to dawn and al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi meets him in the state of fighting the polytheists. These are two entirely different contexts. There is no plausible way you can reconcile them whatsoever.


S

o, unlike what the foolish Shias think, Umar(ra) had the lion's heart to openly declare his conversion to Islam in public, at a time period when doing this would have costed his life. This shows the Bravery and courage of Umar(ra), which haters won't be able to see, as their doors of wisdom has been shut.

Actually, rather than demonstrating this, you have proven the many contradictory reports which exaggerate and invent stories about how he truly converted. I have clearly shown how the tradition you cited is in direct contradiction with al-Bukhari and i am glad you chose to present that.

And as for the hadeeth in Bukhari, then this is most like the event that occurred after the one which took immediately after Umar(ra) declared his shahadah in public, putting his life at risk. And it seems that things had turned to such an extent that Mushrikeen wanted to kill Umar(ra) because of his conversion, because they knew that this would help the Muslims, and it eventually it turned out to be as the Mushrikeen thought, and the testimony came from other Sahaba, in the Same book, which this shia guy is quoting.

This actually is against any rational reading of the tradition you posted brother, which clearly states that al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi  finds him in a state of fighting from dusk to dawn, and then tells the people to disperse from him for he is under their protection, and so they move away from him. However the tradition of al-Bukhai in a state of fear in his home, and al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi  then tells him that he will protect him, and after that proceeds to tell the polytheists they will not harm Umar when he is protecting him.  These are two contradictory traditions and the way you have tried to reconcile them goes against clear readings of the text.

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) said:
مَازِلْنَا أَعِزَّةً مُنْذُ أَسْلَمَ عُمَرُ
“We have been powerful since the time ‘Umar accepted Islam.” [Sahih Bukhari (3684) (3863)]

Rather, he was understandably in a state of fear in his home and required assistance from al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi for his protection, rather than being a protector over the Muslims.

[whoaretheshia]

Subhanallah.....that should put a stupid and dumb mind to rest...

Dear brother, are you aware the weaker chained report by brother Noor contradicts the authentic report in Saheeh Bukhari? Don't listen to what i say, and fairly read them both.


Al-Bukhari states: al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi  met Umar in a state of fear, promised him his protection, and then told those who came outside his house to leave for he was under his protection.

The weaker tradition by brother Noor states: Umar ibn al-Khattab fought the polytheists, walked around with full confidence, beating up left right and centre, and then al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi coming in and telling the people to leave Umar and not harm him, and hence they dispersed.


Why would al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi meet Umar in as mentioned in  al-Bukhari yet not know why he was in fear, if he had seen him provocative the polytheists, attack them, mock them, and fight them dawn to dusk? It is clear no such thing happened, Umar, with due respect and understandably, was fearful converting to Islam may cost his life (according to the hadith). al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi  came and found him, and asked him what was wrong with him, and then promised his protection.

Two wholly different versions of the event.

[whoaretheshia]

I dont think we even need to mention Umar's bravery when brainless shia starting fear topic about any sahaba. Just mention this should be enough.

al-Tusi in his book al-Ghaybah page 203, al-Murtada in his book al-Shafi volume 4 page 149 and al-Mufid in his book al-Fusoul al-Mukhtarah page 395:

لا سبب للغيبة ولا علة تمنعه من الظهور الا خوف الامام على نفسه من القتل
 
“The only reason behind the ghaybah (occultation) of the Mahdi and the reason that he cannot appear is that he fears that he will be killed.”

Mind you, thats someone who suppose to lead shia to fight their enemies. The fearless warrior of the shia whos been hiding for the last 1300yr 

Brother, it would be better for you to engage in my posts directly rather than jumping topics. I have not commented on the bravery of Umar, but i have rather commented on the fictitious reports of him beating up the polytheists from dawn to dusk. That is all. You are often the first to quote us if you feel we have narrated less than an authentic hadith about the virtues of Ali, so it is not unreasonable when i find gross exaggerations pertaining to his conversion, i do not do it to Umar. Stay on topic and do not continually derail the threads please.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

You have said what i quoted it based on stupid brother, but then have gone on to present a tradition so far fetched and inconsistent with the authentic narration in al-Bukhari , and i will demonstrate to you how it was so.

As already explained the narration which I quoted is the event that occurred BEFORE, the hadeeth of Bukhari.  And it appears inconsistent to you, because of your poor understanding skills. Just demostration of dumbness minimizes my interest to respond, so please try to increase the level of your intelligence, if you wish to receive quality response.

SubhanAllah, on one hand we find he was willing to stand up at the top of mosques and bellow that the was a Muslim in front of others, and on the other, we find him in his house, understandably,  fearing for his life that he may get killed. On one hand he fears people will kill him, and on the other, he is giving the polytheists a beating, left, right and centre. Brother, with due respect, any objective reasoning into this tradition and the authentic one in Saheeh Bukhari will demonstrate gross inconsistencies.

To understand this scenario, one just requires common sense along with pure intention otherwise, they would end up rejecting established virtues of noble Sahaba, like how khawarij ended.

Both hadeeth can easily be reconciled, Initially Umar(Ra), was not just willing to proclaim about his conversion to Islam, but he actually proclaimed this infront of the Mushrikeen. Without being aware that what the exact consequence would be, would it be just a fight or the people would become blood thirsty.

Looking at both hadeeth we can conclude that, Umar(Ra) experienced the reaction of people after he proclaimed his conversion to Islam. But things went over board when this didn't just stop at physical assault by Mushrikeen. They want to kill him, as they were aware that his presence would help Islam and Muslims. And a lone person can't do much to protect himself if he finds out that a group of people from the society have plans to kill him, and when people have plans to kill a person, then it's risky that the person roams around putting his life in danger, because this group could anytime attack and stab him finding him off guard. And Umar(Ra) wasn't a demigod of fairy tales to lift gates which 40 plus people couldn't lift, he was a normal man.

Hence you see if you try to look these two different events which occurred at different time , in a rational manner then you find them to be finely consistent.

SubhanAllah, do you really think i merely cherrypicked and that i had not been through the traditions? My dear brother, there are some gross inconsistencies between this, and between the tradition in al-Bukhari.  I am actually glad you decided to post this.

Yes you did, and because of your poor understanding skills and impure intentions, you reached a wrong conclusion. Let's see...

Let me demonstrate so that is is evidently clear:

1. In the tradition of al-Bukahri, Umar ibn al-Khattab is in his home in a state of fear, and  al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi comes to him in his home and asks him why he fears. In your tradition he fights the polytheists from dusk to dawn and al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi meets him in the state of fighting the polytheists. These are two entirely different contexts. There is no plausible way you can reconcile them whatsoever.

What is inconsistent in these two reports ? Let me try to simply things further for your poor understanding.

On day one of accepting Islam, Umar(Ra) proclaimed his conversion to Islam. Mushrikeen reacted over this by attacking him and he fought them till he was exhausted and was eventually aas bin wail came in and saved him. (Notice in this event aas bin wail didn't give Umar(Ra) protection, he just saved him in this scenario.

Following this event on the same day or the other, the second event occurred as the fire in the hearts of Mushrikeen didn't end, they wanted to kill Umar(ra). So in this one Umar(ra) stayed in his home, as people were planning to kill him. So there was no fighting from Umar in this scenario. And in this one you find aas bin wail extending his tribal  protection to Umar(ra), unlike in the previous scenario.

So you see these are two different scenarios , both consistent with each other.

This actually is against any rational reading of the tradition you posted brother, which clearly states that al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi  finds him in a state of fighting from dusk to dawn, and then tells the people to disperse from him for he is under their protection, and so they move away from him. However the tradition of al-Bukhai in a state of fear in his home, and al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi then tells him that he will protect him, and after that proceeds to tell the polytheists they will not harm Umar when he is protecting him.  These are two contradictory traditions and the way you have tried to reconcile them goes against clear readings of the text.

It's seems that finding that your argument was busted, you have resorted to lying like a typical Shia when he realizes that he is losing the argument. I demand that you please provide evidence for the highlighted portion in red about aas bin wail saying Umar(Ra) was under their  protection. Because what I find is that he dispersed them saying something else nothing about protection.

So brother displaying dishonesty and then claiming that the hadeeth is not rational, are not good traits, you will lose your whole credibility by such display of dishonesty and stupidity based arrogance.
 

Rather, he was understandably in a state of fear in his home and required assistance from al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi for his protection, rather than being a protector over the Muslims.

A sahabi who witnessed these events knows this better, than a dishonest Shia cyber critic, who is deprived of understanding skills as well.

[whoaretheshia]

As already explained the narration which I quoted is the event that occurred BEFORE, the hadeeth of Bukhari.  And it appears inconsistent to you, because of your poor understanding skills. Just demostration of dumbness minimizes my interest to respond, so please try to increase the level of your intelligence, if you wish to receive quality response. 

Dear brother, i want everyone here to bear witness that you have claimed the weaker chained event occurred before what i brought forth in the Hadith in al-Bukhari. I also want you to absolutely commit to that, and i want everyone reading this to bear witness this is what you have again reiterated and committed yourself to. When debating me, put aside Adhominem attacks on me, and focus only on the content of my arguments. Whatever you think in side, let us keep things civil and academic and stop these personal attacks. I will demonstrate once again that your attempt to try to reconcile them is very weak.

To understand this scenario, one just requires common sense along with pure intention otherwise, they would end up rejecting established virtues of noble Sahaba, like how khawarij ended.  Both hadeeth can easily be reconciled, Initially Umar(Ra), was not just willing to proclaim about his conversion to Islam, but he actually proclaimed this infront of the Mushrikeen. Without being aware that what the exact consequence would be, would it be just a fight or the people would become blood thirsty. 

So you are claiming that  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr first met Umar fighting dawn to dusk against the Polytheists, poking at them, sitting on them, going from one polytheist to another and provoking them, and then when Umar had become tired after fighting dawn to dusk,  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr came in and told the people Umar was under his protection, so they dispersed. And then you claim that this is when the Hadith of al-Bukhari applies, when  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr then found Umar in his home, in a state of fear, whereby  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr told him he was under his protection, and told those gathered outside to disperse , and they dispersed again ? With respect dear brother , this is an incredibly weak understanding and can not be accepted and i will show how.

[quoteLooking at both hadeeth we can conclude that, Umar(Ra) experienced the reaction of people after he proclaimed his conversion to Islam. But things went over board when this didn't just stop at physical assault by Mushrikeen. [/quote]

Your weaker report itself portrayed Umar as attacking the Polytheists, rebuking them going from one to another and mocking them. When they then gathered around him, this is when  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr came to his protection and asked them to disperse, and so they dispersed knowing full well he was under the protection of  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr. Therefore there is no way you can then claim  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr came again to Umar and promised his protection when he had already done so in front of the polytheists who gathered around him, and made them disperse. Note, they dispersed and went away.

They want to kill him, as they were aware that his presence would help Islam and Muslims. And a lone person can't do much to protect himself if he finds out that a group of people from the society have plans to kill him, and when people have plans to kill a person, then it's risky that the person roams around putting his life in danger, because this group could anytime attack and stab him finding him off guard. And Umar(Ra) wasn't a demigod of fairy tales to lift gates which 40 plus people couldn't lift, he was a normal man. 

A weak interpretation. He knew full well new converts were being killed, and so he decided to go around, brandish his word, poke, hit, rebuke them one after the other, and fight them dawn to dusk until he became tired? How is that not putting your life in danger? If he could not do much to protect himself, how can we believe 'fairy tales' he fought dawn to dusk, poked, hit, sat on, and went from one Kuffar to another and rebuked them? 

Hence you see if you try to look these two different events which occurred at different time , in a rational manner then you find them to be finely consistent.

On day one of accepting Islam, Umar(Ra) proclaimed his conversion to Islam. Mushrikeen reacted over this by attacking him and he fought them till he was exhausted and was eventually aas bin wail came in and saved him. (Notice in this event aas bin wail didn't give Umar(Ra) protection, he just saved him in this scenario. 

Brother are you aware what you quoted explicitly demonstrates he indeed was given protection?

"They gathered around him and he said: What do you want? Whilst they were like that, there came a man (  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr)  who was wearing a silken hullah(suit) and an embroidered shirt. He said: What is the matter with you? They said: The son of al-Khattab has changed his religion. He said: So what? A man can choose a religion for himself. Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion?"

  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr explicitly tells the people who want to attack Umar he is under there protection.   Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr is also fully aware they wanted to kill Umar. If it as you claim, that   Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr then went to the house of Umar and saw him in fear and did not realise he was scared because the people wanted to kill him, then it is in direct contradiction to the hadith where he saw with his own eyes that people wanted to kill him because he converted, warned them, and told him that his tribe will never allow them to harm Umar.

While you are continually insulting me , there is no doubt what i have said is absolutely crystal clear in demonstrating the contradiction between the two reports and the error of your attempt to reconcile them.

Following this event on the same day or the other, the second event occurred as the fire in the hearts of Mushrikeen didn't end, they wanted to kill Umar(ra). So in this one Umar(ra) stayed in his home, as people were planning to kill him. So there was no fighting from Umar in this scenario. And in this one you find aas bin wail extending his tribal  protection to Umar(ra), unlike in the previous scenario.

But   Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr said in the weaker report you yourself quoted that "Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion?" Is this not explicit protection of Umar under the tribe? Did he not explicitly see they wanted to kill Umar, and then offered the protection of Umar? If so, why would he then go to Umar and ask him why he feared, when he himself saw and accused them of wanting to kill him? Why would he offer his protection again when he had already done so infant of the polytheists?

So you see these are two different scenarios , both consistent with each other.

They are absolutely inconsistent with each other. The weaker chained report you have given me is likely due to someone mixing up reports and it contradicts the authentic chain.

It's seems that finding that your argument was busted, you have resorted to lying like a typical Shia when he realizes that he is losing the argument. I demand that you please provide evidence for the highlighted portion in red about aas bin wail saying Umar(Ra) was under their  protection. Because what I find is that he dispersed them saying something else nothing about protection.

Once again, not once have i ever insulted you or made disparaging sectarian comments. Stop the Adhominem attacks, and respond to my point. I am the first to acknowledge something, as i did when you rightly proved the weakness of the hadith in Khaybar. However it is a weak report , and not a Mawdu report.

So brother displaying dishonesty and then claiming that the hadeeth is not rational, are not good traits, you will lose your whole credibility by such display of dishonesty and stupidity based arrogance.
 A sahabi who witnessed these events knows this better, than a dishonest Shia cyber critic, who is deprived of understanding skills as well.

Half of your post consisted of Adhominem attacks. When you read this reply, you might if you are objective take back everything you have just said, and i will accept your apology and your retraction without making any judgements on your intelligence because we are human and we err.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

He knew full well new converts were being killed, and so he decided to go around, brandish his word, poke, hit, rebuke them one after the other, and fight them dawn to dusk until he became tired? How is that not putting your life in danger?

Again you make arguments based on your ignorance. Aren't you aware that during the time Umar(ra) accepted Islam. At that time new converts who had tribal background weren't killed, but rather they would be arrested and tortured, to revert back to idol worship. This is basic knowledge even a beginner knows about the seerah. That's why due to your ignorance you can't comprehend simple concepts. It's like a elementary school kid facing problem in multiplication because he has no basic knowledge. What a pity.

Brother are you aware what you quoted explicitly demonstrates he indeed was given protection?

"They gathered around him and he said: What do you want? Whilst they were like that, there came a man (  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr)  who was wearing a silken hullah(suit) and an embroidered shirt. He said: What is the matter with you? They said: The son of al-Khattab has changed his religion. He said: So what? A man can choose a religion for himself. Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion?"

  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr explicitly tells the people who want to attack Umar he is under there protection.   Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr is also fully aware they wanted to kill Umar.

LOL!  Here we have two individuals from two different tribes aas bin wail who was from Bani Sahm and Umar(ra) who was from Bani adi. The scenario is that Aas bin wail says to his people that if you kill Umar(ra) then Bani adi , the tribe of Umar(ra) will seek revenge from those who would kill Umar(ra). This is just a cautionary warning of consequences. THIS IS NOT CALLED PROTECTION GRANTED BY AAS BIN WAIL TO UMAR.

MyGoodness!  Guys Farid or Hani or any other brother please teach this guy some basic stuff. He doesn't know the heck about tribal protection. Or listen mate, I advice you to contact some knowledgeable Shias like Nader, etc so that they could educate you what tribal protection given to a person who is not from your tribe means.

But   Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr said in the weaker report you yourself quoted that "Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion?" Is this not explicit protection of Umar under the tribe? Did he not explicitly see they wanted to kill Umar, and then offered the protection of Umar? If so, why would he then go to Umar and ask him why he feared, when he himself saw and accused them of wanting to kill him? Why would he offer his protection again when he had already done so infant of the polytheists?

Aas bin wail is not from bani Adi. He is from Bani sahm, so obviously he is not proving protection by this statement. He provided protection from Bani sahm in the hadeeth of Bukhari not the reliable hadeeth I quoted from fadhail Sahaba of Imam Ahmad.

So stop humiliating yourself by arguing without proper knowledge.

[whoaretheshia]

Again you make arguments based on your ignorance. Aren't you aware that during the time Umar(ra) accepted Islam. At that time new converts who had tribal background weren't killed, but rather they would be arrested and tortured, to revert back to idol worship. This is basic knowledge even a beginner knows about the seerah. That's why due to your ignorance you can't comprehend simple concepts. It's like a elementary school kid facing problem in multiplication because he has no basic knowledge. What a pity. 

Let me just make it clear to you, not only do i know this, but it is common knowledge for anyone who has a grasp of the Seerah. Could i just request you to stop continually hurling abuses and insults and stick to the topic. If your points are not power enough, do not attack the individual if you can not attack his argument.

Once again, despite all of the theatrics, i will prove to you that you have again erred.

LOL!  Here we have two individuals from two different tribes aas bin wail who was from Bani Sahm and Umar(ra) who was from Bani adi. The scenario is that Aas bin wail says to his people that if you kill Umar(ra) then Bani adi , the tribe of Umar(ra) will seek revenge from those who would kill Umar(ra). This is just a cautionary warning of consequences. THIS IS NOT CALLED PROTECTION GRANTED BY AAS BIN WAIL TO UMAR.

I am well aware Aas bin Wail was not from bani Adi. However, you have deliberately ignored two crucial points i have made:

1. Aas bin Wail knew full well that they had gathered around Umar to try to threaten to attack him in your weaker report. There i ask, why on Gods earth would he express surprise and even need to ask Umar, who you allege later went into his house in fear, what was wrong when he had just witnessed attempts to harm and potentially kill him?

2. SubhanAllah, on both occasions in both of the traditions, Was bin Wail comes out an explicitly defends Umar ibn al Khattab and threatens them.  Let me quote his words in each version:


al-Bukhari: " So Al-`As went out and met the people streaming in the whole valley. He said, "Where are you going?" They said, "We want Ibn Al-Khattab who has embraced Islam." Al-`As said, "There is no way for anybody to touch him." So the people retreated."

Your weaker version in Musnad of Imam Ahmad: "They gathered around him and he said: What do you want? Whilst they were like that, there came a man who was wearing a silken hullah(suit) and an embroidered shirt. He said: What is the matter with you? They said: The son of al-Khattab has changed his religion. He said: So what? A man can choose a religion for himself. Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion? So they dispersed. I [Ibn Umar] said to him in Madeenah: O my father, who was the man who turned the people back from you that day? "

I think you need to please have a look at what 'protection' means brother Al-`As bin Wai'l makes it crystal clear in the tradition of Bukhari that he is firmly against anyone who attacks Umar. Not only does he defend him, but he also threatens them and makes them think twice by stating that do they really believe Banu Adi will accept them killing one of their own? It is evidently clear Al- 'As comes into defence of Umar, threatens those who try to attack him, and so even th polytheists can see Umar has the support of Al 'As'. That is why they disperse, because Al-'As comes to the protection of Umar and in his defence.

MyGoodness!  Guys Farid or Hani or any other brother please teach this guy some basic stuff. He doesn't know the heck about tribal protection. Or listen mate, I advice you to contact some knowledgeable Shias like Nader, etc so that they could educate you what tribal protection given to a person who is not from your tribe means. 

If you spent more time writing intellectual responses, and less time making baseless Adhominem attacks, this could be more of an intellectual debate. Don't call upon them either, because both of those users are quite aware i have responded robustly to most of the points i have debated against them. Unlike you, they did not spend half their time in theatrics and throwing insults.

Aas bin wail is not from bani Adi. He is from Bani sahm, so obviously he is not proving protection by this statement. 

You miss the point. Al 'As explicitly comes and defends Umar ibn al-Khattab and threatens those who wish to attack him and makes them think twice. He rebukes them until they go away. He does not explicitly have to tell Umar ' i support you and i am on your side and will not let anyone harm you' because Umar can see he is doing that by his actions, and coming into his defence. Naturally, those who follow Al-'As will also side and defend Umar ibn al-Khattab.

He provided protection from Bani sahm in the hadeeth of Bukhari not the reliable hadeeth I quoted from fadhail Sahaba of Imam Ahmad.

Al -'As provided protection for Umar in both scenarios. When he came out to the Kuffar in the reliable version of this event, he tells them to disperse and that none shall harm Umar. In the weaker tradition of Musnad Ahmad, he again comes to the defence of Umar, rebukes those who want to attack him, and then uses a clever line in making them think twice before harming him. It was evident that Al 'As was firmly on the side of Umar, that he firmly rebuked the polytheists , and that Umar knew full well he Al 'As supported him.

Please read the tradition in al-Bukhari: "I [Ibn Umar] said to him in Madeenah: O my father, who was the man who turned the people back from you that day? ""

Al - 'As explicitly came to protect Umar ibn al-Khattab, and turned the others away. Do you not think that those who gathered to attack Umar were well aware of tribal laws? Did they need Al - 'As to warn them? The reality is, when they saw a man like Al -'As came in defiant defence of Umar , they took this to be that fact he was defending Umar, and that Umar was under his protection, and this is why they dispersed. So before you throw childish abuses, please at least enquire and clarify points.

So stop humiliating yourself by arguing without proper knowledge.

People reading my response will find it was actually the other way around. Once more, people will see for half of your posts, you have thrown childish abuses and accused me of what is evident you are guilty of ourself.

[whoaretheshia]

Just to make it clear:

1. If Al 'As saw Umar fighting dawn till dusk, and then threatened those who wished to harm Umar ibn al-Khattab , and then saw Umar in fear, he would not need to ask him 'what is wrong' ? If he had witnessed them gather around him he would have known what was wrong. This is clear to any objective reader that the less reliable tradition is actually an imitation of what we find in Bukhari, only it mixes things up and has added additional things. The tradition in Bukhari is explicit and clear: Al 'As was not aware of why Umar was in a state of fear because he did not witness them grouping up on Umar, nor did he threaten them before this because if he had done so, he would not have had a need to ask but he would have known.

2. Protection is not only something verbal. If the polytheists saw Al 'As coming out, defending Umar, rebuking anyone who wanted to harm him as in Musnad Ahmad, they know then Umar has someone on his side, who will defend him, and who will protect him. This is why they then turned away, once they realised Umar has an ally in Al 'As. Therefore it was evident Al 'As was protecting Umar, and that he would stand up against anyone who wanted to harm him. Ibn Umar in that unreliable tradition is said to testify it was Al 'As who turned the polytheists away from harming Umar.

If you knew someone being grouped on, and you rushed in, told them to leave him, argued with them, rebuked them, would it not be evidently clear to that group that you were on the side of the person you are defending? That you are there to protect him? That he has an Ally in you? Be honest here. If they then left, it would be because you came in to defend him and they were aware you were on his side and would defend him.

3. The more reliable version of the event is in Saheeh Bukhari.

[whoaretheshia]

Less reliable, rather than unreliable*

[Mythbuster1]

Dear brother, are you aware the weaker chained report by brother Noor contradicts the authentic report in Saheeh Bukhari? Don't listen to what i say, and fairly read them both.


Al-Bukhari states: al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi  met Umar in a state of fear, promised him his protection, and then told those who came outside his house to leave for he was under his protection.

The weaker tradition by brother Noor states: Umar ibn al-Khattab fought the polytheists, walked around with full confidence, beating up left right and centre, and then al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi coming in and telling the people to leave Umar and not harm him, and hence they dispersed.


Why would al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi meet Umar in as mentioned in  al-Bukhari yet not know why he was in fear, if he had seen him provocative the polytheists, attack them, mock them, and fight them dawn to dusk? It is clear no such thing happened, Umar, with due respect and understandably, was fearful converting to Islam may cost his life (according to the hadith). al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi  came and found him, and asked him what was wrong with him, and then promised his protection.

Two wholly different versions of the event.

Brother Noor I see has rattled you somewhat....no?

Your only answer back.....”it’s a weak tradition”.......I suppose just like a certain weak divine appointment thing in middle of the desert, near a well.

It’s nothing you are plucking straws on a persons character whom you hate, simple as that.

You can try your spin elsewhere it’s not working here, if you are truly worried a kafir protected Umar ra then what about whom protected prophet saw?? By standards of Bukhari he was also kafir.

The rest of the little knowledge I have is that the tribes in that area had protection from each other.

As for example new reverts back to Islam nowadays will have love and protection from their families because of their family ties, even though they the rest of the family still haven’t reverted....its natural brother!

I think you need to sit down relax and ponder instead of running like a headless chicken with your worthless posts looking for a smoking gun.

Brother your creating a mountain out of a molehill......and it’s not working.

[whoaretheshia]

Brother Noor I see has rattled you somewhat....no?Your only answer back.....”it’s a weak tradition”.......I suppose just like a certain weak divine appointment thing in middle of the desert, near a well.

Are you willing to swear by Allah that i responded with 'it is a weak tradition'? If you are willing to swear by out creator that this was my argument, rather than built on several factors, like the complete contradictions between the two versions, then with respect brother, i ask you to publicly swear on Allah. It is dishonest to come onto threads like this, ignore my posts, twists my arguments and favour the individual who follows your group. Having read your post brother, it is evident you (with all due respect) are not aware of what it is we are debating here.

It’s nothing you are plucking straws on a persons character whom you hate, simple as that.

While there is no doubt i do not revere Khalifah Umar ibn al-Khattab, i explicitly stated in my original post had he feared for his life, it would have been understandable.  However, the long perpetuated myth that is spread around pulpits has no rational nor textually valid basis.

You can try your spin elsewhere it’s not working here, if you are truly worried a kafir protected Umar ra then what about whom protected prophet saw?? By standards of Bukhari he was also kafir.

I actually don't care if a Kaffir protected Umar or not. Rather, i believe that the main purpose of this thread was to give you the real turn of events leading to his conversion and not the perpetuated myth. Furthermore, i do not regard Hazrat Abu Talib as a Kaffir - but it doesn't matter.

The rest of the little knowledge I have is that the tribes in that area had protection from each other. As for example new reverts back to Islam nowadays will have love and protection from their families because of their family ties, even though they the rest of the family still haven’t reverted....its natural brother!
 

You are right, and i acknowledged this from the beginning. This thread has nothing to do with putting Khalifah Umar down because he sought help from a Kuffar. Rather, it is to put to bed the myth of him beating up the polytheists, poking their eyes, sitting on them, slamming their doors, going around house to house and declaring he was a Muslim openly.

I think you need to sit down relax and ponder instead of running like a headless chicken with your worthless posts looking for a smoking gun.

Why don't you intellectually analyse my arguments and refute them? Why attack me, and not my arguments? If you observe our posts, you will find i never once resort to abusing my interlocutor. While half his posts are just childish abuse.

Brother your creating a mountain out of a molehill......and it’s not working.

Not at all, i am making the mountain of a myth back into the molehill it was. Umar ibn al-Khattab, with the greatest of respects, did not go around beating up the polytheists, poking their eyes, challenging them house to house and openly and boldly declaring he was a Muslim, and then fighting them dawn to dusk. He was in his house, worried and in a state of extreme fear  (and we would be as well) about those who may find out he is a Muslim coming to hurt him. The way brother Noori claimed Ali did not lift the gate of Khaybar, i too and going to make it clear exaggerations were also made for Umar in al-Khattab.

Please do re-read our posts and judge fairly.

[whoaretheshia]

Summary (as it is evident most will not read the thread properly, or skim read the person they support and ignore my posts)[/centre]

A. This thread is not about shaming Khalifah Umar for seeking help from a polytheist. It is about putting to bed the story that upon converting, he went out publicly, declared his Islam, began fighting physically with the polytheists dawn to dusk, poked one man, sat on the chest of the other, went from door to door, finding the places he used to go and rubbing his conversion on their faces and asking them to do their worst, for he was not scared of them at all.

B. The tradition brought by Noor, and his explanations, putting aside half of the contents of his responses being baseless and childish abuses (Ad Hominem) rather than respectful dialogue, was a tradition that was weaker than the one in Bukhari, and debatable, which contradicted the turn of events in Bukhari.

C. Noor claimed the version in Bukhari took place after the version he brought. He claims Umar fought , dawn to dusk and did of all those things, and then went to his house in fear , and this is when he was helped.

D. I stated that any objective reading can see clearly if we take his view, then  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr accuses them of wanting to harm/hurt/kill Umar ibn al-Khattab (i.e rhetorically) just for converting. How can brother Noor claim this doesn't contradict with the version of Bukhari, because in here we find  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr coming to Umar, seeing him fearful for his life, and then asking him what's wrong? The reality is, if both traditions were reliable, Al-'As would have known what is wrong because he would have seen it himself, and allegedly spoke out and defended Umar and caused the others to disperse.  The reality is no such thing happened, which is why Al -'As was ignorant of what had occurred with Umar ibn al-Khattah upon which Umar said if he were to convert to Islam, the people would kill him. However if you believe both tradition are reliable, than Al-'As should have known that, surely.

E. It is quite clear that the primary reason why the people dispersed from Umar in the tradition of brother Noor (a weaker one) is because Al-'As came to his favour. He is the one who defended Umar, rebuked those attacking him, and it was evident to the Kuffar Al-'As was on the side of Umar, and it was clear to Umar Al-'As was the one who would protect him and that he had an Ally in him. This is why the Kuffar dispersed and left Umar alone in that tradition. However, in the authentic one in Bukhari, Al-'As asks Umar what is wrong, then realises he is being abused, and then tells the people to leave Umar alone, which is when they disperse. However if both traditions are true, then clearly the people should have dispersed and remained so the first time, when they realised a man like Al-'As was on the side of Umar ibn al-Khattab.

F. It makes absolutely no sense for Umar to go around beating them up, rubbing his conversion on their noses, going place to place openly and defiantly, and then in another tradition hiding in his house out of fear.


There is no logical way to reconcile the traditions. Abusing me and spending half of your time just hurling childish insults is indicative of an inability to engage in a respectful and academic discourse, or address any of my points properly. I will let any fair minded individual examine my Adhab towards you, and yours towards me.

Just remember, the one with the most convincing points is not the one who abuses his interlocutor and shouts the loudest, and puts up theatrics; rather it is in the robustness and logic of the points they make. I may  be a Shia Muslim, but i am a human being and you ought to learn to talk with some semblance of respect, the same way i talk to you with respect and control.

[Hadrami]

Brother, it would be better for you to engage in my posts directly rather than jumping topics. I have not commented on the bravery of Umar, but i have rather commented on the fictitious reports of him beating up the polytheists from dawn to dusk. That is all. You are often the first to quote us if you feel we have narrated less than an authentic hadith about the virtues of Ali, so it is not unreasonable when i find gross exaggerations pertaining to his conversion, i do not do it to Umar. Stay on topic and do not continually derail the threads please.

what jumping topics? Theres mention of fear, so i reminded you of the coward who has been in fear for the last 1300 years. As for fictious, i dont believe Ali's progeny would be such a coward, so yeah in reality he is a fictional character 😂😂

[GreatChineseFall]

What in the world I am reading? This is absolutely cringing to read.
@whoaretheshia
If I am correct, your main argument is that the two traditions are contradicting each other and you argue as follows:

(1) al 'Aas asks "What is wrong with you?", -> -> (2) this means he didn't know why he was fearful -> -> (3) this means it contradicts with the version that mentions that he was present and should know what is going and why he should be fearful

(1) al 'Aas comes to the defence of Umar -> -> (2) This means he gave him protection -> -> this means he doesn't need to grant him protection a second time

For the first argument you said the following:

Why would al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi meet Umar in as mentioned in  al-Bukhari yet not know why he was in fear

Aas bin Wail knew full well that they had gathered around Umar to try to threaten to attack him in your weaker report. There i ask, why on Gods earth would he express surprise and even need to ask Umar, who you allege later went into his house in fear, what was wrong when he had just witnessed attempts to harm and potentially kill him?

I can't believe my eyes, you can't possibly be serious or think this is remotely a serious argument. Going from (1) to (2) is already wrong. A question being asked does not prove ignorance. Dude, are you serious, if I haven't seen a person for fifteen minutes and something is wrong I ask what's wrong even if I know. Apparently, according to you when he asked "Where are you going?" to the people he didn't know where they were going as well.  How in the world can you keep pushing such a weak argument?

Secondly, even for argument's sake ignoring the major error going from (1) to (2), going from (2) to (3) is also wrong because he just dispersed them so he might not understand why Umar should be fearful. Why would Umar be fearful if he just dispersed them? Then he came to understand that they were going to return again to kill him, so how is this contradictory?

As for the second argument you said the following:

... clearly states that al-As ibn Wail as-Sahmi  finds him in a state of fighting from dusk to dawn, and then tells the people to disperse from him for he is under their protection, and so they move away from him.

So you are claiming that  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr first met Umar fighting dawn to dusk against the Polytheists, poking at them, sitting on them, going from one polytheist to another and provoking them, and then when Umar had become tired after fighting dawn to dusk,  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr came in and told the people Umar was under his protection, so they dispersed.

Brother are you aware what you quoted explicitly demonstrates he indeed was given protection?

"They gathered around him and he said: What do you want? Whilst they were like that, there came a man (  Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr)  who was wearing a silken hullah(suit) and an embroidered shirt. He said: What is the matter with you? They said: The son of al-Khattab has changed his religion. He said: So what? A man can choose a religion for himself. Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion?"

Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr explicitly tells the people who want to attack Umar he is under there protection.

But   Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr said in the weaker report you yourself quoted that "Do you think that Bani Adi will let you get away with it if you kill their companion?" Is this not explicit protection of Umar under the tribe? Did he not explicitly see they wanted to kill Umar, and then offered the protection of Umar?

Again you are wrong going from (1) to (2), but I find it far more interesting that you changed your stance after Noor-us-Sunnah proved your ignorance. First you said al 'Aas was "explicitly" declaring his protection in the above comments and then you said that he was implicitly declaring it as an explicit declaration wasn't necessary to show that he offered it:

He does not explicitly have to tell Umar ' i support you and i am on your side and will not let anyone harm you' because Umar can see he is doing that by his actions, and coming into his defence. Naturally, those who follow Al-'As will also side and defend Umar ibn al-Khattab.

In the weaker tradition of Musnad Ahmad, he again comes to the defence of Umar, rebukes those who want to attack him, and then uses a clever line in making them think twice before harming him. It was evident that Al 'As was firmly on the side of Umar, that he firmly rebuked the polytheists , and that Umar knew full well he Al 'As supported him.

Protection is not only something verbal. If the polytheists saw Al 'As coming out, defending Umar, rebuking anyone who wanted to harm him as in Musnad Ahmad, they know then Umar has someone on his side, who will defend him, and who will protect him. This is why they then turned away, once they realised Umar has an ally in Al 'As. Therefore it was evident Al 'As was protecting Umar, and that he would stand up against anyone who wanted to harm him.

Dear God, if the two reports are irreconcilable then what about the two statements:

Al-`As bin Wail As-Sahmi Abu `Amr explicitly tells the people who want to attack Umar he is under there protection.

He does not explicitly have to tell Umar ' i support you and i am on your side and will not let anyone harm you' because Umar can see he is doing that by his actions, and coming into his defence. Naturally, those who follow Al-'As will also side and defend Umar ibn al-Khattab.

Should I conclude now that one wasn't written by you and your computer was hijacked by your little sister? Because this is how you reason.

As for your second stance that protection was offered merely by one's actions, then you are wrong again:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
When Abu Dhar received the news of the Advent of the Prophet (ﷺ) he said to his brother, "Ride to this valley (of Mecca) and try to find out the truth of the person who claims to be a prophet who is informed of the news of Heaven. Listen to what he says and come back to me." So his brother set out and came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and listened to some of his talks, and returned to Abu Dhar and said to him. "I have seen him enjoining virtuous behavior and saying something that is not poetry." Abu Dhar said, "You have not satisfied me as to what I wanted." He then took his journey-food and carried a waterskin of his, containing some water till be reached Mecca. He went to the Mosque and searched for the Prophet and though he did not know him, he hated to ask anybody about him. When a part of the night had passed away, `Ali saw him and knew that he was a stranger. So when Abu Dhar saw `Ali, he followed him, and none of them asked his companion about anything, and when it was dawn, Abu Dhar took his journey food and his water-skin to the Mosque and stayed there all the day long without being perceived by the Prophet, and when it was evening, he came back to his retiring place. `Ali passed by him and said, "Has the man not known his dwelling place yet?" So `Ali awakened him and took him with him and none of them spoke to the other about anything. When it was the third day. `Ali did the same and Abu Dhar stayed with him. Then `Ali said "Will you tell me what has brought you here?" Abu Dhar said, "If you give me a firm promise that you will guide me, then I will tell you." `Ali promised him, and he informed `Ali about the matter. `Ali said, "It is true, and he is the Messenger of Allah. Next morning when you get up, accompany me, and if I see any danger for you, I will stop as if to pass water, but if I go on, follow me and enter the place which I will enter." Abu Dhar did so, and followed `Ali till he entered the place of the Prophet, and Abu Dhar went in with him, Abu Dhar listened to some of the Prophet's talks and embraced Islam on the spot. The Prophet (ﷺ) said to him, "Go back to your people and inform them (about it) till you receive my order." Abu Dhar said, "By Him in Whose Hand my life is, I will proclaim my conversion loudly amongst them (i.e. the pagans)." So he went out, and when he reached the Mosque, he said as loudly as possible, "I bear witness that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." The People got up and beat him painfully. Then Al-Abbas came and knelt over him ((to protect him) and said (to the people), "Woe to you! Don't you know that this man belongs to the tribe of Ghifar and your trade to Sha'm is through their way?" So he rescued him from them. Abu Dhar again did the same the next day. They beat him and took vengeance on him and again Al-Abbas knelt over him (to protect him).

Apparently, according to you then al Abbas offered protection to Abu Dhar, yet the people beat Abu Dhar a second time and then al Abbas again offered him protection and according to other reports Abu Dhar got beat up again and al Abbas offered him protection once more (apparently there is no issue then that protection is offered multiple times). I can only quote Noor-us-Sunnah:

MyGoodness!  Guys Farid or Hani or any other brother please teach this guy some basic stuff. He doesn't know the heck about tribal protection. Or listen mate, I advice you to contact some knowledgeable Shias like Nader, etc so that they could educate you what tribal protection given to a person who is not from your tribe means.

[whoaretheshia]

If you are aware i have stated my points when used collectively will bring very valid doubts as to whether the narration is Musnad Ahmad is reliable. If you have patience brother, i will prove to you my point of view and address your points.

For the first argument you said the following:
I can't believe my eyes, you can't possibly be serious or think this is remotely a serious argument. Going from (1) to (2) is already wrong. A question being asked does not prove ignorance. Dude, are you serious, if I haven't seen a person for fifteen minutes and something is wrong I ask what's wrong even if I know. Apparently, according to you when he asked "Where are you going?" to the people he didn't know where they were going as well.  How in the world can you keep pushing such a weak argument? 

I want you to take one step back and consider the following: Did Al 'As not see Umar ibn al-Khattab allegedly fighting dawn till dusk? Did he not see them gathering around Umar ibn al-Khattab? Did he not see Umar ibn al-Khattab (or hear and know) going door to door and slamming it in the faces of the polytheists and shouting to the whole of Makkah he has converted ? Put aside how illogical it is to suppose they didn't group up in him there and and the other very fanciful and thoroughly exaggerated tales of fighting from dawn to dusk, Al 'As saw this.

Therefore, when he walks into the house and sees Umar in a fearful state, he does not ask 'Are you okay?'. Nor does he even ask ' Are you still worried about their response to you embracing Islam?'. Rather he asks 'What is wrong with you'? Now, your argument is that you can ask a person what is wrong with you and still know what is wrong with them. However, please understand in my argument not only did i base it off the question asked, but the response of Khalifah Umar, who explicitly states 'if i were to convert your people would kill me'. The reality is, had the event recorded by Imam Ahmad taken place, not only would Al- 'As have known why Umar was worried, he would also have known that he has converted, and would have also known of people trying to cause him trouble as he had seen it the day before. The very fact Umar has to tell him that should he convert to Islam the people will kill him, does not make any sense. Not only had Umar ibn al-Khattab converted, al'As knew this because he had seen him continually shout about it to the polytheists.  Umar ibn al-Khattab does not say, 'they are still trying to harm me' or anything of the like.

To summarise:

The question and the response indicate that this was the first time Al 'As was being informed from Umar that he feared the polytheists if he had converted. Furthermore, when you add this to the other points made it is strong evidence to suggest the two versions are not reconcilable.

Secondly, even for argument's sake ignoring the major error going from (1) to (2), going from (2) to (3) is also wrong because he just dispersed them so he might not understand why Umar should be fearful. Why would Umar be fearful if he just dispersed them? Then he came to understand that they were going to return again to kill him, so how is this contradictory?

I will address this.

As for the second argument you said the following:
Again you are wrong going from (1) to (2), but I find it far more interesting that you changed your stance after Noor-us-Sunnah proved your ignorance. First you said al 'Aas was "explicitly" declaring his protection in the above comments and then you said that he was implicitly declaring it as an explicit declaration wasn't necessary to show that he offered it:
Dear God, if the two reports are irreconcilable then what about the two statements:Should I conclude now that one wasn't written by you and your computer was hijacked by your little sister? Because this is how you reason.

The truth is, i had meant to say explicitly showed to the people by the words he used and his actions.  I should have clarified what i had meant. Remember in the tradition i quoted myself, i had explicitly shown the tribe of Al'As was not the tribe of Khalifah Umar. Anyone who would have confused them being of the same tribe would have misread something basic. However what i was trying to imply here is that he explicitly protected Umar ibn al-Khattab without explicitly having to use the words ' i am now protecting Umar'. The very reason why they dispersed in the tradition of Musnad is because they knew Al-'As was firmly on the side of Umar ibn al-Khattab, rebuked them, and forced them to turn away. They knew a man of the stature and power of Al-'As was enough of  deterrent not to trouble Umar ibn al-Khattab again.

As for your second stance that protection was offered merely by one's actions, then you are wrong again:
Apparently, according to you then al Abbas offered protection to Abu Dhar, yet the people beat Abu Dhar a second time and then al Abbas again offered him protection and according to other reports Abu Dhar got beat up again and al Abbas offered him protection once more (apparently there is no issue then that protection is offered multiple times). I can only quote Noor-us-Sunnah:

SubhanAllah! Thank you so much for bringing this dear brother, because you have just proven my point. Noor has centred his argument on the fact the first time Al-'As came, it was not protection nor offering it, but just advisory caution, however once the people knew he was under his protection they stopped harming him. Do you realise you have only helped the angle i am trying to commit here? The fact is, he had offered his protection and that is why they dispersed.  As for al-Abbas, they did not take what he said seriously. However even Noor would argue that after being protected by Al-'As the second time, Umar was more or less safe.

May argument was that if they took al-As seriously the second time, they should have taken him seriously the first time. The reality is as we find in al-Bukhari, then they did indeed, take him seriously, and dispersed, which is why we do not find repeats of them coming to attack Umar after the second time.  [If both were authentic].

Your  tradition of al-Abbas is wholly irrelevant. They did not disperse from abu Dhar, but rather al-Abbas had to kneel over, protect him and rescue him. As for Umar, as soon as they saw al-As, a man of his seniority and stature , they recognised he was under his protection and respected that by dispersing.