Hadith where Ali (RA) confirms he was never promise the Caliphate

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Imam Ali never took up arms against Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman. Some Ahlul Sunnah scholars try and argue that this shows he was not opposed to them. This is an incorrect analysis and a misunderstanding of Imam Ali’s thinking and motivations.

The reason Ali did not fight after the death of the Prophet (S) is because he did not want to divide the nascent, infant Muslim community. He did not want innocent Muslims to die in battle, killing each other, in order to take power. The historians, Sunni and Shia, record how Abu Sufyan offered him troops but Imam Ali turned him down and criticised his divisive offer.

But Allah says in Quran that if people turn away from Islam, He will bring a people who will fight in the way of Allah.

O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion(Islam), Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allah which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is All-sufficient for His creature’s needs, All-Knower”}. (Quran 5:54).

The person whom you allege to be first Caliph didn’t fulfill this prophesy mentioned in Quran, as you have started making excuses. However the person whom Sunnis consider to be first Caliph perfectly fulfilled the prophesy when people turned away from Islam.

[iceman]

But Allah says in Quran that if people turn away from Islam, He will bring a people who will fight in the way of Allah.

O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion(Islam), Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allah which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is All-sufficient for His creature’s needs, All-Knower”}. (Quran 5:54).

The person whom you allege to be first Caliph didn’t fulfill this prophesy mentioned in Quran, as you have started making excuses. However the person whom Sunnis consider to be first Caliph perfectly fulfilled the prophesy when people turned away from Islam.

"first Caliph perfectly fulfilled the prophesy when people turned away from Islam"

Give me an example with reference and prove this. Then will talk about the other.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

"first Caliph perfectly fulfilled the prophesy when people turned away from Islam"

Give me an example with reference and prove this. Then will talk about the other.

Abū bakr(as) sent an army to fight the apostates like musailama Kadhaab, etc.  This is something well known in history. One should be extremely ignorant to not know these basics historical facts.

[iceman]

Abū bakr(as) sent an army to fight the apostates like musailama Kadhaab, etc.  This is something well known in history. One should be extremely ignorant to not know these basics historical facts.

What you've put forward is just air and wind until you clarify it and back it up with facts and references. 😊

"One should be extremely ignorant to not know these basics historical facts"

Don't be so quick to pass judgment just on words.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

What you've put forward is just air and wind until you clarify it and back it up with facts and references. 😊

"One should be extremely ignorant to not know these basics historical facts"

Don't be so quick to pass judgment just on words.

Narrted Ibn `Abbas: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "You will be resurrected (and assembled) bare-footed, naked and uncircumcised." The Prophet (ﷺ) then recited the Divine Verse:-- "As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it: A promise We have undertaken. Truly we shall do it." (21.104) He added, "The first to be dressed will be Abraham. Then some of my companions will take to the right and to the left. I will say: 'My companions! 'It will be said, 'They had been renegades since you left them.' I will then say what the Pious Slave Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them; when You did take me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if you forgive them, You, only You are the All-Mighty the All-Wise.' " (5.117-118) Narrated Quaggas, "Those were the apostates who renegade from Islam during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr who fought them". (Sahih al-Bukhari #3447)

[iceman]

Narrted Ibn `Abbas: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "You will be resurrected (and assembled) bare-footed, naked and uncircumcised." The Prophet (ﷺ) then recited the Divine Verse:-- "As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it: A promise We have undertaken. Truly we shall do it." (21.104) He added, "The first to be dressed will be Abraham. Then some of my companions will take to the right and to the left. I will say: 'My companions! 'It will be said, 'They had been renegades since you left them.' I will then say what the Pious Slave Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them; when You did take me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if you forgive them, You, only You are the All-Mighty the All-Wise.' " (5.117-118) Narrated Quaggas, "Those were the apostates who renegade from Islam during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr who fought them". (Sahih al-Bukhari #3447)

Since you brought this up here's something from a Sunni site. Nothing will be put forward from a shia or any other site.

Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was known by the kunyah Abu Hanzalah; he was a poet and knight, one of the knights of Banu Yarboo’, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) employed him to collect the zakaah of his people.

The historical reports agree to some extent that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed by some of the troops of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed, and that after that Khaalid married his wife Layla bint Sinaan.

As for the reason why Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed, and the circumstances surrounding this incident, the reports vary, but most of the earlier historians who recorded this incident, such as al-Waaqidi, Ibn Ishaaq, Wuthaymah, Sayf ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Sa’d, Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat and others, state that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah refused to pay zakaah and withheld the zakaah camels, and he prevented his people from paying it, which led Khaalid to kill him, without paying any attention to his claim that he was Muslim and prayed regularly.

Ibn Salaam said in Tabaqaat Fuhool al-Shu’ara’ (172):

Notice this bit.

'As for the reason why Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed, and the circumstances surrounding this incident, the reports vary'

Circumstances surrounding this incident the REPORTS VARY.

So why did some of the Sahaabah criticize Khaalid for killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, as was done by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and his son ‘Abd-Allaah, and Abu Qataadah al-Ansaari?

The reason for that may be found in some reports, as it seems that the attitude of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah about zakaah was ambiguous at first, and did not clearly deny that it was obligatory, and he did not pay it, so these Sahaabah were not certain about his view on the issue. But Khaalid ibn al-Waleed accused him and killed him. Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was outwardly a Muslim and prayed, Khaalid should not have been hasty and should have investigated his case further, and see whether Maalik ibn Nuwayrah would change his mind about zakaah. So some of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) denounced him for that.

It says in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) (6/322):

Khaalid sent the troops to al-Battaah, calling the people to Islam, and the leaders of Banu Tameem came to him, hearing and obeying, and they paid the zakaah, except for Maalik ibn Nuwayrah. It is as if he was not certain what to do and he was holding back. The troops came to him and took him and his companions prisoner, but the soldiers disagreed about what to do with them. Abu Qataadah al-Haarith ibn Rib’i al-Ansaari bore witness that they prayed, but others said that they did not give the adhaan or pray. End quote.

Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was one of the leaders and nobles of his people, and his stance was not clear at the beginning, his brother Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah complained to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) about what Khaalid had done, and he rebuked Khaalid and said that he had erred by rushing to kill Maalik ibn Nuwayrah before referring the matter to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and the senior Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). 

Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat (1/17) narrated:
Ali ibn Muhammad narrated to us from Abu Dhi’b from al-Zuhri from Saalim that his father said: Abu Qataadah came to Abu Bakr and told him that Maalik and his companions had been killed, and he was very upset by that. Abu Bakr wrote to Khaalid telling him to come to him. Abu Bakr said: The worst that Khaalid could have done is making the wrong decision. Abu Bakr reinstated Khaalid and paid the diyah for Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, and he returned the prisoners and the wealth. End quote.

Ibn Hajar said in al-Isaabah (5/755):

His brother Mutammim came to Abu Bakr and eulogized his brother and urged him to pay the diyah and return the prisoners, so Abu Bakr set the prisoners free. Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkaar said that Abu Bakr ordered Khaalid to divorce the wife of Maalik, and ‘Umar rebuked Khaalid sternly about the case of Maalik, but Abu Bakr pardoned him. End quote.

This is the most that can be said about the story of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah. Either he was correct in killing him for withholding zakaah and denying that it was obligatory after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or he made a mistake and Khaalid rushed to kill him when he should have examined the matter and established proof. Whatever the case, this is not a slander against Khaalid (may Allaah be pleased with him)

As you can see in the entire history you will find that the matter isn't clear. Only those who want to protect Khalid bin Waleed are going to the extent of slandering and accusing a companion of the Prophet s.a.w of apostacy. And if you accuse Malik of apostasy, going astray or what ever then you're slamming your own principle of 'SAHABA ARE MEHFOOZ'. Sahaba are not MEHFOOZ anymore after this are they?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Since you brought this up here's something from a Sunni site. Nothing will be put forward from a shia or any other site.

Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was known by the kunyah Abu Hanzalah; he was a poet and knight, one of the knights of Banu Yarboo’, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) employed him to collect the zakaah of his people.

The historical reports agree to some extent that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed by some of the troops of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed, and that after that Khaalid married his wife Layla bint Sinaan.

As for the reason why Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed, and the circumstances surrounding this incident, the reports vary, but most of the earlier historians who recorded this incident, such as al-Waaqidi, Ibn Ishaaq, Wuthaymah, Sayf ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Sa’d, Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat and others, state that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah refused to pay zakaah and withheld the zakaah camels, and he prevented his people from paying it, which led Khaalid to kill him, without paying any attention to his claim that he was Muslim and prayed regularly.

Ibn Salaam said in Tabaqaat Fuhool al-Shu’ara’ (172):

Notice this bit.

'As for the reason why Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed, and the circumstances surrounding this incident, the reports vary'

Circumstances surrounding this incident the REPORTS VARY.

So why did some of the Sahaabah criticize Khaalid for killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, as was done by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and his son ‘Abd-Allaah, and Abu Qataadah al-Ansaari?

The reason for that may be found in some reports, as it seems that the attitude of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah about zakaah was ambiguous at first, and did not clearly deny that it was obligatory, and he did not pay it, so these Sahaabah were not certain about his view on the issue. But Khaalid ibn al-Waleed accused him and killed him. Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was outwardly a Muslim and prayed, Khaalid should not have been hasty and should have investigated his case further, and see whether Maalik ibn Nuwayrah would change his mind about zakaah. So some of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) denounced him for that.

It says in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) (6/322):

Khaalid sent the troops to al-Battaah, calling the people to Islam, and the leaders of Banu Tameem came to him, hearing and obeying, and they paid the zakaah, except for Maalik ibn Nuwayrah. It is as if he was not certain what to do and he was holding back. The troops came to him and took him and his companions prisoner, but the soldiers disagreed about what to do with them. Abu Qataadah al-Haarith ibn Rib’i al-Ansaari bore witness that they prayed, but others said that they did not give the adhaan or pray. End quote.

Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was one of the leaders and nobles of his people, and his stance was not clear at the beginning, his brother Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah complained to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) about what Khaalid had done, and he rebuked Khaalid and said that he had erred by rushing to kill Maalik ibn Nuwayrah before referring the matter to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and the senior Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). 

Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat (1/17) narrated:
Ali ibn Muhammad narrated to us from Abu Dhi’b from al-Zuhri from Saalim that his father said: Abu Qataadah came to Abu Bakr and told him that Maalik and his companions had been killed, and he was very upset by that. Abu Bakr wrote to Khaalid telling him to come to him. Abu Bakr said: The worst that Khaalid could have done is making the wrong decision. Abu Bakr reinstated Khaalid and paid the diyah for Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, and he returned the prisoners and the wealth. End quote.

Ibn Hajar said in al-Isaabah (5/755):

His brother Mutammim came to Abu Bakr and eulogized his brother and urged him to pay the diyah and return the prisoners, so Abu Bakr set the prisoners free. Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkaar said that Abu Bakr ordered Khaalid to divorce the wife of Maalik, and ‘Umar rebuked Khaalid sternly about the case of Maalik, but Abu Bakr pardoned him. End quote.

This is the most that can be said about the story of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah. Either he was correct in killing him for withholding zakaah and denying that it was obligatory after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or he made a mistake and Khaalid rushed to kill him when he should have examined the matter and established proof. Whatever the case, this is not a slander against Khaalid (may Allaah be pleased with him)

As you can see in the entire history you will find that the matter isn't clear. Only those who want to protect Khalid bin Waleed are going to the extent of slandering and accusing a companion of the Prophet s.a.w of apostacy. And if you accuse Malik of apostasy, going astray or what ever then you're slamming your own principle of 'SAHABA ARE MEHFOOZ'. Sahaba are not MEHFOOZ anymore after this are they?

It’s your failed attempt to derail the topic. I never mentioned the individuals whom Abū bakr(as) fought. I just mentioned apostates. They could be followers of Musailama Kazab or anyone else, regardless of the individuals. And hence the prophesy was fulfilled. Your failed attempts to derail the topic are in vain.

[iceman]

It’s your failed attempt to derail the topic. I never mentioned the individuals whom Abū bakr(as) fought. I just mentioned apostates. They could be followers of Musailama Kazab or anyone else, regardless of the individuals. And hence the prophesy was fulfilled. Your failed attempts to derail the topic are in vain.

By your tiny response based on arrogance and stubbornness I know that I've nailed it. Keep up the confrontational stance based on arrogance and ignorance. 😊 Doesn't effect me at all.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

By your tiny response based on arrogance and stubbornness I know that I've nailed it. Keep up the confrontational stance based on arrogance and ignorance. 😊 Doesn't effect me at all.

When the opponent copy pastes a lengthy irrelevant response, just to detail the topic, out of embarrassment. Then a tiny response is more than enough.

[iceman]

When the opponent copy pastes a lengthy irrelevant response, just to detail the topic, out of embarrassment. Then a tiny response is more than enough.

Copy and paste. Is that the only excuse you could find to save your skin. 😊

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Copy and paste. Is that the only excuse you could find to save your skin. 😊

Derail the topic out of embarrassment , is that the only way you had left. Poor chap.

Anyways take this gift from me :

Malik bin Nuwayrah was an apostate as per Shia Shaykh al-Mufeed.

لمالك بن نويرة، وهو صاحب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله على الصدقات، ومن تبعه من وجوه المسلمين من الردة عن الإسلام.
[Al-Ifṣaḥ fī l-imāmah, page 41]

[iceman]

Derail the topic out of embarrassment , is that the only way you had left. Poor chap.

Anyways take this gift from me :

Malik bin Nuwayrah was an apostate as per Shia Shaykh al-Mufeed.

لمالك بن نويرة، وهو صاحب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله على الصدقات، ومن تبعه من وجوه المسلمين من الردة عن الإسلام.
[Al-Ifṣaḥ fī l-imāmah, page 41]
[/quote

Malik bin Nuwayrah and those killed alongside him were companions of the Prophet s.a.w? Yes or no? OK lets stick to Malik, was he a companion of the Prophet s.a.w? If the answer yes then he became an apostate. So companions of the Prophet s.a.w are in reality not MEHFOOZ. So if you accuse companions of apostasy then why not let the others at least criticise and condemn those that they feel need to be. What's the problem then. Stick to a principal and abide by it.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Derail the topic out of embarrassment , is that the only way you had left. Poor chap.

Anyways take this gift from me :

Malik bin Nuwayrah was an apostate as per Shia Shaykh al-Mufeed.

لمالك بن نويرة، وهو صاحب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله على الصدقات، ومن تبعه من وجوه المسلمين من الردة عن الإسلام.
[Al-Ifṣaḥ fī l-imāmah, page 41]
[/quote

Malik bin Nuwayrah and those killed alongside him were companions of the Prophet s.a.w? Yes or no? OK lets stick to Malik, was he a companion of the Prophet s.a.w? If the answer yes then he became an apostate. So companions of the Prophet s.a.w are in reality not MEHFOOZ. So if you accuse companions of apostasy then why not let the others at least criticise and condemn those that they feel need to be. What's the problem then. Stick to a principal and abide by it.

As per the definition of Sahabi , one of the condition is the person should die in the state of Emaan. Hence as per the istalahi definition of Sahabi , Malik isn’t considered Sahabi, because his death wasn’t on Emaan. Sunnis consider only those ashaab of Prophet(s) as Sahaba those who met the condition of dying in the state of Emaan.

[iceman]

As per the definition of Sahabi , one of the condition is the person should die in the state of Emaan. Hence as per the istalahi definition of Sahabi , Malik isn’t considered Sahabi, because his death wasn’t on Emaan. Sunnis consider only those ashaab of Prophet(s) as Sahaba those who met the condition of dying in the state of Emaan.

If that's the case then why didn't Abu Bakr say to Malik's brother that he was killed lawfully and within reason. And did or did not Khalid marry Malik's wife straight after the killing. This puts the whole episode in jeopardy. The matter isn't clear bro. But this still stands that if you have the right to go into history and accuse certain Companions of this that or the other and have the right to that opinion then I'm afraid so do others.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

If that's the case then why didn't Abu Bakr say to Malik's brother that he was killed lawfully and within reason.

Prove it.

 

And did or did not Khalid marry Malik's wife straight after the killing.

It’s a fact that Khalid married Malik’s EX-WIFE. And When Malik apostates his wife took divorce from him, but he kept her in captivity. If don’t want to believe, let it be, but your own report says that the wife of Murtad becomes a stranger to him, meaning their relationship is annulled.


عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَ عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنِ الْعَلَاءِ بْنِ رَزِينٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ع عَنِ الْمُرْتَدِّ فَقَالَ مَنْ رَغِبَ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَ كَفَرَ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ ص بَعْدَ إِسْلَامِهِ فَلَا تَوْبَةَ لَهُ وَ قَدْ وَجَبَ قَتْلُهُ وَ بَانَتْ مِنْهُ امْرَأَتُهُ وَ يُقْسَمُ مَا تَرَكَ عَلَى وُلْدِهِ

From Muhammad bin Muslim said: That I said Abaa Ja`far(as) about the apostate (murtad). So he(as) said: “Whoever turns away from Islaam, and disbelieves in what Allaah has revealed to the Prophet(saws) after being a Muslim, there is no repentance for him, and it is waajib (obligatory) to kill him, and his wife becomes a stranger to him, and his legacy be divided among his children.” [Al-Kaafi, vol. 7, pg. 256, hadeeth # 1 ; Hasan Kal-SaHeeH (Good like an Authentic (hadeeth) à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 23, pg. 396

[iceman]

Prove it.

 It’s a fact that Khalid married Malik’s EX-WIFE. And When Malik apostates his wife took divorce from him, but he kept her in captivity. If don’t want to believe, let it be, but your own report says that the wife of Murtad becomes a stranger to him, meaning their relationship is annulled.


عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَ عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنِ الْعَلَاءِ بْنِ رَزِينٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ع عَنِ الْمُرْتَدِّ فَقَالَ مَنْ رَغِبَ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَ كَفَرَ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ ص بَعْدَ إِسْلَامِهِ فَلَا تَوْبَةَ لَهُ وَ قَدْ وَجَبَ قَتْلُهُ وَ بَانَتْ مِنْهُ امْرَأَتُهُ وَ يُقْسَمُ مَا تَرَكَ عَلَى وُلْدِهِ

From Muhammad bin Muslim said: That I said Abaa Ja`far(as) about the apostate (murtad). So he(as) said: “Whoever turns away from Islaam, and disbelieves in what Allaah has revealed to the Prophet(saws) after being a Muslim, there is no repentance for him, and it is waajib (obligatory) to kill him, and his wife becomes a stranger to him, and his legacy be divided among his children.” [Al-Kaafi, vol. 7, pg. 256, hadeeth # 1 ; Hasan Kal-SaHeeH (Good like an Authentic (hadeeth) à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 23, pg. 396

You need to prove Malik became an apostate. The reports aren't clear according to your scholars and in your history books. You also need to prove that Malik left Islam. No accusation is acceptable on anyone until it's proven. Take this matter to court with an independent jury who is neither Sunni or Shia and you'll see what the outcome is. Based on all the historical evidence the verdict on Malik and those killed alongside him will be 'NOT GUILTY' due to the evidence not being clear enough. It's time you boys started developing an open mind about this and start being honest and just in matters.

[iceman]

Prove it.

 It’s a fact that Khalid married Malik’s EX-WIFE. And When Malik apostates his wife took divorce from him, but he kept her in captivity. If don’t want to believe, let it be, but your own report says that the wife of Murtad becomes a stranger to him, meaning their relationship is annulled.


عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَ عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنِ الْعَلَاءِ بْنِ رَزِينٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ع عَنِ الْمُرْتَدِّ فَقَالَ مَنْ رَغِبَ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَ كَفَرَ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ ص بَعْدَ إِسْلَامِهِ فَلَا تَوْبَةَ لَهُ وَ قَدْ وَجَبَ قَتْلُهُ وَ بَانَتْ مِنْهُ امْرَأَتُهُ وَ يُقْسَمُ مَا تَرَكَ عَلَى وُلْدِهِ

From Muhammad bin Muslim said: That I said Abaa Ja`far(as) about the apostate (murtad). So he(as) said: “Whoever turns away from Islaam, and disbelieves in what Allaah has revealed to the Prophet(saws) after being a Muslim, there is no repentance for him, and it is waajib (obligatory) to kill him, and his wife becomes a stranger to him, and his legacy be divided among his children.” [Al-Kaafi, vol. 7, pg. 256, hadeeth # 1 ; Hasan Kal-SaHeeH (Good like an Authentic (hadeeth) à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 23, pg. 396

"Prove it"

I've already mentioned it to you that Abu Bakr summoned Khalid and interrogated him over the killing of Malik bin Nuwayrah and his men. And the decision was reached by Abu Bakr that Khalid erred and blood money was paid to Malik's brother. But Khalid wasn't dismissed from his post and punished for this because of his status. This is also part of history. So whether I have to prove this bit or you have to prove your bit, if either of us can't prove then what? Malik is innocent until proven guilty. Or is Malik guilty until proven innocent. Come on and start being reasonable.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

"Prove it"

I've already mentioned it to you that Abu Bakr summoned Khalid and interrogated him over the killing of Malik bin Nuwayrah and his men. And the decision was reached by Abu Bakr that Khalid erred and blood money was paid to Malik's brother. But Khalid wasn't dismissed from his post and punished for this because of his status. This is also part of history. So whether I have to prove this bit or you have to prove your bit, if either of us can't prove then what? Malik is innocent until proven guilty. Or is Malik guilty until proven innocent. Come on and start being reasonable.

So in short you can’t prove your claim ?

While I showed you that al-mufeed deemed Malik a murtad. Shows your biggie chose which version to be correct.

[iceman]

So in short you can’t prove your claim ?

While I showed you that al-mufeed deemed Malik a murtad. Shows your biggie chose which version to be correct.

I can prove what ever I say or claim. I didn't accuse Malik of apostasy, you did. Or those who did or do need to prove it. The accuser or the defendants of the accuser needs to prove, not the accused or the defendants of the accused 😊 So lets here it.

[Mythbuster1]

I can prove what ever I say or claim. I didn't accuse Malik of apostasy, you did. Or those who did or do need to prove it. The accuser or the defendants of the accuser needs to prove, not the accused or the defendants of the accused 😊 So lets here it.

Sorry to butt in bro sunnah.

“ I can prove what ever I claim” ICEMAN.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

This blabbering fool posted “Umar said don’t listen to him” previously and I did ask for him to prove it.

He still AVOIDS it because he knows it’s fake and now look at his words 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

You don’t know whether to laugh or pity this pathetic little hypocrite 😂