TwelverShia.net Forum

Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #40 on: November 28, 2017, 10:36:44 PM »
How do you know that the victory wasn’t made easier by the wearing down of the army from previous battles? How do you know that the soldiers hadn’t become used to the terrain/gained skills?

We are agreed that it’s a great virtue for Ali, but to paint him as a sole saviour is a bit problematic in my opinion brother.

I say that because in the books of History, we know certain things:

1. Khaybar was where they kept the soldiers and their best defences.  There were a lot of soldiers here , and the assaults of Abu Bakr and Umar did little against their main warriors.

2. Abu Bakr and Umar had to retreat and run back, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any breakthrough. We do not find any major general of the Jews killed, nor any tale whereby they were able to gain any ground. The reality is, they were repelled empathically and had to retreat.

3. The Muslims are documented clearly as being in disarray at what they were witnessing. They began to wonder if they would ever gain victory, considering the fact one after the other, they were emphatically repelled by the Jews. There was no indication that the enemy had been weakened , but that both Abu Bakr and Umar had to retreat because the Jews were far too powerful.

4. If the Prophet (saw) had felt the joint efforts of Abu Bakr and Umar had weakened the enemy to a sufficient level that it would only take another assault, he could have just sent Abu Bakr or Umar. Rather than doing that, he decides to make an emphatic declaration that no matter how sever the situation is, Allah has promised him that victory would be gained at Khaybar by a man who loves Allah and his Messenger, and his Messenger and Allah love him. This clearly implies it was not a case of 'send one more assault as they are weakened' but rather the situation was so dire, and the Muslims had been repelled so emphatically that it now required something special.

5. An enormous part of the victory at Khaybar was the ability of Ali to accept the challenge of Harith and Marhab. These were ferocious warriors, and we find in authentic narrations when they came out, Ali met their challenge. However, we see no sign whatsoever of any encounter between Abu Bakr and Umar against the major warriors of the opposition. Ali ibn Abi Talib dispatched them one after the other, and this is what truly weakened them and their morale, and under his leadership, this is what allowed the other companions to gain victory.Where do we find Abu Bakr, or Umar, with the utmost respect challenging Marhab or accepting his challenge? Where do we find the same of for Hairth?

Rather, i do not believe it is a coincidence that Abu Bakr was sent, and came back without any victory whatsoever but was repelled. After this, Umar was sent, and again, they repelled him. However, there was one man who was ill, yet Allah preferred him as the one through whom victory would be gained. If the enemy was weak and it just took another attack, why the need of the miracle of curing Ali? Why the need to make an emotional call about who he will now give the banner to?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 10:38:19 PM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2017, 10:40:37 PM »
Why can't shia think that an easier way to prove a point is for Rasulullah sallalahu alayhi wasallam to publicly and loudly telling everyone how bad syaikhain were? He proclaimed his point in public many times even pre-Medina time. Why the need to send people knowing they would be killed when theres a simpler and easier way to do it?

Why did Allah allow Abu Bakr and Umar to go and fight and be repelled and have to retreat when he knew he would permit a miracle curing Ali, and that victory would be brought through him?  This is not a strong point, but i see where you had come from. Furthermore, it is not the style of the Prophet to declare others as wrongdoers, but to treat them based on how they outwardly were and give them a chance.  Any reference to al-Mahdi is wholly irrelevant.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Hani

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2017, 10:50:43 PM »
Quote
There are times Allah wishes to teach the Muslims a lesson. Losing at Uhud does not change anything at all. The vast majority of battles were won due to Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Lesson I learned from Uhud was that `Ali bin abi Talib does not equal victory and the Muslims can lose even if he's included. Lesson further cemented during `Ali's reign.

Quote
  He knew full well he would cure Ali ibn Abi Talib, and knew when he would do it, and knew for certain he would be victorious.

lol what's the point of this entire paragraph you wrote honestly? Obviously when doing a miracle he'd know whether it's going to work or not. Just like he (saw) said "The Caliphate of prophet-hood after me is thirty years" and it was with Abu Bakr.

rest of your post is repetitions.


Quote
Just a message to brother Hani. I try to keep my points concise, but being the only serious Shia opposition you have on this forum, to make a comment and then swiftly leave and then claim it is justified because i 'write essays' is really not the proper manner of engaging in these discussions. You have a website, i have come to challenge you and what i have written and the volume is actually acceptable to the vast majority of people i have debated. Often i have robustly countered your points, and there is really no reply.

If you would like a  forum where everyone validates the opinions of TSN, then that is fine by me. If you want serious academic debate, you have to be willing to read more than 500 words, with due respect.

Forum is free for all, nothing is official and I have not committed to debating a specific individual, I wrote what I think was sufficient, whether you like to have the last word or not is not my problem, if anything is worth refuting we refute. Furthermore, people have a life, I didn't post much on the forum before you came and I'm not gonna post much after your arrival, I'm also not a fan of reading long essays that are clearly devoid of material, I'd rather read useful things in my free time.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2017, 10:50:56 PM »
That doesn't answer anything, `Ali failed miserably in his reign as Caliph, he created enemies for no reason, couldn't command his armies, was pressured into doing things by his closest Shia, his own governors abandoned him, he didn't take advice or council from his family members then regretted it, his opponent became the leader and triumphed. 

Your assessment that Ali failed 'miserably' i think exposes to everyone reading this what sort of bias you are coming from. I have rarely heard Salafi-Athari preachers speak in this way. You have imitated the style of Ibn Taymiyyah in going way too much into an extreme to down play Ali ibn Abi Talib. Many have criticised Ibn Taymiyyah for this.

As for Ali ibn Abi Talib 'failing miserably' by creating enemies, are you forgetting that:

1. Aisha and other companions decided to create enormous trouble and discord , by arousing soldiers to come and avenge the death of Uthman, and fight Ali ibn Abi Talib, as soon as he became the Caliph? This was despite his clear commands to them that being senior members of the Ummah, they should not be the ones causing corruption and should desist? What other Caliph has ever gained power, and then faced internal rebellion by his own companions ?

2. M'uawiyah ibn Abi Sufiyan, the man who loathed Ali ibn Abi Talib, and whose governors would curse Ali on the very pulpits of the Messenger of Allah (saw), instigated the battle of Jamal or was a key player. Not only that, he refused to give his oath of allegiance. M'uawiyah was in control of serious land at the time. Sham was not just Syria today, but a landmass covering four or five countries. On top of this, Ali ibn Abi Talib had to fight two more civil wars in the form of Siffin and Narhawan, again by senior companions using the excuse of Uthman to withhold allegiance and obedience to the rightful Caliph. However, in the idealistic word of your Madhab with all due respect, a man waging two wars on another man will get a reward for his 'incorrect ijtihad'.


Quote
As for Abu Bakr and `Umar, under their divine leadership, they established and strengthened the state; they commanded armies and defeated empires; they united Muslims and strengthened their body and won the love and admiration of the majority of Muslims as well as most non-Muslim historians.

They never had to face internal rebellion and major civil wars. They had control over the Muslim empire that was pretty much under there subservience. They did not have wives of Prophets causing mischief and sparking rebellions, or other senior companions holding onto swathes of land. Furthermore, they did not have to deal with a purist cult in the form of the Khawarij. There are many individuals who are capable of doing this, including non-Muslims who have conquered lands and built empires. Furthermore, you ignore the fact it is widely accepted by the Sunni that it was Ali who would often be consulted. 

When the conditions were absolutely the same, and each, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ali were given charges the same soldiers against the same opposition, we can see who came out on top brother.

What you are posting here is ludicrous brother, and i rarely use that word. I really need to go and detach from this, lest i reply with anger at the total twisting of historical facts and complete bias shown, and dare i say it, veiled prejudice against Ali ibn Abi Talib.

DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Hani

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2017, 10:59:39 PM »
Why did Allah allow Abu Bakr and Umar to go and fight and be repelled and have to retreat when he knew he would permit a miracle curing Ali, and that victory would be brought through him?  This is not a strong point, but i see where you had come from. Furthermore, it is not the style of the Prophet to declare others as wrongdoers, but to treat them based on how they outwardly were and give them a chance.  Any reference to al-Mahdi is wholly irrelevant.

Because he wanted Abu Bakr and `Umar to lead and fight for his cause and gain the reward and learn the lessons and experiences. Also in Khaybar was a special merit for `Ali who succeeded in defeating the enemy. Many a times would the Muslims withdraw or retreat and then fight back and conquer, who told you that's a shame or a taboo and that it must never happen? God wants them to experience difficulties, that's the way of life, nothing is easy and not all battles are won.

You see, it is the Shia who conclude vile and despicable lessons from history. Taking things and turning them to attack `Ali's "competition". I swear to God if we did the same it would be way too ugly but Ahlul-Sunnah are purer than this.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #45 on: November 28, 2017, 11:12:29 PM »
Dude seriously, who the hell told you I'm Salafi? How pathetic can you be?

Secondly, to me there is no halo around anybody's head, except the Prophet (saw).

Thirdly, it's rich coming from you "The bias", dude you're the most biased individual on this forum. You literally claim to belong to `Ali's Shia (party) you think the man is infallible and cannot make mistakes. How biased can you be son?

Fourthly, the discord was created by `Ali not punishing the Caliph's killers even though he was given 3 months. Then he followed them with an army and caused a massacre. At the end he didn't punish those individuals, he went and gave `A'ishah the best treatment imaginable and sent her back honored and safe to live happily with a steady wage by the government.

Fifthly, `Ali was advised to keep Mu`awiyah and then after settling things to remove him. `Ali instead went and waged a war on the man and tried to take Syria by force, causing other massacres and losing the entire battle in the process. He was NOT a good politician that's for sure. Just because you're a strong warrior or a pious jurist doesn't mean you'll be a successful leader.

Then you say: "They never had to face internal rebellion and major civil wars." Dude the entire nation rebelled during their time on top of Byzantines and Persians. stop making a mockery out of yourself. The hypocrites were rampant in Madinah and the Jews/Christians did whatever they wanted. The Khawarij emerged due to `Ali's own political decisions, he bears their responsibility and in fact most deviant sect emerged out of the Shia whether Baha'is or Isma`ilis or Druze or Khawarij etc...

"veiled prejudice against Ali ibn Abi Talib" Open prejudice against Abu Bakr and `Umar will be met with what's similar.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hadrami

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #46 on: November 28, 2017, 11:23:40 PM »
Why did Allah allow Abu Bakr and Umar to go and fight and be repelled and have to retreat when he knew he would permit a miracle curing Ali, and that victory would be brought through him?  This is not a strong point, but i see where you had come from.
Anything illogical & cringeworthy, but helps your argument would be a strong point 😁


Furthermore, it is not the style of the Prophet to declare others as wrongdoers, but to treat them based on how they outwardly were and give them a chance.
except that Rasulullah shallalahu alayhi wasallam knew (according to shia) that these 2 men would corrupt Islam and usurped Ali and oppress shia and yet. Oh well there goes your bollywood script and sheeps believe that

Any reference to al-Mahdi is wholly irrelevant.
oh yes it does, it is rellevant. You have a leader who has never had a gut to face enemy, never been in any battle, ran and hide because he was afraid for his life. What is strange is you trying to belittle syaikhain when you have such a coward failure as a leader. Its just you dont have any answer to this "coward mahdi never been in battle" issue, hence you say its irrelevant 😉

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #47 on: November 28, 2017, 11:30:49 PM »
Well history shows that he wasn't and his accomplishments as statesman are testimony. He even refused to pay certain problematic elements money to keep them quite and content, thus contradicting the example of the Prophet (saw) who gave those elements money to bring them closer.

This point can not be taken seriously. Are you aware that the Prophet (saw) only rewarded those who had only freshly embraced Islam with the greater booty? This was to encourage them, and support them, and to allow them to further feel welcomed and integrate.

You wish to compare this to when Ali ibn Abi Talib faced hypocrites, those who fought against him, those who were part of absolute corrupt elements within his state, to just bribe them with money? That is corruption and not how the Prophet (saw) operated. Believe me, if Ali ibn Abi Talib wished to gain power through deceit and corruption he could have employed the path of M'uawiyah. However so firm upon justice was he, that it created for him enemies. Rather than being a point against Ali ibn Abi Talib, this is a shining example of the true justice he showed as a perfect leader.

For you to even compare the cults, the hypocrites, and the corrupt in the state of Ali ibn Abi Talib, with freshly converted Muslims at the time of the Prophet (saw) shows a total lack of understanding of what the Prophet (saw) did or history. To then add to this and actually criticise him for not bribing corrupt people, is just insult to injury. It is inconceivable and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind of your bias and prejudice against Ali ibn Abi Talib.



Quote
`Ali's struggle was nowhere near as bad as Abu Bakr and `Umar, you must be joking. 

Are you not aware that the time of Ali is uniquely called the era of 'Fitnah' ? Are you not aware that Ali, unlike the others not only had to face three major civil wars, but also had to contend with a purist group known as the Khawarij? His problems were earth and sky, head and shoulders above anything Abu Bakr or Umar had to deal with. This is widely accepted.


Quote
`Ali created a huge problem by not punishing the killers of the third Caliph, kept people waiting for months for him to take action but nothing! Not true that `A'ishah or Talhah rebelled "as soon as" he was Caliph, they gave him ample time.

Do you believe it was simple to just find the killers? Do you not recognise before Ali ibn Abi Talib should have undergone the path of finding the killers, he first had to ensure there was stability, and obtain the Bayah from everyone? Why do we not find M'uawiyah giving him Bayah, ceding control of Sham and then giving him time to work things out? From the get go, there was rebellion and opposition against him. 



Quote
He Moved the capital to a city filled with unreliable morons whom he had to curse and criticize constantly, his actions led to his own army turning on him (Khawarij), allowed his partisans to bully other prominent companions etc... He couldn't command his own army nor control them let alone his opponents.

He moved to Kufa , and you must mention why. It was due to M'uawiyah the son of Abu Sufiyan, who refused to pay his allegiance to him. He kept control of enormous parts of land, and opposed him, and fought him in several battles. Are you also not aware of the following compelling and historically robust reasons?:

1. The battle of Basra or the battle of the Camel was fought and was won with the aid of the people of Kufa. Ali made Kufa his capital, partly in recognition of this service by them.

2. Ali was anxious to save Medina from the havoc of civil strife like the one which had ended in the murder of Uthman. He did not want Medina to become the locale of political disturbances at any time, and he wanted to save the City of the Prophet from destruction or desecration in the possible wars of the future.

3. Kufa had a more central position in the empire. Administrative facility of the vast and sprawling territories dictated this change.

4. It was easier for Ali to watch the movements of Muawiya from Kufa than from Medina.” (The History of Islam)


Quote
Still he failed because he was not prepared and God could have granted him victory. Afterall, the Imam got the miracle of having his vision healed and without it he could't have commanded, similarly Husayn could have won by a miracle.{Allah said, "How many a small company has overcome a large company by permission of Allah. And Allah is with the patient."} Somebody wasn't patient, and that led to their failure.

SubhanAllah. It was decreed by Allah that Husayn would not succeed. There was a clear plan to awaken the Ummah through the death of Husayn, which caused outrage in the Ummah and sparked further rebellions and awoke them to the treachery of Yazid ibn M'uawiyah ibn Abi Sufiyan. At Badar, the odds were 3:1 against the Muslims. At Kerbala, the odds were almost 100:1. You can not compare those odds whatsoever, and Allah does not simply grant miracles and give the Muslims a way out via one all the time. It is dependent on the Imaan of the Muslims, and if they have a viable way to achieve victory - but rather victory is only strengthen by the help of Allah. He does not operate by allowing one man to go ahead and kill a few thousand. There is a system in place.

Husayn ibn Ali was not 'impatient'. He knew that Yazid was a wicked and barbaric man, and if he did not rise, Yazid would have come to Medina itself. His suspicions about Yazid were confirmed when after his brutal martyrdom, Yazid attacked both Medina and Makkah. It was only a matter of time. Husayn knew he had to move. Despite being surrounding by armies of thousands and facing certain death, he chose not to surrender and give his allegiance to Yazid, but die a Martyr. Why would a man accept certain death? When that man is the grandson of Muhammed (saw) and knows it is only through rising up and becoming a matyr that the Ummah will awaken.



Quote
So what? He could've healed him the first time and sent him. 

Isn't this what i have been trying to say all along? He could have done so. You then brought the argument that if he could have done so, why send Abu Bakr and Umar first and have some companions die? I replied by saying, why did Allah allow Abu Bakr and Umar to go first when he knew that the Prophet by his permission would heal Ali ibn Abi Talib?

Quote
Also he still didn't need to send Abu Bakr and `Umar, don't forget Miqdad, abu Dharr, Salman, `Ammar etc... No need to specifically send the two worst and most evil individuals no? 

We also respect other notable companions by the way, from Jabir ibn Abdullah, Abu Sa'id, and let us not forget the warrior, Abu Dujana among others. Either way, you are only proving my point. Abu Bakr was sent but repelled emphatically and came without any victory. The Prophet (saw) knew this, and so sent Umar ibn al-Khattab. Once more he was repelled emphatically. Right after this the Prophet (saw) stated that there would be a man he would give the banner to, and unlike those who were unsuccessful and defeated, he would not be defeated, nor would he return until he brought victory.

Abu Bakr and Umar were sent first, and retuned with no victory whatsoever, but were emphatically repelled and had to flee. When the Prophet sent them (if he did) there was no statement of confidence whatsoever. However, when he sends Ali ibn Abi Talib, there is full confidence. Rather than Khaybar being conquered through Abu Bakr or Umar, the Prophet instead decides to call a man who had an eye infection and was not fit to fight, cured him via a miracle, and promised the he would not be defeated. If you remove the lens of your bias, you will see the clear superiority of Ali ibn Abi Talib and a clear indication and demonstration to all that Allah had favoured him above Abu Bakr and Umar.


Quote
The only reason the Prophet (saw) made a prophesy the third time, was because he received revelation concerning a clear victory at the hands of `Ali.

We must ask, why did Allah not grant victory through Abu Bakr? Why not through Umar? Why did Allah specifically ordain that a man who could barely see out of his eyes, should be cured by a miracle, and that he would certainly be successful ? This is the proverbial elephant in the room.  I believe that the Prophet (saw) was well aware that Abu Bakr and Umar would not succeed. He knew full well that when the right time was decreed, he was to cure Ali ibn abi Talib and demonstrate to the entire army of what he can do, compare to what Abu Bakr and Umar can do.
 


 
Quote
As for you saying that the first two attempts didn't weaken the enemy, that is your speculation and conjecture, any military strategist would assume the first two times not only weakened the enemy but made the Muslim army more experienced so they knew exactly what they were expecting and how to deal with matters.

I did not claim they had no effect. Logically it is plausible to assume they had some small effect. However, the fact that Khaybar was a fort with many soldiers, and that Abu Bakr and Umar did not even manage to enter it, let alone kill any major warrior like Harith or Marhab, but were both emphatically repelled on the very same day returning one after the other after having to flee clearly demonstrates that the army of the Jews were in a very strong position, and had repelled any attack. Furthermore had Abu Bakr or Umar made any significant dent on the armies, the muslims would not have been extremely distraught and in disarray when they had been defeated twice. Had the army been weakened such that it would just take one more assault, the Prophet could have sent Abu Bakr, Umar, or anyone else once again.

Why does he instead, need to reassure the distraught Muslims that he is making a promise that this time round, despite the emphatic defeats, he would give a banner to a man who would not return without victory. Why would he need to go through the trouble of having to cure a man with an infection ? It is clear: Abu Bakr and Umar had very little effect on the army, were repelled, and had to flee. The Muslims were distraught and thus Allah had already decreed he would allow victory to be through a man who had the ability, leadership, bravery and he divine blessing to overcome the mountainous task of conquering Khaybar.

Quote
LOL now you contradict yourself, previously you wrote that he sent them intentionally knowing they'd be slaughtered and that they'd fail. Now you adjust and say he gave them a chance to prove themselves, Aww what a nice leader :) 

I did not contradict myself at all. By the way, Abu Bakr did not die. Umar did not die. In fact, most of those sent actually had to run away and flee because they were overwhelmed. The Prophet (saw) still sent certain companions to give themselves a chance to show their certainty, to show their leadership, to show their bravery. He knew what the effect would be, but it was ordained that Ali was only to be cured after it was demonstrated that men like Abu Bakr and Umar first tried and failed, with due respect.

Quote
The rest of your post is conjecture and guesswork where you assume that "Meh it was easy but they're just so bad at it, such losers" SubhanAllah, as if you were there and knew exactly what the situation was, just previously you were saying "It was an impenetrable fortress" and that it took exceptional leadership accompanied by miracles to break through, now suddenly you make light of things "They should have been able to, with their numbers".

You have basically put words into my mouth and have created an enormous straw argument of what i have said, utterly distorting and misrepresenting my arguments. I did not claim it was easy in any of my posts. I was quite clear Khaybar was well armed and very difficult to penetrate. However, Ali had the same soldiers as Abu Bakr and Umar did. Between the return of Umar and the next day would have been sufficient enough for the Jews to regroup (though they repelled the Muslims emphatically). Furthermore, you do realise it was not the entire army outside the fortress? When Abu Bakr and Umar went, they took a group with them, and met a group of the Jews defending the outside. They were unable to break through even this outer defence. Even if they killed a few, those soldiers were replaced and the defences bolstered. I highly recommend reading about the nature of Khaybar and how warfare worked when enemies had fortresses.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #48 on: November 28, 2017, 11:39:28 PM »
Because he wanted Abu Bakr and `Umar to lead and fight for his cause and gain the reward and learn the lessons and experiences. 

This a very colourful interpretation. Retreating and being repelled , without challenging any of the oppositions major warriors, and without making any significant grounding is not 'gain reward and learn the lessons and experiences'. Even you have to believe he sent them to take Khaybar, knowing full well they had adequate support to do it. I say he gave them adequate support, and wanted Khaybar taken, and gave them a chance to prove to themselves and the others, but knew ultimately, he would cure Ali ibn Abi Talib and that Khaybar has been ordained for Ali to conquer.

Quote
Also in Khaybar was a special merit for `Ali who succeeded in defeating the enemy. Many a times would the Muslims withdraw or retreat and then fight back and conquer, who told you that's a shame or a taboo and that it must never happen? God wants them to experience difficulties, that's the way of life, nothing is easy and not all battles are won.

Are you aware that in the battles the Muslims retreated, they were severely reprimanded? In Uhud, the Muslims were reprimanded for fleeing upon hearing the Prophet (saw) had died. In Hunayn Allah rebuked them once more.  Let us put this to the side - my problem is not that they retreated, because it may have been the case they weer overcome and emphatically beaten and the only sensible option would be to flee.

Thus, with the same number of soldiers, Ali ibn Abi Talib had something they didn't, and you have to accept it. He showed bravery and leadership in accepting the challenge of Harith and Marhab. Where do we see that for Abu Bakr or Umar? He showed leadership in how he used his forces and took Khaybar after. In fact, while Abu Bakr and Umar were empathically beaten and this caused the Muslims to be in disarray and to lose hope, as i have said so many times, Allah and his Messenger made a clear statement that even Ali ibn Abi Talib when sick and not fit to fight would be superior to them, and called upon by Allah and his Prophet and given full assurance of a victory through him.


Quote
You see, it is the Shia who conclude vile and despicable lessons from history. Taking things and turning them to attack `Ali's "competition". I swear to God if we did the same it would be way too ugly but Ahlul-Sunnah are purer than this.

SubhanAllah, you have abused, criticised, accused, and shown one of the most biased and one sided views of Ali ibn Abi Talin, totally distorting what actually occurred in his time as Caliph, and then going on to rebuke his son, and then you claim this? Your posts are there for everyone to read the kind of language you used. As a Shia, my Madhab is not based upon having an idealistic and rosy picture of history. Rather it is based on realism, not idealism.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #49 on: November 28, 2017, 11:48:18 PM »
Lesson I learned from Uhud was that `Ali bin abi Talib does not equal victory and the Muslims can lose even if he's included. Lesson further cemented during `Ali's reign.

There is a difference, The Muslims incurred what they did because the companions fled after hearing the Prophet may have died. At this point, those that remained were terribly outnumbered. Allah (swt) has a system in place, and at times when human beings abuse their responsibilities, he does not cause the one or two remaining pious individuals to slaughter an army of thousands on their own.

Let us consider Badr, where historically Ali ibn Abi Talib killed most of the opposition. Or Khandaq, where he rose to challenge the fierce Amr of the army of Abu Sufiyan, the father of Muawiyah and the grandfather of Yazid. At Khaybar, victory was brought through him. Many a times he was instrumental and the most important individual aside from the Prophet (saw) in bringing victory, and Allah (swt) had brought victory through him.

Quote
lol what's the point of this entire paragraph you wrote honestly? Obviously when doing a miracle he'd know whether it's going to work or not. Just like he (saw) said "The Caliphate of prophet-hood after me is thirty years" and it was with Abu Bakr.

Brother, do you read my posts or just skim them? I had clearly said, he knew that ultimately, Khaybar would be conquered through Ali ibn Abi Talib. He knew he would have to perform a miracle, and knew Allah had decreed it to be Ali to be the one who would have the ability to successfully bring down Khaybar. Coincidentally, Ali was ill, another thing divinely ordained, such that a statement could be made after Abu Bakr and Umar had fled and had to retreat that put them aside, and put everyone else aside, so firmly was it decreed that Ali was the one to bring victory that despite being ill, he was cured by a miracle and the Muslims promised in full confidence he would give victory. Something not seen when Abu Bakr and Umar were sent.




Quote
Forum is free for all, nothing is official and I have not committed to debating a specific individual, I wrote what I think was sufficient, whether you like to have the last word or not is not my problem, if anything is worth refuting we refute. Furthermore, people have a life, I didn't post much on the forum before you came and I'm not gonna post much after your arrival, I'm also not a fan of reading long essays that are clearly devoid of material, I'd rather read useful things in my free time.

I have robustly addressed the majority of what you have posted here. Most of my posts bring forth relevant points and thoroughly address the claims you make. If you feel they don't feel free to refute it and let the people judge for themselves, if they apply objectivity.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Hani

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #50 on: November 28, 2017, 11:58:11 PM »
Quote
This point can not be taken seriously. Are you aware that the Prophet (saw) only rewarded those who had only freshly embraced Islam with the greater booty? This was to encourage them, and support them, and to allow them to further feel welcomed and integrate.

You wish to compare this to when Ali ibn Abi Talib faced hypocrites, those who fought against him, those who were part of absolute corrupt elements within his state, to just bribe them with money? That is corruption and not how the Prophet (saw) operated. Believe me, if Ali ibn Abi Talib wished to gain power through deceit and corruption he could have employed the path of M'uawiyah. However so firm upon justice was he, that it created for him enemies. Rather than being a point against Ali ibn Abi Talib, this is a shining example of the true justice he showed as a perfect leader.

For you to even compare the cults, the hypocrites, and the corrupt in the state of Ali ibn Abi Talib, with freshly converted Muslims at the time of the Prophet (saw) shows a total lack of understanding of what the Prophet (saw) did or history. To then add to this and actually criticise him for not bribing corrupt people, is just insult to injury. It is inconceivable and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind of your bias and prejudice against Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Then it seems you've no idea who al-Mu'allafah Qulubuhum are since they were individuals that were influential and had not firm belief such as abu Suffiyan and Ya`la bin Umayyah who could have rebelled against Islam otherwise. You fail to see that the difference between `Ali and the Prophet (saw) was that the latter was a very intelligent politician whereas the former was a jurist who had no clue about these matters.

Quote
Are you not aware that the time of Ali is uniquely called the era of 'Fitnah' ? Are you not aware that Ali, unlike the others not only had to face three major civil wars, but also had to contend with a purist group known as the Khawarij? His problems were earth and sky, head and shoulders above anything Abu Bakr or Umar had to deal with. This is widely accepted.

Are you a robot? This is the third time you repeat the exact point without anything of value added.

Quote
Do you believe it was simple to just find the killers? Do you not recognise before Ali ibn Abi Talib should have undergone the path of finding the killers, he first had to ensure there was stability, and obtain the Bayah from everyone? Why do we not find M'uawiyah giving him Bayah, ceding control of Sham and then giving him time to work things out? From the get go, there was rebellion and opposition against him. 

Mu`awiyah told him "Punish the killers and I shall happily give Bay`ah." I believe punishing the killers was simpler than waging the wars of Jamal and Siffin.

But a group of the killers were in fact `Ali's supporters, he didn't want to lose his supporters and his authority. He dug himself into a deeper hole because those "supporters" later let him down and he made major errors of judgement in trusting them.

Quote
1. The battle of Basra or the battle of the Camel was fought and was won with the aid of the people of Kufa. Ali made Kufa his capital, partly in recognition of this service by them.

2. Ali was anxious to save Medina from the havoc of civil strife like the one which had ended in the murder of Uthman. He did not want Medina to become the locale of political disturbances at any time, and he wanted to save the City of the Prophet from destruction or desecration in the possible wars of the future.

3. Kufa had a more central position in the empire. Administrative facility of the vast and sprawling territories dictated this change.

4. It was easier for Ali to watch the movements of Muawiya from Kufa than from Medina.” (The History of Islam).

Then he cursed the moment he did so as was recorded in many of his sermons:

"Even if I give you charge of a wooden bowl I fear you would run away with its handle. O’ Allah they are disgusted of me and I am disgusted of them. They are weary of me and I am weary of them."

"O’ you semblance of men, not men, your intelligence is that of children and your wit is that of the occupants of the curtained canopies (women kept in seclusion from the outside world). I wish I had not seen you nor known you"

"Truly, there is nothing between me to you which I like and you also like it, or with which I am angry and you may also unite against it. What I love most is death!"

Bad move!

Quote
SubhanAllah. It was decreed by Allah that Husayn would not succeed.

And it was decreed by Allah that Abu Bakr and `Umar would succeed in many other battles and that they'd overcome obstacles the size of mountains.

Good for them, God is pleased with them. {Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them}

Thus Sunni Islam is more established and has always been more established than Tashayyu`.

The rest is repetitive rants that deserve no reply, enjoy.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2017, 12:02:55 AM »
There is a difference, The Muslims incurred what they did because the companions fled after hearing the Prophet may have died. At this point, those that remained were terribly outnumbered. Allah (swt) has a system in place, and at times when human beings abuse their responsibilities, he does not cause the one or two remaining pious individuals to slaughter an army of thousands on their own.

Let us consider Badr, where historically Ali ibn Abi Talib killed most of the opposition. Or Khandaq, where he rose to challenge the fierce Amr of the army of Abu Sufiyan, the father of Muawiyah and the grandfather of Yazid. At Khaybar, victory was brought through him. Many a times he was instrumental and the most important individual aside from the Prophet (saw) in bringing victory, and Allah (swt) had brought victory through him.

Brother, do you read my posts or just skim them? I had clearly said, he knew that ultimately, Khaybar would be conquered through Ali ibn Abi Talib. He knew he would have to perform a miracle, and knew Allah had decreed it to be Ali to be the one who would have the ability to successfully bring down Khaybar. Coincidentally, Ali was ill, another thing divinely ordained, such that a statement could be made after Abu Bakr and Umar had fled and had to retreat that put them aside, and put everyone else aside, so firmly was it decreed that Ali was the one to bring victory that despite being ill, he was cured by a miracle and the Muslims promised in full confidence he would give victory. Something not seen when Abu Bakr and Umar were sent.




I have robustly addressed the majority of what you have posted here. Most of my posts bring forth relevant points and thoroughly address the claims you make. If you feel they don't feel free to refute it and let the people judge for themselves, if they apply objectivity.

Dude your posts at this point have sunk to a level of just arguing for the sake of it so spare me. LOL @ God not wanting a single individual to defeat the entire army on their own, bro don't forget `Ali died from a smack on his head by one individual that came from behind him =)

As for all the rest, you're just showing that `Ali was a strong warrior not that he's a good leader.

Good job for addressing my points robustly, thumbs up for you LoL I'll let the readers enjoy
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hadrami

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2017, 12:04:59 AM »
You dont need an article to show that only Ali succeeded in Khaybar, we know that, but to belittle syaikhain because they failed? Do you really want to compare how many victories syaikhain leadership have brought? Lets not compare that to the one who is hiding, because hes afraid 😉 Now thats a fail leader of the worst kind, but your shia full of grudge mindset has blinded you. Lets not compare the coward to any leaders, let alone syaikhain. Lets not pretend its about objectivity shall we.

Hani

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2017, 12:05:54 AM »
Guys don't forget, AFTER appointing Abu Bakr as the first leader in Khaybar (to make him lose and humiliate him in public lol) the Prophet (saw) then appointed him as prince of Hajj and leader of prayer. That's what I call intelligent design :)

Oh and before I forget, the Prophet's (saw) very last sermon right before he died, was mostly in praise Abu Bakr alone. This is when he went out with head bandages during his sickness, he delivered no other public sermon after it.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 12:11:01 AM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2017, 12:08:51 AM »
You dont need an article to show that only Ali succeeded in Khaybar, we know that, but to belittle syaikhain because they failed? Do you really want to compare how many victories syaikhain leadership have brought? Lets not compare that to the one who is hiding, because hes afraid 😉 Now thats a fail leader of the worst kind, but your shia full of grudge mindset has blinded you. Lets not compare the coward to any leaders, let alone syaikhain. Lets not pretend its about objectivity shall we.


Their scholars say he was doing Taqiyyah from his own soldiers because most of them loved Abu Bakr and `Umar so he couldn't propagate correct faith. Taqiyyah even when he was Caliph, to keep his supporters so that he doesn't want to lose authority. Not to mention his wife getting beat and his divine right usurped by two cowardly nobodies from lower clans.

It's all about that boiled egg of Islam, that's why we had Jamal and Siffin, for the egg.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2017, 12:11:09 AM »
Dude seriously, who the hell told you I'm Salafi? How pathetic can you be?

You are on TSN, one of the main authors of the articles and representatives of this site, which has authored articles claiming that the Ashari and Maturidi are deviants in Aqeedah. I find it strange how you are willing to unite with individuals who are polar opposites to you in understanding one of the most fundamental pillars of our religion - Tawheed and the understanding of divine attributes. If you are not Salafi-Athari, but an Ashari or Maturidi then you are promoting a website publishing articles representing Tawheed in a manner you yourself fundamentally oppose. If you claim not to be from either of these groups, that with respect, would be even more serious.

Quote
Secondly, to me there is no halo around anybody's head, except the Prophet (saw).
Thirdly, it's rich coming from you "The bias", dude you're the most biased individual on this forum. You literally claim to belong to `Ali's Shia (party) you think the man is infallible and cannot make mistakes. How biased can you be son?

This is the go to when one can not address points, throw in the 'infallibility card'. Many Sunni scholars do not deem Ali to be infallible, but would never claim he was a complete failure as a statesman. Many Sunni scholars do not deem Ali to be infallible but recognise Aisha, M'uaiwyah and the rest of the them were firmly in the wrong and erred greatly. You however, side with them and blame Ali for not acting quickly enough. That to me, is absolutely outrageous. You have down played in every way you can of the virtues of Ali on this thread and other threads, and then attacked him as incompetent. Throw aside the infallible imam card, the majority of Sunnis would not call him a weak and incompetent leader. There is no doubt in my mind you come at this with incredible bias, and i suspect wether they admit it or not, you colleagues on here may not agree with your tone and the content of your attacks against Ali.

Quote
Fourthly, the discord was created by `Ali not punishing the Caliph's killers even though he was given 3 months. Then he followed them with an army and caused a massacre. At the end he didn't punish those individuals, he went and gave `A'ishah the best treatment imaginable and sent her back honored and safe to live happily with a steady wage by the government.

SubhanAllah, how many times must it be said that as soon as he became Caliph , M'uawiyah did not cede control of Sham and the governors he appointed?  He inherited a caliphate where there was chaos and he needed time to affirm and assert his control, to place his governors and remove the corrupt ones placed by Uthman. Yet, he was met with resistance.  He never had any chance to deal with the matter properly because he faced several civil wars, far greater problems, and the formation of the purist cult known as the Khawarij.

Aisha had absolutely no right to wage war against Amirul M'uminen, Ali ibn Abi Talib. She should have trusted him and allowed him to assert control and authority first. I know that i would have sided with Ali in his battles, firmly, without doubt, but as for you, the way you talk it seems you may have joined the ranks of Aisha, and perhaps even M'uawiyah.

SubhanAllah, to claim that it was Ali who caused the massacre by meeting the army of Aisha is extreme and distorted bias. Seriously brother, i have rarely seen any Sunni argue like this, and from my debates with you, you are clouded with prejudice against Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Quote
Fifthly, `Ali was advised to keep Mu`awiyah and then after settling things to remove him. `Ali instead went and waged a war on the man and tried to take Syria by force, causing other massacres and losing the entire battle in the process. He was NOT a good politician that's for sure. Just because you're a strong warrior or a pious jurist doesn't mean you'll be a successful leader.

I am actually going to start taking screenshots of this, lest someone deletes the thread when they realise what you are posting here. This is absolutely outrageous. Ali ibn Abi Talib wanted to take out M'uawiyah because he realised that man was one of the main instigators of stability. He wanted to put in righteous governors, and assert and affirm his control and authority, and rid the Ummah of the grip of Banu Ummayah influence. M'uawiyah wanted power, and used the death of Uthman as a pretext to rebel against Ali ibn Abi Talib and sit as king over the massive landmass of Sham, which in those days was far larger than modern day Syria, but encompassed four or five countries.  Why did M'uawiyah not give Bayah and cede control immediately, and then trust Ali ibn Abi Talib? This is because the man had no interest in doing so, and found in the death of Uthman the perfect opportunity to solidify his power in the region. SubhanAllah, you are siding with a man whose governors cursed Ali, who himself had a great level of Nasb and cursed Ali himself.

Quote
Then you say: "They never had to face internal rebellion and major civil wars." Dude the entire nation rebelled during their time on top of Byzantines and Persians. stop making a mockery out of yourself.

If you study history, you will realise the time of Ali is uniquely called the time of Fitnah. Abu Bakr had to fight those who were not prominent companions but were fringe tribes around Arabia, whilst the majority in Medina were firm and he had enough control and command and subdue the others. Umar fought and conquered many outside of Arabia at a time Arabia was pretty much united and the enemy was external. Ali on the other hand obtained the Caliphate when Uthman had helped strengthened the Banu Umayyah in Syria, when Aisha began to instigate the first major civil war, followed by M'uawiyah not giving Bayah, opposing him, and causing two more civil wars. Not only that, he also dealt with a purist cult known as the Khawarij. The enemies of Ali were more devious than those of Abu Bakr and Umar. While those of Abu Bakr and Umar were mostly out and out hypocrites, those who fought Ali were prominent companions who outwardly showed their Islam and fought under its banner, causing enormous division in the foundations of the Ummah and great confusion as a result.


Quote

"veiled prejudice against Ali ibn Abi Talib" Open prejudice against Abu Bakr and `Umar will be met with what's similar.

I take the back, you have shown extreme and open prejudice against Ali. At least my criticisms of Abu Bakr and Umar is based on a fair reading of text. Your dislike of Ali, with respect, is totally biased and an extremely desperate attempt to lower his position. And do you know what is interesting ? The Banu Umayyah, like you, recognised that the way to lower his position was to elevate the others above him, and diminish and play down his virtues. I could not visualise it before, but seeing an individual actually talk with such bias and believe it, i can now fully comprehend how it could have happened before, and what delusions they must have had.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2017, 12:17:03 AM »
Guys don't forget, AFTER appointing Abu Bakr as the first leader in Khaybar (to make him lose and humiliate him in public lol) the Prophet (saw) then appointed him as prince of Hajj and leader of prayer. That's what I call intelligent design :) 

He appointed him the leader, and then appointed Umar, yet both were repelled and fled the battle brother. Where was the statement made that Allah would grant victory through Abu Bakr? Put that side. Where was the statement made he would grant victory through Umar? Instead, a sick Ali ibn Abi Talib was still preferred by Allah.  That, brothers and sisters, is a powerful statement.


Quote
Oh and before I forget, the Prophet's (saw) very last sermon right before he died, was mostly in praise Abu Bakr alone. This is when he went out with head bandages during his sickness, he delivered no other public sermon after it.


This is not Hujjah upon me anymore than al-Kafi is on you. It is strange however, that if this sermon took place, the Ansaar totally forgot it, and we find them having an enormous struggle for power in Saqifah. When Abu Bakr holds up the hand of Umar and Abu-Ubaidah, there is no recognition by the Ansaar that he is the best man after the Prophet. Instead, a hue and scuffle breaks out and we don't know what happens next, but in the confusion, Umar asks Abu Bakr to hold out the hand of Ali, and some of the other emigrants present (few) do so, and then there is a gap of time and it is mystery what happened here , whereby we see others falling in line.

Oh, and let us not forget after this powerful speech, Ali ibn Abi Talib had amnesia and together with Zubayr, other companions and members of the Banu Hashim decided to oppose Abu Bakr and withhold bayah until the death of Fatima herself.

DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Hadrami

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2017, 12:30:16 AM »
You are on TSN, one of the main authors of the articles and representatives of this site, which has authored articles claiming that the Ashari and Maturidi are deviants in Aqeedah. I find it strange how you are willing to unite with individuals who are polar opposites to you in understanding one of the most fundamental pillars of our religion - Tawheed and the understanding of divine attributes. If you are not Salafi-Athari, but an Ashari or Maturidi then you are promoting a website publishing articles representing Tawheed in a manner you yourself fundamentally oppose. If you claim not to be from either of these groups, that with respect, would be even more serious.

There is this shia group which is well known for making takfir of syaikhain and you recommend us to learn from their video. Does that also mean you are a typical vile shia takfiri like them, because you promote their video & site? 😁

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #58 on: November 29, 2017, 12:36:15 AM »
Then it seems you've no idea who al-Mu'allafah Qulubuhum are since they were individuals that were influential and had not firm belief such as abu Suffiyan and Ya`la bin Umayyah who could have rebelled against Islam otherwise.

Not only am i aware of them, on our website the very fact influential individuals like this existed who did not have firm belief nor understanding of the Sunnah plays an important role in our analysis of Ghadeer Khumm. In fact, we talk extensively about this group. We can't seem to link our website here, so here is the excerpt of the longer article (Please do not bother refuting this, i am only demonstrating i know who this group are - our post is in a quotation)

Quote
The highest rank given is to those who entered Islam at the very begging when the Prophet Muhammed ﷺ began to openly declare his prophethood. The ones in the succeeding ranks seem to be categorised based on how much later they converted, as well as whether or not they were present at key battles or incidents. The penultimate rank is given to those who embraced Islam on the day of the conquest of Mecca and the lowest rank to those who embraced Islam after the Arab conquests in the last year or so of the life of the Prophet ﷺ. Thus, when it comes to rank and closeness, as well as companionship to the Prophet ﷺ those who accepted islam and were from Mecca, as well as Yemen, Oman, T’aif would be included in the lowest ranks.

We here wish to make a distinction that it does not mean the Sunni do not respect these companions, or claim that had some contribution towards the religion of Islam. However, they had seen very little of the Prophet ﷺ, had far less awareness of the Sunnah, and for the vast majority of his prophethood, were hostile to him up until the last year of his life. In addition to this, those who converted after the conquest of Mecca and the subsequent conquests in the Arabian Peninsula are termed as “Mu’alafati Quloobuhum” . The sunni scholar Al-Saghani [d.650] compiled a list of narrations and their number according to Ibn Hazm for each of the members of the Mu’alafati Quloobuhum who have narrated a tradition directly from the Prophet ﷺ. Of the 42 narrators of hadith listed, only four of them narrated more than one tradition, some narrated one and the majority narrated none at all
[2].


 
Quote
You fail to see that the difference between `Ali and the Prophet (saw) was that the latter was a very intelligent politician whereas the former was a jurist who had no clue about these matters.

No, rather they both were intelligent, and Ali ibn Abi Talib adopted the way of the Prophet (saw). The only problem was, senior companions around him abandoned the Prophet and his commands, waged war on Ali at Jamal, Siffin, and Narhawan, in addition to purists causing havoc. The purists did not form because of the actions of Ali. They existed and were a cult.

Quote
Mu`awiyah told him "Punish the killers and I shall happily give Bay`ah." I believe punishing the killers was simpler than waging the wars of Jamal and Siffin.

Do you believe a man far more intelligent than yourself, and M'uawiyah , combined, knew full well what M'uawiyah was saying? However, he knew the truth behind M'uawiyah and the reality of what he was trying to do, by using the death of Uthman to instigate instability and rebel against Ali, a Hashimite leader. M'uawiyah by your own scholars agreement was in the wrong and should have obeyed the rightful Caliph and stepped down, and allowed Ali ibn Abi Talib to first solidify his authority, and then do what he felt was needed. He was the Caliph, M'uaiwyah was in the wrong and i swear by Allah, i pray that had i been there at the time, i would have fought on the side of Ammar bin Yassir against the rebellious and corrupt army of M'uawiyah ibn Abi Sufiyan.

You have to ask yourself what it was about M'uaiwyah Ali did not trust, and wanted to get rid of as soon as possible. Rather the answer is clear: He knew the Banu Umayyah were solidifying their power and authority, and we can find upon the death of Ali , his name being cursed on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah and his abuse being rife in the Ummah.

Quote
But a group of the killers were in fact `Ali's supporters, he didn't want to lose his supporters and his authority. He dug himself into a deeper hole because those "supporters" later let him down and he made major errors of judgement in trusting them.

Before tending to seeking justice, he wished to first stabilise his rule and authority. While profoundly disagreeing with the corruption of Uthman, he did not believe it proper to open doors to killing the Caliph. However he knew full well the deceitful nature of M'uawiyah, and knew that he was a liar and only wanted to exploit the situation for his own personal gain. He didn't trust him at all. 


Quote
And it was decreed by Allah that Abu Bakr and `Umar would succeed in many other battles and that they'd overcome obstacles the size of mountains.

Just as it was 'decreed' the British empire would conquer many lands. Being a conquerer is no indication of being on the truth or righteous.

Quote
Thus Sunni Islam is more established and has always been more established than Tashayyu`.
The rest is repetitive rants that deserve no reply, enjoy.

More established brother, but numbers are no indication of truth. Furthermore, Sunni Islam is divided in one of the most fundamental pillars of our religion -Tawheed. The Salafi-Atharis believe that the Ashari/Maturidis are innovators, deviant, and deniers of the attributes of Allah. The majority, orthodox Ashari and Maturidi deem the Salafi - Atharis as those who absolutely abuse Allah in the false things they attribute to him, and are deviant and innovators themselves. Brother, not only can you not agree on Tawheed, you can not agree on where to put your hands in prayer. So with all due respect, i would first look into the mirror of my own problems before making claims like this.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
« Reply #59 on: November 29, 2017, 12:39:06 AM »
I have taken print screens of the posts brother Hani. What you have said would bring you condemnation even from amongst those Sunnis who are Salafi-Atharis. I am actually shocked at the things i have read on here. I have never come across a Sunni who spoke with the level of Bias you have. I am not being melodramatic when i say i have never in my entire history of debating polemics ever come across an incident , even when we take into account the distortion of Tawheed by the Salafi-Atharis , where i have actually written responses with an open  and utterly shocked expression.

DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
369 Views
Last post November 07, 2015, 04:20:50 AM
by MuslimK
10 Replies
1374 Views
Last post December 28, 2015, 07:45:54 AM
by Rationalist
16 Replies
1942 Views
Last post July 10, 2016, 06:51:03 PM
by Optimus Prime
0 Replies
286 Views
Last post July 30, 2016, 09:47:45 PM
by taha taha