TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 08:41:49 PM

Title: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 08:41:49 PM
DISCLAIMER: I AM VERY BUSY LATELY BUT WILL BE BACK TO ANSWER POSTS ON THE VARIOUS THREADS. PLEASE DO FORGIVE ME AND APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE DEAR BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

Youpunctured has tried to address one of the posts made by RTS with regards to Abu Bakr, and Umar first trying to take down Khaybar, but then being unsuccessful and returning. Understanding full well the effect this can have on the perception of these individuals, it sought to weaken the narrations brought forth by RTS. However, for an unknown reason, it addressed supposed weak narrations, but opted to ignore the Saheeh narration in Musnad Ahmad. We will here assume they were ignorant of its existence.

By the way, i have a lot of Sunni family and was raised by Sunnis. I am in no mood to bring this up to start slandering anyone, but i just want to get to the truth of what likely occurred at Khaybar, because it has an influence in how i view certain personalities.

From Musnad Ahmad:

Chain:Narrated Zaid Ibn Al-Hobab from Husein Ibn Al-Waqid from Abdullah Ibn Buraida from his father Buraida who said: (This is a Saheeh Chain)

 "When we reached Khaybar Aboo Bakr took the flag and came back and he did not succeed, the next day Umar took the flag and went out and came back and he also did not succeed, on that day the people encountered difficulties so the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'Tomorrow I will pass the flag to a man who loves Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) and Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will not come back until he succeeds!' All of us wished to be that man the next day who is going to be victorious. Next morning when the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed the prayer, he stood up and took the flag and the people were standing before him. Then he called Alee (a.s) and Alee (a.s) had an ailment in his eyes on that day, so the Prophet (saw) put his saliva on Alee’s (a.s) eyes and gave him the flag, and he succeeded." Buraida said: 'I was one of those who wished to receive the flag.'


Shaykh Shu'ayb Arnaut writes in the footnotes: The narration is Saheeh 'Authentic!' And this chain is strong because of Hussain Ibn Al-Waqid Al-Maruzi, and He is Truthful and has no problems, and the rest of its narrators are Trustworthy.

Source: Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Vol. 38, Pg. # 98.

The second chain

Narrated Abdulrahman ibn Abi Laili: I said to Alee (a.s), “You used to wear a cloak and thick clothes in the extreme hot days and wearing two thin cloths in the extreme cold days and came out and do not fear the cold weather.” Alee (a.s) said to me: “Were you not with us on the day of Khaybar O Aba Laili?” I said: “Yes, by Allah (swt) I was with you!” He (a.s) said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Aboo Bakr with people, they ran away and returned to him (saw), then the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Umar with people and he also ran away and came back with people to the Messenger of Allah (saw), then the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) and Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will be victorious, he is not a coward who runs away frequently!’


Footnote:
Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi: ‘This narration is narrated by ibn Abi Shayba, Ahmad in his Musnad, ibn Majah, Al-Bazzar, ibn Jarir and he has Authenticated this Hadeeth, and Al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Al-Hakim, Bayhaqi in Al-Dalahil and Dhia Al-Maqdesi in Al-Mukhtara.
Source: Kanz-ul-Ummal. Vol. 13, Pg. # 120-122, H. # 36388.

Now that we have an authentic chain, let us look at a corroborating narration, this time from Mustadrak of al-Hakim among other sources, that all pass through  Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah. Youpunctured has basically weakened him and said that although he was truthful, he was weak in memory. Having had a look through the books of Rijal many do claim he had a bad memory. However, when going through the views of Ibn Hajar it appears he grades him as "Saduq - but had a very bad memory" in his Taqrib al-Tahdib. The debate now would be whether to class this tradition as Hasan , or Dhai'f?

We also find: "Abdullah bin Dawud narrated us, from Sufyan Ath-Thawri who said: 'Our Fuqaha' are Ibn Abi Laila and 'Abdullah bin Shubrumah.'" I believe he is referring to Muhammed ibn Abdurahman ibn Abi Laila.

I say: Given we already have an authentic chain from reliable narrators, it proves in this case, Muhammed bin Abdur-Rahman was not narrating this narration from a poor memory, but rather, remembered it accurately. This might explain whyIbn Jareer narrated it as authentic, but Allah knows best.

Furthermore, we find that Dhahabi, al-Hakim, and a number of other scholars also deem it as authentic (the text of the tradition at least).

No-one can justifiably reject that according to numerous reports, and ones deemed authentic by Sunni Rijal standards, with the utmost respect, Abu Bakr and Umar both tried to take Khaybar but were repelled and ran away and returned to the Prophet [saw]. While Ali was ill, cured by a miracle, slaughtered Harith, slaughtered Marhab, and then finished this off by lifting the entire gate of Khaybar with his own bare hands, which 44 men could not lift according to what is narrated in Ibn Ishaq and other sources.

It is food for thought.



Edited by Farid for inclusion of advertisement for website.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: fgss on November 27, 2017, 08:54:38 PM
This is very small issue as compared to followig which you are ignoring since about a week. Any answer or do you accept my conclusion.

http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/question-for-shias-did-imam-ali-decare-his-imamah/msg20190/#msg20190
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 08:55:54 PM
This is very small issue as compared to followig which you are ignoring since about a week. Any answer or do you accept my conclusion.

http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/question-for-shias-did-imam-ali-decare-his-imamah/msg20190/#msg20190

Brother, i have not ignored your post. Rather , there is only one of me, and about seven or eight people i am discussing with at once. InshAllah, when i get time i will address your post. Don't worry. However i would like us to keep to topic here because i believe this is not of little importance, but actually of enormous importance.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 09:01:11 PM
May i just comment, the authentic versions of the hadith, as well as the ones narrated most frequently do not say the Prophet ﷺ gave the banner to Abu Bakr or Umar, but that he had a migraine or was unwell, or that they took the banner themselves.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 09:37:10 PM
Just to edit what i had said before, it appears the Messenger of Allah deliberately sent the both of them , one after the other, but the chains saying this are not authentic according to TSN standards. However, he may have sent them, or they may have gone themselves, but this is a minute point when the bigger issue is they went, failed, returned, one after the other, and then we observe what occurred with Ali ibn Abi Talib:

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 27, 2017, 09:51:13 PM
after Ali RA destroyed the gate of khaybar, later on Umar RA destroyed the door of his house & abuse his wife [alledgedly as usual of course]. Alhamdulillah i am not a part of this bollywood script of a religion. This topic should be the least of your sect's concern.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 09:54:30 PM
after Ali RA destroyed the gate of khaybar, later on Umar RA destroyed the door of his house & abuse his wife [alledgedly as usual of course]. Alhamdulillah i am not a part of this bollywood script of a religion. This topic should be the least of your sect's concern.


This is a completely irrelevant reply brother and totally off-topic.

I also do not believe there is enough evidence to suggest that Umar ibn al-Khattab broke down any door, and to add to this, i absolutely do not believe he was able to hit Fatima whilst Ali ibn Abi Talib, al-Zubar and many of the senior and grown men of the Banu Hashim and his close companions were present.

However, the traditions stating that Umar ibn al-Khattab threatened to burn the house down are authentic, and to threaten to burn down the house of Fatima is enough to condemn the act in the most severe terms - anything done after is insult to injury.

Shia's differ on what happened. Some claim he threatened and then tried to break the door down and indirectly hurt Fatima. Others claim he managed to get inside and hit Fatima, which is very unlikely. I say that this is not part of our Aqeedah, or the fundamentals of Shia Islam, and believing or disbelieving in it is of little importance.

I agree with Sayed Fadlallah on this issue and i do not care how many Shias may believe in this tale. I look at my religion through the lens of objectivity, and not dogma [ignore the background Music, someone else decided to add it]. If you don't understand what he is saying, click on the subtitles.

&t=30s

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2017, 09:57:00 PM
I applaud 'Umar for threatening to burn the house down. :)
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 09:59:25 PM
I applaud 'Umar for threatening to burn the house down. :)

Dear brother, this is the third wholly irrelevant post, with all due respect. Why is no-one willing to address the original post? I understand what is contained in it may not be comfortable reading , but this is a chance to engage in dialouge.

You may applaud him for threatening to burn down a house containing Fatima, Ali, Hasan and Hussain, however, i say let us go back to Khaybar and see why he did not threaten the Jews to break that particular door down?

No more off-topic posts please. We are discussing Khaybar.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 10:00:33 PM
If there is no-one willing to answer the topic of the thread, but post continually irrelevant material, then i will leave for a few days, and inshAllah will return in a few days, or longer. I came for an academic and reasoned debate, and not satire and irony.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2017, 10:06:07 PM
Our Akabir have always encouraged us never to trust a Shia, and that Shias are the masters of talking smash.

If I were you (Alhandulillah, I am not), I'd entertain the notion that, I don't think many brothers on here can be bothered to address your questions.

This forum is not dedicated to studying Sunni aqeedah, or fiqh. There are many exclusive e-platforms out there with specialist 'Ulema who are more than willing to address your concerns, and answer any questions. It's clear from the word GO, what you're trying to do here, and no one is likely to give you the time of day.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 10:08:28 PM
As there have been no serious replies, i will be leaving this forum for a short while and may inshAllah return in a week or sometime in the future.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2017, 10:09:12 PM
As there have been no serious replies, i will be leaving this forum for a short while and may inshAllah return in a week or sometime in the future.

NO! PLEASE DON'T GO!!
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 27, 2017, 10:09:26 PM
If there is no-one willing to answer the topic of the thread, but post continually irrelevant material, then i will leave for a few days, and inshAllah will return in a few days, or longer. I came for an academic and reasoned debate, and not satire and irony.
Irony, thats basically what i am reminding shia everytime we discuss anything about shiism, but your skull and heart are too hard & thick. Yes, it is irony to believe he gatecrashed khaybar and then got his house gatecrashed and he did nothing. Thats not irony?
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 27, 2017, 10:10:33 PM
NO! PLEASE DON'T GO!!

A Shia came on your forum. Perhaps if you responded more maturely, and with respect, and engaged in civil academic discussion he may have understood your position better. However, at times when we know we can not give any strong response, we jump the argument and begin attacking the one making it via Ad Hominem.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2017, 10:12:51 PM
A Shia came on your forum. Perhaps if you responded more maturely, and with respect, and engaged in civil academic discussion he may have understood your position better. However, at times when we know we can not give any strong response, we jump the argument and begin attacking the one making it via Ad Hominem.

There are reasons, why some of us will never talk to you the way you desire. As a Shia you should be tough like Hussain, and absorb the hatred and just get on with it. Stick around!

Abandoning ship is no different what your final Imam did, or is doing.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: muslim720 on November 28, 2017, 12:47:18 AM
From Musnad Ahmad:

Chain:Narrated Zaid Ibn Al-Hobab from Husein Ibn Al-Waqid from Abdullah Ibn Buraida from his father Buraida who said: (This is a Saheeh Chain)

 "When we reached Khaybar Aboo Bakr took the flag and came back and he did not succeed, the next day Umar took the flag and went out and came back and he also did not succeed, on that day the people encountered difficulties so the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'Tomorrow I will pass the flag to a man who loves Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) and Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will not come back until he succeeds!' All of us wished to be that man the next day who is going to be victorious. Next morning when the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed the prayer, he stood up and took the flag and the people were standing before him. Then he called Alee (a.s) and Alee (a.s) had an ailment in his eyes on that day, so the Prophet (saw) put his saliva on Alee’s (a.s) eyes and gave him the flag, and he succeeded." Buraida said: 'I was one of those who wished to receive the flag.'


Shaykh Shu'ayb Arnaut writes in the footnotes: The narration is Saheeh 'Authentic!' And this chain is strong because of Hussain Ibn Al-Waqid Al-Maruzi, and He is Truthful and has no problems, and the rest of its narrators are Trustworthy.

Source: Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Vol. 38, Pg. # 98.

Leaving the reference from Kanz ul Ummal aside for a minute - the favorite Shia reference book written centuries after the fact - allow me to address this narration.

Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) did not succeed in sacking Khaybar.  What is wrong with that?  At the time of Imam Ali (ra), how much land did he bring under Islamic rule?  Not even a foot!  Some scholars say Muslims actually lost some territory at the time of the Caliphate of Imam Ali (ra).

By comparison, here is what Wikipedia shows:

The Islamic nation at the time of Abu Bakr (ra)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr#/media/File:Abubakr%27sreign.png

While the same image existing under Umar's (ra) Wikipedia page has been removed, it is common knowledge that Jerusalem, Persia and other parts of the world were brought under Islamic conquest during the time of Umar (ra).

Lastly, if we were to take the narration from Kanz ul Ummal at face-value, I think someone already chimed in that no other person can outdo your 12th Imam when it comes to abandoning ship.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 28, 2017, 01:17:45 AM
By the way, i have a lot of Sunni family and was raised by Sunnis. I am in no mood to bring this up to start slandering anyone, but i just want to get to the truth of what likely occurred at Khaybar, because it has an influence in how i view certain personalities.
I would too if I had leaders who did nothing seeing people alledgedly went against Allah's commands (divine imamah etc) and even gave commands full of falsehood which confused and misguided even his own followers. But then again, those were just shia fake stories, I know they were truthful people (except the imaginary last one)

No-one can justifiably reject that according to numerous reports, and ones deemed authentic by Sunni Rijal standards, with the utmost respect, Abu Bakr and Umar both tried to take Khaybar but were repelled and ran away and returned to the Prophet [saw]. While Ali was ill, cured by a miracle, slaughtered Harith, slaughtered Marhab, and then finished this off by lifting the entire gate of Khaybar with his own bare hands, which 44 men could not lift according to what is narrated in Ibn Ishaq and other sources.

It is food for thought.
Even if they did in the end they returned to battle another days and defeated the enemies, as for shia version of ali, well we know what happened to him according to shia version of history. Abu Bakr & Umar never hid before even facing their enemies like you know who, they lived for years among the enemies declaring their faith. Compare to your mahdi, everyone is brave man. You shia are like someone who says he has a brave boxer, but that boxer has never been in the ring and always avoid his opponents. Should do MRI on your brain to even try this topic on syaikhain :D
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on November 28, 2017, 02:01:40 AM

Youpunctured has tried to address one of the posts made by RTS with regards to Abu Bakr, and Umar first trying to take down Khaybar, but then being unsuccessful and returning. Understanding full well the effect this can have on the perception of these individuals, it sought to weaken the narrations brought forth by RTS. However, for an unknown reason, it addressed supposed weak narrations, but opted to ignore the Saheeh narration in Musnad Ahmad. We will here assume they were ignorant of its existence.

From Musnad Ahmad:

Chain:Narrated Zaid Ibn Al-Hobab from Husein Ibn Al-Waqid from Abdullah Ibn Buraida from his father Buraida who said: (This is a Saheeh Chain)

 "When we reached Khaybar Aboo Bakr took the flag and came back and he did not succeed, the next day Umar took the flag and went out and came back and he also did not succeed, on that day the people encountered difficulties so the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'Tomorrow I will pass the flag to a man who loves Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) and Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will not come back until he succeeds!' All of us wished to be that man the next day who is going to be victorious. Next morning when the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed the prayer, he stood up and took the flag and the people were standing before him. Then he called Alee (a.s) and Alee (a.s) had an ailment in his eyes on that day, so the Prophet (saw) put his saliva on Alee’s (a.s) eyes and gave him the flag, and he succeeded." Buraida said: 'I was one of those who wished to receive the flag.'


Shaykh Shu'ayb Arnaut writes in the footnotes: The narration is Saheeh 'Authentic!' And this chain is strong because of Hussain Ibn Al-Waqid Al-Maruzi, and He is Truthful and has no problems, and the rest of its narrators are Trustworthy.

Source: Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Vol. 38, Pg. # 98.

The reason, Youpunctured left this narration was because, this narration in no way undermines the bravery of Sheikhain. And the article you referred focus on answering those reports which undermines the bravery of Sheikhein, and since this narration was not of this kind, then there was no need to refute it. So you bringing it up, shows nothing but your desperation and nothing else.



The second chain

Narrated Abdulrahman ibn Abi Laili: I said to Alee (a.s), “You used to wear a cloak and thick clothes in the extreme hot days and wearing two thin cloths in the extreme cold days and came out and do not fear the cold weather.” Alee (a.s) said to me: “Were you not with us on the day of Khaybar O Aba Laili?” I said: “Yes, by Allah (swt) I was with you!” He (a.s) said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Aboo Bakr with people, they ran away and returned to him (saw), then the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Umar with people and he also ran away and came back with people to the Messenger of Allah (saw), then the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) and Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will be victorious, he is not a coward who runs away frequently!’


Footnote:
Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi: ‘This narration is narrated by ibn Abi Shayba, Ahmad in his Musnad, ibn Majah, Al-Bazzar, ibn Jarir and he has Authenticated this Hadeeth, and Al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Al-Hakim, Bayhaqi in Al-Dalahil and Dhia Al-Maqdesi in Al-Mukhtara.
Source: Kanz-ul-Ummal. Vol. 13, Pg. # 120-122, H. # 36388.

Now that we have an authentic chain, let us look at a corroborating narration, this time from Mustadrak of al-Hakim among other sources, that all pass through  Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah. Youpunctured has basically weakened him and said that although he was truthful, he was weak in memory. Having had a look through the books of Rijal many do claim he had a bad memory.

Let me present the response of Youpuncturedtheark, for a better understanding to the readers:

Quote
This hadeeth is of Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila from his father. It has been reported in Musnad (778) of Imam Ahmad, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (32080), Ibn Majah (117) and others through the chain of Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah from Minhaal from Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah who report the incident of his father with Ali (ra) which include this hadith of the Prophet (saw). Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah was the one regarding whom Shu’bah said, “I have not seen a person who has as bad memory as Ibn Abi Lailah.”

Al-Bazzar also quotes it in Musnad (496) with the same chain of narrators. RTS quoted it from Kanz al-‘Ummal where it has been copied from Bazzar and Ibn Jareer. The reference of Musnad al-Bazzar has already been given, as for Ibn jareer then most probably he narrated it in his Tahdheeb al-Aathar which unfortunately is partially available now. We could not find it in the available portion of the book but since we have seen the methodology of Ibn Jareer in this book therefore we can say that it is nothing odd if he had declared it authentic. It is his norm in this book to declare a hadith to be authentic with the indication that this could not be authentic as per the standard of other scholars. He has unique methodology in this particular book as far as authenticity is concerned. He narrates a hadith then declare it authentic then points out the defects based on which other scholars might consider it weak, and then he skips without clarifying why he has considered it authentic ignoring the defects he himself pointed out. Therefore, just as the Shia Ayatullah said regarding the grading of Kulayni, we say the same regarding the grading of Ibn Jarir. Grand Āyat Allāh Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī stated: “The belief of al-Kulaynī about the correctness of traditions is not a legal proof because he is not an infallible according to us!” [Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama, of Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, volume 3, page 123]

After quoting this hadith in Majma az-Zawaid (9/124) Hafiz Haythami said: “Al-Bazzar narrated it. It contains Muhammad bin ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila who had bad memory. All other of its narrators were the narrators of Sahih.”

Hafiz Busiri quotes it in Ithaf al-Khirah al-Maharah (6633) and said: Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaibah narrated its Isnad is weak due to weakness of Muhammad Ibn Abi Lailah.


However, when going through the views of Ibn Hajar it appears he grades him as "Saduq - but had a very bad memory" in his Taqrib al-Tahdib. The debate now would be whether to class this tradition as Hasan , or Dhai'f?
Firstly, the view of Ibn Hajar is not binding since Jarh on Ibn Abi Laila is proven. Secondly, even if for arguments sake if we accept that he is Sadooq with bad memory, even then the hadeeth cannot be elevated to Hasan, rather the hadeeth is Munkar. When Sadooq narrator alone narrates a report from some famous Muhaddith, then it could also be Munkar.

Imam al-Dhahabi said:

 الذهبي : وهو ما انفرد الراوي الضعيفُ به. وقد يُعَدُّ مُفْرَدُ الصَّدُوقِ منكَراً.
(Al-Mawqiza fi ilm Mustalah al-hadeeth, by Imam Dhahabi).


We also find: "Abdullah bin Dawud narrated us, from Sufyan Ath-Thawri who said: 'Our Fuqaha' are Ibn Abi Laila and 'Abdullah bin Shubrumah.'" I believe he is referring to Muhammed ibn Abdurahman ibn Abi Laila.
It seems you are quite new to the field of hadeeth science, and seriously lack knowledge and experience. The quotes you are using are absolutely nothing in regards to Tawtheeq of a narrator. The status of the narrator remains the same.


I say: Given we already have an authentic chain from reliable narrators, it proves in this case, Muhammed bin Abdur-Rahman was not narrating this narration from a poor memory, but rather, remembered it accurately. This might explain why Ibn Jareer narrated it as authentic, but Allah knows best.

Furthermore, we find that Dhahabi, al-Hakim, and a number of other scholars also deem it as authentic (the text of the tradition at least).

Both the hadeeths are different, we have no issue with the first hadeeth. The second hadeeth with weak narrator ibn Lailah has wording which is objectionable. The problem with a narrator with bad memory is not just related with text of hadeeth, there is a possibility of him messing up with the chain of narrators. Or mixing the text of two different events in one hadeeth. Etc.

Hence the verdict on this narration is that it is Munkar.


then finished this off by lifting the entire gate of Khaybar with his own bare hands, which 44 men could not lift according to what is narrated in Ibn Ishaq and other sources.
Time to come out from the tales propagated in the majalis. Muharram is over.

This is a fabricated report.

Read this research paper:
A Research Paper  On the oft Quoted Weak Hadeeth of  Alee bin Abee Taalib (Radhiallaahu Anhu).
http://ahlulhadeeth.net/article/alibinabitalib.pdf

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 28, 2017, 02:42:03 AM
I am going to take another approach here, and put the status of the narrations to one side.

This dude is clearly showing off the virtues of 'Ali (RA). There is no reason for us to be overawed because we recorded his virtues before the Shia scholars. Our scholars have also gone as far as putting together treaties on the virtues of 'Ali. We have no qualms attributing such warrior-like qualities to 'Ali. In fact it is obligatory we do so providing the narrations meet the required Hadith criteria set down by the Hadith masters. It's suffice to say 'Ali is one of the greatest Islamic warriors in our history, if no THE greatest. Abu Bakr, and 'Umar do not equal 'Ali in this feat.

The narrations in question actually go against the Shia narrative in three ways.

a) The Prophet (SAW) appointed them with the banner/flag. It's safe to assume the Prophet (SAW) did appoint them because if one studies all the authentic narrations of the battles, the Prophet (SAW) would personally appoint different companions with different positions. No one would ever self appoint especially Abu Bakr, and 'Umar. Anyone who has studies their biographies will know they were very subservient to the calls of Allah (Qur'an), and the Prophet (Sunnah). 'Ali actually tells in an authentic narration Abu Bakr would beat everyone, and leave them behind when it came to doing good deeds. :P There is no bigger good deed then pleasing the Prophet (SAW) by obeying his every command. In short, the Prophet (SAW) trusted them.

The narrator probably didn't mention this explicitly because it was 'Ali who stole the show.

b) The Prophet (SAW) entrusted them with the banner before 'Ali which, again confirms their seniority in rank.

c) The Prophet (SAW) didn't see them as cowards. Why allow, or not refuse at least them from taking the flag/banner, ands charging the enemy if you know they're only going to end up embarrassing your entire army. Shias are always using weak narrations to confirm they ran away during the Battle of Uhud. These narrations confirm they were running in the face of death.

Shias would exercise their minds before sharing such narrations that effectively refute their own stupidity.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: MuslimK on November 28, 2017, 02:43:20 AM
From Musnad Ahmad:

Chain:Narrated Zaid Ibn Al-Hobab from Husein Ibn Al-Waqid from Abdullah Ibn Buraida from his father Buraida who said: (This is a Saheeh Chain)

 "When we reached Khaybar Aboo Bakr took the flag and came back and he did not succeed, the next day Umar took the flag and went out and came back and he also did not succeed, on that day the people encountered difficulties so the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'Tomorrow I will pass the flag to a man who loves Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) and Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will not come back until he succeeds!' All of us wished to be that man the next day who is going to be victorious. Next morning when the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed the prayer, he stood up and took the flag and the people were standing before him. Then he called Alee (a.s) and Alee (a.s) had an ailment in his eyes on that day, so the Prophet (saw) put his saliva on Alee’s (a.s) eyes and gave him the flag, and he succeeded." Buraida said: 'I was one of those who wished to receive the flag.'


Shaykh Shu'ayb Arnaut writes in the footnotes: The narration is Saheeh 'Authentic!' And this chain is strong because of Hussain Ibn Al-Waqid Al-Maruzi, and He is Truthful and has no problems, and the rest of its narrators are Trustworthy.

Source: Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Vol. 38, Pg. # 98.

What is so problematic about this? Victory and defeats happen in wars. The very fact that Prophet (saw) sent them as military generals and dispatched Muslim army under their command says a lot about their status in his sight.  If Abubakr and Umar were as your sect sees them, would the Prophet (saw) treat them like this? Not just Khaybar but they were also sent as leader of armies in many other campaigns to defeat and capture enemy territories. Food for thought!

Quote
The second chain

Narrated Abdulrahman ibn Abi Laili: I said to Alee (a.s), “You used to wear a cloak and thick clothes in the extreme hot days and wearing two thin cloths in the extreme cold days and came out and do not fear the cold weather.” Alee (a.s) said to me: “Were you not with us on the day of Khaybar O Aba Laili?” I said: “Yes, by Allah (swt) I was with you!” He (a.s) said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Aboo Bakr with people, they ran away and returned to him (saw), then the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Umar with people and he also ran away and came back with people to the Messenger of Allah (saw), then the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) and Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will be victorious, he is not a coward who runs away frequently!’


Footnote:
Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi: ‘This narration is narrated by ibn Abi Shayba, Ahmad in his Musnad, ibn Majah, Al-Bazzar, ibn Jarir and he has Authenticated this Hadeeth, and Al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Al-Hakim, Bayhaqi in Al-Dalahil and Dhia Al-Maqdesi in Al-Mukhtara.
Source: Kanz-ul-Ummal. Vol. 13, Pg. # 120-122, H. # 36388.

Please quote the Arabic text.

Edit: Brother Noor-us-Sunnah has also replied to this.


Quote
No-one can justifiably reject that according to numerous reports, and ones deemed authentic by Sunni Rijal standards, with the utmost respect, Abu Bakr and Umar both tried to take Khaybar but were repelled and ran away and returned to the Prophet [saw]. While Ali was ill, cured by a miracle, slaughtered Harith, slaughtered Marhab, and then finished this off by lifting the entire gate of Khaybar with his own bare hands, which 44 men could not lift according to what is narrated in Ibn Ishaq and other sources.

It is food for thought.

As mentioned above. Victory and Defeat is part of the war. Just to correct you, they did not ran away.

Quote
and then finished this off by lifting the entire gate of Khaybar with his own bare hands, which 44 men could not lift according to what is narrated in Ibn Ishaq and other sources.

The story is dubious. The report from Ibn Ishaq is weak and unreliable. Also, the man in the report says 8 people were unable to lift it not 44 like you claimed. Anyways, could you provide any reliable report for this?

Even if this story was true, then it proves the strength of Ali and we Ahl-Sunnah are proud of him. It doesn't prove your claims that Abubakr and Umar were evil. It is a moot point.

May i just comment, the authentic versions of the hadith, as well as the ones narrated most frequently do not say the Prophet ﷺ gave the banner to Abu Bakr or Umar, but that he had a migraine or was unwell, or that they took the banner themselves.

Just to edit what i had said before, it appears the Messenger of Allah deliberately sent the both of them , one after the other, but the chains saying this are not authentic according to TSN standards. However, he may have sent them, or they may have gone themselves, but this is a minute point when the bigger issue is they went, failed, returned, one after the other, and then we observe what occurred with Ali ibn Abi Talib:


You keep making ridiculous assumptions that hold no weight. Good for laughs though.

So they took the banner and gone for a military mission by themselves? That means without permission and without any order from the Prophet (saw)? I don't know what do you think of the Prophet (saw), was he a weak and failed leader uninformed of what was happening in the army or didn't have the power to stop Abubakr and Umar? I won't be surprised if you say yes.

Please read this article, it will explain and prove how Abubakr and Umar were the bravest companions even if they didn't kill many people in the battlefields:
Who was the bravest companion? [Ibn Hazm]
http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/09/03/who-was-the-bravest-companion-ibn-hazm/
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 28, 2017, 02:49:42 AM

Time to come out from the tales propagated in the majalis. Muharram is over.

This is a fabricated report.

Read this research paper:
A Research Paper  On the oft Quoted Weak Hadeeth of  Alee bin Abee Taalib (Radhiallaahu Anhu).
http://ahlulhadeeth.net/article/alibinabitalib.pdf



Just add to this: http://hadithanswers.com/an-unauthentic-incident-regarding-the-strength-of-sayyiduna-ali-radiyallahu-anhu/
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 08:25:55 PM
The reason, Youpunctured left this narration was because, this narration in no way undermines the bravery of Sheikhain. And the article you referred focus on answering those reports which undermines the bravery of Sheikhein, and since this narration was not of this kind, then there was no need to refute it. So you bringing it up, shows nothing but your desperation and nothing else.

The narration is substantial proof against the leadership ability and bravery of the Khalifatayn. Youpunctured should have allowed their readers to note that there is a reliable version of the narration present. There was no reference to this made, and even an attempt to explain that even if the companions accused them of cowardice, there was no harm in it since this behaviour (to be frank) was common among them. As an objective reader, i do not really care what the others accused Abu Bakr or Umar of. The most significant part is the fact Abu Bakr went first, but was unsuccessful. Umar ibn al-Khattab went second, but was unsuccessful. Had Allah (swt) wanted, he could have brought victory through either of them, yet the man to bring victory was none other than Ali ibn Abi Talib. Put side not being successful, he slaughtered Harith, and then Marhab, and then led the charge so that the Muslims were successful.

1. Abu Bakr, and Umar had the same soldiers as Ali.
2. Both went, one after the other, but retreated in defeat.
3. Yet, Ali ibn Abi Talib went and produced what became several famous victories over some of the most eminent warriors.

This tradition can not be downplayed. I myself for a long time believed it was not authentic (that Abu Bakr and Umar went and retreated), and when i came to learn of its veracity, it has made me realise the absolute significance of the victory.

As i noted, there is going to be a debate on what to grade the tradition (That was regarded weak). There are principles in Hadith whereby a weak tradition can be elevated to a category of Hasan one if it also comes through other routes that may be weak. I have left that for further research because this particular narration was never what i class  as Hujjah.

Quote
It seems you are quite new to the field of hadeeth science, and seriously lack knowledge and experience. The quotes you are using are absolutely nothing in regards to Tawtheeq of a narrator. The status of the narrator remains the same.

I am not new to Hadith sciences, and never did i at any point claim that was Tawtheeq. I referred to it for general reference, so that people may know this is not a random individual, but one considered a Fuqaha. As for the bearing on the actual reliability of the tradition , that is limited. I am quite aware of what Tawtheeq is.


Quote
Both the hadeeths are different, we have no issue with the first hadeeth. The second hadeeth with weak narrator ibn Lailah has wording which is objectionable. The problem with a narrator with bad memory is not just related with text of hadeeth, there is a possibility of him messing up with the chain of narrators. Or mixing the text of two different events in one hadeeth. Etc.

The tradition are not entirely different, given that the main aspect of the tradition is that :

1. Abu Bakr went, and retreated unsuccessfully.
2  Umar went, and retreated unsuccessfully.
3. Allah chose Ali ibn Abi Talib above both of them, blessed him, and promised the Muslims victory through him, when Abu Bakr and Umar had failed.

I can swear by Allah, when making this post, some companions claiming Umar ran away, or accused him of cowardice was not at all very relevant in my eyes. The most pertinent issue here is what which i have mentioned.


Quote
Time to come out from the tales propagated in the majalis. Muharram is over.

Majalis? I heard it from Yasir Qahdi. I am pretty sure he does not deliver Muharram Majalis. I assumed he would not narrate that which would not be considered reliable to Sunnis.  You can see that he refers to it here and i made sure to watch in order to understand the Sunni perspective, before bringing it onto this thread. Clearly, even respectable academics like Yasir Qadhi i have learned should be no source to understanding what is reliable.




Transcript:  "It is during this expidition the famous incident we know happened. That Ali RAs sheild was knocked out, and Ali was left defenceless. So he went to the door of the fortress, and its a massive structure. And he used the entire door as a sheild for the remainder of the battle. And when it was over he threw it aside and Abu Rafi' the narrator said "seven of us tried to pick up the door but we couldn't" and there is no doubt this is a mini miracle given to Ali RA. Ali RA was a man whom Allah and His messenger loved and we too love him with a true love."

However, i can accept this view is not enough to consider the report reliable by the view of the Sunnis. However, i brought it forth to see it is widely narrated among them and not simply in the 'Majalis'.



Quote
This is a fabricated report.
Read this research paper:
A Research Paper  On the oft Quoted Weak Hadeeth of  Alee bin Abee Taalib (Radhiallaahu Anhu).
http://ahlulhadeeth.net/article/alibinabitalib.pdf

I would like to comment on this later, inshAllah, however this was an after comment. The most significant aspect of this battle is that not only did Abu Bakr not manage to take Khaybar, but Umar upon trying failed. The Messenger of Allah (saw) knew that they would not succeed, and knew full well Allah had given him the news that Ali ibn Abi Talib would be the one who he would heal through a miracle, and unlike the Khalifatayn, would be successful and not return unless he was victorious.

Do tell me, why could Abu Bakr or Umar, with due respect, not challenge Harith? Why do we not see them challenging Marhab? Why could they not galvanise the soldiers and lead the charge in a manner that brought victory? Why do we only see this bravery, leadership, courage and ultimate success through Ali ibn Abi Talib?

I can accept other things that are played down generally by the Salafi-Atharis, but there is no way i feel any objective individual can play down the ramifications of the authentic tradition in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 08:29:37 PM
What is so problematic about this? Victory and defeats happen in wars. The very fact that Prophet (saw) sent them as military generals and dispatched Muslim army under their command says a lot about their status in his sight.  If Abubakr and Umar were as your sect sees them, would the Prophet (saw) treat them like this? Not just Khaybar but they were also sent as leader of armies in many other campaigns to defeat and capture enemy territories. Food for thought!

I would just like to make it clear, i was quoting the other reports along side the authentic one in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad to make sure that we knew beyond doubt that Abu Bakr first went, and then returned after being defeated or repelled. The same occurred with Umar.

Moreover, we do not see either of the two ever challenging Harith, or Marhab. Are you aware a major part of the victory of Ali ibn Abi Talib was that he killed some of their main warriors in battle? This weakened the moral of the Jews and allowed the Muslims to push for victory. Abu baker and Umar both had the chance to challenge these men in duels, but history never records this.

They had the same soldiers, the same men, yet were not able to achieve victory. Why do we not find Allah granting victory at Khaybar through Abu Bakr? Why do we not find it through Uthman?  Why was Ali ibn Abi Talib able to use the same soldiers and to be granted victory?


This can seriously not be down played.

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 08:53:21 PM
I am going to take another approach here, and put the status of the narrations to one side.

This dude is clearly showing off the virtues of 'Ali (RA). There is no reason for us to be overawed because we recorded his virtues before the Shia scholars. Our scholars have also gone as far as putting together treaties on the virtues of 'Ali. We have no qualms attributing such warrior-like qualities to 'Ali. In fact it is obligatory we do so providing the narrations meet the required Hadith criteria set down by the Hadith masters. It's suffice to say 'Ali is one of the greatest Islamic warriors in our history, if no THE greatest. Abu Bakr, and 'Umar do not equal 'Ali in this feat.

The victory of Ali ibn Abi Talib at Khaybar was more than just about being a warrior. It was about leadership. With the same group of men, could Ali use them to bring victory and take Khaybar, at a time when both abu Bakr and Umar one after the other, with the very same men could not? It also speaks volumes about the one through whom Allah wishes to bring victory. Ali ibn Abi Talib was ill, yet, Allah had decided that it was only through him the Muslims would gain victory. Allah , the Almighty, could have allowed Abu Bakr, or Umar to bring victory, yet a statement is made on the one whom Allah favours above the rest.


Quote
a) The Prophet (SAW) appointed them with the banner/flag. It's safe to assume the Prophet (SAW) did appoint them because if one studies all the authentic narrations of the battles, the Prophet (SAW) would personally appoint different companions with different positions. No one would ever self appoint especially Abu Bakr, and 'Umar. Anyone who has studies their biographies will know they were very subservient to the calls of Allah (Qur'an), and the Prophet (Sunnah).

The reality is, the situation becomes much worse if one believes Abu Bakr and Umar were directly sent by the Prophet (saw). Given the magnitude of the statement made by the Prophet (saw) that Allah had chosen a man to bring victory for the Muslims, and the miracle he performed to cure Ali ibn Abi Talib, he would have known and been aware that both Abu Bakr and Umar would not be successful, and that it was only through Ali ibn Abi Talib that Allah ordained for victory to be granted at Khaybar.

When i first came across this Hadith in Tabari, i thought that it must be some sort of weak narration. There were many prominent companions at the time, far greater than Abu Bakr and Umar in the battlefield.  Neither of the two in all the battles that they had partaken in Islam can be seen to have contributed in any notable feats of bravery. If there is one, its authenticity is questionable or it is a one-off. Yet we find Abu Bakr, and then Umar being sent one after the other. The Messenger of Allah (swt) knew they would not succeed. One would have to question why the Prophet (saw) did not immediately cure Ali ibn Abi Talib and send him? He wanted to demonstrate first by sending Abu Bakr and then Umar that there is a difference between the virtue, the certainty, and the blessings Allah places between them, and between Ali ibn Abi Talib. While the two, one after the other could not do anything in Khaybar, but had to run away, Ali of all people, who was too ill to even fight, is cured by virtue of a Miracle and the produces one of the greatest performances on the battlefield.

Quote
'Ali actually tells in an authentic narration Abu Bakr would beat everyone, and leave them behind when it came to doing good deeds. :P There is no bigger good deed then pleasing the Prophet (SAW) by obeying his every command. In short, the Prophet (SAW) trusted them.

This is not Hujjah upon me. Part of a debate is to agree on sources you can both ascertain to be true.

Quote
The narrator probably didn't mention this explicitly because it was 'Ali who stole the show.

We have traditions from Tabari (and it is relevant here if they are strong or weak, because i do not see it important to distinguish how they obtained the banner) whereby the Messenger of Allah (saw) had a migraine and was unwell, and that Abu Bakr, followed by Umar, took the banner instead. The only authentic tradition on this issue is silent in how they obtained the banner. However as i have said before, claiming the Prophet (saw) gave them the banner first is extremely advantageous to proving the superiority of Ali ibn Abi Talib.

According to (1) Abu Kurayb- (2) Yiinus b. Bukayr- (3) al-Musayyab b. Muslim al-Awdi-(4)'Abdallah b. Buraydah- (5) his father [Buraydah b. al-Iiugayb], who said: The Messenger of God often had mi- graines and would remain a day or two without coming out. When the Messenger of God encamped at Khaybar, he came down with  migraine and did not come out to the people. Abu Bakr took the banner of the Messenger of God, set out and fought vigorously, and then came back. Then 'Umar took it, fought with even more vigor than the first fighting, and then came back. When the Mes- senger of God was informed of this, he said, "By God, tomorrow I shall give it to a man who loves God and His Messenger, whom God and His Messenger love, and who will take it in humble obedience." [Tarikh -At-Tabari, English translation, Volume 8, p119-120]



Quote
b) The Prophet (SAW) entrusted them with the banner before 'Ali which, again confirms their seniority in rank. 

Ali ibn Abi Talib was ill and had an eye infection, and at the time was not even eligible to fight, and thus this point has no weight.

Quote
c) The Prophet (SAW) didn't see them as cowards. Why allow, or not refuse at least them from taking the flag/banner, ands charging the enemy if you know they're only going to end up embarrassing your entire army. Shias are always using weak narrations to confirm they ran away during the Battle of Uhud. These narrations confirm they were running in the face of death.

We are not talking about Uhud, and i am aware that narration is disputed. Rather our topic centres on Khaybar.

Quote
Shias would exercise their minds before sharing such narrations that effectively refute their own stupidity.

Only in a parallel universe would this tradition support the Sunni, rather than the Shia narrative. Rather, it emphatically supports the Shia narrative. If you see, i had only quoted supporting traditions to prove that Abu Bakr and Umar went, did not succeed, and were forced to retreat. I did not quote the other traditions so that the Matn of the traditions could be verified as true, save what was in the Saheeh tradition.

I will stipulate once more how this firmly supports the Shia version:

A. Allah could have granted victory through Abu Bakr as well as Umar, but chose not to. Not only did Abu Bakr possess the very same soldiers as Ali, but the fact he was unable to take Khaybar is a clear demonstration of his leadership, bravery, and ability in battle compared to Ali ibn Abi Talib.


B.
If for sake of argument, we say that the Prophet (saw) did appoint them, would this show their seniority ? Absolutely not. The Prophet (saw) knew full well that it was only through Ali ibn Abi Talib that Khaybar would be taken, yet wants the world to witness, there is a difference between Abu Bakr/Umar and Ali ibn Abi Talib. The very fact we coincidentally see them, one after the other, with the same soldiers sent to battle and retreating is very telling.

C What did Ali ibn Abi Talib possess that Abu Bakr and Umar did not? He had the same soldiers , did he not? The difference is the Yaqeen of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fact Allah favoured him above Abu Bakr and Umar, and his bravery in challenging the most fierce warriors of the Jews, in addition to his superior leadership skills over the soldiers he was sent with, should stand witness of his rank , compared to theirs.

By saying this i mean no disrespect to them in any way.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 08:56:58 PM


So they took the banner and gone for a military mission by themselves? That means without permission and without any order from the Prophet (saw)? I don't know what do you think of the Prophet (saw), was he a weak and failed leader uninformed of what was happening in the army or didn't have the power to stop Abubakr and Umar? I won't be surprised if you say yes. 

Let me just make it clear, this was never part of my argument. I only stated that the only authentic tradition we have is that they had the banners. However, the weak traditions differ as to whether they took the banners or were appointed. In fact, as you will see in my reply to Optimus Prime, if the Messenger of Allah (saw) did appoint them, this makes matter much worse.

Just to make sure you do not believe i stated that traditions vary as to whether they actually took the banner, or were given it, refer to this tradition (and before someone weakens it, please bear in mind i do not base my argument either which way, and this is just to bring forth my source to the brother on where the weak traditions differ):

According to (1) Abu Kurayb- (2) Yiinus b. Bukayr- (3) al-Musayyab b. Muslim al-Awdi-(4)'Abdallah b. Buraydah- (5) his father [Buraydah b. al-Iiugayb], who said: The Messenger of God often had mi- graines and would remain a day or two without coming out. When the Messenger of God encamped at Khaybar, he came down with  migraine and did not come out to the people. Abu Bakr took the banner of the Messenger of God, set out and fought vigorously, and then came back. Then 'Umar took it, fought with even more vigor than the first fighting, and then came back. When the Mes- senger of God was informed of this, he said, "By God, tomorrow I shall give it to a man who loves God and His Messenger, whom God and His Messenger love, and who will take it in humble obedience." [Tarikh -At-Tabari, English translation, Volume 8, p119-120]



Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: furhan on November 28, 2017, 08:58:59 PM

3. Allah chose Ali ibn Abi Talib above both of them, blessed him, and promised the Muslims victory through him, when Abu Bakr and Umar had failed.


Allah chose Hafs/Asim to transmit the qiraat which 95% of Muslims recite. Not Al-Baqir and As-Sadiq.

Therefore Hafs/Asim > Al-Baqir/As-Sadiq?
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 09:12:46 PM
Allah chose Hafs/Asim to transmit the qiraat which 95% of Muslims recite. Not Al-Baqir and As-Sadiq.

Therefore Hafs/Asim > Al-Baqir/As-Sadiq?

This is an entirely unrelated issue. On one hand, it is the more recitation of the Quran. Muhammed [saw] had scribes, but M'uawiyah was a scribe, whereas Abu Bakr was not. Does that make M'uawiyah > Abu Bakr? Rather, your point would only be valid if Muhammed [saw] made Al-Baqir and al-Sadiq (hypothetically) responsible for transmitting the Qiraat, and they had failed and were unsuccessful, and thus chose someone else. Had Muhammed (saw) chosen Ali ibn Abi Talib first and foremost, and had victory been through him, your point may have had some weight.

However, in this particular instance, we find that Abu Bakr and Umar are chosen first (with all due respect to them). They had the same soldiers Ali had, yet failed and retreated and ran back. Not only did this demonstrate the weaker leadership they possessed, but also their bravery compared to that of Ali. To add to this, Allah could have granted victory when Abu Bakr went with the banner, yet chose not to. He could have granted victory when Umar was given the banner, yet chose not to. However, a statement was made that Allah has chosen Ali above these companions, in that despite being severely ill, he was to be cured by a miracle, and victory would be granted through him, and not only that, but he would destroy the bravest warriors of Khaybar such that it would be the sort of victory the Muslims would never forget.

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 09:16:11 PM
.

Let me just make one thing clear brother, the additional chains which may be deemed weak were brought only to prove that the authentic chain is not the only such narration which documents Abu Bakr and Umar going with the banner and retreating after being unsuccessful. It was not designed to prove that the Matn of the text of the weak narration was reliable but only that the narrator who was accused of a weak memory but was Saduq otherwise remembered accurately the main portion of the event- even if certain lines are added. I also categorically did not use the words of Sufayn al-Thawri as Thaqtheeq, but to demonstrate the additional narration which contains parts which corroborate with the Saheeh one isn't coming from a 'Rafidah' or a 'Fabricator', and so despite it being weak, we can be confident that it happened, although the additional parts are up for debate as to whether they are weak or not, and i do not find it relevant to debate that.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: furhan on November 28, 2017, 09:25:06 PM
This is an entirely unrelated issue. On one hand, it is the more recitation of the Quran. Muhammed [saw] had scribes, but M'uawiyah was a scribe, whereas Abu Bakr was not. Does that make M'uawiyah > Abu Bakr? Rather, your point would only be valid if Muhammed [saw] made Al-Baqir and al-Sadiq (hypothetically) responsible for transmitting the Qiraat, and they had failed and were unsuccessful, and thus chose someone else. Had Muhammed (saw) chosen Ali ibn Abi Talib first and foremost, and had victory been through him, your point may have had some weight.

However, in this particular instance, we find that Abu Bakr and Umar are chosen first (with all due respect to them). They had the same soldiers Ali had, yet failed and retreated and ran back. Not only did this demonstrate the weaker leadership they possessed, but also their bravery compared to that of Ali. To add to this, Allah could have granted victory when Abu Bakr went with the banner, yet chose not to. He could have granted victory when Umar was given the banner, yet chose not to. However, a statement was made that Allah has chosen Ali above these companions, in that despite being severely ill, he was to be cured by a miracle, and victory would be granted through him, and not only that, but he would destroy the bravest warriors of Khaybar such that it would be the sort of victory the Muslims would never forget.

Yes my brother, I agree. I’m making the point that there should be more to it than just listening merits of people.

Come on bro; you ignore every single confounding factor and say it was solely because Ali RA led?
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 09:35:06 PM
Yes my brother, I agree. I’m making the point that there should be more to it than just listening merits of people.

Come on bro; you ignore every single confounding factor and say it was solely because Ali RA led?

It was solely because Ali ibn Abi Talib led. Abu Bakr and Umar had the same men as Ali, they had a voice, they had a brain and the ability to know how to use leadership. Yet, each of them, one after the other, with due respect my brother, failed, when we find Ali ibn Abi Talib succeeded.

On one hand there are two defeats, one after the other, and on the other there is a divine call that a man who is barely fit to fight will be healed through a miracle, and that only he can give the Muslims victory. Not only does Ali gain victory, he does it by killing some of the most fiercest warriors of Khaybar. The performance by Abu Bakr and Umar, with respect, and that of Ali ibn Abi Talib are earth and sky.


Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: furhan on November 28, 2017, 09:39:38 PM
This is an entirely unrelated issue. On one hand, it is the more recitation of the Quran. Muhammed [saw] had scribes, but M'uawiyah was a scribe, whereas Abu Bakr was not. Does that make M'uawiyah > Abu Bakr? Rather, your point would only be valid if Muhammed [saw] made Al-Baqir and al-Sadiq (hypothetically) responsible for transmitting the Qiraat, and they had failed and were unsuccessful, and thus chose someone else. Had Muhammed (saw) chosen Ali ibn Abi Talib first and foremost, and had victory been through him, your point may have had some weight.

However, in this particular instance, we find that Abu Bakr and Umar are chosen first (with all due respect to them). They had the same soldiers Ali had, yet failed and retreated and ran back. Not only did this demonstrate the weaker leadership they possessed, but also their bravery compared to that of Ali. To add to this, Allah could have granted victory when Abu Bakr went with the banner, yet chose not to. He could have granted victory when Umar was given the banner, yet chose not to. However, a statement was made that Allah has chosen Ali above these companions, in that despite being severely ill, he was to be cured by a miracle, and victory would be granted through him, and not only that, but he would destroy the bravest warriors of Khaybar such that it would be the sort of victory the Muslims would never forget.

Not to mention that there is a chain for the Quran; Ali, Hussein, Zayn al-Abideen, Al Baqir, Al Sadiq to Humza Al-Zayaat. (Not al-Kazim)

However Hafs/Asim was chosen for 95% of the Ummah by Allah instead of the above chain...
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: furhan on November 28, 2017, 09:41:50 PM
It was solely because Ali ibn Abi Talib led. Abu Bakr and Umar had the same men as Ali, they had a voice, they had a brain and the ability to know how to use leadership. Yet, each of them, one after the other, with due respect my brother, failed, when we find Ali ibn Abi Talib succeeded.

On one hand there are two defeats, one after the other, and on the other there is a divine call that a man who is barely fit to fight will be healed through a miracle, and that only he can give the Muslims victory. Not only does Ali gain victory, he does it by killing some of the most fiercest warriors of Khaybar. The performance by Abu Bakr and Umar, with respect, and that of Ali ibn Abi Talib are earth and sky.

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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani on November 28, 2017, 09:43:54 PM
It was solely because Ali ibn Abi Talib led. Abu Bakr and Umar had the same men as Ali, they had a voice, they had a brain and the ability to know how to use leadership. Yet, each of them, one after the other, with due respect my brother, failed, when we find Ali ibn Abi Talib succeeded.

On one hand there are two defeats, one after the other, and on the other there is a divine call that a man who is barely fit to fight will be healed through a miracle, and that only he can give the Muslims victory. Not only does Ali gain victory, he does it by killing some of the most fiercest warriors of Khaybar. The performance by Abu Bakr and Umar, with respect, and that of Ali ibn Abi Talib are earth and sky.




If we're judging `Ali based on his  historical record, it'll show that he was an impressive military commander on the battlefield but a below average leader and politician in terms of running a state. In that aspect, we can consider the difference between him and Abu Bakr that of sky to earth. Secondly as usual you jump to conclusions by judging the first two attempts as failure, how can fighting for the cause of Allah be a failure? Let's add that Husayn "failed" then. If anything it shows that Abu Bakr was the Prophet's (saw) first choice, then `Umar and finally `Ali. Furthermore, it is VERY LIKELY that the first two attempts greatly weakened the opponents and made victory possible in the third attempt. You hint that the Prophet (saw) was responsible for getting his own men killed by sending them alongside unqualified leaders, he should've sent `Ali in the first place then no? Maybe he should've healed his eyes and sent him directly instead of delaying.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani on November 28, 2017, 09:57:09 PM
Quote
Had Allah (swt) wanted, he could have brought victory through either of them, yet the man to bring victory was none other than Ali ibn Abi Talib.

And had Allah wanted, he could've brought the Prophet (saw) victory at Uhud but the Muslims were defeated `Ali included and his presence didn't change the outcome.

Quote
Abu Bakr took the banner of the Messenger of God, set out and fought vigorously, and then came back. Then 'Umar took it, fought with even more vigor than the first fighting, and then came back.

You should stop quoting weak report and cherry picking what you like from each, assuming you;re being academic, this one for instance has your little migraine story BUT shows that the Shaykhayn were VERY BRAVE and LOYAL that they took responsibility of matters during the Prophet's (saw) sickness, they went and fought vigorously instead of hiding or seeking safety.

So you pick the migraine part from this random narration, then you go to another  and pick the "retreat" part, create your own funky story as a result.


Quote
If for sake of argument, we say that the Prophet (saw) did appoint them, would this show their seniority ? Absolutely not. The Prophet (saw) knew full well that it was only through Ali ibn Abi Talib that Khaybar would be taken, yet wants the world to witness, there is a difference between Abu Bakr/Umar and Ali ibn Abi Talib. The very fact we coincidentally see them, one after the other, with the same soldiers sent to battle and retreating is very telling.

Where'd you get this from? Did the Prophet (saw) tell you this personally? SubhanAllah. Did he show there was a difference when he appointed Abu Bakr as Imam of prayer? Or Ameer of Hajj? Couldn't he have just told them there was a difference instead of sending his men to die and get slaughtered to prove a dumb point?
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 10:02:38 PM
If we're judging `Ali based on his  historical record, it'll show that he was an impressive military commander on the battlefield but a below average leader and politician in terms of running a state.

I am glad you have brought this up Hani. By the way, just to correct you here, if we judged Ali ibn Abi Talib based on his historical record, we would see a man who excelled in all aspects, and not just militarily. He was head and shoulders above the rest. Are you not aware that taking down an enemy fort relies on good leadership? It relies on bravery to persevere, and challenge the leaders of the opposition? Abu Bakr and Umar had the very same soldiers as Ali ibn Abi Talib did, yet we find that they had absolutely no effect. Yet, a man who was barely fit to fight was chosen by Allah to conquer Khaybar, and under his leadership, bravery, and certainty, he was blessed by Almighty to bring a victory in a manner that is foretold generation after generation hence. If that , Hani, is not a statement, i do not know what is.


Quote
  In that aspect, we can consider the difference between him and Abu Bakr that of sky to earth. Secondly as usual you jump to conclusions by judging the first two attempts as failure, how can fighting for the cause of Allah be a failure? 

Ali ibn Abi Talib was a far greater statesman. But are you not aware that at the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, the enemies showed open hypocrisy? Either they were polytheists or those declared Kaffir (or those who apostated). Ali ibn abi Talib faced a much greater struggle.

He inherited the Caliphate when many had protested over the handling by Uthman, and corruption that occurred in the Ummah. As soon as he became the Caliph, he faced three civil wars within a few years. These civil wars were led by prominent companions, openly Muslim, managing to deceive scores of people. Not only that, he had to contend with a purist group in his own camp in form of the Khawarij. If Umul'mumineen Aisha is joining forces with others as soon as you are the Caliph to disobey you and be defiant against you, leading to the first civil war, whilst M'uawiyah does not yield control of an enormous land spanning many countries in that day in the form of Sham, which leader would not find this problematic ? The hypocrisy here was inwards, large swathes of the Muslims  refused to yield, and it was tumultuous.

Quote
Let's add that Husayn "failed" then.

There is a distinct difference when it is 72-300 men, versus 4000+, and when you are evenly matched with equal soldiers and have to show your prowess, bravery, and when it is plausible to achieve a military victory.

Quote
If anything it shows that Abu Bakr was the Prophet's (saw) first choice, then `Umar and finally `Ali. Furthermore, it is VERY LIKELY that the first two attempts greatly weakened the opponents and made victory possible in the third attempt.

Brother Hani, i had to read this several times before even commenting on it. To begin with, Abu Bakr and Umar were not the first choices above Ali, because he was ill and was not fit to fight. Rather, the fact they went first , and failed, one after the other and had to retreat and were repelled , despite the Prophet (saw) knowing that he would choose Ali, cure him by miracle, and that it would be through him Khaybar would be conquered is a statement in and of itself. Why do we not find the Prophet (saw) showing any degree of certainty when Abu Bakr and Umar go first, with the very same soldiers? Rather, even before Ali goes, the Prophet is certain and makes a promise and prophecy he will not return without victory. Why was this honour not bestowed on Abu Bakr and Umar?

As for the claim they were weakened by Abu Bakr and Umar, and so this made it easy for Ali to conquer Khaybar, this flies in the face of historical fact. If you look into the books of history , Khaybar was an impenetrable fortress. They had scores of soldiers within Khaybar, including some of their most well known - Harith and Marhab. Abu Bakr and Umar do not get anywhere near the fortress, nor anyway near challenging the main opponents of the Jews, nor make any break through. Both times, they are emphatically repelled, which is why the traditions are explicit in the fact that the Muslims started to fall in disarray. There are no reports of any major members of the Jews killed, nor any talk of a break through they made. Rather we here they were defeated, and had to flee and return. Khaybar had no problem in sending more soldiers out, and this was the Fort where they had kept their soldiers.

The victory of Ali was based on his ability to lead the same army Abu Bakr and Umar had. It was on his ability to demonstrate bravery and leadership, and challenge the most powerful warriors of the opposition, knowing that if he were to kill them in single-handed combat, the morale of the opposition would weaken and he could then lead his soldiers further on and attack. Abu Bakr and Umar could have done this, but we find they did not.



Quote
In that case, the Prophet (saw) was responsible for getting his own men killed by sending them alongside unqualified leaders, he should've sent `Ali in the first place.

The Prophet (saw) wanted to send people so they they could prove themselves. He knew they would not succeed, but it was only fair for them to be given a chance, one after the other to prove they were able to take Khaybar. They should have been able to, with their numbers, but they did not succeed.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 10:13:17 PM
And had Allah wanted, he could've brought the Prophet (saw) victory at Uhud but the Muslims were defeated `Ali included and his presence didn't change the outcome.

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.

Quote
You should stop quoting weak report and cherry picking what you like from each, assuming you;re being academic,

Did i not explicitly write that this was a weak report in my previous post? Not only that, knowing the methods of TSN i do not want to fall into the Jarh and T'adil games, and would think several times before quoting a source. I told the brother explicitly this is a weak narration, and that it does not matter whether or not the Prophet (saw) had sent them or not, but that the only authentic narration does not comment if they were given the banner, and the weak narrations disagree amongst themselves. I then concluded by saying it would work in my favour and the point i want to get across if they were given the banners.

 
Quote
this one for instance has your little migraine story BUT shows that the Shaykhayn were VERY BRAVE and LOYAL that they took responsibility of matters during the Prophet's (saw) sickness, they went and fought vigorously instead of hiding or seeking safety.

I have already explicitly stated the report is weak. I only used it to show the weak reports differ among themselves as to what happened. It is strange, because your colleagues have vigorously denied any such thing could happen. I have myself said it is irrelevant whether they took the banner or were given the banner.

Quote
So you pick the migraine part from this random narration, then you go to another  and pick the "retreat" part, create your own funky story as a result.

This not what i have done at all.


Quote
Where'd you get this from? Did the Prophet (saw) tell you this personally? SubhanAllah. Did he show there was a difference when he appointed Abu Bakr as Imam of prayer? Or Ameer of Hajj? Couldn't he have just told them there was a difference instead of sending his men to die and get slaughtered to prove a dumb point?

Being sent as the leader of the Hajj isn't relevant at all here. As for the final prayer, that is up for another debate. As for your point, could you not then claim Allah decided to allow Abu Bakr and Umar to fail, and have a some companions killed, when he could have just told the Prophet (saw) to cure Ali ibn Abi Talib first? The Prophet (saw) was aware Ali was the one divinely chosen above all to grant victory at the battle of Khandaq, and as soon as Umar ibn al-Khattab and the forces with him fled back, he immediately gave the decree. 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.

By the way, it isn't a dumb point. He did not send his companions to a slaughter house. He sent companions who were well equipped and should have been able to complete the job, but on both occasions ran away and retreated. Allah could have granted victory through Abu Bakr could he not? If not Abu Bakr, then through Umar. Yet, instead a sick man who can barely be seen is chosen, and this time, unlike with the case of Abu Bakr and Umar, the Prophet promises he will not return unless he is victorious. If we are discussing the issue pertaining to leadership, then nothing can be more significant than to demonstrate the leadership, bravery, and ability of an individual to be blessed by Allah and decreed to be the one through whom Allah should grant victory.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 28, 2017, 10:27:20 PM
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.

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 28, 2017, 10:32:47 PM
A shia whose leader has been hiding for 1300+yr and according to the leader of their sect hid due to fear of facing his enemy is trying to belittle 2 men who had faced their enemies many times and were the most responsible for the expansion of muslim land an the defeat of many enemies. This is so cringeworthy.

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?
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani on November 28, 2017, 10:35:48 PM
Quote
I am glad you have brought this up Hani. By the way, just to correct you here, if we judged Ali ibn Abi Talib based on his historical record, we would see a man who excelled in all aspects, and not just militarily. He was head and shoulders above the rest. Are you not aware that taking down an enemy fort relies on good leadership? It relies on bravery to persevere, and challenge the leaders of the opposition? Abu Bakr and Umar had the very same soldiers as Ali ibn Abi Talib did, yet we find that they had absolutely no effect. Yet, a man who was barely fit to fight was chosen by Allah to conquer Khaybar, and under his leadership, bravery, and certainty, he was blessed by Almighty to bring a victory in a manner that is foretold generation after generation hence. If that , Hani, is not a statement, i do not know what is.

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.

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.

Quote
Ali ibn Abi Talib was a far greater statesman. But are you not aware that at the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, the enemies showed open hypocrisy? Either they were polytheists or those declared Kaffir (or those who apostated). Ali ibn abi Talib faced a much greater struggle.

He inherited the Caliphate when many had protested over the handling by Uthman, and corruption that occurred in the Ummah. As soon as he became the Caliph, he faced three civil wars within a few years. These civil wars were led by prominent companions, openly Muslim, managing to deceive scores of people. Not only that, he had to contend with a purist group in his own camp in form of the Khawarij. If Umul'mumineen Aisha is joining forces with others as soon as you are the Caliph to disobey you and be defiant against you, leading to the first civil war, whilst M'uawiyah does not yield control of an enormous land spanning many countries in that day in the form of Sham, which leader would not find this problematic ? The hypocrisy here was inwards, large swathes of the Muslims  refused to yield, and it was tumultuous.

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

Quote
There is a distinct difference when it is 72-300 men, versus 4000+, and when you are evenly matched with equal soldiers and have to show your prowess, bravery, and when it is plausible to achieve a military victory.

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.

Quote
i had to read this several times before even commenting on it. To begin with, Abu Bakr and Umar were not the first choices above Ali, because he was ill and was not fit to fight. Rather, the fact they went first , and failed, one after the other and had to retreat and were repelled , despite the Prophet (saw) knowing that he would choose Ali, cure him by miracle, and that it would be through him Khaybar would be conquered is a statement in and of itself. Why do we not find the Prophet (saw) showing any degree of certainty when Abu Bakr and Umar go first, with the very same soldiers? Rather, even before Ali goes, the Prophet is certain and makes a promise and prophecy he will not return without victory. Why was this honour not bestowed on Abu Bakr and Umar?

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

Quote
The Prophet (saw) wanted to send people so they they could prove themselves. He knew they would not succeed, but it was only fair for them to be given a chance, one after the other to prove they were able to take Khaybar. They should have been able to, with their numbers, but they did not succeed.

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 :)

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".
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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?
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami 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 😉
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani 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
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami 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? 😁
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia 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.

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 29, 2017, 12:49:20 AM
SubhanAllah. Before i had some doubt that maybe brother Hani was convinced and had fair arguments. Now , there is no doubt in my mind he is one of the individuals that has shown the most bias i have ever come across. I have debated many people, and their arguments and points are far more balanced, but he has emulated Ibn Taymiyyah. Nay, he has exceeded even the extremes Ibn Taymiyyah showed.

Claims made by Hani:

1. Ali ibn Abi Talib was a weak and incompetent Caliph

2. Jamal was the fault of Ali, for not finding the killers of Uthman quickly enough.

3. Siffin was the fault of Ali, for wanting to get rid of M'uawiyah and not finding the killers of Uthman enough.

4. At the battle of Khaybar , Abu Bakr and Umar severely weakened the enemy, and so all Ali had to do was the easy job of finishing them off.

5. Ali ibn Abi Talib showed gross incompetence for moving to Kufa (rather than bothering to read why actually it was a masterstroke and Ali chose it based on strategy).

6. Despite facing three major civil wars and the Khawarij, he had it easier than the other Caliphs, who were bold leaders, stronger, wiser, and competent, while he was weak and incompetent and only a jurist, but totally inept as a leader.

7. Ali should have paid off the hypocrites , rather than staying firm upon justice that he would not engage in bribery. He then compared Muhammed (saw) paying fresh, loyal Muslim converts who partook in a war and helped, with Ali needing to pay Munafiqs, hypocrites, liars, and mischief makers! SubhanAllah!



If this is not approaching Nasb, i really don't know what is. After that Hani, you have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. I have never debated anyone who has shown bias on this scale. I have taken screenshots of some of what you have posted, and i actually urge you to write on TSN and say these things about Ali, so that the wider Sunni audience can recognise this website for the bias it truly has.

This is one of the two main posters on here, one of the foundational pillars of TSN, and there is now no doubt in my mind Hani has demonstrated the gross bias against Ali.  I am not making this up, go back and read his posts for yourself. If they are deleted, ask me and i will provide screenshots. How strange, by Allah, my heart breaks to see the unity of some of these people on their wrong.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 29, 2017, 12:57:48 AM
why did you say Hani has bias? Ali RA was a pious man, but like any other men, no one is perfect. He was a great warrior and excelled at that, but understandably didnt do well in another field. Was he a great muslim leader? Yes, for sure. Did he ever make mistake and failed? Of course. We dont ascribe to shia bollywood movie script about a superhuman superhero who never made mistake. Even syaikhain we believed made mistake, that doesnt mean we dont respect them. You shias are full of drama. You believe imam misguided many people or Ali did nothing when his family was abused etc and act as if those are not insult and yet act to be shocked when hani said Ali was not in the same league with syaikhain when it comes to being a political leadership. Id say the belief that Ali and his progeny misguided people is more shocking than what hani said.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 29, 2017, 01:01:36 AM
why did you say Hani has bias? Ali RA was a pious man, but like any other men, no one is perfect. He was a great warrior and excelled at that, but understandably didnt do well in another field. Was he a great muslim leader? Yes, for sure. Did he ever make mistake and failed? Of course. We dont ascribe to shia bollywood movie script about a superhuman superhero who never made mistake. Even syaikhain we believed made mistake, that doesnt mean we dont respect them. You shias are full of drama.

This is extremely deceitful. There is a difference between saying someone is not 'perfect' and calling them a weak incompetent leader. Blaming all the major civil wars on them, and all the other slanders i have detailed on the post on top of this page.

As for a 'Super Human Hero', don't forget who killed the most at Badr, who remained firm at Uhud, who it was who took on Amr at Khandaq. Who it was who Allah by divine intervention ordained would be the one to take Khaybar , and in the process slaughtered Harith and Marhab. Put aside superheros, they are all fake. Ali ibn Abi Talib, raised by Muhammed (saw) and blessed by Allah as the man through whom Allah brought many victories to the Muslims is real.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 29, 2017, 01:04:02 AM
This is extremely deceitful. There is a difference between saying someone is not 'perfect' and calling them a weak incompetent leader. Blaming all the major civil wars on them, and all the other slanders i have detailed on the post on top of this page.
oh really, a shia full of taqiyya calling me a deceitful? You can do better than that. Shia believing ali did nothinh when Allah's command were being rejected and believing imam misguided people over and over are more shocking than what hani wrote. Stop being a drama queen ya takfiri
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 29, 2017, 01:07:19 AM
oh really, a shia full of taqiyya calling me a deceitful? You can do better than that. Shia believing ali did nothinh when Allah's command were being rejected and believing imam misguided people over and over are more shocking than what hani wrote. Stop being a drama queen ya takfiri

SubhanAllah, you have not even addressed my post brother. I have never shown disrespect to a single poster on here, but you have consistently jumped from one unrelated discussion to another.  Look, i am not here to foster discord and enmity and create in you further anger and emotion to reject Haq. Believe what you will.

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 29, 2017, 01:07:39 AM
saying that mahdi hide because hes afraid for his life is more shocking than anything in this thread. Yeah, the progeny of Khaybar warrior is afraid to meet his enemies. But yeah, you takfiri shia crying crocodile tears is what youre good at. Hani did nothing wrong except stating a fact that Syaikhain were better political leaders while acknowledging Ali was a better warrior.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 29, 2017, 01:09:07 AM
Look, i am not here to foster discord and enmity and create in you further anger and emotion to reject Haq. Believe what you will.


but how can you when your small irrelevant sect is all about creating discord and enmity and also master of using anger and emotion 😆
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 29, 2017, 01:14:59 AM
SubhanAllah, you have not even addressed my post brother.
oh yes i have, ive already wrote i didnt have problem even if syaikhain failed, because i know they returned and fought many battles and won after that. You are trying to belittle them when your mahdi failed to even face enemy, instead he hide 😁
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 29, 2017, 01:19:39 AM
we all know syaikhain failed to take Khaybar, but there is a RELEVANT question you should ask, if they were that weak & useless according to shia because of that, shia who still have functioning brain shoul ask "what of our hiding leader who left us because he was afraid to be killed by his enemy". Yes, it is so relevant. If i were you, i would be embarassed to even raise this topic about syaikhin, but hey shia has no shame.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: MuslimK on November 29, 2017, 02:54:32 PM
Although the brothers have already responded and destroyed the terrible and biased arguments of the Shia member.

His assumptions and the conclusions that that he reach to are the most childish and ridiculous ones, void of any logic. He also lacks knowledge of the Seerah of the Prophet (saw) and the Khulafa as can be seen from the claims he make.

One one side we have historical facts, on the other side we have his claims.

When he was told that Allah granted Abubakr and Umar victories after victories he said that in history non-Muslims were also capable of conquests and big empires. By his own logic there is nothing special about Ali's fighting skills then since in the history there were also many great non-Muslim warriors.

We all agree that Ali was a great warrior, better warrior than Abubakr and Umar and so was Khalid bin Walid better warrior than trio of them. Who was better and successful statesmen and ruler? History is there for everyone to see. But someone here wants to rewrite history according to his wishes.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 29, 2017, 03:22:06 PM
Too right.

Here is some of the bakwaas he's plucked out of thin air. I'm paraphrasing not quoting him literally.

Quote
'Ali killed most of the people at Badr?


Proof?

Quote
'Ali stuck around while the others ran, and protected the Prophet (SAW).

Proof? Talha, and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqas comes to mind actually!

Quote
It was because of 'Ali most wars were won, and he quotes how he defeated 'Amr ibn Abdi Wud

This victory didn't win them the war. Allah (SWT) mentions in the Qu'ran how all the Sahaba were very sacred, and he aided them with the winds of destruction. By Shia logic aka shaitani logic, this fear extends to 'Ali as well since the Qu'ran doesn't say otherwise. Hence, Allah (SWT) takes full credit.  ;)

- Mu'tah was all about Khalid.

- Khaybar was all about ' Ali.

- Conquest of Makkah, there was no war, but only a few skirmiches at best.

- Hunayn, there is no report that 'Ali KO'd many troops, but he was the Prophet (SAW), when the rest fled, as was Abu Bakr & 'Umar.

- Tabuk, he was left behind.

Thus, it can be summed up 'Ali played a vital role with his presence, skills, and guile in all the major battles. Likewise many other Sahabas did as well. Anyone who says 'Ali single handedly, or was the main arbitrator to why each battle was won, or resulted in a stale mate, is distoring historical facts, and equating him to be some random Arab Terminator.

He's spewing these retarded assumptions because he's under the cosh now. No wonder Hani used the analogy, that they're percieving 'Ali as a Marvel Superhero, lmao.

Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 30, 2017, 01:43:19 AM
SubhanAllah. You know brothers, there was part of me that hoped some of the brothers here would admit comments made by Hani even for them were out of order. I had hoped some of you would have employed objective thinking in realising that calling Ali a weak and incompetent leader, claiming he was the one most at fault for the battles of Jamal , Siffin, and Narhawn, siding with Aisha and M'uawiyah over him, and whatever i have detailed at the top of this page which many Sunni scholars would consider blasphemous would be enough to make some individuals pause and speak out.

Yet, i have been called the one with the Bias? By Allah, the truth is right in front of your eyes. This is an individual writing prolifically on TSN and contributes to the majority of your articles, and has made these explicit statements about Ali ibn Abi Talib. I am convinced that this is not the place to be to even get a proper understanding of the Salafi-Athari creed, and yes, i know Hani is not of that creed. It seems he forms his own view points as he sees fit, but he should have a word with whoever published an article calling the Ashari and Maturidi deviants, and claiming the Salafi-Athari creed was upon Haq.

I genuinely do not have time to reply to seven or eight people at once, and have other matters to attend to. InshAllah if i get time, i will reply to some of you.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 30, 2017, 07:00:59 AM
rather than reply to all, maybe you should answer using whatever left in your brain cells of why you try to belittle syaikhain because they failed to take khaybar when your useless current leader fail to do anything since he ran away/fled/hide because he was afraid to face his enemy. You shias are devoid of any shame. Youre current leader is not even worth to be called anything other than a complete failure. 1300yr has passed and he is still a useless failure. A complete useless leader compare to syaikhain and yet you never stopped bashing 2 most successfull leaders in the history of islamic nation. Your mahdi doesnt even worth the dirt on their feet. Yes, your mahdi being a coward who doesnt have the guts to face his enemy let alone lead any army is relevant to this topic.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 30, 2017, 06:30:05 PM
I am half tempted to actually just unregister from this forum. The ones writing your articles include individuals who are borderline Nasibi, the others post refutation but never engage. A number of the normal users abuse, hurl insults, and do not engage in a fair, well mannered and reason dialogue. There are only a coupe or so individuals on here that actually partake in these discussions with respect and tolerance. What is the point if we do not come into discussion without open minds without tolerance, without the ability to show respect and focus solely on points made, rather than hurling abuses?

Someone called Ali ibn Abi Talib a weak and incompetent leader , one of your most prolific writers on TSN, and no-one has batted an eye lid? Did Allah not tell you be just even if it is against your own selves?

Truly, i am going to limit my time here. Sorry to the two or three respectful brothers on here, and you know who you are who i actually like discussing these matters with, because they show respect. You do a credit to your school of thought and actually allow me to better understand your views. As for the others, i sincerely ask you to look inwards and reflect on whether you are acting in a civilised manner.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: MuslimK on November 30, 2017, 06:45:17 PM
Aren't all Sunnis Nawasib according to the definition set by your scholars and narrations falsely attributed to Jafar and Baqir?

Anyways, a pious and righteous ruler can also be a weak ruler. You are just getting emotional.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 30, 2017, 07:45:29 PM
I am half tempted to actually just unregister from this forum. The ones writing your articles include individuals who are borderline Nasibi, the others post refutation but never engage. A number of the normal users abuse, hurl insults, and do not engage in a fair, well mannered and reason dialogue. There are only a coupe or so individuals on here that actually partake in these discussions with respect and tolerance. What is the point if we do not come into discussion without open minds without tolerance, without the ability to show respect and focus solely on points made, rather than hurling abuses?

Someone called Ali ibn Abi Talib a weak and incompetent leader , one of your most prolific writers on TSN, and no-one has batted an eye lid? Did Allah not tell you be just even if it is against your own selves?

Truly, i am going to limit my time here. Sorry to the two or three respectful brothers on here, and you know who you are who i actually like discussing these matters with, because they show respect. You do a credit to your school of thought and actually allow me to better understand your views. As for the others, i sincerely ask you to look inwards and reflect on whether you are acting in a civilised manner.

Respected brother in humanity.

I agree with you. We should be somewhat ashamed, that we remain tight lipped at some of the comments that were being heaved against 'Ali. I hold up my hand, and admit my deep planted hate for Shias got the better of me. May Allah (SWT) forgive me. I flat out disagree with some of the comments made against 'Ali in this thread, and believe given his status he commands great respect. Unquestionably, I believe he was on Haq in both civil wars, more so against Mu'awiyah. Anyone who after studying the two political events and knowing the mainstream of position of our Akabir believes otherwise, are spiritually bankrupt, and devoid of any faculty of reason.

Let me make myself loud n' clear. I strongly disagree in the strongest of terms with some of the comments made against 'Ali thread, and although we're all entitled to our own opinions we must be mindful of how we articulate such points. Our Akabir have stressed this very point with painful regularity when discussing the Sahaba, and thus this extends to 'Ali too. 

Having said all that, Hani is not a Nasibi, or close to being one for that matter. That’s an ill-bred assessment to make considering his lineage, and the amount of work he has done on TSN is only a reflection of his love for Ahlul Bhayt. His reputation precedes him, and he has been contributing to the Deen of Allah (SWT) for the best part of a decade, Alhamdulillah. The amount, and quality work he has put in is of a mountainous nature. It is my heartfelt du’a, that Allah (SWT) rewards him, and Farid for their yielding fanaticism to upkeep the veracity of our Deen from scoundrels.

As you can see Sunni vs Shia dialogue is not without emotional drama. I’m sure you’re accustomed to this if you really have debated Sunnis before. Having said that, I think you should retire from this site and our midst permanently. The amount of crock you post, and the radical assumptions you weasel into your argument just to embellish your point of view, and candy pick narrations to add further weight of flavour to your arguments has exposed your true snidely intentions. I refuse to believe you ventured here to engage in Sunni vs Shia polemics in an academic manner, but came here to manipulate, and deceive. That is not me being an arrogant prick, but it's my observation after carefully studying your trail of najs posts. I’m not going to spoon feed you with examples before you ask.

I suggest you adopt one of the two options.

1)   Retire, and offer refutation against the articles, and threads on TSN on your own site. That way you can debunk, dispel, and refute all the distortions (in your mind) that TSN is guilty of without getting involved in e-spats with everyone. You're not going to persuade any of us, that your unique point of view of profound Islamic moments is in atheists of the Sunni norm, or the view that's been upheld by our 'Ulema for over 14 centuries. Na huh!

2)    Retire temporarily, and contact Farid privately, and organise an official debate that can take place between the two of you on your own terms without the involvement of anyone else.

May Allah (SWT) protect the Ummah from these wolves in sheepskin who ravage, pillage and plunder the Imaan and the Akhlaaq of the ignorant and unwary.  :)
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hani on November 30, 2017, 09:17:17 PM
Haven't been in this thread for a while, what're you guys having `Ashura' processions now? When does the wailing and crying start?

What a shame that we're dealing with history in such a dark-age and primitive mentality, placing average humans with weaknesses and temptations and errors beyond criticism purely because of emotional reasons.

Then they claim to want an accurate reading and that they're pioneers in revisionist history and that the Ummah was blinded by following our forefathers without questioning the popular history.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on November 30, 2017, 10:34:43 PM
Someone called Ali ibn Abi Talib a weak and incompetent leader , one of your most prolific writers on TSN, and no-one has batted an eye lid? Did Allah not tell you be just even if it is against your own selves?
I "batted an eyelid" everytime i hear shia stories about Ali. Shia have so many stories which portrays Ali as an extremely weak & incompetent leader, weak & incompetent husband, weak & incompetent father, weak & incompetent religious guide, weak & incompetent in many things and here you are being a drama queen again. For example the "broken rib" myth, majority if not almost all maraji believe in it, even khamenei the clever politician ayatola wouldnt pretend he doesnt believe in it. Your marja taqlid is not Fadlala, hes dead. Yes, a story which shows Ali as an extremely weak & incompetent husband no matter how much stupid excuses shia can come up with. And that is just 1 example of many shia nasibi like stories. The only nasibi is you ya takfiri.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: muslim720 on December 01, 2017, 04:56:19 AM
SubhanAllah. Before i had some doubt that maybe brother Hani was convinced and had fair arguments. Now , there is no doubt in my mind he is one of the individuals that has shown the most bias i have ever come across. I have debated many people, and their arguments and points are far more balanced, but he has emulated Ibn Taymiyyah. Nay, he has exceeded even the extremes Ibn Taymiyyah showed.

Rest assured, you do not know anything about Ibn Taymiyyah (rah).  You just foam at the mouth with his name because that is what you Shias do.  Your entire madhhab, and in fact existence, is contingent upon Muawiya, Yazeed, Banu Ummayah, Ibn Taymiyyah and Wahabis.  Without these scapegoats, you have no reason to flourish, preach or even exist.

Having said that, brother Hani was making an assessment as per your methodology.  For example, it is not far-fetched - in fact, one can support it with evidence (like you have tried in case of Abu Bakr and Umar, may Allah be pleased with them), albeit using bias - to prove that Imam Ali (ra) was not as sharp of a leader as the first two.

So please be a little more insightful when discussing and analyzing responses.
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on December 02, 2017, 02:08:21 AM
The reason, Youpunctured left this narration was because, this narration in no way undermines the bravery of Sheikhain. And the article you referred focus on answering those reports which undermines the bravery of Sheikhein, and since this narration was not of this kind, then there was no need to refute it. So you bringing it up, shows nothing but your desperation and nothing else.

The narration is substantial proof against the leadership ability and bravery of the Khalifatayn. Youpunctured should have allowed their readers to note that there is a reliable version of the narration present. There was no reference to this made, and even an attempt to explain that even if the companions accused them of cowardice, there was no harm in it since this behaviour (to be frank) was common among them. As an objective reader, i do not really care what the others accused Abu Bakr or Umar of. The most significant part is the fact Abu Bakr went first, but was unsuccessful. Umar ibn al-Khattab went second, but was unsuccessful. Had Allah (swt) wanted, he could have brought victory through either of them, yet the man to bring victory was none other than Ali ibn Abi Talib. Put side not being successful, he slaughtered Harith, and then Marhab, and then led the charge so that the Muslims were successful.

As said earlier, the hadeeth of Musnad Ahmad, in no way questions the bravery of Shaikhain. Anyone blessed with wisdom reads the hadeeth will reach to this conclusion. So, its an cunning attempt to claim that, the hadeeth is against bravery of Shekhein, because the hadeeth of Musnad just states that they didn't succeed in gaining victory, without any additional comments. Hence, Failing to gain victory in no way undermines the bravery of person. Its pure stupidity to claim so, hence youpucturedtheark was right in leaving this narration out, as it had nothing to do with bravery subject, as was the subject of that article.

But then you bring another point, irrelevant to the topic of youpuncturedtheark, that it questions the leadership of Abu Bakr(ra) and Umar(ra), but this again is due to your inexperience and ignorance. Leadership is a pretty vast field dealing with different aspects, but I assume you meant Military leadership in specific. In that case, I would say that Abu bakr(ra) and Umar(ra) were never known for their military leadership or commander-ship, nor did the Sunnis ever claim that they were excellent military leaders, it seems you made a wrong assumption. Nevertheless, a military leader failing to gain a victory is never criticized by civilized people. If the foolish standards which you made up are applied, then one could even claim that Zaid(ra), Jafar(ra), etc were incompetent leaders, since they weren't able to gain victory as leaders.

 Narrated Anas: The Prophet (ﷺ) had informed the people of the martyrdom of Zaid, Ja`far and Ibn Rawaha before the news of their death reached. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Zaid took the flag (as the commander of the army) and was martyred, then Ja`far took it and was martyred, and then Ibn Rawaha took it and was martyred." At that time the Prophet's eyes were shedding tears. He added, "Then the flag was taken by a Sword amongst the Swords of Allah (i.e. Khalid) and Allah made them (i.e. the Muslims) victorious."[Sahih al-Bukhari 4262].


1. Abu Bakr, and Umar had the same soldiers as Ali.
2. Both went, one after the other, but retreated in defeat.
3. Yet, Ali ibn Abi Talib went and produced what became several famous victories over some of the most eminent warriors.
a. Jafar(ra) and Zaid(ra) had the same soldiers as Khalid bin Waleeed(ra).
b. Both got leadership one after the other, but the conditions of Muslim army didn't progress they were losing and eventually both got martyred.
c. Yet, Khalid bin Waleed(ra) got the leadership and produced what became one of the most remarkable victory of Islam over one of the great enemy army of that time.

As i noted, there is going to be a debate on what to grade the tradition (That was regarded weak). There are principles in Hadith whereby a weak tradition can be elevated to a category of Hasan one if it also comes through other routes that may be weak. I have left that for further research because this particular narration was never what i class  as Hujjah.
Not necessarily. We have ample of evidences when Muhadditeen weakened reports which had several weak chains. One such example are the reports about Rafidah being Mushrikeen, and Prophet(saws) commanding them to fight. And many more.

I am not new to Hadith sciences, and never did i at any point claim that was Tawtheeq. I referred to it for general reference, so that people may know this is not a random individual, but one considered a Fuqaha. As for the bearing on the actual reliability of the tradition , that is limited. I am quite aware of what Tawtheeq is.
There are many narrators who were praised for their piety and fiqh, but they were weakened a Hadeeth narrators. This isn't a rare case.


The tradition are not entirely different, given that the main aspect of the tradition is that :

1. Abu Bakr went, and retreated unsuccessfully.
2  Umar went, and retreated unsuccessfully.
3. Allah chose Ali ibn Abi Talib above both of them, blessed him, and promised the Muslims victory through him, when Abu Bakr and Umar had failed.
a. Jafar(ra) went and failed in achieving victory and was martyred.
b. Zaid(ra) went and failed in achieving victory and was martyred.
c. Allah granted victory to Khalid bin waleed(ra), above both of them,  and granted victory to Muslims through him, when Zaid(ra) and Jafar(ra) had failed to gain victory.

You see, how foollish its looks if stupid standards are set to judge certain events? As I said before, Abu bakr(ra) and Umar(ra) were never known for their military leadership or commander-ship, nor did the Sunnis ever claim that they were excellent military leaders, but that doesn't mean they weren't brave. They were brave Muslims, and that has been attested by Ali(ra) himself, so you and your foolish standards are nothing and worth putting in thrash.

Moreover, if you want to know where Messenger of Allah(swt) chose Abubakr(ra) for leadership over Ali(ra) and other Sahaba(ra) is in leading the prayer in place of Prophet(saws), when prophet(saws) was ill.


then finished this off by lifting the entire gate of Khaybar with his own bare hands, which 44 men could not lift according to what is narrated in Ibn Ishaq and other sources.

Transcript:  "It is during this expidition the famous incident we know happened. That Ali RAs sheild was knocked out, and Ali was left defenceless. So he went to the door of the fortress, and its a massive structure. And he used the entire door as a sheild for the remainder of the battle. And when it was over he threw it aside and Abu Rafi' the narrator said "seven of us tried to pick up the door but we couldn't" and there is no doubt this is a mini miracle given to Ali RA. Ali RA was a man whom Allah and His messenger loved and we too love him with a true love."

Thanks for bringing up this issue. You have set an example for the readers to see, how Shia fabricate things in their majalis. You mentioned the story of a door which 44(forty four) men couldn't left, but the (unreliable) referred you referred talks about 7(seven men). See how you people blow things out of proportion. You multiple the number present in the unreliable report some six times more. 7 X 6 = 42. LOL.  And the irony is that you feel offended when I say these kind of fairy tales occur in your majalis, where as you yourself proved my words to be true. Praise be to Allah!


However, i can accept this view is not enough to consider the report reliable by the view of the Sunnis. However, i brought it forth to see it is widely narrated among them and not simply in the 'Majalis'.
LOL. Your majalis blew this unreliable report out of proportion, and increased the number six times more. From 7 to 44.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) knew that they would not succeed, and knew full well Allah had given him the news that Ali ibn Abi Talib would be the one who he would heal through a miracle, and unlike the Khalifatayn, would be successful and not return unless he was victorious.
These are baseless and unreal assumptions based on ignorance and corrupt beliefs. Prophet(saws) didn't know these things, similar to not knowing that Khalid bin Waleed(ra) would kill some innocent people. Like this one:

Narrated Ibn `Umar: The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (an army unit under the command of) Khalid bin Al-Walid to fight against the tribe of Bani Jadhima and those people could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna," but they said, "Saba'na! Saba'na! " Khalid kept on killing some of them and taking some others as captives, and he gave a captive to everyone of us and ordered everyone of us to kill his captive. I said, "By Allah, I shall not kill my captive and none of my companions shall kill his captive!" Then we mentioned that to the Prophet (ﷺ) and he said, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid bin Al-Walid has done," and repeated it twice. [Sahih al-Bukhari 7189]

For those who hold the corrupt beliefs, then as per their logic, Prophet(saws) knew that some innocent people will be killed by Khalid bin Waleed(ra) erroneously, but he still appointed a leader and sent towards those people.(Ma'azAllah)


Admin note: Post edited to fix the quoting errors
Title: Re: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr ibn abi Quhafa at Khaybar
Post by: Hadrami on December 04, 2017, 06:37:22 AM
Having said that, brother Hani was making an assessment as per your methodology. 
True, if we are using shia's twisted standard & version of history, there will be no other conclusion than that Ali was a very weak & incompetent leader, guide, husband, father etc. Alhamdulillah us, majority of muslim dont subscribe to shia bollywood stories, hence our Ali, the real non fictional Ali will always be seen as one of the greatest hero.