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

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[fgss]

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

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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:

[Hadrami]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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

[Optimus Prime]

I applaud 'Umar for threatening to burn the house down.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[Optimus Prime]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[Optimus Prime]

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!!

[Hadrami]

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?

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[Optimus Prime]

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.

[muslim720]

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.

[Hadrami]

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

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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:

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

[Optimus Prime]

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. 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.