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

[MuslimK]

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!

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.

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.

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/

[Optimus Prime]

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/

[whoaretheshia]

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

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.

'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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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]

[furhan]

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?

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

.

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.

[furhan]

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?

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[furhan]

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...

[furhan]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[Hani]

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.

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.

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?

[whoaretheshia]

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.

  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.

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.

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.

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[Hadrami]

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?

[Hani]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".