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.
`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.
`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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
80 Replies
18906 Views
November 07, 2015, 04:20:50 AM