Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Intellectual Resistance

Abu Bakr and Umar are better than Ali ?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful.

Salamualaykum.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT DESIGNED TO SLANDER ABU BAKR AND UMAR, AND CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO KEEP THIS DISCOURSE AS ACADEMIC AS POSSIBLE. WE HOPE OUR SUNNI BROTHERS/SISTERS, READ THE MATERIAL WITH AN HONEST AND OPEN MIND. WE HOPE ANYONE SEEKING TO DERAIL THIS TO ABUSE ABU BAKR AND UMAR ARE DEALT WITH BY THE MODERATING TEAM.

Introduction

it is a belief among sunni brothers/sisters that Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] was a great man. He was one of the best four men in the Ummah after the Prophet [saw], but was inferior to Caliph Abu Bakr  ibn Quhafa, and Caliph Umar ibn Al Khattab. Before i continue, this is a historical dissection, not a slander gathering. 

One of the most telling events [ of many ] is what we see in Khaybar. As most of you may know, this was when Ali [as] was given the banner, after Abu Bakr and Umar had failed. Ali [as] despite being ill, was cured by Allah [azwj] through the saliva  of the prophet [saw] as he had an eye infection. The famous words 'tomorrow i will give a banner to a man who loves Allah and his prophet, and Allah and his prophet love him...". This was the famous account of Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] slaying Marhab, conquering Khaybar, and early historical reports [Ibn Ishaq] even suggest he managed to carry a large door/gate by himself of the fortress. 

Most of our sunni brothers may accept he was given the banner, but are either unaware or unwilling to accept Abu-Bakr and Umar tried but failed to secure khaybar, under their leadership. To admit this, would be paramount to suggesting that there was more virtue in the leadership, bravery, and blessing conferred and possessed by Ali [as], which these two did not have. We find even the likes of 'Shayk al Islam' Ibn Taymiyyah, who is well known for his shaky doctrine of Tawheed [which Ahlus-Sunnah of the Ashari group have refuted profoundly], trying to deny the things was the case. It is clear even Ibn Taymiyyah recognised the inevitable conclusions if one was to acknowledge this event.

Methods

It is absolutely essential when dissecting polemics [shia-sunni debates] we do not merely feel it is sufficient for us to quote from sunni works as evidence for our claim, and feel that by doing so, sunni's are compelled to accept our evidence. The reality is, even in their books, there are narrations they consider strong, and weak. Even if one were to argue we can not look at history purely from grading ahadith, there is no doubt quoting one or two reports which are weak by their standards of Ilm ul Rijal [science of hadith] will not be sufficient to convince man of them. 

Therefore, what i will do is draw from several chains which report this incident [and there are more]. These chains will be mostly unique, and at least one of the chains [and others could be, but i can't check this] have narrators who did not lie, but spoke the truth as per Sunni Rijal standards. This will be combined by a further logical and holistic assessment of the material presented, and why it only makes sense for this narrative to be likely.  

In summary, the plurality of chains, fallacy in weakening one of the chains, and brief logical analysis pertaining to this matter will be used to advance the notion that the more likely version of the event - and most reported too- is the one which indicates failure on part of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Evidence:

The following are narrations which contain the notion and idea of Abu Bakr or Umar [or both] attempting to take down Khaybar , but failing to do so. I can not bring forth every narration to this effect, but i will bring about six. There are other chains, but i feel i can bring enough to prove my point.

Narration one:

(1) According to Ibn Bashshar-Muhammad b. Ja'far-'Awf- (2) Maymun (Abu 'Abdallah)- (3)'Abdallah b. Buraydah- (4) Buraydah al-Aslami who said: When the Messenger of God encamped at the fortress of the people of Khaybar, he gave the banner to Umar b. al-Khattab. Some of the people set out with him, and they encountered the people of Khaybar. 'Umar and his companions were put to flight. When they returned to the Mes- senger of God, 'Umar's companions accused him of cowardice, and he accused them of the same. The Messenger of God said, "Tomorrow I shall give the banner to a man who loves God and His Messenger and whom God and His Messenger love." The next day, Abu Bakr and'Umar vied for the banner, but the Messenger of God called 'Ali.."   [Tarikh -At-Tabari, English translation, Volume 8, p119-120]

Another chain corroborating the above: 

Narration Two:

Narrated [1] Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Mahboobi in Marw, from [2] Sa’eed Ibn Masoud from [3] Ubaidallah Ibn Musa from [4]No’aim Ibn Hakim from [5]Abi Musa Al-Hanafi from Alee (a.s) who said: 'The Messenger of Allah (saw) went out to Khaybar, when he reached it he sent Umar and a group of people with him to their town or their castle to fight them, but they could not do anything, and Umar with his companions escaped and came back to the Prophet(saw), his companions were saying that Umar is a coward and he was saying that his companions are cowards and then the Prophet (saw) said that famous Hadeeth. [Al-Mustadrak Ala Al-Sahihain. Vol. 3, Pg. # 40.]

Narration Three:

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]

Narration Four:

Narrated [1] Zaid Ibn Al-Hobab from [2] Husein Ibn Al-Waqid from [3] Abdullah Ibn Buraida from [4] his father Buraida who said: "When we reached Khaybar Abu 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 did also 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 ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) and Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will not come back until he succeeds!'  [Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbal] 

Narration Five:

[1]AbÅ« al-‘AbbÄs Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-MaḥbÅ«bÄ« – [2] Sa’īd b. Mas’ūd –[3] ‘Ubayd AllÄh b. MÅ«sÄ â€“[4] Na’īm b. ḤakÄ«m – [5]AbÅ« MÅ«sÄ al-ḤanafÄ« – [6] ‘AlÄ«: 'The Messenger of Allah (saw) went out to Khaybar, when he reached it he sent Umar and a group of people with him to their town or their castle they went and fought them, but they could not do anything, and Umar with his companions escaped and came back to the Prophet (saw), his companions were saying that Umar is a coward and he was saying that his companions are cowards and the Messenger of Allah(saw) got annoyed and he said: 'I will send a man towards them who loves Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) and Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will fight with them untill he succeeds and he is not a coward who runs away frequently!'  [Kanz-ul-Ummal. Vol. 10, Pg. # 462.] 

Narration six:

 ..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 in the day of Khaybar O Aba Laili?' I said: 'Yes, by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì 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 ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) and Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will be victorious, he is not a coward who runs away frequently!' 

"...Ibn Abi Shayba, Ahmad in his Musnad, Ibn Maja, Al-Bazzar, Ibn Jarir and he has Authenticated this Hadeeth, and Al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Al-Hakim, Baihaqi in Al-Dalahil and Dhia Al-Maqdesi in Al-Mukhtara..."

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.â€

Analysis

We find when looking at the above chain of narrations a clear message: Abu Bakr or Umar [or both] tried to conquer Khaybar but were repelled, ultimately failed. A number of narrations focus on Umar ibn Al Khattab, and how he may have been accused of cowardice by his companions. Ultimately what a sunni brother or sister may try to do is individual try to find one fault or another of these chains, despite there fact we have many unique chains here, converging to reliable people on many occasions all giving the same substance of fact - Abu Bakr followed by Umar tried to conquer Khaybar but failed. 

If we take the last Hadith, as narrated by Abdulrahman ibn Abi Laii, we find that the only alleged weakness is his son, Muhammed, who is considered someone who was not a liar, nor a Shia, but rather, someone who merely had a bad memory. If you have a bad memory, you might confuse an event or get facts switched wrong here and there, but looking at this Hadith, we find that he has enough of a cognitive ability to recall the line "I will give the flag to a man...". There is a difference between having a bad memory, and inventing outright lies. For example, you might be confused as to the details of what happened, but often more than not, key aspects are intact. For instance, Ali [as] being the victor, Muhammed [saw] giving the line he did, and Umar and or Abu Bakr being unsuccessful. Perhaps one can argue because of his poor memory, he confused and added ' he is not a coward who runs away frequently', because detailed facts can fall victim to a poor memory. But it would be unusual for someone who has already presented key facts agreed upon in this Hadith, to confuse something major like Umar or Abu bakr fleeing. 

indeed, we find that in other narrations and chains, the very same message is given  - Abu Bakr, or Umar [or both] fleeing and being unsuccessful. How unlikely it is that the otherwise truthful Muhammed b. Abdurahman is accused of , due to his memory, inserting fact many other chains of narrators in narration corroborate on and agree upon! You would expect if someone had a bad memory and accidentally inserted something, for it to be a solitary report. One may be forgiven for perhaps not accepting the report had it been the only one of its kind. But to have other chains saying the same things indicates Muhammed b. Abdurahman did not inadvertently confuse matters and make this up, but his memory in this instance captured what others also have narrated about this event.

Chains specifically corroborating the notion that Umar fled and his companions accused him of cowardice:

(1) According to Ibn Bashshar-Muhammad b. Ja'far-'Awf- (2) Maymun (Abu 'Abdallah)- (3)'Abdallah b. Buraydah- (4) Buraydah al-Aslami who said...

(21] Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Mahboobi in Marw, from [2] Sa’eed Ibn Masoud from [3] Ubaidallah Ibn Musa from [4]No’aim Ibn Hakim from [5]Abi Musa Al-Hanafi from Alee 

(3) Narrated [1] Zaid Ibn Al-Hobab from [2] Husein Ibn Al-Waqid from [3] Abdullah Ibn Buraida from [4] his father Buraida who said:

[There are others]. 

Suffice to say we have three chains explicitly stating Abu Bakr, and or Umar had gone , but failed, going back to Abdullah ibn Buraidah [considered reliable in sunni hadith]. So if one were to try to take out the chains, it would really pose  an important question - did the individuals in each of the three unique chains going to Abdullah b. Buraydah decide to engage on a conspiracy to forge and make up this event?  In fact, we even find in one of the chains to Abdullah ibn Buraidah, an attempt to twist and promote Abu Bakr and Umar, stating they 'fought with Vigour]. This most likely an addition by one of the first four narrators.

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.

Is it not too much of a coincidence to have this much corroboration? 

Conclusion:

1.The reports of Abu Bakr and or Umar [with due respect and not to slander anyone here] being unsuccessful in capturing Khaybar are narrated by many chains of narration. This is not a story that is narrated in one or two isolated reports of questionable individuals.

2. In authentic chains, like the one with Muhammed b. Abdurahman, all of the members in that chain are consisted trustworthy, and the only alleged flaw is Muhammed b. Abdurahman is considered to have had a poor memory. However, we can see from narrations to him, he clearly remembers pieces of the narration word for word that corroborate other versions , indicating his memory was not that poor. Furthermore, you can mistake a name, or mistake one or two things, but adding in the fact Abu Bakr, and then Umar went in, are unlikely to be due to ‘poor memory’, given he clearly can remember key lines. Lines of speech, dates, even minute detail are subject to alteration due to poor memory, but key facts often remain roughly in tact. So even if Umar was not called a coward, the fact Umar attempted [unsuccessfully] to conquer Khaybar is unlikely to have been inserted due to his ‘poor’ memory. Furthermore, he lives very close to the time of the event, with only one narrator being between him and Imam Ali [as], meaning he spoke to an eye witness and a battle of this magnitude would be a famous event narrated widely and clear in the memory as far as key facts are concerned.

3. Furthermore, the fact many other chains corroborate that Abu Bakr and or Umar were unsuccessful, independent of Muhammed b. Abdurahman. The interesting thing is, these chains converge into Abudullah b. Buraydah, who is considered reliable.One would have to allege all the chains converging into him [and others] someone made up a fact which was concordant to what Muhammed b. Abdurahman had apparently himself mistakenly added due to ‘poor memory’!  It is either that, or a conspiracy to forge a false chain to Abdullah b. Buraydah [and also others] attributing the story of Muhammed b. Abdurahman.  One has to jump through so many intellectual hoops to detract away from the inevitable and realistic conclusion of what went on in Khaybar.

4. It is far more likely Abu Bakr and Umar did indeed attempt to conquer it, and were not successful. The Prophet [saw] seeing this, decided to call forth Ali a.s, and made a very powerful point that, despite having a terrible eye infection, everyone had to watch Ali a.s conquer it, and that Allah [swt] would bring victory through him, rather than Abu Bakr and Umar. So clear is the superiority of Ali a.s in this account , which would have shone even if Abu Bakr and Umar had not failed/attempted, it is no wonder why some people attempt to employ dishonest and weak attempts to weaken this otherwise widely reported, and strong narrative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎14‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 8:18 PM, Intellectual Resistance said:

In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful.

Salamualaykum.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT DESIGNED TO SLANDER ABU BAKR AND UMAR, AND CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO KEEP THIS DISCOURSE AS ACADEMIC AS POSSIBLE. WE HOPE OUR SUNNI BROTHERS/SISTERS, READ THE MATERIAL WITH AN HONEST AND OPEN MIND. WE HOPE ANYONE SEEKING TO DERAIL THIS TO ABUSE ABU BAKR AND UMAR ARE DEALT WITH BY THE MODERATING TEAM.

Introduction

it is a belief among sunni brothers/sisters that Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] was a great man. He was one of the best four men in the Ummah after the Prophet [saw], but was inferior to Caliph Abu Bakr  ibn Quhafa, and Caliph Umar ibn Al Khattab. Before i continue, this is a historical dissection, not a slander gathering. 

One of the most telling events [ of many ] is what we see in Khaybar. As most of you may know, this was when Ali [as] was given the banner, after Abu Bakr and Umar had failed. Ali [as] despite being ill, was cured by Allah [azwj] through the saliva  of the prophet [saw] as he had an eye infection. The famous words 'tomorrow i will give a banner to a man who loves Allah and his prophet, and Allah and his prophet love him...". This was the famous account of Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] slaying Marhab, conquering Khaybar, and early historical reports [Ibn Ishaq] even suggest he managed to carry a large door/gate by himself of the fortress. 

Most of our sunni brothers may accept he was given the banner, but are either unaware or unwilling to accept Abu-Bakr and Umar tried but failed to secure khaybar, under their leadership. To admit this, would be paramount to suggesting that there was more virtue in the leadership, bravery, and blessing conferred and possessed by Ali [as], which these two did not have. We find even the likes of 'Shayk al Islam' Ibn Taymiyyah, who is well known for his shaky doctrine of Tawheed [which Ahlus-Sunnah of the Ashari group have refuted profoundly], trying to deny the things was the case. It is clear even Ibn Taymiyyah recognised the inevitable conclusions if one was to acknowledge this event.

Methods

It is absolutely essential when dissecting polemics [shia-sunni debates] we do not merely feel it is sufficient for us to quote from sunni works as evidence for our claim, and feel that by doing so, sunni's are compelled to accept our evidence. The reality is, even in their books, there are narrations they consider strong, and weak. Even if one were to argue we can not look at history purely from grading ahadith, there is no doubt quoting one or two reports which are weak by their standards of Ilm ul Rijal [science of hadith] will not be sufficient to convince man of them. 

Therefore, what i will do is draw from several chains which report this incident [and there are more]. These chains will be mostly unique, and at least one of the chains [and others could be, but i can't check this] have narrators who did not lie, but spoke the truth as per Sunni Rijal standards. This will be combined by a further logical and holistic assessment of the material presented, and why it only makes sense for this narrative to be likely.  

In summary, the plurality of chains, fallacy in weakening one of the chains, and brief logical analysis pertaining to this matter will be used to advance the notion that the more likely version of the event - and most reported too- is the one which indicates failure on part of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Evidence:

The following are narrations which contain the notion and idea of Abu Bakr or Umar [or both] attempting to take down Khaybar , but failing to do so. I can not bring forth every narration to this effect, but i will bring about six. There are other chains, but i feel i can bring enough to prove my point.

Narration one:

(1) According to Ibn Bashshar-Muhammad b. Ja'far-'Awf- (2) Maymun (Abu 'Abdallah)- (3)'Abdallah b. Buraydah- (4) Buraydah al-Aslami who said: When the Messenger of God encamped at the fortress of the people of Khaybar, he gave the banner to Umar b. al-Khattab. Some of the people set out with him, and they encountered the people of Khaybar. 'Umar and his companions were put to flight. When they returned to the Mes- senger of God, 'Umar's companions accused him of cowardice, and he accused them of the same. The Messenger of God said, "Tomorrow I shall give the banner to a man who loves God and His Messenger and whom God and His Messenger love." The next day, Abu Bakr and'Umar vied for the banner, but the Messenger of God called 'Ali.."   [Tarikh -At-Tabari, English translation, Volume 8, p119-120]

Another chain corroborating the above: 

Narration Two:

Narrated [1] Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Mahboobi in Marw, from [2] Sa’eed Ibn Masoud from [3] Ubaidallah Ibn Musa from [4]No’aim Ibn Hakim from [5]Abi Musa Al-Hanafi from Alee (a.s) who said: 'The Messenger of Allah (saw) went out to Khaybar, when he reached it he sent Umar and a group of people with him to their town or their castle to fight them, but they could not do anything, and Umar with his companions escaped and came back to the Prophet(saw), his companions were saying that Umar is a coward and he was saying that his companions are cowards and then the Prophet (saw) said that famous Hadeeth. [Al-Mustadrak Ala Al-Sahihain. Vol. 3, Pg. # 40.]

Narration Three:

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]

Narration Four:

Narrated [1] Zaid Ibn Al-Hobab from [2] Husein Ibn Al-Waqid from [3] Abdullah Ibn Buraida from [4] his father Buraida who said: "When we reached Khaybar Abu 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 did also 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 ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) and Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will not come back until he succeeds!'  [Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbal] 

Narration Five:

[1]AbÅ« al-‘AbbÄs Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-MaḥbÅ«bÄ« – [2] Sa’īd b. Mas’ūd –[3] ‘Ubayd AllÄh b. MÅ«sÄ â€“[4] Na’īm b. ḤakÄ«m – [5]AbÅ« MÅ«sÄ al-ḤanafÄ« – [6] ‘AlÄ«: 'The Messenger of Allah (saw) went out to Khaybar, when he reached it he sent Umar and a group of people with him to their town or their castle they went and fought them, but they could not do anything, and Umar with his companions escaped and came back to the Prophet (saw), his companions were saying that Umar is a coward and he was saying that his companions are cowards and the Messenger of Allah(saw) got annoyed and he said: 'I will send a man towards them who loves Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) and Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will fight with them untill he succeeds and he is not a coward who runs away frequently!'  [Kanz-ul-Ummal. Vol. 10, Pg. # 462.] 

Narration six:

 ..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 in the day of Khaybar O Aba Laili?' I said: 'Yes, by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì 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 ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) and Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his Messenger (saw) love him, he will be victorious, he is not a coward who runs away frequently!' 

"...Ibn Abi Shayba, Ahmad in his Musnad, Ibn Maja, Al-Bazzar, Ibn Jarir and he has Authenticated this Hadeeth, and Al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Al-Hakim, Baihaqi in Al-Dalahil and Dhia Al-Maqdesi in Al-Mukhtara..."

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.â€

Analysis

We find when looking at the above chain of narrations a clear message: Abu Bakr or Umar [or both] tried to conquer Khaybar but were repelled, ultimately failed. A number of narrations focus on Umar ibn Al Khattab, and how he may have been accused of cowardice by his companions. Ultimately what a sunni brother or sister may try to do is individual try to find one fault or another of these chains, despite there fact we have many unique chains here, converging to reliable people on many occasions all giving the same substance of fact - Abu Bakr followed by Umar tried to conquer Khaybar but failed. 

If we take the last Hadith, as narrated by Abdulrahman ibn Abi Laii, we find that the only alleged weakness is his son, Muhammed, who is considered someone who was not a liar, nor a Shia, but rather, someone who merely had a bad memory. If you have a bad memory, you might confuse an event or get facts switched wrong here and there, but looking at this Hadith, we find that he has enough of a cognitive ability to recall the line "I will give the flag to a man...". There is a difference between having a bad memory, and inventing outright lies. For example, you might be confused as to the details of what happened, but often more than not, key aspects are intact. For instance, Ali [as] being the victor, Muhammed [saw] giving the line he did, and Umar and or Abu Bakr being unsuccessful. Perhaps one can argue because of his poor memory, he confused and added ' he is not a coward who runs away frequently', because detailed facts can fall victim to a poor memory. But it would be unusual for someone who has already presented key facts agreed upon in this Hadith, to confuse something major like Umar or Abu bakr fleeing. 

indeed, we find that in other narrations and chains, the very same message is given  - Abu Bakr, or Umar [or both] fleeing and being unsuccessful. How unlikely it is that the otherwise truthful Muhammed b. Abdurahman is accused of , due to his memory, inserting fact many other chains of narrators in narration corroborate on and agree upon! You would expect if someone had a bad memory and accidentally inserted something, for it to be a solitary report. One may be forgiven for perhaps not accepting the report had it been the only one of its kind. But to have other chains saying the same things indicates Muhammed b. Abdurahman did not inadvertently confuse matters and make this up, but his memory in this instance captured what others also have narrated about this event.

Chains specifically corroborating the notion that Umar fled and his companions accused him of cowardice:

(1) According to Ibn Bashshar-Muhammad b. Ja'far-'Awf- (2) Maymun (Abu 'Abdallah)- (3)'Abdallah b. Buraydah- (4) Buraydah al-Aslami who said...

(21] Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Mahboobi in Marw, from [2] Sa’eed Ibn Masoud from [3] Ubaidallah Ibn Musa from [4]No’aim Ibn Hakim from [5]Abi Musa Al-Hanafi from Alee 

(3) Narrated [1] Zaid Ibn Al-Hobab from [2] Husein Ibn Al-Waqid from [3] Abdullah Ibn Buraida from [4] his father Buraida who said:

[There are others]. 

Suffice to say we have three chains explicitly stating Abu Bakr, and or Umar had gone , but failed, going back to Abdullah ibn Buraidah [considered reliable in sunni hadith]. So if one were to try to take out the chains, it would really pose  an important question - did the individuals in each of the three unique chains going to Abdullah b. Buraydah decide to engage on a conspiracy to forge and make up this event?  In fact, we even find in one of the chains to Abdullah ibn Buraidah, an attempt to twist and promote Abu Bakr and Umar, stating they 'fought with Vigour]. This most likely an addition by one of the first four narrators.

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.

Is it not too much of a coincidence to have this much corroboration? 

Conclusion:

1.The reports of Abu Bakr and or Umar [with due respect and not to slander anyone here] being unsuccessful in capturing Khaybar are narrated by many chains of narration. This is not a story that is narrated in one or two isolated reports of questionable individuals.

2. In authentic chains, like the one with Muhammed b. Abdurahman, all of the members in that chain are consisted trustworthy, and the only alleged flaw is Muhammed b. Abdurahman is considered to have had a poor memory. However, we can see from narrations to him, he clearly remembers pieces of the narration word for word that corroborate other versions , indicating his memory was not that poor. Furthermore, you can mistake a name, or mistake one or two things, but adding in the fact Abu Bakr, and then Umar went in, are unlikely to be due to ‘poor memory’, given he clearly can remember key lines. Lines of speech, dates, even minute detail are subject to alteration due to poor memory, but key facts often remain roughly in tact. So even if Umar was not called a coward, the fact Umar attempted [unsuccessfully] to conquer Khaybar is unlikely to have been inserted due to his ‘poor’ memory. Furthermore, he lives very close to the time of the event, with only one narrator being between him and Imam Ali [as], meaning he spoke to an eye witness and a battle of this magnitude would be a famous event narrated widely and clear in the memory as far as key facts are concerned.

3. Furthermore, the fact many other chains corroborate that Abu Bakr and or Umar were unsuccessful, independent of Muhammed b. Abdurahman. The interesting thing is, these chains converge into Abudullah b. Buraydah, who is considered reliable.One would have to allege all the chains converging into him [and others] someone made up a fact which was concordant to what Muhammed b. Abdurahman had apparently himself mistakenly added due to ‘poor memory’!  It is either that, or a conspiracy to forge a false chain to Abdullah b. Buraydah [and also others] attributing the story of Muhammed b. Abdurahman.  One has to jump through so many intellectual hoops to detract away from the inevitable and realistic conclusion of what went on in Khaybar.

4. It is far more likely Abu Bakr and Umar did indeed attempt to conquer it, and were not successful. The Prophet [saw] seeing this, decided to call forth Ali a.s, and made a very powerful point that, despite having a terrible eye infection, everyone had to watch Ali a.s conquer it, and that Allah [swt] would bring victory through him, rather than Abu Bakr and Umar. So clear is the superiority of Ali a.s in this account , which would have shone even if Abu Bakr and Umar had not failed/attempted, it is no wonder why some people attempt to employ dishonest and weak attempts to weaken this otherwise widely reported, and strong narrative. 

In Sunni Islam Technically we don't think Abu Bakr and Omar are better then Ali, we have several reports saying Ali was superior to all. Even Muawiyah said Ali was higher then him. But in practice the outcome is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SunniBrother said:

In Sunni Islam Technically we don't think Abu Bakr and Omar are better then Ali, we have several reports saying Ali was superior to all. Even Muawiyah said Ali was higher then him. But in practice the outcome is different.

brother, Do you like to continue following the flawed  logic and flawed practices? OR intends to make improvements by accepting the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skyweb1987 said:

brother, Do you like to continue following the flawed  logic and flawed practices? OR intends to make improvements by accepting the truth?

The problem is I don't think twelvers are right either. There is also problem in logic among twelvers. Is not a question of what sect is right or wrong but the problem is that each sect make internal ijma and this became a vice in the sharia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SunniBrother said:

The problem is I don't think twelvers are right either. There is also problem in logic among twelvers. Is not a question of what sect is right or wrong but the problem is that each sect make internal ijma and this became a vice in the sharia.

I have not quoted here any sect or group i have just quoted what you have written in these threads. 

This means quoting the logic are flawed is very easy but accepting in reality that the logic are flawed and truth should be accepted is difficult. 

Should not we consider it hypocrisy?

Mentioning the logic are flawed and accepting the truth in reality can only be possible if the mind is open and free thinking is there.

wasalam

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skyweb1987 said:

I have not quoted here any sect or group i have just quoted what you have written in these threads. 

This means quoting the logic are flawed is very easy but accepting in reality that the logic are flawed and truth should be accepted is difficult. should not we consider it hypocrisy?

I believe that the eight madhabs should make ijma among the eight and not internal. We have Shias not accepting reports of Sunnis and we have Sunnis not accepting the reports of Shias. In the Qur'an it says there's no sect in Islam. This doesn't mean in any way that one of the sects is the true path or Islam as it was brought in it's totality. Honestly I believe the fiqh according to the 8 madhabs is acceptable. The problem is more regarding the lines of kufr and theology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SunniBrother said:

I believe that the eight madhabs should make ijma among the eight and not internal. We have Shias not accepting reports of Sunnis and we have Sunnis not accepting the reports of Shias. In the Qur'an it says there's no sect in Islam. 

Do you think that the ijma  of the companions at Saqeefa was sufficient to stop the ummah from diverging after the prophet saww? I do not think so. The ummah diverged in sects after that so called ijma . similarly ijma of 8 madhabs can not be achieved to make a unity in islam.

Reports are acceptable if they are inline with the verses  of quran otherwise not. off course contradictory reports are rejected.

Quran has named all of us following the prophet saww as muslims.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SunniBrother said:

 This doesn't mean in any way that one of the sects is the true path or Islam as it was brought in it's totality. Honestly I believe the fiqh according to the 8 madhabs is acceptable. The problem is more regarding the lines of kufr and theology

I would like to quote the verse of quran first as given below for the true follower of islam:

And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. (3:103)

The Rope of Allah which we should not separate from, are the Ahlul-Bayt. In fact, some Sunni scholars narrated from Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (AS) saying: 

"We are the Rope of Allah about whom Allah has said: 'Hold fast to the Rope of Allah, all of you together and do not diverge (3:103)'" 

Sunni references:
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p233
- Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 3:103

then from the hadith of the prophet saww he has left two weighty things including Quran ad his pure progeny ie Ahl Albayt in order to avoid going astray. they are not separated till they reach at the pool (kauther).

Thus true sunna comes through ahl albayat alone after the prophet saww.

wasalam

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

I would like to quote the verse of quran first as given below for the true follower of islam:

And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. (3:103)

The Rope of Allah which we should not separate from, are the Ahlul-Bayt. In fact, some Sunni scholars narrated from Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (AS) saying: 

"We are the Rope of Allah about whom Allah has said: 'Hold fast to the Rope of Allah, all of you together and do not diverge (3:103)'" 

Sunni references:
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p233
- Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 3:103

then from the hadith of the prophet saww he has left two weighty things including Quran ad his pure progeny ie Ahl Albayt in order to avoid going astray. they are not separated till they reach at the pool (kauther).

Thus true sunna comes through ahl albayat alone after the prophet saww.

wasalam

The problem is I don't think them as infallible. Only Prophets are infallible. I do believe however that the consensus of Ali, Hussein, Hassan and Fatima is infallible. And this can be supported by the Qur'an. As for the rest of the imams there was problems in succession and many fabricated reports about them. I believe something more in line with the Zaydi madhab. Or fivers as people call them. Omar was very sad that Ali didn't got the caliphate after him. I don't believe that Abu Bakr and Omar or even Uthman became heretics or kuffar. They may have made mistakes but we need to look at the political situation at the time, the Arsan did rushed to elect a Caliphate, even Omar said that the election of Abu Bakr was done in a wrong manner and that it should not happen again, he even go as far to say that if someone is elected like Abu Bakr again he should be killed. There's several proof that Abu Bakr didn't wanted that position "I am not the best man among you" but he was forced due to circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SunniBrother said:

The problem is I don't think them as infallible. Only Prophets are infallible. I do believe however that the consensus of Ali, Hussein, Hassan and Fatima is infallible. And this can be supported by the Qur'an. As for the rest of the imams there was problems in succession and many fabricated reports about them

The prophets are infallible and their successors can not be fallible. Based on this this principle and also agreed by you Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and imam hussain are also infallible. Similarly the successors / imaams after Imam Husain AS and afterwards can only be infallible. 

The prophet hadiths are there mentioning that there will be 12 caliphs/ Ameirs / iamam after the prophet saww. The firts one is Imam Ali and the last one is Imam Almahdi. The names can be found in Shia and sunni sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SunniBrother said:

I believe something more in line with the Zaydi madhab. Or fivers as people call them. 

Thanks for mentioning it, Zadyis do believe imam Ali and first 5 Imamas. as rightful successors of the holy Prophet saww. Then after these 5 imams imam can only be an infallible.

After his death, some felt that he was the rightful successor to his father, rather than his brother Muhammad al-Baqir.

Due to the fact that Zaid ibn 'Ali led a rebellion via Jihad against the Umayyad Caliphate, certain Shiites were under the impression that Zaid was claiming imamate for himself and therefore started believing in him as the Imam. This is what developped into the Zaidi sect of Shi'a Islam by his companions. 

The Ithna 'Ashari sources do not believe that Zaid claimed imamate for himself. Shaykh Mufid states "However that was not his intention because he knew of the right of his brother, peace be on him, to the Imamate before him, and of his bequest of trusteeship (wasiyya) at his death to Abu 'Abd Allãh (i.e., Jafar as-Sadiq), peace be on him." 

There is no evidence in the relationship between Imam Jafar as-Sadiq and Zaid ibn Ali that would demonstrate that Zaid ibn ‘Ali was claiming the Imamate for himself. When Imam Jafar as-Sadiq was informed about Zaid ibn Ali's martyrdom, "he was very sad...and he set apart a thousand dinars of his own money for the families of those of (Zaid's) followers who were killed with him." 

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

Thanks for mentioning it, Zadyis do believe imam Ali and first 5 Imamas. as rightful successors of the holy Prophet saww. Then after these 5 imams imam can only be an infallible.

After his death, some felt that he was the rightful successor to his father, rather than his brother Muhammad al-Baqir.

Due to the fact that Zaid ibn 'Ali led a rebellion via Jihad against the Umayyad Caliphate, certain Shiites were under the impression that Zaid was claiming imamate for himself and therefore started believing in him as the Imam. This is what developped into the Zaidi sect of Shi'a Islam by his companions. 

The Ithna 'Ashari sources do not believe that Zaid claimed imamate for himself. Shaykh Mufid states "However that was not his intention because he knew of the right of his brother, peace be on him, to the Imamate before him, and of his bequest of trusteeship (wasiyya) at his death to Abu 'Abd Allãh (i.e., Jafar as-Sadiq), peace be on him." 

There is no evidence in the relationship between Imam Jafar as-Sadiq and Zaid ibn Ali that would demonstrate that Zaid ibn ‘Ali was claiming the Imamate for himself. When Imam Jafar as-Sadiq was informed about Zaid ibn Ali's martyrdom, "he was very sad...and he set apart a thousand dinars of his own money for the families of those of (Zaid's) followers who were killed with him." 

Wasalam

The concept of infallible imamate was developed by jafar al sadiqq AFTER the death of Zayd ibn Ali.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

Thanks for mentioning it, Zadyis do believe imam Ali and first 5 Imamas. as rightful successors of the holy Prophet saww. Then after these 5 imams imam can only be an infallible.

After his death, some felt that he was the rightful successor to his father, rather than his brother Muhammad al-Baqir.

Due to the fact that Zaid ibn 'Ali led a rebellion via Jihad against the Umayyad Caliphate, certain Shiites were under the impression that Zaid was claiming imamate for himself and therefore started believing in him as the Imam. This is what developped into the Zaidi sect of Shi'a Islam by his companions. 

The Ithna 'Ashari sources do not believe that Zaid claimed imamate for himself. Shaykh Mufid states "However that was not his intention because he knew of the right of his brother, peace be on him, to the Imamate before him, and of his bequest of trusteeship (wasiyya) at his death to Abu 'Abd Allãh (i.e., Jafar as-Sadiq), peace be on him." 

There is no evidence in the relationship between Imam Jafar as-Sadiq and Zaid ibn Ali that would demonstrate that Zaid ibn ‘Ali was claiming the Imamate for himself. When Imam Jafar as-Sadiq was informed about Zaid ibn Ali's martyrdom, "he was very sad...and he set apart a thousand dinars of his own money for the families of those of (Zaid's) followers who were killed with him." 

Wasalam

But of course you wont believe that Ja'afar al Sadiqq developed the concept of infallible imamiyah because you believe that Ja'afar is infallible. Is a religious loop. Ali, Hussein and Hassan were not infallible, they disagreeing among themselves is proof of that. But twelvers probably discarded those reports on basis of the infallibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SunniBrother said:

But of course you wont believe that Ja'afar al Sadiqq developed the concept of infallible imamiyah because you believe that Ja'afar is infallible. Is a religious loop. Ali, Hussein and Hassan were not infallible, they disagreeing among themselves is proof of that. But twelvers probably discarded those reports on basis of the infallibility.

Infallibles don't disagree among themselves, however for example the Prophet [sawas] said Rice is not a zakah, then Imam Hussain [as] said Rice can be given as zakah.

And then sunni brothers use this as a proof, however you fail to respond that Rice was not found much back then, however at the time of Imam Hussain Rice was began to be planted and it was found easily, not hardly like the time of Rasoolullah [sawa]. 

 

Everything has its own condition and right time.

Edited by M.IB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, M.IB said:

Infallibles don't disagree among themselves, however for example the Prophet [sawas] said Rice is not a zakah, then Imam Hussain [as] said Rice can be given as zakah.

And then sunni brothers use this as a proof, however you fail to respond that Rice was not found much back then, however at the time of Imam Hussain Rice was began to be planted and it was found easily, not hardly like the time of Rasoolullah [sawa]. 

 

Everything has its own condition and right time.

Does not matter if it was rare or not. Sorry, but Prophets word sas. is higher than Imams as. word. If prophet said something and Imam something different then we should follow prophets word. Or do you think it is the other way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Muslim96 said:

Does not matter if it was rare or not. Sorry, but Prophets word sas. is higher than Imams as. word. If prophet said something and Imam something different then we should follow prophets word. Or do you think it is the other way?

Of course we would follow the Prophets word, however the Imams were appointed by the Prophet [sawas], hence it is his word to follow them as well. There are conditions and conditions back then aren't conditions like now. year for example 630  and Rice is not very common back then, however at 670/660 Rice is found very common and can be found ans easily do Zakat with it.

So the Prophet [sawas] commanded us to follow them (his word) and you are disobeying his command, so we are the ones who are actually following him by follow the 12 Imams as well, that's why we follow the Qur'an and the 14 infallible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.IB said:

Of course we would follow the Prophets word, however the Imams were appointed by the Prophet [sawas], hence it is his word to follow them as well. There are conditions and conditions back then aren't conditions like now. year for example 630  and Rice is not very common back then, however at 670/660 Rice is found very common and can be found ans easily do Zakat with it.

So the Prophet [sawas] commanded us to follow them (his word) and you are disobeying his command, so we are the ones who are actually following him by follow the 12 Imams as well, that's why we follow the Qur'an and the 14 infallible.

Ok then we have different opinions. I will follow the Imams as. but before that comes the Prophet sas. and before that Allah swt. Does not matter what time and where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muslim96 said:

Ok then we have different opinions. I will follow the Imams as. but before that comes the Prophet sas. and before that Allah swt. Does not matter what time and where.

That's what we basically do mate, don't think we follow the Imams [as] rather than Rasoolullah [sawa].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SunniBrother said:

The concept of infallible imamate was developed by jafar al sadiqq AFTER the death of Zayd ibn Ali.

Do you not believe that the prophets are infallible and their rightful successors can only be infallible as mentioned in your  last post for Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain AS?

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SunniBrother said:

But of course you wont believe that Ja'afar al Sadiqq developed the concept of infallible imamiyah because you believe that Ja'afar is infallible. Is a religious loop. Ali, Hussein and Hassan were not infallible, they disagreeing among themselves is proof of that. But twelvers probably discarded those reports on basis of the infallibility.

 

22 hours ago, SunniBrother said:

The problem is I don't think them as infallible. Only Prophets are infallible. I do believe however that the consensus of Ali, Hussein, Hassan and Fatima is infallible. And this can be supported by the Qur'an. 

Brother, What do you like to interpret by yourself with these contradictory statements?

 

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2017 at 7:03 PM, skyweb1987 said:

The prophets are infallible and their successors can not be fallible. Based on this this principle and also agreed by you Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and imam hussain are also infallible. Similarly the successors / imaams after Imam Husain AS and afterwards can only be infallible. 

The prophet hadiths are there mentioning that there will be 12 caliphs/ Ameirs / iamam after the prophet saww. The firts one is Imam Ali and the last one is Imam Almahdi. The names can be found in Shia and sunni sources.

@SunniBrother

Also a Divine Rule can't be run by a Fallible. So to run a Divine Rule, Allah will Appoint someone who is Fallible. Since its very clear that none of the Sunni Caliphs except Imam Ali (a.s) was Infallible made the Sunni Caliph Logic completely rejected.

But in Shia School of thought it is clear that the Divine Rule is made by Divinely Chosen Caliphs. The point SunniBrother made was the problem in succession - Please note that this problem was not brought by the Infallible Imams(a.s). Rather it was brought up by fallible ones and the misconceptions and ignorance of People like Hazrat Ismail bin Imam Sadiq being his Successor and not Imam Musa al Kadhim (a.s). We get many reports that every Imam in his time made it clear in many events and many ways introducing his successor.

The point is brother, we need to know the Knowledge of Ahlulbayt what they left for us. We need to know the Living Miracles we receive from the Shrines of Ahlulbayt. When we see that these Shining Bright Sun are very evident, our heart will melt and we will accept them.

Also in Sunni school of thought, the Idea of Ahlulbayt is very absurd. Claiming it all the descendants from Imam Ali and Bibi Fatima.

No such is not the same. They are Sayids but not Ahlulbayt. Ahlulbayt are just the people under cloak and the mentioned 12 Imams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2017 at 7:59 PM, M.IB said:

Infallibles don't disagree among themselves, however for example the Prophet [sawas] said Rice is not a zakah, then Imam Hussain [as] said Rice can be given as zakah.

And then sunni brothers use this as a proof, however you fail to respond that Rice was not found much back then, however at the time of Imam Hussain Rice was began to be planted and it was found easily, not hardly like the time of Rasoolullah [sawa]. 

 

Everything has its own condition and right time.

@SunniBrother It is known as Abrogation of Law or relaxation of based on circumstance. It has been done right from the time of Adam (a.s). This is not called disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/11/19/542786/arab-league-saudi-arabia-iran-meeting True color, desperation will not change anything to human who have been mesmerized.
    • Yeah, I know a set of parents that we’re doing the same thing for their daughter. Kept rejecting guys because they didn’t feel he was up to par. The guys info wouldn’t even make it to get to accept/reject. Their daughter is now 40 and unmarried. They rejected so many guys that people just stopped approaching her. 
    • It absolutely leads to sin unless you are a fantastic mu'min. And yes, although they might not turn to haram in terms of having relationships with girls, but you can't tell me you didn't see these guys talk about some girls in lustful ways or look at them in such a way. Furthermore, and something we seem to forget, is that in these gender mixed schools there is gender mixing in everything. In sport, as an example. Boys turn to watching filthy films whether they are in segregated or gender mixed schools.
    • No brother. What I do is this: I pray 17 rakaat Qadha prays everyday plus 11 rakaats Salaat-ul-layl. Salaat-ul-layl is something that does NOT have any replacement. It gives you good feeling. It really gives human being feeling of being in heaven. If you do Salaat-ul-layl, keep going. It guarantees both Dunya and Akherah.
    • I can give my opinion on men, as I'm not sure about women. I might have a pretty biased view due to personal experience, but some guys can get pretty desperate if they are segregated.  Also how does co-ed lead to sin? Most guys who were my friend in high school turned to pornography to sin, rather than girls. We might as well provide them with home schooling in that case. Trust me, we need to teach guys to respect women in this day and age. Alienating women is not the best option.  To be fair, there is a disadvantage of co-ed. If parents don't monitor their children, then there is a risk of them getting into the boyfriend/girlfriend culture.
×