Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
toyibonline

A Short Story

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Wow... Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar were both among Muta'khhireen.

Your attempt to downplay the importance of Dhahabi and ibn Hajar is pathetic. They are regarded as the greatest hadith scholars in sunnism as anyone with basic knowledge knows. Furthermore them being muta'akharin means they had access to all of the opinions before them and so were able to carry out a more thorough analysis.

Your claim of unanimous agreement is a huge thing which none of the sunni scholar ever claimed. Anyways, my point was there is no agreement.

I said ''near unanimous agreement''. If you were to weaken all the narrators that werent 100% agreed on you wouldnt have many narrators left.

Its typical rafidi tactic to cherry pick a hadith from a sunni book and then select a scholar wich suite you.lol YOu are accusing me and i am trying to ignore sanad talk. SO now ibn hajar's taqreeb is hujjah. In the case of mukhtalif feeh narrator, he gave tarjeeh to what he thinks is more correct. Its need to use something called 'common sense' to get this point.

Yes Ibn hajar analysed all of the opinions and concluded he was reliable, and Ibn Hajar is arguably the greatest Sunni hadith scholar. The only thing 'common sense' dictates is to not take you seriously.

Ok.. I thought Albani was a nasibi. Anyways Abu Ishaq Al-Huwainy in the tahqeeq of ''al-khasa'is'' declared the chain to be authentic but it doesn't stop him to indicate towards its shudhudh.

Yes Albani is a nasibi, thats why I used him as an example for you. Ibn Hajar also said the hadith was strong, and now you have added Alhuwainy to the list, thanks! For those that dont know 'Shadh' means that hadith contains a meaning that isnt in other sunni hadith. Of course we shouldnt be surprised that salafis regard all of these hadith as ''shadh'' or ''munkar'' because they contradict their other fabricated hadith.

Abu Balaj narrates manakeer.

The list of Ulema who authenticated this guy is probably even longer than Ibn Sulayman, and include the likes of (if Im remembering correctly) Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and bi Hatem. The latter is extremely strict in authenticating hadith, and Dhahabi said something like accept all of his authentication as correct because he is so strict. Again for those who dont know, ''munkar'' means the hadith says something that contradicts other Bani Umayyah hadith. Dont be too surprised when sunnis use this term again and again.

Where?

You quoted albani without criticism:

i.e. "In this hadith there is no proof of Ali [r] having more rightful for Khilafah than Shaikhain as Shi'a think. Because the Muwalaat here is that which is dhidd (opposite) of Mu'adaat NOt that walayah which means leadership, because in that case it would be like this: ''Waali (with a hamza after waw) kulli Mu'min" ........"

He explicitly said said if it had meant leadership it would have been waali, which is blatently false because wali can also mean leadership as I explained to you. Anb btw you translated it wrongly, there is no ''here'' in the arabic. The reader is dishonestly made to believe that wali cant mean leader.

And i told you earlier, Ali (ra) was leader after Prophet (pbuh) but not next to Pophet (pbuh). If one says ''Sahih Muslim is a Sahih book but after Quran'' then it is NOT wrong. But if one says ''Muslim is ASAHH book after Quran'' then a sunni would surely object, he'll say ''ASAHH book after Quran is Sahih Bukhari.''

That's a poor analogy as ''after'' here means in rank not it timing. Whereas in the hadith ''after me'' is understood as ''after I die''. Any listener will come to believe that after the Prophet dies Ali [a] becomes the leader.

According to your type of understanding, Prophet (pbuh) declared Ali (ra) to be his Caliph. But he actually became caliph after Uthman (ra) .

No he became caliph after the Prophet died, but people didnt recognize him as such. The Prophet was the master of all even if people rejected him, then they were simply rejecting their master. This is very easy to grasp, so why dont you use some of that 'common sense' you mentioned earlier and inshaallah you'll understand it. (Im being optimistic)

The hadith simply says ''he is the leader after me'' (according to your thinking), but he wasn't. A leader is leader bcz he leads the people.

A divine leader is a leader because he has the God given authority to lead. Imam Ali [a] had the divine caliphate which made him the master of everyone even if they didnt accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It simply means Prophet appointed him guardian and Protector of people of Medina until Prophet and other Muslims came back to Medina.

Salam,

I'm certainly not as familiar with this issue as some of you, but I'm a simple man and have a simple question.

If the Prophet Mohammad (a.s.) would not leave Medina for 3-4 weeks for an expedition without appointing a guardian and protector for the people of Medina, is it possible that he would leave this world forever without appointing a guardian and protector for the entire Muslim Umma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firoz Ali, on 16 August 2009 - 02:22 PM, said:

Its so surprising that Holy Prophet SAWW choses his FOURTH Caliph and successor while for frst three caliphs and successors was left undecided by Holy Prophet SAWW??

Have you read full hadith??? To praise Abu Bakr (ra) at the time when people were criticizing Ali (ra) doesn't seems logical to me.

Also you people read just selected narrations from sunni books. You do not differentiat between Munaqib and Khasa'is, and there arises main problem. If Prophet (pbuh) called Abu Ubaydah (ra) ''ameen of this ummah'' doesn't mean Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali were not ''Ameen'', and hence liars. Na'udhu billah

so u mean to say that abu baqr , umer and usman too were chosen by Holy Prophet SAWW as caliphs and successors but did not specify it directly as in case of Hazret Ali A.S

but then too the question then arises is then wat was the need of saqifa sham election??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calm down... No need to get emotional.

There are sayings of Ali [ra] in which he accept that the best of this Ummah were Abu Bakr and Umar [ra]. That narration is mutawatir, narrated from him through approx 20 companions (shi'a), including his son Muhammad b. Al-Hanafiyya (ra)

For the sayings of Prophet , check Kitab As-Sunnah of ibn abi Aasim. kitab as-sunnah isn't all about hadith of abu balj.lol

i started my post with peace, no where did i become emotional, i dont know where in my post you assumed i have become emotional. i simply asked a question... :lol:

so Prophet Muhammad (as) selected abu bakr, umar and uthman? so what was all the voting about???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Prophet (pbuh) called Abu Ubaydah (ra) ''ameen of this ummah'' doesn't mean Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali were not ''Ameen'', and hence liars. Na'udhu billah

Agreed but

If Holy Prophet SAWW cALLED ABU UBAYDA 'Ammen''does not make automaticaly abu baqr , umer and usman ameen too

hence ur logic is flawed

again i post this

Its so surprising that Holy Prophet SAWW choses his FOURTH Caliph and successor while for frst three caliphs and successors was left undecided by Holy Prophet SAWW??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see your problem. If you accept these hadiths, your entire faith collapses.

In fact i accepted it for the sake of argument and then explained it in easy way. YOu dont wanna undersand then i dont have cure for you.

But, I invite you to read this particular hadith one more time without bias:

ÃäÊ ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÃáÇ Åäß äÈíÇ Ãäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æ ÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí

Your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah (successor) upon EVERY believer after me.

I've read it, and explained it here, here and here.

ÃäÊ ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÃáÇ Åäß äÈíÇ Ãäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æ ÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí

i hope thats not intentional.Insha Allah

This hadith, as I have shown, has come in several riwaayat with different chains, all of which are reliable. I don't expect you to accept it though. However, the fact that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has mentioned "EVERY believer" is sufficient to show that he meant his immediate successor. Also, the word "after me" proves that khalifah there means "successor" and nothing else!

Already explained. æÇáÍãÏ ááå

Once again, I don't expect you to agree with me.

And i don't expect you to understand simple language.

But, the truth is VERY clear to the honest hearts.

Of course.
It is born out of ignorance. Muhammad (pbuh) was the Imam of the worlds, jinns, angels, mankind, everything during his lifetime. Therefore, his successor MUST succeed him in all these communities too.

Muhammad (pbuh) was the Prophet, so his successor MUST succeed him in this quality also. SubhanAllah...

Btw which nass tells you ''his successor MUST succeed him in all these communities too''.

Answer me: was Abubakr the leader of the jinns during his caliphate? If he was, where is your proof? If he was not, then who was? Or, do you mean to say that the jinns had no successor of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? When the Holy Prophet (pbuh) mentioned "every believer", he meant all these communities too.

So, Imam Ali (as) was the successor of Muhammad (pbuh) among the true believers among humans, jinns and all other creatures.

You dint tell how Imam Ali (ra) lead the jinns, and how Abu Bakr (ra) not.

The fact that Abubakr and his people did not accept this does not change that fact.

It refutes your understanding of that particular hadith.

Look at the Qur'an, in many places, Allah (swt) testifies that Muhammad (pbuh) is His Messenger (pbuh). Yet, the majority of the earth today reject this fact. Does that make Allah (swt) a liar (naudhobillah)?

Muhammad (pbuh) was Messenger. And the work of messenger was to convey the truth. Prophet (pbuh) did convey the message to people. If people did not accept his Messengership, then also he had conveyed the message, which was his work.

On the other hand, work of the leader is to lead the people. If people do not accept him than he is NOT a leader, because he has not lead the people.

You can call yourself leader of the world, but then the question would be whom are you leading.

You measure caliphate only on political authority. But, in that, you are completely mistaken. Muhammad (pbuh) was the Imam even when he was still in Makkah under the protection of Abu Talib (ra). He had no political authority then. Besides, you don't need human armies to exercise authority over the angels and jinns!

BAd analogy.

And, as for your ignorance regarding hadiths with numerous chains, Shaykh al-Albani has a message for you in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah 4/355, No. 1761:

Ãä ÇáÍÏíË ÇáÖÚíÝ íÊÞæì ÈßËÑÉ ÇáØÑÞ

Even the weak hadith becomes strong through many chains!

Its in general, not always. Dint i mind you of Zala'i's comment regarding hadith tayr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i started my post with peace, no where did i become emotional, i dont know where in my post you assumed i have become emotional. i simply asked a question... :lol:

YOur comment wasn't good. You have guts to tell aything even if you can't follow your own words. Deen isn't game that you can jump from one corner to other time to time.

so Prophet Muhammad (as) selected abu bakr, umar and uthman? so what was all the voting about???

I thought you was sincere about your words. I wasn't hoping any counter question, nor did you mention it.

You said...

Please bring forth any hadith which mentions abu bakr, umar or uthman which are similar to these hadtihs..or mentions them been khalif after prophet muhammad(as).

if you can i will become sunni and accept abu bakr as my first khalif otherwise NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muhammad (pbuh) was Messenger. And the work of messenger was to convey the truth. Prophet (pbuh) did convey the message to people. If people did not accept his Messengership, then also he had conveyed the message, which was his work.

On the other hand, work of the leader is to lead the people. If people do not accept him than he is NOT a leader, because he has not lead the people.

You can call yourself leader of the world, but then the question would be whom are you leading.

As I predicted rightly, this verse is about you and your people:

[shakir 2:18] Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back.

As for this claim of yours:

On the other hand, work of the leader is to lead the people. If people do not accept him than he is NOT a leader, because he has not lead the people.

You can call yourself leader of the world, but then the question would be whom are you leading.

I must inform you that Allah (swt) also appointed Prophet Ibrahim (as) an Imam after he passed some tests:

[shakir 2:124] And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.

It was late in his life since he did not have any children until his old age, and here he is referring to his progeny. That was decades after being a prophet.

But, did the people EVER recognized his Imamate? The obvious answer is NO. This is why you can never find any reference of Prophet Ibrahim (as) ruling. Yet, the fact that he was not recognized as the Imam does not mean that his Imamate was invalid, or that Allah (swt) has lied!

Salafi man, get your logic straight please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I predicted rightly, this verse is about you and your people:

[shakir 2:18] Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back.

As for this claim of yours:

I must inform you that Allah (swt) also appointed Prophet Ibrahim (as) an Imam after he passed some tests:

[shakir 2:124] And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.

It was late in his life since he did not have any children until his old age, and here he is referring to his progeny. That was decades after being a prophet.

But, did the people EVER recognized his Imamate? The obvious answer is NO. This is why you can never find any reference of Prophet Ibrahim (as) ruling. Yet, the fact that he was not recognized as the Imam does not mean that his Imamate was invalid, or that Allah (swt) has lied!

Salafi man, get your logic straight please!

Msha Allah , Jaza kallah

Fantastic reply-To the Point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your attempt to downplay the importance of Dhahabi and ibn Hajar is pathetic. They are regarded as the greatest hadith scholars in sunnism as anyone with basic knowledge knows.

huh? ...Actually we don't even compare Salaf with Khalaf. Dhahabi was probably greatest scholar of his time, similarly Ibn Hajar was probably greatest scolar of his time. But I did not ever heard anyone claiming what you are saying abov.

Furthermore them being muta'akharin means they had access to all of the opinions before them and so were able to carry out a more thorough analysis.

I think this is the only logical part of this post of yours.

I said ''near unanimous agreement''. If you were to weaken all the narrators that werent 100% agreed on you wouldnt have many narrators left.

YOu hav some good scholars opposing your ''near unanimous agreement''. SubhanAllah... That must be an oxymoron. I think Ibn Hajar was not aware of this ''near unanimous agreement'', thats why he regarded Ja'far as ''Saduq'' instead of ''Thiqah''.

Yes Ibn hajar analysed all of the opinions and concluded he was reliable, and Ibn Hajar is arguably the greatest Sunni hadith scholar. The only thing 'common sense' dictates is to not take you seriously.

He concluded Ja'far was Saduq, which means his hadith should be analyzed if there is no problem in the text...

ÞÇá Èä ÃÈí ÍÇÊã: ÅÐÇ Þíá: Åäå ÕÏæÞ Ãæ ãÍáå ÇáÕÏÞ Ãæ áÇ ÈÃÓ Èå¡ Ýåæ ããä íßÊÈ ÍÏíËå æíäÙÑ Ýíå æåí ÇáãäÒáÉ ÇáËÇäíÉ

Yes Albani is a nasibi, thats why I used him as an example for you. Ibn Hajar also said the hadith was strong, and now you have added Alhuwainy to the list, thanks! For those that dont know 'Shadh' means that hadith contains a meaning that isnt in other sunni hadith.

For me?? I don't consider him Hujjah, nor do anyone of the muslims who has some kowledge... And anyone disagree with you is a Nasibi.. NO surprise.

And, shaadh is that hadith in which a less trustworthy narrator narrates a part of hadith which oppose the wording of the same hadith narrated by other much trustworthy narrators.

Of course we shouldnt be surprised that salafis regard all of these hadith as ''shadh'' or ''munkar'' because they contradict their other fabricated hadith.

this is a useless statement coming from you.

The list of Ulema who authenticated this guy is probably even longer than Ibn Sulayman, and include the likes of (if Im remembering correctly) Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and bi Hatem.

Which Ibn suleiman??

According to Dhahabi, Abu Balj is Layyin (soft) and narrates munkar narrations. And the hadith qouted by you is among the manakeer of ABu Balj, according to Dhahabi, Imam Ahmed, Ibn Jawzi.

According to Ibn Hajar, Abu Balj is ''Saduq'' but makes mistakes.

Abu Hatim said, he is ''salehul hadith''.

Salehul Hadith...

ÅÐÇ Þíá: ÕÇáÍ ÇáÍÏíË ÝÅä íßÊÈ ÍÏíËå ááÇÚÊÈÇÑ

So there is not much for you in the term ''salehul hadith''.

Translating a term of hadith science without explaining its actual use makes confusion. YOu can probably translate both ''thiqa'' and ''saduq'' as reliable, though there is much differene between both terms.

Again for those who dont know, ''munkar'' means the hadith says something that contradicts other Bani Umayyah hadith. Dont be too surprised when sunnis use this term again and again.

Absurd... Everything you disagree with is the work of banu umayya, in short.

It seems you also don't know what is called munkar and how its different to shaadh.

You quoted albani without criticism:

SubhanAlla... I only qouted him to show what could be the reason of them not declaring this hadith defective. You probably didn't read my post or you don't want to understand anything. I said...

secondly, those scholars who had declared this hadith to be Sahih or Hasan, they declared it so because they dint consider these narrations to be pro-shia. The Wali in these narrations means close friend, to them, as in quran ''waliyyun hameem''. And that is why they didn't apply the rule on this narration (the according to which the narration of a Mubtadi' are not accepted in support of his Bid'ah even if the narrator are Thiqah, Truthful).

He explicitly said said if it had meant leadership it would have been waali, which is blatently false because wali can also mean leadership as I explained to you.

I do'nt hav much kowledge about language, so won't be talking about it as it doesn't affect my argument here, in anyway.

Anb btw you translated it wrongly, there is no ''here'' in the arabic. The reader is dishonestly made to believe that wali cant mean leader.

ok... i thought thats what he was trying to say. i should hav written it under brackets.

That's a poor analogy as ''after'' here means in rank not it timing. Whereas in the hadith ''after me'' is understood as ''after I die''. Any listener will come to believe that after the Prophet dies Ali [a] becomes the leader.

Also any listener would come to believ that SUn jumps in murky water, if he read the verse which says SUn set in murky water.

Firstly Quran is in classical arabic language, secondly every statement has a background. without considering these and other factors one can easily misunderstand any statement. And this apply to every verse of quran and every hadith.

No he became caliph after the Prophet died, but people didnt recognize him as such. The Prophet was the master of all even if people rejected him, then they were simply rejecting their master. This is very easy to grasp, so why dont you use some of that 'common sense' you mentioned earlier and inshaallah you'll understand it. (Im being optimistic)

We are discussing here a particular hadith, and you are telling what you believ.

The hadith says ''he is the wali of all the believers after me''. But he wasn't... I think i am repeating many things.

A divine leader is a leader because he has the God given authority to lead. Imam Ali [a] had the divine caliphate which made him the master of everyone even if they didnt accept it.

Actually people accepted him. And he lead the people....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

I'm certainly not as familiar with this issue as some of you, but I'm a simple man and have a simple question.

If the Prophet Mohammad (a.s.) would not leave Medina for 3-4 weeks for an expedition without appointing a guardian and protector for the people of Medina, is it possible that he would leave this world forever without appointing a guardian and protector for the entire Muslim Umma?

(wasalam)

Your analogy is not correct. During Tabuk there were not much people left in medina, but after the death of Pophet (pbuh) there are many companions.

And Prophet (pbuh) appointed ABu Bakr (ra) Imam before his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so u mean to say that abu baqr , umer and usman too were chosen by Holy Prophet SAWW as caliphs and successors but did not specify it directly as in case of Hazret Ali A.S

Prophet dint made any explicit statement regading anyone's successorship. He had prepared his copanions to get the clues.

but then too the question then arises is then wat was the need of saqifa sham election??

Saqifa was a confusion.... Abu Bakr n Umar (ra) went there to stop the cofusion, hence saving the muslims from bloodshed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I predicted rightly, this verse is about you and your people:

[shakir 2:18] Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back.

Allah knows well who is the deaf, dumb and blind.

I must inform you that Allah (swt) also appointed Prophet Ibrahim (as) an Imam after he passed some tests:

[shakir 2:124] And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.

It was late in his life since he did not have any children until his old age, and here he is referring to his progeny. That was decades after being a prophet.

But, did the people EVER recognized his Imamate? The obvious answer is NO. This is why you can never find any reference of Prophet Ibrahim (as) ruling. Yet, the fact that he was not recognized as the Imam does not mean that his Imamate was invalid, or that Allah (swt) has lied!

Salafi man, get your logic straight please!

SUbhanAllah... Jews consider Ibrahim (as) Imam, Christian consider him Imam, Muslim consider him Imam and even Pagans of Mecca considered him Imam. They all claim to follow his path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prophet dint made any explicit statement regading anyone's successorship. He had prepared his copanions to get the clues.

Saqifa was a confusion.... Abu Bakr n Umar (ra) went there to stop the cofusion, hence saving the muslims from bloodshed.

muslims from bloodshed??oh realy

anyway both abu baqr and umer were suppose to be in osama's army as per Holy Prohet's order but both openly disobeyed Allah's Prophet SAWW !!disobeying holy prophet by both abu baqr and umer does and going to saqifa itself shows their real intentions of going to saqifa

and moreover at sakifa wat happened ?did abu baqr or umer bring forth any hadees of holy Prophet SAWW abt praises of abu baqr???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Your analogy is not correct. During Tabuk there were not much people left in medina, but after the death of Pophet (pbuh) there are many companions.

And Prophet (pbuh) appointed ABu Bakr (ra) Imam before his death.

For your bold part. Can you dare to come on the following link?

Did Abu Bakar lead prayer when Prophet (pbuh) was on death bed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok lets just ponder in the text. Its just simple. Prophet said ''after me'' and we know Ali (ra) was the khalifa after Prophet , after the calipate of Uthman (ra) .

Prophet dint made any explicit statement regading anyone's successorship. He had prepared his copanions to get the clues.

:yaali:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah knows well who is the deaf, dumb and blind.

SUbhanAllah... Jews consider Ibrahim (as) Imam, Christian consider him Imam, Muslim consider him Imam and even Pagans of Mecca considered him Imam. They all claim to follow his path.

This is straight nonsense! This is how the Holy Qur'an describes the Imamate of Ibrahim and his family:

[Muhsin Khan 4:54] Or do they envy men (Muhammad SAW and his followers) for what Allah has given them of His Bounty? Then We had already given the family of Ibrahim (Abraham) the Book and Al­Hikmah (As­Sunnah - Divine Inspiration to those Prophets not written in the form of a book), and conferred upon them a great kingdom.

It refers to authority of obedience and rule. Actually, there are two types of kingdoms: temporal and spiritual. The Imam is perfectly in control of spiritual sovereignty. As for temporal, some people may wrong their own souls by denying him his rights. Sufis understand this thing better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Your analogy is not correct. During Tabuk there were not much people left in medina, but after the death of Pophet (pbuh) there are many companions.

And Prophet (pbuh) appointed ABu Bakr (ra) Imam before his death.

So are you saying the the Prophet Mohammad (a.s.) appointed Abu Bakr as the Imam? Then why was an "election" necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahlusunnah is just going around in circles assuming false things and thinking he knows whats he is talking about. your just beating a dead horse.

first he says abu bakr is elected by prophet muhammad (as) then he says prophet muhammad (as) left the sahaba clues..he also tries to post fabricated hadith about imam Ali (as) talking about abu bakrs superior position to everyone..

We want 1 hadith that Prophet Muhammad (as) said:

"Abu Bakr is khaliph after me, all follow abu bakr"

If you cant summon this hadith you can keep abu bakr as your khaliph because we already have Imam Ali (as) as our leader after prophet Muhammad (as) and he is sufficient for us to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

muslims from bloodshed??oh realy

anyway both abu baqr and umer were suppose to be in osama's army as per Holy Prohet's order but both openly disobeyed Allah's Prophet SAWW !!disobeying holy prophet by both abu baqr and umer does and going to saqifa itself shows their real intentions of going to saqifa

and moreover at sakifa wat happened ?

Well, is there any proof in which Prophet (pbuh) commanded Abu Bakr (ra) to go with the army, And commanded Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to not to go with the army.

did abu baqr or umer bring forth any hadees of holy Prophet SAWW abt praises of abu baqr???

Ansar themselve were eyewitness of Abu Bakr (ra)'s fadhail . Umar (ra) just remind them of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is straight nonsense! This is how the Holy Qur'an describes the Imamate of Ibrahim and his family:

[Muhsin Khan 4:54] Or do they envy men (Muhammad SAW and his followers) for what Allah has given them of His Bounty? Then We had already given the family of Ibrahim (Abraham) the Book and Al­Hikmah (As­Sunnah - Divine Inspiration to those Prophets not written in the form of a book), and conferred upon them a great kingdom.

You understand it like this...

"Ãóãú" Èóáú "íóÍúÓõÏõæäó ÇáäøóÇÓ" Ãóíú ÇáäøóÈöíø Õóáøóì Çááøóå Úóáóíúåö æóÓóáøóãó "Úóáóì ãóÇ ÂÊóÇåõãú Çááøóå ãöäú ÝóÖúáå" ãöäú ÇáäøõÈõæøóÉ æóßóËúÑóÉ ÇáäøöÓóÇÁ Ãóíú íóÊóãóäøóæúäó ÒóæóÇáå Úóäúåõ æóíóÞõæáõæäó áóæú ßóÇäó äóÈöíøðÇ áóÇÔúÊóÛóáó Úóäú ÇáäøöÓóÇÁ "ÝóÞóÏú ÂÊóíúäóÇ Âá ÅÈúÑóÇåöíã" ÌóÏøå ßóãõæÓóì æóÏóÇæõÏ æóÓõáóíúãóÇä "ÇáúßöÊóÇÈ æóÇáúÍößúãóÉ" æóÇáäøõÈõæøóÉ "æóÂÊóíúäóÇåõãú ãõáúßðÇ ÚóÙöíãðÇ" ÝóßóÇäó áöÏóÇæõÏó ÊöÓúÚ æóÊöÓúÚõæäó ÇãúÑóÃóÉ æóáöÓõáóíúãóÇä ÃóáúÝ ãóÇ Èóíúä ÍõÑøóÉ æóÓõÑøöíøóÉ

It refers to authority of obedience and rule. Actually, there are two types of kingdoms: temporal and spiritual. The Imam is perfectly in control of spiritual sovereignty. As for temporal, some people may wrong their own souls by denying him his rights. Sufis understand this thing better.

Yes Imamah of Ibrahim was with regard to obedience..

"Åäøöí ÌóÇÚöáß áöáäøóÇÓö ÅãóÇãðÇ" ÞõÏúæóÉ Ýöí ÇáÏøöíä

I am talking here about POlitical leadership. WE can have several spritual Imams at the same time. When we call Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafa'i, Ahmed etc as ''Imam'' it doesn't mean Imamah in the sense of leadership. It means people follow them in there guidance.

You have an example of Bani Israel. Talut [as] was political Imam, and Shamo'eel (i think there is disagreement regarding his name. Samuel in Bible) was religious Imam. This just an example to make it easy to get the point.

SO Ali was Imam in the sense that one sould benefit from his guidance. And Ali (ra) was not the only Imam in this sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your bold part. Can you dare to come on the following link?

Did Abu Bakar lead prayer when Prophet (pbuh) was on death bed?

I've read it before but not in full kaz after reading first page i gt its just time waste. And i don't have that much time to involve in all the discussions here. Whoever gave you that stuff needs some more study, the first step is to know what is called ''contradiction''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying the the Prophet Mohammad (a.s.) appointed Abu Bakr as the Imam? Then why was an "election" necessary?

Appointed as the Imam in the prayer. And that was an indication toward his leadership. At Saqifa Umar [ra] remind Ansar of this. And Ali (ra) also took it as a proof for Abu Bakr's (ra) leadership.

And Saqifa was not an election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahlusunnah is just going around in circles assuming false things and thinking he knows whats he is talking about. your just beating a dead horse.

first he says abu bakr is elected by prophet muhammad (as) then he says prophet muhammad (as) left the sahaba clues..he also tries to post fabricated hadith about imam Ali (as) talking about abu bakrs superior position to everyone..

Probably you don't understand what i was saying. And where i posted fabricated hadith.

We want 1 hadith that Prophet Muhammad (as) said:

"Abu Bakr is khaliph after me, all follow abu bakr"

If you cant summon this hadith you can keep abu bakr as your khaliph because we already have Imam Ali (as) as our leader after prophet Muhammad (as) and he is sufficient for us to follow.

I don't have time to collect those hadith. I povided you a link to the chapter ragarding "Abu Bak's leadership" from "kitab As-sunnah" of Ibn Abi Aasim with the tahqeeq of Albani.

For now following is what posted by a brother in another forum.

The hadith:

ÇÞÊÏæÇ ÈÇááÐíä ãä ÈÚÏí ÃÈí ÈßÑ æÚãÑ

"Follow the two after me: Abu Bakr and 'Umar"

Related from the Prophet sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam by:

Hudhaifa b. al Yaman (Allah be well pleased with him) as per:

- Al Tirmidhi, Sunan (no.3663)

- Ibn Majah, Sunan (no.97)

- Imam Ahmed, Musnad (no.23,293)

- Ibn Abi Shayba, Musannaf (no.31,942)

- Ibn Sa'ad, Tabaqat al Kubra (2/334)

- Al Hakim, Mustadrak (no.4454)

- Al Bayhaqi, Sunan al Kubra (no.9836 and no.16,368)

- Ibn Abdul Barr, al Tamhid (22/126)

- Ibn Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq (5/14, 44/230 and elsewhere)

- Abu Nu'aym, Hilya al Awliya (9/109)

- Al Baghawi, Tafsir (verse 4:59)

- Al Qurtubi, Tafsir (verse 59:6-7)

Abdullah b. Mas'ud (Allah be well pleased with him) as in:

- Al Tabarani, Mu'jam al Awsat (no.7177)

- Ibn Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq (30/228)

- Ibn al Athir, Asd al Ghaba (1/648)

There are yet over versions to consider (with additional wording), including from other Companions (Allah be well pleased with them all), recorded in some of the above collections as well as in Sahih Ibn Hibban, al Tahawi's Sharh Mushkil al Athar, al Tabarani's Mu'jam al Kabir and al Khatib al Baghdadi's Tarikh Baghdad.

Authenticity:

- Al Uqayli (d. 322H) in his al Du'afa (no.1649) comments on a slightly different version (worded: "the two leaders after me") and grades it: "munkar, baseless as a hadith of [imam] Malik, and it is related from Hudhaifa from the Prophet sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam with isnads that are good (jayyid) and established (thabit)." Regarding al Uqayli's comment on the isnad via Imam Malik, see also Ibn Hajr, Lisan al Mizan (no.596).

- Graded "sahih" by Sheikh al Albani in Sahih al Jami (no.2022 = no.1142 in the al Maktab al Islami: 1988/1408H ed.) and Sahih Sunan al Tirmidhi (no.2895). See also his analysis in Silsila al Sahiha (no.1233).

- Sheikh Shu'ayb al Arna'ut said, in grading the above reference from Musnad Imam Ahmed: "The hadith is 'hasan' due to its routes and witnessing [narrations]. The [narrators in] this isnad are all thiqa, being those of the two shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim), but it is disconnected..." (see his takhrij of Musnad Imam Ahmed: Mu'asasa al Risala, 2001/1421H) 38:23,245.

Imam Muslim relates as part of a long narration in his Sahih (no.311] = no.1450 of the English translation) the words:

ÝÅä íØÈÚæÇ ÃÈÇ ÈßÑ æÚãÑ íÑÔÏæÇ

"So if you had obeyed Abu Bakr and Umar, you would have gone on the right path..."

And Allah is the one who grants success.

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=5005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Saqifa Umar [ra] remind Ansar of this....and Saqifa was not an election.

Umar ibn Khattab said: “We have heard that one of you said that if `Umar dies I shall swear allegiance to so-and-so. Someone said to him that the allegiance to Abu Bakr was without consultation. It is true that allegiance to Abu Bakr took place all at once without much thought, but Allah protected us from mischief. However, no one should give you the example of Abu Bakr to follow.” (Tabari, Ta'rikh, vol. 4, p. 1820-1823)

So I guess you're right, it was a mistake (according to Umar himself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read it before but not in full kaz after reading first page i gt its just time waste. And i don't have that much time to involve in all the discussions here. Whoever gave you that stuff needs some more study, the first step is to know what is called ''contradiction''.

Lol good justification for ignorance. Why do not you enlighten me about that stuff which i need to study. I have specifically pointed out the contradictions in that thread instead of admitting that you are unable to answer them you started to mourn about your so called PRECIOUS TIME. LOLZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understand it like this...

"Ãóãú" Èóáú "íóÍúÓõÏõæäó ÇáäøóÇÓ" Ãóíú ÇáäøóÈöíø Õóáøóì Çááøóå Úóáóíúåö æóÓóáøóãó "Úóáóì ãóÇ ÂÊóÇåõãú Çááøóå ãöäú ÝóÖúáå" ãöäú ÇáäøõÈõæøóÉ æóßóËúÑóÉ ÇáäøöÓóÇÁ Ãóíú íóÊóãóäøóæúäó ÒóæóÇáå Úóäúåõ æóíóÞõæáõæäó áóæú ßóÇäó äóÈöíøðÇ áóÇÔúÊóÛóáó Úóäú ÇáäøöÓóÇÁ "ÝóÞóÏú ÂÊóíúäóÇ Âá ÅÈúÑóÇåöíã" ÌóÏøå ßóãõæÓóì æóÏóÇæõÏ æóÓõáóíúãóÇä "ÇáúßöÊóÇÈ æóÇáúÍößúãóÉ" æóÇáäøõÈõæøóÉ "æóÂÊóíúäóÇåõãú ãõáúßðÇ ÚóÙöíãðÇ" ÝóßóÇäó áöÏóÇæõÏó ÊöÓúÚ æóÊöÓúÚõæäó ÇãúÑóÃóÉ æóáöÓõáóíúãóÇä ÃóáúÝ ãóÇ Èóíúä ÍõÑøóÉ æóÓõÑøöíøóÉ

Yes Imamah of Ibrahim was with regard to obedience..

"Åäøöí ÌóÇÚöáß áöáäøóÇÓö ÅãóÇãðÇ" ÞõÏúæóÉ Ýöí ÇáÏøöíä

I am talking here about POlitical leadership. WE can have several spritual Imams at the same time. When we call Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafa'i, Ahmed etc as ''Imam'' it doesn't mean Imamah in the sense of leadership. It means people follow them in there guidance.

You have an example of Bani Israel. Talut [as] was political Imam, and Shamo'eel (i think there is disagreement regarding his name. Samuel in Bible) was religious Imam. This just an example to make it easy to get the point.

SO Ali was Imam in the sense that one sould benefit from his guidance. And Ali (ra) was not the only Imam in this sense.

You are mixing points! Allah (swt) was not telling Ibrahim (as) that he was making him an "Imam" in the sense of Abu Hanifah, Malik and others. And that is what you are claiming! The Qur'an is VERY EXPLICIT on the fact that Ibrahim (as) and his progeny are designated on the SAME type of Imamah! It is good that you have agreed that Dawud (as), who was from his progeny, held political authority. This shows that all the other Imams too had right of political authority, but were denied.

Your example of Banu Israel further demolishes your own points! You claim that Talut (as) was the political Imam while Samuel (as) was the spiritual Imam! Actually, Samuel (as) was their prophet, and prophets are not just spiritual Imams like Abu Hanifah!

[shakir 2:247] And their prophet said to them: Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you. They said: How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than he, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth? He said: Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Amplegiving, Knowing.

[shakir 2:248] And the prophet said to them: Surely the sign of His kingdom is, that there shall come to you the chest in which there is tranquillity from your Lord and residue of the relics of what the children of Musa and the children of Haroun have left, the angels bearing it; most surely there is a sign in this for those who believe.

This shows that prophethood and Imamah are two different, divine ranks.

Talut (as) had the kingdom of Allah (swt), just as Imam Ali (as) later had. This is why obedience to Imam Ali (as) is obedience to Allah (swt)! Imam al-Hakim in his al-Mustadrak 3/121 records this hadith:

«ãä ÃØÇÚäí ÝÞÏ ÃØÇÚ Çááå æãä ÚÕÇäí ÝÞÏ ÚÕÇ Çááå¡ æãä ÃØÇÚ ÚáíÇð ÝÞÏ ÃØÇÚäí æãä ÚÕì ÚáíÇð ÝÞÏ ÚÕÇäí»

Whoever obeys me has obeyed Allah, and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allah. Whoever obeys Ali has obeyed me, and whoever disobeys Ali has disobeyed me.

Both al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi have declared it sahih.

I believe you STRONGLY need to read this commentary of the verse on Ibrahim's (as) Imamah http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/tafseer-2-124/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abu Bakr as Leader in Prayers (s)

The Sunni historians claim that when Muhammad Mustafa was unable to attend the public prayers because of his illness, he ordered Abu Bakr to lead the congregational prayers, and they put this forward as "proof" that he wanted him (Abu Bakr) to become his successor.

There are various versions of this story extant. According to one, Bilal came to ask the Prophet if he would lead the prayer, and he said: "No, tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer."

There is a second version in which at prayer time, the Prophet asked a certain Abdullah bin Zama'a where was Abu Bakr. Ibn Zama'a went out to call Abu Bakr but could not find him. But he found Umar, and asked him to lead the prayer. But when Umar called the takbir (Allah-o-Akbar), the Prophet heard him, and said: "No! No! Allah and the believers forbid that. Tell Abu Bakr to do so."

As per the third story, the Prophet asked those around him if the time for prayer had come. They said that it had, whereupon he asked them to tell Abu Bakr to lead the congregation. But his wife, Ayesha, said that her father was a very tenderhearted man, and if he saw his (the Prophet's) place in the mosque empty, he (Abu Bakr) would cry, and no one would be able to hear his voice. But he (the Prophet) insisted that Abu Bakr act as the prayer-leader.

There are some other stories also like these in the history books and the substance of them all is that Abu Bakr led the congregation in prayer(s) during the last days of the Prophet on this earth.

Muhammad ibn Ishaq

Ibn Shihab said, Abdullah b. Abu Bakr b. Abdur Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hisham told me from his father from Abdullah b. Zama'a b. al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib b. Asad that when the Apostle was seriously ill and I with a number of Muslims was with him, Bilal called him to prayer, and he told us to order someone to preside at prayer. So I went out and there was Umar with the people, but Abu Bakr was not there. I told Umar to get up and lead the prayers, so he did so, and when he shouted Allah Akbar, the Apostle heard his voice, for he had a powerful voice, and he asked where Abu Bakr was, saying twice over, "God and the Muslims forbid that." So I was sent to Abu Bakr and he came after Umar had finished that prayer and presided. Umar asked me what on earth I had done, saying, "When you told me to lead the prayer, I thought that the Apostle had given you orders to that effect; but for that I would not have done so." I replied that he had not ordered me to do so, but when I could not find Abu Bakr I thought that he (Umar) was most worthy of those present to lead the prayer. (The Life of the Messenger of God)

Foregoing is the earliest extant account of the story that Abu Bakr led the prayers. Its narrator was Abdullah b. Zama'a. He himself says that the Apostle ordered him to ask someone which means anyone, to lead the prayer, and he did not specifically mention Abu Bakr. Even later, when the Apostle forbade Umar to lead the prayer, he did not order Abu Bakr to take his place. He merely asked where was Abu Bakr.

Abdullah b. Zama'a thought that Umar was "most worthy" to lead the prayer but the Apostle of God did not agree with him.

Sir William Muir

It is related that on one occasion Abu Bakr happened not to be present when the summons to prayer was sounded by Bilal, and that Umar having received, as he erroneously believed, the command of Mohammed to officiate in his room, stood up in the mosque, and in his powerful voice commenced the Takbir, "Great is the Lord!" preparatory to the service. Mohammed overhearing this from his apartment, called out with energy, "No! No! No! The Lord and the whole body of believers forbid it! None but Abu Bakr! Let no one lead the prayer but only he." (The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877)

As stated above, according to the Sunni historians, the purpose of the Apostle in ordering Abu Bakr to lead the prayers was to "promote" the latter as his successor.

It is entirely possible that Abu Bakr led the Muslims in prayer in the lifetime of the Apostle himself. What, however, is not clear is if he did so at the orders of the Apostle, or, at least with his tacit approval. The claim that Abu Bakr led the prayers at the orders of the Prophet is open to question because he was a subaltern in Usama's army, and the Apostle had ordered him to leave Medina and to report to his Commanding Officer at Jorf which, apparently, he never did.

Even if it is assumed that the Apostle ordered Abu Bakr to act as an Imam (prayer-leader), it is still not clear how it became an "endorsement" of his candidacy for succession. After all, Abu Bakr himself, Umar bin al-Khattab, and Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, all three had served under Amr bin Aas in the campaign of Dhat es-Salasil, and had offered their prayers behind him for many weeks. Amr bin Aas had made it plain to all three of them that he was their boss not only in the army but also as a leader in religious services.

As already noted, the Sunni Muslims assert that the Prophet chose Abu Bakr to lead the public prayers just before his death because he wanted the latter to be his khalifa.

Ibn Hajar Makki, a Sunni historian, says in his book, Tatheer al-Janan (page 40):

"Abu Bakr led Muslims in prayer (at the orders of the Apostle). It is, therefore, the consensus of all scholars that his khilafat was by the fiat of the Apostle."

But the same Sunnis also hold the view that leading other Muslims in prayer does not confer any merit upon the leader himself, and that it is not necessary for a man to be "qualified" to act as an Imam (prayer-leader). In this connection, they quote the following "tradition" of the Prophet of Islam on the authority of Abu Hurayra:

Abu Hurayra reports that the Apostle of God said that:

"Prayer is a mandatory duty for you, and you can offer it behind any Muslim even if he is a fasiq (even if he commits major sins)."

According to this "tradition" a fasiq (sinner) is just as well qualified to be an Imam (prayer-leader) as a saint; in the matter of acting as Imam, the sinner and the saint enjoy parity!

John Alden Williams

And hearing and obeying the Imams and the Commanders of the believers (is necessary) - whoever received the Caliphate, whether he is pious or profligate, whether the people agreed on him and were pleased with him or whether he attacked them with the sword until he became Caliph and was called "Commander of the Believers." Going on a holy war (Jihad) is efficacious with a pious or with a dissolute commander until the day of Resurrection; one does not abandon him. Division of the spoils of war and applying the punishments prescribed by the Law is for the Imams. It is not for anyone to criticize them or contend with them. Handing over the alms-money to them (for distribution) is permissible and efficacious; whoever pays them has fulfilled his obligation whether (the Imam) was pious or dissolute. The collective prayer behind the Imam and those he delegates is valid and complete; both prostrations. Whoever repeats them is an innovator, abandoning the tradition and opposed to the Sunna. There is no virtue in his Friday prayer at all, if he does not believe in praying with the Imams, whoever they are, good or bad; the Sunna is to pray two prostrations with them and consider the matter finished. On that let there be no doubt in your bosom. (Some Essential Hanbali Doctrines from a Credal Statement in Themes of Islamic Civilization, p. 31, 1971).

According to the Hanbali verdict quoted above, anyone and everyone can lead the Muslims in prayer. Abu Hurayra and Abu Sufyan are as much qualified to become prayer-leaders as Abu Bakr.

This opinion was formulated by the later generations of the Muslims. One man who didn't share it with them, was Muhammad Mustafa, the Interpreter of God's Last Message to mankind. He considered Umar bin al-Khattab "unqualified" to lead the Muslims in prayer, and forbade him to do so.

The Shia Muslims discount as spurious the "tradition" which Abu Hurayra has attributed to the Prophet of Islam that it is lawful to offer prayer behind anyone, even a fasiq. They say that an Imam (a prayer-leader) must be:

A Muslim

A male

An adult

Sane

Just ('Adil)

Knowledgeable

A man of good reputation, i.e., one known to possess good character.

The story that Abu Bakr led Muslims in prayer in the lifetime of the Prophet, is either true or it is false. If it is true, then it means that he carried out a duty which according to Abu Hurayra and the Sunni jurists and scholars, anyone and everyone else was qualified to perform, and it did not make him "special" in any way; if it is false, then it means that he did not lead any prayer-meeting at all when the Prophet was still alive.

But if this report is true, then it also means that any prayer offered behind Umar bin al-Khattab, is void. The Prophet said that God Himself didn't want Umar to act as prayer-leader. Umar's insistence upon leading the Muslims in prayer, before or after the death of the Prophet, could not possibly make those prayers less unacceptable to God!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if believe abu bakr 1st khalifa then what would u consider osama......read this in short there was a war and prophet said to osama to take the charge of abu bakar and other people except Hazrat Ali it means ali's value is ahead from that of companions......read this Usama's Expedition

Zayd bin Haritha was the freedman and friend of Muhammad Mustafa. He was killed in the battle of Mootah in A.D. 629 in which he had led the Muslims against the Romans. The Muslims had been defeated in that battle, and they had retreated into Hijaz.

The Prophet of Islam wanted to efface the memory of that defeat but he was awaiting an opportune moment for doing so. Ever-since the Prophet, may God bless him and his Ahlul Bait, had migrated to Yathrib (Medina) in 622, he had worked very hard. He had carried a burden of responsibilities that even a syndicate of men would have found excessively heavy. Since the Farewell Pilgrimage in March 632, he had worked almost non-stop. Unremitting labor and lifelong austerity inevitably took their toll, and he fell ill. This illness was going to be fatal. Though he had felt weak even before his illness set in, he had not allowed weakness to interfere with his duties as the Messenger of God and as the Sovereign of the Muslims.

The long-awaited "opportune moment" appears to have arrived at last. The Prophet equipped and organized a new expedition to mount an invasion of the Syrian frontier. The prestige of Islam had been destroyed at the battle of Mootah, and time had come to restore it. To command the expedition, the Prophet chose Usama, a youth of 18, the son of Zayd bin Haritha, the martyr of Mootah. Both father and son had been great favorites of the Prophet. But he did not make them generals because of favoritism; he made them generals because they were qualified by their ability to command other men, and to lead them in war.

On the 18th of Safar of 11 A.H., Muhammad Mustafa placed the banner of Islam in the hands of Usama, briefed him on the aims of the campaign, and gave him instructions on how he had to conduct it. He then ordered all his companions, with the exception of Ali and other members of Banu Hashim, to report for duty to Usama, and to serve under him. These companions included the oldest, the richest and the most powerful men of Quraysh such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas, Talha, Zubayr, Khalid bin al-Walid, and many others. The Prophet ordered Usama to march immediately at the head of the companions and the army toward his destination.

Sir William Muir

On the Wednesday following, Mohammed was seized with a violent headache and fever; but it passed off. The next morning he found himself sufficiently recovered to bind with his own hand upon the Flagstaff a banner for the army. He presented it to Usama with these words: 'Fight thou beneath this banner in the name of the Lord, and for His cause. Thus thou shalt discomfit and slay the people that disbelieveth in the Lord.' The camp was then formed at Jorf; and the whole body of fighting men, not excepting even Abu Bakr and Umar, were summoned to join it. (The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877)

Muhammad Husayn Haykal

The Muslims did not stay long in Madinah following their return from the Farewell Pilgrimage in Makkah. The Prophet had immediately ordered the mobilization of a large army and commanded it to march on al-Sham. He sent along with that army a number of the elders of Islam, the earliest Muhajirun, among whom were Abu Bakr and Umar. He gave the command of the army to Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah. (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)

The Prophet wished the army to leave Medina at once. But strangely, the army did not show any eagerness to obey him. Instead of obedience, the Prophet met resistance – from some of his companions!

Thenceforth, the Prophet had to grapple with two problems; one was to overcome his illness and the other was to overcome the resistance of his army. The last few days of his life on this earth were dominated by this two-pronged struggle.

The senior members of the Quraysh bitterly resented the elevation of a boy of 18 over all of them, and that too, the son, not of a "high-born" Qurayshi, but of a former slave! Therefore, instead of reporting to him for duty, many among them began to play truant and to temporize. Some among them were so disgruntled at the selection of Usama as their general that they openly expressed their displeasure.

R.V.C. Bodley

...The veterans did not like the idea of attacking the still redoubtable Romans with a lad, who had little military experience, as their leader. Mohammed was, however, unmoved by the protests. He was establishing the precedent, observed ever since among Moslems, that age and social standing do not necessarily make the best generals. He was ingraining in them the message of democracy which they were to carry to the world. Without discussing the nomination he summoned Osama to the mosque and handed him the banner of Islam with recommendation to bring it honor. (The Messenger, New York, 1946)

The appointment of Usama as general was not, however, the only reason why some of the companions did not want to go to Syria. There were some other reasons also why they believed it was absolutely essential for them to stay in Medina, regardless of the orders of the Messenger of God. Usama asked the Prophet if it would not be better to defer the invasion of Syria until his recovery from fever. But the Prophet said: "No. I want you to leave this very moment."

Usama went to his camp at Jorf but few of the companions came to report for duty. They knew that the sickness of the Prophet had brought a "crisis" upon the umma (community), and they considered it "unsafe" to leave Medina at a time like this though they considered it quite "safe" to defy his orders. They put the golden rule of "Safety First" ahead of the orders of the Messenger of God.

The Prophet had fever and severe headache but he managed to go into the mosque, and to address the assembly there which included many of the stragglers, thus:

"O Arabs! You are miserable because I have appointed Usama as your general, and you are raising questions if he is qualified to lead you in war. I know you are the same people who had raised the same question about his father. By God, Usama is qualified to be your general just as his father was qualified to be a general. Now obey his orders and go."

Betty Kelen

Soon after the farewell pilgrimage, with his ambition speeding ever northward as if in advance of destiny, Muhammad organized a new expeditionary force to Syria, putting Zayd's son, Usama, in charge of it – against the advice of some of his generals, since Usama was only twenty. Muhammad told them sharply, 'You carp at him as you carped at his father, but he is just as worthy of command as his father was.'

He no longer needed to waste time excusing his actions. He placed his standard in Usama's hands and sent him off to the mustering ground, but the argument rankled in his mind all the same. (Muhammad, Messenger of God)

Whenever the Prophet felt slight relief from his fever and headache, he questioned those present if Usama's army had left for Syria. He kept urging them, 'Send off the army of Usama immediately.'

The rank-and-file of the army obeyed the orders of the Prophet, and reported for duty to their commanding officer at Jorf but most of the senior companions did not. Some among them lingered in the city; others, under constant prodding by the Prophet, went to Jorf but came back. They kept plying between the camp and the city. Some of them came to the city to take items which were missing in the equipment, and some others wanted to hear the news. Still others returned to "enquire after the health of the Prophet." There were also those companions who didn't go to Jorf at all. They stayed in the city out of their "love" for the Prophet since they did not have the "heart" to leave him at a time when he was critically ill.

But these protestations of "love" and "solicitude" for his welfare did not impress the Prophet himself. The touchstone of their love for him was their obedience to his commands. He ordered them to leave for Syria but they did not. They disobeyed him during the last days of his life.

Betty Kelen

His (the Prophet's) illness worsened, but he tried valiantly to throw it off for Usama's sake, for as word of Muhammad's sickness spread about, the young man was having a hard time recruiting his troops. Some men who had joined him, were returning to Medina, and certainly none were leaving. (Muhammad, Messenger of God)

Eventually, the inevitable took place. Muhammad, the Last Messenger of God on this earth, died. His struggle to send his companions out of Medina, came to an end, with a note of "triumph" for the latter. They did not report for duty to Usama and the army did not go on the campaign – in his lifetime!

For Muslims, every command of Muhammad is the command of God Himself because he is the Interpreter to them, of God's Will and Purpose. Disobedience to Muhammad is disobedience to God Himself. Therefore, those men who disobeyed him, earned the displeasure of God.

The battle of Mootah was fought in A.D. 629, ending in the rout of the Muslims. The Prophet wanted to blot out that stain of defeat. But it was not until three years later – in 632 – that he ordered Usama to invade the Syrian frontier in retaliation for the disaster of Mootah.

The timing of Usama's expedition raises a whole tangle of questions. Why did the Prophet not send his punitive expedition to Syria at any time during the intervening three years? Why did he choose the time just before his own death to send it? Why, all of a sudden, it became so desperately important for him to send his companions and fighting men out of Medina?

As noted before, after the Farewell Pilgrimage, the health of the Prophet had begun to show signs of stress. Two months later, his condition further deteriorated, and some days later, he died.

Also, as noted earlier, the Prophet told the Muslims on more than one occasion that he did not have much longer to live in this world. Tabari, the historian, has quoted Abdullah ibn Abbas as saying: (About two months after the Farewell Pilgrimage) "The Messenger of God told us that he would perhaps die in a month's time." (History, Vol. II,, page 435).

It is also reported that one night the Prophet went into the cemetery of Al-Baqi, accompanied by a domestic. After praying for the dead, he said to his companion: "They (the dead) are in a better state than those who are alive. Soon many new evils will appear, and each will be more frightful and hideous than its forerunner."

On the one hand the Apostle of God was predicting his own demise, and was also predicting the appearance of new evils and outbreak of new disturbances; and on the other, he was exhorting his Companions to leave Medina and to go to Syria!

In view of the imminence of his own death, what was more important for the Apostle to do: to seek retaliation for the death of a friend who was killed three years earlier on a distant frontier or to protect the State of Medina and the Muslim umma from the new perils which, he said, were soon going to appear?

The obvious answer to this question is that if retaliation for the death of Zayd could wait for three years, it could wait a little longer, and that the security of the State and the safety of the umma, were far more important than anything else. Therefore, the Prophet ought to have deployed the army in and around Medina, instead of sending it abroad.

But it appears that the Apostle himself would not have agreed with such an assessment. He considered nothing more important than to send his companions to Syria out of Arabia itself. When he noticed that they were ignoring his orders, he cursed them. Shahristani, the historian, writes in his book, Kitab al-Milal wan-Nihal (page 8): "The Apostle of God said: 'Usama's army must leave at once. May Allah curse those men who do not go with him.'"

It was the first time in his life that Mohammed Mustafa, the Messenger of Mercy and Mercy for the whole Universe, cursed anyone. Before this, he had never cursed anyone – not even his most rabid enemies like Abu Jahl and Abu Sufyan. He didn't curse the people of Ta'if when they stoned him and drove him out of their city. Also, in the past, if anyone was unable to go into battle, he did not press him to go, and let him stay at home. But in the matter of Usama's expedition, he did not want to hear any reason or excuse from anyone for his failure to go with it. His orders to the companions to go with the expedition were inexorable, inflexible and emphatic.

In the last moments of his life, a man wishes that all his folks and friends should be around him. He wishes and hopes that after his death, they would take part in his funeral; they would pray for him, and would comfort his family. But contrary to all norms of conduct at a time like this, Muhammad Mustafa was doing all that he could to send his companions and friends away from Medina. He did not want any of them to stay with him. The Sunni Muslims claim that Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, did not appoint his own successor, and he left the matter of choosing a leader for the community to his companions. If they are right in their claim, then the Prophet's order to the companions to leave Medina and to go to Syria, poses a most thorny problem for them.

It was obvious that the Prophet was going to die. He had himself said so repeatedly. The time had come, therefore, for his companions to put their heads together and to determine the new locus of authority. But the Prophet was insisting that they go hundreds of miles away from him – and from Medina. If he had wished them to elect or select his successor through their "mutual consultation," would he have ordered them to quit Medina? Also, he himself had warned the umma that it was threatened by new perils. Would he not, therefore, want his companions to stay in Medina, and defend the umma from those perils? After all, who would defend the umma of Muhammad from those perils if not his own companions?

Since the Prophet knew that he was going to die, he should never have equipped and organized Usama's army. Instead, he should have suggested to his companions that they ought to work out a strategy, through mutual consultation, to avert the new evils and perils which already loomed on the horizons of Medina.

But Muhammad Mustafa did not do this. He, in fact, did just the opposite. He ordered his companions to get out of Medina, and he was never so abrupt with them as he was on this occasion. Could it mean that it were the companions themselves whom he saw as the authors of the new evils and perils threatening his umma?

Actually, the safety and salvation of the Muslims lay in their unquestioning obedience to the orders of their Prophet. When they disobeyed him, they threw open the door to all evils, disturbances and perils.

In the context of the events of the time, it appears that Muhammad Mustafa had most important reasons for deferring Usama's expedition until the last minute. He had declared clearly, precisely and repeatedly that Ali ibn Abi Talib was going to be his successor. But he was also aware of the presence of a strong undercurrent of the opposition of his companions to Ali.

The Prophet also knew that the group opposed to Ali, was extremely powerful and vigilant. Therefore, he figured that if at his death, members of the group in question, were out of Medina, he (Ali) would succeed him without any incident. The real purpose of the Prophet, in organizing the expedition of Usama, therefore, was to send all those men away from Medina who might challenge Ali in his accession to the throne of the caliphate. He hoped that in the absence of the companions from Medina, Ali would ascend the throne, and upon their return, they would find him firmly in control of the government.

The expedition of Usama, therefore, was the prelude to the transfer of sovereignty from Muhammad to his successor, Ali ibn Abi Talib.

But the companions were not going to leave Medina. To stay in Medina, they dared the Prophet himself, and they even ignored his curses. They knew that if Ali once ascended the throne, then they, i.e., the Companions, would be shut out from the "mansions of power" forever, and they had, for this reason, to prevent Ali's accession to the throne at all costs. They had no intention of being shut out of the "mansions of power."

The following points should be borne in mind by the reader for a reassessment of the episode of Usama's expedition:

1. The battle of Mootah had been fought in A.D. 629. In the summer of A.D. 632, the Syrian frontier was peaceful and quiet, and there was no threat, real or fancied, of an invasion of Medina from the north. In fact, there were not even any rumors of an attack upon Medina or Hijaz by anyone. And yet, Muhammad Mustafa was showing the greatest anxiety to send his army to Syria.

2. Usama's expedition was organized, apparently, to restore the morale of the Muslims after their rout in the battle of Mootah, and to chastise those people who had killed his father, Zayd bin Haritha. The Apostle charged Usama with the task of exacting retribution from the killers of his father. Now Jaafer ibn Abi Talib, the Winged Martyr of Islam, and the elder brother of Ali, was also killed in the same battle. But the Prophet did not send Ali or any other member of the clan of Hashim with the expedition. He kept them all with him in Medina.

3. Despite his fatal illness, the Prophet was urging the army to march on Syria. He brusquely dismissed the professed solicitude of some of his Companions for his welfare, and ordered them to go with Usama forthwith.

4. Usama bin Zayd bin Haritha was the commanding officer of those companions of the Prophet who were old enough to be his grandfathers such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Abu Obaida bin al-Jarrah, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, and many others. The Prophet was thus stressing the principle, just before his death, that the Muslims were not to consider a man worthy of leadership merely because he was old.

5. If a qualified person is available to become a leader, then an unqualified person must not displace him. The companions raised objection to Usama's leadership on this ground. The Prophet agreed that only the most qualified person ought to be invested with supreme authority. But he maintained that Usama was more qualified than all those men who were ordered to serve under him, his extreme youth notwithstanding.

6. The Sunni Muslims say that the Prophet "consulted" his Companions, and this made his government a "democracy." It is true that he "consulted" them occasionally in some minor matters but he himself made all decisions without reference to them. At Hudaybiyya, Umar bin al-Khattab led the opposition to him when he was negotiating terms of peace with the pagans. He ignored the opposition, went ahead and signed a treaty with them. Later, Sunni jurists explained that the Prophet ignored Umar's protests because he (the Prophet) was acting under the commands of Heaven. They are right. But the appointment of Usama as general of the army had nothing to do with the commands of Heaven and the Prophet was free to rescind his orders when confronted with opposition from the Companions. But he refused even to talk with them on the subject much less to "consult" them in the matter.

7. The Prophet's orders to his Companions to serve under Usama, and to leave Medina for Syria, were most emphatic. But they did not leave Medina, and he died. They, thus, realized their aim which was to be physically present in Medina at his death.

8. Those Companions of the Prophet whom he had ordered to report for duty to Usama – their general – were defying him while he was still alive. If they could disregard his orders and his wishes in his lifetime, they could just as casually, disregard his orders and wishes in the matter of his succession after his death. They put their own ambitions and interests ahead of the commands and wishes of Muhammad Mustafa, the blessed Messenger of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if believe abu bakr 1st khalifa then what would u consider osama......read this in short there was a war and prophet said to osama to take the charge of abu bakar and other people except Hazrat Ali it means ali's value is ahead from that of companions......read this Usama's Expedition

Zayd bin Haritha was the freedman and friend of Muhammad Mustafa. He was killed in the battle of Mootah in A.D. 629 in which he had led the Muslims against the Romans. The Muslims had been defeated in that battle, and they had retreated into Hijaz.

The Prophet of Islam wanted to efface the memory of that defeat but he was awaiting an opportune moment for doing so. Ever-since the Prophet, may God bless him and his Ahlul Bait, had migrated to Yathrib (Medina) in 622, he had worked very hard. He had carried a burden of responsibilities that even a syndicate of men would have found excessively heavy. Since the Farewell Pilgrimage in March 632, he had worked almost non-stop. Unremitting labor and lifelong austerity inevitably took their toll, and he fell ill. This illness was going to be fatal. Though he had felt weak even before his illness set in, he had not allowed weakness to interfere with his duties as the Messenger of God and as the Sovereign of the Muslims.

The long-awaited "opportune moment" appears to have arrived at last. The Prophet equipped and organized a new expedition to mount an invasion of the Syrian frontier. The prestige of Islam had been destroyed at the battle of Mootah, and time had come to restore it. To command the expedition, the Prophet chose Usama, a youth of 18, the son of Zayd bin Haritha, the martyr of Mootah. Both father and son had been great favorites of the Prophet. But he did not make them generals because of favoritism; he made them generals because they were qualified by their ability to command other men, and to lead them in war.

On the 18th of Safar of 11 A.H., Muhammad Mustafa placed the banner of Islam in the hands of Usama, briefed him on the aims of the campaign, and gave him instructions on how he had to conduct it. He then ordered all his companions, with the exception of Ali and other members of Banu Hashim, to report for duty to Usama, and to serve under him. These companions included the oldest, the richest and the most powerful men of Quraysh such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas, Talha, Zubayr, Khalid bin al-Walid, and many others. The Prophet ordered Usama to march immediately at the head of the companions and the army toward his destination.

Sir William Muir

On the Wednesday following, Mohammed was seized with a violent headache and fever; but it passed off. The next morning he found himself sufficiently recovered to bind with his own hand upon the Flagstaff a banner for the army. He presented it to Usama with these words: 'Fight thou beneath this banner in the name of the Lord, and for His cause. Thus thou shalt discomfit and slay the people that disbelieveth in the Lord.' The camp was then formed at Jorf; and the whole body of fighting men, not excepting even Abu Bakr and Umar, were summoned to join it. (The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877)

Muhammad Husayn Haykal

The Muslims did not stay long in Madinah following their return from the Farewell Pilgrimage in Makkah. The Prophet had immediately ordered the mobilization of a large army and commanded it to march on al-Sham. He sent along with that army a number of the elders of Islam, the earliest Muhajirun, among whom were Abu Bakr and Umar. He gave the command of the army to Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah. (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)

The Prophet wished the army to leave Medina at once. But strangely, the army did not show any eagerness to obey him. Instead of obedience, the Prophet met resistance – from some of his companions!

Thenceforth, the Prophet had to grapple with two problems; one was to overcome his illness and the other was to overcome the resistance of his army. The last few days of his life on this earth were dominated by this two-pronged struggle.

The senior members of the Quraysh bitterly resented the elevation of a boy of 18 over all of them, and that too, the son, not of a "high-born" Qurayshi, but of a former slave! Therefore, instead of reporting to him for duty, many among them began to play truant and to temporize. Some among them were so disgruntled at the selection of Usama as their general that they openly expressed their displeasure.

R.V.C. Bodley

...The veterans did not like the idea of attacking the still redoubtable Romans with a lad, who had little military experience, as their leader. Mohammed was, however, unmoved by the protests. He was establishing the precedent, observed ever since among Moslems, that age and social standing do not necessarily make the best generals. He was ingraining in them the message of democracy which they were to carry to the world. Without discussing the nomination he summoned Osama to the mosque and handed him the banner of Islam with recommendation to bring it honor. (The Messenger, New York, 1946)

The appointment of Usama as general was not, however, the only reason why some of the companions did not want to go to Syria. There were some other reasons also why they believed it was absolutely essential for them to stay in Medina, regardless of the orders of the Messenger of God. Usama asked the Prophet if it would not be better to defer the invasion of Syria until his recovery from fever. But the Prophet said: "No. I want you to leave this very moment."

Usama went to his camp at Jorf but few of the companions came to report for duty. They knew that the sickness of the Prophet had brought a "crisis" upon the umma (community), and they considered it "unsafe" to leave Medina at a time like this though they considered it quite "safe" to defy his orders. They put the golden rule of "Safety First" ahead of the orders of the Messenger of God.

The Prophet had fever and severe headache but he managed to go into the mosque, and to address the assembly there which included many of the stragglers, thus:

"O Arabs! You are miserable because I have appointed Usama as your general, and you are raising questions if he is qualified to lead you in war. I know you are the same people who had raised the same question about his father. By God, Usama is qualified to be your general just as his father was qualified to be a general. Now obey his orders and go."

Betty Kelen

Soon after the farewell pilgrimage, with his ambition speeding ever northward as if in advance of destiny, Muhammad organized a new expeditionary force to Syria, putting Zayd's son, Usama, in charge of it – against the advice of some of his generals, since Usama was only twenty. Muhammad told them sharply, 'You carp at him as you carped at his father, but he is just as worthy of command as his father was.'

He no longer needed to waste time excusing his actions. He placed his standard in Usama's hands and sent him off to the mustering ground, but the argument rankled in his mind all the same. (Muhammad, Messenger of God)

Whenever the Prophet felt slight relief from his fever and headache, he questioned those present if Usama's army had left for Syria. He kept urging them, 'Send off the army of Usama immediately.'

The rank-and-file of the army obeyed the orders of the Prophet, and reported for duty to their commanding officer at Jorf but most of the senior companions did not. Some among them lingered in the city; others, under constant prodding by the Prophet, went to Jorf but came back. They kept plying between the camp and the city. Some of them came to the city to take items which were missing in the equipment, and some others wanted to hear the news. Still others returned to "enquire after the health of the Prophet." There were also those companions who didn't go to Jorf at all. They stayed in the city out of their "love" for the Prophet since they did not have the "heart" to leave him at a time when he was critically ill.

But these protestations of "love" and "solicitude" for his welfare did not impress the Prophet himself. The touchstone of their love for him was their obedience to his commands. He ordered them to leave for Syria but they did not. They disobeyed him during the last days of his life.

Betty Kelen

His (the Prophet's) illness worsened, but he tried valiantly to throw it off for Usama's sake, for as word of Muhammad's sickness spread about, the young man was having a hard time recruiting his troops. Some men who had joined him, were returning to Medina, and certainly none were leaving. (Muhammad, Messenger of God)

Eventually, the inevitable took place. Muhammad, the Last Messenger of God on this earth, died. His struggle to send his companions out of Medina, came to an end, with a note of "triumph" for the latter. They did not report for duty to Usama and the army di

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably you don't understand what i was saying. And where i posted fabricated hadith.

I don't have time to collect those hadith. I povided you a link to the chapter ragarding "Abu Bak's leadership" from "kitab As-sunnah" of Ibn Abi Aasim with the tahqeeq of Albani.

For now following is what posted by a brother in another forum.

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=5005

The hadith about following Abubakr and Umar is weak from a number of points.

1. It mentions only Abubakr and Umar. What about Uthman and Imam Ali (as)??

2. Secondly, there are several areas where the practices of Abubakr and Umar CONTRADICT. How then do we follow Abubakr AND Umar in such situations? Clear examples are Tarawih, which Abubakr never practised, but which Umar instituted, contrary to the explicit instruction of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Another is in the issue of divorce, and also in Tayammum, and so on. In these and other cases, Abubakr and Umar contradicted each other.

3. Lastly, the hadith is a fabrication from the point of view of sanad. I would leave the explanation of this to my brother, Syed Jarry, if he has the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f believe abu bakr 1st khalifa then what would u consider osama......read this in short there was a war and prophet said to osama to take the charge of abu bakar and other people except Hazrat Ali it means ali's value is ahead from that of companions......read this Usama's Expedition

Zayd bin Haritha was the freedman and friend of Muhammad Mustafa. He was killed in the battle of Mootah in A.D. 629 in which he had led the Muslims against the Romans. The Muslims had been defeated in that battle, and they had retreated into Hijaz.

The Prophet of Islam wanted to efface the memory of that defeat but he was awaiting an opportune moment for doing so. Ever-since the Prophet, may God bless him and his Ahlul Bait, had migrated to Yathrib (Medina) in 622, he had worked very hard. He had carried a burden of responsibilities that even a syndicate of men would have found excessively heavy. Since the Farewell Pilgrimage in March 632, he had worked almost non-stop. Unremitting labor and lifelong austerity inevitably took their toll, and he fell ill. This illness was going to be fatal. Though he had felt weak even before his illness set in, he had not allowed weakness to interfere with his duties as the Messenger of God and as the Sovereign of the Muslims.

The long-awaited "opportune moment" appears to have arrived at last. The Prophet equipped and organized a new expedition to mount an invasion of the Syrian frontier. The prestige of Islam had been destroyed at the battle of Mootah, and time had come to restore it. To command the expedition, the Prophet chose Usama, a youth of 18, the son of Zayd bin Haritha, the martyr of Mootah. Both father and son had been great favorites of the Prophet. But he did not make them generals because of favoritism; he made them generals because they were qualified by their ability to command other men, and to lead them in war.

On the 18th of Safar of 11 A.H., Muhammad Mustafa placed the banner of Islam in the hands of Usama, briefed him on the aims of the campaign, and gave him instructions on how he had to conduct it. He then ordered all his companions, with the exception of Ali and other members of Banu Hashim, to report for duty to Usama, and to serve under him. These companions included the oldest, the richest and the most powerful men of Quraysh such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas, Talha, Zubayr, Khalid bin al-Walid, and many others. The Prophet ordered Usama to march immediately at the head of the companions and the army toward his destination.

Sir William Muir

On the Wednesday following, Mohammed was seized with a violent headache and fever; but it passed off. The next morning he found himself sufficiently recovered to bind with his own hand upon the Flagstaff a banner for the army. He presented it to Usama with these words: 'Fight thou beneath this banner in the name of the Lord, and for His cause. Thus thou shalt discomfit and slay the people that disbelieveth in the Lord.' The camp was then formed at Jorf; and the whole body of fighting men, not excepting even Abu Bakr and Umar, were summoned to join it. (The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877)

Muhammad Husayn Haykal

The Muslims did not stay long in Madinah following their return from the Farewell Pilgrimage in Makkah. The Prophet had immediately ordered the mobilization of a large army and commanded it to march on al-Sham. He sent along with that army a number of the elders of Islam, the earliest Muhajirun, among whom were Abu Bakr and Umar. He gave the command of the army to Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah. (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)

The Prophet wished the army to leave Medina at once. But strangely, the army did not show any eagerness to obey him. Instead of obedience, the Prophet met resistance – from some of his companions!

Thenceforth, the Prophet had to grapple with two problems; one was to overcome his illness and the other was to overcome the resistance of his army. The last few days of his life on this earth were dominated by this two-pronged struggle.

The senior members of the Quraysh bitterly resented the elevation of a boy of 18 over all of them, and that too, the son, not of a "high-born" Qurayshi, but of a former slave! Therefore, instead of reporting to him for duty, many among them began to play truant and to temporize. Some among them were so disgruntled at the selection of Usama as their general that they openly expressed their displeasure.

R.V.C. Bodley

...The veterans did not like the idea of attacking the still redoubtable Romans with a lad, who had little military experience, as their leader. Mohammed was, however, unmoved by the protests. He was establishing the precedent, observed ever since among Moslems, that age and social standing do not necessarily make the best generals. He was ingraining in them the message of democracy which they were to carry to the world. Without discussing the nomination he summoned Osama to the mosque and handed him the banner of Islam with recommendation to bring it honor. (The Messenger, New York, 1946)

The appointment of Usama as general was not, however, the only reason why some of the companions did not want to go to Syria. There were some other reasons also why they believed it was absolutely essential for them to stay in Medina, regardless of the orders of the Messenger of God. Usama asked the Prophet if it would not be better to defer the invasion of Syria until his recovery from fever. But the Prophet said: "No. I want you to leave this very moment."

Usama went to his camp at Jorf but few of the companions came to report for duty. They knew that the sickness of the Prophet had brought a "crisis" upon the umma (community), and they considered it "unsafe" to leave Medina at a time like this though they considered it quite "safe" to defy his orders. They put the golden rule of "Safety First" ahead of the orders of the Messenger of God.

The Prophet had fever and severe headache but he managed to go into the mosque, and to address the assembly there which included many of the stragglers, thus:

"O Arabs! You are miserable because I have appointed Usama as your general, and you are raising questions if he is qualified to lead you in war. I know you are the same people who had raised the same question about his father. By God, Usama is qualified to be your general just as his father was qualified to be a general. Now obey his orders and go."

Betty Kelen

Soon after the farewell pilgrimage, with his ambition speeding ever northward as if in advance of destiny, Muhammad organized a new expeditionary force to Syria, putting Zayd's son, Usama, in charge of it – against the advice of some of his generals, since Usama was only twenty. Muhammad told them sharply, 'You carp at him as you carped at his father, but he is just as worthy of command as his father was.'

He no longer needed to waste time excusing his actions. He placed his standard in Usama's hands and sent him off to the mustering ground, but the argument rankled in his mind all the same. (Muhammad, Messenger of God)

Whenever the Prophet felt slight relief from his fever and headache, he questioned those present if Usama's army had left for Syria. He kept urging them, 'Send off the army of Usama immediately.'

The rank-and-file of the army obeyed the orders of the Prophet, and reported for duty to their commanding officer at Jorf but most of the senior companions did not. Some among them lingered in the city; others, under constant prodding by the Prophet, went to Jorf but came back. They kept plying between the camp and the city. Some of them came to the city to take items which were missing in the equipment, and some others wanted to hear the news. Still others returned to "enquire after the health of the Prophet." There were also those companions who didn't go to Jorf at all. They stayed in the city out of their "love" for the Prophet since they did not have the "heart" to leave him at a time when he was critically ill.

But these protestations of "love" and "solicitude" for his welfare did not impress the Prophet himself. The touchstone of their love for him was their obedience to his commands. He ordered them to leave for Syria but they did not. They disobeyed him during the last days of his life.

Betty Kelen

His (the Prophet's) illness worsened, but he tried valiantly to throw it off for Usama's sake, for as word of Muhammad's sickness spread about, the young man was having a hard time recruiting his troops. Some men who had joined him, were returning to Medina, and certainly none were leaving. (Muhammad, Messenger of God)

Eventually, the inevitable took place. Muhammad, the Last Messenger of God on this earth, died. His struggle to send his companions out of Medina, came to an end, with a note of "triumph" for the latter. They did not report for duty to Usama and the army di

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...