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

Imam Ali (as) Allowed Malik (ra) To Be Killed?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

A usual argument from the partisans of Abu Bakr is that Imam Ali (as) allowed his Companions, like Malik Bin Nuwayrah (ra) to be murdered, so this is proof that Abu Bakr was right.

Now putting aside the fact that they use the same argument to deny the attack on the House of Fatima Az-Zahra (sa), is there any literature in the books of the Muslims where Imam Ali (as) later says anything about this episode? Does he criticise Khalid Bin Laeen for the crime of rape and murder? What did he say at the time?

JzA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

good question ! not that i have seen

btw ibn nuwairah was not really a partisan of ali

guess who protests against the killing of ibn nuwairah ( the alleged partisan of ali ) !

umar b khattab

and salim mawla abi haudhaifa another friend of umar

why wud the person who kicked fatima to death ( allegedly ) protest the killing of a partisan of ali ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

good question ! not that i have seen

btw ibn nuwairah was not really a partisan of ali

guess who protests against the killing of ibn nuwairah ( the alleged partisan of ali ) !

umar b khattab

and salim mawla abi haudhaifa another friend of umar

why wud the person who kicked fatima to death ( allegedly ) protest the killing of a partisan of ali ?

For someone who acts like an expert in history, your question is baffling.

Malik ibn Nuwayra was indeed a partisan of Ali (as) and for this reason, he refused to pay the zakat to Abu Bakr. As for Umar and Salim, they were good at acting and had pre-Islamic disputes with Khalid. This episode provided them a handy excuse to get back at him.

Indeed, any sane individual would have been horrified at the killing of Malik regardless of whether he was a partisan of Ali or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

For someone who acts like an expert in history, your question is baffling.

Malik ibn Nuwayra was indeed a partisan of Ali (as) and for this reason, he refused to pay the zakat to Abu Bakr. As for Umar and Salim, they were good at acting and had pre-Islamic disputes with Khalid. This episode provided them a handy excuse to get back at him.

Indeed, any sane individual would have been horrified at the killing of Malik regardless of whether he was a partisan of Ali or not.

Why did not Malik ibn Nuwayra practice Taqiyyah?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Why did not Malik ibn Nuwayra practice Taqiyyah?

Why those sahaba who said in the presence of Aisha that the Prophet had appointed 'Ali as successor not practice Taqiya?

Sahih bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 736:

Narrated Al-Aswad:

It was mentioned in the presence of 'Aisha that the Prophet had appointed 'Ali as successor by will. Thereupon she said, "Who said so? I saw the Prophet, while I was supporting him against my chest. He asked for a tray, and then fell on one side and expired, and I did not feel it. So how (do the people say) he appointed 'Ali as his successor?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Why those sahaba who said in the presence of Aisha that the Prophet had appointed 'Ali as successor not practice Taqiya?

Sahih bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 736:

Narrated Al-Aswad:

It was mentioned in the presence of 'Aisha that the Prophet had appointed 'Ali as successor by will. Thereupon she said, "Who said so? I saw the Prophet, while I was supporting him against my chest. He asked for a tray, and then fell on one side and expired, and I did not feel it. So how (do the people say) he appointed 'Ali as his successor?"

First , i want to understand these issues so it is not an allegation but a question.Why do you people always have to quote the sunnis when you encounter a contradiction in your discourse? I need some better answers than the tactic of plugging in the gaps of sunni Islam. You are just a copy paster and i have put you on ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

First , i want to understand these issues so it is not an allegation but a question.Why do you people always have to quote the sunnis when you encounter a contradiction in your discourse? I need some better answers than the tactic of plugging in the gaps of sunni Islam. You are just a copy paster and i have put you on ignore.

You've been here for sometime,

All we've observed from you is constant accusations of members copying and pasting. Now, I'm speaking to you quite frankly, but neither aggressively nor rudely, so I request you to do the mature thing and not just ignore users.

As for Malik not doing taqiyyah, its not a contradiction in our discourse, rather its a lot more simplistic, Malik hadn't done anything which should have been considered a capital offense, he was a Muslim and even recited the Shahada to make this manifest and clear. Yet Khalid killed him, Malik didn't forsee that happening and didnt need to employ taqiyya in a situation which was meant to be due to the mass apostasy of Muslims. He was not following Musaylima and hence should have had nothing to fear.

I must say, if you give me permission to be frank, that you have demonstrated an extreme level of arrogance which naturally causes others on this site (unrightfully so, but none the less) to attempt to humble you, a clear cut example of this is where you accused the user "Saved" of quoting a book called al-Bidayah, when in reality he was quoting al-Albani, demonstrating to us all that you are not familiar with arabic. That wouldn't have been an issue had you just conceded such, yet you needed to arrogantly persist in not even acknowledging your error or lack of familiarity with arabic and persist in accusing him of lying and copy-pasting.

I suggest to you, despite your dislike of Shi'ism that you learn to act with good conduct and manners, and drop the arrogance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

First , i want to understand these issues so it is not an allegation but a question.Why do you people always have to quote the sunnis when you encounter a contradiction in your discourse? I need some better answers than the tactic of plugging in the gaps of sunni Islam. You are just a copy paster and i have put you on ignore.

You may understand as you wish. But you cannot deny the hadith of Ghadir and hadith Thaqalain from your books along with Aisha's above hadith.

Secondly you must practice what you preach. Most of your posts are copy and paste and last but not least you are cheerleader whose gender is still questionable based on your posts.

Edited by zakzaki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

You may understand as you wish. But you cannot deny the hadith of Ghadir and hadith Thaqalain from your books along with Aisha's above hadith.

Secondly you must practice what you preach. Most of your posts are copy and paste and last but not least you are cheerleader whose gender is still questionable based on your posts.

Well said... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

For someone who acts like an expert in history, your question is baffling.

Malik ibn Nuwayra was indeed a partisan of Ali (as) and for this reason, he refused to pay the zakat to Abu Bakr. As for Umar and Salim, they were good at acting and had pre-Islamic disputes with Khalid. This episode provided them a handy excuse to get back at him.

Indeed, any sane individual would have been horrified at the killing of Malik regardless of whether he was a partisan of Ali or not.

question was rhetorical !

why didnt the other partisans of ali refuse fo pay zakat ? and if they did why werent they killed?

why wud umar object to killing of mALIK since abubakr and umar were essentially using khalid to quell a pro-ali uprsiing ( per your views)

this criticsm of khalid would threaten to derail this whole allegedly anti-Ali operation.Afterall Umar forgot his pre-islamic feuds with other former quraishis at that time

why did other partisans of ali participate in these wars with abubakr ? e.g Ammar, Al-Ashtar, Adi b Hatim etc

so now umar has been honored as a "sane individual" by you ! clearly this must be a lucid interval since he broke the ribs of fatima earlier and nobody raised a finger to stop him

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

question was rhetorical !

why didnt the other partisans of ali refuse fo pay zakat ? and if they did why werent they killed?

why wud umar object to killing of mALIK since abubakr and umar were essentially using khalid to quell a pro-ali uprsiing ( per your views)

this criticsm of khalid would threaten to derail this whole allegedly anti-Ali operation.Afterall Umar forgot his pre-islamic feuds with other former quraishis at that time

why did other partisans of ali participate in these wars with abubakr ? e.g Ammar, Al-Ashtar, Adi b Hatim etc

so now umar has been honored as a "sane individual" by you ! clearly this must be a lucid interval since he broke the ribs of fatima earlier and nobody raised a finger to stop him

Maybe you should a read a book or two rather than acting like an expert. Oh and use the grey matter between the ears as well while you're at it.

Umar's objection was about the forgiveness of Khalid, not the killing per se, and arguments between Abu Bakr and Umar were extremely common (which is why its baffling as to why Abdul Rahman ibn Auf would set the condition of the Seerat of Shaykhayn as a condition when there is much contradiction between their actions).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Umar's objection was about the forgiveness of Khalid, not the killing per se, and arguments between

pray tell us the difference, was umar approving the extra-judicial murder of partisans of ALi ? if so plz explain why the most ardent of them survived ?

Abu Bakr and Umar were extremely common (which is why its baffling as to why Abdul Rahman ibn Auf would set the condition of the Seerat of Shaykhayn as a condition when there is much contradiction between their actions).

what a new revelation ! OMG you have opened my eyes :shaytan:

but really what is your point ? that abubakr and umar had different ideas about how to deal with partisans of ali ?

and me acting like an expert ? heaven forbid I'm just an ordinary man trying to find some answers

ur the one who likes to call himself "socrates" maybe u shud act with a little humility

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

pray tell us the difference, was umar approving the extra-judicial murder of partisans of ALi ? if so plz explain why the most ardent of them survived ?

I don't know nor do I care, but given Umar's own actions during his caliphate it would seem that extra judicial killings were not something he was too displeased about. What is clear is that he did not like Khalid, and therefore was not happy with Abu Bakr forgiving him.

what a new revelation ! OMG you have opened my eyes :shaytan:

but really what is your point ? that abubakr and umar had different ideas about how to deal with partisans of ali ?

That they had different ideas about many things, and therefore where's the consistency?

and me acting like an expert ? heaven forbid I'm just an ordinary man trying to find some answers

ur the one who likes to call himself "socrates" maybe u shud act with a little humility

For someone trying to find some answers, you ask too few questions and make too many subjective statements in an objective cloak.

As for my name, its merely a usertitle. Nothing implied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I

don't know nor do I care, but given Umar's own actions during his caliphate it would seem that extra judicial killings were not something he was too displeased about. What is clear is that he did not like Khalid, and therefore was not happy with Abu Bakr forgiving him.

show me one instance where umar executed a partisan of ali during his caliphate

That they had different ideas about many things, and therefore where's the consistency?

who says there is 100 % consistency between policies of abubakr/umar ? I dont ever claim that

rather in distribution of stipend abubakr and ali's views are closer and umar is different from them

F

or someone trying to find some answers, you ask too few questions and make too many subjective statements in an objective cloak.

you are just overcome with paranoia thats all

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.

×
×
  • Create New...