Omar Bin Khattab's Genealogy

[networkguy_TO]

Muhammad ibn Sa'ad al-kalbi is a respected Sunni biographer who was considered one of the foremost knowledgeable persons in the field of genealogy. In his book al-salaba fi ma'rifat al-sahaba he wrote the following about Omar's ancestry. It's also important to note that a similar story is narrated in the shia book Mustadrakat Ilm rijal al-hadith by Ali namazi shahroodi.

keeping in mind that both narrations from the different sects are consistent with one another and the respect given to Muhammad ibn Sa'ad al-kalbi by Sunni historians, both of which lend a high degree of credibility to the narration.

A slave boy named Nafil belonged to Kalbi bin lu'i bin ghalib al-quraishi, when al-quraishi passed away, Abdul-muttalib took guardianship of the slave boy Nafil. Abdul Muttalib also had a young lady name Suhak take care of his sheep, he liked her and desired to cherish her for himself. So Abdul muttalib made her wear a leather chastity device with a lock and kept the key to himself.

The slave boy Nafil fancied and adored Suhak as he used to see her in the grazing field and one day, they made an arrangement to meet in privacy while Abdul Muttalib was away. Suhak told him I have no way of fulfilling what you want because of this chastity device which only Abdul-Muttalib has a key to. Nafil told her not to worry as he can get it off, so he grabed some butter and grease and began to work it through the leather device and her skin until the device slid to her thighs.

Suhak and Nafil coupled that night and Suhak was pregnant with a boy whom she named khattab. She had the boy and left it around one of the nearby garbage dumps at night out of fear of Abdul Muttalib. The boy was picked up by an old jewish lady and was raised by her. Khattab grew to be a young man.

As he was out cutting wood, Suhak would check up on him while hiding but one day khattab saw her revealing her bottom amorously. Not knowing who she was he coupled with her. Suhak was pregnant with a girl named Hantama. Suhak had the girl and left her in the garbage dumps near Makkah. The girl was picked up by Hisham ibn Mughira, she became a slave girl for him. One day Khattab saw her and asked her hand in marriage from Hisham. Hisham married Hantama to Khattab and they had a boy named Omar.

Just to recap

-------------

- Suhak + Nafil = Khattab

- Suhak + Khattab = Hantama

- khattab + Hantama = Omar

Suhak Omar's grandmother from both parents.

Hantama and Khattab are siblings as well as Umar's Parents and well as his aunt and uncle

[Edited]. this is not meant as an insult, it's simply the fact.

Sunni Source: al-salaba fi ma'rifat al-sahaba by Muhammad ibn sa'ib al-klbi, [Vol.3 page 212]

Shia source: Mustadrakat Ilm rijal al-hadith by Ali namazi shahroodi, [Vol.8 page 585]

Here is the sunni source in arabic:

--------------------------------

روى محمد بن السائب الكلبي- الصلابة في معرفة الصحابة - الجزء ( 3 ) - رقم الصفحة : ( 212 )

كان نفيل لكلب بن لؤي بن غالب القرشي فمات عنه ثم وليه عبد المطلب , وكانت صهاك ترعى غنمه وكان يفرق بينهما في المرعى فاتفق يوماً اجتماعهما في مراح واحد فهواها وعشقها نفيل , وكان قد ألبسها عبد المطلب سروالاً من الأديم وجعل عليه قفلاً وجعل مفتاحه معه لمنزلتها منه , فلما راودها قالت : مالي إلى ما تقول سبيل وقد ألبست هذا الأديم ووضع عليه قفل فقال : أنا أحتال عليه , فأخذ سمناً من مخيض الغنم ودهن به الأديم وما حوله من بدنها حتى استله إلى فخذيها وواقعها فحملت منه بالخطاب , فلما ولدته ألقته على بعض المزابل بالليل خيفة من عبد المطلب فالتقطت الخطاب امرأة يهودية جنازة وربته , فلما كبر كان يقطع الحطب فسمي الحطاب لذلك بالحاء فصحف بالمعجمة , وكانت صهاك ترتاده في الخفية فرآها ذات يوم وقد تطأطأت عجيزتها , ولم يدر من هي فوقع عليها فحملت منه بحنتمة , فلما وضعتها ألقتها على مزابل مكة خارجها فالتقطها هشام بن مغيرة بن وليد ورباها فنسبت أليه , فلما كبرت وكان الخطاب يتردد على هشام فرأى حنتمة فأعجبته فخطبها إلى هشام فزوجه إياها فولدت عمر ، وكان الخطاب والد عمر لأنه أولد حنتمة إياه حيث تزوجها وحده . لأنه سافح صهاك قبل فأولدها حنتمة والخطاب من أم واحدة وهي صهاك

Edited August 26, 2011 by inshaAllah
Inappropriate

[Inglip]

Muhammad ibn Sa'ad al-kalbi is a respected Sunni biographer

ur quoting from muhammad bin sa'ib not muhammad bin sa'ad

muhammad bin sa'ib is agreed upon liar by sunnis

[networkguy_TO]

ur quoting from muhammad bin sa'ib not muhammad bin sa'ad

muhammad bin sa'ib is agreed upon liar by sunnis

thanks for the correction. I should also mention that Muhammad bin Sa'ib is not reliable in matters of sharia but he is considered reliable and an authority on geology.

[Inglip]

thanks for the correction. I should also mention that Muhammad bin Sa'ib is not reliable in matters of sharia but he is considered reliable and an authority on geology.

i didnt know they had radiocarbon dating back then

lol jk

i dont think that sunnis will see this as basic ansaab info

[shoelace]

yes sure what a [Edited Out] he was.

[Al-Ansari]

What is the credibility of mentioned shia report?? Is it authentic according to shia standard??

[networkguy_TO]

What is the credibility of mentioned shia report?? Is it authentic according to shia standard??

In many Shia traditions Omar is refereed to as the "Son of Suhak" Imam Ali (as) and some of the other imams refereed to him with that title. Shaikh Mufid himself also refereed to Omar as the son of Suhak. I would argue that it is credible because this title for Omar is found all over our traditions.

[shoelace]

I posted this thread in a sunni forum,and most of them agree with it,but on a side note one poster gave me an interesting remark.

here is what he said:

"Umar-worshipers need not worry about this alleged discovery of his parentage.

We are all ba**ards. How do you think Adam and Hawwa's grandchildren came about? They were the result of union between Habil and Qabil with their sisters. That is according to Qasasul Anbiya by Ibn Kathir. And as a good Sunni, I never doubt anything Ibn Kathir writes."

:wacko:

Edited August 26, 2011 by shoelace

[Al-Ansari]

In many Shia traditions Omar is refereed to as the "Son of Suhak" Imam Ali (as) and some of the other imams refereed to him with that title. Shaikh Mufid himself also refereed to Omar as the son of Suhak. I would argue that it is credible because this title for Omar is found all over our traditions.

Kindly provide some examples.

In many Shia traditions Omar is refereed to as the "Son of Suhak" Imam Ali (as) and some of the other imams refereed to him with that title. Shaikh Mufid himself also refereed to Omar as the son of Suhak. I would argue that it is credible because this title for Omar is found all over our traditions.

Kindly provide some examples.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

Ok so his grandmother was also his mother, so what? Is it somehow his fault?

[Panzerwaffe]

firstly let me say that ibn kalbi was indeed a superstar when it came to genology and all sunni scholars despite therir prejudice cannot ignore his works on this subject

secondly I second the above view of brother ya aba abdillah

thirdly chastity belt used by abdul muttalib ! I thought he was a hanif

Edited August 30, 2011 by Panzerwaffe

[twoblade]

firstly let me say that ibn kalbi was indeed a superstar when it came to genology and all sunni scholars despite therir prejudice cannot ignore his works on this subject

Maybe he was a "superstar" when it came to "genealogy" - even so, you wouldn't be much of a historian if you'd be willing to take the sole testimony of somebody who is accused of lying by a number of other historians/scholars and who was known to have a bias against certain individuals (like 'Umar) because of his religion. It's one thing to rely on a liar's work where the chances of him lying are minimal (he has no attachment to a particular topic) - but another when it's about a figure that he religiously abhors.

[Aabiss_Shakari]

Ok so his grandmother was also his mother, so what? Is it somehow his fault?

+1

[Panzerwaffe]

Maybe he was a "superstar" when it came to "genealogy" - even so, you wouldn't be much of a historian if you'd be willing to take the sole testimony of somebody who is accused of lying by a number of other historians/scholars and who was known to have a bias against certain individuals (like 'Umar) because of his religion. It's one thing to rely on a liar's work where the chances of him lying are minimal (he has no attachment to a particular topic) - but another when it's about a figure that he religiously abhors.

actually ibn kalbi is rather impartial when it comes to umar & abubakr, he is not a imami like kulyani

if he has any bias its probably pro-iraqi rather than pro-imami

his ancestors also supported ibn Asath's uprising against ummayyads which was not a imami issue at all.Ibn Ashath's ancestors killed hussian b Ali

I dont think in anyway umar allegedly incestuous birth has any bearing on my opinion of umar.Umar was probably the best pious caliph and some of merits were surpassed by none ( including Ali).

But what I disagree strongly is the bias of sunni hadith scholars against scholars like ibn kalbi yet people like ummayyad syncopats ( zuhri , urwa b zubair) are unquestionably pious ! get real u think they never lied ?

and aisha is the holy mother of hadith ! get serious man that woman lied to the Prophet ! and its in the QURAN yet we accept all hadith from her without question...Where is your bias now ?

Edited August 31, 2011 by Panzerwaffe

[twoblade]

actually ibn kalbi is rather impartial when it comes to umar & abubakr, he is not a imami like kulyani

if he has any bias its probably pro-iraqi rather than pro-imami

his ancestors also supported ibn Asath's uprising against ummayyads which was not a imami issue at all.Ibn Ashath's ancestors killed hussian b Ali

I dont think in anyway umar allegedly incestuous birth has any bearing on my opinion of umar.Umar was probably the best pious caliph and some of merits were surpassed by none ( including Ali).

His ancestors were from the purported supporters of 'Ali (ra) back to Siffin and Jamal (they were present at incidents like this - but not actual known Sahaba of 'Ali) and he's recorded as being from the Ghulat of the Shi'a by several biographers. That would suggest a bias against Sheykhan and the Uthmanis. Regardless of whether his claims about 'Umar's ancestry change our opinion of 'Umar, his background begs the question of how reliable he actually was as far as it pertains to people he would've hated (per his creed).

But what I disagree strongly is the bias of sunni hadith scholars against scholars like ibn kalbi yet people like ummayyad syncopats ( zuhri , urwa b zubair) are unquestionably pious ! get real u think they never lied ?

and aisha is the holy mother of hadith ! get serious man that woman lied to the Prophet ! and its in the QURAN yet we accept all hadith from her without question...Where is your bias now ?

I don't see how this is related to the topic, but I also don't have a lot of background as to the accusations you're making here - with the exception of the one against az-Zuhri which I've heard before but never seen proven. But no, I don't believe that people highly respected by their contemporaries for their honesty and forbearance in the religion are liars without examples of clear lying. Zuhri (rah) made tadlees, sure. If you're talking about the incident of honey (wrt Aisha), than I don't have any authentic reports of that in front of me - but if you lived in the era of Ibrahim (as), would you deny his relation of what God told him on account of what he said about the idol? Or a modern example with Sheykh Adan and the representative of the Twelver Mahdi (from some new sub-sect) - do you consider something like this "lying"? There is a difference between telling a lie, as we understand it, and making a point (like these incidents).

[Muntaqim Force]

His ancestors were from the purported supporters of 'Ali (ra) back to Siffin and Jamal (they were present at incidents like this - but not actual known Sahaba of 'Ali) and he's recorded as being from the Ghulat of the Shi'a by several biographers. That would suggest a bias against Sheykhan and the Uthmanis. Regardless of whether his claims about 'Umar's ancestry change our opinion of 'Umar, his background begs the question of how reliable he actually was as far as it pertains to people he would've hated (per his creed).

Please clear the relation between your purple and blue colored words. What is they were present at incidents "like this" and "not actual known sahaba of Ali.

I don't see how this is related to the topic, but I also don't have a lot of background as to the accusations you're making here - with the exception of the one against az-Zuhri which I've heard before but never seen proven. But no, I don't believe that people highly respected by their contemporaries for their honesty and forbearance in the religion are liars without examples of clear lying. Zuhri (rah) made tadlees, sure. If you're talking about the incident of honey (wrt Aisha), than I don't have any authentic reports of that in front of me - but if you lived in the era of Ibrahim (as), would you deny his relation of what God told him on account of what he said about the idol? Or a modern example with Sheykh Adan and the representative of the Twelver Mahdi (from some new sub-sect) - do you consider something like this "lying"? There is a difference between telling a lie, as we understand it, and making a point (like these incidents).

no wonder you are two blades...hitting yourself and your creed.

[Muntaqim Force]

OK for readers

If we analyze the history of genealogy of 2nd Caliph Umer by keeping his behavior in childhood , youth and adult pre Islamic and Post Islamic time in mind, surely we can obtain little bit idea how much truth can be present in the statement of history or author's works. Image someone who is born in such

ill-legitimate way and is growing up under the care of such infidels, incest lovers, what kind of mental effect he will have and then show the defense mechanism of it in his behavior. He can even develop incest trait too and we all know Umar was not that strong in faith as compare to Abu Bakr therefore many times he had doubt in what Allah's messenger s.a.w is saying. So such person who was doubting prophet s.a.w most of his mature life and spent his adulthood in worshiping idols and indulging in all those activities of Jahaliya including haram(Zina ijimayee) acts in the company of his best pals such as Abu Jahal and Co, his teenage age under father who used to beat the hell out of him and mother who comes as a slave of again pagan (not from religion of book) , his genealogy as described by brother and mentioned in book makes quite sense.

[Panzerwaffe]

His ancestors were from the purported supporters of 'Ali (ra) back to Siffin and Jamal (they were present at incidents like this - but not actual known Sahaba of 'Ali) and he's recorded as being from the Ghulat of the Shi'a by several biographers.

"ghali" which could be a slander by itself against him

his ancestors were supporters of ali they likely hated uthman ( but nearly all supporters of ali hated uthman) .

Regardless of whether his claims about 'Umar's ancestry change our opinion of 'Umar, his background begs the question of how reliable he actually was as far as it pertains to people he would've hated (per his creed).

thats not the point here whether its true or not.But its unfair to just blame it on his alleged ghali background.All kinds of stories were probably floating around about important personalities at the time.It would be a stretch to say he delibrately fabricated this story.

likewise we know aisha hated ali so much that she shed innocent muslim blood to fight him why isnt the same criterea used against her ? why dont u disregard hadith from her based on her bias ?

I don't see how this is related to the topic, but I also don't have a lot of background as to the accusations you're making here - with the exception of the one against az-Zuhri which I've heard before but never seen proven

depends on who you ask, and what methodology you would use to prove it

e.g churchill is hailed as prophet of democracy and "well respected " by all leaders of the "free world" yet we know he was a racist, and likely took part in the famine of bengal killing 5 million.

certainly no sunni scholar wud prove this against zuhri but wud you believe the research of a nonmuslim or a shia ?

.

If you're talking about the incident of honey (wrt Aisha), than I don't have any authentic reports of that in front of me

so who does Quran address in that incident whnich wives ?

- but if you lived in the era of Ibrahim (as), would you deny his relation of what God told him on account of what he said about the idol?

exactly your idols are quraishi sahaba and aisha , imami idols are their imams

anyone who says anything against them is declared untrustworthy

OK for readers

If we analyze the history of genealogy of 2nd Caliph Umer by keeping his behavior in childhood , youth and adult pre Islamic and Post Islamic time in mind, surely we can obtain little bit idea how much truth can be present in the statement of history or author's works. Image someone who is born in such

ill-legitimate way and is growing up under the care of such infidels, incest lovers, what kind of mental effect he will have and then show the defense mechanism of it in his behavior. He can even develop incest trait too and we all know Umar was not that strong in faith as compare to Abu Bakr therefore many times he had doubt in what Allah's messenger s.a.w is saying. So such person who was doubting prophet s.a.w most of his mature life and spent his adulthood in worshiping idols and indulging in all those activities of Jahaliya including haram(Zina ijimayee) acts in the company of his best pals such as Abu Jahal and Co, his teenage age under father who used to beat the hell out of him and mother who comes as a slave of again pagan (not from religion of book) , his genealogy as described by brother and mentioned in book makes quite sense.

well well well a soft corner for abu bakr thats rare ...the same abubakr who allegedly conspired to deprive fatima of fadak arent u a flip flop

btw imamis use the incident at hudaibiya unfairly

umar said bravely what a lot of muslims ( in their ignorance) were thinking at that time, they were cringing at this apparent victory of kuffar

infact umar saying that at that time PROVES his unquestionable devotion to the cause of islam.if he was a munafiq he wud be happy !

let me remind u that many loyal followers of your imams have said worse things in similar situations

e.g hujr b adi and suleiman b sured radiallah anhm both called hasan b ali "one who humiliates the faithful" after the armistice with muawiyah

in Kitab Irshad Mufid quotes incident of jundab b abdullah azdi (a sahabi & early kufan loyal supporter of ali) who had grave doubts about sincerety of ali

when he was faced with fighting kharijites ( but he later changed his views)

Edited September 2, 2011 by Panzerwaffe

[Haydar Husayn]

btw imamis use the incident at hudaibiya unfairly

umar said bravely what a lot of muslims ( in their ignorance) were thinking at that time, they were cringing at this apparent victory of kuffar

infact umar saying that at that time PROVES his unquestionable devotion to the cause of islam.if he was a munafiq he wud be happy !

He may well have had unquestionable devotion to the cause of Islam (in a rather wordly sense), but he didn't have so much unquestionable devotion to the Prophet (pbuh).

Edited September 2, 2011 by Haider Husayn

[JimJam]

^I agree, to him it was was his opinion or nothing. Islam should be what he wanted it to be. He seems the sort of man that when he was attached to something he had to control it. His going around and beating ,what he considered,sinful people with a stick during his khalifate comes to mind, an extreme to which the prophet (pbuh) never went to.

Also his obsession with keeping the bani-Hashim away from the Khalifate due to his feeling they would enjoy too much authority by virtue of their closeness to the Muhammad (pbuh), ironic considering the fact that dring the saqifa he had argued argued against the ansar's claim to khilafat by claiming he, Abu Bakar and the Muhajir were better suited to rule than the ansar because they were kinsmen of Muhammad (pbuh).

[twoblade]

"ghali" which could be a slander by itself against him

his ancestors were supporters of ali they likely hated uthman ( but nearly all supporters of ali hated uthman) .

It's possible that it's just slander - but considering that this opinion about him is the same amongst the various historians and individual reporters (suggesting he was Ghali, or Sabbai, etc.), I find it hard to believe that they convened to slander him or where different sources make the accusation about him, that they are all coming to the same claim about his religion on account of a single rumor. I also don't find it hard to believe that the descendent of somebody who's family was killed fighting on 'Ali's side would be likely to adopt religious values that are inherited from Ghulat amongst Shi'a.

thats not the point here whether its true or not.But its unfair to just blame it on his alleged ghali background.All kinds of stories were probably floating around about important personalities at the time.It would be a stretch to say he delibrately fabricated this story.

The specific ghulu he's ascribed with is associated with tabarra against Sheykhan, so it stands to reason that he probably has a bias against them. It doesn't mean he necessarily fabricated the report himself, but if he has a bias against someone, it stands to reason that even if he was honest in transmission, he could've relied on sources that weren't where they specificlly spoke ill about people he wasn't fond of.

likewise we know aisha hated ali so much that she shed innocent muslim blood to fight him why isnt the same criterea used against her ? why dont u disregard hadith from her based on her bias ?

Did she? I don't buy that. But assuming it's true, than yes, narrations of hers as they pertain to 'Ali would be questionable.

certainly no sunni scholar wud prove this against zuhri but wud you believe the research of a nonmuslim or a shia ?

Why not? If a kaafir can make a well-founded argument about a personality, I don't see any reason to dismiss it outright. I might be a little hesitant to take my religion from people who profess not to believe in it, but if they're making an argument against it or something else, what's the problem? And Sunni scholars weren't exactly nice to each other, and sometimes made pretty serious unfounded claims against one another so I don't see it as being impossible that Sunni scholars would criticize other Sunni scholars/personality.

.

so who does Quran address in that incident whnich wives ?

Like I said, I don't have the authentic traditions in front of me. From memory, it's about Aisha and Hafsa. But I don't see how this constitutes a lie (see the other examples - I don't see these as lies).

exactly your idols are quraishi sahaba and aisha , imami idols are their imams

anyone who says anything against them is declared untrustworthy

Not really. There are thiqaat even amongst those who believed something particularly abbarent. It's also not a well-founded argument against Shi'ites either as I'm sure if you dig enough, you'll find tawtheeq for individuals that Shi'ites aren't too fond of (in terms of their religion). I don't see how a person's religion makes them "untrustworthy" unless lying is a part of their religious beliefs - and as far as I'm aware, this isn't far from how the majority of Sunni scholars treat riwayat of people who aren't Sunni.

[Haydar Husayn]

I also don't find it hard to believe that the descendent of somebody who's family was killed fighting on 'Ali's side would be likely to adopt religious values that are inherited from Ghulat amongst Shi'a.

Would you also not find it hard to believe that somebody who's family was killed by Ali (as) would have a hatred for him and his family? Or that a person who's family was killed by Muslims would harbour a grudge against Islam?

[Panzerwaffe]

It's possible that it's just slander - but considering that this opinion about him is the same amongst the various historians and individual reporters (suggesting he was Ghali, or Sabbai, etc.), I find it hard to believe that they convened to slander him or where different sources make the accusation about him, that they are all coming to the same claim about his religion on account of a single rumor

writings of ibn kalbi were numerous and at times contradict the portyral of sahaba in sanitized sunni hadith so automatically that a good reason to discredit him

.

I also don't find it hard to believe that the descendent of somebody who's family was killed fighting on 'Ali's side would be likely to adopt religious values that are inherited from Ghulat amongst Shi'a.

There were many people who fought with Ali and you would be hard pressed to find a few that had ghali beliefs , most of them were salaf of ahle sunnah

. It doesn't mean he necessarily fabricated the report himself, but if he has a bias against someone, it stands to reason that even if he was honest in transmission, he could've relied on sources that weren't where they specificlly spoke ill about people he wasn't fond of.

Possibly but again he is a transmitter of this report, whhich might be unpalatable to a good sunni.Reports can be of all kinds.Many such pro-uthmani reports exist from zuhri are we to believe them uncondionally? bottomline is any historian whose views are different from the sunday school version of events about intra-sahaba conflicts is declared untrustworthy

Did she? I don't buy that. But assuming it's true, than yes, narrations of hers as they pertain to 'Ali would be questionable.

She did battle of basra and later battle of jamal she is a chief player

I dont mean to defen ALi unconditionally either , you can doubt any hadith u want about him if its only from his supporters.

Like I said, I don't have the authentic traditions in front of me. From memory, it's about Aisha and Hafsa. But I don't see how this constitutes a lie (see the other examples - I don't see these as lies).

Ofcourse you wont, as that would shake a big pillar of sunni hadith, and I dont think your examples apply here.it was not a simple case of DISHONEST transmission of a report ( by muddling the sources) but outright fabrication of a report to hurt the messanger of God

Not really. There are thiqaat even amongst those who believed something particularly abbarent. It's also not a well-founded argument against Shi'ites either as I'm sure if you dig enough, you'll find tawtheeq for individuals that Shi'ites aren't too fond of (in terms of their religion). I don't see how a person's religion makes them "untrustworthy" unless lying is a part of their religious beliefs - and as far as I'm aware, this isn't far from how the majority of Sunni scholars treat riwayat of people who aren't Sunni

yes you are right that simply being a shia or a khariji did not neccesarily make someone .untrustworthy, but most of these individuals contribute small reports in sunni hadith which does not hurt the bigger picture e.g sa'sah b suhan a minor hadith transmitter although a shia can be considered trustworthy

however the 3 great historians of maghazi and history of iraq abu mikhanaf, waqidi, ibn kalbi father n son are UNRELIABLE LIARS ..despite their valuable contributions simply because their version of events is not in harmony with sanitized version of history for sunnis

so I don't see it as being impossible that Sunni scholars would criticize other Sunni scholars/personality.

scholars maybe but we are talking of the "pious salaf" I dont see any sunni scholars critizing aisha or saeed b mussaiyyab ( not that I know could be wrong)

]

^I agree, to him it was was his opinion or nothing. Islam should be what he wanted it to be. He seems the sort of man that when he was attached to something he had to control it. His going around and beating ,what he considered,sinful people with a stick during his khalifate comes to mind, an extreme to which the prophet (pbuh) never went to

I'm really appalled by your prejudice against Umar, didnt ali beat up aisha's maid to get a confession out of her ?

if you think umar was harsh I ask you to read up examples of peoples houses ali demolished who fled from his part of the empire

in both cases umar and ali were right , the unruly arabs needed to be governed with an iron fist.But u guys potray ali like a bleeding heart liberal and umar like a psycho misogynestic militant

.

Also his obsession with keeping the bani-Hashim away from the Khalifate due to his feeling they would enjoy too much authority by virtue of their closeness to the Muhammad (pbuh), ironic considering the fact that dring the saqifa he had argued argued against the ansar's claim to khilafat by claiming he, Abu Bakar and the Muhajir were better suited to rule than the ansar because they were kinsmen of Muhammad (pbuh).

Yes thats true it was ..but see umar's later regret about this if anyone attempts again kill him ! infact I dont like this idea of leadership only limited to Quraish which is against the egalitarian appeal of islam unfortunately both sunni and shia believe it)

but you have to admit abubakr and umar did not give any posts to their relatives or abused their power

and even banu hashim when they came to power started doing so ( very few remained immune from such criticism)

He may well have had unquestionable devotion to the cause of Islam (in a rather wordly sense), but he didn't have so much unquestionable devotion to the Prophet (pbuh).

worldly sense ? umar is from early muhajireen he became muslim when there was no hope for this nascent sect of hanifs what possible wordly objective wud have motivated him

Edited September 3, 2011 by Panzerwaffe

[Haydar Husayn]

worldly sense ? umar is from early muhajireen he became muslim when there was no hope for this nascent sect of hanifs what possible wordly objective wud have motivated him

I didn't say this is why he became Muslim in the first place, but some people change. I think that at a certain point he started thinking he knew better what was right for the success of Islam than the Prophet (pbuh). At the very least, I think it is clear he did not unquestionably trust the judgement of the Prophet (pbuh).

[twoblade]

Would you also not find it hard to believe that somebody who's family was killed by Ali (as) would have a hatred for him and his family? Or that a person who's family was killed by Muslims would harbour a grudge against Islam?

Why not? And if they were simultaneously accused by their contemporary scholars of lying and being Usmani zealots, than it stands to reason that they shouldn't be trusted.

[twoblade]

writings of ibn kalbi were numerous and at times contradict the portyral of sahaba in sanitized sunni hadith so automatically that a good reason to discredit him

Fair enough. But it stands to reason that if people independently decided to discredit him because of this (and not because he was actually caught lying), than they would've all invented different slanders. It seems that all of his contemporaries that either criticized him, or simply mentioned his religious persuasion, came to the same/similar conclusions.

There were many people who fought with Ali and you would be hard pressed to find a few that had ghali beliefs , most of them were salaf of ahle sunnah

That's true. But there's a difference between those people who actually knew him and learned from him, and their descendents. If a person is born barely knowing their ancestors/relatives except for the fact that they were killed by such-and-such people and that they sided with such-and-such people, it stands to reason that they have a higher probability of developing a certain persuasion. If the person was related to Uthman, or Shami, than it's likely that they'd become Uthmani zealots or Nawasib, so naturally their ahadith about the descendents of 'Ali (ra) are biased and can't necessarily be trusted wholesale - whereas if they were related to those who fought with 'Ali (ra), or those who were slaughtered with al-Husayn (ra), than it's likely that they'd become Shi'i, Ghulat, or Sabai. So when their contemporaries suggested that such people were part of either group, I'm inclined to belive that the claim is more than a baseless accusation.

Possibly but again he is a transmitter of this report, whhich might be unpalatable to a good sunni.Reports can be of all kinds.Many such pro-uthmani reports exist from zuhri are we to believe them uncondionally? bottomline is any historian whose views are different from the sunday school version of events about intra-sahaba conflicts is declared untrustworthy

I don't know that about az-Zuhri, and I can't really understand the claim I've often heard of his Umayyi passions. In my own experience, many of Zuhri's riwayat are Alid in their leaning or particularly supportive of al-Husayn. But than again, in spite of what az-Zuhri narrated, his contemporaries didn't consider him a liar. Some of them criticized him for certain things like tadlees or using uncredible sources (something I'd think al-Kalbi is also, at the least, guilty of considering he doesn't provide them in many cases).

She did battle of basra and later battle of jamal she is a chief player

I dont mean to defen ALi unconditionally either , you can doubt any hadith u want about him if its only from his supporters.

I don't think the battle of Basra was exactly a "battle". I doubt Aisha would take less than 100 men to fight under her if she intended to start a war. And there's also the fact that she went to Basra, not to 'Ali (ra), and 'Ali (ra) approached her (ra) there.

Ofcourse you wont, as that would shake a big pillar of sunni hadith, and I dont think your examples apply here.it was not a simple case of DISHONEST transmission of a report ( by muddling the sources) but outright fabrication of a report to hurt the messanger of God

Brother, Ibrahim (as) didn't simply muddle a transmission either but outright "fabricated" that the idol did what it did. Sheykh Adnan outright made up a person telling him this thing on the spot. I don't believe this constitutes a "lie" because a lie is told to live on, not to make a point (where the lie is unfolded). We don't know her motive beyond what's in the texts and the texts don't suggest she (ra) wanted to hurt him.

yes you are right that simply being a shia or a khariji did not neccesarily make someone .untrustworthy, but most of these individuals contribute small reports in sunni hadith which does not hurt the bigger picture e.g sa'sah b suhan a minor hadith transmitter although a shia can be considered trustworthy

however the 3 great historians of maghazi and history of iraq abu mikhanaf, waqidi, ibn kalbi father n son are UNRELIABLE LIARS ..despite their valuable contributions simply because their version of events is not in harmony with sanitized version of history for sunnis

Actually, contributions from non-Sunnis are downplayed by all sides. A deeper look into the issue shows that a lot of reports come through non-Sunnis at some part of the reports' chains, and some of them are even rare reports (without a comprable Sunni-only sanad).

Regarding Waqidi, I'm pretty sure the more mainstream opinion amongst actual scholars was his weakness in ahadith - not transmission of historical reports. Somebody that devotes their life to a field is likely to be weaker in another field. So many narrators are weak in ahadith while strong in Qur'an, weak in their recitation but known for ahadith/tarikh, etc. It's possible they may have fibbed here and there to make things more tantalizing (but that doesn't seem to be the opinion about Waqidi amongst the scholars) so I don't believe that calling al-Waqidi an outright liar is widely supported. Maybe on these online forums where people pick and choose what they want from rijaal books, but not by most reputable Sunni historians past or present.

There were numerous historians who had significant contributions from that time that have no questions about their veracity either. Many of these people reported narrations that didn't speak highly of every Sahabi, but even if the historian isn't a liar himself, the report's only as valid as his sources. That fact that Ibn al-Kalbi was almost unanimously criticized though, while other historians did face some criticism such as al-Waqidi would lead me to believe there's a little more to it than people just weakening the former two for no reason other than their biases. Many of the historians reported narrations that question the Sunni ideas regarding all the Sahaba, and yet only a handful of major contributers (such as these two) are actually considered outright liars by the majority of Sunni scholars. I'm not so sure about Abu Mikhnaf being declared a liar by Sunnis either, some people regarded him as a "liar" but his case might be like that of al-Waqidi where he simply wasn't particularly strong in ahadith (but that doesn't call into question his akhbar from Sahaba and others unless there's a flaw higher up in the sanad). Or - we can consider the popularly picked on contributer, Sayf, who was attacked by Shi'ite apologists for his reports concerning Ibn Saba. He was known to be reliable in tarikh (his field of study), but not so in ahadith (and naturally the apologists took these criticisms out of that context to dismiss him). Sunnis e-warriors are obviously guilty of the same, rather than looking at issues in detail, they find it easier to just accuse major historians than to look into the issue.

I can understand people considering him a liar though. From what I've learned here and in books, Shi'ite Twelvers are of the opinion that the Imams and their acquaintances lived double lives and made up reports. If a person believes something like this is religiously acceptable to win an argument, I'd be at least a little concerned about their reliability.

scholars maybe but we are talking of the "pious salaf" I dont see any sunni scholars critizing aisha or saeed b mussaiyyab ( not that I know could be wrong)

Probably not. I haven't really went out of my way to look for criticisms about Sahaba, but you had mentioned Zuhri and there is quite a bit of criticism regarding him for some issues even though he's a highly respected figure. There's even criticisms with respect to major scholars like Abu Hanifa and the bedrocks of Sunni fiqh, but I don't think this is the appropriate forum for such that topic.

If you do consider how Sunnis treat the ahadith of Aisha though, you'll notice that in ahadith where she says to a Sahabi's report "You've 'lied'" (where lied was colloquial for erred - that's another discussion) that Sunnis have often taken the other Sahabi's report. This doesn't question her credibility of course, but it does question some conclusions she sometimes would come to.

Edited September 3, 2011 by twoblade

[Muntaqim Force]

well well well a soft corner for abu bakr thats rare ...the same abubakr who allegedly conspired to deprive fatima of fadak arent u a flip flop

btw imamis use the incident at hudaibiya unfairly

umar said bravely what a lot of muslims ( in their ignorance) were thinking at that time, they were cringing at this apparent victory of kuffar

infact umar saying that at that time PROVES his unquestionable devotion to the cause of islam.if he was a munafiq he wud be happy !

let me remind u that many loyal followers of your imams have said worse things in similar situations

e.g hujr b adi and suleiman b sured radiallah anhm both called hasan b ali "one who humiliates the faithful" after the armistice with muawiyah

in Kitab Irshad Mufid quotes incident of jundab b abdullah azdi (a sahabi & early kufan loyal supporter of ali) who had grave doubts about sincerety of ali

when he was faced with fighting kharijites ( but he later changed his views)

Salaam

No soft corner for any hypocrite or enemy of Islam brother. It was way of speech when i compared Umer with Abu Bakr. There is another thread by the name who was worst caliph among first 3, you can read that to know what i meant when said Abu Bakr better than Umer.

Didn't you notice that shia muslims never follow what "lot of muslims" think or say and especially muslims in their ignorance have nothing to do with us. We do not follow them, love them or take religion from them. If at hudaibiyah lot of people were thinking what Umer actually said then we condemn all of them for going against prophet's order and doubting his prophethood. So we can conclude this act of Umer as act of hypocrisy as well by creating fitna among muslims after realizing that majority are not happy with Prophet's decision. He found environment favorable to support his mouth, so he uttered the filth out. This is not act of bravery or courage, there is no devotion for Islam in it. The first rule to have devotion for Islam is to have faith in Prophet of Islam no matter what happens. Umer had seen such examples many times that whenever companions went against rasool s.a.w decision and did what they saw better, Islam suffered (one of such example is Battle of Ohud). Even after knowing all this, if someone doubt Rasool's character and his Prophet hood then he is just trying to harm Islam.

JazakAllah

Edited September 4, 2011 by Muntaqim Force

[Kalamullah]

Muhammad ibn Sa'ad al-kalbi is a respected Sunni biographer who was considered one of the foremost knowledgeable persons in the field of genealogy. In his book al-salaba fi ma'rifat al-sahaba he wrote the following about Omar's ancestry. It's also important to note that a similar story is narrated in the shia book Mustadrakat Ilm rijal al-hadith by Ali namazi shahroodi.

keeping in mind that both narrations from the different sects are consistent with one another and the respect given to Muhammad ibn Sa'ad al-kalbi by Sunni historians, both of which lend a high degree of credibility to the narration.

A slave boy named Nafil belonged to Kalbi bin lu'i bin ghalib al-quraishi, when al-quraishi passed away, Abdul-muttalib took guardianship of the slave boy Nafil. Abdul Muttalib also had a young lady name Suhak take care of his sheep, he liked her and desired to cherish her for himself. So Abdul muttalib made her wear a leather chastity device with a lock and kept the key to himself.

The slave boy Nafil fancied and adored Suhak as he used to see her in the grazing field and one day, they made an arrangement to meet in privacy while Abdul Muttalib was away. Suhak told him I have no way of fulfilling what you want because of this chastity device which only Abdul-Muttalib has a key to. Nafil told her not to worry as he can get it off, so he grabed some butter and grease and began to work it through the leather device and her skin until the device slid to her thighs.

Suhak and Nafil coupled that night and Suhak was pregnant with a boy whom she named khattab. She had the boy and left it around one of the nearby garbage dumps at night out of fear of Abdul Muttalib. The boy was picked up by an old jewish lady and was raised by her. Khattab grew to be a young man.

As he was out cutting wood, Suhak would check up on him while hiding but one day khattab saw her revealing her bottom amorously. Not knowing who she was he coupled with her. Suhak was pregnant with a girl named Hantama. Suhak had the girl and left her in the garbage dumps near Makkah. The girl was picked up by Hisham ibn Mughira, she became a slave girl for him. One day Khattab saw her and asked her hand in marriage from Hisham. Hisham married Hantama to Khattab and they had a boy named Omar.

Just to recap

-------------

- Suhak + Nafil = Khattab

- Suhak + Khattab = Hantama

- khattab + Hantama = Omar

Suhak Omar's grandmother from both parents.

Hantama and Khattab are siblings as well as Umar's Parents and well as his aunt and uncle

[Edited]. this is not meant as an insult, it's simply the fact.

Sunni Source: al-salaba fi ma'rifat al-sahaba by Muhammad ibn sa'ib al-klbi, [Vol.3 page 212]

Shia source: Mustadrakat Ilm rijal al-hadith by Ali namazi shahroodi, [Vol.8 page 585]

Here is the sunni source in arabic:

--------------------------------

روى محمد بن السائب الكلبي- الصلابة في معرفة الصحابة - الجزء ( 3 ) - رقم الصفحة : ( 212 )

كان نفيل لكلب بن لؤي بن غالب القرشي فمات عنه ثم وليه عبد المطلب , وكانت صهاك ترعى غنمه وكان يفرق بينهما في المرعى فاتفق يوماً اجتماعهما في مراح واحد فهواها وعشقها نفيل , وكان قد ألبسها عبد المطلب سروالاً من الأديم وجعل عليه قفلاً وجعل مفتاحه معه لمنزلتها منه , فلما راودها قالت : مالي إلى ما تقول سبيل وقد ألبست هذا الأديم ووضع عليه قفل فقال : أنا أحتال عليه , فأخذ سمناً من مخيض الغنم ودهن به الأديم وما حوله من بدنها حتى استله إلى فخذيها وواقعها فحملت منه بالخطاب , فلما ولدته ألقته على بعض المزابل بالليل خيفة من عبد المطلب فالتقطت الخطاب امرأة يهودية جنازة وربته , فلما كبر كان يقطع الحطب فسمي الحطاب لذلك بالحاء فصحف بالمعجمة , وكانت صهاك ترتاده في الخفية فرآها ذات يوم وقد تطأطأت عجيزتها , ولم يدر من هي فوقع عليها فحملت منه بحنتمة , فلما وضعتها ألقتها على مزابل مكة خارجها فالتقطها هشام بن مغيرة بن وليد ورباها فنسبت أليه , فلما كبرت وكان الخطاب يتردد على هشام فرأى حنتمة فأعجبته فخطبها إلى هشام فزوجه إياها فولدت عمر ، وكان الخطاب والد عمر لأنه أولد حنتمة إياه حيث تزوجها وحده . لأنه سافح صهاك قبل فأولدها حنتمة والخطاب من أم واحدة وهي صهاك

Even if this lie is true, Amir al Muhmineen was one of the greatest men to walk this earth and we're all judged on our own actions not those of our parents

[wikipedia]

THOSE WHO HAVE NOT YET DECIDED THE ORIGIN OF THE MOTHER OF 12TH IMAM ,CAN NOT TALK ABOUT OTHERS.