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  
Abu Tufayl

The 3 Caliphs' Attack On The Messenger [Sawa]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Here is a article further extracting this event. Although it isnt fully complete, very important points + evidences are made.

 

Wa Salaam

 

http://valiasr-aj-english.weebly.com/uploads/7/5/6/8/7568784/is_it_true_that_umar_abu_bakr_uthman_and_others_were_involved_in_the_unsuccessful_assassination_plot_of_the_prophet_pbuh__hf.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

al-Majalisi narrates in Bihar:

 

 قصص الأنبياء: الصدوق، عن أبيه، عن سعد، عن إبراهيم بن مهزيار، عن أخيه علي، عن النضر، عن موسى بن بكر قال: قال بعض أصحابنا لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام علم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أسماء المنافقين؟ فقال: لا، ولكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لما كان في غزوة تبوك كان يسير على ناقته والناس أمامه، فلما انتهى إلى العقبة وقد جلس عليها أربعة عشر رجلا، ستة من قريش، وثمانية من أفناء الناس - أو على عكس هذا - (3) فأتاه جبرئيل عليه السلام فقال: إن فلانا وفلانا وفلانا فقد قعدوا (4) لك على العقبة لينفروا ناقتك، فناداهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: يا فلان ويا فلان ويا فلان أنتم القعود لتنفروا ناقتي؟ وكان حذيفة خلفه فلحق (5) بهم فقال: يا حذيفة سمعت؟ قال: نعم قال: اكتم

 

If someone else would be so kind as to translate it, I don't have time at this moment. As a side note, the chain is strong according to me and dependable.

 

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been discussed on here before, and I think Nader also covered it in his blog. Needless to say shias accept it and Sunnis reject it.

 

All of the narrations about these incidents and events are saheeh by their isnad. Refer back to the original article and their scans to see it. You can also check each narrator yourself.

 

 

 And when you have narrators from Sahih bukhari and Muslim should sunnis not accept it?

 

Thanks Dar for bringing up a great article with scans and analysis and conclusion.

 

Conclusion: No matter how you look at it, the probability of this hadith being reliable is very high, as Walid b. `Abdullah b. Jumay` was considered thiqa by the earliest rijal scholars, and was only weakened by Ibn Hazim for narrating this hadith. We cannot establish someone's weakness for the sole reason that he narrates a hadith some don't like. The hadith does not contradict the Qur'an or the Sunna in any way, and no doubts were placed on the transmitters' honesty and character. The hadith merely identifies the previously anonymous hypocrites that attacked the Prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been discussed on here before, and I think Nader also covered it in his blog. Needless to say shias accept it and Sunnis reject it.

 

Sunnis may reject it, Wahabis may kill Shias for this, but some are there to see the light, as Imam Ali (as) stated there is enough light for one to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

al-Majalisi narrates in Bihar:

 

 قصص الأنبياء: الصدوق، عن أبيه، عن سعد، عن إبراهيم بن مهزيار، عن أخيه علي، عن النضر، عن موسى بن بكر قال: قال بعض أصحابنا لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام علم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أسماء المنافقين؟ فقال: لا، ولكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لما كان في غزوة تبوك كان يسير على ناقته والناس أمامه، فلما انتهى إلى العقبة وقد جلس عليها أربعة عشر رجلا، ستة من قريش، وثمانية من أفناء الناس - أو على عكس هذا - (3) فأتاه جبرئيل عليه السلام فقال: إن فلانا وفلانا وفلانا فقد قعدوا (4) لك على العقبة لينفروا ناقتك، فناداهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: يا فلان ويا فلان ويا فلان أنتم القعود لتنفروا ناقتي؟ وكان حذيفة خلفه فلحق (5) بهم فقال: يا حذيفة سمعت؟ قال: نعم قال: اكتم

 

If someone else would be so kind as to translate it, I don't have time at this moment. As a side note, the chain is strong according to me and dependable.

 

في أمان الله

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

Stories of the Prophets عليهم السلام: al-Saduq قدس سره; from His Father (`Ali b. Babawayh al-Qummi) قدس سره; from Sa`ad; from Ibraheem b. Mahziyar; from His Brother, `Ali b. Mahziyar; from al-Nadr; from Musa b. Bakr, he said: Some of our companions said to Abi `AbdAllah عليه السلام: "Did the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله know the names of the hypocrites?" So he said: "No, however, when the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله was in the campaign of Tabbuk, he was riding on a camel, with a group leading in front of him. So when he reached al-`Aqabah and sat there, 14 men, 6 from Quraysh, and 8 from other people - or vis versa - So Jibra'eel عليه السلام came to Him صلى الله عليه وآله and said: 'Verily so-and-so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so have laid in wait for you in al-`Aqabah to frighten your she-camel.' So the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله called to them saying: 'Oh so-and-so! Oh so-and-so! Oh so-and-so! Have you laid in wait to frighten my she-camel?' Hudhayfah, was behind Him صلى الله عليه وآله, he caught up to them. So he said: 'Oh Hudhayfah, did you hear?' He said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Keep this secret.'"

 

Small note if you were confused like me when read the she-camel being scared part, scaring the she-camel in this mountain pass would've caused it to go mad, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله to be thrown off and fall to his death.

 

Mind any translation errors.

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

Edited by al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who don't know the story, here is the intro from the website brother Dar mentioned:

 

The expedition of Tabuk is indeed a remarkable moment in Islamic history for numerous reasons. It was on this memorable occasion the Prophet (saw) announced the famous Hadeeth Al-Manzila in which He said, "O Alee! Your position unto me is like how Haroon was to Musa, except there is no Prophet after me." This was the only campaign in which Imam Alee (a.s) did not participate. This was not because he did not want to participate, rather it was the decision of the Prophet (saw) to leave him behind in Madinah so he could maintain the law and prevent the opportunist 'hypocrites' seizing power while the army was away. Roman leader Heraclius, planned to attack the holy city of Madinah. On the basis of these reports, preparations had been made in order to stop the advancing army from entering into the Islamic state. Unlike previous wars that the Muslims fought which were inside the country, this one they faced was from an external opponent. When the army had departed Madinah and reached Tabuk, they settled there for numerous nights. After a long wait, there was no trace of an advancing Roman army. When the Prophet (saw) was satisfied that there was no sign of the enemy, he (saw) ordered the men to return to Madinah. When they reached Uqbah they thought that the passage through the hills was tortuous and difficult. If the animals became restless, there was a likelihood of them falling into the ravines. The Prophet (saw) announced that no one should take that route until his camel goes. But a group of twelve hypocrites conspired that they will disturb the Prophet’s (saw) camel to cause an accident. Hudhayfah ibn Al-Yaman was holding the front ropes of the Prophet (saw) camel while Ammar ibn Yasir was at the back. All of a sudden they had been confronted with twelve riders, with faces covered, proceeding towards the ravine. Hudhayfah pointed this out to the Prophet (saw), and he reprimanded the group. Hudhayfah and Ammar pushed back the masked men. The Prophet (saw) asked Hudhayfah who these persons were. He expressed his ignorance. The Prophet (saw) said that they were the hypocrites and will ever remain so. Then the Prophet (saw) told the names of all the twelve culprits to Hudhayfah and asked him to keep the information a secret. But despite this being a secret, the information was revealed to some people.
 
 يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ مَا قَالُواْ وَلَقَدْ قَالُواْ كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ وَكَفَرُواْ بَعْدَ إِسْلَـمِهِمْ وَهَمُّواْ بِمَا لَمْ يَنَالُواْ وَمَا نَقَمُواْ إِلاَ أَنْ أَغْنَاهُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ فَإِن يَتُوبُواْ يَكُ خَيْراً لَّهُمْ وَإِن يَتَوَلَّوْا يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا فِى الدُّنْيَا وَالاٌّخِرَةِ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلاَ نَصِيرٍ

They swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islam, and they resolved that (plot) which they were unable to carry out, and they could not find any cause to do so except that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. If then they repent, it will be better for them, but if they turn away;Allah will punish them with a painful torment in this worldly life and in the Hereafter. And there is none for them on earth as a protector or a helper.

Holy Qur'aan (9.74)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

No. That is a different website. This is not Nader's blog, this blog is better, in my opinion. The two blogs are just using the same background/template...

 

في أمان الله

 

Yes it's not his blog. The author of this blog is a super rafidhi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A refutation is here

http://twelvershia.net/2013/04/15/response-to-assassination-attempt-on-the-prophet-saw/

Whether you choose to accept that Abu Bakr and the rest were involved will more often than not depend on whether you are a shia or sunni, rather than the authenticity of the reports and event.

Edited by Vigilare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A refutation is here

http://twelvershia.net/2013/04/15/response-to-assassination-attempt-on-the-prophet-saw/

Whether you choose to accept that Abu Bakr and the rest were involved will more often than not depend on whether you are a shia or sunni, rather than the authenticity of the reports and event.

 

 

The website says the following  

 

"RTS goes on to defend Al-Waleed bin Jumai’, assuming that doing so would lead to some sort of authentication of the hadith. However, even if one would accept the narrations of Al-Waleed, this narration would still have to be rejected, for the simple reason that Ibn Hazm does not include his chain to Al-Waleed and the chain of Al-Waleed to the eye witness of the event. So, accepting such a narration, in which one knows a single narrator in a chain which could possibly consist of seven to nine narrators, is not reasonable. Keep in mind that Ibn Hazm is a fifth century scholar, which is why his chains are longer than average."

 

 

He claims that Ibn hazim does not include his chain to Walid ibn jumai, but what does this have to do with anything?  This hadith if present could of  and probably was in books that were circulating around the time of  Ibn hazim or he would of obviously not even be talking about the hadith, or he could of simply claimed that the hadth is not properly connected to walid ibn jumai if the hadith found in the books did not have a sahih tareeq, he never makes that claim.

 

Morever the person on this website claims that Ibn hazim has not included the chains from walid ibn jumai to the narrator of the hadith thus the chain from walid ibn jumai to the narrator is impossible to authenticate. If ibn hazim did not have the chains from walid ibn jumai  to the narrator he would of simply called the hadith mawdu on the basis of it being  mursal and blasphemous and get over with it.  Instead he claims that walid ibn jumai is narrating these type of ahadith without knowing who the fabricator is (there is no one suspected of lying between jumai and the sahabi), thus the men in the chains from walid ibn jumai to the narrators are truthful, otherwise ibn hazim would of mentioned the fabricator between walid ibn jumai and the sahabi and thus the hadith being mawdu on the basis of it's content and not on it's sanad or he would of mention the hadith at least being mutassal. 

 

 
وأما حديث حذيفة فساقط لأنه من طريق الوليد بن جميع وهو هالك ولا نراه يعلم من وضع الحديث فإنه قد روى أخبارا فيها أن أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان وطلحة وسعد بن أبي وقاص رضي الله عنهم أرادوا قتل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وإلقاءه من العقبة في تبوك وهذا هو الكذب الموضوع
 
"as for the hadith of huzayfa then it is false because it comes from the tareeq of waleed ibn jamuy3 and he is unreliable and he does not know who fabricated the hadith, so he has narrated hadith in them abu bakr, umar, 3thman, talha and sa3d ibn abi waqas wanting to kill the prophet (as) and to throw him from al-3qba in tabuk and that is a fabricated lie."
Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunnis may reject it, Wahabis may kill Shias for this, but some are there to see the light, as Imam Ali (as) stated there is enough light for one to see.

like this very much (short, concise n sweet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

More on the issue, i guess Brother Dar ul Islam will be able to extract few more chains from this http://www.valiasr-aj.com/fa/page.php?bank=question&id=1257

 

Sorry my arabic is not that strong and will not be able to translate it more exclusive like other brothers can do :)

Edited by Malagniman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps brother Dar would be so kind to also like to post a follow up on the same theme based on the "We used to forcibly feed medicine to him [pbuh].." narrations by Ayesha in their sahihs.

 

I was just thinking about it in fact. The Seyyed-ul-Ambiya is forbidding something while his ummatis know better than him? And then he says "May you also be treated thus."

 

Even if we suppose that the nobodys actually did know better, what ailment was that medicine for?

 

To cure a poison?

 

Then, why hasn't a single Muslim biologist, chemist, scientist or any educated person tried to determine the formula of that poison, a poison that turns a man sick some years after tasting it (allegedly, according to the "poisoning at Khyber" fairytale)?

 

Like their fake ideals, who abandoned the funeral of the master of all humanity [pbuh], why this enormous sorry mass of his supposed adherents never tried to uncover the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)
(bismillah)

 

It's sad that we cannot have the full hadith and the chain to where the names are actually mentioned. That way we would be able to better analyze the hadith. The blog is not authored by me, I have helped them out a few times, and I know the authors very well, but that is not my blog. That blog and my blog have a different target audience and reason for making the blog.

 

(salam)

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...