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  
Muhubbiun

Abu Bakr Being Called As Siddique

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(wasalam)

One of them is Abubakr (ra)

 

 

(salam)

 

I am still waiting for you to show me the proof?

 

 

 

Quran
 

 

 

Is Abubakr's name present in the Quran? If your answer is no, then please present the source(s) which led you to believe this notion.

 

 

 

I haven't read about it much. 

 

 

 

Please do read about it at your convenience.

 

Without the knowledge of one of the most important event in Islamic History, you cannot make bold statements and insult the Holy Prophet (pbuh) & His Message. This is completely unacceptable. I hope you are not amongst those who do it intentionally to justify the debacle which happened at Saqifa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

I am still waiting for you to show me the proof?

 

 

 

 

Is Abubakr's name present in the Quran? If your answer is no, then please present the source(s) which led you to believe this notion.

 

 

 

 

Please do read about it at your convenience.

 

Without the knowledge of one of the most important event in Islamic History, you cannot make bold statements and insult the Holy Prophet (pbuh) & His Message. This is completely unacceptable. I hope you are not amongst those who do it intentionally to justify the debacle which happened at Saqifa.

 

(wasalam)

 

Tens of verses but here is one:
 
The verses refer to the pledge of Hudaiybiya where more than a thousand companions pledged allegiance to Prophet (saw) and one of them was Abubakr. Allah confirms the faith in their hearts, becomes pleased with them, sends tranquility upon them and rewards them with a conquest (Makkah). 
 
Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you, [O Muhammad] - they are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. The hand of Allah is over their hands. So he who breaks his word only breaks it to the detriment of himself. And he who fulfills that which he has promised Allah - He will give him a great reward. [Verse 10 of al-Fath]
 
then Allah confirms their pledge and what was in their hearts:
 
Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest [Verse 18 of al-Fath]
Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(wasalam)

 

Tens of verses but here is one:
 
The verses refer to the pledge of Hudaiybiya where more than a thousand companions pledged allegiance to Prophet (saw) and one of them was Abubakr. Allah confirms the faith in their hearts, becomes pleased with them, sends tranquility upon them and rewards them with a conquest (Makkah). 
 
Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you, [O Muhammad] - they are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. The hand of Allah is over their hands. So he who breaks his word only breaks it to the detriment of himself. And he who fulfills that which he has promised Allah - He will give him a great reward. [Verse 10 of al-Fath]
 
then Allah confirms their pledge and what was in their hearts:
 
Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest [Verse 18 of al-Fath]

 

 

1) How do you know Abu Bakr was one of them?

 

2) The verse is not providing an universal blanket that they will always remain a believer. Or is it?

 

Here is the verse again.

 

[Yusufali 48:10] Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah: the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward.

 

[Yusufali 48:18] Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory;

 

We see a condition for one to be a believer. Otherwise even the hypocrites who were in that group would have to be called Believers which I am sure you wouldn't want to. 

 

Regarding verse 48:18, it is mentioned that Allah sent down tranquility ONLY on Believers. Not everyone who swore allegiance that day.

 

So your argument cannot be accepted.

 

 

So what is your next proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) How do you know Abu Bakr was one of them?

 

2) The verse is not providing an universal blanket that they will always remain a believer. Or is it?

 

(salam)

 

1) That is something established brother. Abubakr, Umar, Ali and more than a thousand companions were present in the treaty of Hudaibiya. This was a significant moment for the Muslims. 

2) The verse proves their faith and what was in their hearts. 

 

 

Here is the verse again.

 

[Yusufali 48:10] Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah: the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward.

 

[Yusufali 48:18Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory;

 

We see a condition for one to be a believer. Otherwise even the hypocrites who were in that group would have to be called Believers which I am sure you wouldn't want to. 

 

Regarding verse 48:18, it is mentioned that Allah sent down tranquility ONLY on Believers. Not everyone who swore allegiance that day.

 

So your argument cannot be accepted.

 

 

So what is your next proof?

 

 

Yes there is a condition thats why I quoted both verses. Allah [swt] says that if they violate their oath (the hudaibiyah oath) they will only harm themself but if they fulfil their oath Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì will grant them a great reward.

 

Those who pledged the allegiance fulfilled their oath and didn't violate it and Allah confirmed it by revealing this verse:

 

[Yusufali 48:18Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory;

 

Allah [swt] clearly says that He [swt] knew what was in their hearts so he sent down tranquility upon them (so there were no hypocrites among them).

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

1) That is something established brother. Abubakr, Umar, Ali and more than a thousand companions were present in the treaty of Hudaibiya. This was a significant moment for the Muslims. 

2) The verse proves their faith and what was in their hearts. 

 

1) Exactly. So you agree that you have to rely on books of history to get the details?

 

2) I don't agree with your assessment. Allah talks of faith in the hearts of ONLY believers and not everyone who took the oath.

 

 

 

Yes there is a condition thats why I quoted both verses. Allah [swt] says that if they violate their oath (the hudaibiyah oath) they will only harm themself but if they fulfil their oath Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì will grant them a great reward.
 
Those who pledged the allegiance fulfilled their oath and didn't violate it and Allah confirmed it by revealing this verse:
 
[Yusufali 48:18] Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory;

 

 

 

Really??? Brother, you are too quick to jump to conclusions. Just take a moment and think if what you have said is actually acceptable?

 

Lets look at an instance agreed by both Shias & Sunnis that the covenant was broken by the people who took the oath. We read in history that when some of the swearers ran away from the battle of Hunayn the Holy Prophet addressed them:

 
"O swearers of bayt al ridwan, whither are you going?"
 
The same sahabas who took an oath, broke it and ran away leaving prophet's life in danger. So haven't they been taken out of the fold of believers as they have gone against their promise & violated the oath?
 
Hence this verse is a clear indication that the tranquility was sent down on the hearts of only believers and not everyone as you have wrongly assumed.
 

 

Allah clearly says that He [swt] knew what was in their hearts. If there were hypocrites or disbelievers among them Allah would have mentioned it. 

 
 
Read the verse again, it says "Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers". So again it is not on everyone. Allah has already clearly mentioned it. What more are you expecting?
Edited by yam_110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1) Exactly. So you agree that you have to rely on books of history to get the details?

 

2) I don't agree with your assessment. Allah talks of faith in the hearts of ONLY believers and not everyone who took the oath.

 

 

 

(salam)

 

1) It is already mentioned in the Quran. It is also mentioned in Authentic narrations of the Prophet (saw). 

2) Of course hypocrites don't have faith. Those who pledged, were believers and not hypocrites because Allah knew what was in their hearts, so He sent tranquility upon them and confirmed their pledge.  

 

 

 

Really??? Brother, you are too quick to jump to conclusions. Just take a moment and think if what you have said is actually acceptable?

 

Lets look at an instance agreed by both Shias & Sunnis that the covenant was broken by the people who took the oath. We read in history that when some of the swearers ran away from the battle of Hunayn the Holy Prophet addressed them:

 
"O swearers of bayt al ridwan, whither are you going?"
 
The same sahabas who took an oath, broke it and ran away leaving prophet's life in danger. So haven't they been taken out of the fold of believers as they have gone against their promise & violated the oath?
 
Hence this verse is a clear indication that the tranquility was sent down on the hearts of only believers and not everyone as you have wrongly assumed.

 

Please quote the narration. Even though this (running of some Sahaba in later battles) has nothing to do with the Pledge of Hudaibiyah and those companions who pledged under the tree because Allah already showed his satisfication with them and confirmed what was in their hearts.  

 

Even those who run away from battle in Hunain, Allah forgave them in the Quran. And you are trying to say they disbelieved for running away while Allah says He forgave them?

 

 

 
Read the verse again, it says "Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers". So again it is not on everyone. Allah has already clearly mentioned it. What more are you expecting?

 

 

Like I said if there were hypocrites Allah would have mentioned it. He confirmed the truthfullfuness  of  the pledge and sent tranquility upon them because He knew what was in their hearts (they were faithful and no hypocrites). 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the arguments, I would say then that although Abubakr was called As-siddique when the prophet was alive, due to his actions after his death, this title is then becomes void. 

 

But case in point, is it proper to curse, bash, or even hate Abubakr? though it is not done by the prophet in any way? 

 

Sure, we can say this person is a liar, a cheater, a calumny-monger, but these accusations are based on facts, not due to emotional or subjective reasons.

 

It is like in the court of law, the judge reads the accusations against the suspect, and asks how he pleads, but the judge does not necessarily condemn him right away until all evidence is presented all laws and jurisprudence is applied, and then the judge makes his judgement and puts to the accused to jail. And we all know that the final judgement is rendered only in the Supreme Court where only the Almighty presides.

 

Should we then, openly hate, bash, and even curse Abubakr, pending his case before Allah SWT?

 

I mean, ascertaining of historical facts of his misdeeds is one thing, and I think there is no problem with it.

But rendering pre-judgement by hating, bashing, and cursing is another...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Please quote the narration. Even though this (running of some Sahaba in later battles) has nothing to do with the Pledge of Hudaibiyah and those companions who pledged under the tree because Allah already showed his satisfication with them and confirmed what was in their hearts.  

 

Even those who run away from battle in Hunain, Allah forgave them in the Quran. And you are trying to say they disbelieved for running away while Allah says He forgave them?

 

 

 

Like I said if there were hypocrites Allah would have mentioned it. He confirmed the truthfullfuness  of  the pledge and sent tranquility upon them because He knew what was in their hearts (they were faithful and no hypocrites). 

 

 

Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah: the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward. 

 

 

Please read the whole verse through, intrepret it as one whole verse and not what you choose to highlight in red.

 

Here Allah is saying, to those who gave there oath under the tree, they have the support of Allah and are under an oath with him, and anyone that violates that oath only does so to harm his own soul (That is he becomes a hyprocrite, see that means Allah acknowleges the fact that some of those who gave the pledge still have the potential to break that oath rendering them a hypocrite), and those who do not break the oath and instead fulfill the oath with Allah, Allah will grant them a great reward, what is that reward? read the next verse!

 

Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory;

 

So again, referring to the people who swore under the tree, it says Allah knows what is in their hearts, it could be that Allah is referring to what is in their hearts based on whether are not they will keep the oath/pledge, and again as referred to from above, what is this reward he promised will come soon? He rewarded them with a speedy victory, what victory? The prophet(saw) and Allah(saws) affirmed a 10-year peace, and authorized Muhammad's followers to return the following year in a peaceful pilgrimage, The First Pilgrimage. SO THE MUSLIMS DONT HAVE TO FIGHT!

 

-side note, "what was in their hearts" could it be that Allah(saws) knew that they were heavy hearted/uneasy, and as such rewarded them with a tranquility/made them calm by giving them the above mentioned speedy victory.

 

Regardless, I just dont see how you can interpret the above 2 verses to mean that Allah (saws) promised those who pledged under the tree paradise or even that under any circumstance in no way shape or form they can possibly have the intentional to be hypocrites and therefore become apostates...

Edited by kbsquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

1) It is already mentioned in the Quran. It is also mentioned in Authentic narrations of the Prophet (saw). 

2) Of course hypocrites don't have faith. Those who pledged, were believers and not hypocrites because Allah knew what was in their hearts, so He sent tranquility upon them and confirmed their pledge.  

 

 

(wasalam)

 

1) So you agree that apart from Quran you also need authentic traditions from other books to be looked into?

 

2) Are you telling me that everyone who took the pledge was a believer? So no hypocrites were hidden in the ranks of Sahabas?

 

 

 

Please quote the narration. Even though this (running of some Sahaba in later battles) has nothing to do with the Pledge of Hudaibiyah and those companions who pledged under the tree because Allah already showed his satisfication with them and confirmed what was in their hearts.  

 

 
Are you asking for the narration about people running from Hunayn? Why is this got nothing to do with the pledge? If they were believers and believed in Allah & His Messenger then they wouldn't have left him alone amongst the enemies. Allah showed His satisfaction only on believers which means people who met the stipulated condition. You cannot ignore the second verse because it doesn't fit your end of story.
 
The biggest proof is that "Whosoever breaks his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul" indicates that the oath of allegiance will be broken. If everyone who took the pledge would remain a believer & Allah would remain satisfied with them then He wouldn't have stipulated this condition.
 
 

Even those who run away from battle in Hunain, Allah forgave them in the Quran. And you are trying to say they disbelieved for running away while Allah says He forgave them?

 

Yes, didn't they?

 

 

Like I said if there were hypocrites Allah would have mentioned it. He confirmed the truthfullfuness  of  the pledge and sent tranquility upon them because He knew what was in their hearts (they were faithful and no hypocrites). 

 

You are missing the whole point. Read the verse fully. Allah has sent down tranquility on BELIEVERS. If Allah had mentioned that He sent tranquility on the hearts of everyone who took the pledge then what you say is true. Can you see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam alaykuum brother advocate, as far as I know imam Ali (asws) was not their advsor but they would turn to him for help and he would advise them however, Imam Hasan Al-Askari (asws) also used to advise the abbasids who had placed him under house arrest and it is well-known fact that he did not maintain close relations with them.

Also in one of his lectures, Sayed Ammar Nakshawani relates a story of how two women came to Prophet Sulayman (as) fighting over a baby and who the child real mother was and the Prophet (as) said to cut the baby in half. One of the ladies replied that the baby was not actually hers yet, Prophet Sulayman (as) have her custody of the baby saying that a true mother would not want her baby to get hurt. Sayed Ammar then goes on to say that Imam Ali's (asws) position where he would advise abu bakr and umar was like that of the mother mentioned. The same way she went to a drastic measure to protect her baby, He (asws) did too so as to protect the ummah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was IMAM ALI AS advisor to hypocrites

 

 

because he realized that the damage they will do if left unaided would be immense.  So, he, at the very least, admonished a lot of that.  Imam Ali (as) or even an imam for that does not put his pride ahead of his religion.  

 

Take for example: (This covers 2 incidences, there are many, I leave it up to you to do your honest research)

 

1st narration:

 

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad; Imamu'l-Haram Ahmad Ibn Abdullah Shafi'i in Dhakha'iru'l-Mawadda, chapter II, p.75, from Hasan Basri; Ibn Hajar in Fathu'l-Bari, vol.XII, P.101; Abu Dawud in Sunan, vol. II, p.227; Munadi in Faizu'l-Qadir, vol. IV, p. 257; Hakim Nishapuri in Mustadrak, vol.II, p.59;

Qastalani in Irshadu's-Sari, vol.X, p. 9; Baihaqi in Sunan, vol.VIII, p. 164; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nazara, v.II, p.196; Khatib Khawarizmi in his Munaqab, p.48; Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul; Imamu'l-Haram in Dhakha'iru'l-'Uqba, p.80; Ibn Maja in his Sunan, v.II, p.227; Bukhari in his Sahih, chapter la yarjumu'l-majnun wa'l-majnuna and most of your other ulama’ have reported the following incident:

 

 

One day an insane woman was brought before Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Khattab. She had committed fornication and admitted her fault. ‘Umar ordered her to be stoned. Amiru'l-Mu'minin was there. He said to ‘Umar: "What are you doing?

I have heard the Holy Prophet saying that three kinds of people are free from the hold of law: a sleeping man until he wakes; a lunatic until he recovers himself and regains consciousness; and the child until he comes of age." Hearing this, ‘Umar acquitted the woman.

Ibnu's-Saman in his Kitabu'l-Muwafiqa has recorded many such cases. There are some accounts which record about 100 erroneous and fallacious findings of ‘Umar.

 

2nd narration.

 

 

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib Fi Manaqib al-Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib; Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad; Bukhari in his Sahih; Hamidi in Jam' al-Bainu's-Sahihain; Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter IV, p.75, from Khawarizmi's Manaqib; Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in Arba'in, p.466; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nazara, vol.II, p.196; Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib, p.48; Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul, p.113; and Imamu'l-Haram in Dhakha'iru'l-Uqba, p.80, quote the following report.

 

A pregnant woman was brought before ‘Umar Ibn Khattab. On being questioned, she admitted that she was guilty of illicit sexual intercourse, and so the Caliph ordered her to be stoned. Then ‘Ali said: "Your order is applicable to this woman, but you have no authority over her child."

‘Umar acquitted the woman and said: "Women are incapable of giving birth to a man like ‘Ali: If ‘Ali had not been there, ‘Umar would have been ruined." He continued, saying: "May Allah not let me live so long as to face a difficult problem which ‘Ali is not present to solve."

 

 

Brother Advocate123, as you can see there is a certain level of incompetence when it comes to these first 3 caliphs, with all due respect.   Had Ali not been there for these woman, 80%+ of islam today may find it part of islamic law to stone the insane who are involved in illicit behavior and the women of zina (bearing a child).   Imagine if the media today portrayed these acts?   While others countries (non-muslim) use billions of dollars worth of research to help the insane, in muslim countries, we kill em if they act on their mental deficiency wrongly...Indeed Islam would have died out many years ago.  Only Allah (saws) knows. 

 

To Further cement my argument I refer to the following verses:

 

"Is he then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" (10:35)

 

"Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike?" (39:9)

Edited by kbsquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

 

1) So you agree that apart from Quran you also need authentic traditions from other books to be looked into?

 

2) Are you telling me that everyone who took the pledge was a believer? So no hypocrites were hidden in the ranks of Sahabas?

 

 

(salam)

1) Did I ever I say I disagree?

2) Yes there were no hypocrites (as confirmed by Allah) among the 1400 people who pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw). 

 

 

 

 
Are you asking for the narration about people running from Hunayn? Why is this got nothing to do with the pledge? If they were believers and believed in Allah & His Messenger then they wouldn't have left him alone amongst the enemies. Allah showed His satisfaction only on believers which means people who met the stipulated condition. You cannot ignore the second verse because it doesn't fit your end of story.
 

 

I am sure the narration is likely to be unauthentic. The reason it has got nothing to do with Hudaibiya because the verse was specific to the treaty of Hudaibiya and Allah already confirmed that they fulfilled their Hudaibiyah oaths, confirmed the faith in their hearts and showed his satisfication with them. 

 

 

 

The biggest proof is that "Whosoever breaks his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul" indicates that the oath of allegiance will be broken. If everyone who took the pledge would remain a believer & Allah would remain satisfied with them then He wouldn't have stipulated this condition.

Indeed that is the biggest proof. If they had broken their Hudaibiyah oaths, Allah would have mentioned it. But since they fulfilled their Hudaibiyah oaths, Allah declared his satisfication with them and confirmed their loyalty by revealing the 48:18, which came after the verse 48:10. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, didn't they?

 

No, if they became disbelievers then would Allah called them disbeliever instead of forgiving them as mentioned in the Quran.
(Keep in mind that Abubakr and Umar were of those who stood by the Prophet (saw) in the battle of Hunain). 
 
You are missing the whole point. Read the verse fully. Allah has sent down tranquility on BELIEVERS. If Allah had mentioned that He sent tranquility on the hearts of everyone who took the pledge then what you say is true. Can you see the difference?

 

 

Of course Allah never sends tranquility upon hypocrites/disbelievers. You are not seeing the difference brother. Allah clearly says that He knew what was in their hearts so He sent tranquility upon them, confirming that they were not hypocrites and what they were outwardly were also inwardly. 

Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah: the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward. 

 

 

Please read the whole verse through, intrepret it as one whole verse and not what you choose to highlight in red.

 

Here Allah is saying, to those who gave there oath under the tree, they have the support of Allah and are under an oath with him, and anyone that violates that oath only does so to harm his own soul (That is he becomes a hyprocrite, see that means Allah acknowleges the fact that some of those who gave the pledge still have the potential to break that oath rendering them a hypocrite), and those who do not break the oath and instead fulfill the oath with Allah, Allah will grant them a great reward, what is that reward? read the next verse!

 

Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory;

 

So again, referring to the people who swore under the tree, it says Allah knows what is in their hearts, it could be that Allah is referring to what is in their hearts based on whether are not they will keep the oath/pledge, and again as referred to from above, what is this reward he promised will come soon? He rewarded them with a speedy victory, what victory? The prophet(saw) and Allah(saws) affirmed a 10-year peace, and authorized Muhammad's followers to return the following year in a peaceful pilgrimage, The First Pilgrimage. SO THE MUSLIMS DONT HAVE TO FIGHT!

 

-side note, "what was in their hearts" could it be that Allah(saws) knew that they were heavy hearted/uneasy, and as such rewarded them with a tranquility/made them calm by giving them the above mentioned speedy victory.

 

 

(salam)

 

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Thanks for the comment anyways. 

 

 

 

 

Regardless, I just dont see how you can interpret the above 2 verses to mean that Allah (saws) promised those who pledged under the tree paradise or even that under any circumstance in no way shape or form they can possibly have the intentional to be hypocrites and therefore become apostates...

Allah became pleased with them, confirmed what was in their hearts, sent tranquility upon them and granted a great victory. I don't know what else can be better that. 

because he realized that the damage they will do if left unaided would be immense.  So, he, at the very least, admonished a lot of that.  Imam Ali (as) or even an imam for that does not put his pride ahead of his religion.  

 

(salam)

So the religion was saved?

Salaam alaykuum brother advocate, as far as I know imam Ali (asws) was not their advsor but they would turn to him for help and he would advise them 

 

(wasalam)

He was adivsor thats why they would ask his opinions as well. Not only that but Ali (ra) was also a judge and infact even judged Umar (ra) in his caliphate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was adivsor thats why they would ask his opinions as well. Not only that but Ali (ra) was also a judge and infact even judged Umar (ra) in his caliphate.

Salaam alaykuum brother, I knew I was going to get a reply like this and that's why I mentioned the Imam Hasan Al Askari (as). Throughout history you'll find many instances where aimmah (as) advised the caliphs of their time and the caliphs were generally extremely hostile towards them and they certainly weren't friends nor were imams (as) their advisers. It was because the knowledge of the ahlulbayt (as) were known for their knowledge. Even umar, as one of the above brothers showed was known for saying that he would've been doomed were it not for Imam Ali (as). Anyway this is irrelevant to the OP, if you wish to continue discussing this why not make a new thread? I'm sure one of the more knowledgeable brothers here wouldn't mind answering :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam alaykuum brother advocate, as far as I know imam Ali (asws) was not their advsor but they would turn to him for help and he would advise them however, Imam Hasan Al-Askari (asws) also used to advise the abbasids who had placed him under house arrest and it is well-known fact that he did not maintain close relations with them.

Also in one of his lectures, Sayed Ammar Nakshawani relates a story of how two women came to Prophet Sulayman (as) fighting over a baby and who the child real mother was and the Prophet (as) said to cut the baby in half. One of the ladies replied that the baby was not actually hers yet, Prophet Sulayman (as) have her custody of the baby saying that a true mother would not want her baby to get hurt. Sayed Ammar then goes on to say that Imam Ali's (asws) position where he would advise abu bakr and umar was like that of the mother mentioned. The same way she went to a drastic measure to protect her baby, He (asws) did too so as to protect the ummah

Salam brother twelver,

Hope u r doing good ,

As far as I know IMAM ALI AS was the chief judge(qazi) during the second caliphate....

because he realized that the damage they will do if left unaided would be immense. So, he, at the very least, admonished a lot of that. Imam Ali (as) or even an imam for that does not put his pride ahead of his religion.

Take for example: (This covers 2 incidences, there are many, I leave it up to you to do your honest research)

1st narration:

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad; Imamu'l-Haram Ahmad Ibn Abdullah Shafi'i in Dhakha'iru'l-Mawadda, chapter II, p.75, from Hasan Basri; Ibn Hajar in Fathu'l-Bari, vol.XII, P.101; Abu Dawud in Sunan, vol. II, p.227; Munadi in Faizu'l-Qadir, vol. IV, p. 257; Hakim Nishapuri in Mustadrak, vol.II, p.59;

Qastalani in Irshadu's-Sari, vol.X, p. 9; Baihaqi in Sunan, vol.VIII, p. 164; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nazara, v.II, p.196; Khatib Khawarizmi in his Munaqab, p.48; Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul; Imamu'l-Haram in Dhakha'iru'l-'Uqba, p.80; Ibn Maja in his Sunan, v.II, p.227; Bukhari in his Sahih, chapter la yarjumu'l-majnun wa'l-majnuna and most of your other ulama’ have reported the following incident:

One day an insane woman was brought before Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Khattab. She had committed fornication and admitted her fault. ‘Umar ordered her to be stoned. Amiru'l-Mu'minin was there. He said to ‘Umar: "What are you doing?

I have heard the Holy Prophet saying that three kinds of people are free from the hold of law: a sleeping man until he wakes; a lunatic until he recovers himself and regains consciousness; and the child until he comes of age." Hearing this, ‘Umar acquitted the woman.

Ibnu's-Saman in his Kitabu'l-Muwafiqa has recorded many such cases. There are some accounts which record about 100 erroneous and fallacious findings of ‘Umar.

2nd narration.

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib Fi Manaqib al-Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib; Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad; Bukhari in his Sahih; Hamidi in Jam' al-Bainu's-Sahihain; Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter IV, p.75, from Khawarizmi's Manaqib; Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in Arba'in, p.466; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nazara, vol.II, p.196; Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib, p.48; Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul, p.113; and Imamu'l-Haram in Dhakha'iru'l-Uqba, p.80, quote the following report.

A pregnant woman was brought before ‘Umar Ibn Khattab. On being questioned, she admitted that she was guilty of illicit sexual intercourse, and so the Caliph ordered her to be stoned. Then ‘Ali said: "Your order is applicable to this woman, but you have no authority over her child."

‘Umar acquitted the woman and said: "Women are incapable of giving birth to a man like ‘Ali: If ‘Ali had not been there, ‘Umar would have been ruined." He continued, saying: "May Allah not let me live so long as to face a difficult problem which ‘Ali is not present to solve."

Brother Advocate123, as you can see there is a certain level of incompetence when it comes to these first 3 caliphs, with all due respect. Had Ali not been there for these woman, 80%+ of islam today may find it part of islamic law to stone the insane who are involved in illicit behavior and the women of zina (bearing a child). Imagine if the media today portrayed these acts? While others countries (non-muslim) use billions of dollars worth of research to help the insane, in muslim countries, we kill em if they act on their mental deficiency wrongly...Indeed Islam would have died out many years ago. Only Allah (saws) knows.

To Further cement my argument I refer to the following verses:

"Is he then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" (10:35)

"Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike?" (39:9)

Salam brother kb square,

Long story short,

I agree with the fact that MOLA E KAINAT IMAM ALI IBN E ABI TALIB was matchless....

Agreed with ur thought Bruv

Tc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

1) Did I ever I say I disagree?

2) Yes there were no hypocrites (as confirmed by Allah) among the 1400 people who pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw). 

 

 

1) Didn't you? You didn't want us to look at anything but the Quran. And now you yourself have to refer to them to prove something.

2) You are wrong. Hypocrites have always been in the company of the Prophet (pbuh). Even during the oath, they were present which is why Allah talks of people who would break the allegiance.
 

 

I am sure the narration is likely to be unauthentic. The reason it has got nothing to do with Hudaibiya because the verse was specific to the treaty of Hudaibiya and Allah already confirmed that they fulfilled their Hudaibiyah oaths, confirmed the faith in their hearts and showed his satisfication with them.

 

I am not surprised at all brother. The first thing you people do when confronted with something which breaks your imaginary bubble about the caliphs is to say that the narration would be unauthentic. Read tafsir by Ibne kathir who has also mentioned about the people who ran away being called by Abbas (ra) reminding them of the pledge they made. 

 
You are wrong again. The verse is not to be taken in isolation as Allah talks about them breaking the pledge in future which clearly proves that it was also for the time to come & not just Hudaibiyah as you have wrongly assumed.
 

Indeed that is the biggest proof. If they had broken their Hudaibiyah oaths, Allah would have mentioned it. But since they fulfilled their Hudaibiyah oaths, Allah declared his satisfication with them and confirmed their loyalty by revealing the 48:18, which came after the verse 48:10. 

 
No, please stop jumping to conclusions. Verse 48:10 doesn't say that everyone who swore allegiance is a believer. And, 48:18 talks of sending tranquility ONLY on Believers. You are mixing the two. Of the people who swore allegiance, Allah is indicating that people will break the allegiance. So your assumption is incorrect again.
 

 

No, if they became disbelievers then would Allah called them disbeliever instead of forgiving them as mentioned in the Quran.
(Keep in mind that Abubakr and Umar were of those who stood by the Prophet (saw) in the battle of Hunain). 
 
I did not name anyone but since you are out here to defend them I would like to remind you that only a handful of people remained with the prophet (pbuh) and the narrations do not contain the name of the two you have mentioned. The hadith in your sahih book indicates that Umar told people running that it was the will of Allah. Please stop making up stories if you cannot back them.
 

 

Of course Allah never sends tranquility upon hypocrites/disbelievers. You are not seeing the difference brother. Allah clearly says that He knew what was in their hearts so He sent tranquility upon them, confirming that they were not hypocrites and what they were outwardly were also inwardly. 

 

Again, prove it first that everyone who swore the allegiance was called a believer by Allah. If you cannot then you will have to agree that you are only making this up to defend some souls who did not care about the oath they had taken. You are trying unsuccessfully to alter the meaning of the verses of the Holy Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Didn't you? You didn't want us to look at anything but the Quran. And now you yourself have to refer to them to prove something.

2) You are wrong. Hypocrites have always been in the company of the Prophet (pbuh). Even during the oath, they were present which is why Allah talks of people who would break the allegiance.
 
 

(salam)

 

1) No I didn't.  

2) Yes hypocrites have been in the company of the Prophet (saw) but there were not a single hypocrite among the 1400 people who pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) as confirmed by Allah. 

 

Just because Allah warns them about breaking the oath doesn't mean there are hypocrites. Allah even warned the Prophet (saw) not to make Halal Haram. Allah warns the believers all over the Quran.

 

I am not surprised at all brother. The first thing you people do when confronted with something which breaks your imaginary bubble about the caliphs is to say that the narration would be unauthentic. Read tafsir by Ibne kathir who has also mentioned about the people who ran away being called by Abbas  (ra) reminding them of the pledge they made. 

 

That is not our way brother. We are not of those people who accept fabricated reports if it suits our beliefs and reject authentic narrations if doesn't suit our desires and beliefs. 

 

 
 
You are wrong again. The verse is not to be taken in isolation as Allah talks about them breaking the pledge in future which clearly proves that it was also for the time to come & not just Hudaibiyah as you have wrongly assumed.
 

 

The verse is clear as daylight. The verse 10 talks about the pledge and verse 18 confirms that those who pledged allegiance have fulfilled their oaths of Hudaibiyah. It was specific to Hudaibiyah. If you read the biography of the Prophet (saw) you will see that there were many other pledges given to the Prophet (saw) like the pledge of Aqaba etc.

 

No, please stop jumping to conclusions. Verse 48:10 doesn't say that everyone who swore allegiance is a believer. And, 48:18 talks of sending tranquility ONLY on Believers. You are mixing the two. Of the people who swore allegiance, Allah is indicating that people will break the allegiance. So your assumption is incorrect again.

Verse 10 warns that those who break the pledge only harm themselves, and those who fulfil Allah will reward them. 

 

Verse 48:18 confirms that those who pledged have fulfilled their oaths and Allah knew what was in their hearts (confirms there were not hypocrites) so he tranquility upon them and become pleased with them. If it there were hypocrites, Allah would have mentioned it. Very simple!

 

 

 
I did not name anyone but since you are out here to defend them I would like to remind you that only a handful of people remained with the prophet  (pbuh) and the narrations do not contain the name of the two you have mentioned. The hadith in your sahih book indicates that Umar told people running that it was the will of Allah. Please stop making up stories if you cannot back them.

 

That authentic narrations that I know contain the name of the two (may Allah be pleased with them). They stood by the Prophet (saw) in the battle of Hunain. 

 

The narration you are talking about doesn't prove that Umar was running away. A companion approached Umar and asked him what is wrong with the people(fleeing)? He replied it is the will of Allah. It doesn't prove that he was of those running. 

 

but still Allah forgave those who run away but some people make Takfir of them. Even if Allah had not forgiven them then then since when running away makes one a disbeliever? 

 

 
 

Again, prove it first that everyone who swore the allegiance was called a believer by Allah. If you cannot then you will have to agree that you are only making this up to defend some souls who did not care about the oath they had taken. You are trying unsuccessfully to alter the meaning of the verses of the Holy Quran.

 

 

The prove is the verse. Allah confirms that those who pledged were believers, He knew what was in their hearts, became pleased with them, sent tranquility upon them and granted them a great reward. If there were hypocrites/disbelievers Allah would have mentioned it. 

 

Brother for you it doesn't matter how Allah become pleased with them and praised them, these are irrelevant for you because they all turned on their heels after the death of the Prophet (saw). 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam brother twelver,

Hope u r doing good ,

As far as I know IMAM ALI AS was the chief judge(qazi) during the second caliphate....

Salam brother kb square,

Long story short,

I agree with the fact that MOLA E KAINAT IMAM ALI IBN E ABI TALIB was matchless....

Agreed with ur thought Bruv

Tc

 

I agree too, Imam Ali (as) was matchless, as in out of the 4 caliphs, I dont need a Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), or a Uthman (ra), since Imam Ali (as) is matchless out of these individuals and the previous 3 cannot be matched up with him.  He served as a judge and a guide for the 3 caliphs and as such I brang up this verse: (which you whisked away rather quickly)

 

"Is he then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" (10:35)

 

In addition; lets not forget

 

Imam Ali (as) - Nobody knows Allah except I and Ali.  Nobody knows me except Allah and Ali.  No body knows Ali except Allah and I.  - Prophet Muhammad (sawa)

 

                      -"Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." - Imam Ali (as)

 

 

Abu Bakr (ra) - "O Muslims, I am only another member of the same community as you are. I will follow the spiritual laws as laid down; and I can't introduce anything new into it. If I follow correctly the spiritual laws then you must obey me; but if I go astray from that path, then you must put me right." - Abu Bakr (ra)

 

Now you can go sprouting who named who what or who is linked to who in family for a whole lifetime, it does not change the fact that as you said and I believe to be true is that Imam Ali (as) is "matchless" rendering the other 3 caliphs as rulers, obsolete (with all due respect).

Edited by kbsquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

        -"Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." - Imam Ali  (as)

 

(salam)

 

"By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it."

 

Say, [O Muhammad], "I do not tell you that I have the depositories [containing the provision] of Allah or that I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me." Say, "Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Then will you not give thought?" (Surah An'am 50)

 

 

Say, "I hold not for myself [the power of] benefit or harm, except what Allah has willed. And if I knew the unseen, I could have acquired much wealth, and no harm would have touched me. I am not except a warner and a bringer of good tidings to a people who believe." (Surah A'raf verse 188)

 

And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record. (Surah An'am verse 59)

 

 

Abu Bakr  (ra) - "O Muslims, I am only another member of the same community as you are. I will follow the spiritual laws as laid down; and I can't introduce anything new into it. If I follow correctly the spiritual laws then you must obey me; but if I go astray from that path, then you must put me right." - Abu Bakr  (ra)

 

Now you can go sprouting who named who what or who is linked to who in family for a whole lifetime, it does not change the fact that as you said and I believe to be true is that Imam Ali  (as) is "matchless" rendering the other 3 caliphs as rulers, obsolete (with all due respect).

 

 

Ali (ra) in Nahjul Balagha

 

Sermon 216:

 

“Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Don’t stop saying the Truth, or Just Advice, As I am not above making Mistakes, and I am not safe from making Mistakes in my Actions”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was IMAM ALI AS advisor to hypocrites

Salaam brother. Being given the job/role as an advisor is one thing but running to someone and asking for advice and help is another. Thinking and working towards collective is worthy and fruitful, rather than individual interest, to settle personal scores and self gain. Hazrath Ali (as) had the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims at heart and mind. He was a very far sighted person and new the current situation and recognised that, Islam was infant and in its early stages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(salam)

 

1) No I didn't.  

2) Yes hypocrites have been in the company of the Prophet (saw) but there were not a single hypocrite among the 1400 people who pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) as confirmed by Allah. 

 

Just because Allah warns them about breaking the oath doesn't mean there are hypocrites. Allah even warned the Prophet (saw) not to make Halal Haram. Allah warns the believers all over the Quran.

 

1) Read post 22 of this thread. You said "I am just suggesting to follow the Quran. You prefer history books over Quran?"

 

2) You are wrong again. You agree that Allah has put a condition for those who pledged that day?

 

 

 

That is not our way brother. We are not of those people who accept fabricated reports if it suits our beliefs and reject authentic narrations if doesn't suit our desires and beliefs. 

 

 
I hope it is not but unfortunately the first thing you said was the often heard cliché.
 
The verse is clear as daylight. The verse 10 talks about the pledge and verse 18 confirms that those who pledged allegiance have fulfilled their oaths of Hudaibiyah. It was specific to Hudaibiyah. If you read the biography of the Prophet (saw) you will see that there were many other pledges given to the Prophet (saw) like the pledge of Aqaba etc.
 
 
Verse 10 warns that those who break the pledge only harm themselves, and those who fulfil Allah will reward them. 
 
Verse 48:18 confirms that those who pledged have fulfilled their oaths and Allah knew what was in their hearts (confirms there were not hypocrites) so he tranquility upon them and become pleased with them. If it there were hypocrites, Allah would have mentioned it. Very simple!
 

 

 
Brother, Alhumdulillah the verse is clear as daylight but you still are trying to manipulate it. Where does Allah say that everyone who took the pledge was a believer? Verse 18 only tells that Allah sent down tranquility on Believers. How did you assume that everyone who took the pledge was a believer? You are very conveniently mixing the two verses to prove your point. Please read verse 48:18 again:
 
[Yusufali 48:18] Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory
 
Did Allah say that He sent down tranquility on everyone who swore under the tree? If He didn't, how can you assume he meant that? The above verse is clear in showing us that only believers had satisfied Allah and not what you have assumed that everyone who swore was a believer & received Allah's tranquility. 
 
That authentic narrations that I know contain the name of the two (may Allah be pleased with them). They stood by the Prophet (saw) in the battle of Hunain. 
 
The narration you are talking about doesn't prove that Umar was running away. A companion approached Umar and asked him what is wrong with the people(fleeing)? He replied it is the will of Allah. It doesn't prove that he was of those running. 
 
but still Allah forgave those who run away but some people make Takfir of them. Even if Allah had not forgiven them then then since when running away makes one a disbeliever? 
 
 
I know the narrations you are talking about but the ones in the most authentic book after Quran for you guys shows us that Umar was met by a person running away from the battlefield. It's hard & funny to understand how a person running away could meet a person who allegedly was with the Prophet yet he encourages him to continue running and blames Allah for this commotion. If he was with the Prophet (pbuh) why did he tell people to continue running? Doesn't it nullify your assumption?
 
The narrations which I have read only mention 8 names and they are:
 
1. Ali ibn Abi Talib
2. Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib
3. Fadhl ibn Abbas
4. Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith ibn Abdul Muttalib
5. Rabi'a, the brother of Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith
6. Abdullah ibn Masood
7. Usama ibn Zayd ibn Haritha
8. Ayman ibn Obaid
 
I cannot understand how you so easily dismiss the flight of the people from the battlefield leaving Allah's messenger alone in the midst of the enemies. If they really were believers I doubt if one would do such a thing. Without getting personal, can I ask you if you had the honour of being with the Prophet (pbuh) in a battle, would you leave the Prophet (pbuh) alone and run for your life or stay back and defend him & Allah's religion?
 
 

The prove is the verse. Allah confirms that those who pledged were believers, He knew what was in their hearts, became pleased with them, sent tranquility upon them and granted them a great reward. If there were hypocrites/disbelievers Allah would have mentioned it. 

 
As stated above, verse 48:18 doesn't say that everyone who swore under the tree was a believer. Please read the verse carefully and see that only Believers who swore under the tree were the recipients of the tranquility. 
 
Brother for you it doesn't matter how Allah become pleased with them and praised them, these are irrelevant for you because they all turned on their heels after the death of the Prophet (saw). 
 
Brother please don't jump the gun. I am still waiting for you to prove from Quran that they were Believers first. You are talking about turning on their heels where as we haven't even seen a single proof for the bold statements you made on page 1 of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ali (ra) in Nahjul Balagha

 

Sermon 216:

 

“Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Don’t stop saying the Truth, or Just Advice, As I am not above making Mistakes, and I am not safe from making Mistakes in my Actions”.

 

 

I can't believe you pulled the ol'ahlul sunnah trick.  The one where you pull a segment of a narration that suits your argument and completely avoid the rest.  This is a testament to the extreme lengths you will go to prove a point, hence even your understanding of the above verses pertaining to hudibayiah are erroneous.

 

Imam Ali (AS) in Nahjul Balagha; sermon 216:

 

 فَلاَ تَكُفُّوا عَنْ مَقَالةٍ بِحَقٍّ، أَوْ مَشُورَةٍ بِعَدْلٍ، فَإِنِّي لَسْتُ فِي نَفْسِي بِفَوْقِ أَنْ أُخْطِىءَ، وَلاَ آمَنُ ذلِكَ مِنْ فِعْلِي، إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكْفِيَ اللهُ مِنْ نَفْسِي مَا هُوَ أَمْلَكُ بِهِ مِنِّي فَإنَّمَا أَنَا وَأَنْتُمْ عَبِيدٌ مَمْلُوكُونَ لِرَبٍّ لاَ رَبَّ غَيْرُهُ، يَمْلِكُ مِنَّا مَا لاَ نَمْلِكُ مِنْ أَنْفُسِنَا، وَأَخْرَجَنَا مِمَّا كُنَّا فِيهِ إِلَى مَا صَلَحْنَا عَلَيْهِ، فَأَبْدَلَنَا بَعْدَ الضَّلاَلَةِ بِالْهُدَى، وَأَعْطَانَا الْبصِيرَةَ بَعْدَ الْعَمَى.

 

Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Therefore, do not abstain from saying a truth or pointing out a matter of justice because I do not regard myself above erring 1.

I do not escape erring in my actions but that Allah helps me (in avoiding errors) in matters in which He is more powerful than I. Certainly, I and you are slaves owned by Allah, other than Whom there is no Lord except Him. He owns our selves which we do not own. He took us from where we were towards what means prosperity to us. He altered our straying into guidance and gave us intelligence after blindness.

 

Imam Ali (AS) is saying he is capable of error but it is by Allah (saws) that he does not commit error.  

Sunni Understanding of infalliability: "Cant" commit sin/mistake/error

Shia Understanding of Infalliability (also supported by all frames of logic and reasong):  "Won't" commit sin/mistake/error.

Understand the difference between the two interpretations.  Thank you, Jazak Allah al khair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree too, Imam Ali (as) was matchless, as in out of the 4 caliphs, I dont need a Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), or a Uthman (ra), since Imam Ali (as) is matchless out of these individuals and the previous 3 cannot be matched up with him. He served as a judge and a guide for the 3 caliphs and as such I brang up this verse: (which you whisked away rather quickly)

"Is he then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" (10:35)

In addition; lets not forget

Imam Ali (as) - Nobody knows Allah except I and Ali. Nobody knows me except Allah and Ali. No body knows Ali except Allah and I. - Prophet Muhammad Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå

-"Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." - Imam Ali (as)

Abu Bakr (ra) - "O Muslims, I am only another member of the same community as you are. I will follow the spiritual laws as laid down; and I can't introduce anything new into it. If I follow correctly the spiritual laws then you must obey me; but if I go astray from that path, then you must put me right." - Abu Bakr (ra)

Now you can go sprouting who named who what or who is linked to who in family for a whole lifetime, it does not change the fact that as you said and I believe to be true is that Imam Ali (as) is "matchless" rendering the other 3 caliphs as rulers, obsolete (with all due respect).

Brother kb square,

The words of the first caliph if u read them with a different pair of glasses clearly shows his humbleness, meekness, simplicity, discipline and cleanliness of heart. The way u have mentioned a narration in favour of MOLA ALI AS, I have heard of it as well and that is kool. There r also narrations which tell the merit of the first caliph but irrespective of that I have already agreed with ur stance in the above post and I will not run, I have already agreed with u Bruv.... No one has the big heart here from either side to accept other party's view but I have liked ur stance and I again reiterate that ur stance in above post was accepted.

Now brother kb square, I would request u not to give meaning to my words.... The things I told u in private message please don't bring them here, it's a request.... And now u r whisking away those relations and familial links..... That is sad as I accepted a thing u told but u r whisking away the harsh reality.... Kindly reply this part in the private message if u feel like ...... also brother kb square the relationships and familial links were discussed by me for some other reason bro ..... I don't know why u brought them up here.... But anyways u take care and have a nice day....

Salaam brother. Being given the job/role as an advisor is one thing but running to someone and asking for advice and help is another. Thinking and working towards collective is worthy and fruitful, rather than individual interest, to settle personal scores and self gain. Hazrath Ali (as) had the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims at heart and mind. He was a very far sighted person and new the current situation and recognised that, Islam was infant and in its early stages.

Agreed brother AMEEN

Thanks

Good answer Bruv

Ali (ra) in Nahjul Balagha

Sermon 216:

“Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Don’t stop saying the Truth, or Just Advice, As I am not above making Mistakes, and I am not safe from making Mistakes in my Actions”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ali (ra) in Nahjul Balagha

Sermon 216:

“Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Don’t stop saying the Truth, or Just Advice, As I am not above making Mistakes, and I am not safe from making Mistakes in my Actions”.

Salaam Alaykuum brither, alhamdullilah I am great, yourself :).

Anyway I went to search for the reference you sent online and found this explanation. Hope it helps :)

That the innocence of angels is different from the innocence of man needs no detailed discussion. The innocence of angels means that they do not possess the impulse to sin, but the innocence of man means that, although he has human frailties and passions, yet he possesses a peculiar power to resist them and he is not over-powered by them so as to commit sins. This very ability is called innocence and it prevents the rising up of personal passions and impulses. Amir al-mu'minin's saying that "I do not regard myself above erring" refers to those human dictates and passions, and his saying that "Allah helps me in avoiding 'errors'" refers to innocence. The same tone is found in the Qur'an in the words of Prophet Yusuf that:I exculpate not myself, verily (one's) self is wont to bid (him to) evil, except such as my Lord hath had mercy on; verily my Lord is Oft- forgiving, All-merciful. (12:53)Just as in this verse, because of the existence of exception, its firstpart cannot be used to argue against his innocence, similarly, due to the existence of the exception "but that Allah helps me in avoiding errors" in Amir al-mu'minin's saying, its first part cannot be used to argue against his innocence, otherwise the Prophet's innocence too will have to be rejected. In the same way, the last sentence of this sermon should not be taken to mean that before the proclamation of prophethood he had been under the influence of pre-Islamic beliefs, and that just as others had been unbelievers he too might have been in darkness and misguidance, because from his very birth Amir al-mu'minin was brought-up by the Prophet and the effect of his training and up-bringing permeated him. It cannot therefore be imagined that he who had from infancy trod in the foot-prints of the Prophet would deviate from guidance even for a moment. Thus, al-Mas`udi has written:Amir al-mu'minin never believed in any other god than Allah so that there could be the question of his accepting Islam. He rather followed the Prophet in all his actions and (virtually) initiated him, and in this very state he attained majority. (Muruj adh-dhahab, vol. 2, p. 3).Here, by those whom Allah led from darkness into guidance, the reference is to the persons whom Amir al-muíminin was addressing. Ibn Abiíl-Hadid writes in this connection:The reference here is not to his own self because he had never been an unbeliever so as to have accepted Islam after that, but in these words he is referring to those group of people whom he was addressing. (Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 11, p. 108)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother kb square,

The words of the first caliph if u read them with a different pair of glasses clearly shows his humbleness, meekness, simplicity, discipline and cleanliness of heart. The way u have mentioned a narration in favour of MOLA ALI AS, I have heard of it as well and that is kool. There r also narrations which tell the merit of the first caliph but irrespective of that I have already agreed with ur stance in the above post and I will not run, I have already agreed with u Bruv.... No one has the big heart here from either side to accept other party's view but I have liked ur stance and I again reiterate that ur stance in above post was accepted.

Now brother kb square, I would request u not to give meaning to my words.... The things I told u in private message please don't bring them here, it's a request.... And now u r whisking away those relations and familial links..... That is sad as I accepted a thing u told but u r whisking away the harsh reality.... Kindly reply this part in the private message if u feel like ...... also brother kb square the relationships and familial links were discussed by me for some other reason bro ..... I don't know why u brought them up here.... But anyways u take care and have a nice day....

Agreed brother AMEEN

Thanks

Good answer Bruv

 

 

Hello, Brother advocate123, I remind you that I always enjoy reading your posts.  The only reason I bought up the familal links/names is not because you brought it up in a private message/conversation but that as you said it is something that you brought up with another brother. In fact, you seem to fall back on this argument often; not that it is wrong but only because you base this argument as a "catch-all" "proof-positive" for the legitimacy of the caliphate of the first 3.

 

I respect your interpretation of the narration about abu Bakr (ra), however, in additon to what you have intrepreted it also shows that abu bakr (ra) admits that he may/will(historically confirmed) to need help ("guidance") in his rulership over the ummah. In addition my aim was to do a comparison of Abu Bakr (RA) statement vs Imam Ali (AS), who was the "guide."  

 

Again, I repeat: 

"Is he then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" (10:35)

 

 

 

Ali (ra) in Nahjul Balagha

Sermon 216:

“Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Don’t stop saying the Truth, or Just Advice, As I am not above making Mistakes, and I am not safe from making Mistakes in my Actions”.

Thanks brother hussain,

Hitting the nail right in the coffin,

Appreciate that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Brother advocate123, I remind you that I always enjoy reading your posts. The only reason I bought up the familal links/names is not because you brought it up in a private message/conversation but that as you said it is something that you brought up with another brother. In fact, you seem to fall back on this argument often; not that it is wrong but only because you base this argument as a "catch-all" "proof-positive" for the legitimacy of the caliphate of the first 3.

I respect your interpretation of the narration about abu Bakr (ra), however, in additon to what you have intrepreted it also shows that abu bakr (ra) admits that he may/will(historically confirmed) to need help ("guidance") in his rulership over the ummah. In addition my aim was to do a comparison of Abu Bakr (RA) statement vs Imam Ali (AS), who was the "guide."

Again, I repeat:

"Is he then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" (10:35)

You must of missed my post below his. He completely avoided one-half of that sermon and chose the part that supports his argument and left out the one that nullifies it. Yet, here you say "Hitting the nail right in the coffin" please brother, advocate123, by saying this you are approving of his ill behavior of misquoting/half-quoting of narrations, which if done purposely, is unforgivable, as this is a form of censorship and dishonesty. Thank you brother, Jazak Allah Al khair.

Kool bro.....

Yes I spoke to a brother but my discussion with u is private and I m absolutely not considering these familial links to legitimise the first three caliphs.

As I said I will not run away....

Ill discuss that with u later..... INSHALLAH

Anyways

I m sad to tell that ALLAMA NASIR ABBAS has been shot dead last night(Shia scholar)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1) Read post 22 of this thread. You said "I am just suggesting to follow the Quran. You prefer history books over Quran?"

 

2) You are wrong again. You agree that Allah has put a condition for those who pledged that day?

 

 

 

 

(salam)

1) Yes I said but that was then you tried to give preference to history report over Quran

2) Yes Allah put condition. Just like He put condition for the Prophet (saw), for believers etc in other places of the Quran. And Allah confirms in verse 18 that they fulfilled their oaths and didn't break. 

 

 

 

 
Brother, Alhumdulillah the verse is clear as daylight but you still are trying to manipulate it. Where does Allah say that everyone who took the pledge was a believer? Verse 18 only tells that Allah sent down tranquility on Believers. How did you assume that everyone who took the pledge was a believer? You are very conveniently mixing the two verses to prove your point. Please read verse 48:18 again:
 
[Yusufali 48:18] Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory
 
Did Allah say that He sent down tranquility on everyone who swore under the tree? If He didn't, how can you assume he meant that? The above verse is clear in showing us that only believers had satisfied Allah and not what you have assumed that everyone who swore was a believer & received Allah's tranquility. 

 

 

Of Course Allah never becomes pleased with the hypocrites and disbelievers. You have strange understanding of the Quran.

 

The verse below clearly proves that those who pledged under the tree were believers and He knew what was in their hearts:

 

[Yusufali 48:18] Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory

 

If there were hypocrites Allah would have said it. Just like He talks about hypocrites in other verses. However, there was not a single hypocrite among them because Allah clearly says He knew what was in their hearts meaning they pledged with pure heart and didn't break it thus Allah become pleased with them,, sent Tranquility upon them, and rewarded them. 

 

The verse is clear as day light. The verse proves everyone of them were believers and none of them broke their Hudaibiyah oaths.

 

Did Allah say there were hypocrites and disbelievers among the 1400 who pledged under the tree? If yes then provide evidence. 

 

 

I know the narrations you are talking about but the ones in the most authentic book after Quran for you guys shows us that Umar was met by a person running away from the battlefield. It's hard & funny to understand how a person running away could meet a person who allegedly was with the Prophet yet he encourages him to continue running and blames Allah for this commotion. If he was with the Prophet  (pbuh) why did he tell people to continue running? Doesn't it nullify your assumption?
 
The narrations which I have read only mention 8 names and they are:
 
1. Ali ibn Abi Talib
2. Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib
3. Fadhl ibn Abbas
4. Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith ibn Abdul Muttalib
5. Rabi'a, the brother of Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith
6. Abdullah ibn Masood
7. Usama ibn Zayd ibn Haritha
8. Ayman ibn Obaid
 

 

 

 

The narration in Bukhari doesn't even say that Abu Qatada was also running. He says that Muslims retreated and He went to Umar and asked him what is happening with the people (fleeing). 

 

I am sorry to say but you haven't been shown all narrations, do you think your websites/scholars will show you any good thing about those companions?. 

 

Let me quote Authentic narration that of those who stood by the Prophet (saw) was Umar:

 

Sahih narration from “Musnad Ahmad” volume 23 page 274 Hadith #14731:
 
حديث مرفوع حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ , حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي , عَنِابْنِ إِسْحَاقَ , عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ عُمَرَ بْنِ قَتَادَةَ , عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِبْنِ جَابِرٍ , عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ
فَانْطَلَقَ النَّاسُ إِلَّا أَنَّ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّىاللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَهْطًا مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ، وَأَهْلِ بَيْتِهِغَيْرَ كَثِيرٍ، ثَبَتَ مَعَهُ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ،وَمِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ، عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، وَالْعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ،وَابْنُهُ الْفَضْلُ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، وَأَبُو سُفْيَانَ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، وَرَبِيعَةُبْنُ الْحَارِثِ، وَأَيْمَنُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ وَهُوَ ابْنُ أُمِّ أَيْمَنَ، وَأُسَامَةُبْنُ زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: وَرَجُلٌ مِنْ هَوَازِنَ عَلَى جَمَلٍ لَهُ أَحْمَرَ فِي يَدِهِرَايَةٌ لَهُ سَوْدَاءُ فِي رَأْسِ رُمْحٍ طَوِيلٍ لَهُ أَمَامَ النَّاسِ، وَهَوَازِنُخَلْفَهُ
 
Ya’qoub narrated from his Father from Ibn Ishaq from ‘Assim ibn ‘Umar bin Qatada from ‘Abdul-Rahman ibn Jabir from Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah: The people retreated but the Prophet SAWS was accompanied by a group from the Mouhajirun and the Ansar and his Ahlul-Bayt, Those who held their ground and stayed with him were Abu Bakr an ‘Umar and from his Ahlul-Bayt ‘Ali ibn abi Talib and al-’Abbas bin ‘Abdul-Mutallib and his son al-Fadl and Abu Suffiyan bin al-Harith and Raba’iyah bin al-Harith and Ayman bin ‘Ubeid and he is ibn Umm-Ayman and Usamah ibn Zaid, he said: and a Man from Hawzan (until the end of the narration).
 
This is the narration from Sahih Bukhari that shows Umar recieved female captives in the battle of Hunain:
 
Narrated Nafi: ‘Umar binAl-Khattab said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I vowed to observe Itikaf for one day during the Pre-lslamic period.” The Prophet ordered him to fulfill his vow. ‘Umar gained two lady captives from the war prisoners of hunain and he left them in some of the houses at Mecca. When Allah’s Apostle freed the captives of hunain without ransom, they came out-walking in the streets. ‘Umar said (to his son), “O Abdullah! See what is the matter.” ‘Abdullah replied, “Allah’s Apostle has freed the captives without ransom.” He said (to him), “Go and set free those two slave girls.” [sahih al-Bukhari Book 53 Hadith 372]

 

But does it really matter to you? No. Because they turned on their heels after the death of the Prophet (saw) according to you. 

 

 

 

 

I cannot understand how you so easily dismiss the flight of the people from the battlefield leaving Allah's messenger alone in the midst of the enemies. If they really were believers I doubt if one would do such a thing. Without getting personal, can I ask you if you had the honour of being with the Prophet  (pbuh) in a battle, would you leave the Prophet  (pbuh) alone and run for your life or stay back and defend him & Allah's religion?

 

 

I am not dismissing anything. No doubt what they did was bad but I don't make takfir of them just for running from battle and especially when Allah forgave them. I follow what Allah says in his book. Allah says He forgave them but you are like 'how can they be believers and be forgiven if they run away'. You are challenging Allah. 

 

The reason they fled (they later returned back to battlefield), after being ambushed by the disbelievers with arrows and spears, was because they were proud with their big number so Allah showed them a lesson that victory doesn't come from number but from faith. 

 

 
As stated above, verse 48:18 doesn't say that everyone who swore under the tree was a believer. Please read the verse carefully and see that only Believers who swore under the tree were the recipients of the tranquility. 

 

I agree only believers pledged under the tree. There were not a single hypocrite or disbeliever among them. 

 

Verse 18 says that those who pledged were believers and Allah knew what was in their hearts  (meaning there were no hypocrites) so He sent tranquility upon them and rewarded them. 

I can't believe you pulled the ol'ahlul sunnah trick.  The one where you pull a segment of a narration that suits your argument and completely avoid the rest.  This is a testament to the extreme lengths you will go to prove a point, hence even your understanding of the above verses pertaining to hudibayiah are erroneous.

 

Imam Ali (as) in Nahjul Balagha; sermon 216:

 

 فَلاَ تَكُفُّوا عَنْ مَقَالةٍ بِحَقٍّ، أَوْ مَشُورَةٍ بِعَدْلٍ، فَإِنِّي لَسْتُ فِي نَفْسِي بِفَوْقِ أَنْ أُخْطِىءَ، وَلاَ آمَنُ ذلِكَ مِنْ فِعْلِي، إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكْفِيَ اللهُ مِنْ نَفْسِي مَا هُوَ أَمْلَكُ بِهِ مِنِّي فَإنَّمَا أَنَا وَأَنْتُمْ عَبِيدٌ مَمْلُوكُونَ لِرَبٍّ لاَ رَبَّ غَيْرُهُ، يَمْلِكُ مِنَّا مَا لاَ نَمْلِكُ مِنْ أَنْفُسِنَا، وَأَخْرَجَنَا مِمَّا كُنَّا فِيهِ إِلَى مَا صَلَحْنَا عَلَيْهِ، فَأَبْدَلَنَا بَعْدَ الضَّلاَلَةِ بِالْهُدَى، وَأَعْطَانَا الْبصِيرَةَ بَعْدَ الْعَمَى.

 

Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Therefore, do not abstain from saying a truth or pointing out a matter of justice because I do not regard myself above erring 1.

I do not escape erring in my actions but that Allah helps me (in avoiding errors) in matters in which He is more powerful than I. Certainly, I and you are slaves owned by Allah, other than Whom there is no Lord except Him. He owns our selves which we do not own. He took us from where we were towards what means prosperity to us. He altered our straying into guidance and gave us intelligence after blindness.

 

 

 

(salam)

There is nothing with wrong with the words. Ali is saying that Allah helps him in matters that he is not capable of doing. Don't we all say that Allah help us in difficult situations?

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

1) Yes I said but that was then you tried to give preference to history report over Quran

2) Yes Allah put condition. Just like He put condition for the Prophet (saw), for believers etc in other places of the Quran. And Allah confirms in verse 18 that they fulfilled their oaths and didn't break. 

 

(wasalam)

 

1) You are incorrect in your assumption. I did not prefer history reports over Quran. When Allah curses the oppressors we also can do the same. Can you show one instance where I said that we should give preference to history over Quran?

2) You are not reading the verse properly. Can you please present a verse where Allah said that everyone who swore under the tree was a believer?

 

 

 

Of Course Allah never becomes pleased with the hypocrites and disbelievers. You have strange understanding of the Quran.
 
The verse below clearly proves that those who pledged under the tree were believers and He knew what was in their hearts:
 
[Yusufali 48:18] Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory
 
If there were hypocrites Allah would have said it. Just like He talks about hypocrites in other verses. However, there was not a single hypocrite among them because Allah clearly says He knew what was in their hearts meaning they pledged with pure heart and didn't break it thus Allah become pleased with them,, sent Tranquility upon them, and rewarded them. 
 
The verse is clear as day light. The verse proves everyone of them were believers and none of them broke their Hudaibiyah oaths.
 
Did Allah say there were hypocrites and disbelievers among the 1400 who pledged under the tree? If yes then provide evidence. 

 

 
Again, you are accusing me of something when you are not completely ignoring the whole point. If Allah had mentioned that he was satisfied with everyone who swore under the tree then your point is true if He didn't say that you are fighting a lost battle. I am sorry but you are twisting the words here. Let me try elaborating my point again:
 
Verse 48:18 says Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers and NOT Allah's Good Pleasure was on everyone who swore. Can't you make out the difference? The above verse is in no way encompassing all the people who swore as believers.
 
You seem to deny the fact that hypocrites were present in the group. If everyone was a believer then why did Allah not just state what is highlighted in blue in the above line?
 
Your stand that everyone who swore was a believer is completely unacceptable. If everyone was a believer then why do we see people opposing the Prophet's (pbuh) signing of the treaty? Did they know more than the Prophet (pbuh)?
 

 

The narration in Bukhari doesn't even say that Abu Qatada was also running. He says that Muslims retreated and He went to Umar and asked him what is happening with the people (fleeing). 
 
I am sorry to say but you haven't been shown all narrations, do you think your websites/scholars will show you any good thing about those companions?. 
 
Let me quote Authentic narration that of those who stood by the Prophet (saw) was Umar:
 
Sahih narration from “Musnad Ahmad” volume 23 page 274 Hadith #14731:
 
حديث مرفوع حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ , حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي , عَنِابْنِ إِسْحَاقَ , عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ عُمَرَ بْنِ قَتَادَةَ , عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِبْنِ جَابِرٍ , عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ
فَانْطَلَقَ النَّاسُ إِلَّا أَنَّ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّىاللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَهْطًا مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ، وَأَهْلِ بَيْتِهِغَيْرَ كَثِيرٍ، ثَبَتَ مَعَهُ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ،وَمِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ، عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، وَالْعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ،وَابْنُهُ الْفَضْلُ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، وَأَبُو سُفْيَانَ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، وَرَبِيعَةُبْنُ الْحَارِثِ، وَأَيْمَنُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ وَهُوَ ابْنُ أُمِّ أَيْمَنَ، وَأُسَامَةُبْنُ زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: وَرَجُلٌ مِنْ هَوَازِنَ عَلَى جَمَلٍ لَهُ أَحْمَرَ فِي يَدِهِرَايَةٌ لَهُ سَوْدَاءُ فِي رَأْسِ رُمْحٍ طَوِيلٍ لَهُ أَمَامَ النَّاسِ، وَهَوَازِنُخَلْفَهُ
 
Ya’qoub narrated from his Father from Ibn Ishaq from ‘Assim ibn ‘Umar bin Qatada from ‘Abdul-Rahman ibn Jabir from Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah: The people retreated but the Prophet SAWS was accompanied by a group from the Mouhajirun and the Ansar and his Ahlul-Bayt, Those who held their ground and stayed with him were Abu Bakr an ‘Umar and from his Ahlul-Bayt ‘Ali ibn abi Talib and al-’Abbas bin ‘Abdul-Mutallib and his son al-Fadl and Abu Suffiyan bin al-Harith and Raba’iyah bin al-Harith and Ayman bin ‘Ubeid and he is ibn Umm-Ayman and Usamah ibn Zaid, he said: and a Man from Hawzan (until the end of the narration).
 
This is the narration from Sahih Bukhari that shows Umar recieved female captives in the battle of Hunain:
 
Narrated Nafi: ‘Umar binAl-Khattab said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I vowed to observe Itikaf for one day during the Pre-lslamic period.” The Prophet ordered him to fulfill his vow. ‘Umar gained two lady captives from the war prisoners of hunain and he left them in some of the houses at Mecca. When Allah’s Apostle freed the captives of hunain without ransom, they came out-walking in the streets. ‘Umar said (to his son), “O Abdullah! See what is the matter.” ‘Abdullah replied, “Allah’s Apostle has freed the captives without ransom.” He said (to him), “Go and set free those two slave girls.” [sahih al-Bukhari Book 53 Hadith 372]
 
But does it really matter to you? No. Because they turned on their heels after the death of the Prophet (saw) according to you. 
 
 
Come on brother. You are talking as if this was the first time they ran from the battlefield. You are constantly beating around the bush trying to prove your false assumption. You are bringing narrations from your own book but ignoring the one which proves what I am talking about.
 
The hadith in Bukhari clearly states that Abu Qutada was also fleeing. Brother, can I please request to not change the narrations to your liking. Below is one which you have voluntarily ignored:
 
Sahih Bukhair, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 611:
Narrated Abu Qatada:
When it was the day of (the battle of) Hunain, I saw a Muslim man fighting with one of the pagans and another pagan was hiding himself behind the Muslim in order to kill him. So I hurried towards the pagan who was hiding behind the Muslim to kill him, and he raised his hand to hit me but I hit his hand and cut it off. That man got hold of me and pressed me so hard that I was afraid (that I would die), then he knelt down and his grip became loose and I pushed him and killed him. The Muslims (excepting the Prophet and some of his companions) started fleeing and I too, fled with them. Suddenly I met 'Umar bin Al-Khattab amongst the people (who were fleeing) and I asked him, "What is wrong with the people?" He said, "It is the order of Allah"
 
The above narration quashes both your false claims about Abu Qutada and Umar not running.
 
You can tell all you want but the fact that the people who were running were going against Allah's order is enough of an evidence.
 
Again, please prove first that they were believers we will then talk about turning on their heels later.
 
I am not dismissing anything. No doubt what they did was bad but I don't make takfir of them just for running from battle and especially when Allah forgave them. I follow what Allah says in his book. Allah says He forgave them but you are like 'how can they be believers and be forgiven if they run away'. You are challenging Allah. 
 
The reason they fled (they later returned back to battlefield), after being ambushed by the disbelievers with arrows and spears, was because they were proud with their big number so Allah showed them a lesson that victory doesn't come from number but from faith. 
 
 
If it didn't then why did the Prophet (pbuh) and Hazrat Abbas (ra) reminded them of the oath they had sworn? Allah is all forgiving and can also forgive the non-believers but doesn't mean that they will be accepted.
 
I am nauzubillah not challenging Allah but merely breaking your imaginary bubble.
 
I agree only believers pledged under the tree. There were not a single hypocrite or disbeliever among them. 
 
Verse 18 says that those who pledged were believers and Allah knew what was in their hearts  (meaning there were no hypocrites) so He sent tranquility upon them and rewarded them. 
 

 

I have already answered this above. Hypocrites have always been part of the group be it Hudabiyah or Tabuk.

 

Verse 18 doesn't say that everyone who swore was a believer. Please bring the translation where it is mentioned that everyone who swore was a believer.

 

 

And btw, Hudaibiyah or Hunain is not our original topic. We can go on and on without deriving to a conclusion as we both differ on the believers being blessed with Allah's tranquility. Do you have any other proof to back your claim you made earlier on this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

 

1) You are incorrect in your assumption. I did not prefer history reports over Quran. When Allah curses the oppressors we also can do the same. Can you show one instance where I said that we should give preference to history over Quran?

2) You are not reading the verse properly. Can you please present a verse where Allah said that everyone who swore under the tree was a believer?

 

 

(salam)

1) Check your earlier posts. 

2) I am reading the verse properly brother. I already showed you the verse many times here. The verse 18 of Surah Fath. The onus is on you to provide evidence that there were hypocrites and disbelievers among the 1400 who pledged under the tree. 

 

 

 

 
Again, you are accusing me of something when you are not completely ignoring the whole point. If Allah had mentioned that he was satisfied with everyone who swore under the tree then your point is true if He didn't say that you are fighting a lost battle. I am sorry but you are twisting the words here. Let me try elaborating my point again:
 
Verse 48:18 says Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers and NOT Allah's Good Pleasure was on everyone who swore. Can't you make out the difference? The above verse is in no way encompassing all the people who swore as believers.
 
You seem to deny the fact that hypocrites were present in the group. If everyone was a believer then why did Allah not just state what is highlighted in blue in the above line?
 

 

When Allah says his "good pleasure was on the believers who pledged under the tree" that is enough proof that all those who pledged were believers. Look at the way Allah says it. Why Allah says He knew what was in their hearts? This is to confirm that there was a not single hypocrite among them.

 

Like I said it is your job to prove there were hypocrites and disbelievers. If there were hypocrites Allah would have mentioned it, if there were people who broke their oaths, Allah have mentioned it. Since you can't prove this, you twist the explicit verses of the Quran. 

 

 

Your stand that everyone who swore was a believer is completely unacceptable. If everyone was a believer then why do we see people opposing the Prophet's  (pbuh) signing of the treaty? Did they know more than the Prophet  (pbuh)?

 

I know what you are talking about but this has nothing to do with our discussion. The discussion is these 1400 people pledged under the tree and fulfilled their Hudaibiyah oaths as confirmed by Allah in the verse 18 of Surah al-Fath. 

 
 
 
 
Come on brother. You are talking as if this was the first time they ran from the battlefield. You are constantly beating around the bush trying to prove your false assumption. You are bringing narrations from your own book but ignoring the one which proves what I am talking about.
 
The hadith in Bukhari clearly states that Abu Qutada was also fleeing. Brother, can I please request to not change the narrations to your liking. Below is one which you have voluntarily ignored:
 
Sahih Bukhair, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 611:
Narrated Abu Qatada:
When it was the day of (the battle of) Hunain, I saw a Muslim man fighting with one of the pagans and another pagan was hiding himself behind the Muslim in order to kill him. So I hurried towards the pagan who was hiding behind the Muslim to kill him, and he raised his hand to hit me but I hit his hand and cut it off. That man got hold of me and pressed me so hard that I was afraid (that I would die), then he knelt down and his grip became loose and I pushed him and killed him. The Muslims (excepting the Prophet and some of his companions) started fleeing and I too, fled with them. Suddenly I met 'Umar bin Al-Khattab amongst the people (who were fleeing) and I asked him, "What is wrong with the people?" He said, "It is the order of Allah"
 
The above narration quashes both your false claims about Abu Qutada and Umar not running.
 
You can tell all you want but the fact that the people who were running were going against Allah's order is enough of an evidence.
 

 

Ok fair enough because I looked at the narration 610. But this narration that you copy-pasted from some deceptive website is giving false translation to the narration. The words in bracket 'Umar bin Al-Khattab amongst the people (who were fleeing) is not present in the arabic text, it is added by website that you copied it from. Without adding this bracket they could not prove their claims so they resorted to manipulating the narration. This narration does not prove anything against Umar at all.  Infact, if you read the narration in full you will notice that it further proves that Umar (ra) was of those who did not flee.  

 

And I already provided you Sahih narrations from Sahih Bukhari and Musnad Ahmad that proves Umar was among those who stayed with the Prophet (saw).

 

Just to add some information for you. The people who fled return back to the battlefield and fought the disbelievers until Allah granted them victory. They didn't just left battlefield and never came back like you think. Just to let you know :) They were ambushed, with spears and arrows, when they entered the valley , the fled but returned back to the battlefield. They retreated for a short time just to avoid the ambush but returned back. 

 

 

Again, please prove first that they were believers we will then talk about turning on their heels later.
 

I already proved using the verse 18 of Surah al-Fath. It is your job to prove that they were disbelievers. 

 

My evidence is the Quran, your evidence is your own words. 

 

 
 
If it didn't then why did the Prophet  (pbuh) and Hazrat Abbas  (ra) reminded them of the oath they had sworn? Allah is all forgiving and can also forgive the non-believers but doesn't mean that they will be accepted.
 
I am nauzubillah not challenging Allah but merely breaking your imaginary bubble.

 

That is because they were people of great status. Now the problem here is you quote the first part of the narration and avoid the rest. When Ibn Abbas (ra) called them what was their response? They replied "Here we are" twice and returned and fought the disbelievers. Should we call this fleeing the battlefield? (the same source also says that Umar was of those who stayed with the Prophet (saw), this is another evidence for you ) 

 

So retreating for a short time and returning to the battlefield makes them disbelievers according to some. So quick to make takfir of the companions. 

 

I am sorry but you have failed to break any bubbles :) Allah is calling them believers but you are rejecting this and claiming no there were also disbelievers.

 

I have already answered this above. Hypocrites have always been part of the group be it Hudabiyah or Tabuk.

 

Verse 18 doesn't say that everyone who swore was a believer. Please bring the translation where it is mentioned that everyone who swore was a believer.

 

We are not talking about Tabuk. Please don't go off-topic.

 

Verse 18 says those who pledged were believers. Please provide evidence there were disbelievers among 1400 men who pledged under the tree.

 

 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(salam)

1) Check your earlier posts. 

2) I am reading the verse properly brother. I already showed you the verse many times here. The verse 18 of Surah Fath. The onus is on you to provide evidence that there were hypocrites and disbelievers among the 1400 who pledged under the tree. 

 

 

(wasalam)

 

1) Please give me the post number instead of making false claims.

2) You are assuming again. All you did was trying to manipulate the verse to fit your thinking. But Allah doesn't tell us that everyone who swore was a believer. If you think otherwise, prove it.

 

 

 

When Allah says his "good pleasure was on the believers who pledged under the tree" that is enough proof that all those who pledged were believers. Look at the way Allah says it. Why Allah says He knew what was in their hearts? This is to confirm that there was a not single hypocrite among them.
 
Like I said it is your job to prove there were hypocrites and disbelievers. If there were hypocrites Allah would have mentioned it, if there were people who broke their oaths, Allah have mentioned it. Since you can't prove this, you twist the explicit verses of the Quran. 

 

 
You are voluntarily ignoring the difference. Allah says 'good pleasure was on the believers who pledged under the tree' and NOT 'good pleasure was on everyone who pledged under the tree'. Isn't this good enough to understand the difference? There cannot be any simpler definition than this.
 
I am sorry but you are trying to blame me when you are the one manipulating the meaning of the verse. As I mentioned earlier, bring a translation of the verse where it is mentioned that everyone who swore was a believer? Until then your interpretation of the verse is just a fallacy.
 

I know what you are talking about but this has nothing to do with our discussion. The discussion is these 1400 people pledged under the tree and fulfilled their Hudaibiyah oaths as confirmed by Allah in the verse 18 of Surah al-Fath. 

 
 
How are those people different? Did the people who swore under the tree go back to Medina and people who questioned the Prophet (pbuh) were the ones who did not undertake the oath? You are conveniently avoiding this when you know that the same people who you are calling as believers were the ones who acted against prophet's (pbuh) actions. So in short, this is pretty much related to our discussion.
 
Ok fair enough because I looked at the narration 610. But this narration that you copy-pasted from some deceptive website is giving false translation to the narration. The words in bracket 'Umar bin Al-Khattab amongst the people (who were fleeing) is not present in the arabic text, it is added by website that you copied it from. Without adding this bracket they could not prove their claims so they resorted to manipulating the narration. This narration does not prove anything against Umar at all.  Infact, if you read the narration in full you will notice that it further proves that Umar  (ra) was of those who did not flee.  
 
And I already provided you Sahih narrations from Sahih Bukhari and Musnad Ahmad that proves Umar was among those who stayed with the Prophet (saw).
 
Just to add some information for you. The people who fled return back to the battlefield and fought the disbelievers until Allah granted them victory. They didn't just left battlefield and never came back like you think. Just to let you know  :) They were ambushed, with spears and arrows, when they entered the valley , the fled but returned back to the battlefield. They retreated for a short time just to avoid the ambush but returned back. 
 

 

So you agree that your attempt at protecting the sahabas was a meak one. Anyways, here is another link from Bukhari itself:
 
 
 
You will clearly see that the narration states that 
1) Abu Qutada was fleeing
2) While fleeing he met Umar amongst those people.
3) Umar accepted that it was the order of Allah that people are fleeing.
 
Do you deny any of the above points?
 
You can bring 100 more forged narrations but let's stick to the above narration for now.
 
I never denied the fact that they did not return. The point is that they broke their oath even if it was for a short duration.
 
I already proved using the verse 18 of Surah al-Fath. It is your job to prove that they were disbelievers. 
 
My evidence is the Quran, your evidence is your own words. 
 

 

Just by merely stating that you have proved does not equate to anything. Your interpretation of the Quranic verse is definitely your own work, None of the translators have said that the verse translates to everyone. As mentioned above, if you can bring a translation of a verse which says that everyone who swore was a believer then we will talk about proving. Until then keep trying hard.
 
Are you joking? How is manipulating a Quranic verse an evidence?
 
That is because they were people of great status. Now the problem here is you quote the first part of the narration and avoid the rest. When Ibn Abbas  (ra) called them what was their response? They replied "Here we are" twice and returned and fought the disbelievers. Should we call this fleeing the battlefield? (the same source also says that Umar was of those who stayed with the Prophet (saw), this is another evidence for you ) 
 
So retreating for a short time and returning to the battlefield makes them disbelievers according to some. So quick to make takfir of the companions. 
 
I am sorry but you have failed to break any bubbles  :) Allah is calling them believers but you are rejecting this and claiming no there were also disbelievers.
 
So you agree that they were reminded about the pledge they made and that they were breaking it? This was just one instance.
 
Regarding Umar being with the Prophet, you either take this source as true or your beloved Bukhari. They both are contradicting each other.
 
When did I call everyone a disbeliever? I am only telling that not everyone was a believer who swore under the tree. Why do you always have to twist the words?
 
We are not talking about Tabuk. Please don't go off-topic.
 
Verse 18 says those who pledged were believers. Please provide evidence there were disbelievers among 1400 men who pledged under the tree.
 

 

Nobody is going off-topic. It was an analogy. 

 

I have already provided evidence from the Quran. Now it's your turn to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

 

1) Please give me the post number instead of making false claims.

2) You are assuming again. All you did was trying to manipulate the verse to fit your thinking. But Allah doesn't tell us that everyone who swore was a believer. If you think otherwise, prove it.

 

 

(salam)

1) When I quoted a verse you said what about the history reports. I said do you you prefer history over Quran.  

2) I am sorry but you are the one making assumptions. Allah says they were believers you are saying no there were also disbelievers and your evidence is just your own whims and assumptions.

 

 

 
 
You are voluntarily ignoring the difference. Allah says 'good pleasure was on the believers who pledged under the tree' and NOT 'good pleasure was on everyone who pledged under the tree'. Isn't this good enough to understand the difference? There cannot be any simpler definition than this.
 
I am sorry but you are trying to blame me when you are the one manipulating the meaning of the verse. As I mentioned earlier, bring a translation of the verse where it is mentioned that everyone who swore was a believer? Until then your interpretation of the verse is just a fallacy.
 

 

Let me remind you of the verses again. It is sad that you manipulate explicit verse of the Quran.

 

Verse 10: 

 

Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you, [O Muhammad] - they are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. The hand of Allah is over their hands. So he who breaks his word only breaks it to the detriment of himself. And he who fulfills that which he has promised Allah - He will give him a great reward.

 

Tell me please do hypocrites and disbelievers receive reward from Allah? The words of Allah proves without a doubt that those who pledged were believers, not a single hypocrite or disbeliever were amongst them. Unless you claim that you know more than Allah that hypocrites and disbelievers were there.

 

I am showing you the verses of Quran as evidence, you are making assumptions that no there were hypocrites and disbelievers without providing any evidence. 

 

 

 

 

How are those people different? Did the people who swore under the tree go back to Medina and people who questioned the Prophet  (pbuh) were the ones who did not undertake the oath? You are conveniently avoiding this when you know that the same people who you are calling as believers were the ones who acted against prophet's  (pbuh) actions. So in short, this is pretty much related to our discussion.

 

I already told you provide evidence they were disbelievers. My evidence is verse 10 and 18 of Surah al-Fath. Your evidence is nothing just your own words. The verse 10 and 18 were specific to Hudaibiyah not about future battles because Allah already confirmed the pledge and showed his satisfication with those who pledged as mentioned in verse 18. 

 

Acting against the Prophets (saw) actions.

Questioned the Prophet (saw).

 

Sure we can discuss these topics if you want. 

 

 

 
So you agree that your attempt at protecting the sahabas was a meak one. Anyways, here is another link from Bukhari itself:
 
 
 
You will clearly see that the narration states that 
1) Abu Qutada was fleeing
2) While fleeing he met Umar amongst those people.
3) Umar accepted that it was the order of Allah that people are fleeing.
 
Do you deny any of the above points?
 
 
 
2) Amongst the people how does it mean Umar was also fleeing? 3) how does it prove that he was also fleeing.
 
You can prove nothing from the narration. 
 
I already provided you Sahih narrations that clears any doubt. Umar was of those who stood by the Prophet (saw) but since it doesn't suit your desire you reject it.  
 

 

 

You can bring 100 more forged narrations but let's stick to the above narration for now.

 

So the narrations that you don't like becomes 'forged narrations'? Remember what I said earlier about people of desire. 

 

 

I never denied the fact that they did not return. The point is that they broke their oath even if it was for a short duration.

 

It has nothing to do with the Hudaibiyah oath. Those who pledged under the tree they already fulfilled their oaths as confirmed by Allah in verse 18 of al-Fath and Allah showed his satisfication with them. If the oath was about future battles then why Allah already confirmed that they fulfilled their oaths and showed his satisfication with them?

 

 

Just by merely stating that you have proved does not equate to anything. Your interpretation of the Quranic verse is definitely your own work, None of the translators have said that the verse translates to everyone. As mentioned above, if you can bring a translation of a verse which says that everyone who swore was a believer then we will talk about proving. Until then keep trying hard.
 
Are you joking? How is manipulating a Quranic verse an evidence?
 
Allah says that those who pledged under the tree were believers. 
 
Now it yours job to provide evidence that there were hypocrites/disbelievers among the 1400 people and you have failed to provide any.  
 
So you agree that they were reminded about the pledge they made and that they were breaking it? This was just one instance.
 
It was reminding them of their great status. Nothing about breaking their Hudaibiyah oath. 

 

Regarding Umar being with the Prophet, you either take this source as true or your beloved Bukhari. They both are contradicting each other.

 

This was further evidence for you beside the two Sahih Narrations I provided earlier. My beloved Bukhari does not help you at all and there is no contradiction here. 

 
When did I call everyone a disbeliever? I am only telling that not everyone was a believer who swore under the tree. Why do you always have to twist the words?

 

Allah is calling them believers and you are saying no there were also disbelievers as if you know more than Allah. 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(salam)

1) When I quoted a verse you said what about the history reports. I said do you you prefer history over Quran.  

2) I am sorry but you are the one making assumptions. Allah says they were believers you are saying no there were also disbelievers and your evidence is just your own whims and assumptions.

 

 

(wasalam)

 

1) Check post # 68 of this thread. You said I tried to give preference to Narrations over Quran. Now you are changing it and telling me that you asked if I preferred. You are very good at manipulating words. I am not surprised as you are even manipulating the Quranic verses.

2) You still haven't brought a translation of the verse where Allah has mentioned that everyone who took the oath was a believer. So you are the one who is trying to play with the verse to your whims and fancies.

 

 

 

Let me remind you of the verses again. It is sad that you manipulate explicit verse of the Quran.
 
Verse 10: 
 
Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you, [O Muhammad] - they are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. The hand of Allah is over their hands. So he who breaks his word only breaks it to the detriment of himself. And he who fulfills that which he has promised Allah - He will give him a great reward.
 
Tell me please do hypocrites and disbelievers receive reward from Allah? The words of Allah proves without a doubt that those who pledged were believers, not a single hypocrite or disbeliever were amongst them. Unless you claim that you know more than Allah that hypocrites and disbelievers were there.
 
I am showing you the verses of Quran as evidence, you are making assumptions that no there were hypocrites and disbelievers without providing any evidence. 

 

 
Thanks for the reminder but you are mixing the two verses (10 & 18) very badly. 
 
The highlighted section in your reply is a clear indicator that Allah promised reward for people who fulfilled their promise, How does it mean that everyone is worthy of the reward at that very moment without even fulfilling the promise? Please explain?
 
I have clearly shown multiple times just as above that you are changing the meaning of Quranic verses and ignoring the fact that there is a condition which when fulfilled will yield a reward to those who took the pledge. Why is it so hard for for you to digest this simple Quranic verse?
 
So whatever you are showing me is nothing but your fallacies and not the word of Allah.
 
I already told you provide evidence they were disbelievers. My evidence is verse 10 and 18 of Surah al-Fath. Your evidence is nothing just your own words. The verse 10 and 18 were specific to Hudaibiyah not about future battles because Allah already confirmed the pledge and showed his satisfication with those who pledged as mentioned in verse 18. 
 
Acting against the Prophets (saw) actions.
Questioned the Prophet (saw).
 
Sure we can discuss these topics if you want.
 

 

I have already provided evidence that hypocrites like that the one who questioned the Prophet's (pbuh) decision were present at that time. Now it is your turn that you prove that those were the people who did not pledge under the tree.
 
2) Amongst the people how does it mean Umar was also fleeing? 3) how does it prove that he was also fleeing.
 
You can prove nothing from the narration. 
 
I already provided you Sahih narrations that clears any doubt. Umar was of those who stood by the Prophet (saw) but since it doesn't suit your desire you reject it.  
 
 
Please stop your deception. Read the narration again. The line before is talking about people fleeing and then it states "AMONGST THE PEOPLE". What more do you need to understand which set of people are being spoken of?
 
So you agree that Abu Qutada was also running? And you lied about this?
 
If Umar wasn't running then why did he put the blame on Allah when people started running? Did he make any attempt to stop them and get them to help the Prophet (pbuh)?
 
So I ask you again, please answer the below questions:
 

1) Was Abu Qutada fleeing?
2) While fleeing didn't he meet Umar amongst those people?
3) Umar accepted that it was the order of Allah that people are fleeing?
 

So the narrations that you don't like becomes 'forged narrations'? Remember what I said earlier about people of desire. 

 
 
When did I say? When the book you call as Sahih has contradictions in narrations, how is it my fault? Rule of thumb is, one of the two contradicting narrations has to be wrong. Don't you agree? And please you don't have to talk about people of desire and disliking narrations. I saw your first response you gave me when I told you about the people being called when they fled. So please stop acting.
 

It has nothing to do with the Hudaibiyah oath. Those who pledged under the tree they already fulfilled their oaths as confirmed by Allah in verse 18 of al-Fath and Allah showed his satisfication with them. If the oath was about future battles then why Allah already confirmed that they fulfilled their oaths and showed his satisfication with them?

 
 
You are wrong. Allah put a condition which was to complete in the future. So your assumption falls flat again. And the fact people broke the oath dismisses them from this verse.
 
Allah says that those who pledged under the tree were believers. 
 
Now it yours job to provide evidence that there were hypocrites/disbelievers among the 1400 people and you have failed to provide any.  
 
 
Prove it first. You are manipulating a Quranic verse. Mind you.
 
Allah is not saying that everyone who pledge under the tree was a believer. He set a condition which you are forgetting.
 
I have already provided enough evidence. Biggest being the condition set forth by Allah in the same verse and secondly, the people who questioned the Prophet's (pbuh) decision. You are conveniently ignoring them as they will break your imaginary bubble.
 

It was reminding them of their great status. Nothing about breaking their Hudaibiyah oath. 

 

 
Haah. You first deny that anything like this ever happened by calling it an unauthentic tradition without providing any proof. Now you make this up. I am not going to refute your assumptions any more. The fact that they broke the promise and were reminded about it is sufficient proof to nullify your silly claim.
 

This was further evidence for you beside the two Sahih Narrations I provided earlier. My beloved Bukhari does not help you at all and there is no contradiction here. 

 
Unfortunately for you, contradictions are aplenty in your beloved Bukhari. The fact that Umar was amongst the fleeing people is clearly mentioned in Bukhari. So your attempts are futile.
 

Allah is calling them believers and you are saying no there were also disbelievers as if you know more than Allah. 

 

There is a difference in what I am trying to tell you and what you are cherry picking from it. You are lying when you said that I called everyone a disbeliever who swore the oath. I said there were disbelievers which is why Allah set a condition and only sent tranquility on believers. How hard can it be to understand this logic.

 

If you cannot understand the difference in the two then it's not my problem. You are very good at manipulating words be it mine or Allah's. You don't surprise me anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

 

Thanks for the reminder but you are mixing the two verses (10 & 18) very badly. 
 
The highlighted section in your reply is a clear indicator that Allah promised reward for people who fulfilled their promise, How does it mean that everyone is worthy of the reward at that very moment without even fulfilling the promise? Please explain?
 
I have clearly shown multiple times just as above that you are changing the meaning of Quranic verses and ignoring the fact that there is a condition which when fulfilled will yield a reward to those who took the pledge. Why is it so hard for for you to digest this simple Quranic verse?
 
 

 

(salam)

 

I never claimed when the verse 10 was revealed all of them were worthy of reward. That is your misconception. Verse 10 is about people pleading under the tree. Verse 18 confirms that those pledged under the tree fulfilled their promise, Allah become pleased with them and sent tranquility upon them. And you claim not everyone of them were believers as if you know more than Allah. 

 

You still failed to provide any evidence that there hypocrites and disbelievers among those 1400 men or a single of them broke their Hudaibiyah oath. 

 

 

 

So whatever you are showing me is nothing but your fallacies and not the word of Allah.

 

It is very clear who is doing that. 

 

You have failed again and again to provide any evidence from the Quran just your whims and assumptions. 

 
I have already provided evidence that hypocrites like that the one who questioned the Prophet's  (pbuh) decision were present at that time. Now it is your turn that you prove that those were the people who did not pledge under the tree.

 

Good. You are coming to the point now. You reject the words of Allah because that companion was present.

 

I can't help you there. 

 

Please stop your deception. Read the narration again. The line before is talking about people fleeing and then it states "AMONGST THE PEOPLE". What more do you need to understand which set of people are being spoken of?
 
So you agree that Abu Qutada was also running? And you lied about this?
 
If Umar wasn't running then why did he put the blame on Allah when people started running? Did he make any attempt to stop them and get them to help the Prophet  (pbuh)?
 
So I ask you again, please answer the below questions:
 
1) Was Abu Qutada fleeing?
2) While fleeing didn't he meet Umar amongst those people?
3) Umar accepted that it was the order of Allah that people are fleeing?
 
When did I say? When the book you call as Sahih has contradictions in narrations, how is it my fault? Rule of thumb is, one of the two contradicting narrations has to be wrong. Don't you agree? And please you don't have to talk about people of desire and disliking narrations. I saw your first response you gave me when I told you about the people being called when they fled. So please stop acting.
 

 

Abu Qatada says people were fleeing but never says Umar was fleeing. You have no way here. On top of that I provided you clear explicit narration that proves without any doubt that Umar was of those who stood by the Prophet (saw). But since it doesn't with your desire you reject it. I can't help you here. 

 

 
 
You are wrong. Allah put a condition which was to complete in the future. So your assumption falls flat again. And the fact people broke the oath dismisses them from this verse.

 

The people didn't break their oath. You are just challenging the verses of Quran. Allah in verse 18 says they fulfilled their oaths of Hudaibiyah and you are saying they broke it. 

 

 
Prove it first. You are manipulating a Quranic verse. Mind you.
 
Allah is not saying that everyone who pledge under the tree was a believer. He set a condition which you are forgetting.
 
I never said there was no condition. It seems you are totally confused here. The condition was not to break their Hudaibiyah oath and verse 18 proves that they fulfilled their oaths and Allah showed his satisfication with them. 
 
 
I have already provided enough evidence. Biggest being the condition set forth by Allah in the same verse and secondly, the people who questioned the Prophet's  (pbuh) decision. You are conveniently ignoring them as they will break your imaginary bubble.

Already replied. 

 

When Umar (ra) questioned. What did the Prophet (saw) say? Did He, like some Takfiris, condemed him to hell? Called him disbeliever? You even oppose the Prophet (saw) because you think you know that Companion more than him. 

 

Haah. You first deny that anything like this ever happened by calling it an unauthentic tradition without providing any proof. Now you make this up. I am not going to refute your assumptions any more. The fact that they broke the promise and were reminded about it is sufficient proof to nullify your silly claim.

 

Already replied. 

 

 

Unfortunately for you, contradictions are aplenty in your beloved Bukhari. The fact that Umar was amongst the fleeing people is clearly mentioned in Bukhari. So your attempts are futile.

 

Already replied. 

 
There is a difference in what I am trying to tell you and what you are cherry picking from it. You are lying when you said that I called everyone a disbeliever who swore the oath. I said there were disbelievers which is why Allah set a condition and only sent tranquility on believers. How hard can it be to understand this logic.

 

When you don't read the Quran your thinking becomes strange. Just because Allah set a condition doesn't mean there were disbelievers among the 1400. Allah sets condition for the Prophet (saw), Allah set condition for believers all over the Quran. No believer goes to paradise for free. Allah set a condition for them: pray, give zakat, fast,  go hajj etc. 

 

 

 

If you cannot understand the difference in the two then it's not my problem. You are very good at manipulating words be it mine or Allah's. You don't surprise me anymore.

 

It is very clear on this thread who is challenging the words of Allah. 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(salam)

 

I never claimed when the verse 10 was revealed all of them were worthy of reward. That is your misconception. Verse 10 is about people pleading under the tree. Verse 18 confirms that those pledged under the tree fulfilled their promise, Allah become pleased with them and sent tranquility upon them. And you claim not everyone of them were believers as if you know more than Allah. 

 

You still failed to provide any evidence that there hypocrites and disbelievers among those 1400 men or a single of them broke their Hudaibiyah oath. 

 

(wasalam)

 

It's only your assumption that verse 18 confirms that everyone fulfilled their promise. No translation of the verse tells us what you are claiming. So it is you who is claiming to know more than Allah.

 

Read the above post for the evidence regarding hypocrites.

 

 

 

It is very clear who is doing that. 

 

You have failed again and again to provide any evidence from the Quran just your whims and assumptions. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is crystal clear who made bold statements on earlier posts in this thread and is still sticking to one verse and manipulating it to prove his point. 

 

You said there are many verses to prove your point. Where are they? Are they also like this one where the translation of the verse is altered to suite your understanding?

 

 

 

Good. You are coming to the point now. You reject the words of Allah because that companion was present.
 
I can't help you there. 

 

 
Alhumdulillah, I don't need help from you on this as you are lost. It would be better if you go check any translation of Quran and see if anyone has translated verse 18 to something like everyone who swore was a believer. So it's obvious that it's you who needs help.
 

Abu Qatada says people were fleeing but never says Umar was fleeing. You have no way here. On top of that I provided you clear explicit narration that proves without any doubt that Umar was of those who stood by the Prophet (saw). But since it doesn't with your desire you reject it. I can't help you here. 

 
Nope. You are first ignoring the fact that Abu Qutada was also fleeing and secondly, he saw Umar amongst those people while fleeing. It doesn't matter how many more narrations you have, this one is quite clear to a unbiased person where Umar was.
 
Why are you dodging my question and not enlightening us if Umar was with the prophet (pbuh) why did he blame Allah for cowardice of the people & encouraged everyone to run? If he was with the Prophet (pbuh) as you claim why did not tell people to be with him and help the Prophet (pbuh) ?
 

The people didn't break their oath. You are just challenging the verses of Quran. Allah in verse 18 says they fulfilled their oaths of Hudaibiyah and you are saying they broke it. 

 
You are sounding like a broken record. For one final time, Verse 18 doesn't say that everyone who swore was a believer. Even if hypothetically agreed even then it doesn't mean that they would never break it. So stop holding on to clutches.
 
 

I never said there was no condition. It seems you are totally confused here. The condition was not to break their Hudaibiyah oath and verse 18 proves that they fulfilled their oaths and Allah showed his satisfication with them. 

 

 

Already replied. 

 

 

I have already refuted your incorrect assumption many times.
 
 
When Umar  (ra) questioned. What did the Prophet (saw) say? Did He, like some Takfiris, condemed him to hell? Called him disbeliever? You even oppose the Prophet (saw) because you think you know that Companion more than him. 
 
 
Already replied. 
 
 
Already replied. 
 
 
 
First of all I didn't say that Umar was the only one who questioned the Prophet (pbuh). You are jumping the gun but I can now understand why you are so religiously denying the existing of hypocrites.
 
You are talking as if you are ignorant of Prophet's (pbuh) ways. I am sure you must have heard/read of the incident when he (pbuh) said "No, the people will say Muhammad kills his own Companions." . How can you expect such a behaviour from him?
 

When you don't read the Quran your thinking becomes strange. Just because Allah set a condition doesn't mean there were disbelievers among the 1400. Allah sets condition for the Prophet (saw), Allah set condition for believers all over the Quran. No believer goes to paradise for free. Allah set a condition for them: pray, give zakat, fast,  go hajj etc. 

 
 
You are only good at claiming things with out providing any proof. I have been constantly asking you to provide me the translation which says that everyone who swore was a believer but you are cleverly dodging that question and now you accuse me of something which you should be attributed to. Setting a condition is one aspect and breaking it is another. The day you understand the difference in the two you can claim to have read the Quran. Until then stop making false accusations.
 
 
It is very clear on this thread who is challenging the words of Allah. 
(wasalam)
 
 
 
Yes, you have failed miserably to present a translation where it is mentioned that everyone who swore was a believer. So please stop your deception.

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...