Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Muawiyah and the murder of Umar ibn Khattab.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
On 3/2/2019 at 9:09 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

I don't believe so. Umar was very close without Abu Sufiyan and then his sons.

It was Omar who was bent on chopping Abu Sufyan's head when he approached the Prophet just before the fall of Mecca and it was Abbas who pleaded in Abu Sufyan's favour telling Omar that you would not have asked for chopping his head had he been a Bani Adi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

On the other hand , I feel Imam Ali had a covert role in the assassination of Omar. Firstly , Imam Ali was close to the Persian clients and right after the murder of Omar he has been quoted as saying "I have no role in it".

Thirdly , when Obyadullah Ibn Omar went on spree killing to avenge the death of his father and ended up killing the daughter of Harmazan as well , it was Imam Ali who asked Uthman to impose death penalty upon Obayd as Qisas which Uthman refused.

Fourthly , the first thing that Ali did as Caliph was to reopen Obaydullah's case and try him for the killings that he undertook as revenge of Omar's murder. This decision made Obaydullah flee to Mua'via and join his ranks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
34 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Thirdly , when Obyadullah Ibn Omar went on spree killing to avenge the death of his father and ended up killing the daughter of Harmazan as well , it was Imam Ali who asked Uthman to impose death penalty upon Obayd as Qisas which Uthman refused.

Fourthly , the first thing that Ali did as Caliph was to reopen Obaydullah's case and try him for the killings that he undertook as revenge of Omar's murder. This decision made Obaydullah flee to Mua'via and join his ranks.

Ubaidullah's orgy of murder

Ubaidullah first went to the house of Firoz, and killed his wife and daughter. He then sought Jafina. He was a Christian of Hirah, who had been brought to Madina after the conquest of Iraq. He was employed in teaching the art of writing to the Arab students. Ubaidullah killed Jafina. Thereafter Ubaidullah went to Hurmuzan and killed him likewise. Hurmrzan was a Persian General who had been taken captive in one of the Persian campaigns. He accepted Islam and settled in Madina. Umar had sanctioned a stipend for him. When the Muslims came to know that in a fit of frenzy, Ubaidullah had killed four persons, they apprehended him and confined him to his house.

The trial of Ubaidullah

After assuming office as the Caliph, the first case that Uthman was to try was the case of Ubaidullah. Apart from Abdur Rahman b Abu Bakr no other person supported the theory of any conspiracy. Adequate evidence was thus not forthcoming to support the theory of the involvement of Jafina and Hurmuzan in the alleged conspiracy. Again, even if it was established that these persons had entered into a conspiracy, there was no justification for the killing of the wife and daughter of Firoz. Even if there were strong prima facie grounds for holding that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, the State alone could have tried the accused and condemned them only when they had offered their defense, and the case was established against them. Ubaidullah had no right or justification to take the law in his own hand and murder four persons without affording them an opportunity for defense. That was the Arab practice of the days of ignorance which was in violation of the injunctions of Islam.

Edited by skyweb1987
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, skyweb1987 said:

Ubaidullah's orgy of murder

When Ubaidullah a son of Umar heard the report of Abdur Rahman, he took his sword, and rushed out of his house to take the revenge for the assassination of his father. After stabbing Umar, Firoz had killed himself. Ubaidullah first went to the house of Firoz, and killed his wife and daughter. He then sought Jafina. He was a Christian of Hirah, who had been brought to Madina after the conquest of Iraq. He was employed in teaching the art of writing to the Arab students. Ubaidullah killed Jafina. Thereafter Ubaidullah went to Hurmuzan and killed him likewise. Hurmrzan was a Persian General who had been taken captive in one of the Persian campaigns. He accepted Islam and settled in Madina. Umar had sanctioned a stipend for him. When the Muslims came to know that in a fit of frenzy, Ubaidullah had killed four persons, they apprehended him and confined him to his house.

The trial of Ubaidullah

After assuming office as the Caliph, the first case that Uthman was to try was the case of Ubaidullah. Apart from Abdur Rahman b Abu Bakr no other person supported the theory of any conspiracy. Adequate evidence was thus not forthcoming to support the theory of the involvement of Jafina and Hurmuzan in the alleged conspiracy. Again, even if it was established that these persons had entered into a conspiracy, there was no justification for the killing of the wife and daughter of Firoz. Even if there were strong prima facie grounds for holding that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, the State alone could have tried the accused and condemned them only when they had offered their defense, and the case was established against them. Ubaidullah had no right or justification to take the law in his own hand and murder four persons without affording them an opportunity for defense. That was the Arab practice of the days of ignorance which was in violation of the injunctions of Islam.

I am not justifying Obayd's actions so spare me the copy paste.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

I am not justifying Obayd's actions so spare me the copy paste.

But you are blaming the 4th caliph of Sunnis and 1st Imam of Shia .based on fictitious statements . Are not you doing it?

Edited by skyweb1987
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Leibniz said:

It was Omar who was bent on chopping Abu Sufyan's head when he approached the Prophet just before the fall of Mecca and it was Abbas who pleaded in Abu Sufyan's favour telling Omar that you would not have asked for chopping his head had he been a Bani Adi.

Simple facade.

2 hours ago, Leibniz said:

On the other hand , I feel Imam Ali had a covert role in the assassination of Omar. Firstly , Imam Ali was close to the Persian clients and right after the murder of Omar he has been quoted as saying "I have no role in it".

Thirdly , when Obyadullah Ibn Omar went on spree killing to avenge the death of his father and ended up killing the daughter of Harmazan as well , it was Imam Ali who asked Uthman to impose death penalty upon Obayd as Qisas which Uthman refused.

Fourthly , the first thing that Ali did as Caliph was to reopen Obaydullah's case and try him for the killings that he undertook as revenge of Omar's murder. This decision made Obaydullah flee to Mua'via and join his ranks.

Great, so you feel Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had a covert role in Umar 's murder because Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said, "I have no role in it" . So is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) a lying murderer or a murdering liar?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

But you are blaming the 4th caliph of Sunnis and 1st Imam of Shia .based on fictitious statements . Are not you doing it?

For me he is a human being who was politically embattled with his opponents. They tried to nab him and he must have tried to nab them. It's all natural human tendency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 3/9/2019 at 12:03 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

Simple facade.

Great, so you feel Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had a covert role in Umar 's murder because Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said, "I have no role in it" . So is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) a lying murderer or a murdering liar?

There is no harm in murdering the enemy who wants to murder you. We don't know the exact circumstances but if Imam Ali had a role in Omar's murder , I don't find it something out of the blue. Murder was a normal thing back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
8 hours ago, Leibniz said:

There is no harm in murdering the enemy who wants to murder you. We don't know the exact circumstances but if Imam Ali had a role in Omar's murder , I don't find it something out of the blue. Murder was a normal thing back then.

So Caliph Umar wanted to kill Imam Ali (عليه السلام)? Weren't the first 4 Caliphs "Khalifa-e-Rashidoon" ? Funny that they all wanted to kill each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Leibniz said:

There is no harm in murdering the enemy who wants to murder you. We don't know the exact circumstances but if Imam Ali had a role in Omar's murder , I don't find it something out of the blue. Murder was a normal thing back then.

So you're making here some serious points:

1. Umar was the enemy of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)).
2. Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) also considered Umar as his enemy. 
3. Umar tried to kill Imam Ali ((عليه السلام))
4. And Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) had a covert role in the murder of Umar. 

Means you're saying that all the caliphs are munafiq because it has been accepted unanimously by Muslims that none hate Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) but a true munafiq. And this also means that you're claiming that the 3 caliphs were batil (or taghut) because it has been accepted unanimously that "Al-Aliyyo ma'al-haqq wal haqqo ma'a Ali" (Ali is with the truth and truth is with Ali). 
 

On 3/9/2019 at 2:37 PM, Leibniz said:

They tried to nab him and he must have tried to nab them. It's all natural human tendency. 

 أَفَمَن كَانَ مُؤْمِنًا كَمَن كَانَ فَاسِقًا لَّا يَسْتَوُونَ

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 3/8/2019 at 11:03 PM, Leibniz said:

On the other hand , I feel Imam Ali had a covert role in the assassination of Omar. Firstly , Imam Ali was close to the Persian clients and right after the murder of Omar he has been quoted as saying "I have no role in it".

Thirdly , when Obyadullah Ibn Omar went on spree killing to avenge the death of his father and ended up killing the daughter of Harmazan as well , it was Imam Ali who asked Uthman to impose death penalty upon Obayd as Qisas which Uthman refused.

Fourthly , the first thing that Ali did as Caliph was to reopen Obaydullah's case and try him for the killings that he undertook as revenge of Omar's murder. This decision made Obaydullah flee to Mua'via and join his ranks.

If I was Imam Ali advisor I would have instigated a Ansar to murder Umar not a Persian client.They certainly had grievances against him.Or a relative of Talha or a  hot headed ummayyad would also be a good choice too.

As it would have fragmented the ummah and then Imam could easily step in a  neutral peace maker being a quraish on one hand and Ansar relative on another and automatically become the caliph.Given his wide base of supporters and relation with Prophet Ali had the Trump card when it comes to negotiations.Plus he had the advantage of most opposition leaders they are untried and have a unblemished record.

Why do you think he was closer to Persian clients ? You mean more than other sahaba 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 3/9/2019 at 4:37 AM, Leibniz said:

For me he is a human being who was politically embattled with his opponents. They tried to nab him and he must have tried to nab them. It's all natural human tendency. 

There was more cooperation between Umar and Ali than any of the 3 caliphs 

Plus in umars time many of Ali supporters got political positions unlike in Abu bakrs time 

And his policy of sabiqa favored his and close associates status atleast monetarily and in prestige if not politically 

 

I think uthmans murder though was entirely justified 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 3/12/2019 at 1:48 AM, Panzerwaffe said:

If I was Imam Ali advisor I would have instigated a Ansar to murder Umar not a Persian client.They certainly had grievances against him.Or a relative of Talha or a  hot headed ummayyad would also be a good choice too.

As it would have fragmented the ummah and then Imam could easily step in a  neutral peace maker being a quraish on one hand and Ansar relative on another and automatically become the caliph.Given his wide base of supporters and relation with Prophet Ali had the Trump card when it comes to negotiations.Plus he had the advantage of most opposition leaders they are untried and have a unblemished record.

Why do you think he was closer to Persian clients ? You mean more than other sahaba 

Yeah I feel so that Ali was more close to Persian clients than the Sahabas. Its more likely that he spent his life as a disgruntled man once he was denied the caliphate. He could not fight for it and he must have thought that the majority of Sahabas don't like him. The ultimate shelter for Ali were the Persian clients who were aliens in Hijaz then and Ali's affiliation with them was very natural. A lonely man had found a company and a political support , something which careied on for generations to come.

The reports of his cooperation with Omar are scarce and I feel that if that was the case we should have had abundant reports about it. What do you why Ali opened the case of the killing or Harmazan and his daughter against Obaydullah Ibn Omar as soon he became the caliph? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 3/12/2019 at 1:50 AM, Panzerwaffe said:

There was more cooperation between Umar and Ali than any of the 3 caliphs 

Plus in umars time many of Ali supporters got political positions unlike in Abu bakrs time 

And his policy of sabiqa favored his and close associates status atleast monetarily and in prestige if not politically 

 

I think uthmans murder though was entirely justified 

What I feel after going through the historical accounts is that Ali , Talhah and Zubair were the most politically ambitious "Sahabas". Zubair even sided with Hashmites for a brief period against the outcome of Saqifa.

Interestingly these three " Sahaba" largely vanished from the scene once Abu Bakr took over and they remained inactive in terms of wars and administration. This further makes one believe that they were disgruntled and had a bad blood with the incumbent caliphs.

Secondly , its also plausible that they were covertly planning against the caliphs to dethrone them. They were gathering and masting political support for themselves. All what these three were doing , actualized during the last years of Uthman. Ali had Egyptians , Persians and some Kufans on his side. Zubair had Basrans and Talhah had some support in Kufa. This political support which became obvious after Uthman , must have been gained in the decades pre  Uthman turmoil.

Thirdly , the offsprings of these three were politically ambitious as well. They carried on the legacy and you see all the Alids , Zubayrites inspirants of caliphate. The sons of Talhah (Who was the weakest among the three) lost prominence and joined the Zubayrites. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 3/10/2019 at 5:21 PM, Leibniz said:

There is no harm in murdering the enemy who wants to murder you. We don't know the exact circumstances but if Imam Ali had a role in Omar's murder , I don't find it something out of the blue. Murder was a normal thing back then.

Your understanding of Islamic history especially towards the m3soumeen Imams is bizarre.  Where do you get your information from or how do you form such opinions?

Imam Ali wasn't trying to dethrone anyone, the ummah came begging for him to return to the caliphate after the death of Uthman.  

You need to go polish on your historical facts, it's quite embarrassing on your end.

M3 Salamah, Fe Amin Allah 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member
On 3/13/2019 at 4:51 PM, Leibniz said:

Yeah I feel so that Ali was more close to Persian clients than the Sahabas. Its more likely that he spent his life as a disgruntled man once he was denied the caliphate. He could not fight for it and he must have thought that the majority of Sahabas don't like him. The ultimate shelter for Ali were the Persian clients who were aliens in Hijaz then and Ali's affiliation with them was very natural. A lonely man had found a company and a political support , something which careied on for generations to come.

The reports of his cooperation with Omar are scarce and I feel that if that was the case we should have had abundant reports about it. What do you why Ali opened the case of the killing or Harmazan and his daughter against Obaydullah Ibn Omar as soon he became the caliph? 

I think case was opened as Ali wanted to go out of his way to prove to his pietist supporters that everyone was equal in eyes of law that also is consistent with his support for ibn masud , ammar and Abu dharr, plus when  jundab killed a non Muslim Ali supported jundab again upholding letter of the law 

Hurmuzan died a Muslim and not convicted of participating in umars murder so innocent.

I think if Ali was complicit in murder he had nothing to gain from digging deeper to get justice for a couple of Persian converts , esp at a time when people had a ton of sympathy for Umar.Plus the worse thing for a Arab leader to do in that time would be to get qisas for the son of a Arab sayyed I.e Umar for death of a Persian Muslim in purely political terms its suicide but the fact that it did not harm his political interests prove the deep rooted support he had 

And Abdullah b Umar even though he must be annoyed at Ali for this never accused Ali of being complicit nor supported his brothers stance 

This would have been perfect propaganda for ummayyads too to wean of admirers of shaykhayn from Ali but did not get much traction 

 Personally I do not feel Ali had a lot of support from the Persians at all and this is proven by the rebellion against his rule in Persia during his caliphate.Persians at that time were largely non Muslim  and the clients of arabs if Muslim and had no independent political voice 

If you look at Alis closest supporters right uptil tawwabun they are all essentially Arab tribals mainly Yemen, and medina 

Plus  I think ( like you mentioned) it is our total misreading of the situation when Shias claimed that Ali was politicly reclusive during the 30 years after Prophet death.

 If you notice this amazing plethora of supporters that suddenly mushroom as soon as Ali takes charge in medina  It is quite inconceivable that all of these people with varying tribal and political orientations would suddenly have agreed on him as their  leader. WE  Even see a couple of  prominent ummayyads favoring Ali at a time when the fortunes of their family had the best chance of making a comeback in Syria.

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 3/14/2019 at 5:53 AM, Laayla said:

Your understanding of Islamic history especially towards the m3soumeen Imams is bizarre.  Where do you get your information from or how do you form such opinions?

Imam Ali wasn't trying to dethrone anyone, the ummah came begging for him to return to the caliphate after the death of Uthman.  

You need to go polish on your historical facts, it's quite embarrassing on your end.

M3 Salamah, Fe Amin Allah 

He is one of the few people here who actually reads books rather than copy paste , he has my deep respect for it 

And history can be interpreted in more than one ways his observations are atleast honest and free of sectarian bias 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 3/14/2019 at 4:56 AM, Leibniz said:

What I feel after going through the historical accounts is that Ali , Talhah and Zubair were the most politically ambitious "Sahabas". Zubair even sided with Hashmites for a brief period against the outcome of Saqifa.

Interestingly these three " Sahaba" largely vanished from the scene once Abu Bakr took over and they remained inactive in terms of wars and administration. This further makes one believe that they were disgruntled and had a bad blood with the incumbent caliphs.

Secondly , its also plausible that they were covertly planning against the caliphs to dethrone them. They were gathering and masting political support for themselves. All what these three were doing , actualized during the last years of Uthman. Ali had Egyptians , Persians and some Kufans on his side. Zubair had Basrans and Talhah had some support in Kufa. This political support which became obvious after Uthman , must have been gained in the decades pre  Uthman turmoil.

Thirdly , the offsprings of these three were politically ambitious as well. They carried on the legacy and you see all the Alids , Zubayrites inspirants of caliphate. The sons of Talhah (Who was the weakest among the three) lost prominence and joined the Zubayrites. 

Only 2 point of disagreement 

Zubayr participated in Egyptian campaign and so did Abdullah his son

Ali most loyal support was Yemeni tribes in Iraq, Ansar of medina and kufans primarily 

Ali IS said to have supporters in Egypt but they were all newcomers there and his roots were not deeply entrenched there 

If u observe closely  Ali's policy in terms of revenue in terms of land reform and in comes off political appointments were most consistent with that of Omar.So I do believe  there was a genuine detente between the 2 men.

But as soon as Uthman comes his failure to continue the policies of first 2 caliphs sealed his fate 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 3/3/2019 at 2:37 AM, Warilla said:

I just don't understand how Sunni respect Muawiya. They claim they will reject a hadith if even one  narrator is a controversial character. Yet they respect the man who went to war with their 4th righteous caliph. 

To be truthful, modern common unconditional and blind respect for Mu’awiyah (فلعنة الله على الكافرين) among Sunnis, is a legacy of Wahhabi thought influencing and infiltrating mainstream Sunnism. The same thing gradually happens with Yazid and other Umayyads (فلعنة الله على الكافرين). During the Abbasids, Mu’awiyah was loathed and seen as a negative person by majority of Sunnis. The question asked should be the following; do Sunnis (of any creed and at any time) praise/loathe enemies of the Household based solely upon political reality they find themselves in (Abbasids vs Umayyads, non-Wahhabis vs Wahhabis etc.), or is it based upon religious morality. I personally opt for the first reasoning, considering the fact how in modern times the Umayyads are being massively rehabilitated by the Sunnis, and if someone was say that it’s only due to the “non-Islamic Wahhabi heretics”, then it proves how weak the mainstream Sunni aqida actually is as it changes dependable on the political realities. Those are my thoughts. 

On 3/3/2019 at 7:07 AM, Abu Nur said:

I don't know why people are ageinst Abu Hurairah?

Check this alone for example. 

Besides, Al-Shaykh al-Saduq (رحمه الله) in his al-Khisal narrates from Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (عليه السلام): "Three people had lied on/against the Messenger of God; Abu Huraira, Anas bin Malik and the Woman (Ayesha)".

 

24DD6D27-AB5E-49BF-903E-FC0C1A10241E.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
  • Advanced Member
On 3/2/2019 at 8:23 AM, Algerian Shia said:

Salam, was he involved in the murder of caliph Umar?

Interesting thing is that according to Sunni hadith, Abu lulu was slave of al-Mughirah ibn shu'bah..

 Al-Mughirah ibn shu'bah (l.a) was also a friend and close associate of Muawiyah (l.a).

Also Muawiyah was known to have done political murders so maybe the murder of Umar was hatched by muawiyah himself? 

 

Muawiyah may be involved  because  these kind of murders is his specialty. I read somewhere that Imam Barzangi  , Imam Of Kaba wrote a book where he mentioned that Muawiyah had started planning for kingship and power from the days of Umar. 

Even , in the assassination of Uthman , Marwan played a critical role , and again he was close aide of Muawiyah.  This guy Muawiyah was  like a fox hungry for power 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...