Print Page | Close Window

A Brief History of Islam

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2810
Printed Date: 24 October 2014 at 1:15am


Topic: A Brief History of Islam
Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Subject: A Brief History of Islam
Date Posted: 30 October 2005 at 9:56pm

 I looked for a board which dealt with History of Islam, there is none on this forum, I reluctant choose this board as we will be dealing with broad spectrum events, that occurred in last over 1400 yrs. I decided to start from the point in history which was cause of division in Ummah. Not death of Ameerul Momineen Sayedna Hz. Uthamn Al Ghani [may Allah be pleased with him], but nomination of Yazid as Khalifah, thus laying foundation of succession according to some historians who would have us believe that this was a first instance, this not true, Ameerul Momineen Sayedna Hz. Hassan[ra] succeeded his father Ameerul Momineen Sayedna Hz. Ali[ra].

" Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]

It is an irony that one for whome the prophet[saw] had given good tiding of Paradise and who was recognized and accepted as khalifah by not less then 1000 companions[ra] of the prophet[saw] during his life time was later maligned and against whome unfortunatly a triade of most malicious propoganda was made.

Nomination of Yazid as suuccessor to Khilafah was in the best interest of the Ummah. The follower of Ibn Saba who were crushed by Hz. Muawiyah[ra] during his reign vehemently criticised the nomination so much so that it has been generally felt that the namination was in personal interest.

Nomination of succesor Khalifah was not an innovation as there was precedence for it. Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] had nominated Hz. Umar[ra] as his successor. A son succeeding the father was also not objectionable as there was precedence to it. Hz. Hassan[ra] succeeded Hz. Ali[ra] moreover those who bitterly criticised the nomination themselves believed in Imam, most of whome succeeded their fathers. Hz Muawiyah[ra] as a shrewd administrator successfully controlled the rivalries among various Arab Tribes and maintained Balance of power. The Arab Tribes of Syria were divided into two factions.

1. Himairites or [Yemeni] tribes who had settled in Syria earlier then the muslims conquest and considered themselves as sons of the soil.

2. Modharite tribes were those who came as conquerors. Hz. Muawiyah[ra] was considered Modharite. Since his wife belonged to Kalbi tribe Yazid had full sympathy of the Kalbi Tribe. Thus Yazid in his person represented both tribes.

More over Yazid was brought up on tribal atmosphere and had pro-Arab feeling. These feeling were required to oppose the non Arab elements [mostly persian] who were creating trouble for the Islamic state and were responsible for the murder of three Khalifahs.

Before officially declaring Yazid as his successor, Hz. Muawiyah[ra] brought up proposal before Ummah and the muslims from various provinces pledged supoort for the nomination. 50th year of hijra [670 CE] Hz. Muawiyah[ra] himself visited the Holy Cities of Makkah and Medina and brought the proposal to their notice. People of both the cities took oath of allegiance to Yazid. The four prominent persons viz. Abdur Rehman Bin Abu Bakr [ra] Abdullah Bin Umar[ra], Abdullah Bin Zubair[ra] and Hussain Bin Ali[ra], who had earlier opposed the nomination gave their consent by keeping silence. The repost that they kept silent under the threat are not only false but adversely reflect on the integrity of the above four persons.

WILL OF HZ. MUAWIYAH[RA]

In his will Muawiyah[ra] advised Yazid to deal with people of Iraq with caution as they are troublesome. He should not hesitate to frequently change governor if they so desire. The people of Hijaz should be dealt, with utmost courtesy.

Regardin Hussain[ra] Muawiyah[ra] advised that in case the people of Iraq try to gain his support in creating trouble and if he is over powered he should be treated with compassion and respect. Regarding Abdullah Bin Zubair he advised that no compassion should be shown to him. On 22 Rajab 60 hijrah [680 CE] Hz. Muawiyah[ra] breathed his last.

Hz. Muawiyah[ra] great success in restoring the unity and prestige of the Ummah was mainly due to his sincerity of purpose and his extraordinary qualities. He was clear headed, libral, good tempered and political genius. He had quallity of for-bearance and prudent mildness by which he tried to disarm the enemy, and his absolute self-control made him endure all circumstances and the master of any situation.

YAZID

After death of Hz. Muawiyah[ra], people from various provinces accepted Yazid as Khalifah and took bai'at, Yazid diverted his attention to places where the bai'at was not yet completed. The Khalifah ordered the Governor of Medina to take bai'at from, Abdullah Bin Zubair, Abdullah Bin Umar and Hussain Bin Ali[ra]

Evening of 27th of Rajab the governor called the dignitiaries of Medina. Hussain[ra] sent word that he will take oath of allegiance next mornning in presence of the public but same night he left for Makkah. Similarly Abdullah Bin Zubair[ra] also left for Makkah and took residence in the Haram. Abdullah Bin Umar[ra] sent word that when all the others will take bai'at he will also follow suit. Later he and Abdullah Bin Abbas[ra] to the oath of allegiance.

In Makkah people of Kufa continued to keep contact with Hussain [ra] and letters started comming in large numbers pressing him to come to Kufa and assuring him their full co-operation. Abdullah Bin Zubair[ra] realizing that Hussain[ra] stay in Makkah wouold be dangerous for his future plans advised him to proceed to Kufa.

When Khalilfah recieved reports from Medina, he sent a letter to Abdullah Bin Abbas[ra] who was a senior member of the family of Huaain[ra] requesting him to prevent Hussain[ra] from taking any step which will create discord in the Ummah. On reciept of the letter Abdullah Bin Abbas[ra] sent reply to the Khalifah informing himthat he would suitably advise Hussain[ra] and that hopefully Hussain[ra] will not take any undesirable step

Hussain[ra] stayed in Makkah for over four months. During all the time letter and delegations continued to come from Iraq. The official wee aware of it and kept Khalifah informed but the attitude of the Khallifah was soft. The Iraqies were not stopped from visiting Hussain[ra].

Hussain[ra] could not decide to go. Out of 17 sons of Ali[ra] only five were with Hussain[ra]. The remainning brothers including Muhammad Bin Hanifiyah[rta] did not support Hussian[ra]'s favourable response to the rebellion of Iraq. Outside the family also no one was in support of his intended move.




Replies:
Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 30 October 2005 at 10:21pm

Siege of Constantinople
49 to 59 Hijra [669 to 679 CE]


In the year 48 hijra when the Byzantines emperor Constantine was murdered, it was Hz. Muawiyah [ra] turn to take advantage of the situation. He made rpeparations and organized a two pronged attack, one from the land and other from the sea. He got 1700 war ships constructed. Cyprus was already conquered. The other small Islands near Greece was conquered. Cyprus was used as the Naval base. With these preparations the muslims fleet started. There was no opposition when the Muslim fleet sailed through Dardanelles. Thus the muslims Laid siege of Constantinope, Hz Muawiyah[ra] sent another force by land under the commad or his son Yazid Bin Muawiyah. The siege lasted for more then seven years.

This was the first campaign by the Muslims to occupy Constantinople. The Prophet[saw] had given the good tiding of paradise who took part in the campaign. Abdullah Bin Zubair[ra], Abdullah Bin Abbas[ra], Hussain Bin Ali[ra], and other distinguished Muslims Joined the campaign under the banner of Yazid Bin Muawiyah.

" Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]



Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 31 October 2005 at 9:55am
Bro Fatah-Momin, your story is very interesting, though strange, and is visibly lack authentic references. The only reference provided is also a "projection over" the history and not from the history itself. Hence, at this time, doesn't seem to be a reliable account.


Posted By: Abeer23
Date Posted: 31 October 2005 at 10:42am

Salaam brother, it's nice to have history summarized as it tends to be very long.  But I think some important events were left out (i.e the death/killing of the beloved grandson (r.a) of the prophet (s.a.w).

Al- Ismat is for the prophets.  All of the ashab were men, and to error is human.   Even though none of us like mentioning the mistakes of the ashab (r.a), history is history.  If we're going to tell it we may as well tell it as it happened.  It's just important to avoid bashing and slandering as this is haram.

Jazak allahu khairan for the post.

Salaam

 



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 31 October 2005 at 8:10pm
Hussain[ra] sent his cousin Muslim Bin Aqeel to kufa to ascertain the real position and secure support or him. Muslim on arrival in Kufa secretly started to take oath of allegiance on behalf if Hussain[ra]. In history this was the first occasion of taking oath secretly. In initial stage Muslim met with some success and he sent a signal to Hussain to proceed. Hussain[ra] accordingly left Makkah for Kufa on 8th of Zil-Hajj. About 60 person from Kufa and about 12 members of his family including ladies and children accompanied him.

When Muslim reached Kufa the Governor of Kufa was Nu'man Bin Baasheer. As he could not control the situation the Khallifah removed him and placed Ubaidullah Bin Ziad [right hand man of Hz. Ali(ra) who fought along side him in battle of Camel] Governor of Basra in additional charge. Ubaidullah Bin Ziad adopted stringent policy and arrested Hani Bin Urwah who was host to Muslim. When Muslim Bin Aqeel collected his supporters and tried to free Hani Bin Urwah, He was arrested and killed. Before he was killed Muslim requested Umar Bin saad to inform Hussain[ra] of actual situation and to advise him to return. The message was accordingly communicated to Hussain at Al Qar's. Hussain realizing the futility of proceeding to Kufa turned towards Damascus. The people of Kufa who were with him insisted he should proceed to Kufa butr he refused. Hussain[ra] reached Karbala, which is on the way to Damascus.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 01 November 2005 at 7:34am

Bro Fatah-Momin, why would you disregard my request for providing any authentic reference to your source of history before you paste more here? Anyone can bring such material, if its authenticity is not a question. Don't you agree with me on this? Our interest is on reliable accounts and not mere stories. Thanks.

 



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 01 November 2005 at 5:56pm

Bro AhmadJoyia,

Why are you egar for the refrences, if you have any objection to any of the events that I have quoted here please present your proof and if possible I may be able to answer your objections to your satisfaction.

Let see if you believe this Hadith to be sahi or not?

" Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]

If you do then you should know that Yazid Bin Muawiyah did lead the forces against Ceaser's city. If you think this is not a correct representation of events, please post your version of History.



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 01 November 2005 at 6:07pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

what are the scholars understanding of the hadith.

I would also like a refrence for your information including the exact number of the hadith in sahih bukhari. the responsability is on you to provide the refrence for your information not on Br Ahmad to proove it wrong.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 01 November 2005 at 10:39pm
I have not declined from presenting rerfrences, this is still an ongoing thread at the end of the article, the refrence of the book/books will be provieded, if any one has any objection to authenticity of any event he/she can put forth that particular event. If you think that it is necessary to put forth refrence prematurely, please let me know and I will do accordingly. This though will result in the loss of interest by other members in the thread.


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 01 November 2005 at 10:45pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

giving a refrence will allow people to judge and see whether they are  reading the works of respected scholars or sects. I would like to know the refrence.

Why are you posting this in small snipets post the entire article.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: herjihad
Date Posted: 02 November 2005 at 4:51pm

Bismillah,

Go ahead and give your references Brother Fatah.  Make it a reference post, and then we can get on with reading the story you are posting.

  Thanks!



-------------
Al-Hamdulillah (From a Married Muslimah) La Howla Wa La Quwata Illa BiLLah - There is no Effort or Power except with Allah's Will.


Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 02 November 2005 at 9:55pm

One of the book that I am using is "A brief history of Islam " by Dr. Hasanuddin Ahmed. Pg: 140 to 150, "Biographies of the Women Companions of the Holy Prophet" By Qazi Mohammad Saeed will use other books to in future.



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 03 November 2005 at 10:52am
Ubaidullah bin Ziad deputed Umar Bin Sa'ad to Hussain[ra] for peace talks. In the first round of talks Hussain[ra] agreed to take oath of allegiance. Ubaidullah bin Ziad sent a small army to have an eye on the people of Kufa who were likely to create trouble, On the way Hur bin Yazid met Hussain[ra] with any army and insisted that he should go to Kufa. When he refused the people of Kufa demanded their letters written to him should be returned to them. Hussain[ra] refused. The Kufites at this time played the same mischief that they had played earlier at the battle of Jumal.
On the one hand they attacked women tent where the bags containing the letters were kept and set fire to the tents and on the other attacked the army sent by Ubaidullah bin Ziad. In confusion thus created, Hussain[ra] with his male family members was killed. The army of ibn Ziad fought in defence which is evident from the fact that 88 persons from his army were killed against 72 from Hussain's[ra] party.

According to Tabari this unfortunate and avoidable incidence occured on 22nd Safar 61 Hijra [680 CE]. In 352 Hijra [963 CE] Mu'izud Dowlah Dailami[after 291 years] laid foundation of mass mourning and fixed the date as 10th of Moharram.


Posted By: Community
Date Posted: 03 November 2005 at 10:55am

The only thing i am sure about in the history of islam is that the prophet and the faithful got persecuted, had to migrate and eventually fight against those who would not sease attacking them and killing them for their faith, the way of Allah got cleared from such intollerant opressors by the faithful and thus the affair of Allah was settled in the lands and they were victorious, in other words religious freedom was esteblished. This can all be found in the koran.

As for Europe and other nations, the moment they implemented religious freedom most muslimeen seased fighting against them because the mission was completed, except a few states who claimed islam as the state religion. A muslim can practice and call to his faith everywhere in the world without being persecuted or killed, this is the whole purpose of jihaad, except if the muslim is hostile and wishes to conquer by force, then what can you hold against those who deffend themselves against such. Bagiy in arabic is conquest and it is forbidden for the faithful to engage in such warfare, this too can be found in the koran.

 

 



Posted By: herjihad
Date Posted: 03 November 2005 at 11:11am

Bismillah,

The history of our dear prophet's grandchildren is one of the most important things to know in Islaamic history.  He loved these children so much, and never departed from his love for them, yet look at this story of brutal murder for his family member!  When we pray, we pray for Muhammad, pbuh, and his family. 



-------------
Al-Hamdulillah (From a Married Muslimah) La Howla Wa La Quwata Illa BiLLah - There is no Effort or Power except with Allah's Will.


Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 03 November 2005 at 4:04pm

Yes very true that Hz. Muhammad Mustafa-o-Mujtaba [saw] loved his grand children a lot, and did spend time with them. This does not give any one right to obscure the history and lay blame on the people who are innocent of the charges against them.

Must remember that Quran take precedence over all the other source. Including Hadith. In Quran Allah has raised the status and virtues of the companions of the Nabi Allah[saw] May Allah be pleased with them all.

The history has been obscured so musch that today no one know about the main participant of the events, eg. Ubaudullah Bin Ziad was right hand man of Hz. Ali [ra] and fought alongside him in battle of Jumal against Ummal momineen Hz. Ayesha siddika[ra], he was appointed Governor of Kufa during the life time of Ameerul Momineen Hz. Ali Assaduallah[ra].

Shimr the man who severed the head of Hz. Hussain[ra] from his body was the brother in law of Ameerul Momineen Hz. Ali[ra]. 

Why is the history of these characters not introduce to the muslims when narrating the history, who are the people who are obscuring the history for their personal gains and creating unbreachable rift in Ummah.  



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 07 November 2005 at 8:28pm

According to Imam Ghazali"The person who entertains the idea that Yazid had given orders to kill Hz. Hussain[ra] is a fool. The details of this incidence can not be fully ascertained as the facts are shrouded by narrow mindedness"

The fact Ali bin Hussain[Zainul Abedin] who susrvived the massacre took the oath of allegiance at Damascus, throws the light on the intentions and position taken by Hz. Hussain[ra] at the later stage.



Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 08 November 2005 at 7:08am

Very interesting. There are couple of things that need little clarification. In that you said "...Nomination of succesor Khalifah was not an innovation as there was precedence for it. Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] had nominated Hz. Umar[ra] as his successor. ..."

In this comparison, one must not forget to note that Hz. Umar's nomination was more of a recommendation to the Muslim Umma without any baisness of heirship. Definitely this is not the case with the nomination of Yazid by his father. Isn't it?

Similarly, you said "A son succeeding the father was also not objectionable as there was precedence to it. Hz. Hassan[ra] succeeded Hz. Ali[ra]  moreover those who bitterly criticised the nomination themselves believed in Imam, most of whome succeeded their fathers."

Is this a sufficient justification? I don't think so. What if I object to such an appointment who is definitely not among those who believe in nominations of Imamat from their fathers? Seconly, in this context, if we review the incident of Hz. Ali got murdered during his time of Khalifa, I don't know when was Hz. Hassan got nomination for such a Khalaafat? Some say that he (Hz Hassan) was asked by the people around to take over the seat temporarily till the new Khalifa is decided. There are certain missing links in your history that definitely need more elaboration in this matter.

Then you quoted that " Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]
" In this, can you elaborate as who was "Ceaser" and which city at the time of Rasulallah (and not after wards) was known as "Ceaser's City"? On a more important note, one may ask as to why was such a reward was prophesized for an invasion? Was Prophet Mohammad got hopeless (Naoozbillah) that Allah's rehma for Ceaser would not come and would not make him obeident to Allah till his country was invaded? I don't think so? 

In the last, brother can you tell us what was the age of Hz. Ali bin Hussain [Zainul Abedin] who survived the massacre, when he took the oath of allegiance at Damascus? I thought he was just a kid at that time. Isn't it? Then what is the significance of his allegiance? 



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 08 November 2005 at 8:18pm

AhmadJoyia:" In this, can you elaborate as who was "Ceaser" and which city at the time of Rasulallah (and not after wards) was known as "Ceaser's City"? On a more important note, one may ask as to why was such a reward was prophesized for an invasion? Was Prophet Mohammad got hopeless (Naoozbillah) that Allah's rehma for Ceaser would not come and would not make him obeident to Allah till his country was invaded? I don't think so? 

 

It appears that I am pinching on your sensitive nerve, are you one of the Munkir Hadith guys? the latest rage in Pakistan among liberal people. Nabi Allah[saw] only said what was told to him by Allah, if he[saw] prophesized and incident which did come to pass, it goes to prove his vision of the future of Ummah. Why are you having problem accepting the hadith which has been accepted by the scholars of Ummah for last 1400yrs, if you know better then them please put forth you argument. why do you not open up and say what is on your mind, so we can have a candid debate.



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 08 November 2005 at 9:03pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

What do traditional scholars say about that hadith, a hadith is worthless with out a proper tafsir.

Sunni scholars like to stay silent about people such as yazid but no one denies his excess.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 09 November 2005 at 7:31am

O my dear brother Fateh-Momin, why are you so apt in labeling others, though they merely ask you "reasonable" questions? A person's attitude reflects his intelligence and his knowledge more through logical and rational thinking and less from memorizing the text without understanding. Kindly see if you have any answers to my questions from logical analysis than from any thing else. One way to go about is to look, as what bro rami has also indicated, as what traditional scholars say about that hadith. This is more prudent especially once we know from the history that it was Heraclius who was incharge of Byzantium at the time of Rasulllah and not Ceaser. Following is the historical account of the message of Prophet Mohammad to Heraclius and then his reaction to this message. The obvious dicotomy of your narration and this historical account is quite visible. Kindly refer to The Life of Muhammad (Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) by Muhammad Husayn Haykal Translated by Isma'il Razi A. al-Faruqi .

In this book the author writes "...Muhammad mentioned to them that he was planning to send messengers to Heraclius, the Archbishop of Alexandria; to al Harith of Ghassan, King of al Hirah; to al Harith of Himyar, King of Yaman; and to the Negus of Abyssinia, calling them all to Islam. The companions approved and made for him a seal out of silver which read "Muhammad, the Prophet of God." Muhammad sent letters to these chiefs, an example of which is the message sent to Heraclius."

He further writes "...it is known that the Prophet's letter did reach Heraclius, and that the Emperor was not irritated by it. Instead of sending an army to conquer Arabia, Heraclius did in fact send a gentle letter in reply to Muhammad's message. It was this gentle response to Muhammad's message that a number of historians mistook as meaning that Heraclius had joined the ranks of Islam..."

 



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 09 November 2005 at 10:23pm

Let me continue on the event of Seige of Constantinople, before I answer the post by AhmadJoyia as he use to making statement which he regrets in the end.

In the year 48 Hijrah when the Byzantine emperor Constantine was murdered, it was Mu'awiyah's turn to take advantage of the situation. He made preparations and organized a two pronged attack, one from the land and other from the sea. He got 1700 war ships constructed. Cyprus was already conquered. The other small island near Greece was conquered. Cyprus was used as the Naval Base. With these preparations the Muslim fleet started. There was no opposition when the Muslim fleet sailedthrough Dardanelles. Thus the muslims laid diege of Constatinople. Mu'awiyah sent another force by land under the command of Yazid Bin Mu'awiyah. The siege lasted for more then seven years. The Muslims fleet Suffered heavy losses because of Greek Fire. The siege had to lifted for the following reasons:

 

1. Inspite of preparations the Muslim fleet could not match the Byzantine fleet

2. The city og Constantinople was strongly fortified.

3. The Byzantines were having Greek Fire which the Muslims faced for the first time.

This was the first campaign by the Muslims to occupy Constantinople. The Prophet[saw] had given good tidings of paradise who took part in the campaign. Abdullah bin Zubair, Abdullah Bin Abbas, Hussain bin Ali [may Allah be pleased with them all] and other distinguised Muslims joioned the campaign under the banner of Yazid Bin Mu'awiyah

 



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 09 November 2005 at 10:30pm

The Envoy to Caesar, King of Rome:

Al-Bukhari gave a long narration of the contents of the letter sent by the Prophet to Hercules, king of the Byzantines:

"In the Name of Allh,
the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

From Muhammad, the slave of Allh and His Messenger to Hercules, king of the Byzantines.

Blessed are those who follow true guidance. I invite you to embrace Islam so that you may live in security. If you come within the fold of Islam, Allh will give you double reward, but in case you turn your back upon it, then the burden of the sins of all your people shall fall on your shoulders.

  • "Say (O Muhammad ): O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allh, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allh. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. " [3:64][]
  • The Muslim envoy, Dihyah bin Khalifah Al-Kalbi, was ordered to hand the letter over to king of Busra, who would in turn, send it to Caesar.

    Incidentally, Abu Sufyan bin Harb, who by that time had not embraced Islam, was summoned to the court and Hercules asked him many questions about Muhammad and the religion which he preached. The testimony which this avowed enemy of the Prophet gave regarding the personal excellence of the Prophets character and the good that Islam was doing the human race, left Hercules wonder-struck.

    Al-Bukhri, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, narrated that Hercules sent for Abu Sufyan and his companions, who happened to be trading in Ash-Sham, Jerusalem. That was during the truce that had been concluded between the polytheists of Quraish and the Messenger of Allh . Hercules, seated amongst his chiefs of staff, asked, "Who amongst you is the nearest relative to the man who claims to be a Prophet?" "I (Abu Sufyan) replied: I am the nearest relative to him from amongst the group. So they made me sit in front of him and made my companions sit behind me. Then he called upon his translator and said (to him). Tell them (i.e. Abu Sufyans companions) that I am going to ask him (i.e. Abu Sufyan) regarding that men who claims to be a Prophet. So if he tells a lie, they should contradict him (instantly). By Allh had I not been afraid that my companions would consider me a liar, I would have told lies", Abu Sufyan later said.

    Abu Sufyans testimony went as follows: "Muhammad descends from a noble family. No one of his family happened to assume kingship. His followers are those deemed weak with numbers ever growing. He neither tells lies nor betrays others, we fight him and he fights us but with alternate victory. He bids people to worship Allh Alone with no associate, and abandon our fathers beliefs. He orders us to observe prayer, honesty, abstinence and maintain strong family ties." "Hercules, on hearing this testimony, turned to his translator bidding him to communicate to us his following impression which reveals full conviction in the truthfulness of Muhammads Prophethood: I fully realize that Prophets come from noble families; he does not affect any previous example of Prophethood. Since none of his ancestors was a monarch, we cannot then allege that he is a man trying to reclaim his fathers monarchy. So long as he does not tell lies to people, he is for the more reason, immune to telling lies as regards Allh. Concerning his followers being those deemed weak with numbers ever growing, it is something that goes in agreement with questions of Faith until this latter assumes its full dimensions geographically and demographically. I have understood that no instance of apostasy has as yet appeared among his followers, and this points to the bliss of Faith that finds its abode in the human heart. Betrayal, as I see, is alien to him because real Prophets hold betrayal in abhorrence. Bidding worship of Allh with no associates, observance of prayer, honesty and abstinence and prohibition of paganism are traits bound to subject to him all my possessions. I have already known that a Prophet must arise but it has never occurred to me that he will be an Arab from among you. If I was sure I would be faithful to him, I might hope to meet him, and if I were with him, I would wash his feet. Hercules then requested that the Prophets letter be read. The observations of the emperor and finally the definite and clear-cut exposition of the Islamic message could not but create a tense atmosphere amongst the clergy present at the court. We were ordered to go out." Abu Sufyan said, "While coming out, I said to my companions, The matter of Ibn Abi Kabshah (i.e. Muhammad ) has become so prominent that even the king of Banu Al-Asfar (i.e. the Romans) is afraid of him. So I continued to believe that Allhs Messenger would be victorious, till Allh made me embrace Islam." The king did not embrace Islam for it was differently ordained. However, the Muslim envoy was returned to Madinah with the felicitations of the emperor.

    On his way back to Madinah, Dihyah Al-Kalbi was intercepted by people from Judham tribe in Hasmi, who looted the presents sent to the Prophet . Zaid bin Haritha at the head of five hundred men was despatched to that spot, inflicted heavy losses on those people and captured 1000 camels, 5000 of their cattle and a hundred women and boys. The chief of Judham who had embraced Islam filed a complaint with the Prophet, who gave a positive response to the formers protest, and ordered that all the spoils and captives be returned.



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 09 November 2005 at 10:35pm

     " Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
    [Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]

     

    Now if we read the hadith wording carefully it explicitly state "INVADE CEASER'S CITY" Mr.AhmadJoyia has different meaning of the the word "invade" in his vocabulory it mean to send "Envoy with a letter of Dawah"



    Posted By: AhmadJoyia
    Date Posted: 10 November 2005 at 7:17am

    Originally posted by Fateh-Momin

    Let me continue on the event of Seige of Constantinople, before I answer the post by AhmadJoyia as he use to making statement which he regrets in the end.

    Thanks bro for your concern for me, though not without malice, that too, by completely ignoring to respond to my other questions as well. Ok, coming back to the topic, it is interesting to note that you provided two names for the Byzantine emperor, i.e when you say "In the year 48 Hijrah when the Byzantine emperor Constantine was murdered, it was Mu'awiyah's turn to take advantage of the situation." in one of the narrations and another when you say "Al-Bukhari gave a long narration of the contents of the letter sent by the Prophet to Hercules, king of the Byzantines". In this view, can you provide any explanation as which emperor and / or city was being referred by Rasullalah in your quoted hadith?

    Secondly, if we critically look at the situation that you are trying to portray, it seems like that on one end Prophet was sending dawah messages through peace missions and on the other side he was instigating Muslims to invade the Christian capital without providing any reason to it. How these two apperantly  mismatch strategies can be reconciled, keeping in view the verses of Quran for the Christians as you also quoted from the Shahi Bokhari? I shall reinstate them here for completion purposes.

    "Say (O Muhammad ): O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allh, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allh. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. " [3:64] 



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 10 November 2005 at 8:09pm
    Originally posted by AhmadJoyia

     

    Thanks bro for your concern for me, though not without malice, that too, by completely ignoring to respond to my other questions as well. Ok, coming back to the topic, it is interesting to note that you provided two names for the Byzantine emperor, i.e when you say "In the year 48 Hijrah when the Byzantine emperor Constantine was murdered, it was Mu'awiyah's turn to take advantage of the situation." in one of the narrations and another when you say "Al-Bukhari gave a long narration of the contents of the letter sent by the Prophet to Hercules, king of the Byzantines". In this view, can you provide any explanation as which emperor and / or city was being referred by Rasullalah in your quoted hadith?

    Secondly, if we critically look at the situation that you are trying to portray, it seems like that on one end Prophet was sending dawah messages through peace missions and on the other side he was instigating Muslims to invade the Christian capital without providing any reason to it. How these two apperantly  mismatch strategies can be reconciled, keeping in view the verses of Quran for the Christians as you also quoted from the Shahi Bokhari? I shall reinstate them here for completion purposes.

    "Say (O Muhammad ): O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allh, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allh. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. " [3:64] 

    See how craftly you mix two posts togather, the post I continued the siege of constantinople is different from the one where I quote from Book about the life of the Blessed prophet. Hercules was the king during the life time of Nabi Allah[saw] and the siege happened in 48 Hijrah right after the Constantine passsed away. Why do you not do the math at home before you post any responses. Please also learn difference between Dawah and Invasion.

     



    Posted By: AhmadJoyia
    Date Posted: 11 November 2005 at 7:31am

    Originally posted by Fatah-Momin

    See how craftly you mix ,....

    Thanks bro again for being typical. Your persistant abuses on my intentions are now coming to the understanding of everyone on this forum more than any where else.

    ... two posts togather the post I continued the siege of constantinople is different from the one where I quote from Book about the life of the Blessed prophet. Hercules was the king during the life time of Nabi Allah[saw] and the siege happened in 48 Hijrah right after the Constantine passsed away. Why do you not do the math at home before you post any responses. Please also learn difference between Dawah and Invasion.

    Humbly stated, your reply is far away from the logical reasoning I have presented. Kindly see if one needs tutoring to understand "logic". Obviously, this forum is not the right place for such an activity. Nevertheless, it is exactly this math that provides total refutation of your understanding of the hadith that you quoted for invasion. In fact, its not me who is joining the two occassions, but you yourself when you said in one of your earliest posts "This was the first campaign by the Muslims to occupy Constantinople. The Prophet[saw] had given the good tiding of paradise who took part in the campaign." Hopefully, now you may realise the point I have highlighted. Hope to hear logical reasoning than emotional from you. May Allah bless us all.



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 11 November 2005 at 10:11am
    I think bro either you do not want to understand the issue or you have an hidden agenda in both the cases it is intentional. This is why I requested you to have a open debate with me on the issue of your choice, let us debate this very issue,what is your stand on Yazid Bin Mu'awiyah. We will begin from here.


    Posted By: AhmadJoyia
    Date Posted: 11 November 2005 at 12:56pm

    Originally posted by Fatah-Momin

    I think bro either you do not want to understand the issue or you have an hidden agenda in both the cases it is intentional.

    Your thinking is not logical, though I am very sorry to say this, my brother. I have neigther any "hidden agenda" nor it is true that I don't want to understand the issue. Rather, I shall appreciate that there is some one who is bringing the other side of the story as well, which is new to me at least. However, one must proceed with caution with all the logical analysis of the material to sift right from the wrong. It is in this context that all my questions are from your own material that you have posted uptill now, not from "bad" but sincere intentions to understand them in their right perspective. Since its you who is providing this info, therefore, its understanding is assumed to be with you. But if you are simply cutting and pasting from the book that you referred, though the efforts are still commendable, but understanding of the issue becomes even more important. It is in this regard that my questions become even more important to look at. 

    In the end, I don't have any opinions about early personalities of Islam except that they all were humans.



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 11 November 2005 at 10:24pm

    You say "proceed with caution" and when I do you say  "conclusion that fears me alot from too precautionary a note" Make up your mind, which route you want to take.



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 16 November 2005 at 8:29pm
    DISASTER OF CAMEL 

    Some people relate that when the pledge of allegiance to `Ali was completed, Talha and az-Zubayr asked `Ali for permission to go to Makka. (135) `Ali said, "Perhaps you mean to go to Basra and Syria?" They swore that they would not do that. (136) `A'isha was at Makka. (137) `Abdullah b. `Amr, the Governor of `Uthman over Basra and Ya'la b. Umayya, `Uthman's Governor over the Yemen, fled to Makka.

    All of them met in Makka. They included Marwan b. al-Hakam. The Banu Umayya met and they wanted revenge for `Uthman's blood. Ya`la gave Talha, az-Zubayr, and `A'isha four hundred dirhams. He gave two hundred dinars. They wanted to go to Syria. Ibn `Amir stopped them and said, "You have not agreed to meet Mu`awiya. I have hirelings in Basra. Go to them instead."

    They came to Ma'al-Hawa'ib (138) and the dogs barked. `A'isha asked and was told, "This is the water of al-Hawa'ib." She took his halter from him. That was because she had heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Which of you will be the one with the thick- haired camel (139) when the dogs bark at her at al-Huwa'ib?" Talha and az-Zubayr testified that that was not Ma'al-Hawa'ib and fifty men added to them. (140) It was the first false testimony which had occurred in Islam. (141)

    `Ali went to Kufa. (142) `Ali travelled from Madina to Iraq by way of ar-Rabadha, Fid, ath-Tha'labiya, al-Asawid and Dhu Qar. From ar-Rabadha, he sent Muhammad b. Abi Bakr and Muhammad b. Ja`far to Kufa. They came back to him while he was at Dhu Qar, saying that Abu Musa and the people of discernment among the Kufans wanted to refrain and not to go out. He sent al-Ashtar and Ibn `Abbas. Then he sent his son al-Hasan and `Ammar to win the people over to him. While he was on his way, `Uthman b. Hanif and Hukaym b. Jabala started to fight the People of the Camel. In al-Asawid, he received news of the death of Hukaym b. Jabala and the murderers of `Uthman. Then `Uthman b. Hanif came to `Ali while he was in ath-Tha'labiyya. `Uthman had his beard plucked out and he was helpless. `Ali set up his army in Dhu Qar. Then he went to Basra with his men, where the People of the Camel were located.

    The two groups formed armies and met. (143) When `Ammar was near the howdah of `A'isha, he said, "What are you seeking?" They said, "We are seeking (revenge) for `Uthman's blood." He said, "On this day, Allah will kill the attackers and the one who seeks blood without a right." (144)
    `Ali and az-Zubayr met. `Ali said to him, "Do you remember the words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that you would fight me?" az-Zubayr left him and went back. His son tried to make him return and he would not do it. Al-Ahnaf followed him (az-Zubayr) and then murdered him.(145)

    `Ali called to Talha from a distance and said, "What do you want?" He said, "Revenge for `Uthman's blood." He said, "May Allah fight you! We are entrusted with the blood of `Uthman. Have you not heard the words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he said, `Be a friend to the one who is his friend and be an enemy to the one who is his enemy and help the one who helps him and disappoint the one who disappoints him' You are the first to offer me allegiance and then break it." (146)

    PROTECTION

    As for their going to Basra, that is correct without any doubt.

    But why did they go? There is no sound transmission regarding that and there is no one who is to be trusted in it because the reliable individuals did not tansmit anything. One does not listen to the words of the partisan, including the partisan who wants to attack Islam and find fault with the Companions.

    It is possible that they went out to depose `Ali by something that seemed correct to them. (147) That was because they had offered homage to him in order to still the rebellion, but they still sought the truth.

    It is possible that they went out to get power over `Uthman's murderers. (148)

    It is possible that they went to join the groups of the muslims and to bring them together and refer them to the same law so that they would not be agitated and fight.

    This is what is sound and nothing else. The sound reports bring that.

    As for the first possibilities, they are all false and weak. As for their giving homage by force, that is false as we have clarified.

    As for their seeking to depose him, that is false, because deposing a person is only by a universal opinion, although it is possible that one or two many appoint. Deposing someone only occurs after evidence and clarification.

    As for their going out because of the business of the murderers of `Uthman, that is weak because the root before it was unity. It is possible to combine both matters. (149)

    It is related that part of the rabble among the people had made them absent. (150)

    Talha, az-Zubayr and `A'isha, the Umm al-Mu'minun, may Allah be pleased with them, left hoping to return people to their source and to preserve the respect of their Prophet. As evidence againt her, (151) they quoted Allah ta'ala when he said, "There is no good in much of their conspiring secretly except for the one who commands sadaqa or something correct or to put things right between people (4:114)." The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out to make peace and he sent messenger for it. She hoped for the reward and used that story. She went out so that things would reach their proper conclusions.



    ================================================

    135. `Abdullah b. `Umar b. al-Khattab was one of those who asked him for permission to go to Makka. The reason for that was that when the oath of homage to `Ali was finished, `Ali decided to fight the people of Syria. He delegated the people of Madina to go with him. He said, "I am a man of the people of Madina. If they go, I will go with them in full obedience. But I will not go out to fight this year." Then Ibn `Umar made provisions and left for Makka (Ibn Kathir, 7:230). Al-Hasan b. `Ali opposed his father about going out to fight the peope of Syria. `Ali left him in Madina as you will see later.

    136. The words of `Ali to them, and their path to them, are part of what the perpetrators of the disaster and their transmitters added.

    137. She and the Mothers of the Believers went to Makka when the attackers prevented water from reaching the Amir al-Mu'minin, `Uthman. He began to ask people for water. Umm Habiba brought water to him and they treated her with contempt. They struck the face of her mule and cut the rope of the mule with the sword (at -Tabari, 5:127). The Ummahat al-Mu'minin prepared to go on Hajj, to flee from the siege (Ibn Kathir, 7:229).

    138. Al-Hawa'ib is one of the springs on the road to Basra. Abu'l-Fath Nasr b. `Abdu'r-Rahman al-Iskandari said that Yaqut quoted him in `The Collection of the Lands'. Abu `Ubayd al-Bakri said in his collection that it is some water near Basra on the Makkan road. It was named al-Hawa'ub bint Kalb b. Wabara al- Quda'iyya.

    139. "Adib.": adabb. There is assimilation for the sake of the rhyme.Al-Adabb means much hair on the face, Ibn al-Athir said that in `The End'.

    140. They did not testify and `A'isha did not say that nor did the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say that. We will make that clear in its place in the Protection.

    141. The false testimony came from rabble who did not fear Allah, like Abu Zaynab and Abu'l-Mawra' as was already stated. It came from those who claimed to have the power to create a personality which Allah did not create - like whoever fabricated the name of Thabit, the client of Umm Salama, as was already stated. As for Talha and az-Zubayr, they had been promised the Garden by the Prophet of mercy, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who did not speak from passion. They had the highest character and they were notable to themselves and to Allah to give false testimony. This lie against them came from men who hated the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It is not the first lie they made in Islam nor was it the last of the lies that they forged against him and his people.

    142. He left Madina at the end of the month of Rabi' al-Akhir in 36 A.H. in order to be near to Syria. His son al-Hasan wanted his father to stay in Madina and take it as the abode of the khalifate as the three Khalifs had done before him (at-Tabari, 5:171). Look at 5:163

    143. After `Ali reached Dhu Qarr, al-Qa'qa' b. `Amr understood to attempt to reach an agreement, `Ali went to Basra with his men. The murderers of `Uthman were quick to scotch the attempts at peace by starting the battle.

    144. The two groups were seeking an understanding and unity. As for the attackers, they were the murderers of `Uthman. Allah killed them all except for one. That will be made clear.

    145. Az-Zubayr's murderers were `Umayr b. Jurmuz, Faddala b. Habis and Nufay' at-Tamimi. Al-Ahnaf had too much fear of Allah to command them to kill him. He did hear them grumbling about the muslims fighting each other. Then they caught up to az-Zubayr and murdered him (at-Tabari, 5:197).

    146. Talha was too true in belief and high in character to give allegiance and then break it. He wanted to unify things by investigating the murderers of `Uthman. `Ali agreed to this as will come in the following study. However, those who had committed a crime against Islam the first time when they attacked `Uthman were the enemies of Allah the next time by starting the fight between these two groups of muslims.

    147. This possibility is remote in respect of those right-acting excellent ones. Nothing they did indicated this. All the events indicate that they were above it. This is what Ibn Hajar believed in `The Opening of the Creator' (13:41-42). In the book, `The Reports of Basra' by `Umar b. Shabba he quotes what al-Muhallab said, "No one transmitted that `A'isha and those with her debated `Ali out of desire for the Khalifate nor did any of them ask to be appointed Khalif."

    148. This is what they used to say. However, they meant that they would reach an agreement with `Ali in any manner by which they could do that. This is what the Striving Companion al-Qa'qa' b. `Amr attempted to do. Both parties accepted him as will be mentioned.

    149. The combination of the two matters very nearly took place if it had not been that the Saba'ites foiled it. The People of the Camel came about `Uthman's murderers. That was all that they sought. However, they wanted to reach an understanding about it with `Ali because reaching an understanding with him was the first way to obtain their goal.

    150. i.e. Talha and az-Zubayr and `A'ishah were absent from Madina.

    151. When they induced her to go to Basra


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 16 November 2005 at 8:30pm
    The people of Basra became aware of them and those who had conspired against `Uthman egged the people on and said, "Go out to them so that you can see what they have come to do." `Uthman b. Hanif sent Hukaym b. Jabala. (152) He met Talha and az-Zubayr at az-Zabuqa, and Hukaym was killed. (153) If he had gone out as submitting muslim and not as a resistor, (154) nothing would have happened to him. What good did he have in defence? What was he defending? They did not come as fighters or rulers. They were working for peace and desired to bring things together. Whoever went out to them and opposed them and fought them, opposed their goal as is done in all journeys and goals.

    When they reached Basra, the people met them in a group (155) at the upper part of Al-Murbadd. There were so many of them that if a stone had been thrown, it would have fallen on a man's head. Talha spoke, az-Zubayr spoke, and `A'isha spoke, may Allah be pleased with all of them. (156) There was a great uproar. (157) Talha said, "Be quiet," They began to pester him and would not be silent. He said, "Shame, shame. A bed of fire and flies of ambition!" Then turned back without having clarified things. (158) They went down to the Banu Nahd, and people threw stone at them until they had descended the mountain. (159)

    Talha, az-Zubayr and `Uthman b. Hanif, the Governor of `Ali over Basra, met. They agreed in writing between them not to fight, that `Uthman had the House of the Amirate, the Mosque, and the Treasury and that Talha and az-Zubayr could stay wherever they wished in Basra and the two parties would not turn against each other until `Ali had come. `Ali came to Basra (160) and they drew near so as to see each other. (161) The people of the sects did not leave them alone. They hastened to shed blood and the war started. There was clamour in the mob. All of that was done so that there would not be a clear proof and the state would not be clarified and the murderers of `Uthman could remain hidden. If one man in the army can pervert its direction, then how is it when there are a thousand perverting it?

    It is related that when Marwan saw Talha in the ranks, he said, "We do not seek for traces after finding the sources." and that he shot his arrow and killed him. (162) It was related that he was hit by an arrow at the command of Marwan, not that Marwan himself shot it. (163)

    Ka'b b. Suar brought out a Qur'an which was open in his hand, begging the people by Allah not to shed blood. (164) An arrow struck and killed him. (165) Perhaps it was the same with Talha. It is known that in the strife and the slaughter of the battle, those who had feuds and rancour were able to undo bonds and break agreements. The terms were at hand and the promises were carried out. (166)

    If it is said, why did `A'isha go out when the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had told them in the Hajj of Farewell, "After this, confinement (busr) will appear." (167)

    We say: (relate two hadith to a woman. If she refuses, then make them four.) Oh intellects of women! Did I not enjoin you not to relate false hadith? (We already brought forward to you clear proof for the correctness of Aishas action)* (168)

    As for what you mentioned about the testimony regarding Ma' al- Hawa`ib, you have committed the greatest sin (169) in mentioning it. There is absolutely nothing in what you mentioned. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not utter that hadith. Those words did not occur nor did anyone testify to them. You have written your testimonies with this falsehood and you will be questioned.

    ==================================================

    152. `Uthman b. Hanif was an Ansari from `Aws. When the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, emigrated to Madina, he was one of fifteen `Awsi youths who joined Abu `Amr b. Sayfi when he went to Makka, because he was angry with the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Abu `Amr was called the "Monk" in the Jahiliyya. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, called him "al-Fasiq (the deviant)", (at-Tabari, 3:16). It is clear that `Uthman b. Hanif returned from Makka and became muslim before Uhud because it was the first of his battles (Isaba 2:249). The Shi'a claim that he rebelled against the Khalif of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq at the beginning of his Khalifate. (`The Revision of the Article', by al-Mamqani (1:197). He believed that he was one of those they lied about. He was in charge of the sector of the land of Iraq and collecting its jizya and kharaj taxes for `Umar. If what they claim about his agitating Abu Bakr is true, this would conflict with `Umar's appointment of him unless he had repented of that.
    When homage was given to `Ali at the end of 35 A.H. and he chose his governors at the beginnng of 36 A.H., he appointed `Uthman b. Hanif over Basra (at-Tabari, 5:161). When the People of the Camel reached al-Hafir, about four miles from Basra, `Uthman b. Hanif sent `Imran b. Husayn al-Khuza'i, the bearer of the banner of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for Khuza'a on the Day of the Conquest of Makka, to them to investigate them for him. When he came back to him and mentioned his conversation with the People of the Camel `Uthman b. Hanif told him, "Advise me, `Imran." He told him, "I am not going out, so you should refrain". `Uthman said, "I will stop them until the Amir al-Mu'minin `Ali comes" Hisham b. `Amr al-Ansari, one of the people of jihad in the Conquest, indicated that he should make peace with them until `Ali's command came. `Uthman b. Hanif refused and sommoned the people. "Put on your weapons!" `Uthman occupied himself with deceit (5:174-175). His end was unsuccessful and he lost power to the People of the Camel. Ibn Hanif was captured by the mob and his beard was plucked out. Then the People of the Camel rescued him from them. He retreated to the army of `Ali which was in ath-Tha'labiyya and then in Dhu Qar. This was `Uthman b. Hanif and his position with the People of the Camel. As for Hukaym b. Jabala, the reader already knowns that he was one of those who murdered the Amir al-Mu'minin `Uthman. This was already stated earlier.

    153. Az-Zabuqa: a place near Basra. The first stage of the Battle of the Camel took place there after Talha, az-Zubayr and `A'isha had spoken in al-Murbadd. As for the death of Hukaym b. Jabala, that was after the first battle which ended in the victory of the People of the Camel and they had power in Basra. Hukaym b. Jabala was insolent in this new situation and he fought with three hundred of his helpers until he was killed.

    154. i.e. fighting

    155. Murbadd of Basra: the place where the camel-market was held, outside of the city. Then it was the place where the poets boasted and the assemblies of the orators were held. Then the buildings of Basra expanded and al-Murbadd became part of its inhabited areas. It was one of its most glorious streets and its market was one of its greatest markets. It became an immense quarter, full of people. When the position of Basra declined and its buidlings grew old, it dwindled. Al-Murbadd became separate from it until there were three miles between it and Basra in the time of Yaqut. Al-Murbadd is a ruin. It is like a city isolated in the middle of the desert. The location of Basra at that time was near the place of the modern suburb, az-Zubayr

    156. The People of the Camel were on the right of al-Murbadd and `Uthman b. Hanif and those with him were on the left of it. At- Tabari (5:175) gave a summary of the speeches of Talha, az- Zubayr, and `A'isha. He quoted that from Sayf b. `Umar at-Tamimi from his shaykhs. They are the historians who have the best knowledge of events in Iraq.

    157. Because those who were on the left spoke while Talha and az- Zubayr were speaking. They said, "They have split! they are treacherous! They are speaking lies and command what is false! They gave homage and now they come saying this!" Those who were on the right were saying, "They are truthful! They are dutiful! They speak the truth and command the truth!" People broke up and threw pebbles at each other and spoke sharply. However, when `A'isha finished her speech, those with the Camel were firm in their constancy, but the people of `Uthman b. Hanif split into two groups. One group said, "She spoke the truth, by Allah, she is pious and has brought what is correct." The others said, "You lie! We do not recognise what you say." They broke up and threw pebbles at each other.

    158. When `A'isha saw what the helpers of `Uthman b. Hanif did, she went down with the people of the right side, they left Ibn Hanif and stood elsewhere. Some of those who were with Ibn Hanif went with `A'isha, others remaied with `Uthman b. Hanif (at- Tabari, 5:175).

    159. At-Tabari (5:176-177)has a fine description which Sayf b. `Umar at-Tamimi transmitted from his two shaykhs, Muhammad b. `Abdulah b. Suwad b. Nuwayra and Talha b. al-`A'lam al-Hanafi about the sound position of the People of the Camel in this battle and the excess of Hukaym b. Jabala when he started the fight. They both said, "`A'isha commanded her companions and they went to the right, to the cemetery of the Banu Mazin. Then night separated the two groups. The following day, the People of the Camel moved to the side of Dar ar-Razq. In the morning, `Uthman b. Hanif and Hukaym b. Jabala renewed the fight. Hukaym continued to curse the Umm al-Muminin, `A'isha, and he killed the men and women who censured him for that. `A'isha's herald told people not to fight, they refused when evil touched them and held to them, then the companions of `A'isha called for peace.

    160. He camped in a place there called az-Zuwiya. The People of the Camel camped in a place called al-Furda.

    161. In the place where the castle of `Ubaydullah b. Ziyad is located. That was Thursday in the middle of Jumada al-Akhira, 36 A.H. (at-Tabari, 5:199). The lofty Companion al-Qa'qa' b. `Amr at-Tamimi stood between the two groups attempting intelligent mediation. The People of the Camel answered him and `Ali submitted to that as well. `Ali sent to Talha and az-Zubayr saying, "If you still hold to what you told al-Qa'qa'a `Amr, then hold off until we come and investigate this matter." They sent to him, "We hold to what we told al-Qa'qa' b. `Amr regarding peace between the people." Ibn Kathir said in `The Beginning and the End' (7:239), people were reassured and tranquil. Each group gathered with its people. In the evening, `Ali sent `Abdullah b. `Abbas to them. They sent Muhammad b. Talha as-Sajjad to `Ali. They all decided on peace and spent the best night they had ever spent in well being. Those who had agitated in the business of `Uthman spent the worst night they had ever spent. They were looking in the face of destruction. They began to consult each other for the entire night until they agreed to start the war secretly. They concealed that, fearing that the evil they desired would become known. They went out in th dark of night so that their neighbours would not be aware of them. They slipped into that business. As well as `The History' of Ibn Kathir, look at `The History' of at- Tabari (5:202-203) and `The Path of the Sunna' (2:185 and 3:225& 241). That is how they started the war between `Ali and his brothers, az-Zubayr and Talha. The People of the Camel thought that `Ali had deceived them. `Ali thought that his brothers had deceived him. Each of them had too much fear of Allah to do that even in the jahiliyya. How then could they do it after they had reached the highest rank of the qualities of the Qur'an?

    162. The bane of reports are their transmitters. In Islamic knowledge, there is a cure for the bane of false lies. Every person who relates a report is demanded by Islam to specify his source according to the rule, "From where did you get this?" No community knows precision like this in seeking only the sources of reports as the muslims knew it, especially the people of the Sunna among them. This report from Talha and Marwan is "picked up." Neither his father nor his Companion is known. Since no one reliable transmitted it with a known isnad from reliable men, Qadi Ibn al-`Arabi can say with deep conviction, "Who knows this except the One who knows the Unseen Worlds?"Who knows this except the one who knows the Unseen Worlds since no reliable source transmitted it?

    163. This claim is like the previous claim from az-Zubayr that al-Ahnaf was the one who commanded his murder

    164. Ka'b b. Suwar al-Azdi was the first of the Qadis of the muslims in Basra. The Amir al-Mu'minin `Umar appointed him. Ibn `Abdu'r-Barr said, "He was a muslim in the time of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, although he did not see him."

    165. Ibn `Asakir (7:85) said in the biography of Talha, "`A'isha said to Ka`b b. Suwar al-Azdi, "Leave the camel, Ka'b. Bring the Book of Allah and call them to it." She gave him a Qur'an and he went forward to the people. The Saba'ites were in front of him. They feared that there would be peace. Ka'b confronted them with the Qur'an while `Ali was behind them, urging them (to accept). They refused to do anything but advance. When Ka'b called them, they shot him once and killed him. Then they shot at the Umm al- Mu'minin. The first thing which she did when they refused was to say, "Oh people! Curse the murderers of `Uthman and their parties." She began to supplicate and the people of Basra shouted out the curse. `Ali heard the invocation and said, "What is this shouting?" They said, "`A'isha is calling and the people of Basra are praying with her against the murderers of `Uthman and their parties." `Ali began to call, "Oh Allah, curse the murderers of `Uthman and their parties!" I said, "The men of right action of both parties shared in cursing the murderers of the Amir al- Mu'minin, the wronged martyr, in the very hour in which the murderers of `Uthman started the battle between the muslim men of right action.

    166. Ibn `Asakir (7:86-87) quoted the words of ash-Sha`bi, "`Ali b. Abi Talib saw Talha fallen down in one of the valleys. He got down and wiped the dust from his face. Then he said, "Abu Muhmmad, it pains me to see you in the dust in a valley under the stars of the sky. I complain to Allah of all my hidden faults." (Al-Asma'i said, i.e. my secrets and my sorrows which are inside of me.) He said, "Would that I had died twenty years before this day!" Abu Hubayba, the client of Talha, said, "I and `Imran b. Talha came to `Ali after the Camel. He greeted `Imran and brought him there. He said, `I hope that Allah will put me and your father among those about whom it is said, "We stripped away all rancour in their hearts as brothers, they are on couches face to face.""' Al-Harith al-A`war (Abu Zuhayr al-Harith b. `Abdullah al-Hamdani al-Hawthi al-Kufi' al-A'war, one of the great men of the Shi`a. Ash-Sha`bi and Ibn al-Madini said that he was a liar.) was sitting in a corner. He said, "Allah is too just to let us kill them when they will be our brothers in the Garden." `Ali said to him, "Go to the furthest and most remote land of Allah!" "Who will be there if Talha and I are not in the Garden?" Muhammad b. `Abdulah mentioned that `Ali took an inkwell and threw it at al-`Awar but it missed him. Ibn al-Kiwa' (`Abdullah b. Abi Awfa al-Yashkuri, one of those who formed the sedition after `Uthman. After Siffin and the Arbitration, he was at the head of the Kharijites. He returned to `Ali before the Battle of Nahrawan. Said to him, "Allah is too just for that." `Ali went at him with a stick and beat him. He said to him, "You! You have no mother! Your companions deny this?!"

    167. In the `Musnad' of Ahmad (2:446, first edition) from the hadith of Salih, the client of Tawa'ma from Abu Hurayra that when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went on Hajj with his wives, he said, "It is this Hajj. The time of the appearance of confinement comes after it." In it (5:218, first edition) there is the hadith of Waqid b. Abi Waqid al- Laythi from his father that he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to his wive in this Hajj, "After this, confinement will appear." The hadith of Abu Waqid is in the chapter of `The Obligation of the Hajj' from `The Book of Practices in the Sunan' of Abu Da`ud (book 11, chap. 1). `Husur' is the plural of `hasir', i.e. staying in the house. Ibn Kathir transmitted it in `The Beginning and the End' (5:215), saying that it is an indication by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he himself announced his death to them and that this would be his last Hajj, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. In it, he does not commend that they should not leave confinement for a Hajj or a requirement or to make peace between people. The enemies of the Companions quoted this hadith as an absolute prohibition. Qadi Ibn al-`Arabi considered that to be a lie because it is quoted in order to use it in a manner other than that desired by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

    168. In the research on `The Aspects of Excellence and Preference' from `The Book of the Imamate and Preference', included in part 4 of `The Fisal', p. 134, Imam Ibn Hazm quoted his shaykh Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Khawzi from Ahmad b. al-Fadl ad-Dinawari from Muhammad b. Jarir at-Tabari that `Ali b. Abi Talib sent `Ammar b. Yasir and al-Hasan b. `Ali to Kufa when the Umm al- Mu'minin went to Basra. When they came there, people gathered to both of them in the mosque. `Ammar spoke to them and told them that `A'isha, the Umm al-Mu'minin, had gone out to Basra. Then he said to them, "I tell you, by Allah, I know that she is the wife of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the Garden, as she was his wife in this world, but Allah has tested you by her so that you either obey her or obey him." Masruq (or Abu'l-Aswad) said to him, "Abu'l-Yaqathan, we are with those who are promised the Garden rather than those who are not promised it." `Ammar was silent.
    Why do you say what you do not know? You repeat something you should disassociate yourself from, as if you did not understand. "The worst of beasts with Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not understand."

    169. Hub: wrong action, sin.

    * I have changed the translation here and put it between paranthesis


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 16 November 2005 at 11:09pm
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    assalamu alaikum

    One of the book that I am using is "A brief history of Islam " by Dr. Hasanuddin Ahmed. Pg: 140 to 150, "Biographies of the Women Companions of the Holy Prophet" By Qazi Mohammad Saeed will use other books to in future.

    can you please list all the books you intend to use and refrence the works apropriatly to there authors as you post them on this site.

    Apart from simply wanting to know, there are copywrtie implications. A work should be properly refrenced espetialy if you are simply typing chunks and pieces from different works.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 17 November 2005 at 11:48pm

    rami

     

    I think that you did not read the last two post by me all the refrences are well documented. I have highlighted some for your benifit.



    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 18 November 2005 at 12:52am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    no i skimmed through them they didnt stand out from the main body of the text, jazak allah khair.

    are these all from translations of the works or original arabic?

    some of the names you Quote i didnt think there were translations of there works yet.

    In most places you only Quote names not the actual title of the work this is not a complete refrence.

    Also are you Quoting from the main works of these scholars yourself or the works of others Authors Quoting them?

    if so the titles of all the works is what i am asking for not the refrence from the book you are Quoting.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 18 November 2005 at 7:00am
    Yes this is translation from Arabic to english directly from the work of scholar like At-Tabari and other, by a very close friend of mine. Most of this material is not available in english, thus the history is obscured.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 18 November 2005 at 1:45pm
    DISASTER SIFFIN

    The war took place between the people of Syria and the people of Iraq.(170) One side called for homage to `Ali and unity on the Imam, and the others called for power over `Uthman's murderers. They said, "We will not offer allegiance to the one who gives refuge to the murderers." (171)

    `Ali used to say, "I do not empower someone who seeks a right over a person to carry out whatever he wants from him without any judgment or judge." Mu`awiya said, "We will not offer allegiance to one who is suspected or his killer. He is one of those who is sought, so how can we let him rule or give him allegiance. He is a khalif who has overstepped and given himself (power)" In the details about that, they mentioned some words which resulted in the use of letters, (172) copying statements, composing poetry, and making examples outside of the path of the salaf. The successors confirmed these things and their successors rejected them. (173)

    PROTECTION

    As for the war between them, that definitely took place. It is also known that this was the cause. As for `Ali being the one who was right in it because the claimant for blood cannot properly give judgment and the claimant's suspicion of the qadi does not necessitate that he attack him. He must seek his right from the judge. If the judgment is clear, he has the judgment. If it is not, he is silent and patient. Allah has given judgment in many a right. If he does not have any deen, then he attacks him and he has an excuse in this world. (174)

    If `Ali was suspected of the murder of `Uthman, then every Companion of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in Madina was suspected of it. There is little information that he killed him because a thousand men who came to kill `Uthman could not defeat 40,000 men..

    Not a single man of the people of the Sunna suspected `Ali of the murder of `Uthman, not in our time nor in his time. That has already been discussed in this book. The only fact is that the murderers of `Uthman were with `Ali. `Ali had a position in relation to them, and he had his excuse between himself and Allah for that position. We all have the opinion of al-Qa'qa b. `Amr that the position of `Ali was due to constraint. However, some historians from the Shi`a added reports to `Ali which imparted other than what his heart contained of love, pleasure, friendship and support for `Uthman during his trial. They behaved badly to `Ali when they wanted to behave badly to `Uthman. As for Mu`awiya and his group, they did not mention `Ali at all in the attack on `Uthman except by virtue of the connection of `Uthman's murderers to him and his seeking their help. The murderers of `Uthman were those who behaved badly to Islam - to `Uthman and to `Ali as well. Allah will take their reckoning. If all the muslims had been like `Abdu'r-Rahman b. Khalid b. al-Walid in his resolution before the sedition got out of control and the reins had been taken from the hands of the men of intellect, then the business would not have gone to what it reached.
    That would lead you to say that `Ali, Talha and az-Zubayr helped each other in the murder of `Uthman. What kept the Companions, both the Mahajirun and the Ansar and those who were counted among them and joined them from helping him?
    There is the possibility that it was because they thought that these men sought a right and acted correctly. That would be a testimony against `Uthman, so the people of Syria had no statement. If they had refrained from it in order to mock the deen and they did not have any opinion about the situation nor any concern for Islam or the confusion which occurred in it, that would be apostasy and not rebellion because weakness in the hudud of the deen and surrendering the sacred things of the Shari'a to waste is kufr. If they refrained, it was because they did not think that they should go beyond `Uthman's limit and what he indicated. What wrong action to they have in that? What proof do Marwan, `Abdullah b. az-Zubayr, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, Ibn `Umar and these who helped him in his house have, since they came in and then left with weapons and arms while those who sought were outside watching? If they had had a force or could have sought refuge in a strong pillar, they would not have allowed anyone of them to see him or attack him. They were onlookers. If al-Hasan and al-Husayn, `Abdullah b. `Umar and `Abdullah b. az-Zubayr had stood in front of him, they would not have dared attack. If they had killed them, none of the attackers would have been left alive on the earth.

    However, `Uthman surrendered himself. He was left to his opinion. It is a question of ijtihad as we already stated. What could `Ali say after the homage had been completed for him and if the relative of `Uthman had come and told him, "The Khalif was faced by a thousand persons who killed him. They are known"? What could he say except, "I am firm, take." On that day, he was firm unless they had proven that `Uthman deserved to be killed. (175)

    By Allah, company of muslims, you know that what they said about `Uthman was nothing but injustice. The moment gave the seeker power, was useful to the seeker in that situation and made it easier for him to reach the one he sought. (176) That which refutes the lie in that, is, that when the command went to Mu`awiya, he did not kill any of `Uthman's murderers unless it was by a judgment - not counting those who were killed in a war (by interpretation) or those who intrigued against him as was said. (177) This lasted until the time of al-Hajjaj. Then they were killed by mere suspicion, not by reality. (178)

    It is clear to you that they became liable for what they did.

    It will cool your breasts to know that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, mentioned the sedition. He indicated and clarified them. He warned about the Khawarij and he said, "The group closest to the truth will kill them." (179) He had it clear that each group was connected to the truth. However, the party of `Ali was closer to it. (180)

    Allah ta'ala said, "If two groups of the believers fight, make peace between them. Then if one of them is insolent against the other, then fight the insolent one until they come back to the command of Allah. If they come back, then make a peace between them with justice and be fair. Allah loves the just." (49:9) He did not bring them out of "belief" by insolence through any interpretation nor did He strip the name "brothers" from them since He said after it, "The believers are brothers, so make peace between your brothers." (49:10)

    He, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said about `Ammar, "An attacking party will kill him." (181)

    He said about al-Hasan, "This son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two great parties of muslims." He recommended to him that he remove himself and make peace. Similarly, it is related that the Prophet gave `Uthman permission in the dream to submit and break the fast with him that night. All of these are the things which happened because of the conflict. They are not the result of any method of fiqh nor are they considered to be part of the path of ijtihad in which the one who is right is rewarded ten times and the one who errs once. (182)

    ==================================================

    170. In a place caled Siffin, close to ar-Ruqqa on the shore of the Euphrates at the end of the borders of Iraq. It is the beginning of Syrian territory. `Ali went there with his armies at the end of Dhu'l-Qa'da, 36 A.H.

    171. When `Ali finished the Battle of the Camel and left Basra for Kufa, he entered it on Monday, 12th of Rajab. He sent Jarir b. `Abdullah al-Bajili to Mu`awiya in Damascus to call him to obey. Mu`awiya gathered the leaders of the companions, the generals of the armies, and the aides of the people of Syria and he consulted them about what `Ali demanded. They said, "We will not give him allegiance until he kills `Uthman's murderers or surrenders them to us." Jarir took that back to `Ali. `Ali appointed Abu Mas`ud `Uqba b. `Amr over Kufa and left it. The army was at an-Nakhayla, the beginning of the road to Syria from Iraq. Some people indicated that he should remain in Kufa and send someone else to Syria. He refused. Mu`awiya heard that `Ali had prepared and gone out himself to fight him. His men advised him to go out himself. The Syrians went towards the Euphrates in the direction of Siffin. `Ali advanced with his army to the place. `Ali's army had one hundred and twenty thousand and the army of Mu`awiya was seventy thousand. The Battle started in Dhu'l-Hijja, 36 A.H. and the fighting resumed later. Seventy thousand men were killed in this war. There were ninety battles in one hundred and ten days. This war was distinguished by noble courage in the fighting and noble dealings and contact during the truce and rest periods. Then the document of arbitration was written on the Ramadan at Duma al-Jandal in a place there called Adhruh.

    172. i.e. Their ascription is a lie and it has no basis. Most of what you find in what the historians of the Shi`a relate comes from unknown transmitters or liars. The least of them in vehemence was Abu Makhnaf Lut b. Yahya. Adh-Dhahabi said, "Abu Makhnaf was a historian and a writer. He is not reliable. Abu Hatim and others left him." Ibn `Adi said about him. "A burning Shi`i who is one of their historians." Then others after him came who were worse for the History of Islam. They corrupted what the community knew of their past.

    173. "Khalf" are the mischievous. In the revelation, "There succeeded after them a succession who inherited the Book, taking the goods of this lower world." "Khalaf" are the right-acting. There is the hadith, "This knowledge is carreid by ever successor of its just ones. They remove the twisting of the fanatics, the plagiarism of the liars and the interpretation of the ignorant."

    174. `Uthman's murderers were in `Ali's army. That is true and no one disputes that. Al-Ashtar, who was one of the leaders of those who attacked `Uthman, was one of those who did the most to kindle the war between the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who were in the army of `Ali and in the army of Mu`awiya. When `Ali asked Mu`awiya, the Companions and the Tabi'un who were with him to give him allegiance, they appealed to him regarding `Uthman's murderers and demanded that he carry out the hadd of Allah on them. We already excused the Amir al-Mu'minin `Ali in this matter for when the murderers of `Uthman went with `Ali to Iraq, they were in the stronghold of their strength and the pride of their tribes. `Ali thought that if he killed them, that would open a door which he would not be able to close later. The lofty Companion al-Qa'qa' b. `Amr at-Tamimi pointed out this reality and he mentioned it to the Umm al-Mu'minin, `A'isha, and the two Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, Talha and az-Zubayr. They conceded his point and they excused `Ali. They agreed to come to an understanding with him which would lead them out of this civil strife. The murderers of `Uthman quickly started the war between the two groups. Those who sought to carry out the hadd of Allah on the murderers of `Uthman were excused because they were seeking a right, whether they were from the People of the Camel or the people of Syria. `Ali was unable to carry out the hadd of Allah due to the well- known constraint in which he found himself. However, when `Uthman's murderers started the war between the first two groups in Basra, it would have benefited Islam if the war of Siffin had not started between the other two groups. The grandson of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, al-Hasan b. `Ali, did not want his father to leave Madina for Iraq since he feared that a war would start with the people of Syria. If `Ali had not moved from Kufa to prepare for this fight, Mu`awiya would not have moved a single inhabitant to fight. Ibn Taymiyya said in `The Path of the Sunna' (2:219), "Mu`awiya was not one of those who chose to start the war."

    175. The author admitted that the proof rested with the one who had the means because the crime was well known and the criminals were public in their outrage and made no attempt to conceal it. How could justice be carried out and who would undertake to see to it while the city of the Messenger was humbled under the force of the terror? Who would guarantee `Ali's life for him when he gave this judgment? Aren't those the very ones who discussed killing him when they formed their plot in Dhu Qar after `Ali's speech which he gave to the new men before they went to Basra (at-Tabari, 5:165) Wasn't al-Ashtar angry with the Amir al- Mu'minin `Ali after the Battle of the Camel because he had appointed his nephew, `Abdullah b. `Abbas, over Basra and did not appoint al-Ashtar. Then he left him in anger and `Ali caught up to him and corrected his evil (at-Tabari, 5:194). Didn't the Kharijites who came out against `Ali grow from this kernel? When `Ali was killed, wasn't he killed by a weapon similar to the one which killed `Uthman?

    176. The moment gave the seeker power, even if there had been a force in Madina for which `Uthman wished. It is said that a force from the army of Syria had left Damascus, heading for Madina. When the news of the martyrdom of the Amir al-Mu'minin `Uthman reached them, they went back. Madina remaied in the power of the murderers of `Uthman until the homage was given to `Ali. If these murderers had yielded to the judgments of this homage which held no harm for them, there is no doubt that they would have turned into savage beasts if the judgments of Allah had been given against them and the hudud had been carried out for the atrocious crime which they had committed.

    177. The force of Allah and His lofty justice fell on most of `Uthman's murderers. None of them were left during Mu`awiya's rule except for the fugitive who fearfully sought for a stone where he could hide. Their power vanished and their decreased. Mu`awiya had no need to pursue them.

    178. The author alluded to the incident with `Umayr b. Dabi and Kumayl an-Nakh`i. That report was already given.

    179. The name Khawarij has come about a group who went out against `Ali b. Abi Talib and his company because he had accepted arbitration. They said that the judgment of Allah was clear and that this arbitration was not necessary. Their slogan was "Only Allah had judgment." They were also called the al-Haruriyya, from a village in Kufa called Harura'. They went out to it. The Amir al-Mu'minin `Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, fought them in a famous battle called the Battle of an-Nahrawan. He defeated them and killed many of them. However, he was not able to eradicate them. Then they worked out a ruse which killed him at the hand of `Abdu'r-Rahman b. Muljam, may Allah give him what he deserves!
    The Kharijites claimed that `Uthman was a kafir by his changes and alterations and that `Ali was a kafir when he accepted arbitration. They attacked the People of the Camel. All of that came from their ignorance and misguidance.
    Part of their theory was that the khalifate was by the free choice of the muslims. In that, they opposed the Shi`a who said that the khalifate was confined to the House of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. That was also opposed to the people of the Sunna who said that the khalifate was in Quraysh when they were present and proved to be worthy. That is the truth.
    The Kharijites, in spite of their misguidance and twisting, were not known to lie like the Rafidites who did not recognise sound hadith and who fabricated false hadith which they ascribed to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. They also interpreted the ayats of the Noble Qur'an according to their passions.
    In the `Sahih' of Muslim (book 12, hadith 150, pt. 3. p. 113) from the hadith of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, "An arrow will penetrate a group of the muslims. They will be killed by the group closest to the truth."

    180. The people of the Muhammadan Sunna owe it to Allah to believe that `Ali and Mu`awiya and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who were with them, were all people of the truth. They were sincere in that. Their disagreement was based on ijtihad just as mujtahids can disagree in any subject open to dispute. They are rewarded for being right and being wrong because of their sincerity in their ijtihad. The reward of the one who is right is many times greater than the reward of the one who is wrong. Apart from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, no human being is protected from error. some of them err in some things and are right in others. It is like that with other people. Whoever renounced the truth by provoking the first sedition against `Uthman is not considered to be one of the two parties who had the truth, even if he fought with them and attached himself to them because those who stained their hands, intentions and hearts with the unjust attack on the Amir al-Mu'minin `Uthman, whoever they were, deserved to have the Islamic hadd carried out on them. In the situation here, no one was able to do that, and their presence inflamed the fighting between the right-acting muslims. Whenever these men sensed the muslims' resolve for peace and brotherhood, as they did in the Battle of the Camel, they decided to persist in criminality as long as as they could. When we say that both parties were among the people of the truth, we mean the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who were with the two parties and those Tabi`un who went with them, and who were based on the sunna of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We think that `Ali, who was promised the Garden, had a higher station with Allah than Mu`awiya, the uncle of the believers and the Companion of the Messenger of the Lord of the Worlds. Both of them were people of excellence. When the parties of the people of evil infiltrated them, the one who did an atom's weight of good will see it and the one who did an atom's weight of evil will see it. Ibn Kathir said in `The Beginning and the End' (7:277) that `Abdu'r-Rahman b. Ziyad b. An`am ash-Sha`bani, the Qadi of North Africa (d. in 156), who was a man of right action and one of those who commanded the correct, said when he mentioned the people of Siffin, "There were Arabs who knew each other in the Jahiliyya. They met in Islam with zeal and the sunna of Islam. They counselled each other to be steadfast and they were ashamed to flee. They brought out their dead and buried them." Ash-Sha`bi said, "They are the people of the Garden. They met each other and none of them fled from the other.

    181. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said that when they were building the mosque and people were moving one brick at a time while `Ammar was moving two bricks at a time. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, spoke these words about him, according to what Abu Sa`id al-Khudri related by `Ikrima, the client of Ibn `Abbas and `Ali b. `Abdullah b. `Abbas. It is in `The Book of Jihad and Biography' from the `Sahih' of al-Bukhari (book 56, chap. 17, pt. 3, p. 207). Mu`awiya knew that he himself would not attack in the war of Siffin because he did not bring it or start it. He only came to it after `Ali had left Kufa and camped his army in an-Nukhayla in order to go to Syria as was already stated. That is when `Ammar was killed. Mu`awiya said, "The one who brought him out killed him." The wrong action for all the muslims who were killed at the hands of the muslims since the time of `Uthman's murder, rests on `Uthman's murderers because they opened the door of sedition and because they stirred up anger in the breasts of the muslims against each other. As they were the murderers of `Uthman, so they killed all those who were killed afterwards. Those men included `Ammar and those who were better than `Ammar - like Talha and az-Zubayr, until the sedition came to the point where they murdered `Ali himself. They were part of his army and were in the group on which he was based. The hadith is one of the signs of prophecy. The two groups fighting in Siffin were all Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and were the pillars of the `Umma of Islam. The wrong action for all that took place in the sedition rests upon the attacking group, for whose sake every person killed, in the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin and what branched out from that, was killed.

    182. Ibn Taymiyya said in `the Path of the Sunna' (2:219-220), "Mu`awiya was not one of those who chose to start the war. He was one of the people who most desired that there should be no fighting. Others were more eager to fight than him." People have different statements about the battle of Siffin. Some of them say that both of them were correct mujtahids as is stated by many of the people of kalam, fiqh,and hadith among those who say that every mujtahid is correct. They said that they were both mujtahids. This is the statement of many of the people of Ash`arites, the Karamiyya, the fuqaha' and others. It is the statment of many of the people of Abu Hanifa, ash-Shafi`i, Ahmad and others. The Karamiyya said that each was a correct Imam and that it is permitted that there be two Imams when there is a need for that. Some of them say that one of them was correct and does not specify who that was. This is the statement of one group. Some of them say that `Ali alone was correct and Mu`awiya was a mujtahid who erred as is stated by some groups of the people of kalam and the fuqaha' of the people of the four schools. These three statements are related by Abu `Abdullah Hamid, one of the people of Imam Ahmad and other people. They include those who say it would have been better for both groups not to fight. Fighting was a fight of civil war. It was neither obligatory nor recommended. Not fighting would have been better for both groups, even though `Ali was more entitled to the truth. This is the statement of Ahmad and most of the people of hadith and most of the Imams of the fuqaha.' It is the statement of the great Companions and those who followed them. That is the statement of `Imran b. Husayn, may Allah be pleased with them. He forbade the sale of weapons for the fight. He said, "It is selling arms in civil strife." That is the statement of Zayd, Usama b. Zayd, Muhamamd b. Maslama, Ibn `Umar, Sa`d b. Abi Waqqas and most of the rest of the first predecessors among the Muhajirun and the Ansar, may Allah be pleased with them. This is why it is the school of the people of the Sunna not to discuss the quarrels between the Companions. Their virtues are confirmed and their love and friendship are obligatory.


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 19 November 2005 at 5:25am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    Yes this is translation from Arabic to english directly from the work of scholar like At-Tabari and other, by a very close friend of mine. Most of this material is not available in english, thus the history is obscured.

    Are you saying your friend is of the same status as tabari?

    Is the work published in arabic or is it a personel work. Can you please provide the name of the author and the work.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 19 November 2005 at 10:24am

    The work originaly published in Arabic it was translated and indexed by my friend in english on my request, refrences are already within the posts. 

     

    Are you saying your friend is of the same status as tabari?

    ^ where did this come from?



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 19 November 2005 at 10:08pm
    Regarding the accusations that Sayydina Fatima died angry with Sayyidina Abu Bakr. We say: It is false and untrue, and only a man devoid of sense would believe such a thing. When looking at a narration, one must look at all of them as a whole. Even if we suppose that Sayyidina Fatima was angry at Sayyidina Abu bakr we must note that Fatima was not omniscient, and her understanding was as limited as that of any other human: just as Musa lost patience with Khidr, because he did not understand the latters actions, so Fatima lost patience with Abu Bakr, since she misunderstood the latters actions. Allah be pleased with them both.

    And note that Musa - peace be upon him- is Infallible.

    When Fatima fell sick Abu Bakr Siddiq came and asked permission to see her. Ali said: "Fatima, here is Abu Bakr asking permission to see you." She said: "Would you like me to give him permission?" [1] He said yes, whereupon she gave him permission. He entered to see her, seeking her good pleasure, and said: "By Allah! I did not leave my house, property, family, and tribe except to please Allah, and to please His Prophet, and to please you, the People of the House (ahl al bayt)! He continued to seek her good pleasure until she was pleased." [2]

    [1] Al-Dhahabi said in the Siyar (Al Arna'ut ed. 2:121): "She applied the Sunna by not giving permission to anyone to enter her husbands house except by his command."

    [2] Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (7:273-281) who said: "It is narrated with a fair (hasan) chain." Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 21 November 2005 at 12:54am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    The work originaly published in Arabic it was translated and indexed by my friend in english on my request, refrences are already within the posts.

    What is the name of the work it self that your friend authored and the author himself not whohe is quoting.

    When you refrence a work you give the title of the work you your self are copying from not where Author of the book you are quoting is getting his information from. after that is done then you say the source for his views are tabari, ibn hajar etc. You dont say this is from ibn hajar directly which is what you are doing by not clearly saying the title of the work and the name of its author.

    i have no problem with the sources i know who they are but i would like to know the name of the work you are getting the information from directly.

    Are you saying your friend is of the same status as tabari?

    ^ where did this come from?

    it came from here,

    Yes this is translation from Arabic to english directly from the work of scholar like At-Tabari and other.






    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: AhmadJoyia
    Date Posted: 21 November 2005 at 8:57am
    Originally posted by Fatah-Momin

    You say "proceed with caution" and when I do you say  "conclusion that fears me alot from too precautionary a note" Make up your mind, which route you want to take.

    Oh, what a correlation of my two posts in two different contexts at two different threads? Is this logical? Though, in both of my quotes, it is "cuation" that I preferred and not "too precautionary", only if anyone has sane understanding of the two opposites. Nevertheless, I do see you avoiding my questions on this thread, in totality, without giving any reasonable reply. Should I conclude that either you don't know the answer or are hiding facts with some "hidden agenda"? I leave the matter to Allah to decide. Indeed only Allah knows the best. 



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 21 November 2005 at 11:05pm

    rami,

    You asked me to provied refrences, there are refrences in every post now, if you doubt any please look it up and post it here. That is all I can suggest. As I have not been able to understand the motive for your line of objection. I have not claimed I or my friend to be a scholar of any degree. We do read books written by scholars.

    You do have the right to post your version of the history, if you want to use this thread please go head, or you can initiate your own thread.

     

    rami:When you refrence a work you give the title of the work you your self are copying from not where Author of the book you are quoting is getting his information from. after that is done then you say the source for his views are tabari, ibn hajar etc. You dont say this is from ibn hajar directly which is what you are doing by not clearly saying the title of the work and the name of its author.

     

    These are direct quotes from the books and sources mentioned.




    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 21 November 2005 at 11:38pm
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    i think we are misunderstanding each other.

    What i understand from your comments so far,

    Your friend compiled a historical work which was published in arabic and translated into english and you are posting it on this forum.

    You are not giving the name of this work or the author but the refrences he has gotton his infomation from.

    Is this correct.

    Otherwise you personaly are reading tabari and ibn hajar etc, meaning there original works are in front of you and you personaly are quoting from there works directly.

    i dont see any other posability.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 23 November 2005 at 6:26am

    rami: Your friend compiled a historical work which was published in arabic and translated into english and you are posting it on this forum.

    ^ I never claimed this, what I said was that he translate Arabic work for me when I require it for a specific article, as I do not know Arabic language.



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 23 November 2005 at 6:27am

    Find below the work of one of the most respected shia scholar Mullah Baqir Majlisi:

    Hazrat Ameer Maveeyah(ra) advice his son Yazeed


    However, none of the books relating the tragic event contains a single expression clearly stating that those two Khalfas were smeared with the blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn. Not even the vaguest implication that Hadrat Muwiya might have had to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn has been witnessed throughout the literature assigned to the event, let alone a clear statement that it was done by his order. What is unanimously stated (by all books and scholars) is that the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn did not take place during the caliphate of Hadrat Muwiya. Molla Bqir Mejls, relates Hadrat Muwiyas last advice to his son Yazd as he was dying, as follows:

    You know what relation Imm Husayn radiy-Allhu anh is to the Messenger of Allah. He is a part from the beloved Prophets blessed body. He is an offspring from the flesh and blood of that most honourable person. I understand that the inhabitants of Iraq invite him to go there and be with them. But they will not help him; they will leave him alone. If he should fall into your hands, behave in appreciation of his value! Remember the closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah sall-Allhu alaihi wa sallam to him! Do not get back at him for his behaviour! Mind you dont break the substantial ties I have established between him and us! Be extra careful lest you should hurt or offend him! This advice of Hadrat Muwiyas to (his son) Yazd is written in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the book Jil-uluyn, which was written by Muhammad Bqir bin Murtad Fayz Khorasn, a Shiite leader, who is better known with his nickname Molla Muhsin. He died in 1091 [1679 A.D.].



    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 24 November 2005 at 12:05am

    rami

    Here is a example I wanted a peice of history translated for an on going debate a friend of mine got  material from shia source, which I could not locate on the english sites,

    .
    ( 3 ) ( 4 ) :

    http://www.shiabooks.info/books/htm1/m013/13/no1304.html - http://www.shiabooks.info/books/htm1/m013/13/no1304.html
    `Allamah Majlisi said: "Some scholars have asserted that ibn Saba was a Jew who accepted Islam and started voicing his opinion of the `wilayat' (divine appointment) of `Ali. While a Jew, he propounded the exaggerative notion that Yusha ibn Nun was divinely appointed to succeed Prophet Musa, he thus adopted a similar stance with regard to `Ali in relation to the Holy Prophet. He was the first to subscribe to the belief of Imamate, and he openly vitriolated his enemies (i.e. the first three Caliphs) and branded them as infidels. The origin of Shi'ism and rafidizm is thus based on Judaism." (Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 25, p. 287).



    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 24 November 2005 at 6:53am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    so more acuratly it should be

    Otherwise you personaly are reading tabari and ibn hajar etc, meaning there original works are in front of you and you personaly are quoting from there works directly which you get your friend to translate into english for you.

    So you are the one compiling the information from the works of these scholars but using your friend to translate arabic to english.

    are these works of tabari and ibn hajar ie the clasical scholars online or do you have copies your self, if online im interested in getting access to them.




    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 24 November 2005 at 9:04pm

    I have posted this work all over the net, no I have not compiled the work, it is a good idea though. Here are the links to some of the work that I have collected:

    http://www.shani.offlife-hosting.com/board/index.php?showforum=32 - http://www.shani.offlife-hosting.com/board/index.php?showfor um=32

    http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showforum=44 - http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showforum=44

    here is my one of the best collection of shia beliefs about Quran

    http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showtopic=1039 - http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showtopic=1039



    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 25 November 2005 at 9:17pm
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    Is this a shia or sunni work, i know you are quoting sunni scholars but shia do this to prove there point. I havnt been reading this which is why i am asking.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 26 November 2005 at 9:25am

    Most of the sources on the links are shia Sources that have been quoted for example:

    Al-Shafi/Al-Kafi
    Page#140 Book of Imaan and Kufar Vol:IV
    Imam Abu Abdullah[AS] said: "Taqeeyah [to lie] is 90% of the deen[religion] and one who does not use Taqeeyah has no deen[religion], lie is in every thing other than Nabeez [wine of barley] and Masah over leather socks"

    On this particular link it quote exclusively from shia sources only about the corruption[naouzobillah] of Quran,

    http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showtopic=1039 - http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showtopic=1039

     



    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 27 November 2005 at 12:05am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    If this work is mainly a shia refutation than i think it belongs in the intrafaith section which is for shia sunni dialogue.

    can you please confirm or deny that you are the one getting the information from all the different sources, i am not talking about translating here just simply who is getting the information from the original source.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 02 December 2005 at 4:43pm

    No this is not shia refutation this is only an humble effort to expose the muslims to other version of Islamic history which has obscured by the vested interest, if you or any one else take it in a different direction, then it depends on each individual and not one me.

    As far as who is getting the original information, most of it I get directly and like I said some I get translated, if you have objection to the content, please present your argument to the contrary and if I have knowledge to answer inshallah I will repond, I have been through many threads on this board and site, never have I seen such cross examination of the content as you are doing to this thread, is there a reason for it? This is a debate forum every one has right to present their views in a civil manner and I have maintained such behavior.

    It is your scrutiny of this thread that is puzzeling and unprecedent, why do you not do the reasearch on your own and then get back to me. I think this is a tactic on your behalf to deviate the thread off the course.

    I have not broken any site rules neither have I been rude to any one and this site claim to representing tolerant and liberal Islam, then why all of sudden such exteremisn?

     



    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 14 December 2005 at 1:10am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    I dont have any objection to what you are posting i actualy told you i am not even reading it, but due to your lack of fluency in the english language it took me 6 posts to finaly find out where you are getting the material from.

    a simple example

    this is only an humble effort to expose the muslims to other version of Islamic history

    to your mind you are saying you want to teach the non arabic muslims the history of Islam, but for a western person reading this sentence above you are actualy saying that people have been propogating a wrong version of Sunni Islamic history and you are trying to show the true version of Sunni islamic history.




    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Fatah-Momin
    Date Posted: 21 January 2006 at 1:02pm
    Hazrat Ameer Maveeyah(ra) advice his son Yazeed


    However, none of the books relating the tragic event contains a single expression clearly stating that those two Khalfas were smeared with the blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn. Not even the vaguest implication that Hadrat Muwiya might have had to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn has been witnessed throughout the literature assigned to the event, let alone a clear statement that it was done by his order. What is unanimously stated (by all books and scholars) is that the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn did not take place during the caliphate of Hadrat Muwiya. Molla Bqir Mejls,[shia scholar] whose name is mentioned above, relates Hadrat Muwiyas last advice to his son Yazd as he was dying, as follows:

    You know what relation Imm Husayn radiy-Allhu anh is to the Messenger of Allah. He is a part from the beloved Prophets blessed body. He is an offspring from the flesh and blood of that most honourable person. I understand that the inhabitants of Iraq invite him to go there and be with them. But they will not help him; they will leave him alone. If he should fall into your hands, behave in appreciation of his value! Remember the closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah sall-Allhu alaihi wa sallam to him! Do not get back at him for his behaviour! Mind you dont break the substantial ties I have established between him and us! Be extra careful lest you should hurt or offend him! This advice of Hadrat Muwiyas to (his son) Yazd is written in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the book Jil-uluyn, which was written by Muhammad Bqir bin Murtad Fayz Khorasn, a Shiite leader, who is better known with his nickname Molla Muhsin. He died in 1091 [1679 A.D.].



    Print Page | Close Window