[Fatema-the-resplendent]

I have learned many things just by raising an issue which I did not concoct but which already existed. If people got offended by what exists in history then the anger is not at me. I got people thinking so as far as I am concerned, my goal is achieved.

I take on Brother OE's suggestions with how an argument for for and against needs to be conducted, will bear that in mind the next time.

KTL, I've found you to be incredibly inflexible and egoistical and the constant reference to I and me is not always a good thing. The picture one creates of oneself in ones own head may not be the picture in every one elses head. And I will confirm again that opinions are just that and I do not allow them to bother me and words don't stick with me unless they are significant in increasing my knowledge on something.

And lastly, Mudassar Rana, instead of trying to define me and approaching me from that angle, think how I do not even define myself. I am nothing and no one and follow no particular thought in Islam, just talk to me as a reasonabe person and that will suffice.

Khalid Bin Waleed, I will not be forgetting him in a hurry.

[Know-the-Ledge]

Quote

Fatema the resplendent (14.04.2011)

---

KTL, I've found you to be incredibly inflexible and egoistical and the constant reference to I and me is not always a good thing.

Agreed, i've always been full of myself and arrogant. I'm learning to tone it down.

That's got nothing to do with the fact that you've lost your touch in this thread and have been somewhat mindless, even treating other's like idiots! Amazing how someone who 'stands for nothing', is so passionate about Khalid bin Walid (RA) and digging up polemics. Since when did belief in Khalid bin Waleeds (RA) greatness or lack thereof alter the message of Rasoolullah (SAL) for billions of muslims and humanity, let alone people who stand for nada? It's nit-picking with very little resultant for anyone but zealots; and you've projected yourself to be alot closer to them than you'd like us to believe.

MR made a good point, you're so enigmatic, that no one actually knows who they're talking to, we're left with lots of gaps to fill and as I surmised, you've diverted away from the real issue, your completely insensitive way of bringing this issue up, as if Khalid (ra) is condemned and checking whether we idiots could come to terms with that! Comparisons with Hazrat Ali(RA) had me lol'ing, abit like 'my dads harder than your dad'; didn't expect that one.

g'day!

[Secular-Revolution]

@ KTL,
I wouldn't necessarily agree that you are inflexible or egotistical but at the sametime, I would say the way Fatema has been demonised in this thread and its predecessor would bring any old preson out of their comfort zone.


@ Fatema,
You have presented a valid point in your argument. However, the opposing view carries weight too. I think the error we often make is to assess events that transpired 1400 years ago in light of present day civil society. We're talking bout a totally different era and people whose motivations and lifestyle were of a different nature.

If you were to consider the state of mind of an individual who would go as far as not only having a person killed but cutting up their belly and digging their teeth into their liver you will find yourself lost. An act of such savagery is non-palatable and demonstrates a deep-rooted psychological issue. If such a person was to later become a sahabi, you cannot expect for those personality traits to disappear overnight.

I'm not necessarily saying that's the issues here but its just to present the point that one should be realistic about their expections as it prevents one to be disappointed later.


@ All,
This thread has progressed well for most parts. There is a great deal of information that has surfaced and this is what effective discussion / debate is all about which in the event that the topic had remained crubed as before would not have come to light.

[Nemesis]

Disclaimer : this is not my own research, has been been provided to me by one of my friends, please feel free to point out out any errors  ( however i do belive Sayidinah Khalid Bin Waleed(r.a) is the sword of Allah unsheathed against the disbelivers , to be free from what some have acused him of)

Khâlid ibn al-Walîd(r.a) alleged marriage to Mâlik’s wife

With the passage of time the incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah became the object of the attention of certain unscrupulous transmitters of history. An obnoxious tail was soon introduced into the story in the form of Mâlik’s wife, who is named as Umm Tamîm bint Minhâl. Khâlid ibn al-Walîd(r.a), it was said, was so enamoured of the beautiful Umm Tamîm that he saw fit to slaughter Mâlik and his entire tribe in order to possess her, and barely was the slaughter over when he took her as his own wife.

In an allegation as serious as this one would have expected the party levelling the accusation to produce reliable evidence to support their claim. However, all that is ever produced is fragments of statements by historians. The accusers consistently fail to realise that a quotation is of no value for as long as it cannot be authenticated. While they display great vigour in levelling the accusation and stating their references, complete with volume and page numbers, they conveniently and consistently forget to authenticate those “facts”. The great imâm ‘Abdullâh ibn al-Mubârak stated a most profound truth when he said:

Isnâd (stating the chain of narration) is part of Dîn. Were it not for isnâd, anyone could have said just what he wished.

A study of the texts wherein reference is made to the story of the Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah reveals that not a single one of them is reported with an uninterrupted chain of narration that consists of reliable authorities. Almost all the available material on the issue of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, can be classified into two types: (1) reports in which no mention at all is made of Mâlik’s wife, and (2) reports in which she is mentioned. The former type includes material narated via authentic as well as unauthentic chains of narration. As for the latter type (the reports which make mention of Mâlik’s wife), they have been handed down exclusively through highly unreliable chains of narration. They all suffer from two deficiencies: untrustworthy or unknown narrators, and suspicious interruptions in the chain of narration. We might, for example, look at the reports about Mâlik’s wife mentioned in sources like at-Tabarî’s Târîkh and Ibn Hajar’s al-Isâbah:

(1) Khâlid ibn al-Walîd(r.a) married Umm Tamîm the daughter of Minhâl, and left her till her clean period ended.

This report appears in a long narrative documented by at-Tabarî on the authority of the following chain of narration:

at-Tabarî— (narrrates from)— as-Sarî ibn Yahyâ— (who narrrates from) — Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm— (who narrrates from)— Sayf ibn ‘Umar— (who narrrates from)— Sahl (ibn Yûsuf)— (who narrrates from)— Qâsim (ibn Muhammad) and ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, who say...

This isnâd is extremely defective, on several counts. Firstly, it runs through the historian Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tamîmî, whose extreme unreliabilty is a matter of consensus among the rijâl critics. Ibn Hibbân has summed up their opinions of him in the words: “He narrates forged material from reliable narrators. They (the critics) say he used to forge hadîth.” He adds that Sayf was suspected of zandaqah (secret heresy). Of recent there has been much protest by Shî‘î authors about reliance upon Sayf’s narrations about ‘Abdullâh ibn Saba, (despite the fact that Sayf is not the only historian who mentions Ibn Saba and his role). However, it seems when the very same Sayf narrates historical material in which the Sahâbah are maligned, a blind eye must be turned to his proven mendacity.

The second problem is with the person who narrates from Sayf, namely Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm. This person, we are told by Ibn Hajar in Lisân al-Mîzân, was virtually unknown. He quotes Ibn ‘Adî who says: “He is not known. He narrates ahâdîth and historical reports which uncorroborated to a certain extent, and in which there is an element of prejudice against the Salaf (early Muslims). ” Is it in any way acceptable to use information that was handed down by a non-entity such as this to malign a man who was named “the Sword of Allâh” by Rasûlullâh r , and who is one of those of whom it was stated in the Qur’ân:

Those of you who spent (their wealth) before the conquest (of Makkah) are not equal (to the rest). They are greater in status than those who spent thereafter and fought. And all of them have been promised good by Allâh. (al-Hadîd:10) Khâlid ibn al-Walîd(r.a)  became Muslim before the conquest of Makkah.

The third point of criticism against this isnâd is the person who appears as Sayf’s direct source: Sahl ibn Yûsuf al-Ansârî. This person, like Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm, is unknown. The same may therefore be said of him as a narrator, and of the nature of his narration in maligning the character of a Sahâbî who sacrificed so much for Islâm, as was said of Shu‘ayb’s narration.

Finally, even if we were to assume, for argument’s sake, that this isnâd is free from all defects right up to Sahl ibn Yûsuf, there remains one crucial problem. The persons who allegedly narrate the story appear here as Qâsim ibn Muhammad and ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb. Neither of these two figures were even born at the time when the incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah occured. Whichever way one looks at it, this report simply does not conform to the two most basic conditions for authenticity: reliability of the narrator, and an uninterrupted chain of narration.

[Nemesis]

Let us now look at another narration in Târîkh at-Tabarî:

(2) ‘Umar told Khâlid: “You enemy of Allâh! You killed a Muslim man and thereafter took his wife. By Allâh, I will stone you.”

The chain of narration on the authority of which this report reached at-Tabarî is as follows:

at-Tabarî— (narrrates from)— (Muhammad) ibn Humayd (ar-Râzî)— (who narrrates from) — Salamah (ibn al-Fadl ar-Râzî)— (who narrrates from)— Muhammad ibn Ishâq— (who narrrates from)— Talhah ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Abî Bakr— who says that it used to be Abû Bakr as-Siddîq’s instruction to his armies...

This isnâd too, is defective and unreliable. It is unreliable on account of Muhammad ibn Ishâq, who was a much more truthful historian than Sayf ibn ‘Umar, but who used to commit tadlîs. Tadlîs is when a narrator intentionally omits the name of his direct source and ascribes his information to a source higher up in the chain of narration. Ibn Hibban states about him: “The problem with Ibn Ishâq is that he used to omit the names of unreliable narrators, as a result of which unreliable material crept into his narrations. However, if he makes it clear that he has actually heard from the person whom he states as his source, then his narration is authentic.” When we look at the way in which Ibn Ishâq has narrated this incident from Talhah ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Abî Bakr, we find that he has not explicitly stated that he heard this information from him. He uses the ambiguous term ‘an, which was a common device used by narrators committing tadlîs. Ibn Ishâq, we are told by Ibn Hajar, was well-known for committing tadlîs by omitting the names of unreliable and unknown persons, and even from narrators who are regarded as unreliable for more serious reasons

Besides Ibn Ishâq himself, it must also be taken into consideration that Muhammad ibn Humayd ar-Râzî, who appears in the isnâd as at-Tabarî’s direct source, has come under severe criticism from the muhaddithîn. Many of them have outrightly labelled him as an outright liar. He has also been proven to be dishonest in his claim to narrating the Maghâzî of Ibn Ishâq from Salamah ibn Fadl. Some of the muhaddithîn who at one stage entertained a good opinion of him had to change their opinions when it became clear that the man was a shameless forger. One critic expresses his opinion as follows: “I have never seen a natural liar, except for two persons: Sulaymân ash-Shâdhakûnî and Muhammad ibn Humayd. He used to memorise all of his ahâdîth, and his hadîth used to grow longer every day.”

Besides the above, it must not be forgotten that the final source for this narration wasn’t even born when Sayyidunâ ‘Umar t allegedly spoke these words to Sayyidunâ Khâlid t . These were events that supposedly took place in the time of Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t , but the one who tells us about it is his great grandson— three generations later. Like the previous report, this one too, suffers from a huge gap in the chain of narration.

Shî‘î authors have the habit of supplying incidents like this with multiple references. In order to fully convince the uninformed Sunnî reader, they will quote not only at-Tabarî as the source for the incident, but also Ibn Kathîr’s al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah, Ibn al-Athîr’s al-Kâmil, etc. They conveniently forget that Ibn Kathîr and Ibn al-Athîr, and like them, most later historians, draw directly from at-Tabarî, and have stated as much in their respective introductions. It is thus of no benefit to quote them as separate references, since all they do is quote at-Tabarî. And as for at-Tabarî himself, he has never claimed all the material in his huge work to be the truth. On the contrary, he states very clearly in his introduction:

Whatever is to be found in this book of mine as quoted from some past source, which the reader finds unacceptable or the hearer deems repugnant for the reason that he does not see any authenticity in it or does not find real meaning in it, let it be known that we are not responsible for it. The one responsible for it would be one of those who transmitted it down to us. We for our part have only reproduced what has been transmitted to us.

[Know-the-Ledge]

Quote

Secular Revolution (14.04.2011)

---

@ KTL,
 I would say the way Fatema has been demonised in this thread and its predecessor

I'd say i'm guilty of this to some extents; for that I apologise. And there's no 'if and but' provisos; although i'd love to have some :)


About three years ago, when I used to earn a million pounds a week, I went on a discussion forum full of non-muslims. I brought up some Islamic topics and was harangued for it; i'll never forget one man though, who had absolutely exceptional knowledge and ability to reason the social landscape of Arabia, the mindset of the people and the relative values of the times  and square that with the historical events that we discussed regarding Islam. And it is that, which is kernel to the discussion at hand.  For a non-muslim, you wonder how he knew all that; certainly knew far more than me and most muslims I come across.

Many many good posts in this thread!! 

[Mudassar-Rana]

KTL, I've found you to be incredibly inflexible and egoistical and the constant reference to I and me is not always a good thing. The picture one creates of oneself in ones own head may not be the picture in every one elses head. And I will confirm again that opinions are just that and I do not allow them to bother me and words don't stick with me unless they are significant in increasing my knowledge on something.

And lastly, Mudassar Rana, instead of trying to define me and approaching me from that angle, think how I do not even define myself. I am nothing and no one and follow no particular thought in Islam, just talk to me as a reasonabe person and that will suffice.

Khalid Bin Waleed, I will not be forgetting him in a hurry.


[/quote]

Dear sis, you raised an issue - yet did not offer any direct accusation. Which is intellectually dishonest. If you think it - say it. Islam sets you free. If you really believed that you dont care what other people think you would have said it. This is what i didnt like. You have disparaged a hero through intrigue and insinuation. That isnt being an honest secularist nor honest any other category. It may seem that the thread has become personal but that is only because your post had a very accusatory tone had you left it open for others with a similar viewpoint to yours to join in then it would have been a more rounded discussion and a lot less personal. I dont think you have been demonized as br Sr has said I think you came in (some) guns blazing but left the bullets at home thus you have had to take some fire back! Resorting to the imam Ali a.s comparison, the reply to sis tms, the comparison of br sr and Ghulam e Naqshband were all indicators that you realised in the midst of battle that ammunition was at home and were looking for a way out but dear humans being humans don't back lost causes. I agree with KTL that this thread is totally different from every post I have read of yours and hence maybe others were as shocked as I was whilst reading this thread. 

Similar accusations have been levelled at rasool allah s.a.w and umar r.a and probably others that im unaware of - and to be fair im more than prepared to discuss all and sundry to the best of the little I know as long as your prepared to raise them!!

Nevertheless the last line that you say reveals the underlying tone of all your posts in this thread - which I find incredibly insulting and degrading.

I wholeheartedly and unashamedly will tell you that I am not a sunni and I renounce all forms of isms. I am simply a muslim - i dont care about the little sects, sub sects people have claimed over the years, therefore I do not defend the noble Khalid r.a. for any sectarian reason and further i am incapable of putting up a defence of the great man as his record speaks for himself.

I havent tried to categorize you dear and I have no inclination to do so. I merely reported what you had said in this thread. To be fair to KTL I thought he had tried his damnedest to be fair and gentle! And I guess history will not forget the man who destroyed 2 empires nevermind yourself!

[objective-enquirer]

the historians of various stripes are in agreement about the killing of malik bin nuwayra and marriage to his wife. I do not really want to discuss the matter in detail for obvious reasons. however, Imam Abd al-Razzaq in his musannaf, Ibn Asakir in his tarikh dimashq, khalifa bin khayat in his tarikh etc and some others like imam yafai' have reported with authentic chains the killing of malik bin nuwayra whilst  he was proclaiming to be a muslim and the immediate marriage to his wife. even hazrat abu bakr ® paid blood money for his murder. these things are not just weak chains but waqidi the historian has said, for example, in his al-ridda that there is ijma upon these occurences.

 

But the big question is that there were senior sahaba present aftrewords who considered it a 'mistake' by khalib bin walid. I think, just like we do not rely upon nasibis about ahl al-bayt, similarly we do not rely on the rafidis for their conclusions about sahaba. all history is interpretation.

[Mudassar-Rana]

br oe do you know what the punishment by law for treason is in the uk is?

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

You have disparaged a hero through intrigue and insinuation. That isnt being an honest secularist nor honest any other category

He is not my hero and this is the point I have been trying to make. I will tell you I am very shocked by the inability of people to think outside the box here. There has been a situation where this has happened before and everyone is out to annihilate me on this forum and the sole reason has been because they can not handle the truth.

I honestly thought that people were able to decipher and discover for themselves what is contained in history. All I really needed to do was give the pointers. Although people have started to think about this issue but not ready to accept an alternative viiew.

It was not me who has made the comparison between him and Ali, if you look back you'll see it was another poster who made the unlikely comparison. I was defending the great Ali nothing more.

There are a barrage of accusations against Khalid bin Waleed which have been discussed already, but there are others.

Is it also not true that in Musnad Bin Hanbal (reliable source) it has been reported that He was also someone who did not like Imam Ali and had BUGHZ in his heart for Ali. He has made his stance towards Imam Ali quite clear. Now I don't know what others think of this but I am certainly not pleased with him. Didn't RasoolAllah say that only a Munafiq dislikes Ali?

[Secular-Revolution]

@ Mudassar,

I find a lot of emotional rhetoric contained in your posts which is not allowing you to see the issue.

If Prince William breaks the speed limit then he is just as deserving of a fine as an ordinary citizen.

That doesn't make him any less royal. It just means, he broke the speed limit.

I hope you get the point!

[Secular-Revolution]

Quote

Fatema the resplendent (15.04.2011)

---

Is it also not true that in Musnad Bin Hanbal (reliable source) it has been reported that He was also someone who did not like Imam Ali and had BUGHZ in his heart for Ali. He has made his stance towards Imam Ali quite clear. Now I don't know what others think of this but I am certainly not pleased with him. Didn't RasoolAllah say that only a Munafiq dislikes Ali?

Let's assume that is the case? So what?

I view it as a case of two people who didn't get along with each other. Happens all the team in real life. I'm sure following this debate, there are going to be people on this forum, you won't think too highly of.

Is it just me or are other confused over how the Religion about God evolved to become a Religion about men?

It is these very trivial matters which have resulted in the massive sectarian divisions.

I feel you're now treading on the same ground that you were raising your voice against in the first place. If your barometer for judging righteousness is a certain companion, then it is just as extremist a view as the "mitti pao" crowd.

When delving into history, one really needs to take an unbiased approach.

[Secular-Revolution]

Quote

Khalid_the_Warrior (13.04.2011)

---

Khalid was summoned back to Madinah and interrogated by the khalifah, who concluded that Khalid’s deed was an error of judgement, for which it was not necessary to dismiss him

To kill, someone and marry his widow immediately is an "error of judgement?" - Can you please elaborate, HOW & WHY?

Quote

Khalid_the_Warrior (13.04.2011)

---

When Khalid asked them to accept Islam they responded by saying “saba’na, saba’na”,a word which literally means “We have become Sabeans”, but which had come to beused in the general sense of changing one’s religion. To Khalid this was not sufficient evidence of their acceptance of Islam, and he gave the order fortheir execution.

So, they had the choice of either,

A. to accept Islam
B. DIE

How is that fair?

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

I just see it as too coincidental that too many people in history did not get on with Hz Ali. This includes many who fought him who by the way are still considered good. How they behaved has no affect in my understanding of Islam but I find it troublesome to think they troubled him, fought him, upset him but I know deep down it was nothing more than jealousy;although very detrimental.

I can not disassociate my feelings with people who have made Islam what it is today. Ahle bayt for example are beacons of knowledge, guidance and symbol of suffering for us. I can not think of an Islam without them. If our role models could not help but fight eachother then what of mortals like us? The way I see it is; the less conflicts between Sahabas then would have meant less conflict amongst us today.

 

[Khalid_the_Warrior]

Bro @sr I shall try to explain, Inshalalh

Well to understand the matter in detail, we’ll have to understandthe situation of the arabs at that time and what danger Muslims faced and how they dealt them would make a big impact on the rest of the Muslims history.

Shortly after the demise of Rasulullah SallahoAlhe Waslam number of tribes around Madinah in the Arabian peninsula turned away from Islam.And with many of them refusing to pay zakah thus Hazrat Abu Bakr declaring awar against them. This was really difficult territory for muslims and it couldhave escalated to wider part of Arabian peninsula but for Abu Bakr strong and swift reaction. Though at first Hazarat Umar r disagree with them being labelas apostate but later agreed to Hazarat Abu Bakar opinion.Hazrat Abu Bakr t sentout a number of expeditions to counter these apostate tribes.Khalid was placedin command of one such expedition.

After his victory against some of the apostate tribes, Khalid set out for BanuSulaym,who were one of the apostate tribes. On his way towards Banu Sulaym Khalid passed through the lands of Banu Tamim. Malik ibn Nuwayrah was a member of this tribe, and he had been appointed zakah-collector of Banu Tamîm by Rasulullah (sallahoalhe waslam) .There were some reports that Malik too, was withholding the zakah.There were even more disturbing reports about him having started to speak ill about Rasulullah but let’s not dwell too much into at this time.

Khalid r had orders from Abu Bakr r to inspect the people as he went along tofind out whether they were still Muslim or if they too had left islam.In thecase of Banu Tamîm, Khalid’s gave him different opinion; some claimed that they did not make salah, while others claimed that they did made salah.

It is reported in some books that Khalid encountered armed resistance from Malik and his men at an oasis called al-Baudah. Those who putup the resistance, including Malik, were made captive and brought before Khalid and He decided that they must be put to death.

We know what happened afterwords, Hazrat Abu Bakr r after looking into what was gonig around and looking at the evedence,saw this an error of judgment on Khalid's part and paid out blood money to Mailk's brother and the matter was settled.

So If Hazarat Abu Bakr r passed a judgment.He was present and well informed about what happened and after seeing the evidence gave the verdict, whome am I to challenge?

[Secular-Revolution]

Quote

Khalid_the_Warrior (15.04.2011)

---

So If Hazarat Abu Bakr r passed a judgment.He was present and well informed about what happened and after seeing the evidence gave the verdict, whome am I to challenge?

Yes, pardon me for my insolence.

How did I forget, he is one of the many gods we have in our religion and therefore beyond scrutiny !!!!!!

[Secular-Revolution]

It appears to me, based on the above reports that extremism and preaching by the sword has roots in Islamic history.

Are these isolated incidents or was this issue more widespread?

[Desert-Sheikh]

Quote

Secular Revolution (15.04.2011)It appears to me, based on the above reports that extremism and preaching by the sword has roots in Islamic history.

No, preaching by the sword has no roots in Islamic history. Above report is a post by an anonymous user not an excerpt from Holy Quran.


BTW, dont forget to read the human history on treasonous acts.

Quote

Secular Revolution (15.04.2011)

Quote

Khalid_the_Warrior (15.04.2011)
So If Hazarat Abu Bakr r passed a judgment.He was present and well informed about what happened and after seeing the evidence gave the verdict, whome am I to challenge? 

Yes, pardon me for my insolence.

How did I forget, he is one of the many gods we have in our religion and therefore beyond scrutiny !!!!!!

we are certainly not in a position to challenge the 1400 years old decisions but we can definitely ask, talk and discuss it (asking a question is not haram).

[objective-enquirer]

Quote

Khalid_the_Warrior (15.04.2011)

---

There were even more disturbing reports about him having started to speak ill about Rasulullah but let’s not dwell too much into at this time. 

btother khalid, I would be forever grateful if you could provide evidence for this statement about malik bin nuwayra (a sahabi). I was not going to take part but this could solve many things. please give referneces for this. thankl you.

[Secular-Revolution]

Quote

Desert Sheikh (15.04.2011)

---

No, preaching by the sword has no roots in Islamic history. Above report is a post by an anonymous user not an excerpt from Holy Quran.

Islamic history is defined by the actions of muslims over the centuries not by passages from the Holy Quran.

Are you confident enough to make a categorical statement in this respect i.e. not a single person was killed because he or she rejected Islam?

Quote

Desert Sheikh (15.04.2011)

---

we are certainly not in a position to challenge the 1400 years old decisions but we can definitely ask, talk and discuss it (asking a question is not haram).

Can we go a step further and disagree with the decision? I don't believe disagreement is haraam either?