[Secular-Revolution]

Quote

Secular Revolution (17.04.2011)

---

This one sounds particularly bizarre. It extends beyond just mutilation and into cannibalism.

Woops - pardon me!

I interpretted the report to say, he ate the head but upon second reading, I understand it is the dinner cooked on the head that was eaten.

Not canibalism then - just mutilation only.

[Nemesis]

Shah Abdul Aziz muhaddith e delhvi explains in his masterpiece tohfa e itnasharia, shah dehlvi(ra) states cleary in it that malik bin nuwayrahs own brother mutamim bin nuwayrah admitted to Farooq e Azam(ra) that malik was not a sahabi and that he had left deen(apostated),infact malik along with his wife(that khalid bin walid is accused of coveting) actually celebrated and gave afeast with merry making(maza'Allah) when RasoolAllah(Alayh Assalaam) had passed on from this temporal life.

[Mudassar-Rana]

Quote

Secular Revolution (16.04.2011)

---

Quote

Mudassar Rana (16.04.2011)

---

This is the crux of the matter and I dont wish to confuse or speculate further until you can clarify your views on the above.

I'm here with an open mind so I'll swing whatever way based on the strength of arguments presented here.

So far, there is a lot of unanswered questions and hence I have not arrived at any conclusions.

Failure to address my questions will obviously heighten my suspicion that "daal mein kuch kaala hai".

I look forward to responses to my specific questions posted earlier.

Br SR - The point I have raised is upon which the direction of any future debate will go. To actually delve into the matter before is futile as we would be mired in the reporting of incidents etc. It would  save a lot of time and effort in clarifying rasool allah's s.a.w statement and the magnitude of it (i.e. all speech of rasool allah s.a.w during prophethood is divinely inspired)

When we delve further we are left open to different interpretations, subjectivity, strength of reporting etc - hence people can argue either way. However as Abu Bakr r.a. has acted upon one statement of rasool allah s.a.w and ijma as sahaba is also part of islamic jurisprudence then we can save a lot of trouble and make a matter clearer for people including me. And as you are the more learned brother it is your duty to shed light on this crucial (for me) matter of creed (and life).

[FSA]

delete

[Secular-Revolution]

Quote

Mudassar Rana (17.04.2011)

---

rasool allah's s.a.w statement and the magnitude of it (i.e. all speech of rasool allah s.a.w during prophethood is divinely inspired)

As per the hadith posted by OE from Sahih Bukhari, the following is also a statement of Rasool Allah (S) and as per your assertion would have been Divinely Inspired?

How do you rationalise that report?

On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done."

If I was to employ emotional rhetoric similar to the one you have been using, I could argue that the action of Hazrat Khalid ® caused distress to Rasool Allah (S) and he was visibly upset and sought isolation from Hazrat Khalid's ® actions as they were clearly against the mandate that Rasool Allah (S) gave. Upsetting Rasool Allah (S) invites Allah's anger. Hence..............

Do you see my point of what happens when you put 2 + 2 together and conclude a 5 ?

P.S. the above paragraph in italics is merely to make you understand otherwise I'm not in the business of drawing exagerated conclusions.

[Secular-Revolution]

Quote

Infra-red (17.04.2011)

---

Salam

And if Malik bin Nuwayrah apostasized then the Iddat period doesnt come into it. Hazrat Khalid (RA) could marry the widow immediately.I read this last week. Some people have raised the absence of the Iddat period.

Salam

Happy Days - that sorts that one but unfortuantely raises another issue,

So let's say, person A slept with his wife on Monday.

On Tuesday, he became an apostate and was killed.

The same day person B married person A's wife and slept with her.

Who is the biological father of the child if the woman conceives that very month?

[FSA]

Salam

I take back what I wrote. During the week I was looking up this issue online due to following this thread. I was careless because I only glanced thru the info. Im not sure if the apostasy makes any difference to the Iddat. Looking back at the info, the poster was unsure of this himself :

'The above is the case when the husband died as a Muslim. In Malik's case, the issue of apostasy comes in, which would make his marriage to Layla invalid to begin with. Perhaps others can post with respect to whether there is any waiting period when a marriage dissolves due to either husband or wife exiting Islam.'

Sorry. I missed the 'red bit'.

Also can someone comment on the following from the same site:

 Maalik Bin Nuwairah had divorced his wife, but in accordance with the custom of Jaahiliyyah
held her in captivity. The Qur`aan expressly forbids this custom. Khalid Bin Walid (radhiallahu
anhu) therefore, did not marry the woman during her Iddat. The Shi`i claim is a pure
fabrication.


It appears the site maybe Wahhabi site. Anwar Al Alawki's speech is referred to in the thread.
 

[Mudassar-Rana]

Quote

Secular Revolution (17.04.2011)

---

Quote

Mudassar Rana (17.04.2011)

---

rasool allah's s.a.w statement and the magnitude of it (i.e. all speech of rasool allah s.a.w during prophethood is divinely inspired)

As per the hadith posted by OE from Sahih Bukhari, the following is also a statement of Rasool Allah (S) and as per your assertion would have been Divinely Inspired?

How do you rationalise that report?

On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done."

If I was to employ emotional rhetoric similar to the one you have been using, I could argue that the action of Hazrat Khalid ® caused distress to Rasool Allah (S) and he was visibly upset and sought isolation from Hazrat Khalid's ® actions as they were clearly against the mandate that Rasool Allah (S) gave. Upsetting Rasool Allah (S) invites Allah's anger. Hence..............

Do you see my point of what happens when you put 2 + 2 together and conclude a 5 ?

P.S. the above paragraph in italics is merely to make you understand otherwise I'm not in the business of drawing exagerated conclusions.

Br. once again very kind of you to employ patronising language for me. You are also aware that the above comment is earlier than the one I have referred to. Abu bakr r.a would have been aware of both statements as well and chose to utilise the latter in his judgment. Unless ofcourse you think it was a politically expedient decision as opposed to one based on jurisprudence!Furthermore the statement is limited to that event itself and nothing else. 

And if that is the case then the less said the better. Whatever I write is from the heart and if it is emotional then so be it - because thats  the way I write - I cannot be calculated and cold when noble warriors are classfied as rapists, murderers, pillagers. 

 Br. I dont know about exaggerated conclusions but in your previous avatar you questioned my parentage and had me barred!

[Secular-Revolution]

@ MR

Please use the reply button or use selective quotations, otherwise we end up with pages of quotes.

Please be clear, I sincerely have no ill-intentions towards you or anybody else.

I am genuinely interested in observing how people address and resolve the reports surrounding this issue, not because I'm seeking some sort of truth but because theological behaviour intrigues me.

And can we keep the scope of the argument to this thread only please.

Anyways back to the issue,

Quote

Mudassar Rana (17.04.2011)

---

Abu bakr r.a would have been aware of both statements as well and chose to utilise the latter in his judgment.

That's an interesting argument.

Firstly, "would have been" <--- how does "would have been aware" stack up.

I can almost picture a judge saying, "that's just heresay".

But let's just assume you are right. Why then did Abu Bakr ® conclude it was an "Error of Judgement?" That was Abu Bakr's ® response to Umar ® when he requested Khalid ® to be either stoned or dismissed.

Looks like had Umar ® been the caliph at the time, then that's what would have happened.

So the question arises, was Umar ® not aware of the same statement you have been continually mentioning?

P.S. - I am an emotional individual too but I hold it at bay when I'm studying history. Otherwise, its not history you end up reading. It's a figment of one's own imagination and beliefs.

[objective-enquirer]

I am pressing the eject button from the discussion after this post because hz khalid bin walid is a sahabi and no matter what we say cannot either change that nor can we, on the day of judgement, escape from what we have done in this world. however, one must be objective and say it as it is rather than create an understnding around sectarian basis which eventually benefits the rafidis. when something occured than admit that it happened. sahaba e kiraam were not infallible and made mistakes. only the Prophets(a) are free from it. when people deny facts to score party points, it does not the help the noble cause. though, it is possible, atleast as far as I am concerned, that I may be in error about the whole issue, for which I seek the forgiveness from God.

was Malik bin Nuwayra a sahabi? is the question being replied to in a post by brother nemesis above.

I am only going to translate from a classical source. the book is called usud al-ghaba fi ma'rifat al-sahaba. it is about the biograpical sketches of sahaba and is written by imam ibn athir al-jazari (d. 630 AH). he concludes at the end about malik bin nuwayra after his brief sketch :

"In conclusion I say that from what has been reported by al-tabari and from other Imams demonstrates that he (Malik bin Nuwayra) was not an apostate and his mention amongst sahaba by the Imams proves that. People have disgreed about his apostasy. Umar I said to Khalid that you have killed a muslim man and abu qatada witnessed that they read azaan and prayed salah. And Abu bakr freed their captives and gave blood money for malik from bayt al-maal. And All this demonstrates that He was a Muslim"

 

as for the clip above then what can I say?

 

 

 I

[Mudassar-Rana]

br sr : i shall try to list my point's concisely:

1) If people wish to discuss an ordinary person never mind a sahabi then charges are levelled.

I have argued from the beginning no charges were levelled - people were given intrigue,insinuation and character assassination.

2) I have never said he did not commit, or did commit this crime - because that is a matter of history and our interpretation.

point being that when Abu Bakr r.a. pardoned him or gave him the benefit of doubt it was because of that one statement of rasool allah s.a.w.

3) The above 2 are the only points  that I have discussed. Whether these events happened or did not happen I have not indulged in and do not wish to indulge in.

Point 1 is common courtesy reserved for all, least of all khalid bin walid r.a - someone whose services to rasool allah s.a.w are known.

Point 2 is again the crux for me. I keep on repeating it because it is a badge of honour for any human to be given a label by the messenger of God s.a.w - it was upon this that Abu Bakr r.a. based his decision - meaning he understood the magnitude of the comment and of the words of rasool allah s.a.w  

you may see it as adding 2+2=5 or as emotional diatribe but for me I still cannot believe the treatment meted out to Khalid r.a  

[Secular-Revolution]

Quote

objective enquirer (17.04.2011)

---

when people deny facts to score party points, it does not the help the noble cause.

A few years ago, I bought a book titled, "Tohfatul Jafriya" written by a present day barelvi scholar. It came in 5 volumes and in total consists of in excess of a thousand pages in total.

It attemps to respond to all charges levied by the shia. Nearly 3 volumes respond to claims against Ameer-e-Muaviya ®.

This was going back to my hardcore barelvi days. You can imagine my initial delight at the time of having secured a masterful gem which would equip me with the absolute knowledge over all controversial matters, I was fairly disappointed when I started reading through the details only to find that it presented a "squeaky clean" version of Sunni Islam. So remarkable was it that it even defended the appointment of yazeed.

The video that has been posted merely follows the same tradition. Sugar-coat the issue to present version A that is kosher. Brush version B under the carpet.

P.S. - do you have the quoted book by Shaykh Abdul Haq ® in your collection. I would be keen to read his statement if possible please?

[Secular-Revolution]

@ MR

Thank you for putting your point across concisely.

My comments below,

Quote

Mudassar Rana (17.04.2011)

---

1) If people wish to discuss an ordinary person never mind a sahabi then charges are levelled.

I have argued from the beginning no charges were levelled - people were given intrigue,insinuation and character assassination.

I don't care for its not an issue for me. That's between you and Fatema.

I would however say one doesn't need to. It's a well documented case in history.

Quote

Mudassar Rana (17.04.2011)

---

2) I have never said he did not commit, or did commit this crime - because that is a matter of history and our interpretation.

point being that when Abu Bakr r.a. pardoned him or gave him the benefit of doubt it was because of that one statement of rasool allah s.a.w.

Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been a fair conclusion. What I'm looking to understand is, to which I've asked you earlier,

"Why did Umar ® not pardon him or give him the benefit of doubt. Surely he was also aware of that one statement of Rasool Allah (S) ?

[Secular-Revolution]

This topic keeps raising further issues. This is a simple binary equation either the allegations against Hazrat Khalid ® are,

a. TRUE
b. FALSE

If they are TRUE, then does that mean Hazrat Abu Bakr ® applied incorrect judgement in pardoning Hazrat Khalid ®.

If they are FALSE, then does that mean Hazrat Umar ® applied incorrect judgement in demanding Hazrat Khalid ® to be stoned.

Regarding Rasool Allah's ® appraisal of Hazrat Khalid ® being the "Sword of Allah", then surely Hazrat Umar ® was aware of this too. Why then was he prepared to put him to death via stoning when Hazrat Abu Bakr ® used the very same assertion to pardon him or give the benefit of doubt?

[Desert-Sheikh]

Quote

Secular Revolution (17.04.2011)

---

This topic keeps raising further issues. This is a simple binary equation either the allegations against Hazrat Khalid ® are,

a. TRUE
b. FALSE

If they are TRUE, then does that mean Hazrat Abu Bakr ® applied incorrect judgement in pardoning Hazrat Khalid ®.

If they are FALSE, then does that mean Hazrat Umar ® applied incorrect judgement in demanding Hazrat Khalid ® to be stoned.

Regarding Rasool Allah's ® appraisal of Hazrat Khalid ® being the "Sword of Allah", then surely Hazrat Umar ® was aware of this too. Why then was he prepared to put him to death via stoning when Hazrat Abu Bakr ® used the very same assertion to pardon him or give the benefit of doubt?

It's very unnecessary to prove or ask if one of above mentioned personalities was correct or incorrect because everyone was well aware of all the charges, evidences and the statements used, and they gave their opinions as well, but final judgement have been issued by the Supreme Court, issue settled and case closed (1400 years ago).
Did anyone objected Hazrat Abu Bakr's radi Allanhu anhu decision or request for retrial or re-open it to re-try him after Hazrat Abu Bakr radi Allanhu anhu (if they did then, i rest my case)?
It's all documented, read all and make up your mind but avoid making the conclusions unless you really feel compelled to make the decision.
BTW, I admire your ability and the way in which you raise critical questions. I think i have reached the "mitti paoo" stage, baqi lassi nu jinha marzi wadhai jaoo.

[Secular-Revolution]

@ Desert Sheikh,

I agree with you on that. I joined the "mitti pao" aka "whatever" legion over all matters religious the day I became Secular.

Nowdays, I just do it to kill my intrigue of theological behavioural psychology. I find the self-righteous religious mind fascinating and hence all the "subjects" here add to my self-research.

Otherwise, who cares who killed whom, how and married what woman 1400 years ago.

[imamuna]

Quote

Nemesis (17.04.2011)

---

Shah Abdul Aziz muhaddith e delhvi explains in his masterpiece tohfa e itnasharia, shah dehlvi(ra) states cleary in it that malik bin nuwayrahs own brother mutamim bin nuwayrah admitted to Farooq e Azam(ra) that malik was not a sahabi and that he had left deen(apostated),infact malik along with his wife(that khalid bin walid is accused of coveting) actually celebrated and gave afeast with merry making(maza'Allah) when RasoolAllah(Alayh Assalaam) had passed on from this temporal life.

Why are you showing Irfan shah mashidi as proof he does twist evidence and things in a lot of matter to suite his agenda. especially when it comes to exonerating  banu Umayya

[Qadri-Jilani]

I wrote something on this some years back as part of a piece analysing Shi'a accounts of the noble companions (especially the way the late Shi'a scholar Tabataba'i (disingenuously/misleadingly) narrates some of these incidents). I have read a lot since then so it could easily be improved if I wrote it today (so please excuse any deficiencies). I thought I may as well post it if it can add anything useful to the discussion:

Tabataba’i mentions an incident involving Khalid bin Walid in support of his claims. Khalid bin Walid was the great commander who was honoured the title of “one of the swords from the sword’s of Allah” by the HolyProphet[1] after his success at the expedition of Mutah; thenceforth he was knownas Sayfullah (the Sword of Allah). This title along with his services for Islam as a commander shows why he is held in great esteem by Sunni Muslims, so popularising allegations against him is indeed a sensitive issue. Tabataba’i states:

 

 “the complicated incident involving the famous general Khalid bin Walid in the house of one the prominentMuslims of the day, Malik ibn Nuwayrah, which led to the death of the latter. The fact that Khalid was not taken at all to account for this incident because of his being an outstanding military leader shows in the eyes of Shi`ism anundue lenience towards some of the actions of the companions which were below the norm of perfect piety and righteousness.”[2]

 

This incident as stated by Tabataba’i is too simplified and omits some important facts. Where Tabataba’i says the “complicated” incident, this does need further elaboration, Tabari and other historians relate how Malik bin Nuwayrah was exceedingly perplexed (about his faith) and it is unsure weather he was a Muslim or not because of his close associations with the impostress Sajah (who claimed Prophecy), and alternating acceptance of Islam and repentance of his belief in Sajah.[3] This would rule out Malik bin Nuwayrah as a “prominent” Muslim as described by Tabataba’i. The second reason why the incident is complicated is that Khalid bin Walid was not responsible directly or perhaps even indirectly for the murder of Malik bin Nuwayrah. When the cavalry brought Malik b. Nuwayrah along with some people of Banu Tha’labah to Khalid b. Walid they disagreed about whether they were Muslim or not,[4] so Khalid b. Walid ordered that they be locked up (instead of killing them). The night was cold and began to get colder so Khalid ordered a crier to call out “adfi` al-rajul” meaning “keep him warm”, but in the dialects of others it means“kill him”, so Dirar b. Azwar killed Malik b. Nuwayrah.[5] There remained disagreement about whether the deaths were reprehensible or not. The two things we learn here are that it is uncertain whether Malik b. Nuwayrah should have been killed or not and secondly it is not clear if Khalid b. Walid was even responsible for his death.

Tabataba’i then says “that Khalid was not taken at all to account for this incident”. If we study Tabari further, Abu Qatadah, one of thecompanions present who testified that Malik b. Nuwayrah was Muslim, proceeded to Abu Bakr upon the death petitioning about what had happened.[6] Also,`Umar bin al-Khattab continuously requested Abu Bakr to take action against Khalid bin Walid where Abu Bakr replied that “Khalid sought to clear up something up but in the process made a mistake; so stop berating him.”[7] Despite this, Abu Bakr did take action by paying the blood price for Malik and alsosummoning Khalid bin Walid to the Grand Mosque in Madina to explain his story, whereupon Abu Bakr pardoned him and accepted his explanation.[8]

The above shows how omitting certain parts of history or relating history to favour a personal conviction can give a deeply negative portrayal of one’s character. The Shi`a would argue that Tabari is a Sunni source so the account of events is biased in order to exonerate Khalid bin Walid. In fairness, Tabari’s account is balanced; firstly because it is a fuller record of events in comparison to the Shi`a account of the story and, because it has statements of some people who were against the actions of Khalid bin Walid also such as Abu Qatadah who vowed that “I will never witness a war with Khalid bin Walid after that”[9]because of his conviction that Malik bin Nuwayrah had embraced Islam. As well as this `Umar bin al-Khattab stating “in his sword there really is forbidden behaviour” upon hearing the protest of Abu Qatadah.[10] Therefore Khalid bin Walid was taken to account in that he was summoned and the blood price was paid; even for the Sunnis to document this is a form of taking his action to account.

---

[1] Sunan al-Tirmidhi, vol. 5, Kitab al- Manaqib p. 688 no. 3846 Maktaba Mustafa al-Babial-Halabi Cairo, 1937  with the words “Sayf-un min Suyuf-illah”

[2] Tabataba’i, Shi`ite Islam, p. 45, events cited from Tarikh-i Ya’qubi, vol. 2, p. 110

[3] The History of al-Tabari, vol. X, p. 98, State University of New York Press, 1993.

[4] According to how Abu Bakr charged them on how to recognise a Muslim: “When you encamp someone, make the call to prayer and the Iqamah. Then, if the people make the call to prayer and Iqamah leave them alone; but if they do not do so then, there is no course but to raid them” Tabari, vol X, p. 100

[5] Tabari, vol. X, p. 101

[6] Tabari, vol. X, p. 101

[7] Tabari, vol. X, p. 102

[8] Tabari, vol. X, p. 102

[9] Tabari, vol. X, p. 103

[10] Tabari, vol. X, p. 102

[Mudassar-Rana]

"Why did Umar ® not pardon him or give him the benefit of doubt. Surely he was also aware of that one statement of Rasool Allah (S) ?
[/quote]

Br what has umar r.a to do with it when he was not caliph? The authority lies with the Caliph not anybody else. Regardless of what umar r.a said or did at the time he could not have done anything anyway because he didnt have the authority. When he was Caliph he himself dismissed him for monetary extravagance. But if reports are to believed then Umar r.a had admitted that Abu bakr r.a was a better judge of a man than himself etc.

[Secular-Revolution]

@ MR

I think you are missing the point yet again.

You are the one who raised the argument regarding the statement of Rasool Allah (S) and in my opinion have stretched its scope to dismiss the argument and thereafter asserting that it is an insult to Rasool Allah (S).

Thereafter, I have presented you with the question of how do you resolve that Umar ® did not consider the statement of Rasool Allah (S) to be relevant in this context.

I hope you now understand the paradox in your argument?