Layla Bint al-Mihal

[graveyardofempires]

da documentary ogora....dera informative da da Islamic republic of Iran pa bara ke...

http://www.pashtunforums.com/religio...cumentry-5625/

http://www.pashtunforums.com/religio...at-mutah-1835/

YouTube - Shia Scholar in Mutta Scandal With Prositute( VIDEO PROOF )

da ogora graveyard jana.....

da se weenema
da kho der murdar shay wekhato

[Dreamer]

^this thread is about Layla not mutah... you would do well to explain the sunni stance that Khalid married her rather than talk abt mutah...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the event happened... someone was killed and his wife was then either married (an invalid marriage) or raped... as for the caliph he is not above Gods laws... he shld have tried Khalid not mearly called it an "error of judgement" this is in stark contrast to the 2nd caliphs attitude who actually wanted the trial... consider the 2nd caliphs attitude to Khalid whn he assumed the caliphate

Fair enough, if Umar Saib wanted to trial him and had a disagreement with Abu Bakr on the issue... however, I would need to re-read the story itself. The question comes up as to why Umar did not initiate the trial once he assumed the caliphate.

I think I understand where you are coming from. You are commenting on his character as a military leader and the justice afforded someone who did the act in question, which any fair person/Muslim ought to do. It is the equivalent of questioning the tactical mistakes of Abu Musa (R) in the the negotiation process at Siffin.

I will defer further commentary until I re-read the section in Tabari.

I will say that the sources discuss Khalid's (R) dismissal from his generalship in the context of avoiding the rise of a dictatorship/Ceasarship amongst the Muslims. It does not appear that Umar was displeased with Khalid (R) as a person.

[Dreamer]

Fair enough, if Umar Saib wanted to trial him and had a disagreement with Abu Bakr on the issue... however, I would need to re-read the story itself. The question comes up as to why Umar did not initiate the trial once he assumed the caliphate.

I think I understand where you are coming from. You are commenting on his character as a military leader and the justice afforded someone who did the act in question, which any fair person/Muslim ought to do. It is the equivalent of questioning the tactical mistakes of Abu Musa (R) in the the negotiation process at Siffin.

I will defer further commentary until I re-read the section in Tabari.

I will say that the sources discuss Khalid's (R) dismissal from his generalship in the context of avoiding the rise of a dictatorship/Ceasarship amongst the Muslims. It does not appear that Umar was displeased with Khalid (R) as a person.

with regards to the 2nd caliph. I can not say why he didnt trial him ... I suppose to do would be to aknowledge the 1st caliphs mistake and that wouldnt do... we do know that he dismissed him once he (the 2nd caliph) assumed the caliphate... you are correct sir in regards to why I made the thread... with regards to siffan I suppose many here of the staunch sunni stance would say that never happened either

[Dreamer]

also I believe that the 2nd caliph dismissed Khalid as he was worried about his own authority... this has happened in history countless times... a general who becomes popular through military success is not liked by the king/leader who placed him in power in the 1st place... I believe he dismissed him for taking a bath with an alcoholic mixture though I freely admit that my knowledge in this is lacking

[Talib Jan]

Assalamu `Alaykum

Here's something I came across when looking into the topic.

HADHRAT ABU BAKR (radhiallahu anhu) CONDONED MURDER ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY KHALID BIN WALID (radhiallahu anhu)

Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Khalid Bin Walid (radhiallahu anhu) of having killed Maalik Bin
Nuwairah for the sake of marrying his wife. They claimed that Malik Bin Nuwairah was a
Muslim, but the Khalifah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) upheld Hadhrat Khalid’s act
and refused to punish him. They further claim that Hadhrat Khalid (radhiallahu anhu) married
the woman the same night of the murder and consummated the marriage which was not valid
in view of the woman being in Iddat.

Shiahs further take support from Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiallahu anhu) displeasure with Hadhrat
Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) decision on this issue. The Shiahs have distorted this episode as
is their usual practice. Maalik Bin Nuwairah had become a Murtad. Hadhrat Khalid (radhiallahu
anhu) was on his campaigns against the Murtad (renegade) tribes after the demise of
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He was convinced of the Irtidaad of Maalik Bin
Nuwairah whose women-folk had gleefully celebrated the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam). Thus, Maalik Bin Nuwairah was ordered to be executed on account of his
Irtidaad.

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.

Since Maalik Bin Nuwairah was a Muslim prior to Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)
death, some Sahaabah were not convinced of his Irtidaad. Among them were Hadhrat Abu
Qatadah Ansari and Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhuma), hence their displeasure with Hadhrat
Khalid Bin Walid (radhiallahu anhu).

During the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu), Mutammim Bin Nuwairah (Maalik’s
brother) confirmed his brother’s Irtidaad. When he informed Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu)
of his brother’s Irtidaad, the latter regretted his earlier displeasure and proclaimed the
correctness of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) decision. It is well-known that in the
matter of Hudood and Qisaas (Shar`i punishments) Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was
extremely severe. Despite this, he did not invoke the Shariah’s laws against Hadhrat Khalid
Bin Walid (radhiallahu anhu) during his Khilaafat. This is further proof that Hadhrat Umar
(radhiallahu anhu) had changed his earlier view.

There is no doubt that Maalik Bin Nuwairah had reneged from Islam after the demise of
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The following appears in the Kitaab, ‘Al-Isti`aab’:
“Abu Bakr had appointed Khalid the commander of the army. Allah Ta `ala granted him victory
over Yamaamah, etc.. The majority of the renegades were killed by his hands. Among them
were Musailamah Kath-thaab and Maalik Bin Nuwairah...”

Let us for a moment assume that Hadhrat Khalid (radhiallahu anhu) had erred in ordering the
execution of Maalik Bin Nuwairah and so had Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) by
abstaining from punishing (i.e. effecting Qisaas) on Hadhrat Khalid (radhiallahu anhu).
On the basis of this assumption, the refutation of the Shi`i claims would be on the following
grounds:

(a) Qisaas (life for a life) can be meted out only on demand by the close relatives of the
murdered person. No such relative came forward to demand Qisaas against Khalid Bin Walid
(radhiallahu anhu). According to the Shariah, a murderer cannot be executed if the kinsman
do not demand Qisaas.

(b) While the Shiahs are vociferous in their criticism of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu)
on this issue, they are silent regarding Hadhrat Ali’s (radhiallahu anhu) abstention from the
Qisaas of the murderers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) despite the demand for
Qisaas by the kinsman of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). But, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal
Jama`ah does not criticise Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for his decision. His decision is
upheld as valid by the Ahlus Sunnah.

This Shiah accusation and fabrication are motivated by spite and malice for the Sahaabah of
Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

(From Shi'ism Exposed)

[Dreamer]

lol at divorced... love how sunnis will twist their way out of things... he hadnt divorced her he was STILL MARRIED to her.... Khalid killed someone who he alone thought was an apostate (remember that not everyone was clear on the issue of zakat so that in ur definantion the number of apostates would be numerous) your own scholars say he married her that night (ignoring the iddat laws) The caliph himself rebuked Khalid for this act.... but refused to punish him... nice thing but there is NO proof she was divorced looooool so try again... some of ur sunni mates here say the whole thing was made up but nice to see a new twist

[Dreamer]

Khalid bin waleed... not looking so great now is he?

[*Mahzala*]

Khalid bin waleed... not looking so great now is he?

Firstly, may I be so bold to say, you expect an answer, yet you fail to provide an explanation on what you desire to be clarified. The name you refer to has seldom been mentioned in authentic books. If you may, please provide some historical references (authentic ones at that) to the incident you are referring to, that you want us to refute or back with equally credible sources.

Secondly, Khalid ibn Waleed (RA) is the knight of Islam, the man known as Saifullah, a leader of great conquests and decisive battles in the history of our religion and a man of bravery and courage to say the least. The way in which you present your argument not only lacks basic etiquette, but stirs much doubt and criticism about his character, undermining it, among those who know and don't know about the history of this great man.

And thirdly, I wonder at how reading a few books (unauthentic I assume) or studying a few months (not even years) of our life in the field of history, under scholars whose credibility fails many, can make us experts in matters of religion, its history and give us the upper hand to criticise and ridicule people of its glorious past. Pick your sources with care, filter your information, understand it, compare it and then maybe give yourself the right to criticise. There are two sides to a story and reading Islamic history is no less, in fact, more sensitive to fabrications. Ponder.

[Dreamer]

Firstly, may I be so bold to say, you expect an answer, yet you fail to provide an explanation on what you desire to be clarified. The name you refer to has seldom been mentioned in authentic books. If you may, please provide some historical references (authentic ones at that) to the incident you are referring to, that you want us to refute or back with equally credible sources.

Secondly, Khalid ibn Waleed (RA) is the knight of Islam, the man known as Saifullah, a leader of great conquests and decisive battles in the history of our religion and a man of bravery and courage to say the least. The way in which you present your argument not only lacks basic etiquette, but stirs much doubt and criticism about his character, undermining it, among those who know and don't know about the history of this great man.

And thirdly, I wonder at how reading a few books (unauthentic I assume) or studying a few months (not even years) of our life in the field of history, under scholars whose credibility fails many, can make us experts in matters of religion, its history and give us the upper hand to criticise and ridicule people of its glorious past. Pick your sources with care, filter your information, understand it, compare it and then maybe give yourself the right to criticise. There are two sides to a story and reading Islamic history is no less, in fact, more sensitive to fabrications. Ponder.

well known what happened with Layla... the sunni twist is that he married her after he killed her husband now if he did that he broke the idda laws concerning widows... this is the offical sunni stance... claims that she was divorced or that the story is made up are nonsence.... so if he was so great why did he do what he did??? according to non sunni is he raped her... either way he had unlawful intercourse with her... read tabari a sunni historian who relates the story

[Dreamer]

I suppose Muawiya the person who some sunnis affectionatly call "Amir" muawiyya was also a hero of Islam... we all knw what he and his disgusting son did... I suppose that you will say there is no evidence to back up those claims... read up on the history of the battle of siffan... is it lawful to wage war against muslims and the Imam?

[Talib Jan]

Khalid bin waleed... not looking so great now is he?

Okay brother, let's clarify something insha'Allah. Sayyiduna Khalid ibn Walid (radiyallahu `anhu) along with Sayyiduna Amir Mu`awiyah (radiyallahu `anhu) have always been and will always be held in great regards in the eyes of the Sunnis. Reason being is that these blessed individuals were praised by the Prophet (saw) in his lifetime, which can be found in rigorously authenticated ahadith. This authentication process is a discipline in itself which leads to a confirmation of the words of the Prophet (saw). On the other hand, historical reports, no matter which subject matter is being discussed, can be subject to weakness as can been seen, for example, in the conflicting narrations of this incident. This is due to the absence of the authentication process since historical reports are not deemed as important as Prophetic traditions. This leads to Sunnis having their versions of historical accounts, which they deem authentic, and Shi`as having theirs. Therefore, I would any day take the words of my Prophet (saw) which have been verified in praise of the Sahabah (ra) over unverified reports of historians which have been argued over for centuries. I hope this sheds some light on the issue of Prophetic narrations versus historical reports.

[ScimitarXEdge]

why do ur sunni scholars admit that something happened then loooool

"that something happened"

is extremely vague. Is the "something" precisely identical to the "something" you claim that happened, did the sunni scholars actually "admit" or is it a narration which has unknown sources which certain Sunni Scholars noted but did not evaluate it's actual authenticity.

From what era/age did the story pertaining to this "something" become narrated. First generation, second generation, ......20th generation?

[ScimitarXEdge]

well known what happened with Layla... the sunni twist is that he married her after he killed her husband now if he did that he broke the idda laws concerning widows... this is the offical sunni stance... claims that she was divorced or that the story is made up are nonsence.... so if he was so great why did he do what he did??? according to non sunni is he raped her... either way he had unlawful intercourse with her... read tabari a sunni historian who relates the story

Even if he allegedly broke Idda laws, the worst one can claim is that he sinned, and he did something not even considered a major sin. If he made a mistake, then it's just the failing of being human. He isn't a Nabi or a Rasul, even they make errors.

As for sunni sources or shi'a sources, it doesn't matter what the source is, what matters is authenticity.

and I say this as someone who looks at Islamic History critically on both Sunnis and Shi'a.

[Dreamer]

Okay brother, let's clarify something insha'Allah. Sayyiduna Khalid ibn Walid (radiyallahu `anhu) along with Sayyiduna Amir Mu`awiyah (radiyallahu `anhu) have always been and will always be held in great regards in the eyes of the Sunnis. Reason being is that these blessed individuals were praised by the Prophet (saw) in his lifetime, which can be found in rigorously authenticated ahadith. This authentication process is a discipline in itself which leads to a confirmation of the words of the Prophet (saw). On the other hand, historical reports, no matter which subject matter is being discussed, can be subject to weakness as can been seen, for example, in the conflicting narrations of this incident. This is due to the absence of the authentication process since historical reports are not deemed as important as Prophetic traditions. This leads to Sunnis having their versions of historical accounts, which they deem authentic, and Shi`as having theirs. Therefore, I would any day take the words of my Prophet (saw) which have been verified in praise of the Sahabah (ra) over unverified reports of historians which have been argued over for centuries. I hope this sheds some light on the issue of Prophetic narrations versus historical reports.

Layla praised the prophet as well dont u have any sumpathy for her plight? as for Muawiyya... lool read up what happened at siffan then come back and tell me how he was so great