632-800

[کیش]

If anyone has concerns about this time period, kindly state them.
Example,

I) Khalifah
1: Spreading Islam
- Abu-Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali
Husayn, Hassan,

II) Umayyads:
1: Spreading Arabization
Muawiya, Yazid, Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwin, Umar II
*Lattar two start to focus on Islam, instead of Arabization.

III) Abbasids:
1: going back to their roots.
- Abu Muslim Al-Khurasani

[Badlun]

It was not Islam, it was just expansion, power and wealth, nothing else. islam was that of Abu zar Ghafari not of the caliphs and kings.

What about the differences of Ansar(from Madinah) and Muhajiroon(from Makkah on the successor of the Prophet?

Why the prophet did not declare clearly his successor?

Why Shias claim that Ali was the real successor?

Why Omar, Uthman, Ali, Hussain were killed?

Why Ayesha fought Ali?

Was it Islam that 13,000 Muslims died killing each other as Ali defeated Aisha. Not long thereafter Ali fought Muwawiyya, Abu Sufyan’s son. Ali was murdered by Muslims, as was Uthman prior to him, and also Umar who was killed by a slave. In any case, after the ‘rightly guided Caliphs had all met untimely violent deaths through murder and assassination, Muwawiyya then assumed power as Caliph.

Islamism or Political Islam’s inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 major military conflicts involving the Muslims.

What about the Shia's argument that if all of these four caliphs were rightly guided, then there should not have been disagreements and differences between them with anything regarding religious jurisprudence and meanings.

The Shia also argue that if one follows Sunni thought that a Rashidun Caliph's laws and opinions are always correct, then when Abu Bakr goes against the sunnah of Muhammad he is still right (like usurping the caliphate and taking fadak). And when Umar does something that contradicts Abu Bakr and Muhammad's sunnah (i.e. institute tarawih, edit the adhan, ban hadiths of Muhammad, ban mut'ah which is in the Quran etc.) then Umar is to be followed.

And when Uthman contradicts Muhammad's sunnah and his two predecessors (such as bringing Al-Hakam ibn Abi al-'As and Marwan ibn Hakam back and putting them in power, even though Muhammad exiled them) then Uthman is to be followed. Shias argue that since the last of the Sunni Rashidun Caliphs is Ali, they should follow him because he went against the ways of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, and strictly followed the sunnah of Muhammad.

Is it Islam

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.
Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari 4.177: Narrated Abu Huraira

When the Prophet intended to go on an expedition, he always pretended to be going somewhere else, and he would say: War is deception.
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2631: Narrated Ka'b ibn Malik

The Prophet said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children.
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664: Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub

[کیش]

It was not Islam, it was just expansion, power and wealth, nothing else. islam was that of Abu zar Ghafari not of the caliphs and kings.

The Umayyads, Muawiya, Yazid were for expansion, power, and wealth. But these two did not earn their positions. Ali was the rightful Khalifah after the killing of Uthman. Whats your source on your claim? every book I have read says differ.

What about the differences of Ansar(from Madinah) and Muhajiroon(from Makkah on the successor of the Prophet?

I don't know what your question is.

Why the prophet did not declare clearly his successor?

He did. The Prophet letting Abu Bakr lead prayer is a sign that he is the leader when the Prophet isn't around.

Why Shias claim that Ali was the real successor?

Because of Kin relationships. But in fact, the Jirga unanimously voted for Abu Bakr,

Why Omar, Uthman, Ali, Hussain were killed?

Umar wasn't killed. Uthman was killed by a group of people who believed he should of stepped down based on being unpopular during his later years.

Why Ayesha fought Ali?

Aisha did not like Ali. Because he didn't believe her story about forgetting her necklace. Ali told the Prophet to divorce her. When Uthman died. Talha and Zubayr wanted power, and instigated Aisha to react based on her disliking of Ali. Both men started to regret their actions during the Battle of The Camel, but it was too late, they were killed. Ali didn't want to fight them. But they were adamant in their stance.

Was it Islam that 13,000 Muslims died killing each other as Ali defeated Aisha. Not long thereafter Ali fought Muwawiyya, Abu Sufyan’s son. Ali was murdered by Muslims, as was Uthman prior to him, and also Umar who was killed by a slave. In any case, after the ‘rightly guided Caliphs had all met untimely violent deaths through murder and assassination, Muwawiyya then assumed power as Caliph.

Again Muawiya was power hungry and was disloyal, as well as a coward. During the Battle of Siffin, Ali suggested they dual instead of fighting each other, to end the killings. Muawiya turned it down.

Islamism or Political Islam’s inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 major military conflicts involving the Muslims.

That number is less than modern NATO. You know that. There's also no credible source about your "Islamism"


What about the Shia's argument that if all of these four caliphs were rightly guided, then there should not have been disagreements and differences between them with anything regarding religious jurisprudence and meanings.

Abu Bakr had to deal with people who turned their back on the ummah. Even Musaylama, who claimed Prophethood. A lot of the companions died in those battles with him. There was no difference of major religious meaning amongst those four. They were also fallible, and made personal mistakes.


The Shia also argue that if one follows Sunni thought that a Rashidun Caliph's laws and opinions are always correct, then when Abu Bakr goes against the sunnah of Muhammad he is still right (like usurping the caliphate and taking fadak). And when Umar does something that contradicts Abu Bakr and Muhammad's sunnah (i.e. institute tarawih, edit the adhan, ban hadiths of Muhammad, ban mut'ah which is in the Quran etc.) then Umar is to be followed.

I would like a source from everything you have said here. I haven't read anything about from what you wrote. And I have read a lot.

And when Uthman contradicts Muhammad's sunnah and his two predecessors (such as bringing Al-Hakam ibn Abi al-'As and Marwan ibn Hakam back and putting them in power, even though Muhammad exiled them) then Uthman is to be followed. Shias argue that since the last of the Sunni Rashidun Caliphs is Ali, they should follow him because he went against the ways of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, and strictly followed the sunnah of Muhammad.

Uthman was fallible, and made human mistakes. But nothing changed the Qu'ran, and message.

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION]

[Karachi]

Power struggle, killings,violence has been going among muslims since those days. when will it ever stop?

[Badlun]

I am very astounded that you do not know that Omar was killed!

All these battles of Ayesha and Ali and differences of Uthman and others show that it was power not Islam, so your claim that in the first 4 caliphs there was Islam is wrong. It is equally true for Umayyads, Abbasids and the first 4.

Even you do not know that there was huge difference of opinion on the selection of Abubakar amongst refugees from Mecca and people of Madinah.

Search fadak and usurping of caliphate by Abubakar.

Fatima az-Zahra (sa), the only surviving child of the Prophet, his most beloved, claimed inheritance of the property which could be apportioned to her in the lands of Medina and in Khaibar, also known as Fadak, which having been acquired without the use of force, the Prophet (S) had given her for her maintenance

http://www.al-islam.org/fatima-the-gracious-abu-muhammad-ordoni/abu-bakr-versus-fatima-az-zahra-sa

Besides many political, social and other changes/reforms Omar started tarawih which did not exist( as mandatory) in the time of the prophet, changed wording of the adhan, baned mut'ah and brought many other changes and reforms which were not in the original Islam. Every history book is full of these details.

He forbid the lesser pilgrimage (the ‘Umra Hadjdj) during the months of Hadjdj while Prophet Muhammad said it was permitted;

He banned the temporary marriage of women while the Prophet had allowed it?

‘Umar said, “I am equal to Muhammad; I make them full and do so and so for them. If I do not do so (harsh behavior), I’ll abandon the truth (this is ironical of his having right to do so).

‘Umar hated Tayammum even during the Prophet’s life.

‘Umar considered 3 divorces at one time as it three divorces. Mālik Ibn Anas, Imām of Mālikiyya, narrates, “‘Umar was afraid that a non-Arab would receive inheritance from an Arab unless he was born among Arabs!

http://umar-ibn-khattab.blogspot.com/2011/01/umar-made-innovations-and-changes-in.html

[کیش]

I am very astounded that you do not know that Omar was killed!

All these battles of Ayesha and Ali and differences of Uthman and others show that it was power not Islam, so your claim that in the first 4 caliphs there was Islam is wrong. It is equally true for Umayyads, Abbasids and the first 4.

It was, but it really wasn't. All the books I have read on this subject (not searching it using Google) doesn't say much about individual power. Can you cite a source from a book?

Even you do not know that there was huge difference of opinion on the selection of Abubakar amongst refugees from Mecca and people of Madinah.

It was, but it was about both the Muhajiren and Ansar. They wanted someone from their camp to lead them. But their conference came to the conclusion that Abu Bakr was to be their leader. (

Search fadak and usurping of caliphate by Abubakar.

Don't search, read. I have even read a Shia book on the life after the Prophet. He didn't usurp anything. He was the most capable person with knowledge of Economics and deen.

Fatima az-Zahra (sa), the only surviving child of the Prophet, his most beloved, claimed inheritance of the property which could be apportioned to her in the lands of Medina and in Khaibar, also known as Fadak, which having been acquired without the use of force, the Prophet (S) had given her for her maintenance

http://www.al-islam.org/fatima-the-gracious-abu-muhammad-ordoni/abu-bakr-versus-fatima-az-zahra-sa

The Prophet said that the Prophet's don't leave inheritance and give it as Zakat.
Yes, Umar made a critical human error. But Ali forgave him. Most of the Prophet's inner circle voted for Abu Bakr. Umar most have been upset that Ali didn't give it, and Umar thought (and it came to light) the ummah would split.



Besides many political, social and other changes/reforms Omar started tarawih which did not exist( as mandatory) in the time of the prophet, changed wording of the adhan, baned mut'ah and brought many other changes and reforms which were not in the original Islam. Every history book is full of these details.

Source

He forbid the lesser pilgrimage (the ‘Umra Hadjdj) during the months of Hadjdj while Prophet Muhammad said it was permitted;

Source

He banned the temporary marriage of women while the Prophet had allowed it?

Source

‘Umar said, “I am equal to Muhammad; I make them full and do so and so for them. If I do not do so (harsh behavior), I’ll abandon the truth (this is ironical of his having right to do so).

‘Umar hated Tayammum even during the Prophet’s life.

‘Umar considered 3 divorces at one time as it three divorces. Mālik Ibn Anas, Imām of Mālikiyya, narrates, “‘Umar was afraid that a non-Arab would receive inheritance from an Arab unless he was born among Arabs!

http://umar-ibn-khattab.blogspot.com/2011/01/umar-made-innovations-and-changes-in.html

Source?

My error. Umar was assassinated leading a prayer. Same as Ali, but the former was killed by a non-Muslim Persian.

Also, where did you get "Islamist" from. Please provide a book

[کیش]

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION]

I'm going to need those sources. If you don't, than your views were wrong.

[کیش]

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION]

I think it's safe to say is that you do not have legit sources for your claims. Claims, which are opinions. (safe for Umar getting assassinated)

Also, no "Islamist" "Jihadist" words exist in Arabic. That's used to separate Muslims. How many battles did the companions fight? Some have fought 32 battles (Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, for ex). Are they followers of "Islamism"? When the Prophet of Islam is also fighting battles beside them?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION]

I think it's safe to say is that you do not have legit sources for your claims. Claims, which are opinions. (safe for Umar getting assassinated)

Also, no "Islamist" "Jihadist" words exist in Arabic. That's used to separate Muslims. How many battles did the companions fight? Some have fought 32 battles (Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, for ex). Are they followers of "Islamism"? When the Prophet of Islam is also fighting battles beside them?

Not only this, but his far off the grid criticism of Umar relies predominantly on tilted or incomplete shiite literature.

We know for instance that the Quranic awrah for a man is the navel to the knees.

There is a tradition that Umar witnessed a zalmaay praying like that even though his shirt was next to him. Umar became annoyed and the people were quick to indicate to him that the Quran had made that the bare minimum.
Umar's made the person put his shirt on out of respect for God.

Umar's sound judgement is based on this notion that if say someone can present to the Caliph or to some woman's house they are seeking the hand of in the best clothes, how dare they, when they have the means, stand in front of God in a lesser fashion.

Rather, Umar was ahead of his time by setting the professionalism bar so high. There are many surgeon CEOs who will throw a colleague out of the hospital if he comes in scrubs even though they serve as the most basic medical wear.

When push came to shove though and a person really made it known to Umar that he was infringing on the rights of people (e.g. the woman who disputed dowry caps) he would admit stepping on or over the boundaries.

Badlun's issue with Omar was that he was a great leader that took Islam far and wide and also played a major role alongside other founding father companions on providing an example of the limits of interpretation. Badlun's preference is to be able to play super fast and super loose with the religious text so as to render it devoid of any meaning or to play with the meaning itself.

[Badlun]

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION]

I think it's safe to say is that you do not have legit sources for your claims. Claims, which are opinions. (safe for Umar getting assassinated)

Also, no "Islamist" "Jihadist" words exist in Arabic. That's used to separate Muslims. How many battles did the companions fight? Some have fought 32 battles (Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, for ex). Are they followers of "Islamism"? When the Prophet of Islam is also fighting battles beside them?

My posts above have sources. You just click them. For some axioms you do not need a source as no will ask you the source that Omar was assassinated or not? These are historic facts repeated everywhere. If you do not respond or do not give source because of lack of time , does not make the truth untruth. Always a book is not the legitimate source in this Internet dominated world.

Islamist, Jihadists etc are English words not Arabic. Search it in any English dictionary and you will find them as words or terms.

Yes Prophet had dual roles. As a prophet for Islam and as an Arab leader and Islamist. The same is true for his other companions and caliphs. We as a Muslim have to follow the prophet of Islam not the prophet of Islamism otherwise every one has to marry a child , have to marry 12 wives, have to fight many wars, have to keep slaves, have to equate two women with one man, have to kill people and order killing and so on.

This is the issue that today the world is facing. Alqaeda, ISIS, Taliban etc are trying to follow the prophet in letter and spirit and then we see the consequences. Prophet never told to follow him in wars or marriages. He clearly stated that what are the 5 fundamentals of Islam , what is the ethics of Islam , what are the beliefs of Islam and these make one a Muslim not polygamy, wars, laws of inheritance or evidence, stoning people to death , cutting hands , no music, no dance, having beard or turban or special kind of clothes for men and women.

[Badlun]

Not only this, but his far off the grid criticism of Umar relies predominantly on tilted or incomplete shiite literature.

We know for instance that the Quranic awrah for a man is the navel to the knees.

There is a tradition that Umar witnessed a zalmaay praying like that even though his shirt was next to him. Umar became annoyed and the people were quick to indicate to him that the Quran had made that the bare minimum.
Umar's made the person put his shirt on out of respect for God.

Umar's sound judgement is based on this notion that if say someone can present to the Caliph or to some woman's house they are seeking the hand of in the best clothes, how dare they, when they have the means, stand in front of God in a lesser fashion.

Rather, Umar was ahead of his time by setting the professionalism bar so high. There are many surgeon CEOs who will throw a colleague out of the hospital if he comes in scrubs even though they serve as the most basic medical wear.

When push came to shove though and a person really made it known to Umar that he was infringing on the rights of people (e.g. the woman who disputed dowry caps) he would admit stepping on or over the boundaries.

Badlun's issue with Omar was that he was a great leader that took Islam far and wide and also played a major role alongside other founding father companions on providing an example of the limits of interpretation. Badlun's preference is to be able to play super fast and super loose with the religious text so as to render it devoid of any meaning or to play with the meaning itself.

Dr Saib

Omar is a wonderful example of the separation of Church and the State. As you have given the examples, Omar acted on his own with out resorting to any religious sanction. He was a great Arab leader. I love him for his leadership qualities, his personality, his administrative and other reforms and his expansion of the Arab empire.

He was a true secular Muslim Arab leader rather statesman. All his innovations, reforms and measures speak of his acumen being a secularist who did not bother religion in state affairs.

[کیش]

My posts above have sources. You just click them. For some axioms you do not need a source as no will ask you the source that Omar was assassinated or not? These are historic facts repeated everywhere. If you do not respond or do not give source because of lack of time , does not make the truth untruth. Always a book is not the legitimate source in this Internet dominated world.

Islamist, Jihadists etc are English words not Arabic. Search it in any English dictionary and you will find them as words or terms.

If its not in Arabic, that word doesn't hold weight. Dictionary says it was created around 1747.

Yes Prophet had dual roles. As a prophet for Islam and as an Arab leader and Islamist. The same is true for his other companions and caliphs. We as a Muslim have to follow the prophet of Islam not the prophet of Islamism otherwise every one has to marry a child , have to marry 12 wives, have to fight many wars, have to keep slaves, have to equate two women with one man, have to kill people and order killing and so on.

The Proohet was not an Arab leader. And you would know that if you studied his life. Everyone has to marry a child? That's cute, and wrong. Marriage at pre-teen was the norm everywhere. You don't have to keep anything

This is the issue that today the world is facing. Alqaeda, ISIS, Taliban etc are trying to follow the prophet in letter and spirit and then we see the consequences. Prophet never told to follow him in wars or marriages. He clearly stated that what are the 5 fundamentals of Islam , what is the ethics of Islam , what are the beliefs of Islam and these make one a Muslim not polygamy, wars, laws of inheritance or evidence, stoning people to death , cutting hands , no music, no dance, having beard or turban or special kind of clothes for men and women.

A website is not proper way to source. In academia you would lose points for it. Here's my book source. The Muslims were more advanced than any other nation in that time.


Matthew Gordon "The rise of Islam"

[Badlun]

A website is not proper way to source. In academia you would lose points for it. Here's my book source. The Muslims were more advanced than any other nation in that time.


Matthew Gordon "The rise of Islam"

If this book is posted on a website so you will not take it as a source? This does not matter whether it is a book or website but what matters is the contents and the arguments. Some axioms do not need source. If I say there is sun outside, I do not have to give a source for the veracity of this statement.

What was the standard of advancement at that time? Conquests, expansion, wars, murders,invasions. Yes Muslims were very advanced. But apart from few heretics like Ibne Sina, Farabi etc, in what field of knowledge Muslims were advanced? What are the contributions of Muslims to humanity as proof of their advancement?

[کیش]

If this book is posted on a website so you will not take it as a source? This does not matter whether it is a book or website but what matters is the contents and the arguments. Some axioms do not need source. If I say there is sun outside, I do not have to give a source for the veracity of this statement.

What was the standard of advancement at that time? Conquests, expansion, wars, murders,invasions. Yes Muslims were very advanced. But apart from few heretics like Ibne Sina, Farabi etc, in what field of knowledge Muslims were advanced? What are the contributions of Muslims to humanity as proof of their advancement?

No. Just because it is written on a website as a book source changes nothing. Because you haven't read the book.

Everything you have said contradicts what is written by non-Muslim experts.

You're criticism is based on your lack of readings. Everything else are opinions on the basis of not reading enough books.

You also have failed to learn anything here where you have been corrected. This shows that you do not learn from others but hold your own biases.

[Khostai]

A website is not proper way to source. In academia you would lose points for it. Here's my book source. The Muslims were more advanced than any other nation in that time.


Matthew Gordon "The rise of Islam"

Marriage at pre-teen age was never the norm nowhere.... Even in ancient Greek, the girls were married off at age the youngest 13-15 and that was when they got there period, no 9 year old marrieng and old man in his 50s was never the norm.