I have asked you simple question and you did not gave me answer, why?
**I asked you battles fought by Prophet (SAW), as he is my guide, no one else, so tell me why he was sitting most of the time in Madina, not fighting? Why are you not giving me proper answer to what I asked? Was Prophet (SAW) scared. He was Prophet and obviously, no reason could have stopped him from obeying Allah and keep doing offensive Jihad, until whole world becomes Muslim, or death stops Prophet (SAW) from doing so, right?
Well, in his last Khutba, Prophet (SAW) declared that he completed Islam, but if offensive jihad until whole world becomes Muslim is part of Islam, then how can he claim that he has completed Islam before whole world has not become Muslim, right? So, you believe that Prophet (SAW) nauzobillah, lied too?**
As for battle during Umar (RA) and expansion during Umar (RA) and Usman (RA) time, that was also mostly due to circumstances. Muslims increasing power started anxiety amongst Romans and Persian, and they started getting threatening by Muslim rising influences in Jazerah-tul-Arabia.
That anxiety created conflicts (mostly started by Romans and Persians) that caused battles between Muslims with Romans and Persians, resulting in their defeat. Still, most of the time, there was no battle going on during these periods too; maybe, these eminent Khalifas did not know their duty to keep offensive jihad alive, until death. Right?
As for battles during the time of Umayyad and Abbasids, they were Kings and Kings if feel powerful, they try to expand their domain, so no wonder they occupied few bit and pieces of land, that in process expanded Islamic influences.
Nevertheless, Omayyad and Abbasid ruled around 600 years. Most of the time they were also sitting on their throne and enjoying life and whenever they went to war, it was mostly defensive, though some of their occupation were for worldly gain too. Same is true regarding Ottomans, as they ruled for around 700 years (over 25000 days) but fought at most few hundred days during their long rein.
Most Ottoman Khalifa stayed peaceful in their capital, even though at times, they were strongest military force on earth. Well, maybe similar to their predecessor, they also did not know that it is their duty to occupy whole world and offer death, Jazyea, or Islam to all kafirs. Right?
[Actually, I can support what I said about offensive Jihad being not part of Islam from Quran too, but I am not going into that].
Agreed that no-one is discussing the topic at hand…fact is is it haram to fight under a banner of nationalism rather than Islam?
And Sa1eem to quickly glance onto your point…im guessing your discussing the Prophet before he overthrew Abu Jahl…this would be irrelevant as this is before he took power…after he took power the rules were different…
And as for you providing evidences for me…iv heard them all before…Lets agree to disagree or you can check this source which i thought was useful…
Darn right no one is talking about the actual topic because people do not know where to begin.
And to make sure such a thing does not happen, there must have been a system in place in the early era of Islam.
Something went wrong after the initial Umayyad rule (where we see a major shift in the rule from merit basis to lineage basis) …
We know that Yazid’s reign was only 3 years and as such may have been that of a backup at that time, but it could have set the wrong precedent. The trend after this was solely a cut-throat tussle between warring factions for power… Even the khirajites claimed Ali’s family for right of leadership and hence the term “Shi’aa-i Ali”, which was lineage based too (Imamate).
Why did this occur and how were the Umayyads able to justify it in front of the state? Why were there so many Khirajite uprisings? (It is my opinion that there may have been many justifiable uprisings that were dubbed by the Umayyads as “khiraji”.) Why did the expansion of the Islamic state halt all of a sudden. There was another expansion that followed but there is a noticeable lapse. I think this is the time of the original “anarchy” rather than the time of the exalted prophet and the “rightly guided ones”.
Some of the incidents do not fit well with the personalities of the companions. And these are small little details that give away this unnaturality. For example, when the exalted messenger passed away, Hazrat Umar is narrated to have said “I will behead anyone who says Rasool-Allah is dead”. A rightly guided companion with one of the finest legacies of leadership, who firmly believed in the afterlife “wa l-aakhiratu kharun wa abqaa” and that man is mortal “kullu man alaiha faan” could not have uttered such words.
It is my understanding that stories of instability after the exalted prophet and the khulafa were deliberately invented to justify a lineage based monarchy, which may also have been a natural response to the khirajite movement. This is also the time when Abd al-Malik constructed al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. As well, several Jews and Christians opted to “convert” to Islam to save on the tax (Jizyah) and may even have retained thier beliefs that then mixed with original Islamic “Deen”. We hence see many biblical (and even Talmudic beliefs) in traditions.
Obviously, once the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads, a lot of Persian and Anatolian influences also intermixed with muslim teaching to give you what is today’s Sunni and Shiah “mazhab” under the canonized auspecies of the monarchy.
Now let me ask you this… when did the “chicken” lose its head, and as such, what has to come first in the situation today? The Ummah or the means to defend it?
These are rhetorical questions in case you choose to answer.
PS to Hareem01: Dear sister, you repeatedly force me to go in this direction by using terminology that should be used CAREFULLY in every sense of the word. I apologize to other members on the forum for this. For your unwavering trust of the so-called “documented” history Hareem01, here are some facts:
-Sahih Bukhari: This was compiled by Imam Muhammad Isma’il Bukhari. He was born in Bukhara and died near Samarqand in 256 A.H. (or in 260 A.H.). It is said that he collected about 600,000 ahaadith. From these he selected about 7,300 for his book, having discarded the rest.
-Sahih Muslim: This was compiled by Imam Muslim Bin Hujjaj. He was born in 204 A.H. in the famous Iranian city of Nishapur and died in 261 A.H. He collected about 300,000 ahaadith and selected 4,348 for his book.
-Tirmidhi: This was compiled by Imam Abu ‘Isa Muhammad Tirmidhi. He was born in the Iranian city of Tirmidh in 209 A.H. and died in 279 A.H.. He collected 300,000 ahaadith and selected 3,115.
-Abu Daawood: He was born in 202 A.H. in the Iranian city of Sistaan and died in 275 A.H. He collected 500,000 ahaadith and kept only 4,800 in his book.
-Ibn Maaja: This was compiled by Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Zayd Ibn Maaja. He was from the Iranian city of Qazwin. He was born in 209 A.H. and died in 273 A.H. He collected 400,000 ahaadith and selected only 4,000 for his book.
-Nisayee: This was compiled by Imam Abdul Rahman Nisayee. He was born in the village of Nisa in the province of Khurasaan in Iran. He died in 303 A.H. He collected 200,000 and selected 4,321 for his book.
First thing to spot is that all these individuals were born at least 200 years after the exalted prophet and that too in those times when there was no recording technology other than inscriptions, parchment and papyrus that could not even have been authenticated.
Once you are able to digest this, you should conssider that all these individuals are PERSIAN. Not a single Arab muhaddith for the Sihaih Sittah? What’s wrong with this picture? I know someone can say “Persian so what?”, and I say it is not that they are Persian, it is that they ALL are Persian which is, at least, odd! (Abbasids were Arabs but were known for their support of Persian lifestyle, and even had Persian wives, not all of whom would/could have been muslim.)
As far as word of mouth is concerned, it is word of mouth… it could be right, it could be wrong, it could be invented for whatever reason… And of course, then comes the question of motive and the “good heart”… why is it so hard to admit that monarchy may have used canonized clergy for their own benefit?
As well, the only references to the Sirah that is the basis of traditional muslim biography of our belived prophet in what we consider to be “documented” history of early Islam is that of Ibn Ishaq. His actual works do not survive (hmm, I wonder - no evidence to support this “documented history”) and are only referenced by people in terms of bibliograhical entries. Who knows what was chosen to be referenced was actually the content of the work of Ibn Ishaq, and who knows if he wrote what really happened. It might be interesting to note that Ibn Ishaq was the grandson of a Jewish POW. Hmmm…
Once you are able to digest this, you should conssider that all these individuals are PERSIAN. Not a single Arab muhaddith for the Sihaih Sittah? What's wrong with this picture? I know someone can say "Persian so what?", and I say it is not that they are Persian, it is that they ALL are Persian which is, at least, odd! (Abbasids were Arabs but were known for their support of Persian lifestyle, and even had Persian wives, not all of whom would/could have been muslim.)
Imam Malik is the only exception in these scholars, and Muwatta pre-dates all of these hadith collections.
Very interesting and thought provoking post. It is interesting why none of the works of any Arab historians or muhaddithain have survived.
I am of the opinion that there may only have been historians, and not muhaddithin... Inscriptions and papyri discovered from the early Islamic times are either Quranic fragments in Kufic (Nabataean script - sometimes with diacritical dots) or non-religious content in everyday matters. Any inscriptions (such as bas reliefs) and grave marks either have Quranic verses on them, or notes/events by the person who engraved them - no hadith whatsoever.
Imam Malik's work is not included in Sihaih sittah though, and he is not a contemporary of the exalted prophet, but a student of Imam Ja'far Sadiq.
What is striking is the following:
al-Muwatta consisted of a total of 1726 hadiths divided as follows:
I am of the opinion that there may only have been historians, and not muhaddithin... Inscriptions and papyri discovered from the early Islamic times are either Quranic fragments in Kufic (Nabataean script) or non-religious content in everyday matters. Any inscriptions (such as bas reliefs) and grave marks either have Quranic verses on them, or notes/events by the person who engraved them - no hadith whatsoever.
Imam Malik's work is not included in Sihaih sittah though, and he is not a contemporary of the exalted prophet, but a student of Imam Ja'far Sadiq.
What is striking is the following:
al-Muwatta consisted of a total of 1726 hadiths divided as follows:
I don't think the regulations or categorizes of classifying ahadith as Sahih were invented when the Muwatta was written. it is commonly said that one of the reasons the Muwatta is not part of the Siha Sittah is because all the ahadith mentioned in the Muwatta have been absorbed into the Sahih collections.
I think the classifications you have mentioned were later derived for the Muwatta based on how it was absorbed into the Sahih collections. However another interesting point you raised is that Quranic verses existed on parchments or other scrap material for recording, historical accounts also existed but no ahadith ever existed on such parchments (at least even I have not read of such a account of ahadith, which is why they are termed the Oral traditions from the Prophet SAW). Another interesting point is though why no Sahih ahadith have attributed to the Muwatta though it pre-dates all the Siha sittah collections.
However another interesting point you raised is that Quranic verses existed on parchments or other scrap material for recording, historical accounts also existed but no ahadith ever existed on such parchments (at least even I have not read of such a account of ahadith, which is why they are termed the Oral traditions from the Prophet SAW).
Which is a pretty brilliant sign "for those who reflect"...
PS: And yes you are right about comparison of muwatta and sahaih sittah. What I was saying is that the person closest to the times of the prophet has the least amount of hadith 'recorded' and the furher you advance, the greater the number of ahaadith... something is not right.
Anyhow, you sort of get the picture :) have a nice evening. I think I'm done here :) Ma'Salam
Yesrterdat ...i posted a post in the thread "Are Indian muslims pro-Pakistani? " in World affairs forum where i posted in response of some of my hindu friends as they consider land as "mother" the post was....
well we muslims damn care about pieces of land as mother and "dharti mata "...me living in pakistan..love pakistan ..but can sacrifice whole pakistan for the one sand-grain of madina...any muslim living in india can sacrifice whole india on the one sand-grain of desert of makkah...muslims are united in bond of islam...which transcends all geography ....lands of peices...who cares !!!!!
The thing is only "difference" of options when thing comes between Pakistan or india....or iraq and USA or USA and Iran ...then definitely we will support Iraq...Iran and Pakistan obviously....but if difficult times comes...then i will again say...the whole Pakistan can be sacrificed on the sand grain of makkah or medina...its just the priority option that decides.....
furthermore ...there is a hadees of prophet(pbuh) that one man asked him..is this wrong that one person will love his tribe(as arabs were tribal) and city etc...Prophet(pbuh) said not at all...every oone loves his tribe and where he or she born..but it will wrong if they defend them in wrong also....so when justice comes...then no race...no colour...no tribe and no country...all are equal...regarding what...a person who live..born and brought up ...naturally loves that place..its common....but this love should differentiate between right and wrong when times come....thats the real teachings and preceptions of islam...
Even prophet(pbuh) said when leaving Makkah with tears in his eyes"Makkah..you is dearer to me than anything else but yur sons do not allow me to live there"
Infact the history maker...Al-Farooq(ra) was a staunch supporter of Arabian nationalism and urged the Christian tribes of Najran when the battle of Qadiyya to fight ith persians and said....now the time is between Arabs and Ujams ...so all christian tribes vigorously fighted with persians and defeated them in many battles....
As far as word of mouth is concerned, it is word of mouth... it could be right, it could be wrong, it could be invented for whatever reason... And of course, then comes the question of motive and the "good heart"... why is it so hard to admit that monarchy may have used canonized clergy for their own benefit?
As well, the only references to the Sirah that is the basis of traditional muslim biography of our belived prophet in what we consider to be "documented" history of early Islam is that of Ibn Ishaq. His actual works do not survive (hmm, I wonder - no evidence to support this "documented history") and are only referenced by people in terms of bibliograhical entries. Who knows what was chosen to be referenced was actually the content of the work of Ibn Ishaq, and who knows if he wrote what really happened. It might be interesting to note that Ibn Ishaq was the grandson of a Jewish POW. Hmmm...
yes..brother..you are right...but see this is because...Persian Civilization from thousands ofyears be the super-power and exceeded in litreature and poetry...remeber when Haris went to persia and brought the Dastans of Rustam -o-suhrab so that people would not listen to Muhammd (pbuh) min streets of Makkah(as in sura Luqman )...so Persians were already very used to writing and learning...while in Makkah only ..i think 17 were adhere to writing thats include umar(ra) also...alll they did it listen to poetry of Amraul qais and others ...fight...tribal conflicts...wars of 100 years...khana badosh....poor also..etc etc...do not compare them with the 2500 years of greatest and beautiful civilizations of Persia....tahts why after islam...Kufa ..Basra...Naisha Pur...Khurasan...Gialan...became the centres of learning..science and philosohy...its just because of thier old historical traces....but its totally wrong to say that Arabs did nothing....one of the greatest iamm of all times...Imam Malik of Madina and his Mauta (as said by US RESident) is the early and very authoritative work of hadees)...similarly the other greatest imam ...Imam Muhammad Idrees-us -Shaafai of Makkah is the greatest imam of fiqah.....Imam Ozai who did 70,000 problems of Fiqah was also rabian....Imam Zohri was also arabian...Imam Sufyan Sori...was also arabian...etc...regarding what Ibne Ishaque was ....he was very early age ...and if someone in his relatives was jew..whats strange...that his grandson was jew ......he was the oldest seerat nigar of prophet(pbuh) ...i think died in 91 higri...i think ..not sure..
The thing is only "difference" of options when thing comes between Pakistan or india....or iraq and USA or USA and Iran ...then definitely we will support Iraq...Iran and Pakistan obviously....but if difficult times comes...then i will again say...the whole Pakistan can be sacrificed on the sand grain of makkah or medina...its just the priority option that decides.....
furthermore ...there is a hadees of prophet(pbuh) that one man asked him..is this wrong that one person will love his tribe(as arabs were tribal) and city etc...Prophet(pbuh) said not at all...every oone loves his tribe and where he or she born..but it will wrong if they defend them in wrong also....so when justice comes...then no race...no colour...no tribe and no country...all are equal...regarding what...a person who live..born and brought up ...naturally loves that place..its common....but this love should differentiate between right and wrong when times come....thats the real teachings and preceptions of islam...
Even prophet(pbuh) said when leaving Makkah with tears in his eyes"Makkah..you is dearer to me than anything else but yur sons do not allow me to live there"
Infact the history maker...Al-Farooq(ra) was a staunch supporter of Arabian nationalism and urged the Christian tribes of Najran when the battle of Qadiyya to fight ith persians and said....now the time is between Arabs and Ujams ...so all christian tribes vigorously fighted with persians and defeated them in many battles....
Out of context . These ahadith are not about nationalism.
And you don’t perform salaat. I don’t want to debate with a hadith rejecter.
The Hadith – Sunnah
The Hadith- Sunnah (Prophet Mohammad’s teachings) further explains the Qur’anic injunctions. Thus, the Sunnah stands as another important source of the Shari’ah, second in authority only after the Holy Qur’an which stands for Allah’s Commands. Thus Muslims should take the Hadith- Sunnah as a source of Islamic Law as it has been advocated by the Holy Qur’an itself:
“And We have sent down unto you also the Message that you may explain clearly to man what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.”
Thus, one of the Prophet (PBUH) duties was to interpret the Qur’anic injunctions.
“Obey Allah and obey the Prophet and render not your actions in vain.”
“Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah.”
Similarly, the Prophet (PBUH) has stressed the importance of his Sunnah. During the course of Khutbah al Wada’ah (Farewell Sermon) the Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said:
“I leave behind two things, if you hold fast unto them you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah.”
He also asked his Companions to convey others what they have learned from him saying:
“Haddithu 'anni” (relate my saying to others)
Furthermore, he implored his Sunnah to uphold his way of life saying:
‘Alaykum bi sunnati’ (follow my example)'.The Holy Qur’an forbids ignoring or opposing any of the explanations or commands given by the Prophet (PBUH):
“And as for him, who opposes the Messenger after guidance has been made clear, follows a path other than that of a believer.”
Qur’anic revelation and the precepts of the Prophet (PBUH) constitute the primary sources of Islamic Law.
Generally the Holy Qur’an lays down the broad aspects of the Law and Shari’ah obligations which cannot be fulfilled without resorting to the Sunnah of the Prophet the Prophet (PBUH). For instance, the Holy Qur’an orders Muslims to pray but does not provide its specific timings; also it does not explain the way Muslims should pray. The details are found in the Sunnah. Again, the Holy Qur’an allows one to bequeath a share from one’s estate to any person and does not stipulate the maximum limit for such a bequest. The Prophet (PBUH) is the one who fixed its maximum limit at one third of one’s estate only.
In other words then, the Prophet (PBUH) interpreted the verses of the Holy Qur’an and explained their meanings and implications to his companions to apply them in their lives. In the process he (PBUH) also made provisions for those aspects of the Law which were not specifically provided for in the Holy Qur’an. Likewise, all rules pertaining to Fasting, Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mekkah) and Zakaat (compulsory charity) were laid down by the Prophet (PBUH).
It is noteworthy to mention that in the Hadith literature there exist specific laws which have not been addressed by the Holy Qur’an. For example, the Prophet (PBUH) prohibited his followers from indulging in mut’ah (temporary marriage) at the time of the Battle of Khaybar. Also, the consuming of donkey meat and the meat of any carnivorous animal was declared by, while no mention of such prohibition is expressed in the Qur’an (God did not mention it in the Sunnah on purpose for us to resort to the Sunnah). http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/spot_full_story.asp?service_id=646
Yesrterdat ...i posted a post in the thread "Are Indian muslims pro-Pakistani? " in World affairs forum where i posted in response of some of my hindu friends as they consider land as "mother" the post was....
well we muslims damn care about pieces of land as mother and "dharti mata "...me living in pakistan..love pakistan ..but can sacrifice whole pakistan for the one sand-grain of madina...any muslim living in india can sacrifice whole india on the one sand-grain of desert of makkah...muslims are united in bond of islam...which transcends all geography ....lands of peices...who cares !!!!!
Do you know according to a hadith blood of an innocent muslim is holier than these two cities.
Do you know according to a hadith blood of an innocent muslim is holier than these two cities.
sis... the hadees is the Khna Kaba is less holier than the blood of a muslim...but here i am not comparing blood but lands...which are just peices of earth...so its mean there is no such kind of "nationalism" as you are thinking about in a particular context....we love our country..everyone loves...but it should be il limits and when preference comes...then lands of pieces become useless