Can anyone tell me why did our prophet did not take part in any of the battles namely, badr, uhad, khyber, khandaq… I know he was present in all of them but never physcially fought himself.
What I have heard and which made a lot of sense to me is that he was rehmatul il alameen and hence even though he had a right to wage battles and fight himself as well, but he never did, as he was rehmat even for the kuffars, or the people that were waging war agains islam.
Can people please express their opinions in this regard.
u'r mistaken. If you'd read Seerah's of the Prophet (sas) written by non shia scholars...you'd find out that he's has taken part in the fighting, in fact he'd be on the forefronts of the battles and there are even records of the people he has killed in the battles.
For a moment lets assume he never raised a sword but was present in those battle, according to your logic he should never sustain an injury then. What if he never raised his hand to hurt anyone but others hurt him??
Lajawaab, based on your logic every coward should have participated in those battles as they can remain in the battlefield but unless they actively engage in fights, they won't sustain any injuries.
He (SAW) did take part in battles. Hence, the reason why he lost one of his tooth and I believe he also sustained injury on his face.
May Allah (SWT) forgive me if I'm wrong.
he was there doesn't mean he was fighting.... Battle of Ohad was a big kaos and a lot companions left him and ran in mountains... which certainly does not include great sahaba like Maula Ali A.S. who was rewarded with Zulfiqar and thats the battle where Prophet got hurt and his tooth was broken.. no where have I heard about him raising sword or killing anybody. From what I have heard..correct me if I am wrong...this lady used to throw stones or trash at him whenever he used to pass by her house and this one day ... this lady didn't throw stones or trash at him .. when enquired he found out she was sick so he went to her house for aiyadat... this lady liked this act of his so much that she accepted islam..... this is what our beloved Prophet P.B.U.H. is ... what suprise me is ... a lady threw stones at him and he never hit her back nor ordered to kill her and yet today's there are so extermist groups out there wearing the veil of islam.. who support secretarian killings and stuff and nauzubillah claims to be the followers of sunnah of Prophet P.B.U.H.
Rehmat ul Alameen.... makes him rehmat for the whole Alam... not just muslims.. and how can one who is rehmat for the whole alam... would hurt someone........
I would really appreciate if people have something to say about Rehmat ul Alameen Hazrat Mohammad Mustafa P.B.U.H please atleast have courtesy to give references..... there is alot of propoganda in air these days ...with cartoons and stuff and it really hurts to see someone pointing more fingers without any references
As Sharabi said, it's in the Sirat. That is a reference....
I'm a bit perplexed...so what if the Prophet (saws) fought along side his followers in battle...if anything, it shows the egalitarian nature of the faith.
Maula Ali A.S. who was rewarded with Zulfiqar and thats the battle where Prophet got hurt and his tooth was broken..
he was awarded the sword by the prophet(saw) it was the Prophet's sword
I have heard of other weapons awarded to other companions as well
like a spear to Zubair(ra)? I dont have a source]
[quote]
Rehmat ul Alameen.... makes him rehmat for the whole Alam... not just muslims.. and how can one who is rehmat for the whole alam... would hurt someone........
[/quote]
true ....but killing was justified in just wars and sometimes as punishments(Banu Quraiyza) obviously non-muslims use this to project a violent image of Islam but they forget that Prophet(saw) was not just a preacher but also a head of state and commander of an army.
To say that Islam is a "religion of peace" is misleading as people assume that the Prophet(saw) believed in non-violence.
I think the correct defination would be that Islam is a religion of justice it orders its followwers to establish social/political/economic justice.
Obviously if it can be achieved by peaceful means that is the best course as bloodshed is avoided (conquest of Makkah).But it does not tolerate oppression nor does it allows its followers to do so,this point is important so much so that even in fight amongst muslims we cannot stay neutral and must help the wronged party 49:9
If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them:** but if one of them transgresses Beyond bounds against the other, Then fight ye (all) against The one that transgresses Until it complies with The command of Allah;** But if it complies, then Make peace between them With justice, and be fair; For Allah loves those Who are fair (and just).
Allah :swt: is more merciful and loving than any human alive or dead…Many many times more merciful…
However, when people become faasiqun and zaalimun, then he punishes them, like the Pharoah and the people of Lut :as:…
It is wrong to say that he never partook in any battle as it would be a sort of hypocrisy on his part not to have fought in any battle…True, he was the general and all, but still…He was on the forefront on many occasions…
