Abu bakr and Umar RA

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

In the Name of the High
assalam o 'alaykum

i think that if Shibli Numani in his work 'al-Faruq' can bring this tradition to the fore, and despite his raising no criticism and even according it a possibility - due to the personal nature of Umar (r), when he approached Fatimas (r) house, speaks mounds on the dilemma we face here.

the ahlel bayt site - grossly mis-quotes the "context" of when Numani treats the issue, since the article with the specific issue is raised. that in and of itself, speaks mounds on the frustration to dis-credit that such an incident happened at all.

in-fact, if you read through the links that i gave you from Shaykh Gibril Haddad discussion on soc.religion.islam - there is no mention of this being weak. there is even a second reference i gave for you to read, another opinion from Shaykh Gibril on the www.livingislam.net web site. i gather that you did not read those, and hasted to pen a response.

additionally, there are other historical works that back-up that this incident happended. the details differ, but the fact that abu Bakr (r) and Umar (r) did not approach the house of Fatima (r) with a non-hostile intent, i.e perhaps for offering consolation or sorrowness on the death of her father, but for reasons that lie at the heart of the shi'i and ahlal sunna divide.

you ought to pusue the specific volume when this issue is treated in detail, and there are copious footnotes from other historical works that backup this claim. i only know that that specific volume was translated by Ismail K Poonawaala (SUNY Press).

regards, ali.q

The fact that Shaykh Gibril Haddad did not say anything about the authenticity of this hadith does not in any way mean that the hadith is authentic.

I was present and contributing to soc.religion.islam when those exchanges you mention were taking place, I remember them clearly, and I know Shaykh Gibril very well. I can assure you he is an extremely busy man, and does not have the time to look up the authenticity of each and every isnad that Shi'ite polemicists ever come up with. His silence on this issue does not mean anything other than his willingness to grant, for the sake of argument, that the hadith in question was sound.

What are these other historical works that you mention?

[aliq]

The Nahj ul Balagha does not have even a single authentic chain of transmission back to Ali :rah:

It is not a legitimate proof for anything, even if it makes for good reading now and then.

In the Name of the Most High
assalam o 'alaykum

you can also further read up on the sources of Nahj al Balagha here, and the biobliography as well.

this claim is really stretched.

for hundreds of years, folks have gathered the sayings and aphorims of 'Ali (r) - they have made it in many works, ahlal sunna and the shi'ites. the above source will amply restify to it.

i bid you well, ali.q

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

In the Name of the High
assalam o 'alaykum

i think that if Shibli Numani in his work 'al-Faruq' can bring this tradition to the fore, and despite his raising no criticism and even according it a possibility - due to the personal nature of Umar (r), when he approached Fatimas (r) house, speaks mounds on the dilemma we face here.

If you want to use this tradition from Tabari, then either prove that it is authentic by examining the isnad yourself, or quote a recognized scholar who called it authentic.

What you have said about Shibli is a weak argument. He perhaps thought that the whole incident was not too difficult to explain, and therefore felt no need to examine the isnad in great detail.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

In the Name of the Most High
assalam o 'alaykum

you can also further read up on the sources of Nahj al Balagha here, and the biobliography as well.

this claim is really stretched.

for hundreds of years, folks have gathered the sayings and aphorims of 'Ali (r) - they have made it in many works, ahlal sunna and the shi'ites. the above source will amply restify to it.

i bid you well, ali.q

Please show me even a single speech from Nahj ul Balaghah that has an authentic chain of trasnmission back to Ali himself.

You can argue for authenticity yourself, or quote recognized hadith experts who stated that the speech in question was authentic.

[aliq]

I was present and contributing to soc.religion.islam when those exchanges you mention were taking place, I remember them clearly, and I know Shaykh Gibril very well. I can assure you he is an extremely busy man, and does not have the time to look up the authenticity of each and every isnad that Shi'ite polemicists ever come up with. His silence on this issue does not mean anything other than his willingness to grant, for the sake of argument, that the hadith in question was sound.

In the Name of the Most High
asssalam o 'alaykum

i think that Shaykh Gibril can speak for him-self, and you can read up on the link that i provided for soc.religion.islam article, which i linked from GOOGLE. in addition to the Tabari article - while he responds to the other distortions of the shi'ites - he does offer additional references, of his own "accord" of what other historical resources have to say and add to the discussion. hence, my advice that you do read the link that i provided for earlier that links the entire thread (there are 4 responses within it).

i also cited the specific reference for Numanis 'al-Faruq' and you would be rather surprised by his comment - that while he is un-able to prove that the incident never happened or that it was un-authentic, given 'Umars (r) temparement, it does not surprise him at all.

the other historical works that i speak of - unfortunately, i am away for work, and will not return home till friday, but will share with you the specifics. you can look up the specific volume translated by Ismail K Poonawala though, in the Series of Tabaris English translation. if memory serves me well, is is either the 9th or 10th volume.

regards, ali.q

[aliq]

Please show me even a single speech from Nahj ul Balaghah that has an authentic chain of trasnmission back to Ali himself.

In the Name of the Most High
assalam o 'alaykum

for the love of Ali (r) for the sake of Allah and His Messenger, i need not to prove that even one single speech from the edited work has an authentic chain of transmission to accept it in toto or reject it in toto.

you can find several of Alis sayings in the Hilyat-ul Awliya, which is referenced quite extensive inthe biobliography. here is a translation of one sermon from Shaykh Gibril Haddad at this link and with extensive mention in the biobliography that i previously cited.

regards, ali.q

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

In the Name of the Most High
assalam o 'alaykum

for the love of Ali (r) for the sake of Allah and His Messenger, i need not to prove that even one single speech from the edited work has an authentic chain of transmission to accept it in toto or reject it in toto.

And that is exactly the difference between Sunnis and Shi'is.

For Sunni scholars demand historical proof in the form of authentic chains of transmission before they use a hadith to prove points of law or belief.

While Shi'is accept anything no matter how inauthentic as long as it accords with what they want to believe.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

In the Name of the Most High
asssalam o 'alaykum

i think that Shaykh Gibril can speak for him-self, and you can read up on the link that i provided for soc.religion.islam article, which i linked from GOOGLE. in addition to the Tabari article - while he responds to the other distortions of the shi'ites - he does offer additional references, of his own "accord" of what other historical resources have to say and add to the discussion. hence, my advice that you do read the link that i provided for earlier that links the entire thread (there are 4 responses within it).

You do not need to keep asking me to read that thread. I was there when the thread was being created.

You gave a quotation from Abu Bakr (itself from Tarikh Tabari) in which he is alleged to have said that he regretted certain things to do with Fatima.

JayshAllah said this hadith from Tabari was weak, and you have done nothing to show that this hadith about Abu Bakr is sound.

Nothing that Shaykh Gibril says in that link implies that the hadith about Abu Bakr is sound: all he does is correct a mistranslation pof an account in Ta'rikh Ya'qubi, (a work written more for entertainment than history).

I am still waiting to see some proof that the hadith you quoted about Abu Bakr is reliable. I have seen none.

i also cited the specific reference for Numanis 'al-Faruq' and you would be rather surprised by his comment - that while he is un-able to prove that the incident never happened or that it was un-authentic, given 'Umars (r) temparement, it does not surprise him at all.

Look, we need to bring some precision into this discussion.

The hadith you quoted from Tabari concerned ABU BAKR. Why are you constantly quoting a book about UMAR then? These were two different individuals, and the hadiths are different. Just because a hadith about UMAR is sound (assuming it is), it does not follow that the corresponding hadith about ABU BAKR is sound.

I know that for the Shi'is, quoting anything derogatory about the Companions is deemed acceptable as a proof, but we need to be clear about the exact details of that which is in fact sound befpore we can reach reliable conclusions.

Now what is the proof that the HADITH FROM TABARI ABOUT *ABU BAKR'S* ALLEGED REGERET AT HIS TREATMENT OF FATIMA is sound?

If there is no proof, we should dismiss this hadith.

[aliq]

JayshAllah said this hadith from Tabari was weak, and you have done nothing to show that this hadith about Abu Bakr is sound.

Nothing that Shaykh Gibril says in that link implies that the hadith about Abu Bakr is sound: all he does is correct a mistranslation pof an account in Ta'rikh Ya'qubi, (a work written more for entertainment than history).

In the Name of the Most High
assalam o 'alaykum ...

you mean to say, tradition and not hadith (a hadith is from the Prophet, peace be upon him). just because x cries wolf that it is weak does not make it weak. i have yet to find evidence that it is weak, which in and of-itself offers insight. perhaps the learned brother can share his findings in more details.

Shaykh Gibril, does not imply that the tradition is sound - but he does not deny it either. there are various other notes from him within the link that he does respond to the question of authenticity.

i bring in the issue of Umar al-Faruq and Numani - since Umar (r) and abu Bakr (r) both approached Fatimas house that fateful day. they both were there together and there is no denial to this fact. the only difference, if you read through Shaykh Gibrils rendering is what actually transpired. there is no denying the fact that Umar (r) and abu Bakr (r) did not go there to offer condolences over the passing away of her father, the prophet of God. it is as simple as that.

a lot of times it is more revealing to read what was not "written or said" than what was "written". did you read any denial from Shaykh Gibril? in-fact, when i was perusing through www.livingislam.org web site, under the shi'i and sunni q&a, the issue of Fatimas anger does come up. Fatima does forgive abu Bakr (r) when her anger had subsided, as responded to by Shaykh Gibril (which is also in the link from GOOGLE).

btw, what evidence do you have that Yaqubis Tarik is in actuality what you suggest it to be? would you direct me towards some resources that i can pursue

insha 'Allah, ali.q

[aliq]

Sidi

on the Nahj al Balagha - i was asked to cite even one instance when the ahlal sunna consider a sermon to be authentic. i cited you an entire sermon reference, translated by Shaykh Gibril on Knowing the Lord from the Hilya. i then also referred you to the bibliography from the shi'ite source, where they also reference Hilya and that sermon

i hope that i need not to repeat what i repeated here, and said earlier. i had oblige you three (3) times, before you actually read the GOOGLE link for the soc.religion.islam discussion

obviously, reading shi'ite sources is not on your prirority list - so i will not burden you with further shi'ite information, despite the Commonality between the reference from Shaykh Gibril and the shi'ite Nahj al Balaghah.

we would not be even having this discussion - if you would have simply read the bibliography where each sermon is traced source to source. there are ahlal sunna sources, and there are shi'ite sources, and there are sermons in both sources. the Hilya is quite common among them both.

yes - in principle i agree with you about the authenticity of traditions - but even among the ahlal sunna when it comes to traditions of moral import - there is a great laxity in grading them. just read over the recent Sirah work from Hajjah Amina Adil on the life of the Prophet - especially at the back of the book.

the ahlal sunna have issues with most of the history material in the Nahj al Balaghah - and leaving that aside it still stands to testify to the eloquence of 'Ali. though your comment about not reading it, is the sort of in-different response that i had read on www.sunnipath.com - hence a good following/taqlid despite what is known of the Nahj al Balaghah. even Ibn Taymiyya did not discard it whole-sale, despite his vituperation and venom of the shi'ites. yet the sort of indifference we see with respect to this work and the tell tales of Yaqubi are quite revealing on how the ahlal sunna really skirt the issue of really even treating the other resources as even worth the read.

regards, ali.q