The historian, Habib as Sayr writes regarding the battle of Hunayn that:
Purseed Abu Bakr wa Umar kujaa Budand? Guft aan neez dar goshe rafte budand.
Meaning when it was enquired where Abu Bakr and Umar were?, the narrator replied they had also fled to some corner. Contemplate over this narration, let it be very clear that in your Tafseer Qaweri, Tafseer Hussayni, Rawdhatus Safaa, Taareekhul Khamseen, Rawdhatul Ahbab, Ma'aarijun Nubuwwah, etc it is mentioned that the three gentlemen had fled from the battle of Hunayn. Why did they break the covenant of the Bay'at of Ridhwan? Reply after reading all these books.
First of all, Habib al Sayr is a book of a Shia.
Secondly, the temporary defeats in the battle of Uhud and Hunayn carried a huge message for the ummah. On the battle of Uhud, the Muslims disobeyed the Prophet (peace be upon him) and so Allah showed them the result of disobedience to the Prophet (peace be upon him), on the battle of Hunayn, the Muslims said 'Indeed we will not be defeated in this battle because today we outnumber the enemies'. So Allah showed them , that the large number will do them no good, rather it was Allah who gives success to whom he wills and defeat to whom he will. In both the battles, the Muslims came back after the temporary defeats, they got clear message for the Muslims, not to disobey the Prophet (peace be upon him) and not to boast, as everything is in the hands of Allah Almighty.Both times, Allah forgave them too, so its of no use to mention to mention these two battles, as temporary defeats in both of them carried a message for the Muslims, and both times, Allah forgave. We will not even go into books, once Allah has forgiven someone, how can you blame that person again? Or do you consider yourself superior to God?
Battle of Uhud
[003:152] God did indeed fulfil His promise to you when ye with His permission Were about to annihilate your enemy,-until ye flinched and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed it after He brought you in sight (of the booty) which ye covet. Among you are some that hanker after this world and some that desire the Hereafter. Then did He divert you from your foes in order to test you but He forgave you: For God is full of grace to those who believe.
Battle of Hunayn
[009:025] Assuredly God did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.
[009:026] But God did pour His calm on the Apostle and on the Believers, and sent down forces which ye saw not: He punished the Unbelievers; thus doth He reward those without Faith.
[009:027] Again will God, after this, turn (in mercy) to whom He will: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
If these three men had been brave then show us from your book Tafseer Qaweri the names of these three men from among those who did not flee in the battle of Hunayn. And prove it to us from all of your books, how many non-believers had been killed by these three men in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq and Hunayn. How many non-believers did they inflict with harm? And how much harm did themselves sustain in their bodies? And just mention five names with complete sources from among those whom these people killed.
Man you really seem to be mentally ill. What if they had killed people? Khalid Bin Waleed killed lots of people after embracing Islam in various battles, and defeated great armies. Why not mention him here? Who conquered Palestine, Egypt, Iran , Syria , oh man the list is so long. They were all conquered in the era of the first three caliphs. How can you call them cowards? Do we really have to count the number of persons killed by a person to know his bravery? Do we have to see the number of man killed by Napolean Bonaparte , Alexender, and the other great warriors in the little skirmishes around their cities to know their bravery? Why ignore the huge armies they defeated? Historians have not named people with complete sources who were killed by the sahabas, they only mentioned the armies they defeated, and yes, we don't have the biodata of the people whom sahabas killed , but historians have indeed recorded the nine swords of Khalid bin Waleed which were broken during the fight while he defeated 2 hundred thousand roman army with just 3 thousand men in the battle of Mu'tah. That was the easier thing to count rather than counting all the men he killed.
Another of thee great 100 undefeated battles of Khalid Bin waleed was battle of Yarmuk.
The land Muslims conquered during the reign of First three caliphs and the Umayyads. Show a map of the places Ali may Allah be pleased with him conquered if you can.
Look at the victories of the people whom you call cowards. Look at their victories from an unbiased source and if you still consider these people cowards , there must be some fault in your brain.
Also read, Historical Role of Islam , Chapter The Causes of Triumphs of Muslims by a Hindu , M. N. Roy
If Umar has been brave then write the names of people who got killed at his hands in the battles of Uhud and Hunayn from historical sources compare Ali[sa] and Umar so that their doings in those two battles become known.
The bravery of the warriors is not proven from the people they killed, but the grand armies they defeated. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) defeated ,not just one , but two super powers of his time, Iran and Rome. How can you ignore that? Again, You accuse Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) of killing Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) in the presence of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), don't you allege Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) of being more coward than a normal person? As every normal person is greatly enraged if his wife is beaten by someone and he can't keep silence at this. Why Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), according to your beliefs , kept silent? Doesn't your this belief puts a huge question mark on his bravery?
In the Tafseer of Dur Manthur Suyuti, vol. 54, and Izalatul Khifa of Shah Waliyyullaah Muhaddath Dahlavi, page 199 etc. it is written that the holy Prophet[saww] told Abu Bakr 'The polytheism is moving in you like the moving of an ant'. Take notice of this hadeeth and tell us how then was he a siddeeq? And if he did not have shirk within himself then dare to belie like a disbeliever the truthfulness of the holy Prophet[saww].
Mistranslation, half quotation, blah blah blah, is that the way you preach your religion? That is indeed the way of the imams who themselves are misguided and who misguide others.
الشرك فيكم أخفى من دبيب النمل وسأدلك على شيء إذا فعلته أذهب عنك صغار الشرك وكباره تقول اللهم إني أعوذ بك أن أشرك بك وأنا أعلم وأستغفرك لما لا أعلم - تقولها ثلاث مرات
“The Shirk among you people is more hidden than the crawling of an ant, but I shall guide you to that which if you do it, will protect you from both minor shirk and the greater ones as well; to say three times:
Allahumma innee a’uthu bika an ushrika bika wa ana a’lam wa-astaghfiruka limaa laa a’lam
“O Allah, I seek refuge in You from that I ascribe partners to You knowingly and I seek forgiveness from You for those things which I do not know.”
More ahadith clearly tells us it was not about Abu Bakr but the ummah as a whole about whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) was talking about.
Abu Musa al-Ash’ari reported that Allah’s Messenger sall Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam delivered a sermon to them one day and said, “O People! Fear this Shirk (meaning riyaa’), for it is more inconspicuous than the crawling of an ant” [Musnad Ahmad , Tabrani]
Allah’s Messenger sall Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam said,
“The thing I fear the most for you is the minor shirk: Ar-Riyaa’” [Musnad Ahmad vol. 5, p 428-429, Sharh As-Sunnah no. 4135]
The following hadith explains Riya also
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri radiaAllahu Anhu reported that the Messenger of Allah sall Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam came to us while we were discussing about ad-Dajjal (the anti-Christ) and said, “Should I not inform you of that which I fear for you even more than the danger of ad-Dajjal? It is the hidden shirk: A person stands to pray and he beautifies his prayer because he sees the people looking at him.”
[Sahih Sunan ibn Majah vol.2, p. 410, no. 3389]
عن أسماء بنت أبي بكر (م) عن عائشة.
7501- الشرك في أمتي أخفى من دبيب النمل على الصفا.
كنز العمال في سنن الأقوال والأفعال
7521- أيها الناس اتقوا الشرك، فإنه أخفى من دبيب النمل، قالوا: وكيف نتقيه يا رسول الله؟ قال قولوا: اللهم إنا نعوذ بك أن نشرك بك شيئا نعلمه، ونستغفرك لما لا نعلمه.
كنز العمال في سنن الأقوال والأفعال
قال: إن أخوف ما أخاف عليكم الشرك الأصغر. قالوا: وما الشرك الأصغر يا رسول الله؟ قال: الرياء... مسند الإمام أحمد ... وعن أبي موسى قال: خطبنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ذات يوم، فقال: يا أيها الناس اتقوا هذا الشرك، فإنه أخفى من دبيب النمل، فقال له من شاء الله أن يقول: وكيف نتقيه وهو أخفى من دبيب النمل يا رسول الله؟ قال: قولوا: اللهم إنا نعوذ بك من أن نشرك بك شيئاً نعلمه، ونستغفرك لما لا نعلمه. رواه أحمد والطبراني وغيرهما
Now read the shia hadith
Imam Jafar said
ان الریا مع المومن الشرک
"Riya with the believer is shirk."
This hadith is also narrated in the infamous shia book of lies and deceptions, Peshawar Nights.
The vain display of good deeds is minor polytheism, which negates our good actions. It has been reported that the holy Prophet said: "Abstain from minor Polytheism." People asked him, "O, Prophet of Allah, what is minor polytheism?" He replied, "Al-riya wa's-sama'" (i.e., to show people, or to let them hear of your worship of Allah). Also the holy Prophet said: "The worst thing which I fear for you is your hidden polytheism; so rise above it since among my followers polytheism is more secret than the creeping of the ant on a hard stone in the dark night." Source
This hadith is also present in the shia book , Bihar al Anwar, Author Baqir Majlisi
Imam Askari said "O Abu Hashim The Shirk among people is more hidden than the crawling of an ant on a black stone at dark night"
As proven from the ahadith above, that hadith was generally about the ummah , not directed towards any single individual. Riya is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) meant here, that it is very common amongst people, and that was what the Prophet (peace be upon him) feared that the ummah will fall into it. In the same hadith, the supplication is also given, which every Muslim should read, so as to protect himself from this minor shirk. May Allah protect us. Amin.
In your Fataawa Qaadhi Khan, vol. 1, page 64, it is written that if a person who is in a state of prayers kisses a woman without lust then his prayer is valid. Is the time for it too short except in prayers? Where is the need for such a thing in prayers?
Imam Ghazzali in sirrul Aalameen, Maqaalidul Ba'aa page 9, writes the desire for power had prevailed among the Sahaba and they first turned into opposition. They threw the holy Prophet[saww]'s message onto their backs, they demanded some payment in return for the foundation and they did a very bad trade. Could you please elaborate on this?
Pseudo Works (Attributed to al-Ghazali): These works are questionable at best.
Sirr al-'Alamin (Secret of the two worlds)
Similarly Shah Abdul Aziz in Tuhfa ithna Ashariya also declared it to be misattributed to Imam Ghazali while talking about how Shia deceive the people by writing books and putting wrong beliefs in them and misattributing them to the salaf so as to misguide people.
Tuhfa Ithna Ashariya, p. 95, by Shah Abdul Aziz
You oppose the halaal Mut'a and do not hesitate terming it as adultery. But in your book Sharh Wiqaaya, page 298, it is mentioned that to your Imam Abu Hanifa, stated the expenditure of an adulteress is halaal and there is not any jurisprudential limit on one who rewards a woman for zinah. Is Mut'ah worse than this?
By calling Marwan back from Medinah, Uthman bin Affan opposed the holy Prophet[saww]. Do you reproach this or support it?
Please see our article "Who really killed 'Uthman"
Prophet (peace be upon him) had forgiven Marwan bin Hakam on the request of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) later on. [Asaaba , Asadul Ghaba]
Muhamed bin Sireen said, “Al-Hasan, Al-Hussain, Ibn Omar, Ibn Al-Zubair, and Marwan rushed to the house of Uthman raising their swords. Uthman told them. ‘I order you to go back home, put your swords in their shields, and stay at home.’” [Tareekh Khaleefah Al-Khayyat, p.174]
Kunanah, the slave of Safiyah, said, “I witnessed the murder of Uthman. Four young men from Quraysh were taken out from Uthman’s house. These young men were covered by blood, and they were defending Uthman may Allah be pleased at him; Al-Hasan bin Ali, Abdullah bin Al-Zubair, Muhamed bin Hatib, and Marwan bin Hakam.” [A’asr Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah by Akram Diya’a Al-Umari, p.390. Al-Umari said that the hadeeth was narrated in Al-Estia’ab with a good authentication]
It is an established fact in the books of Sunnis that Muawiyah had disputed with the Khalifah Rashid (the rightly guided caliph) and ordered the poisoning of Imam Hassan[sa] (check Mahram Naama, khwaja Hassan Nidhami) and why are the companions who made Ali[as] be abused on the pulpits considered as fair players? Give us intellectual and textual reasoning.
Please see our article "Mu'awiya"
It is an established fact that these are lies.
It is a lie that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya’s biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians presents these words about Mu’awiyah, they do not differentiate between true or false stories. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them. Among these historians is Al-Tabari, who lived in a time of Shia’s growing power. Al-Tabari says in the introduction to his history: “Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been told.” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13]
It is a lie also what al-Tijani says that Muslim narrated in his Saheeh a similar incident in “Ali’s Virtues” Chapter. The story that Al-Tijani is meaning is the story which is narrated by A’amir bin Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas who narrated from his father who says: (Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan ordered Sa’ad and asked him: “What prevented you from insulting Abu Turab (Ali bin Abi Talib)?” Sa’ad answered: “The prophet peace be upon him said three things to him (Ali bin Abi Talib), so I would not insult him because to have one of these three things is more beloved to me than Humr Al-Nni’am (a kind of best camels). I heard the prophet peace be upon him saying to appoint Ali as a leader when the prophet used to go to Jihad (Holy War). Ali then would say to him: “O’ Messenger of Allah, you left me with the women and children?” The prophet peace be upon him answered him: “Would not you be pleased if you were for me as Haroon was for Mousa? Except there is no prophecy after me.” And I heard the prophet saying at the day of Khaybar: “I would give this banner to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger and who Allah and His Messenger love him too.” He said: “Then we were looking for this honor.” Then the Prophet said: “Call Ali.” Ali was brought and he had sore eyes. So the prophet peace be upon him spitted in his eyes and gave him the banner. Then Allah granted victory to the Muslims by the hands of Ali. And when this verse revealed: “Come, let us gather together, our sons and your sons,” the messenger of Allah called Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain and said: “O’ Allah, they are my family.”) [Saheeh Muslim with Explanation, Book of “The Companions,” Chapter of “Virtues of Ali,” #2404]
This hadeeth does not mean that Mu’awiyah ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali. But, as it is obvious, Mu’awiyah wanted to know the reason that prevented Sa’ad from insulting Ali. Therefore, Sa’ad gave him the reason, and we do not know that when Mu’awiyah heard Sa’ad’s answer got angry with him or punished him. Mu’awiya’s silence is a correction for Sa’ad’s opinion. If Mu’awiyah was despotic; forcing people to insult Ali as Al-Tijani claims, then Mu’awiyah would not be quiet and would force Sa’ad to insult Ali, but nothing of that happened. Hence, it is known that Mu’awiyah did not order to insult Ali nor was pleased by that. Al-Nawawi says: “Mu’awiyah’s saying does not declare that he ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali, but asked him for the reason that prevented him from insulting. As if Mu’awiyah was saying to him: “Have you refrained from insulting Ali as a result of piety, fear or anything like that? If it was as a result of piety and veneration to refrain from insulting, then you are rightful and if it were other than that, then there would be another answer.” Or it might be that Sa’ad was in a group of people who insults Ali and he did not insult Ali with them, and could not prevent them and controverted them so Mu’awiyah asked him this question. They said: “And it may have another explanation, that what prevented you from making Ali wrong in his thought and opinion, and to show to people our good opinion and thought and that Ali was wrong?” [Ibid. p250-252]
How and with whose instructions did the incident of Harra transpire? What happened to Medina and Ahl Medinah during the same? Please give a detailed account of it.
We don't defend Yazeed, so what he did during the incident of Harra was wrong and condemnable.