chapter2

those who accuse chaste women and do NOT PRODUCE FOUR WITNESSES, flog them with EIGHTY stripes, and reject their testimony FOREVER, they INDEED ARE THE LIERS-Qur'an 24:4

Recorded by Abi Hatim (d. 327H) is an iconic judgment delivered by 'umar b. Al-khattab In his capacity as khalifah over the ummah

--->my father(abu Hatim)---->abu bakr muhammad b. Bashar----->ibn Abi adi--->said---->qatadah--->abu harb b. Abi al-aswad al-dili---->his father(abu al-aswad al-dili)
A woman was brought to umar b. Al-khattab.she had delivered after(only) six months of pregnancy. So,he(Umar) resolved to stone her to death this (decision) reached Ali. Therefore, he(Ali) said, "she does not deserve any penalty of stoning to death. Allah says: 'the mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole year (2:233)'. this (period) plus six months equals thirty months (46:15)as the total for both pregnancy and suckling -tafsir ibn hatim (al-maktabah al-asriyyah) [annotator:as'ad muhammad al-tayyib], vol.2p.428 #2264

Again there are some serious substantive and procedural problems with the judgement of Umar, which reveal a lot about him. He sentenced a woman to death by stoning, This suggests that he had convicted her of adultery. yet his only proof against her was that she delivered her baby only six months of her pregnancy in the obviously invalid view of umar a six-month pregnancy was absolutely impossible. As such the woman must have been secretly pregnant-apparently, from the date of the last successful encounter. In other words while her husband was having sexual intercourse with her, she was already secretly pregnant for another man
The book of Allah as laid down the procedural law in all cases of zina.
those who accuse chaste women, and do not produce four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes,and reject their testimony forever, they indeed are liars--quran24:4

So in other to establish a crime of zina against anyone, four witnesses who saw the crime with their own eyes must be called to testify. Without the production of those witnesses,the accuser himself must be penalized, and declared an eternal liar whose future testimonies must always be rejected

An important question is, Was Umar aware of the above verse? The answer is not clear. What us undeniable however is that he paid absolutely no attention to it. he never demanded the testimony of four eye-witnesses to support his charge of zina against the woman. He simply convicted her based upon his mere suspicion. this singular incident cast a huge dark cloak over 'Umar till the hour.

firstly,'Umar had wrongly convicted the woman of adultery without evidence. He never demanded or presented four witnesses to support his conviction (which in essence is also an accusation). Therefore, he himself deserved to be flogged with eighty stripes and declared a persona non grata within the islamic ummah. Likewise the other person who dragged the woman to him

Secondly, let us assume that 'umar did not merely rely upon unfounded suspicion in convicting the woman. Rather, four eye-witnesses who saw her in the middle of the adultery were summoned, and the testified. Therefore she was indeed guilty and truely deserved the stoning penalty. Where then is her accomplish? What sentence did umar hand down upon him? If two people committed zina, is it only the woman that can be punished? Are men supposed to go scotfree for their crimes of adultery ? it is mind bogging and extremely strange that ' umar was itching to send the woman to her early grave without asking a single question about her accomplish!

about the narrators
Imam al-dhahabi(d. 748H) submits about the first narrator

Abu hatim al-Razi, muhammad b. Idris b. al-Mundhir b. Dawud b. Mihran: al-imam (the leader of hadith), al-hafiz (the hadith scientist), al-naqid (the hadith critic) , shaykh al-muhadithin(teacher of the hadith scientists and narrators)---siyar A'lam al-nubala (beirut: muasassat al-risalah 9th edition,1413H) [annotators of the 13th volume :shu'ayb al-arnaut and ali Abu Zayd] vol13p247#129

About the second narrator, al-Hafiz(d. 852H) says:

Muhammad b. Bashar b. Uthman al-'Abdi al-basri, abu bakr bandar: [b]Thiqat(trustworthy)-taqrib al tahdhib (beirut: Dar al-maktabah al-'IImiyyah; 2nd edition,1415 [annotator: mustafa 'abd al-Qadir 'Ata], vol.2p. 58#5772

Same about 3rd,4th,5th,6th and last narrators affirmed by al-dhababi,& al- hafiz

SMH, Same shallow reasoning and lies just to bring Umar (ra) to disrepute. Don't you guys get tired of repeating the same lies all over and over?! what next after this? Umar (ra) beat whaling women? or that he had slaves bare chested serving sahabahs?! Anyway, here is a previous comment (modified) on your chapter one and two which were presented by AlBaqir in another thread trying to cast aspersions upon the personality of Umar (ra).

sino:

Firstly, in sahih Muslim, the word which Umar (ra) uttered after ‘Ammar made the statement “if you wish, I would not narrate this” was “"نوليك ما توليت "Nuwallika ma Tawallayt."

In Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, he explains this expression:

أي لا يلزم من كوني لا أتذكره أن لا يكون حقا في نفس الأمر ، فليس لي منعك من التحديث به

Meaning: It is not necessary that If I do not recall it then it isn't true, so I cannot prevent you from narrating this.

In Sharh Sunan abu Dawoud by al-`Abad:

يعني: نكلك إلى علمك وإلى ما عندك، ولك أن تعمل وتفتي بهذا

Meaning: We leave you to your knowledge, and it is permitted for you to practice upon it and to offer it as a verdict.

This clearly indicates that Umar (ra) was not in disagreement with ‘Ammar, but accepted his opinion as a verdict, that was why he told him to fear Allah (SWT) on what he narrates. Imam An-Nawawi in his Sharh Sahih Muslim (vol 4 pg. 63), opined that this issue was a case of ijtihad, since ‘Ammar himself did ijtihad with how to perform tayammum when you are junub. This shows to a great extent that it wasn’t a practice to perform tayammum when you are junub, for it requires washing of the whole body, no wonder ‘Ammar himself, according to the narration, rolled in dust using the idea that since the whole body is to be washed, then rolling in dust would also suffice, whereby the prophet (SAW) corrected him and taught him what would suffice.

Again, in the narration of ‘Ammar, there is nowhere that indicates Umar (ra) was with him when the Prophet (SAW) taught him how to perform tayammum to cleanse the body after being in the state of janabah.


Let us now look at the meaning of what Ibn Masood (ra) said to Abdullah (ra), firstly, Ibn Masood was not basing his judgement on Umar (ra)’s opinion, it was what was apparent in the meaning of the verse quoted by Abdullah (ra), and Ibn Masood even tried to show the reason for his opinion by saying [b]“There is a possibility that they would perform tayammum with soil even if water were available but cold.” [/b]Meaning that Ibn Masood (ra) himself was with the opinion that washing the whole body was the proper way to purify from sexual intercourse (janabah).

It would not only be ridiculous, but utterly irresponsible to say that these sahabas did not know of this verse of the Qur’an, these were people who memorized the Qur’an as it was being revealed, and put it to use immediately. Again to buttress the fact that Ibn Masood knew about this verse, and was of the opinion that Janaba (being impure due to intercourse) is different from touching a woman physically, without intercourse which do not require ghusl but tayammum will suffice if no water was available, please read the following analysis:

Allah (SWT) says:

{O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of Janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.} [4:43]

`Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) and `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) never heard of the narration of Tayammum apparently, and they practiced based on the apparent meaning of these Qur'anic verses:

{O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of Janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.} [5:6]

Notice how this verse separates the ruling of Janabah from the rest of the matters, it says: {And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves}.

Even in verse [4:43] quoted by the Shia, they understood from this part that Janabah can only be removed by washing: {O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of Janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. }

Both verse [5:6] and [4:43] state clearly that Janabah is removed by washing.

In other words, they did not hear the narration of Tayammum, and they did not see that the person on Janabah is included in this part of the verse:

{But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it.}

They also understood that "contacting women" is anything less than reaching a state of Janabah, such as touching your wife with or without lust without having intercourse.

This is proven by the fact that `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) narrates:

حدثنا حفص عن أشعث عن الشعبي عن أصحاب عبد الله عن عبد الله قال اللمس ما دون الجماع

[Hafs from al-Ash`ath from al-Sha`bi, from the companions of `Abdullah (ra) that he says: "Contact" is what is less than intercourse. Also narrated by Wakee` from Suffiyan from al-Mugheerah from Ibrahim from `Abdullah (ra)]

With the same chain from the companions of `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) that he believed that "contacting women" means having intercourse with them. Ibn `Abbas (ra) also believed this but his student Sa`eed ibn Jubayr believed otherwise, and some Imams also differed on this, the reader can refer to the chapter in Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah about the meaning of "contacting women".


Another point I would like to bring to the notice of the readers, is the fact that Qaadhi Al-‘Iyyaad (544H.) explained the meaning of the statement of Ibn Masood to Abdulah (ra) about the displeasure of Umar (ra) to ‘Ammar narration as follows:
وقوله : (ألم تر عُمَر لمِ يقنع بقول عمارٍ ) ؛ لاَنه أخبره خبراً ذكر أنه شاهَدَه ولم
يذكره فجوَّز عليه الوهم كما جَوز على نفسه النسيانَ له ، ثم تركه وما اعتقَدَه وصححه ، إذ لم يخهمْهُ بقوله : (نُوَليك من ذلك ما تَوَليْتَ " ، بخلاف لو قطع على خطئه فيه .

And his (Ibn Masood) statement: “Don’t you see Umar (ra) was not satisfied with what ‘Ammar said”: this is because, he(‘Ammar) narrated it in such a way that indicated that he (Umar) was present, a witness to the whole event, and he (Umar (ra)) did not remember, so it is possible to admit that he (‘Ammar) was mistaken/delusional, as he (Umar) himself admits that he had forgotten this incidence. Then he (Umar) left him and his believe (of the incident) and he accepted it to be correct, even if he doesn’t understand this (narration) by saying : “ we accept from that what you take upon yourself” (this statement of Umar (ra) has also been explained above)….

Our Scholars are not ignorant people, they explain issues based on evidences, and it is quite painful that most of these explanations are in Arabic, and we are not doing enough jihad to learn about the deen, and that is why people like BETATRON would have the effrontery to criticize a companion of the Prophet (SAW) like Umar (ra).

To refute the narration of stoning, although I couldn’t locate the narration myself, but I found a rebuttal online and I did a little bit of editing:

Firstly, the translated Arabic phrase "fa hamm bi rajmiha" as "so he resolved to stone her to death" is wrong . The correct translation is "so he intended to stone" and this phrase is more explained in other version of this hadith which shows that Umar discussed it among Sahaba before judging and there he was told by Ali that the least time-limit of a pregnancy is six months. Hence he left that woman. This is reported by Abdur-Razzaq and Suyuti quoted it from Abdur-Razzaq, Ibn al-Mundhir and Abd bin Humaid. So we see that Umar did not finalize it until he was informed by Ali (ra).

Secondly, There are certain incidents which establish that Umar (ra) would not inflict the punishment only because of delivery rather he would give excuse if there is chance of forced intercourse. Ibn Qudamah quotes from Sunan of Sa'eed bin Mansur:

فَرَوَى سَعِيدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا خَلَفُ بْنُ خَلِيفَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا هَاشِمٌ، أَنَّ امْرَأَةً رُفِعَتْ إلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ، لَيْسَ لَهَا زَوْجٌ، وَقَدْ حَمَلَتْ، فَسَأَلَهَا عُمَرُ، فَقَالَتْ: إنِّي امْرَأَةٌ ثَقِيلَةُ الرَّأْسِ، وَقَعَ عَلَيَّ رَجُلٌ وَأَنَا نَائِمَةٌ، فَمَا اسْتَيْقَظْت حَتَّى فَرَغَ. فَدَرَأَ عَنْهَا الْحَدَّ

This incident is also reported in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah and other books. And Allah knows best.

BETATRON, Islamic knowledge is not based on quoting narrations and authenticating them, and definitely not based on conjectures, lies and deceit. That is why we have scholars; those who have attained true scholarship, and are pious and sincere.

I can understand Khidri(as) was a leader of spiritual world but fact remains, he existed in the time of Musa (alaiy salaam) which subjected him to ummah of Musa. Also I think we should be fair and be careful when we criticize 'baami' Umar Ibn Khattab (ra). What op has been posting may need further examinations because there are many instances where Ibn Khattab(ar) actually took advice from people including other sahaba on the same and similar subject. I shall post them below subsequently.



Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra)


Below are a few examples of `Umar (ra) consulting `Ali (ra) as well as other Sahaba (ra) and taking their advice and opinions and preferring their word over his own.



Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra): Just and god-fearing ruler, or oppressive dictator?

Posted by TwelverShia.net on Apr 24th, 2013 in Fadha'il, Sahaba | 4 comments
Facebook1TwitterGoogle+EmailPrintPrintFriendly
al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra)

(Just and god-fearing ruler, or oppressive dictator?)

The Shia claim that `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) was an oppressive dictator who would crush anyone who stands in his path, who would oppress anyone who opposes him, and who would silence all those who disagree with him… This is how the Imami Shia painting his image among their followers, and they also use this as an excuse as to why `Ali (ra) didn’t revolt against him, and why `Ali (ra) couldn’t clarify the matters of Imamah and religion, for fear from harm…
But little do the Imami Shia know about `Umar (ra) and little do they know about the religion altogether.
So, below we shall show a few examples of `Umar (ra) consulting `Ali (ra) as well as other Sahaba (ra) and taking their advice and opinions and preferring their word over his own.
(This article shall provide only one example from each companion or follower and will not concentrate on `Ali since we plan to write a separate article on his relation with the three leaders who preceded him.)
`Umar bin al-Khattab and some of the Sahaba and Tabi`een may Allah be pleased with them:


1- Mu`adh ibn Jabal:

A man came to `Umar bin al-Khattab and said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! I have been absent from my wife for two years and when I returned I found her pregnant!” So `Umar consulted the people about stoning her. But Mu`adh ibn Jabal said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! You may have the authority to stone her but you do not have the authority to do the same for the child in her womb.” So he left her until she gave birth to a boy.

The man saw in him great resemblance to himself, and shouted: “By the Lord of the Ka`bah he is my son!” `Umar then told Mu`adh: “Women have given up trying to give birth to anyone like Mu`adh, if it were not for Mu`adh then `Umar would perish.”

Comment: Mu`adh helped `Umar solve the man’s case peacefully by pleasing all sides.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.

2- Zayd ibn Thabit:


Ubadah ibn al-Samit called a man from Nabatiyyah to hold his camel for him near al-Quds, but he refused, so he hit him and injured his head, so he called `Umar ibn al-Khattab, and he said: “What caused you to do what you did?” He replied: “O chief of believers, I asked him to guard my camel for me and he refused, and I am a man with temper so I hit him.” `Umar said: “Sit down for punishment.” Zayd ibn Thabit said: “Would you punish your brother for your slave!?” So `Umar untied him and ruled that he must pay blood money (Diyyah).

Comment: `Umar adopted the opinion of Zayd over his own.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.





3- abu `Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah:


A man from Ahlul-Dhimmah was intentionally murdered in al-Sham, and `Umar bin al-Khattab was then in al-Sham, so when this news reached him, he said: “Have you people began oppressing Ahlul-Dhimma!? By Allah I will execute his killer for this!” so abu `Ubaydah said: “You have no right to do this.” Then after prayer he called on abu `Ubaydah and asked: “Why do you see that I should not kill his killer?” He replied: “Do you see if he killed a slave of his, would you have killed him for it?” So `Umar was silent, and he ruled with harshness that he must pay a thousand Dinars for this.

Comment: `Umar took the opinion of abu `Ubaydah over his own, he spared the killer but made him pay a big sum of blood-money.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.

Empiree:
I can understand Khidri(as) was a leader of spiritual world but fact remains, he existed in the time of Musa (alaiy salaam) which subjected him to ummah of Musa. Also I think we should be fair and be careful when we criticize 'baami' Umar Ibn Khattab (ra). What op has been posting may need further examinations because there are many instances where Ibn Khattab(ar) actually took advice from people including other sahaba on the same and similar subject. I shall post them below subsequently.



Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra)


Below are a few examples of `Umar (ra) consulting `Ali (ra) as well as other Sahaba (ra) and taking their advice and opinions and preferring their word over his own.



Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra): Just and god-fearing ruler, or oppressive dictator?

Posted by TwelverShia.net on Apr 24th, 2013 in Fadha'il, Sahaba | 4 comments
Facebook1TwitterGoogle+EmailPrintPrintFriendly
al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra)

(Just and god-fearing ruler, or oppressive dictator?)

The Shia claim that `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) was an oppressive dictator who would crush anyone who stands in his path, who would oppress anyone who opposes him, and who would silence all those who disagree with him… This is how the Imami Shia painting his image among their followers, and they also use this as an excuse as to why `Ali (ra) didn’t revolt against him, and why `Ali (ra) couldn’t clarify the matters of Imamah and religion, for fear from harm…
But little do the Imami Shia know about `Umar (ra) and little do they know about the religion altogether.
So, below we shall show a few examples of `Umar (ra) consulting `Ali (ra) as well as other Sahaba (ra) and taking their advice and opinions and preferring their word over his own.
(This article shall provide only one example from each companion or follower and will not concentrate on `Ali since we plan to write a separate article on his relation with the three leaders who preceded him.)
`Umar bin al-Khattab and some of the Sahaba and Tabi`een may Allah be pleased with them:


1- Mu`adh ibn Jabal:

A man came to `Umar bin al-Khattab and said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! I have been absent from my wife for two years and when I returned I found her pregnant!” So `Umar consulted the people about stoning her. But Mu`adh ibn Jabal said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! You may have the authority to stone her but you do not have the authority to do the same for the child in her womb.” So he left her until she gave birth to a boy.

The man saw in him great resemblance to himself, and shouted: “By the Lord of the Ka`bah he is my son!” `Umar then told Mu`adh: “Women have given up trying to give birth to anyone like Mu`adh, if it were not for Mu`adh then `Umar would perish.”

Comment: Mu`adh helped `Umar solve the man’s case peacefully by pleasing all sides.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.

thank God for mu'adh ibn jabal...if not for mua'dh maybe caliph umar would have issued another wrong verdict or for instance the mua'dh had issued asked him to go ahead with the stoning he(umar) would have

This begs the question doesn't caliph umar know or understand the rulings regarding adultery?

God's knows if mua'hd wasn't present umar would have issued another wrong judgement---indeed 'if it was not for mua'dh umar would have perished

There is another narration which I will post letting God's willing,where caliph umar burnt down a man's house for selling alcohol and left another man who has committed the same offence..what will you say about this injustice? Is it befitting of a caliph?

Empiree:
2- Zayd ibn Thabit:


Ubadah ibn al-Samit called a man from Nabatiyyah to hold his camel for him near al-Quds, but he refused, so he hit him and injured his head, so he called `Umar ibn al-Khattab, and he said: “What caused you to do what you did?” He replied: “O chief of believers, I asked him to guard my camel for me and he refused, and I am a man with temper so I hit him.” `Umar said: “Sit down for punishment.” Zayd ibn Thabit said: “Would you punish your brother for your slave!?” So `Umar untied him and ruled that he must pay blood money (Diyyah).

Comment: `Umar adopted the opinion of Zayd over his own.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.





3- abu `Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah:


A man from Ahlul-Dhimmah was intentionally murdered in al-Sham, and `Umar bin al-Khattab was then in al-Sham, so when this news reached him, he said: “Have you people began oppressing Ahlul-Dhimma!? By Allah I will execute his killer for this!” so abu `Ubaydah said: “You have no right to do this.” Then after prayer he called on abu `Ubaydah and asked: “Why do you see that I should not kill his killer?” He replied: “Do you see if he killed a slave of his, would you have killed him for it?” So `Umar was silent, and he ruled with harshness that he must pay a thousand Dinars for this.

Comment: `Umar took the opinion of abu `Ubaydah over his own, he spared the killer but made him pay a big sum of blood-money.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.

if I read the 2nd post correctly umar didn't consult zayd he(umar) actually was about to punish a man UNJUSTICE(evidence of his lack of knowledge on how to go on this issue) before zayd intervened....if not for zayd caliph umar would have issued another wrong verdict......same goes with the 3rd------all these indeed reveals umar inability and incapacity to rule the ummah...cause here we have the case of a man who if not for the help and intervention of some sahabahs would made a lot of wrong judgments

4- Hudhayfah bin al-Yaman:


Hudhayfah said that he met `Umar bin al-Khattab one morning, so `Umar told him: “How are you faring today O son of al-Yaman?” He told him: “And how would you like me to fare!? By Allah, this morning I hate the truth, and I love the trials, and I give testimony to that which I did not see, and I guard that which is un-created, and I pray without ablution, and I have on earth what Allah does not possess in the heavens.”

So `Umar got angry from his words and left quickly to attend to an urgent matter, but he had resolved to punish Hudhayfah because of what he said. Along the way, he passed by `Ali ibn abi Talib, who saw that he had an angry face, so he asked: “What angers you O `Umar?” He said: “I passed by Hudhayfah bin al-Yaman and asked him how are you this morning? and he replied: this morning I hate the truth.”`Ali said: “He is truthful, because death is The Truth.” He said: “And he also says: I love the trials!” `Ali said: “He is truthful, he loves wealth and children as Allah said: {Your wealth and your children are but a trial}” He(Umar) said: “O `Ali! he says that he bears testimony of what he did not see!” `Ali said: “He is truthful, he testifies that Allah is one, and he testifies to death and resurrection and heaven and hell although he never saw them.”`Umar said: “He guards the un-created?” Ali replied: “He speaks truth, he guards the Qur’an and it is un-created.” He said: “And he prays without ablution?” He replied: “He speaks truth, as he sends prayers upon my cousin the messenger of Allah (SAWS) without ablution and it is valid.”`Umar said: “O abu al-Hassan, he said a much greater thing.” He said: “What is it?” He said: “He said I have on earth what Allah does not possess in the heavens!” `Ali said: “True, he has a wife and a kid, and Allah most high is elevated above having a wife and a kid.” `Umar then told him: “Ibn al-Khattab almost perished, if it weren’t for `Ali ibn abi Talib.”


Comment: `Umar understood the apparent meaning of Hudhayfah’s words without thinking of possible excuses, so when `Ali saw him walking with an angry face, he was concerned and asked him about it. Then `Umar thanked `Ali for saving him from committing a mistake.


source: al-Fusoul al-Muhimmah by ibn al-Sabbagh al-Maliki

SubhanAllah! this is deep. This also teaches us appearance and reality are opposite of each other. Not to take certain commands literally. Ali (ra) displays his firasa (insight) in this narration. This is also the reality of the world today. We have people with external eye who don't see beyond material reality. We also have people with firasa or internal intuitive. But in this context though, it shows that Umar(ra) is submissive to others' opinion. He is humble. Ali(ra) did tawil of Hudhayfah's statements but Umar(ra) understood Hudhayfah literally.

5- `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud:


`Umar bin al-Khattab gave his Fatwa about a man who killed another man intentionally, that he must be killed, then some of his heirs pardoned the man, but still `Umar insisted to have him killed. Ibn Mas`ud said: “His fate was placed in their hands, and when they pardoned they granted life, so he cannot be put to death unless he takes the life of another.”

`Umar said: “What do you think?” He said: “I see that you place a Diyyah on him, and raise the share of he who pardoned.” `Umar said: “I am of this opinion too.”


Comment: `Umar changed his opinion and accepted the Fatwa of ibn Mas`ud.

source: al-Umm by al-Shafi`i.

6- Ubay ibn Ka`b:


`Umar bin al-Khattab and Ubay bin Ka`b both made Zayd ibn Thabit a judge between them because Ubay claimed some palm trees to be from his property, so Zayd told Ubay: “Pardon the chief of believers.” but `Umar said: “Why should he pardon the chief of believers? If I recognized something as mine I shall swear an oath that it is, otherwise I leave it. By Allah the one and only, these palms are mine and Ubay has no right to them.” -So when they returned- `Umar offered the trees to Ubay, then it was said to him: “Why didn’t you do this before making the oath?” He said: “I feared that if I did not swear an oath, the people would not do it when it comes to their rights after me, and they would take it as Sunnah.”


Comment: `Umar would be judged just as any common man would, and even though he won the case and regained his right, yet later he offered it to Ubay so as to not create hatred, when asked why he did this if he was going to offer him the trees in the first place, he said that he did this so that people would see his example and follow it.

source: Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubbah.




7- al-Dahhak bin Suffiyan:

`Umar bin al-Khattab used to say: “Diyyah is for the sane woman, and the wife does not inherit anything from the Diyyah of her husband.” until al-Dahhak bin Suffiyan informed him that the Prophet (SAWS) wrote to him to give the woman of Ashiyam al-Dabbabi from his Diyyah, so `Umar went back to doing this.


Comment: `Umar was informed of a prophetic ruling so he chose to follow it.

source: Sunan abu Dawud.

BETATRON:
if I read the 2nd post correctly umar didn't consult zayd he(umar) actually was about to punish a man UNJUSTICE(evidence of his lack of knowledge on how to go on this issue) before zayd intervened....if not for zayd caliph umar would have issued another wrong verdict......same goes with the 3rd------all these indeed reveals umar inability and incapacity to rule the ummah...cause here we have the case of a man who if not for the help and intervention of some sahabahs would made a lot of wrong judgments

I think you missed the point here. Umar (ra) displayed clear case of a true "democracy" by allowing difference of opinion despite him having final say as head of state.

This is contrary to saying he is a dictator. I dont believe he would not know the right judgement to pass. I believe Allah used him in these narrations as example for us. Who in the so called democratic state today ready to reason with others?. They rather enforce theirs.

Empiree:
I think you missed the point here. Umar (ra) displayed clear case of a true "democracy" by allowing difference of opinion despite him having final say as head of state.

This is contrary to saying he is a dictator. I dont believe he would not know the right judgement to pass. I believe Allah used him in these narrations as example for us. Who in the so called democratic state today ready to reason with others?. They rather enforce theirs.

I don't think so..it is glaring from you 2nd and 3rd post that umar was about to issue wrong judgment before being stopped/corrected and the 1st post shows that he doesn't know which judgment to pass evident in him exclaiming if not for mu'adh umar would have perished-->showing that if not for mua'dh umar would have given a wrong verdict

Only a heart filled with diseases will try to twist this noble ayah.
"O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.

Try all your might, twist again and again, Allah's word reins supreme. Twisting and bending, all to save Umar! Was that the first time Umar will oppose Allah's and His messenger's command and introducing his own Bid'ah? Indeed truth is bitter and more difficult to follow. Mr Sino, your copy-paste is a shame and its an enemy to the naked truth. Again you even have the gut to support that evil statement that Ammar ibn Yasir was delusional, all to defend Umar's Bid'ah. Subhan'Allah. Even when Umar said he introduced Bid'at Hassana, you guys shamefully say he only used the word "Bid'ah" in a linguistic sense. When he sworn by Allah that Hajj al-tamatu is in Quran and Prophetic sunnah, and he affirmed that he forbid it by his own desire, yet you excuse him. On and on and on. I surrender only to Allah, who is our return.

To, Empiree, first, I don't know the authenticity of ahadith you pasted. However, those ahadith continue to expose your Khalifah of knowing nothing. A khalifah Rashid is he who knows the truth, practices it, commands it, and being guided by Allah. No mistake. That is he who Prophet command the Ummah to follow after him (since there will be severe disagreement) because such will never oppose his sunnah. Try harder, your Khalifah failed. He was never among the Rashidun Mahdiyun.

# As per the case of Khidr, you agreed his is (was) a messenger of Allah from ghaib (spiritual realm), yet you are telling me that because Musa saw him, then Khidr belonged to Musa's Ummah. That's weird. A prophet is saddled with the responsibility to guide his Ummah in all matters and people and the time of his Ummah ends when Allah raised another Messenger. How can a man from spiritual world whom nobody knows his particulars (birth, parents, children, death, age etc) ever belong to the Ummah of Musa? Does Allah sent Musa to guide the spiritual world of khidr during his Nubuwah? Subhan'Allah!

.

Empiree:
I think .... Umar (ra) displayed clear case of a true "democracy" by allowing difference of opinion despite him having final say as head of state.

This is contrary to saying he is a dictator. I dont believe he would not know the right judgement to pass. I believe Allah used him in these narrations as example for us. Who in the so called democratic state today ready to reason with others?. They rather enforce theirs.

Democracy ko democracy Ni. Empiree my brother. Quran and the Sunnah are our codified book of guidance till eternity. Whoever is the leader of the Ummah must ONLY rule by it. And to rule by it, you must know its zahir and batin.
Quran says "whoever does not judge by what We have revealed, such is zalim...such is fasiq...such is kafir

^Humm, lol. I didnt really mean democracy as we know it today. That's why i quoted it. I meant its essence, democratic system where he allowed public opinion and contributions.

8- Shaybah bin `Uthman:


Shaybah told Shaqeeq: “`Umar bin al-Khattab sat in your seat as you are sitting now then said: I shall not leave until I divide the money of the Ka`bah.”

I said: “You will not do it!”

He said: “I shall!”

I said: “You shall not do this!”

He said: “Why?”

I said: “Because the messenger of Allah (SAWS) left it in its place and so did Abu Bakr, and they were both more in need of it than you but they never took it out.” So he stood up and left.


Comment: When the Prophet (SAWS) opened the Ka`bah he found in it many treasures from gold and gifts, so he left them in place and so did Abu Bakr, but when the conditions became very bad during the Khilafah of `Umar, he wished to extract these treasures and divide them
among the people but when reminded of the example of his two companions he chose to follow their footsteps.


source: Sunan abu Dawud.





9- `Abdullah ibn `Abbas:


Ibn `Abbas told Nafi`: “I was the one responsible for what happened to that woman they brought to `Umar, she gave birth in six months and the people did not accept this, so I told `Umar: Why do you oppress?”

He said: “How?”

I said recite: {his bearing and his weaning are thirty months} and {Women shall suckle their children two complete years}

I asked: “How much is the year?”

He said: “Twelve months.”

I said: “So twenty four months are two complete years, and Allah delays from the pregnancy what he wills and hastens what he wills.”

So `Umar felt comfortable with my saying.


Comment: `Umar bin al-Khattab accepting the opinion and judgement of the much younger ibn `Abbas.


source: Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq.



What is being established in my postings is NOT necessarily about incompetency. It is response to those who accused Umar Faruq (ra) of dictatorship and oppressive. How can `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) be a dictator when he would listen to the opinion of other knowledgeable companions and followers? How can he be oppressive when he allows those around him to state their opinions openly? How can he be a tyrant when he would choose the opinions of others over his own opinions?. That's what's being established here.

lexiconkabir:
The most knowledgeable need not be the khalifa.....

"FOLLOW MY SUNNAH AND THE SUNNAH OF THE RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS"!!!



so if the most knowledgeable does not have to be caliph, and you accept that your caliphs were not the most knowledgeable of their time, then you are admitting the possibility, however slight, that you may be following ignorance (disguised) as "SUNNAH" because you are instructed by the Prophet (s) to also follow the SUNNAH OF THE "RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS" who after all were not that "rightly guided"! so is this the "perfect religion" you claim to follow?

with your statement that "the most knowledgeable need not be the khalifa", you have implied that your caliphs were not the most knowledgeable and someone else was more knowledgeable than them. by that implication, you have accepted that they could have by the slightest chance shared ignorance as "SUNNAH" since you regard them as "rightly guided caliphs" whose sunnah must be followed alongside that of the holy Prophet (s).

as for us Shia, the hadith whereby the Prophet (s) commanded us to follow his Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, got us asking one question: WHO WERE THE RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS? did the Prophet (s) say they were four in number? did he name them? as we know, from the hadith which is found in "Sahih" Muslim, the RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS are 12 in number! the Prophet Muhammad (s) prophesied that there will be 12 Khalifa after him till the day of judgment, the time that Islam will continue to prevail on earth as the only true religion and after which everyone will be called to account. and these are the 12 holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) we believe in as righteous and rightly guided caliphs after the Prophet (s) and who were ordained by Allah (swt), and whose words and deeds we accept as Sunnah also.

@ empiree....what you have successfully done is show 9 cases where umar would have issued wrong verdicts if not for the help of some of the sahabah and also goes a long way in exposing his ignorance on the koran and the the sunnah....thanks for enlightening more about umar

BETATRON:
@ empir.ee....what you have successfully done is show 9 cases where umar would have issued wrong verdicts if not for the help of some of the sahabah and also goes a long way in exposing his ignorance on the koran and the the sunnah....thanks for enlightening more about umar

I knew you would say that. You read it wrong from another perspective. These 9 pieces ( and even more are reserved) are extracted only for the purpose of those who accused him of tyrannical, oppressive and intolerant regime. There are other cases he made sound judgements.

chapter3
No one could imagine that looking handsome could become a criminal offense that could result in banishment.

imagine being banished simply because you're "too handsome"--lol--sound outrageous right---well during the rule of umar being handsome was a crime

The grand sunni muffasir,imam al-alusi(d.1270 H) proclaims it is authentically transmitted that 'Umar b. Khattab, may Allah the Most high be pleased with him, banished Nasr b. Hajjaj to basra because- DUE TO HIS GOOD LOOKS,SOME WOMEN WERE OBSESSES WITH HIM
-abu al-fadl mahmud al-Alusi, ruh al-ma'ani fi tafsir al-qur'an al-Azim wa Sab' al-mathani (beirut:Dar ihya al-turath al-Arabi) vol18 p.81

Al-Hafiz also submits------ibn sa'd al- kharaiti have recorded with a sahih chain from abd Allah b. Buraydah who narrated while umae b. Al-Khattab was on patrol one night during his khilafah, there was a woman (he overheard) saying " is there a way to get to alcohol to drink, or to get to Nasr b. Hajjaj?" In the morning, the (umar) asked about him(Nasr), and summoned him. He was one of the most beautiful of mankind in terms of the hair, and one of the most good-looking. So, he (umar) ordered him to collect his hair. He did so , and his forehead appeared. As a result, He became even more handsome. He (umar) ordered him to wear a turban. But his beauty increased nonetheless. So 'umar said ' NO! I SWEAR BY THE ONE IN WHOSE HAND MY LIFE IS,YOU CANNOT STAY "WITH ME" IN THE SAME TOWN" therefore, he ordered what befitted him and relocated to basra-ahmed b. Ali b. Hajar al-Asqalani,--- al-Isab
ah fi Tamyiz al-sahabah (beirut: Dar al-kutub al 'llmiyyah; 1st edition,1415 H) [annotators:shaykh 'adil Ahmad b. 'Abd al-mawjud and shaykh ' Ali Muhammad ma'ud], vol.4p382-3#8862
[color=#006600][/color]

Nasr b. Al-Hajjaj, one of the Sahabah, committed no other "crime" than that he looked very handsome. For that, he was summarily tried and penalized, forcibly "relocated" to basra,, what a judgment by umar ....
umar's reason for banishing Nasr seems even weirder than "punishment" itself. If we assumed that the khalifah expelled him because of women were there no women in basra? Apparently, matter the claims,the true motive behind 'umar's action had nothing to do with women. In fact, the khalifah himself outlined outlined his justification in very clear words: he could not tolerate living in the same city with Nasr. So if umar had later moved to basra he would still have re-banished Nasr to another faraway town. From all indications, it seems that the khalifah was only bitter about the latter's good looks

In any case, it is pretty obvious that umar would never have tolerated the presense of prophet Yusuf(a.s) in medina had the latter lived during during his rule

BETATRON, on banishment, first all, put aside 21st century mentality. So long as you think from that perspective, it will never make sense to you. Second, this is misdemeanor figh issue. It is not hudud. Nasr b. Hajjaj was not banished for 'crime'. It is rather about preventing greater evil due to this statement as recorded:


Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) was patrolling in Madinah when he heard a woman chanting some verses of poetry in which she was saying: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?”


We know in Islam there is no separation of "church and state". Umar hearing such statement in the street of Medina of-course caught his attention. Any lady can utter same phrase today in the street of Lagos and no one cares. Again, please dont read this narration from 21st century minds. Even back then, it is not just to banish someone solely for their looks. It is figh issue. It is clear that this incident occured due to overwhelming narrations by different scholars even Ibn Taymiyah in his Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (11/552, 15/313, 28/109, 28/371), Ibn al-Qayyim in I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (4/284), al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Isaabah (6/382), Ibn Muflih in al-Adaab ash-Shar‘iyyah (3/132), and others.


From the fiqh point of view, this story comes under the heading of giving precedence to the public interest over private interests; allowing undermining of a personal interest for the purpose of protecting the public interest is a must in general terms.

Badr ad-Deen az-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Manthoor fi’l-Qawaa‘id al-Fiqhiyyah (1/348-349):


Ibn ‘Abd as-Salaam said: They were unanimously agreed that the greater evil may be warded off by means of the lesser. Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid said: One of the holistic general principles is that the greater of two evils may be warded off by allowing the lesser, if there is no option but to allow one of them to occur, and that the greater of two interests may be served by foregoing the lesser, if only one option is inevitable. I mean: this is a general rule, but it is not absolute and is not applicable in all cases.


Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Nasr ibn Hajjaaj was not banished because he had done anything wrong or committed some immoral deed for which he was to be punished; but among the women there were some who were tempted by him, so ‘Umar issued orders that something be done to reduce his stunning good looks. By moving him from his homeland, his ambition and physical strength would be weakened, and he would feel that he was being punished. This is by way of protective measures for fear of immorality and infatuation before they take place; it was not by way of punishment."


End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (15/313).



Again, no matter how we explain this, it would not make sense to anyone in modern century. This simple thing, if at all, should only be viewed in the lense of average silly rules passed in our modern time by govts. For instance, in the US, some states you are not allowed to grow crops in your backyard. You could go to jail for that. A woman was caught growing crops in her yard some years back, upon sighted by police, she was arrested and sentenced years behind bars. She thought it was a joke (I thought too). She wasn't even aware of the law. This happened in a developed country. Now, if a person in a developing or underdeveloped country like nigeria hears this, it doesn't make sense. The reason being that you are free to grow anything you want in your backyard in nigeria.

Now, does it make sense from govt's perspective for criminalizing the woman?. Yes. You know why?. You know their excuse?. They said the reason it is made criminal act for anyone to grow food in their yard is because it undermines economic growth. They think she rather go to the store and spend her money on govt controlled foods than growing hers. Makes sense from their view? Yes. Makes sense to you as nigerian?. No. See what I am talking about?.

And truly, if everyone has to grow their own food in their yards or lot, it would affect US economy. So her sentence from what i read back then was even brutal than a real murderer. In the case of Nasr ibn Hajjaaj, it would never make sense to average 21 century human regardless of how it is explained. So you cant blame Umar Faruq for this. He was threatened by the woman's statement which might in turn constituted fawaish. No one cares about public indecencies now or what may lead to it.


This incident of a woman i narrated did not make big headlines nor did it attract so called human right activists but few. You know why?. Because it is US. If similar incident had happened in Saudi or Iran, you would hear the whole world screaming "barbaric Muslims", "backward people" etc. Hope you comprehend my analogy?

Another points of view as explained by scholars are:


**the fact that this happened and was narrated, and people knew of it, teaches the new generation to fight temptation and teaches people in authority how to run people’s affairs from a shar‘ia point of view, and how to give the public interest precedence over private interests. It also demonstrates that the temptation of women is one of the greatest temptations.


**the sanctity of Madinah requires the banishment of anyone who is a source of temptation to women; he should be made to leave and go to some other land, out of respect for its sanctity.


And Allah knows best.

Empiree:
BETATRON, on banishment, first all, put aside 21st century mentality. So long as you think from that perspective, it will never make sense to you. Second, this is misdemeanor figh issue. It is not hudud. Nasr b. Hajjaj was not banished for 'crime'. It is rather about preventing greater evil due to this statement as recorded:


Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) was patrolling in Madinah when he heard a woman chanting some verses of poetry in which she was saying: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?”


We know in Islam there is no separation of "church and state". Umar hearing such statement in the street of Medina of-course caught his attention. Any lady can utter same phrase today in the street of Lagos and no one cares. Again, please dont read this narration from 21st century minds. Even back then, it is not just to banish someone solely for their looks. It is figh issue. It is clear that this incident occured due to overwhelming narrations by different scholars even Ibn Taymiyah in his Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (11/552, 15/313, 28/109, 28/371), Ibn al-Qayyim in I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (4/284), al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Isaabah (6/382), Ibn Muflih in al-Adaab ash-Shar‘iyyah (3/132), and others.


From the fiqh point of view, this story comes under the heading of giving precedence to the public interest over private interests; allowing undermining of a personal interest for the purpose of protecting the public interest is a must in general terms.

Badr ad-Deen az-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Manthoor fi’l-Qawaa‘id al-Fiqhiyyah (1/348-349):


Ibn ‘Abd as-Salaam said: They were unanimously agreed that the greater evil may be warded off by means of the lesser. Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid said: One of the holistic general principles is that the greater of two evils may be warded off by allowing the lesser, if there is no option but to allow one of them to occur, and that the greater of two interests may be served by foregoing the lesser, if only one option is inevitable. I mean: this is a general rule, but it is not absolute and is not applicable in all cases.


Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Nasr ibn Hajjaaj was not banished because he had done anything wrong or committed some immoral deed for which he was to be punished; but among the women there were some who were tempted by him, so ‘Umar issued orders that something be done to reduce his stunning good looks. By moving him from his homeland, his ambition and physical strength would be weakened, and he would feel that he was being punished. This is by way of protective measures for fear of immorality and infatuation before they take place; it was not by way of punishment."


End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (15/313).



Again, no matter how we explain this, it would not make sense to anyone in modern century. This simple thing, if at all, should only be viewed in the lense of average silly rules passed in our modern time by govts. For instance, in the US, some states you are not allowed to grow crops in your backyard. You could go to jail for that. A woman was caught growing crops in her yard some years back, upon sighted by police, she was arrested and sentenced years behind bars. She thought it was a joke (I thought too). She wasn't even aware of the law. This happened in a developed country. Now, if a person in a developing or underdeveloped country like nigeria hears this, it doesn't make sense. The reason being that you are free to grow anything you want in your backyard in nigeria.

Now, does it make sense from govt's perspective for criminalizing the woman?. Yes. You know why?. You know their excuse?. They said the reason it is made criminal act for anyone to grow food in their yard is because it undermines economic growth. They think she rather go to the store and spend her money on govt controlled foods than growing hers. Makes sense from their view? Yes. Makes sense to you as nigerian?. No. See what I am talking about?.

And truly, if everyone has to grow their own food in their yards or lot, it would affect US economy. So her sentence from what i read back then was even brutal than a real murderer. In the case of Nasr ibn Hajjaaj, it would never make sense to average 21 century human regardless of how it is explained. So you cant blame Umar Faruq for this. He was threatened by the woman's statement which might in turn constituted fawaish. No one cares about public indecencies now or what may lead to it.


This incident of a woman i narrated did not make big headlines nor did it attract so called human right activists but few. You know why?. Because it is US. If similar incident had happened in Saudi or Iran, you would hear the whole world screaming "barbaric Muslims", "backward people" etc. Hope you comprehend my analogy?

Another points of view as explained by scholars are:


**the fact that this happened and was narrated, and people knew of it, teaches the new generation to fight temptation and teaches people in authority how to run people’s affairs from a shar‘ia point of view, and how to give the public interest precedence over private interests. It also demonstrates that the temptation of women is one of the greatest temptations.


**the sanctity of Madinah requires the banishment of anyone who is a source of temptation to women; he should be made to leave and go to some other land, out of respect for its sanctity.


And Allah knows best.

lol..nice...first question is...are there no women in basra? he should have made things easy for nasr and the women by simply killing nasr ibn hajjaj.

The greater of two evil may be warded off you said...now "How is banishing a handsome man to another land( where there exists women) a mean of warding off the greater of two evils....

The us didn't banish the woman to nigeria or any other countries(which in effect will also be detrimental to the economy of those countries),,they thought her a lesson and after serving her punishment she will return to her home and this in turn will serve as a warning to other citizens of the state....now the u.s here punished the "criminal" but nasr didn't commit a crime did he? Why has umar left the lustful woman and decided to punish the innocent nasr?

What message and lesson has umar passed with this judgment.?

BETATRON:
lol..nice...first question is...are there no women in basra?

Indeed there plenty other women in Basra. Remember banishment was his last option. He first shaved his head, but it only made him better looking. So he exiled him to Basra lest the women be tempted by him.

As-Sarkhasi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Mabsoot (9/45):

If it is proven (in a story) that a person was banished, then this is by way of achieving a purpose and interest, not by way of applying a hadd punishment. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) banished the effeminate man from Madinah, and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) banished Nasr ibn Hajjaaj from Madinah when he heard a woman saying: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?” So he banished him, although good looks do not dictate that one should be banished; rather he did that in the public interest".

The greater of two evil may be warded off you said...now "How is banishing a handsome man to another land( where there exists women) a mean of warding off the greater of two evils....

Further elucidated in Tafseer al-Aloosi which may answer your concern that arent women in Basra as well?. The scholar said: "If it is said: 'The women of Basra would be tempted by him after he moved there, so what should we do? We have only transferred the problem from one place to another, and we have not dealt with the root of the problem!'


The answer is:

Firstly: banishing him from his homeland and exiling him in a way that looks like a punishment would cause the motive of fitnah (temptation) in his heart andin the heart of others to be weakened, and it will teach the people to resist whims and desires, and will serve as a condemnation of immorality. If the people at the time of ‘Umar – whom the Shaytaan feared and was afraid of encountering him – realized that this man was only banished because of fear of fitnah, they would take precautions and be on guard against being tempted by him. So it is as if it was said to the people of Basra: I have banished this man to your land so that he will not be resident in the same city as me, so beware of being tempted by him.

Other thought is, the one who is in exile is a stranger and is not like a resident, for he is in a strange land where he will be distracted by his own affairs or by working and earning a living, which will keep him away from the life of ease and luxury that he used to enjoy in his homeland, when he was among his family and clan. This will reduce his good looks and distract him from taking care of himself and of his appearance.

he should have made things easy for nasr and the women by simply killing nasr ibn hajjaj.

Is this your personal judgement if you were in Umar's shoes?. Arent you more brutal than him now?. killing Nasr ibn hajjaj for being too handsome?. Yours brutal pass Umar

The us didn't banish the woman to nigeria or any other countries(which in effect will also be detrimental to the economy of those countries),,they thought her a lesson and after serving her punishment she will return to her home and this in turn will serve as a warning to other citizens of the state....now the u.s here punished the "criminal" but nasr didn't commit a crime did he?

In the eyes of the law, yes, she committed offence. But I am saying in the eyes of underdeveloped countries like Nigeria, whether it is criminal offence or not in the US, it wont make sense to any Nigerians for punishing the woman. The same way it doesn't make sense to you to send handsome man out of his homeland.

Why has umar left the lustful woman and decided to punish the innocent nasr?

Again, it is not punishment. It was most likely in favor of Nasr himself. remember those days, they have more taqwa than us. They fear shaytan and all that. From the story, it looks like Nasr himself was hiding from women and he would see that as satanic influence. From the woman's statement she asked: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?”

From her statement, it looks like multiple women are chasing the dude and he's trying to escape from them and fortunately, Umar fulfilled his thought

What message and lesson has umar passed with this judgment.?

preventive measures

Empiree:
Indeed there plenty other women in Basra. Remember banishment was his last option. He first shaved his head, but it only made him better looking. So he exiled him to Basra lest the women be tempted by him.

As-Sarkhasi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Mabsoot (9/45):

If it is proven (in a story) that a person was banished, then this is by way of achieving a purpose and interest, not by way of applying a hadd punishment. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) banished the effeminate man from Madinah, and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) banished Nasr ibn Hajjaaj from Madinah when he heard a woman saying: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?” So he banished him, although good looks do not dictate that one should be banished; rather he did that in the public interest".




Further elucidated in Tafseer al-Aloosi which may answer your concern that arent women in Basra as well?. The scholar said: "If it is said: 'The women of Basra would be tempted by him after he moved there, so what should we do? We have only transferred the problem from one place to another, and we have not dealt with the root of the problem!'


The answer is:




Other thought is, the one who is in exile is a stranger and is not like a resident, for he is in a strange land where he will be distracted by his own affairs or by working and earning a living, which will keep him away from the life of ease and luxury that he used to enjoy in his homeland, when he was among his family and clan. This will reduce his good looks and distract him from taking care of himself and of his appearance.




Is this your personal judgement if you were in Umar's shoes?. Arent you more brutal than him now?. killing Nasr ibn hajjaj for being too handsome?. Yours brutal pass Umar



In the eyes of the law, yes, she committed offence. But I am saying in the eyes of underdeveloped countries like Nigeria, whether it is criminal offence or not in the US, it wont make sense to any Nigerians for punishing the woman. The same way it doesn't make sense to you to send handsome man out of his homeland.


Again, it is not punishment. It was most likely in favor of Nasr himself. remember those days, they have more taqwa than us. They fear shaytan and all that. From the story, it looks like Nasr himself was hiding from women and he would see that as satanic influence. From the woman's statement she asked: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?”

From her statement, it looks like multiple women are chasing the dude and he's trying to escape from them and fortunately, Umar fulfilled his thought


preventive measures

all I see is a desperate apologetic attempt

1-you claimed that the banishing is not meant as a punishment and secondly you said it prevents him from living a life of luxury (meaning he will find hardship earning a living)---whats the meaning of punishment if not something that makes you miserable--actually in umar case, it wasn't punishment but INJUSTICE,and OPPRESSION cause punishment is only giving to one who committed an OFFENCE

2-the case of the Prophet(pbuh) sending an effeminate man on exile doesn't help umar,cause here we see the case of punishing a man who possess feminine traits and who does things like a woman----this could either be inherited or imitated---

the prophet in two cases dealing with effeminate men

1-- “From Umm Salamah, who said that the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
was in her house, where there was also an
effeminate man who told her brother ‘Abd-Allah ibn
Abi Umayyah: ‘If Allah wills that you conquer al-Taa’if tomorrow, I will show you the daughter of Ghaylaan; she has four folds of fat in front and eight behind.’The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, ‘This person should not enter upon you.’” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, chapter 113, al-Fath, 9/333)

Above is the case of an effeminate man, inherited this trait----and what was the prophets verdict "he resulted that his wives shouldn't allow him to enter their houses cause of the calamities he could cause

Here the prophet didn't banish him for being effeminate--cause it was a case of hereditary in which case isn't his fault

2nd scenario----Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that an effeminate man who had dyed his hands with henna (as women do) was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and it was said, “O Messenger of Allah! This man is imitating women.” So he banished him to al- Baqee’ (as a punishment, sending him to an isolated place, and to protect others). It was said, “Why do you not kill him?” He said, “I have been forbidden to kill those who pray.” (Reported by Abu Dawood, 4928, and others. See Saheeh al-Jaami’, 2502).

So this on above shows the prophet banishing another effeminate man(ONE WHO IMITATES WOMEN)----- as a punishment, and not just for being effeminate(Inherited)

--so therefore the prophets banishing was the of banishing a sinner hence teaching others who would follow in his path a lesson--

Come to think of it,why didn't the prophet call the daughter of ghaylaa described in first place and ultimately banish her for causing commotion with her pounds of flesh? As umar did with nasr(for being handsome?...the answer is simply because it doesn't pass any sense neither does it pass any message?

-----now back to umar,, he left the lustful woman and banished the innocent nasr....now how does this stop the woman from lusting after other men? And how does it teach other lustful woman a lesson?

----lol...you said the banishing will ensure nasr live a hard life hence prevent him from looking after himself and hence reduce is good looks,well don't know where you got that but "Prophet yusuf was a slave and was still the most beautiful Man of his time, the hardship never reduced his good looks---even body builders go through hardwork and pains to become good looking and attractive, to them pain is good(no pain no gain)---so it is more likely that this hardship will make nasr even more good looking and hence cause more commotion

---umar actually created more problem---by sending nasr to another land with women---and letting the lustful women in his own town go unpunished

chapter4--001

Injustice begins the moment a judge begins to show bias towards or against any of the parties before him in any judicial proceedings. He must be completely impartial throughout, and this must be evident in his ruling.

The Qur'an commandsO you who Believe! stand up firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor Allah is more entitled to both (than you) so follow not whims,lest you may avoid justice. And if you distort your witness or refuse to give it,verily Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do-Qur'an4;135

During the rule of Umar, a terribly messy case was brought before him involving one of his close friends. Let us see hoe he handled it..

Note-#This one is a bit lengthy but equally interesting

Please do remember this beautiful quote,as you read that--Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts, and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds. I have always kept an open mind, a flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of the intelligent search for truth.-----> Malcolm X


Here we go--
Imam al-Tahawi(d.321H) records------ali b. Abd al-Rahman---->affan b. Muslim and sa'I'd b. Abi maryam--->al-sari b. Yahya---->abd al-karim b. Rashid--->abu utham al-HindiA man wen to Umar b. Al-Khattab, and testified against al-mughirah b. Shu'bah. so the color of Umar changed. Then, another man came and testified. Therefore his color changed further then another man came and testified.AS A RESULT THE COLOUR OF 'UMAR CHANGED (even further) SUCH THAT WE RECOGNIZED THAT IN HIM, AND HE DENIED (the charge without investigation) due to that lastly, another man came, demonstrating with his hands. So, he(umar) said "what do you have to say, O remover of the Punishment! abu 'uthman(the sub-narrator) then shouted to imitate the shout of Umar, such that I(abd al-karim) was agonized to the point of fainting. He(the fourth man) said I saw a DISQUSTING AFFAIR." He(umar) said "All praise be to Allah who did not allow shaytan to rejoice at the misfortune of the ummah of Muhammad" so he(umar) ordered that those men be whipped (for allegedly lying against al-mughirah) --sharh ma'ani al-athar (beirut: dar al-kutub al-llmiyyah 1st edition,1399H) [annotator : Muhammad zuhri al-Najjar] vol.4p.153,#5677

Allamah al-albani has copied it in his al-irwa(2nd edition 1405H), vol8p28#2361 and states about it...I say: "its chain is sahih

Imam al-haythami(d.807H) records further---->narrated Abu 'Uthman al-Hindi---->
abu bakrah,nafi, and shibl b. Ma'bad testified against al-mughirah b.shu'bah, that they saw it (I.e the adultery), as they saw the kohl stick (I.e the male private organ of al-mughirah) inside the kohl container(I.e the female private organ of the woman).but ziyad came, and umar said, "here comes the man who will not testify except with the truth" so he (ziyad) said "[b] I saw a disgusting scene, and a spectacle." So umar punished them with lashing--majma' al-zawaid(beirut:Dar al-fikr,1412H)vol.6p434,#10687

Al-haythami declares-->al-tabarani records it,
and its narrators are narrators of the sahih- Ibid.

Imam ibn Abi-shaybah(d.235H)--abu bakr-->Abu usamah---->awf---->Qasamah b.zubayr when the issue between Abu Bakrah and al-Mughirah b.shub'bad occured, abu Bakrah said, "Desist from or give up concerning our salat, because we will not pray behind you." So, he (al-mughirah) wrote to umar about his affair. Therefor umar wrote back to him " to begin an act of yours has been reported to me. If such-and such(I.e Abu bakrah) is corroborated against you, it would have been better for you to have died before this day." So Umar wrote to him and the witnesses to come to him.when they got to him they testified,abu bakrah,shibl b, ma'bad, and abu 'abd Allah nafi testified. As such umar said when these 3 people testified "four(people) oppressed al-mughirah". his matter was very unbearable for Umar. so, when Ziyad stood up to testify , umar said you will testify with the truth,Allah willing then he (ziyad) testifed saying "as for adultery, I do not testify in favour of it. However, I saw a disgusting affair". As a result "umar said "Allah akbar! Punish them!" So they(the 3 witnesses) were lashed. After abu bakrah has been lashed, he stood up an said I testify that he (al-mughirah) committed adultery .so umar was about to repeat the punishment upon him. but Ali said "IF YOU LASH HIM(again) ,then YOU MUST STONE YOUR COMPANION(al-mughirah). Due to this umar left him and did not beat him.thus he abi bakrah did not falsely accuse anyone of adultery after that -musannaf ibn Abi shaybah fi al-Ahadith wa al-athar(Dar al-fikr; 1st edition,1409H) (annotator:prof.sa'I'd al-laham), vol6p.560,#3

Allamah al-albani in his irwa(2nd edition 1408H,, vol8p.28#2361) has this comment about this exact report---its chain is sahih

[b] to be continued in shaa Allah

^ I Think You Need To Properly Edit Your Chapter 4. It's Too Blocked For My Eyes. Seems To Have Too Many "Columns" And Improper Use Of Color And Bold Brackets To Read.



Still on banishment, I insist on Umar's judgement(ra) was fairly appropriate at that time. It Is understandable for us to question his action in modern time because we have this sense of "freedom" and democracy. I understand you are concern about "aren't other women in Basra". Investigating the story further shows that what Umar(ra) feared of about Nasr B. Hajjaj later happened in Basra where is was exiled to. A married woman was enthralled by his handsomeness that led to her being divorced by her husband.


Abdullah bin Burayd said: “One night while Umar was patrolling the city of madinah, he arrived at a house, inside which there was a woman singing verses of poetry:

“Is there a way to get some wine to drink, or to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?"


Another girl friend sitting by her enquired who was Nasr. The girl said, "Nasr is the most beautiful young man in Madina. I long that he should spend a night with me, when he and I should be alone."

هل من سبيل إلى الخمر فأشربها؟

أو هل من سبيل إلى نصر بن الحجاج


So it was not only a woman but more than one.


Umar said: “As long as she lives, she will not get that!” In the morning he sent for Nasr bin Hajjaj. Umar looked at him and found him very handsome. Undoubtedly he was the most beautiful young man in Madina with very beautiful curly hair. He ordered him to collect his hair. He did and when his forehead appeared he became more handsome! Umar asked him to put on a turban. He put on a turban and then his plentiful hair appeared from under the turban and he seemed more handsome. Umar asked him to cut his hair. He cut his hair and he seemed too handsome.


Thereupon Nasr composed the following verses:

"Umar could not see my curls,
My hair which when combed waved like a chain;
He made that head bald where once there were profuse hair;
He who was bald headed felt jealous of him who had hair,
As he could not be proud of his hair, he deprived me of his hair."



لظـن ابـن خطـاب ٍعلـي ّ بجُمـة ٍالى رُجّلت تهتـز هـز السلاسـل ِ
فصـلّـع رأســا ً لــم يصلّـعـه ربّــهيـرف رفيفـا ً بـعـد أســود جـائـل ِ
لقد حسد القرعان اصلع ُ لم يكناذا مـا مـشـى بالـفـرع مُتخـايـل ُ

And the girl replied in response to the companions' loss of hair, saying,


"They shaved his head so that he may become ugly, jealousy from them of him and a stinginess,


The morning on him was like a dark night, then they erased his night and left him as morning/day"


حلـقوا رأســه ليـــكـسـب قــبـحاً
غيرة مـــنـهــــم عـليـه وشـحـــا
كـان صـبـحـا عـلـيـه لـيـل بـهـيـم
فمحــوا لـيـلـه وأبـقــوه صـبـحـــا


Then Umar said to him: “O bin Hajjaj, you have charmed the women of Medina. O' by the one who holds my soul in his hands, Do not neighbor me in a town I live in!”


فقـال عمـر : لا والذي نفسي بيده لا تجامعني بأرض أنا بها ، فأمر له بما يصلحه وسيره إلى البصرة .



Then Umar exiled him to Basra. After spending some days in Basra, Nasr sent a letter to Umar having some verses of poetry, in which he had showed his innocence and asked Umar to let him go Umar said: “Certainly not, as long as I am the ruler!”



When Nasr went away to Basra the girl Zulfa who had sung about him felt worried about her fate. She wrote verses to the effect that she had sung of wine and Nasr only in an imaginary mood; otherwise she was a girl of excellent character, and did not actually crave for wine or Nasr. Umar made enquiry about the girl, and it transpired that she commanded good character. Umar assured her that he proposed no action against her, but warned her that as a good girl she should not think of things forbidden by law."


[size=17pt]At Basra, Nasr became the guest of Mujasha bin Masud. When Mujasha's wife Shameela saw Nasr she felt attracted. Nasr reciprocated her love. When Mujasha came to know of this clandestine love affair he turned out Nasr from his house and divorced his wife.[/size]


From Basra, Nasr wrote a letter to Umar supplicating that the orders of his exile should be rescinded, and he should be allowed to come to Madina. Nasr's mother waited on Umar and said, "Your sons are with you, but you have exiled my son. That is not fair." Umar said, "Your son is a source of danger to the morals of the maidens of Madina.As long as I live, I would not allow him to come, and tempt innocent maidens with his looks."


When Umar died, Nasr returned to Madina.

Also, shortly after Nasr was exiled, another incident recurred this time with another handsome lad, who was his cousin by the name of Abu Thy'eb. He was exiled to the same place

This is simply a misdemeanor case. We can just conclude the extra caution Umar (RA) took and his wisdom behind his actions & rulings.


"If he were to have had pity overrule his rationale, fitnah could've overtaken the capital of the muslim Ummah at the time, Madinah and that would've obviously brought devastating consequences."


This's all argument i can put up. I can't discredit him on this. I see scholars (past/present) didnt have much to say on this nor did they disagree or critizise Umar(RA)'s decision. He did what he thought was appropriate.

Empiree:
^ I Think You Need To Properly Edit Your Chapter 4. It's Too Blocked For My Eyes. Seems To Have Too Many "Columns" And Improper Use Of Color And Bold Brackets To Read.



Still on banishment, I insist on Umar's judgement(ra) was fairly appropriate at that time. It Is understandable for us to question his action in modern time because we have this sense of "freedom" and democracy. I understand you are concern about "aren't other women in Basra". Investigating the story further shows that what Umar(ra) feared of about Nasr B. Hajjaj later happened in Basra where is was exiled to. A married woman was enthralled by his handsomeness that led to her being divorced by her husband.


Abdullah bin Burayd said: “One night while Umar was patrolling the city of madinah, he arrived at a house, inside which there was a woman singing verses of poetry:

“Is there a way to get some wine to drink, or to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?"


Another girl friend sitting by her enquired who was Nasr. The girl said, "Nasr is the most beautiful young man in Madina. I long that he should spend a night with me, when he and I should be alone."

هل من سبيل إلى الخمر فأشربها؟

أو هل من سبيل إلى نصر بن الحجاج


So it was not only a woman but more than one.


Umar said: “As long as she lives, she will not get that!” In the morning he sent for Nasr bin Hajjaj. Umar looked at him and found him very handsome. Undoubtedly he was the most beautiful young man in Madina with very beautiful curly hair. He ordered him to collect his hair. He did and when his forehead appeared he became more handsome! Umar asked him to put on a turban. He put on a turban and then his plentiful hair appeared from under the turban and he seemed more handsome. Umar asked him to cut his hair. He cut his hair and he seemed too handsome.


Thereupon Nasr composed the following verses:

"Umar could not see my curls,
My hair which when combed waved like a chain;
He made that head bald where once there were profuse hair;
He who was bald headed felt jealous of him who had hair,
As he could not be proud of his hair, he deprived me of his hair."



لظـن ابـن خطـاب ٍعلـي ّ بجُمـة ٍالى رُجّلت تهتـز هـز السلاسـل ِ
فصـلّـع رأســا ً لــم يصلّـعـه ربّــهيـرف رفيفـا ً بـعـد أســود جـائـل ِ
لقد حسد القرعان اصلع ُ لم يكناذا مـا مـشـى بالـفـرع مُتخـايـل ُ

And the girl replied in response to the companions' loss of hair, saying,


"They shaved his head so that he may become ugly, jealousy from them of him and a stinginess,


The morning on him was like a dark night, then they erased his night and left him as morning/day"


حلـقوا رأســه ليـــكـسـب قــبـحاً
غيرة مـــنـهــــم عـليـه وشـحـــا
كـان صـبـحـا عـلـيـه لـيـل بـهـيـم
فمحــوا لـيـلـه وأبـقــوه صـبـحـــا


Then Umar said to him: “O bin Hajjaj, you have charmed the women of Medina. O' by the one who holds my soul in his hands, Do not neighbor me in a town I live in!”


فقـال عمـر : لا والذي نفسي بيده لا تجامعني بأرض أنا بها ، فأمر له بما يصلحه وسيره إلى البصرة .



Then Umar exiled him to Basra. After spending some days in Basra, Nasr sent a letter to Umar having some verses of poetry, in which he had showed his innocence and asked Umar to let him go Umar said: “Certainly not, as long as I am the ruler!”



When Nasr went away to Basra the girl Zulfa who had sung about him felt worried about her fate. She wrote verses to the effect that she had sung of wine and Nasr only in an imaginary mood; otherwise she was a girl of excellent character, and did not actually crave for wine or Nasr. Umar made enquiry about the girl, and it transpired that she commanded good character. Umar assured her that he proposed no action against her, but warned her that as a good girl she should not think of things forbidden by law."


[size=17pt]At Basra, Nasr became the guest of Mujasha bin Masud. When Mujasha's wife Shameela saw Nasr she felt attracted. Nasr reciprocated her love. When Mujasha came to know of this clandestine love affair he turned out Nasr from his house and divorced his wife.[/size]


From Basra, Nasr wrote a letter to Umar supplicating that the orders of his exile should be rescinded, and he should be allowed to come to Madina. Nasr's mother waited on Umar and said, "Your sons are with you, but you have exiled my son. That is not fair." Umar said, "Your son is a source of danger to the morals of the maidens of Madina.As long as I live, I would not allow him to come, and tempt innocent maidens with his looks."


When Umar died, Nasr returned to Madina.

Also, shortly after Nasr was exiled, another incident recurred this time with another handsome lad, who was his cousin by the name of Abu Thy'eb. He was exiled to the same place

This is simply a misdemeanor case. We can just conclude the extra caution Umar (RA) took and his wisdom behind his actions & rulings.


"If he were to have had pity overrule his rationale, fitnah could've overtaken the capital of the muslim Ummah at the time, Madinah and that would've obviously brought devastating consequences."


This's all argument i can put up. I can't discredit him on this. I see scholars (past/present) didnt have much to say on this nor did they disagree or critizise Umar(RA)'s decision. He did what he thought was appropriate.

sorry for the poor editing..check now nd see if its readable ...haven't read the rest of your post sha...sorry for that..kinda choked up with schedules

Empiree:
^ I Think You Need To Properly Edit Your Chapter 4. It's Too Blocked For My Eyes. Seems To Have Too Many "Columns" And Improper Use Of Color And Bold Brackets To Read.



Still on banishment, I insist on Umar's judgement(ra) was fairly appropriate at that time. It Is understandable for us to question his action in modern time because we have this sense of "freedom" and democracy. I understand you are concern about "aren't other women in Basra". Investigating the story further shows that what Umar(ra) feared of about Nasr B. Hajjaj later happened in Basra where is was exiled to. A married woman was enthralled by his handsomeness that led to her being divorced by her husband.


Abdullah bin Burayd said: “One night while Umar was patrolling the city of madinah, he arrived at a house, inside which there was a woman singing verses of poetry:

“Is there a way to get some wine to drink, or to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?"


Another girl friend sitting by her enquired who was Nasr. The girl said, "Nasr is the most beautiful young man in Madina. I long that he should spend a night with me, when he and I should be alone."

هل من سبيل إلى الخمر فأشربها؟

أو هل من سبيل إلى نصر بن الحجاج


So it was not only a woman but more than one.


Umar said: “As long as she lives, she will not get that!” In the morning he sent for Nasr bin Hajjaj. Umar looked at him and found him very handsome. Undoubtedly he was the most beautiful young man in Madina with very beautiful curly hair. He ordered him to collect his hair. He did and when his forehead appeared he became more handsome! Umar asked him to put on a turban. He put on a turban and then his plentiful hair appeared from under the turban and he seemed more handsome. Umar asked him to cut his hair. He cut his hair and he seemed too handsome.


Thereupon Nasr composed the following verses:

"Umar could not see my curls,
My hair which when combed waved like a chain;
He made that head bald where once there were profuse hair;
He who was bald headed felt jealous of him who had hair,
As he could not be proud of his hair, he deprived me of his hair."



لظـن ابـن خطـاب ٍعلـي ّ بجُمـة ٍالى رُجّلت تهتـز هـز السلاسـل ِ
فصـلّـع رأســا ً لــم يصلّـعـه ربّــهيـرف رفيفـا ً بـعـد أســود جـائـل ِ
لقد حسد القرعان اصلع ُ لم يكناذا مـا مـشـى بالـفـرع مُتخـايـل ُ

And the girl replied in response to the companions' loss of hair, saying,


"They shaved his head so that he may become ugly, jealousy from them of him and a stinginess,


The morning on him was like a dark night, then they erased his night and left him as morning/day"


حلـقوا رأســه ليـــكـسـب قــبـحاً
غيرة مـــنـهــــم عـليـه وشـحـــا
كـان صـبـحـا عـلـيـه لـيـل بـهـيـم
فمحــوا لـيـلـه وأبـقــوه صـبـحـــا


Then Umar said to him: “O bin Hajjaj, you have charmed the women of Medina. O' by the one who holds my soul in his hands, Do not neighbor me in a town I live in!”


فقـال عمـر : لا والذي نفسي بيده لا تجامعني بأرض أنا بها ، فأمر له بما يصلحه وسيره إلى البصرة .



Then Umar exiled him to Basra. After spending some days in Basra, Nasr sent a letter to Umar having some verses of poetry, in which he had showed his innocence and asked Umar to let him go Umar said: “Certainly not, as long as I am the ruler!”



When Nasr went away to Basra the girl Zulfa who had sung about him felt worried about her fate. She wrote verses to the effect that she had sung of wine and Nasr only in an imaginary mood; otherwise she was a girl of excellent character, and did not actually crave for wine or Nasr. Umar made enquiry about the girl, and it transpired that she commanded good character. Umar assured her that he proposed no action against her, but warned her that as a good girl she should not think of things forbidden by law."


[size=17pt]At Basra, Nasr became the guest of Mujasha bin Masud. When Mujasha's wife Shameela saw Nasr she felt attracted. Nasr reciprocated her love. When Mujasha came to know of this clandestine love affair he turned out Nasr from his house and divorced his wife.[/size]


From Basra, Nasr wrote a letter to Umar supplicating that the orders of his exile should be rescinded, and he should be allowed to come to Madina. Nasr's mother waited on Umar and said, "Your sons are with you, but you have exiled my son. That is not fair." Umar said, "Your son is a source of danger to the morals of the maidens of Madina.As long as I live, I would not allow him to come, and tempt innocent maidens with his looks."


When Umar died, Nasr returned to Madina.

Also, shortly after Nasr was exiled, another incident recurred this time with another handsome lad, who was his cousin by the name of Abu Thy'eb. He was exiled to the same place

This is simply a misdemeanor case. We can just conclude the extra caution Umar (RA) took and his wisdom behind his actions & rulings.


"If he were to have had pity overrule his rationale, fitnah could've overtaken the capital of the muslim Ummah at the time, Madinah and that would've obviously brought devastating consequences."


This's all argument i can put up. I can't discredit him on this. I see scholars (past/present) didnt have much to say on this nor did they disagree or critizise Umar(RA)'s decision. He did what he thought was appropriate.

nice..you clearly showed that the banishing of nasr to basra also caused fitnah in basra where a married woman got divorced because she was enrolled by his beauty...showing clearly that umar moved a source of fitnah from one to another and didn't stop the fitnah...take the case of passing a poisonous substance from your family to another family...how wise will that be?

I still go by the opinion that umar should have dealt with the issue wisely (I.e by teaching the lustful woman a lesson,,which will otherwise serve as an eye opener to all other women who would have trend her path)--

So umar in his wisdom never solved any problem here...he only transferred a source of fitnah(innocent "mind you" from one place to another--like throwing a bomb into you neighbor's apartment cause you don't want it to detonate in your own house

The statement "they shaved his head so that he may become ugly jealousy from them on him and a stinginess and nasr statement goes further to show that umar decision was solely due to jealousy and stinginess and not the product of wisdom

chapter4-002 ---continuation of chapter4-001
So let's try our utmost to gain the full picture, as gleaned from the reports in chapter4-001 and let's retell the story in a simplified manner

1. Abu bakrah and some other people filed a criminal complaint of adultery against al-mughirah b.shu'bah with umar

2-al-mughirah was umar's close friend

3-umar summoned the accused-who was his friend- and the abu bakrah team to his court for the trail

4-As abu bakrah and two other people testified,umar--the judge--increasingly blushed.i.e Convicting his friend(mughirah) was very unbearable for him

5- it was a case of adultery,and four witnesses were required. Ziyad was the fourth to testify. Like others, he came all the way from BASRA( where mughirah was governor for umar prior to the trail) to medinah to testify against al-mughirah in a case of adultery. [b]but,before he began his testimony, 'umar made some direct moves to entice him and intimidate him.

6- first he(umar) called him the "REMOVER OF THE PUNISHMENT" . The was an obvious suggestion to Ziyad that he must contradict his colleagues(i.e an indirect plea).hence He simply had no other choice but to remove the sentence of death still hanging over the neck of al-mughirah.

7-'umar also described him as one who will testify with the "truth" . This was another signal to him to contradict his colleagues. It showed that the khalifah had blacklisted ziyad's colleagues for testifying against al-mughirah. Hence ziyad must tell only what 'umar is willing to accept as the truth'

8-finally umar SHOUTED at him,with such a distressing force that it could cause some people to pass out! The intention, obviously was to unsettle and intimidate him. Going against the khalifah could have highly devastating consequences. ThE MESSAGE WAS CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE

9-so ziyad coded the signal,and went against his colleagues, He denied having seen a sexual penetration. "Which leaves one to wonder why he had taken all the pain to come to medinah from iraq!was it not to testify alongside his colleagues against mughirah? Something clearly was not right here. Ziyad was altering his testimony in the light of a new circumstance. In any case,he admitted to seeing a Disgusting affair and a disgusting scene apparently involving al-mughirah and the accused woman,which involved "an evil assembly" of both persons.

10-umar-the judge- became joyous,thanking Allah,and ordered Abu bakrah and his colleagues to be flogged for allegedly lying against al-mughirah

11-after the lashing Abu bakrah stood up, and re-testified to al-mughirah-s adultery-despite the clear dangers

12-umar intended to re-lash him but Ali,as usual,saved Abu bakrah with is wisdom and knowledge

To umar,this was a fair,impartial hearing!


An interesting side to this discussion is the Umar actually did not ordinarily seem to place much value on the Quranic requirement for four witnesses in the case of adultery. For instance,he convicted a woman simply for having only six-month pregnancy! He never asked for any four witnesses, and never requested testimony from anyone!
However, when his close friend was involved, he became extraordinarily strict with the required, and displayed brutal bias in favor of the accused(but in confabulation and genuflection) throughout the proceedings.

The testimony of ziyad itself embarrassingly reveals the direct influence of umars intimidation over the former. AL-Hafiz ibn hajar al-asqalani explains the circumstances of al-mughirah's alledged adultery

the story of al-mughirah has been transmitted THROUGH SEVERAL CHAINS. Its summary is that al-mughirah b.shubah was the governor of basra for Umar. Abu Bakrah,accused him of adultery. He(abu bakrah) is a well know sahabi. There was shibl b.ma'bad b. Utaybah b. Al-harith al-bajali, and was considered to be among those sahabah who witnessed both the jahilliyyah and the prophetic era. There was nafi b. Harith b. Kildah al- thaqafi.who is counted among the sahaba. Finally there was ziyad b.ubayd- and was abu bakrah's brother from their grandmother, they all had gathered together and seen al-mughirah in a secret affair with a woman called al-Riqtah umm jamil bint Amr-afqam al-hilaliyyah--fath al-bari sharhg sahih al-bukhari (beirut :dar al-ma'rifah li al-taba'ah wa al-Nashr; 2nd edition) vol5p187

Continuation
the consequences

Having narrated and stated what there is to narrate and state in the above,let's take a look at the consequences of these report

First it is worthy to understand that---Abi bakrah,shibl and nafl b al-harith were SAHABAH. Abu bakrak was a particular was a prominent sahabi, whose ahadith are documented in the tow sahihs,and in all authoritative sunni books, IN ABUNDANCE. And of special interest is the fact that abu bakrah was the main complainant against al-mughurah, and never REPENTED. After being lashed by umar,he still reiterated his claim that al-mughirah was an adulterer

Let's take a look at Allamah al-albani report in this regard

----We got to Umar,may Allah be pleased with him,and abu bakrah testified, as well as Nafi and shibl b. Ma'bad. When Ziyad was called, he said "I saw a disgusting act. Therefore Umar said Allah Akbat, and thereby summoned abu bakrah and his two companions and beat them. So,Abu bakrah said,that is, after he had been punished " I SWEAR BY ALLAH, I am saying the truth. He(mughirah) did what we have testified against him therefore umar intended to beat him(again) but Ali said, "if you beat this one,then you must stone that one(al-mughirah--irwa al-Ghalil fi takhrij Ahadith manar al-sabil(beirut: al-maktab al-islami;2nd edition,1405H)vol.8p.29#2361

By all accounts therefore, all the hadiths by abu bakrah must be thrown away by the ahl al-sunnah wa al-jama'ah as fairytales of a "lair". It is the order of Allah,as long as he is believed to have failed to prove his charge against al-mughirah, this is where the great dilemma hides for the sunni brothers.

Allah has stated:

Those who accuse chaste women, and do not produce four witnesses, flog them with eigthy stripes, and reject their testimony FOREVER, THEY INDEED ARE THE LIARS,EXCEPT THOSE WHO REPENT thereafter and make corrections. Verily Allah is oft-Forgiving, most merciful-Qur'an 24:4

He also proclaims

Why do they not produce four witnesses? Since they have not produced the witnesses, they in the sight of Allah,they are the liars-qu'ran24:13

Everything therefore boils down to this insoluble maze for our brothers

PARTI
1. Any one who accuses another of adultery must present four witnesses

2. If he is unable to do so, then he must be whipped by the authorities

3. He must be asked to repent. If he does, his future testimonies are accepted

4. If he refuses, then he becomes a liar in the sight of Allah, and his testimonies must be rejected till the hour.

PARTII
[b]1. Abu bakrah accused al-mughirah, Umar's close friend and governor over basra, of adultery, and presented four eye-witnesses(including himself)

2. All four witness came all the way from iraq to modern-day saudi Arabia to testify against al-mughirah in a case of adultery.

3. However Umar enticed and intimidated the fourth of them, just ad he was about to give his testimony. He(4th witness) thereby "recoiled" and made ambiguous,ambivalent statements instead ""I saw a disgusting affair""

4. So the case of mughirah failed due to the 4th witness's action

5. Abu bakrah and the other two witnesses were whipped by umar. They were thereafter asked to repent so that their future testimonies became accepted, the other two repentde(Most probably from pressure), while abu bakrah SWORE BY ALLAH that he was truthful in his testimony against al-Mughirah. He preferred to be branded "a lair" by the state, and that his future testimonies be rejected, rather than to falsify what he KNEW to be the truth

6. Abu bakrah also believed that Ziyad (his maternal brother), who "recoiled", had wronged him terribly. So , he stopped speaking with to him from that moment till his death![/b]

Part III

1.whoever believed that abu bakrah was wrong in his testimony must also accept that he was "a liar" in the sight of Allah, due to his refusal to repent. The Quran is very explicit in this regard, and gives no exception. As a result, such a person must reject all of abu bakrah's ahadith

2. However, the Ahl al-sunnah consider Abu Bakrah to be perfectly trustworthy in everything he said, before and after the incident!


3. So it can either be resolved in this sense--either Umar treates Abu bakrah unjustly and hence was bias in is judgment which ultimately blights his capacity as the caliph of the muslim ummah and definitely depicts him as an unjust caliph

Or that abu bakrah was truly a liar in the sight of Allah. And there is no third option

So our sunni brother can't eat our cake and have it back. They can only do one of the two.

Nevertheless let's leave the issue for our esteemed readers to judge. Hoping they do so intellectually and logically without an iota of emotional inclination