Blackfire:



well i ve seen a gigalo and a sugar mummy who later got married in ijebu ode last month..

So u dont know is trade by batter arrangee.. I offer u the affulence of my wealth,food,shelther,connections, comfort as a rich catholic woman of 40+ to a poor orphaned guy.
*make i check my boilling water for gas*

lol...we are in computer age now bro.....now show in historic documentations where this sort of agreement was made btw muhammad and khadijah@ bolded...lol...you don't expect me to believe you ijebu ode story do you?

That is khadijah proposing to muhammad thus...I have the money,the riches, I will provide for u all your needs all you need to is be my gigalo"---waiting earnestly

Blackfire:


tear u apart ke? I do worse than that.
Define? Explain? Gigalo? Sugar mummy and sugar son?... Answer.. Poor orphaned muhamed(20+) and rich catholic khadijat (colse to 50) old enough to be his mother.

*u still want more explanation*

lol...amazing...I see you're good at making noise...well

-----see how in-objective (bias) ure,, desperate init?...

1st you reduced 25 to 20+,, and then increase 40 to close to 50....you don't have to make it seem like khadijah was 49 and muhammad 21 to earn your grades bruh

"Rich" khadijah and "poor" muhammad fell in LOVE,, GOT MARRIED and lived happily ever after.."You call that a sugar mummy gigalo thing?

What kind of sugar mummy gigalo relation lasts for ever bruh?

---does sugar "mummyrism" end in marriage.?..my dear friend isn't it a "no strings attached thing",?....

Blackfire:



your stu-pidity needs constant beating to be recharged... Oponu.

So all i ve been saying your camel piss brain didnt see a poor 20+ guy banging a rich 40+ catholic woman as gigalo and sugar mummy things.

lol...this one you want to tear me apart....its just a simple question....define sugar mummy and then explain how getting MARRIED to an older woman is a sugar mummy gigalo thing?

Blackfire:



throwing insult already.

So a poor 20+ fulani herdsman was upgraded to a sales boy by a rich 40+ years old woman... Who sent him outside the country(arabia to syria) to buy goods for her...
Nice house, servants and slaves at his beckon, steady food, properties, connection of the sugar mummy,and so on *winks*

*are u now getting the meaning of sugar mummy?*

lol....please explain what a sugar mummy is first and then show us how khadijah was prophet muhammad's sugar mummy...enough of this dumb acrobatics already.

9jacrip:



If you think the early Yoruba thought the earth was flat then I shake my head for you.

You know a lot about a foreign belief but not even the geographic progress of your own ethnic group (if you're Yoruba).

Arabs abandoned their beliefs; was Muhammed not an Arab or he came from Mars? Maybe to you, Islam started from heaven but the ethnicity of the person who started it here on earth remains Arab; deal with that.

Maybe your forefathers and grandfathers were without knowledge, my own forefathers were with knowledge independently developed and did not have to wait on a foreign belief before developing knowledge, thank you.

lol..maybe our yoruba ancestors never believed the earth was flat but certainly the never knew that our universe was expanding and never knew a lot of fact we know today takes to the white man "pardon me if you may"

Actually I was only tryna show by virtue of the instances that our forefather cannot be correct all the time and had a lot of fallacious believes which became cripple in the face of a "bigger" truth---just take for instance our believe of the "dada" peculiar to yoruba's and igala's--our believe of twins--calabar,, and our views of the albino in other african culture--and also how our forefathers feel when there wives gives birth to a female child---thanks to a superior logic all this backward logics have been defeated

The original culture and believe of the people of arab just like our yoruba ancestors was paganism and muhammad brought islam not just for the arabs for the whole of man-kind---so it is actually not correct to term islam the arab man's culture or religion

The ignorance in the last part was a relative term bro,, take for instance how our forefather treat ailments and diseases and how they had to appease all the Gods for malaria--well in the face of modern medicine all these have died and we don't have to check some cowries to know our problems

Just like the ancients believed in the thor ---the God of thunder--well now thor is dead and we know how thunder came(superior knowledge) also how greece believed in saturn the god of agriculture well saturn is no more and we have a better knowledge of agriculture---the yoruba too has some believes peculiar to these---such as songo And the likes

9jacrip:


Does the Quran, Bible and Torah not have the same story about the Satan's revolt in heaven?

If not then I apologize.

you don't have to apologize..you just have to be cocksure of whatever you say not just give make a statement without proof to back it up

The quran and muslim to consider God and satan to be two side of the same coin....and never considered satan to be as powerful as God's weakest angel not to talk of being so powerful that he could lead a rebellion against God---the AL-MIGHY"-----tryna read the koranic verse concerning this topic--i promise you will never regret doing so

9jacrip:



You just lost me with the emboldened.

You actually think Arab's belief system is superior to that of your own forefathers? Wow!

And you belief the ways of the forefathers who were able to follow a system that sustained every Yoruba before Arab & European is irrelevant?

No surprises there bro, it is normal when foreign stuff are adopted.

There's no way you can adopt a religion and retain your culture, never. You woul be at conflict with your own culture through and through.

Food is an almost irrelevant example but riddle me this, if your ancestry were Ogun adherents would you partcipate in Ogun worship and eat dogs?

If, say, the Odu Ifa that founded & sustains your ancestry required offering pigs to Ifa at intervals and eating it, would you?

Apart from general Yoruba culture, each family compound has its. So those are possible examples of food.

I honestly got lost for words and find it difficult to put my thoughts together when I saw 'superior' and 'irrelevant' in reference to Yoruba in your posts; I became heart broken and discombobulated.

All I can say is 'wow'.

lol...you must be a comedian...please do endeavor to get your facts right before making claims

Will be brief as possible almost outta ba3

1-is the arabs also abandoned their belief system in the face of a superior one ISLAM

2-discarding unwanted and fallacious believes as always been the way of a thinking man..that is why he keeps making research to uncover more truths and not just base his believes on hearsay or the forefather syndrome

Take for instance--if we apply this your forfather syndrome--we will still believe the earth is flat as stated by aristotle--or that the universe doesn't expand--einstein------hence basing our judgments and believe "empty headedly" on what our fore-father have say

Urs is the case of a man whom the quran describes as "one who follows the ways of his forefather even though they were without guidance or knowledge"

9jacrip:


Alright.

I'm not a muslim.

...but, isn't it in the quran also that Satan was Allah's creation and angel who decided to equal Allah but was defeated and casted to earth and rocing around to get people to perish with him?

Logic: you created something you could not control or kill then defided to cast it out.

where?@ bolded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.?

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

@ 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

.

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

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

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?

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

Newnas:
You keep diving deeper and deeper into your misguidance!

I don't have time to waste with deviants like you again.

May Allah make it easy for you to repent before death catches up with you!!!

you have the option to either make positive and intellectual contributions or continue the rigmarole

Amin---May Allah make it easy for all of us to repent before death catches up with us anyways

lexiconkabir:


Dont drift into something else....your initial argument is...the most knowledgeable should be the khalifa....stick to that sir!

I'm not drifting sir but you apparently didn't read a lot into the article....a major reason why umar should be the most knowledgeable is to enable him "issue correct verdict on all types of religious questions and disputes"...clearly stated in the write-up....and the article showed the wrong verdict umar issued hence questioning and casting a mammoth shadow on the validity of his kalifah


Look something interesting was said by umar when installing abu bakr as caliph----we will follow you because you are our sayyid, and the BEST OF US, and the most beloved of us to the messenger of Allah,(pbuh)-----he wanted to make it clear through it that: WHAT IS ORDAINED IS TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE BEST, and you are the best so we will follow you--shaykh ibn taymiyyah- minhaj al-sunnah al nabawiyyah (muasassat Qurtubah;1st edition ,1406H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad rashad salim], vol 8p565

It the case of best lead applies to abu bakr confirmed by umar himself what do you mean when you say otherwise as regards to umar?

lexiconkabir:


A more knowledgeable person was alive in the time of Musa(A.S)...yet Musa was the imam at his time because all prophets are the imams of their ummah.....Talut was made a king by Allah even when a prophet was in existence in his time......

fine..musa wasn't the most knowledgeable of his time...an important question is...does musa give a wrong verdict pertaining Allah's creed?....how is that and excuse for umar who gives a wrong verdict and doesn't even have enough knowledge about the teachings of the koran sunnah as is evident in the above chapter and will be shown in subsequent chapters

Another question about musa not being the most knowledgeable is...were these things that musa was ignorant about things that were revealed to him or things that weren't...was he ignorant because he was lazy or because he wasn't shown?

Compare this with umar...umar had the teachings of the koran and the hadith at his disposal and could have educated himself in-depth about it in such a way that he becomes well versed..

Another point is umar was even thought these things by the prophet but he seemed as though he wasn't paying attention to the prophet

Newnas:


Abi ooo... And he even claims that it's unanimous!!! So Sick and Sickening!!!

The fact that a person knows something which I don't know doesn't make me a stark ignorant. Isn't it only Allah that knows everything?!

Even Musa alyhissolaat wassalaam traveled till he complained of tiredness just because he wanted to get some knowledge from a person who was less knowledgeable than Musa.

And the Messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam even reported narration from tameem bn Auws in Soheeh Muslim.

May Allah protect us from evil creeds.

"you will not ask me about ANY verse in the Book of Allah,or about Any sunnah from the messenger of Allah,except that I will inform you about it(by imam Ali)--abu al-fida ismail b. Umar b. Kathir al qurshi al-Dimashqi, tafsir al-qur'an al-Azim (dar al-taybah li al-nashr wa al-tawzi 2nd edition 1420H) [annotator : sami muhammad salamah] vol7p413

Here we have some1 proclaiming his knowledge of every verse of the koran and any sunnah of the prophet-----and on the other hand we have umar who either forgets the sunnah of the prophet or prefers his own incorrect verdicts to that of the prophet and certainly doesn't have full knowledge of the koran and hadith

Between these groups of people who is more fit to sail the muslim ummah to the promise land?

Does musa give wrong verdicts when asked questions pertaining to Allah creed??

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

o dear!! Meaning any body can be khalifa and just any body can occupy the office of the prophet

Hence resulting in innovations such as is seen above,,what qualifies a man as khalifah if not his unparalleled knowledge,,why will an ignorant fellow rule over the muslim,,isn't islam a religion based on knowledge?.should we follow some1 who follow his whims and caprice instead of judging according to the koran and sunnah of the prophet? ....the holy koran answers

ask does who know about the heavenly books if you do not know-16vs43-----imagine installing an ignorant person as a kaliph(similar to letting some1 who doesn't know the koran lead the prayer) and some1 comes to ask him a question and due to his stark ignorance he gives a wrong verdict just like umar as done------this leads to mockery of the good work of the prophet and instead of taking his followers to the promise land he drives them into a state of confusion.

How will such a person even deal with the non-muslims to when involve him in a debate or dialogue?---he is the leader of the muslims and they will judge the muslims behavior and character with how he behaves..if such a person is ignorant will you blame the non-muslims for tagging the entire muslims as ignorant lots----"as is always said---to whom much is given much is expected

The koran also states in surat az-zumar--are those who know like does who don't know?

I don't think it is in anyway correct for an ignorant person to rule over the muslim community, I don't think it is correct in any community either

Bismillah-ir rahman-ir rahim
The khalifah of muslims has is unanimously agreed is their supreme judge on every aspect of religion,like the Messenger of Allah. As such, Muslims are required to refer all their religious problems and disputes to him for judgment, and his verdicts are binding over them

This function necessitates that the khalifah be the most knowledgeable of the ummah throughout his administration. Otherwise, he would be unfit for this grand office. Issuing correct religions verdicts on all types of religious questions and disputes, from all calibres of persons. Certainly requires unparalleled knowledge and wisdom

This article address some aspect of khalifah umar b. Al-khattab verdicts on religious issues to see how fit and knowledgeable he is for this grand office

It is left to readers to reach this conclusion by virtue of their own judgment and ability to discerns the truth and to avoid the shackles of compromise

As you read remember that the Mind is like a parachute, it works best when open

chapter1
whosoever does NOT give rulings,verdicts,judgements,or commands based upon what Allah has revealed,SUCH ARE THE INFEDELS-qur'an5:44

During his(umar) rule, a man came to Him with his personal religious problem. Imam muslim records what ensued
A man came to 'umar and said: "I have seminal discharges and I cannot find water (to do the ghusl)". He ('umar) said, "DO NOT PERFORM SALAH." so 'Ammar said "do you remember, O amir al-muminin,when I and you were in a military detachment and we had seminal discharges and could not find water and you(umar) did not perform salat. As for me, I rolled myself in dust and performed the salat .so the prophet(phub) said, "it was enough for you to strike the soil with your hands and then blow and then wipe your face and palms"
umar said: "fear Allah, O ammar! Therefore, he (ammar) replied "if you so like,I would not narrate it"-sahih muslim (beirut:dar ihya al-turath al-arabi)-vol1p280,#112

There exists some really interesting facts in this narration that needs dissection

1. Umar and ammar were both together in a militart detactment, & they had seminal discharges
2. Ammar rolled himself in the soil in order to cleanse himself for salat,due to lack of water. He had no devine guidance for the act
3. Umar refrained from offering any salat as long as he could not find water
4. Both recounted their experiences to the messenger of Allah(pbuh) who taught them tayammum as the correct step should they encounter a similar situation
5. During Umar's rule, a man came to him with the same problem that he personally had experienced. But rather than offer to him the solution of tayammus as taught by the prophet, 'umar instructed the man with his own initial wrong step!
6. Ammar attempted to remind 'umar of the sunnah in such situation. But, the later simply did not want
to hear about it!

There are a number of questions here. first and foremost, did umar deliberately reject the sunnah or not? this depends upon whether he actually remembered the scenario involving him and ammar. If he did, and still gave the ruling that he gave, then he would have been contemptuous of the sunnah. Moreover, even if he had completely forgotten it, why did he not act on Ammar's reminder? From the look of it, he was not convinced by Amamar's narration. He most probably had vert serious doubts about the accuracy of ammar's hadith. Therefore , he saw no real reason to alter his decision on the matter

So the best case scenario is that 'Umar had absolutely forgotten then incident of tayammum, which involved him personally and directly. In addition, when Ammar attempted to revive his memory of the event, he had grave trust issues on the latter's report. Therefore, he did not remember, and there was no other reliable source to bring back his memories of the incident
The worst-case scenario is umar actually remember the hadith, or was at least reminded of it by Ammar. Yet he thought that his personal solution to the issue before him outweighed the sunnah of the messenger of Allah. As such, he was in contempt of Muhammad and his teachings

Going with the best-case scenario. 'Umar had completely forgotten and was not successfully reminded. This fact cast a mammoth shadow of doubt over umar's memory power. Since he forget the incident of tayammum so completely and absolutely,it is extremely uncertain that he was able to remember many- if not most- other teachings of the prophet that were necessary in his discharge of his day-to-day judicial functions. The end result is that he lacked the requisite scholarly prowess for the office. Since the natural product of absolutely forgetting anything is complete ignorance of it

Another problem that arises is why did umar issue a ruling In the shari'ah with his personal opinion,is ignorance an excuse for adoption of personal opinions In the Laws of Allah? The Qur'an answers

whosoever does Not give rulings,verdicts,judgment,or commands based upon what Allah has revealed, SUCH ARE THE INFEDEL/UNBELIEVERS

Hence,giving a ruling by personal opinion amounts to kufr according to Allah. Why did umar take such an extreme risk? He should simply remain silent, or sought the advice of superior jurists .cause his person opinion was very wrong step which saves neither him, nor the man who came to him for judgment

Perhaps,the most disturbing part is that the ruling of tayammum is explicitly stated at two different places in the Qur'an

And if you are ill, or on a journey, or one of you comes after answering the call to nature, or you have had sexual intercourse with womenand you cannot find water,perform tayammum with clean soiland rub therewith your faces and hands-quran4:43 and 5:6

It is apparent. Despite the double presence of the
ruling of tayammum in the qur'an
'umar did NOT know it. Which raises a BLOOD-RED flag on umar's knowledge of the Book of Allah. Obviously, he is not a hafiz of the Qur'an. Secondly, his knowledge of its verses,and of al-fiqh, must be very deficient and cannot be trusted ,AS TAYAMMUM IS ONLY ONE OF THE BEGINNER'S COURSES IN ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE

So having read this without sentiment what is your judgment about umar fitness for the position of khalifah

frankg1:

7 tennis balls are identical in every way,
except that one of them weighs slightly less
than the other 6. How can you identify the
lightweight ball with no more than two
separate weighings using a balance scale?

place 3 balls each on each sides of the balance scale ...if the balance scale is in equilibrium then uve gotten the odd ball

But if this is not the case I.e the weighing balance tilts then the lighter should be on the side that tilts upwards...now you take ur second weighing placing one ball each (from the 3 lyter part) on the weighing scale..again if the scale is in equilibrium den the 3rd ball is your lighter ball but if it is not then the side that tilts upwards is ur lighter ball..

seems you've skipped something in the verse you quoted

Muhammad (SAW) is the Messenger of Allah, and
those who are with him are severe against
disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You
see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in
prayer), seeking Bounty from Allah and (His) Good
Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their Faith) is on
their faces (foreheads) from the traces of (their)
prostration (during prayers). This is their
description in the Taurat (Torah). But their
description in the Injeel (Gospel) is like a (sown)
seed which sends forth its shoot, then makes it
strong, it then becomes thick, and it stands straight
on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may
enrage the disbelievers with them. Allah has
promised those among them who believe (i.e. all
those who follow Islamic Monotheism, the religion
of Prophet Muhammad SAW till the Day of
Resurrection) and do righteous good deeds,
forgiveness and a mighty reward (i.e. Paradise).
48:29

Does the bolded show that some of the companions didn't believe in the prophet as it said "those among them who believe" or those it mean who you have bracketed ?

Let see what the koran says about some companions

[Quran 2:8-15] Then there are those who say, "We
believe in God and the Last Day," while they are not
believers. In trying to deceive God and those who
believe, they only deceive themselves without
perceiving. In their minds there is a disease.
Consequently, God augments their disease. They
have incurred a painful retribution for their lying.
When they are told, "Do not commit evil," they say,
"But we are righteous!" In fact, they are evildoers, but they do not perceive. When they are told, "Believe like the people who believed," they say, "Shall we believe like the fools who believed?" In fact, it is they who are fools, but they do not know. [/b]When they meet the believers, they say, "We believe," but when alone with their devils, they say, "We are with you; we were only mocking. "God mocks them, and leads them on in their transgressions, blundering.

Has this verse just signified that some of the companions had traces of hypocrisy?

Looking at the koran again

[Quran 4:141] [b]They watch you and wait; if you attain victory from God, they say (to you), "Were we not with you?" But if the disbelievers get a turn, they say (to them), "Did we not side with you, and protect you from the believers?" God will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection. God will never permit the disbelievers to prevail over the believers.

[Quran 48:11] The sedentary Aarabs who stay behind will say, "We have been preoccupied with our money and our families, so ask forgiveness for us!" They utter with their tongues what is not in their hearts. Say, "Who can protect you from God, if He willed any adversity for you, or if He willed any blessing for you?" God is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

[Quran 9:101] Among the Aarabs around you, there
are hypocrites. Also, among the city dwellers, there
are those who are accustomed to hypocrisy. You do
not know them, but we know them. We will double
the retribution for them, then they end up committed to a terrible retribution.

so do these show that some companions where hypocritical or do they mean something else?

lexiconkabir:
Demmzy15 debating with Annunaki is a big waste of time, he knows nothing hence he made the discussion a dull one. if you debate with a foolish ignoramus person, dont expect that you'll win.

true talk....that's exactly want happens when you start a debate with such people they keep beating about the bush without making any significant point

See him shouting al-taqiyya since,,and when they ask for proves he said "asking for prove is like asking who the president of nigeria is" lol..what sought of intellectual does this

Indeed barking dogs,seldom bite