₦airaland Forum

AlBaqir:
Alhamdulillah that you don't have issue with the sahih narration in Musnad Ahmad. So we can limit ourselves to that. @bold^ please say it again.

Obviously you agreed Umar RETURNED BACK AFTER BEING DEFEATED. That sealed the argument. Umar returned home defeated. Who defeated Umar, the great? So where's that so called strength of Umar... his sagacity...and fanciful talk that enemies used to run away for him?

AlBaqir:
Heya such is the mindset of "Muslim" but never Believers who will laid down their lives in Jihad. You missed something in respect to that coward statement of yours. The Sahih Hadith of Ahmad says:

"Therefore, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, "I will tomorrow give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger love him too. He will not return unless he has achieved victory. So, we became absolutely certain that victory would be achieved the next day."

So you see say level pass level.

AlBaqir:
# Who designed the strategy, first for Abu Bakr, and second for Umar's unit; and they both successively failed and returned back defeated? Prophet or Abu Bakr or Umar? This is a sincere question you need to ask yourselves.

If it was the Prophet, obviously the failure failure can never be attributed to his grand divine design. And absolutely there is no way any troop will under the command of the Prophet without dispatching them with that divine strategy and Du'a. So what happened, Alfa Sino?

Imam Muslim gave a detailed narrations of Ali's conqueror of Khaybar. There was a fearless warrior at the castle called Marhab. He challenges with Duel fight. Duel battles, being the custom of the Arabs. Imam Muslim reported how Ali was challenged by Marhab for a duel fight. Ali responded and finished Marhab. The rest was history. Obviously, our dear Abu Bakr and Umar must have been challenged by Marhab for duel fight and RETURNED DEFEATED.

Indeed "believers are only those...who do Jihad with their wealth and their lives..."[Quran says].

AlBaqir:
Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) never mistaken in his decisions. Appointing Abu Bakr and Umar showed how he threw the opportunity open to show case their faith, valor, sagacity and bravery. So, after the two Sheiks had failed woefully, there is no point sending warrior below them in status. Thereby, prophet this time confirmed the status of a man he will send next. Prophet said that man will not turns back until he achieve victory {obviously, he never runs}. Even all the Sahabah that reported this agreed with that statement of the Prophet that victory is certain.

AlBaqir:
Oh! My bad! Perhaps my assumption is too much. Alfa Nla Sino, kindly shed light to the following questions:

# What was Umar and his colleagues doing in the garden while the people were at the warfront defending the trench?

# Why does he need to blame and woe Aisha (when she saw them in the garden) so much that she wished the ground open and swallow her? So much is the respect to the wife of the Prophet. Na Shia lo ro go.

# Why did Talhah (after removing his mask) need to fire back at Umar to keep shut that there is no escape today except with Allah?

# On whose authority were they in the garden while the Prophet and the believers were at the warfront?

* Kindly save your theories and answer those questions ( as derived exclusively from ahadith) providing Sahih evidence.

AlBaqir:
# It seems you are hallucinating bro or Na the heat too much. You will need to provide a single evidence on this tread where in reference to battle of Khandaq, that I (Albaqir) ever claimed Umar and his cohorts flee. What I accused them of was hiding in a safe garden

AlBaqir:
# Oh!! Was it because of the weather that made Umar hide in that garden along with his cold-phobia colleagues?


A Look at the Battle of Trench
So much is your knowledge in Islamic history when you try to paint the scenario as if there was cold [bad weather] during the day of the battle. Obviously you are going all out, by any means to defend lies.

* The trench made by the Muslims prevented the allied forces of the disbelievers from entering Madinah. The two army faced each other with a huge trench between them.

* The battle took place in a broad-day light, and the real battle that ever took place was between Imam Ali (alaihim Salam) and Amr ibn Abd Wudd who managed to jumped the trench. Imam Ali cut Amr ibn Abd Wudd down. All Muslims did was preventing the enemies from crossing over the trench.

*After so many trial, the enemies retreated.

Kindly read these 2 long narrations in full (with different piece of info):

Al-Haithami documents:

# Obviously Umar b. al-Khattab was missing in action. Where was he?

# On a more friendly note, kindly provide me with Sahih evidences that Prophet did not pray Dhur and Asr on that day. Looking forward to that.

AlBaqir:
Baba Sino. Alfa Nla. Here we talk ISLAMIC JIHAD. It has rules and regulations. Kindly provide us of one of those rules whereby Prophet said "mask on"?! Such is your intellect comparing riots and "world wars" with Islamic holy Jihad under the banner of His grace, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon him and his progeny).

What were they doing inside the garden with one masking his face? Answer those questions above with sahih evidences.

AlBaqir:
And I express my gratitude with a bold statement that you do not provide a FULL REFERENCE. Besides, have you ever seen the Musnad of al-Bazzar kamilan before? Hardcopy or soft copy? I doubt it. Please prove me wrong by posting the scan pages of the cover page and the exact hadith. I will forever appreciate that. I'm still searching the athar with no success. Bro I doubt you ever verify your posted ahadith. You just copy somewhere. I can provide you in sha Allah with ALL the scan pages of my references.

AlBaqir:
Imam al-Ghazali, Imam Ibn Athir, Imam Sibt al-Jawzi and many others have "accused" Umar b. al-Khattab with more daring words. Why so much care about Albaqir? False accusations are what Islam forbid. Anyway Na your own cup of tea be that.

AlBaqir:
# Did Umar died a Shaeed? Who killed Umar and why? Kindly educate me to relieve me of my fantasy. Aljannah Guaranteed! Ma sha Allah. That's another long debate. Lets finish one before derailing pls.

AlBaqir:
Subhan'Allah! Sino, Umar is very sincere in his confession: "he said: by God, I had never doubted since I embraced Islam except on that day [at Hudaybiyyah]..."

And Quran is crystal clear in its definition of a believer: {The believers are only those who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and do not doubt afterwards...}

Kindly do the Tafsir of that clear verse Alfa Sino. Evidently, more than 10 years with the Prophet of Allah (before Hudaybiyah) yet you doubt the Prophet, his decisions and commands, and that is nothing to you!

Imam Muslim on his Hudaybiyah narrations clearly quote al-Zuhayr who reported Umar saying he had to work "greatly" to emancipate for those doubting silly questions he was asking Rasul. Kindly request for the hadith.

NB: # In fact when it comes to confessions, Umar is sincere: 1. He confessed his Tarawih establishment was a "good BID'AH" yet people like you claimed without proof that he only used the word "BID'AH" in the linguistic sense that he was only establishing Sunnah. Umar exposed this filthy lies of his advocators by saying "The one (nawafil) they pray after awaken from sleep is BETTER than this one they are praying (referring to his 'good Bid'ah).
# At another confession, he revealed the Khilafah of Abu Bakr was a mistake but Allah saved them from its evil. He also revealed Abu Bakr's Khilafah was opposed by Ali and his supporters. Yet you people say with no proof that nothing like that happened.

Here's another one when the great caliph confessed he doubt the Prophet.

AlBaqir:
Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) did gave answers to those insultive questions. Why did Umar need to go and meet Abu Bakr again after Prophet's clarifications and repeat ALL the questions he had asked the Messenger of Allah? Was Abu Bakr's assurance and confirmations more Sahih and heart assuring than that of the Prophet? Kindly use your logic and sense you pride so much of.

AlBaqir:
@underline statement: Now you agree he did doubted the Prophet, and you are looking for evidence if such thing ever repeated itself.



# I refer you to the event of pen and paper that happened few days to the demise of the prophet. Abdullah ibn Abbas tagged it "CALAMITY OF THURSDAY". Umar and his cohorts refused the order of the Prophet. He said: "INDEED! The prophet has been possessed by his illness..." This caused a great uproar leading to some idiots accusing the Prophet of RAVING MADNESS. I have a thread rolling already.

# The expedition of Usama ibn Zaid ibn Harith is another great testimony. This is where the holy Prophet assigned an 18year old Usama as the leader of an Army comprises Abu Bakr, Umar and their cohorts. They refused to go to war with the Romans. This happened while the Prophet was on his sick bed too.

* Indeed! Sino, you get am for logic and sense Gann nnnnnn.

AlBaqir:
# Here again you left a clear verse unread. So lets examine the verse again:

{The believers (al-Mu'minin) are only those who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and do not doubt afterwards, and they do Jihad with their wealth and with their lives, for the cause of Allah. They are the truthful ones."} [surah al-Hujurat:15]

And here's Umar's clear words: "We took oath to the effect that we would not flee, but we did not take oath to death.

Here's your pathetic word:

AlBaqir:
Are you saying Prophet doesn't have strategies Thereby he's sending them on a suicide missions? At Uhud, Prophet strategize his soldiers, they disobeyed him and things fell apart. They fled. He called and called them. They never pay heed. At Hunayn, even despite Prophet's strategies and Muslims outnumbering the pagans, they turned back.

So even if there is a need to retreat and restrategize, whose call is it? Prophet or the runners?

Sino, bring just one sahih evidence whereby the Prophet commanded the Sahabah to retreat. Just one Sahih hadith will do!

Were those who never fled no matter the situation fools?

Empiree:
Yea, Albaqir went too far castigating this man(RA). His argument is very poor. I now see him as taking position of authority to determine who is or who is not mu'min. His ideology definitely go against Quran injunction. Allah already guarantee Janna for these righteous sahaba. Who is albaqir to argue otherwise. Shaking my head for the brother. I still will not reprimand all Shia cus baqir's attitude here. No, I wont.

AlBaqir: 3. BATTLE OF HUNAYN
# Here your bogus claim after admitting that Sahabah ran away, was that UMAR was among those who never fled.

# Then, a claim that 80-100 Sahabah remained with the Prophet [peace be upon him and his progeny] among whom were Abu Bakr and Umar.

First, Quran shed light to this:

"Truly, Allah has helped you on many battlefields, and on the Day of Hunayn when you rejoiced at your great number but it availed you naught and the earth, as vast as it is, was straitened for you. Then you fled away." {surah Tawbah:25}

The statement is general. Therefore everyone fled except whoever there is concrete evidence clearing him.

Here I submitted evidence from your most authenticated and prestigious Sahih al-Bukhari. A Report from Abu Qatadah, a Sahabi, that Umar b. al-Khattab FLED alongside with other Sahabah (including Abu Qatadah himself). Here you are giving desperate tertiary "evidences" that can NEVER be measured along Bukhari's standard in line with Ahl al-Sunnah criteria.

You have two opinions:

1. Declare Bukhari's documentation as False and inaccurate, and your unverified reports will have their ways.

2. Declare those unverified report (that Umar never fled on the day of Hunayn) as false and Bukhari's report will remain stand.

There is no third option except if there is another report that says Umar was among those who first returned back to the Prophet after their initial flight.

NB: You make things difficult if you do not give full reference of hadith you use. This is not the first time you will use Da'if hadith [remember hadith of Ibn Abbas on Mut'ah that I need to show you its daif?].

Lastly, those who reported that there remain with the Prophet 80-100 Sahabah who never fled. Who made the head count in the midst of fierce battle? And are you challenging the "general words" used by Allah that they fled?

Please bear with me. Am trying to attach scan pages of Sahih Ibn Hibban to corroborate scan pix of the Arabic text of Musnad Ahmad but finding it difficult down here-network

AlBaqir:
2. BATTLE OF KHAYBAR
Here you doubt the authenticity of the Sanad (chain) reported by Imam al-Hakim, but NOT the hadith itself which Imam al-Dhahabi confirmed that the hadith is Sahih.

# What about the narration of Imam al-Hindi? No attempt.

# Anyhow, here's another Sanad (chain) by Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal in his Musnad:

Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Zayd b. AlHabib - AlHusayn b. Waqid - Abd Allah b. Buraydah - Abu Buraydah:

We besieged Khaybar. So, Abu Bakr took the flag and went. But, he did not achieve victory. Then, the next day, 'Umar too it (i.e the flag), and went and returned without achieving victory. On that day, the people encountered hardship and fatigue. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, "I will tomorrow give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger love him too. He will not return unless he has achieved victory." So, we became absolutely certain that victory would be achieved the next day.

When it was morning, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, performed the morning Salat. Then he stood and asked that the flag be brought to him. The people were on their lines. So, he summoned 'Ali and he ('Ali) was sore-eyed. Then he spit into his eyes and gave him the flag, and he ('Ali) achieved victory. I was one of those longing for it (i.e the flag).

Shayk al-Arnaut states: It is a sahih hadith, and this chain is strong (qawi) due to Husayn b. Waqid al-Maruzi.
REF: {Source: Musnad Ahmad, vol.5, p. 353, #23043}.

AlBaqir:
# Imam al-Hindi again gave a clearer report:

'Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Layli:

'Ali used to come out in winter wearing light clothes and ...he (Ali) said (to me), "Were you not with us, O Abu Layli, at Khaybar?" I said, "Yes, by Allah, I was with you." He said, "Verily, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, appointed Abu Bakr as commander and he despatched with (some) people. BUT HE (ABU BAKR) FLED until he returned to him (i.e the Prophet). And he appointed UMAR TOO as army commander, and HE (UMAR) TOO FLED with the people (i.e his troops) until he got back to him (i.e the Prophet). So, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, 'I certainly will give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger love him too. Allah will grant him victory. He is not someone who flees. Therefore, he sent for me, and I got to him. I was sore-eyed, and could not see anything. So, he spit into my eye."

Al-Hindi comments: Al-Bazzar recorded it, as well as Ibn Jarir (al-Tabari) WHO DECLARED IT SAHIH

REF: {Kanz al-Ummal fi Sunan al-Aqwal wa Af'al (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 1989), vol.13, p. #36388}

# Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah too documents in his Al-Musannaf, vol.20, pg.446.

AlBaqir:
# As per the first question: Did Umar fled [at the battle of Khandaq]?

I never claimed he fled at Khandaq rather my claim was he (and his cohorts) hide himself in an unknown garden vicinity.

Imam Ahmad documents:

Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Yazid - Muhammad b. Amr - his father - his grandfather 'Alqamah b. Waqqas - Umm al-Mu'minin Aisha:

I went out on the day of al-Khandaq and stood behind the people. So, I heard footsteps coming from behind me. I turned around and saw Sa'd b. Mu'adh, and his nephew al-Harith b. Aws was carrying his armour....Sa'd passed by, singing a battle song....

Then I stood up and entered a garden. There was a small group of Muslims there, and Umar b. al-Khattab was amongst them and there was another man who was wearing a mask. 'Umar said: "What brought you here? I swear by my life and I swear by Allah, you are a reckless woman! What assures you against the occurrence of a disaster or capture?" He kept blaming me so much until I wished that the earth would split open for me so that I could enter into it. Then the (masked) man removed the mask from his face, and he was Talhah b. Ubayd Allah. So he said, "Woe to you, O Umar! You have said too much today! And where is the writhing movement or the flight except to Allah the Almighty?"

REF: {Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shuaib al-Arnaut], vol.6, p.141, #25140}

# Allamah al-Albani has copied the exact same narration in his Sahihah and states:

Imam Ahmad (6/141-142) recorded it from Muhammad b. Amr - his father - Alqamah b. Waqqas - Aisha...

I(Al-Albani) say: This chain is Hasan. Al-Haythami said in Majma al-Zawaid (6/128): "Ahmad recorded it and in the chain is Muhammad b. Amr b. Alqamah, and his hadith is Hasan, and the other narrators in the chain are trustworthy". Al-Hafiz also said in al-Fath (11/43): "And its chain is Hasan"

{Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma'arifah; 1st edition, 1415H), vol.1, p.143-145,#67}

NB: The Arabic text as per your request - see attached pixes from Musnad Ahmad to Sahih Ibn Hibban.

The question is: What was 'Umar and his fellow colleagues doing in a garden, hidden from view, while the Messenger of Allah and other Sahabah were actively in battle against the allied forces of the pagans? The people, as testified by Umm al-Mu'minin Aishah were at the warfront. She was standing behind the fighting soldiers. So, Umar and his small band were completely away from the front, at the back of everyone else. Was it a tactical land ambush by them? But, that was not possible! Firstly, it was a trench war. If anything, 'Umar and his colleagues should be standing with the Prophet at the front - by the trench - preventing the enemies of Allah from successfully crossing over.

Secondly, the messenger did not permit any Sahabi to leave his presence, as reported by the Quran about the battle of Khandaq:

"And when a party of them said: O people of Yasrib! there is no place to stand for you (here), therefore go back; and a party of them asked permission of the prophet, saying. Surely our houses are exposed; and they were not exposed; they only desired to fly away.

And if an entry were made upon them from the outlying parts of it, then they were asked to wage war, they would certainly have done it, and they would not have stayed in it but a little while.

And certainly they had made a covenant with Allah before, that) they would not turn (their) backs; and Allah's covenant shall be inquired of.

Say: Flight shall not do you any good if you fly from death or slaughter, and in that case you will not be allowed to enjoy yourselves but a little. {surah Ahzab:13-16}

The verses confirm that the enemy never breached the boarders of Madinah. They further established that the homes of the people of the city were safe. Of course, it was the battle of the Trench (Khandaq). All the fighting was supposed to be done at the trench, not within the boundaries of Madinah.

Lastly, there is ZERO evidence of any deployment of anyone by the Prophet, during the battle, to mount any ambush in any garden in the city.

As such, the presence of Umar and his colleagues in a safe garden had absolutely no military value or legitimacy. Moreover, one of them was masking his face to conceal his identity.

AlBaqir:
@ Sino,
First Issue
# As per the Arabic text and full reference of the hadith I requested for, thanks though you cannot provide the full reference. The Arabic text and its sanad should help in locating and verifying the athar. However, the hadith only talks about Abu Bakr's feat at Badr, not Umar which is the primary discussion of this thread. In sha Allah after investigating the athar, I will make my final remarks on it and other evidences pertaining to Battle of Badr. So watch out.

AlBaqir:
Other Battles
# Now you've raised serious objections on the following:

1. BATTLE OF KHANDAQ
* Your objections were: (i) Did Umar fled? (ii) Did he (Umar) died a Muslim?

As per the second question, though it is irrelevant to this topic. All the same, I have answered you once that obviously Umar died a Muslim because there is no even fabricated athar that he renounced the Shahadat. What we question is his being a true believer (Mu'min) as Quran says:

"The believers (al-Mu'minin) are only those who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and do not doubt afterwards, and they do Jihad with their wealth and with their lives, fir the cause of Allah. They are the truthful ones." {surah al-Hujurat:15}

Incidentally this Ayah was revealed after the treaty of al- Hudaybiyah and here's is an account of Umar's doubt:

# Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354H):

Narrated from Miswar Ibn Mekhrama and Marwan who both said: "...Umar said: by God, I had never doubted since I embraced Islam except on that day [at Hudaybiyyah], so I went to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: 'Aren't you truly the Apostle of Allah?' The Prophet said, 'Yes, indeed!'. I said, 'Isn't our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'I am Allah's Apostle and I do not disobey Him, and He is my Helper.' I said, 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka`ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it?'`Umar further said, "I went to Aboo Bakr and said, 'O Abu Bakr! Isn't he truly Allah's Prophet?' He replied, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'Indeed, he is Allah's Apostle and he does not disobey his Lord, and He is his Helper...

Allamah al-Albani comments: Sahih

Sheik al-Arnaut also concur: It is sahih hadith

Source: Sahih Ibn Hibban bi Tartib Ibn Balban (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 2nd edition, 1414H)[annotators: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani and Shu'ayb al-Arnaut], Vol. 11, Pg. 216, #4872.

* Imam Bukhari and Muslim also document this hadith [or its similarities] in their sahihs.

# As per the verse ["...and they do jihad with their wealth and with their lives, for the cause of Allah...]

Imam Muslim records:

Qutaibah Ibn Sa'id - Layth b. Sa'd and Muhammad b. Romh - AlLayth - Abi Zubair - Jabir who said:

We were one thousand and four hundred on the Day of Hudaybiyah. We paid allegiance to him (the Prophet) and 'Umar was holding the latter's hand (when he was sitting) under the tree (called) Samura (to administer the oath to the companions). He said: We took oath to the effect that we would not flee, but we did not take oath to death.
{Sahih Muslim vol.2, p.#900}

Obviously all the ahadith of his merits can never stand the test of scrutiny as there are other ahadith (about him) that contradict those merits. So he died a Muslim.

AlBaqir: Imam al-Bukhari documents:

AlLayth - Yahya b. Sa'id - Umar b. Kathir b. Aflah - Abu Muhammad, freed slave of Abu Qatadah - Abu Qatadah:

On the day of Hunayn, I saw a Muslim fighting with one of the pagans and another pagan was hiding himself behind the Muslim in order to kill him. So I hurried towards the pagan who was hiding behind the Muslim to kill him, and he raised his hand to hit me but I hit his hand and cut it off. That man got hold of me and pressed me so hard that I was afraid, then I knelt down and his grip became loose and I pushed him and killed him. The Muslims fled, and I too fled with them. Suddenly, I met 'Umar b. al-Khattab amongst the people and I asked him, "What is wrong with the people?" He said, "It is the command of Allah." Then the people returned to the Messenger of Allah.

Source: Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407H)[annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol.4, p.1570, #4067.

Here Umar did not only fled with people but also claimed the fleeing was Allah's command.

Allah's command is explicit in His book:

"O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve, in a battlefield, never flee from them. And whoever flees away on such a day - unless it be a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop, - he indeed has drawn upon himself wrath from Allah. And his abode is Hellfire, and worse indeed is that destination. {Surah Anfal: 15-16}.

We say: There is an agreement that a group of companions remained with the Prophet (saw) and they did not flee. In a tradition narrated by Tirmidhi (1689) –Ibn Hajar said it is Hasan and Al-Albani considered it Sahih – through Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that less than hundred people remained with the Prophet (saw) during Hunain. Hence, as long as there is a possibility that a companion could be among those who were steady with the Prophet (saw) one must abstain from speculating that such and such person fled from the battlefield. If Allah wanted to character-assassin someone He would have done so by taking names but rather He forgave them. We know from the above narration that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were steady in the battlefield, but even those who are not mentioned should not be accused directly of fleeing unless if there is a proof that so and so person left the battlefield. This is the best and safe methodology based on Qur’anic principles.

Also, it is to be mentioned that after fleeing from the battlefield they returned back to the Prophet (saw). Hence, they were forgiven by Allah.

Another thing is that they did not flee because they were coward. Qur’an never calls them coward. If they were coward then how come they came to face the enemy who was larger in number? Even when they left away they returned back again to fight with the enemy. A coward never endangers his life for someone else. We know the cases of hypocrites who would leave the army before entering the battlefield or rather give excuses to not join the battle. The Hunain incident was in when the army of Hawazin all of a sudden started shooting arrows, so the Muslims were shattered and dispersed to save their life leaving aside the Messenger of Allah(saw). This no doubt was a sin but Allah had forgiven them and they again went for Tabuk to fight for the cause of Allah.

AlBaqir:
Umar ibn al-Khattab himself explained the purpose of this bay'ah:

Imam Muslim records:

Qutaibah Ibn Sa'id - Layth b. Sa'd and Muhammad b. Romh - AlLayth - Abi Zubair - Jabir who said:

We were one thousand and four hundred on the Day of Hudaybiyah. We paid allegiance to him (the Prophet) and 'Umar was holding the latter's hand (when he was sitting) under the tree (called) Samura (to administer the oath to the companions). He said: We took oath to the effect that we would not flee, but we did not take oath to death.
{Sahih Muslim vol.2, p.#900}

So Mr Sino, what happened to our dear great Umar ibn al-Khattab after the Bay'ah:

# At Khandaq (Ahzab), he hide himself. Umm Mu'minin Aisha exposed him and his cohorts

# At Khaybar, he ran away. Soldiers attached to him called him coward

# At Hunayn, he ran away claiming its Allah's command

Allah's command is clear for runners (after forgiven them once):

"O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve, in a battlefield, never flee from them. And whoever flees away on such a day - unless it be a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop, - he indeed has drawn upon himself wrath from Allah. And his abode is Hellfire, and worse indeed is that destination. {Surah Anfal: 15-16}.

Sino, you can only clear Umar ibn al-khattab of these repeated great crime of running away by citing Sahih ahadith that his running away and hiding away from battlefield were all strategies or retreat to a troop, as Quran declare. If you cannot do this, all your ranting are nothing but filthy talk. Umar broke his Bay'a to Allah and His Prophet.

AlBaqir: # Imam al-Hakim with the attestation of al-Dhahabi documents:

Narrated Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahboobi in Marw, from Sa'eed Ibn Masoud from Ubaidallah Ibn Musa from No'am Ibn Hakim from Abi Musa al-Hanafi from Ali who said:

The Messenger of Allah went out to Khaybar, when he reached it he sent Umar and a group of people with him to their town or their castle to fight them, but they could not do anything, and Umar with his companions escaped and came back to the Prophet, peace be upon him, his companions were saying that Umar is a coward and he was saying that his companions are cowards and then the Prophet said that famous Hadith. (*)

Al-Hakim: The chain of this narration is authentic, but they (i.e Bukhari and Muslim) have not narrated it.

(*) It is known as The Hadith of Flag.

Footnote: Al-Dhahabi says in Al-Talkhees: It is Sahih [authentic].

Source: Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihain, vol.3, pg.#40

Here is the chain for the above report:

Abū al-‘Abbās Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Maḥbūbī – Sa’īd b. Mas’ūd – ‘Ubayd Allāh b. Mūsā – Na’īm b. Ḥakīm – Abū Mūsā al-Ḥanafī – ‘Alī

1. The narration is not authentically transmitted rather it is weak. The narrator Abu Musa al-Hanafi is probably a mistake by a scribe or a misprint otherwise this narrator is unknown. Actual narrator is Abu Maryam. He is Abu Maryam Ah-Thaqafi al-Mada’ini not the one who is called Al-Hanafi. Another narrator is Abu Maryam al-Hanafi al-Kufi whose name was Iyas bin Sabih and he was a Qadhi of Basrah and narrated from ‘Umar. Abu Maryam Ath-Thaqafi was Majhool(anonymous) as per the statement of Ad-Daarqutni. Even though An-Nasai declared a person Abu Maryam Qais al-Hanafi to be Thiqah but according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar it was his mistake when he named him Qais. An-Nasai intended Abu Maryam al-Kufi but mistakenly named him Qais. In the hadith the narrator from Abu Maryam is Nu’aym bin Hakeem an inhabitant of Mada’in. Therefore it is easy to identify his teacher as Abu Maryam al-Mada’ini Ath-Thaqafi. The narration in “Al-Mustadrak” named him as Abu Maryam al-Hanafi however that is most probably from some of the transmitters as Iyas bin Sabeeh was well famous while the teacher of Nu’aim bin Hakeem was hardly known. Refer to Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb by Hafiz bin Hajar al-‘Asqalani.

2. Shia translated the verb[b] “Ha za ma” [/b]as[b] “escape”[/b] which is not accurate. Rather it should be translated as[b] “to defeat”[/b] and in sigha of Majhool as “to be defeated”. Hence the meaning given in the narration is that they were defeated. They did fight but could not conquer Khayber and lost the fight.

3. If ‘Umar was such a coward then why the Prophet(saw) sent him as an Ameer in expedition towards Najd few months after Khayber?

4. We see that the narrators were very much frank in narrating about any incident they come to know. Hence, we see that the case of ‘Uthman running from Uhud was well known to the extent that an unknown person came to make argument on it with Abdullah bin ‘Umar. If ‘Umar would have been cowardly then people would have mentioned it even with an excuse they could provide.

5. The text says that they accused each other of cowardice is not a proof of declaring one a coward, similar to the case when Abbas(ra) called Ali(ra) as sinful, treacherous, dishonest and liar, is not a proof against Ali(ra). [See Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith 4349]. All this is when the hadith is authentic which is not the case, since it is weak.

6. As for the claim that, Ali Muttaqi declared it Hasan!!! Then it is because, he might have considered the original narrator to be Abu Maryam al-Kufi instead of Abu Maryam Al-Mada’ini(Majhool) and based on this mistake he erroneously declared it Hasan. We don’t believe our scholars to be infallible, they are prone to errors.

AlBaqir:
@ Sino, I forgot to add to my previous reply to your comment.

# As per this hadith you quoted:

{It was narrated that Muhammad Bin Aqeel bin Abu Talib said: Ali made a Sermon to us and he said: O people, Who was the bravest amongst the people? We said: You O Ameer al Mumineen, He(Ali) said: Rather, it is Abu Bakr as- Siddeeq, because on the day of Badr, we built the hut for the Messenger of Allah(saw) then we said: “Who will stand with him so that none of the polytheists will get close to him?” No one stood with him except Abu Bakr, who stood with his sword unsheathed, guarding the Prophet; every time anyone got close to him, Abu Bakr struck him with his sword. I saw the Messenger of Allah(saw), when Quraysh caught hold of him at the Ka’bah and started shaking him and saying: “You are the one who made the gods into one God.” By Allah, no one got close to him except Abu Bakr and at that time Abu Bakr had two braids. He started poking this one and pushing that one, saying: ‘Woe to you! Would you kill a man because he says my Lord is Allah(swt) when he has brought you proof from your Lord?” One of Abu Bakr’s braids was cut off, and ‘Ali said to his companions: I adjure you by Allah, which of the two men was better, the believer of the family of Pharaoh or Abu Bakr?’ The people kept quiet, then ‘Ali said: ‘By Allah, a day in the life of Abu Bakr is better than the believer of the family of Pharaoh; that man conceded his faith, and Allah praised him, but Abu Bakr offered his life and his blood for the sake of Allah.(Al Mustadrak (3/67) He said SAHIH on the condition of Muslim and Imam al Thahabi Agreed with him.) [Ali bin Abi Talib, by Ali Muhammad Sallabi, vol 1, page 170]}

I have tried my utmost best to locate it. Kindly post its Arabic text, and its full reference for its verification. Thanks man.

MrOlai:
Wa'alaykum Salam my Brother. This person (Albaqir) is very cunning. Imagine the deceptive title of the thread! When Maclatunji was still the moderator here, this same person (Albaqir) opened similar thread and he titled it "Cold Truth About Umar". He said all sorts of evils about Umar(R.A). Maclatunji(May Allah(SWT) continue to guide him) removed the hate thread in less than 24 hours.

Sometimes, we shouldn't just keep quiet, at least, for the sake of innocent minds who are just trying to learn Islam, so that they won't be misled by these agents of shaytan! Imagine his statement on you here: "You just jump like "mountain goat" to attack.! Honestly, this got me cracking...

AlBaqir:
Its like the blood-rush of defending your hadith by all means do not allow you to digest my argument well. According to your history, the Quraish were pagan idol-worshippers. So observation of Ashura by the Quraish was based upon what intention? Obviously not Musa's safety from Pharaoh because if it was, the Prophet (who is alleged to have been observing this fast since that time) will not displayed naivety to the Jewish theory. And you will add salt to your injury if you claim he's fasting is in accordance with the practice of the Jew/Christian of Makkah.

Again the fact that the Quraish worships idols which they placed in the Kaaba, perform Tawaf Naked etc. Absolutely that is not Hajj they were performing in the pre-Islamic period. Hajj is a monotheistic call and practice established by Nabi Ibrahim, but polluted by the pagan as a result of time. All their practice were render null and void and Islam established (while preserving Ibrahim's rites) the rites of Hajj.

Pertains to Muslims facing Jerusalem, Mr Sino kindly share with us any hadith that ever alleged that Nabi Muhammad asked the Jew why they face Jerusalem thereby he now ordered his followers to do so. That will be a perfect fit for your Ashura fasting. Its an insult to Quran and the Prophet to claim he used to consult the Jews and then legislate. Allah has given him the knowledge of their books [Torah and Injil] and he consult his Lord only for difficult or ambigous matters.

Many golden verse of Quran have just been quoted for you, one of which Allah says:
"It is He (Allah) who has sent His Apostle with guidance and the Religion of truth, that he may proclaim it over all deen (ways of life, practice, religion)..." surah Saff:9; surah Tawbah:28.

Therefore, Allah ruled that Muslim should turned to Makkah as against Jerusalem. That was an explicit order in line with the ayah above.

Saying Prophet consult the Jews on issues of Islamic legislation is nothing but lies against the Prophet.

AlBaqir:
Ma sha Allah! Aisha had reported so. Meaning that the Prophet KNEW AND VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE FAST OF ASHURA AND OBSERVED IT RELIGIOUSLY. Agreed?!



Contrary to the baloney opinions of your scholars, here is how hadith portray the scenerio:

"...He (the Prophet) asked them (the Jews): "What is the significance of this day on which you fast?" Does this statement ever portray awareness of this day (Ashura) let alone the fast? Don't your scholars agreed he's being observing that fast for ages before he even attain prophethood?

The hadith continue after the Jews gave their theories and prophet agreed, ONLY THEN the hadith says: "He (the Prophet) then fasted on that day and ORDERED the Muslims too"

This is a completely new set of order. And a huge blow to the fact that prophet (and apparently the muslims- Muhajirun) had been observing the fast of Ashura for years (at least 13years of his stay as a Prophet in Makkah).

AlBaqir:
OH it is! Quran says:

"It is He (Allah) who has sent His Apostle with guidance and the Religion of truth, that he may proclaim it over all deen (ways of life, practice, religion)..." surah Saff:9; surah Tawbah:28.

Quran continues:

Never will the Jews and the Christians be satisfied with thee (Muhammad) unless you follow their form of religion. Say (O Muhammad) 'The guidance of Allah, that is the (ONLY) guidance.' Were you to follow their desires after knowledge which has reached you, then you will neither find protector or helper against Allah" {surah al-Baqarah:120}.

Yet the hadith narrators even quoted that one companion exclaimed: "O Messenger of Allah! IT is a day which the christians and the Jews hold in high esteem." Are you alleging the Prophet will rule against the order of the Quran?!

Sino, this is a plain Quran. And it is the Furqan that destroy your myth and blind followership of whatever you see in the book of hadith. Sometimes I don't blame the likes of Username that ran away from your so-called ahadith.

Nabi Musa (alaihim Salam) is the most talked about Prophet in the entire Quran. Interestingly, Allah mentioned the very encounter he had with Pharaoh and how Allah saved him and Israelites from paraoah's fitnah. Quran never stops there, it also give aftermath of the scenerio. Even if Quran keep silent on fasting of Ashura (which is allegedly link to Musa), rather than asking the Jews and legislate based on their verdict, Muhammad (sala'Allahu alaih WA a'ahli) will be informed by His Lord through Jubril (as).

Allah says:

"By the star when it goes down

Your companion (Muhammad) is neither astray nor being misled

Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) desire.

It is no less than inspiration sent down to him

He was taught by Almighty in Power" {surah Najm}.

AlBaqir:
The same narrator, Ibn Abbas! The same command to the Muslim to fast@underline (above). Yet you open your 'mouth' trying to dupe people the two ahadith are different:that One happened in 1st year Hijri, the other in the 9th year Hijrah.

Hasn't Aisha (and others) reported the following: "...So, when he migrated to Madina, he fasted on it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it When the fasting of Ramadhan was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not to fast on the day of Ashura."

You see your fallacy, Mr Sino? How will Prophet ordered fasting of Ashura in 9th Hijri, after Allah has legislated Ramadhan to nullify previous obligatory fasting? Besides, that hadith goes further to say Prophet planned to fast "tasua" (9th day of Muharram) the following year [to be different from Jewish and Christian form of fasting on 10th Only] but died before the advent of that year. So are you insinuating the Prophet continue following the practice of the Jew and Christians for 9years before realizing there is a need to be different from them? That is a disobedience to the verse 120 of Surah Baqarah where Allah says NEVER should the Prophet followed the Ahlul Kitab.


Mr man don't deceive your intelligent for the price of defending your k-legged creed. The hadith of Ibn Abbas (ra) is the same thing in different sigha (version). Obviously none of your Shuyukh has ever reason shallowly the way you have reasoned.

AlBaqir: In a similar version, the following is added:

"Some of the companions exclaimed 'O Messenger of God! It is a day which the Jews and the Christian hold in high esteem. Thereupon the messenger of God said: 'When the next year comes, God willing, we would observe fast on the 9th‟. But the messenger of God died before the advent of the year.

{Ref: Sahih Muslim, chapter: Fasting on the Day of Ashura, Book 13 Hadith 172 & 173; Book 6 Hadith 2528 &2529}.

The second misconception under which Beruni labors is that the fast of 'Ashura mentioned in the Tradition signifies the tenth day of the Jewish month of Tisri which is also known as Yom Kippur or the Fast of Atonement and is observed by them with greater ceremony than any other fast. But there is nothing in the tradition to warrant such a conclusion, and it is also not supported by the Torah because the Fast of Atonement was instituted in expiation of a mortal sin and observed as a day of penance and mourning.

The Day of Atonement, which is the tenth day of the seventh month of Tisri, is referred to in these words in the Third Book of Moses called, Leviticus:

"And this will be a statute for ever unto you; that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger who sojourneth among you: for on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever" (Lev. 16:29-31)

At another place, in the same Book, it is said: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day; for it is a day of atonement to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God." (Lev. 23:26-28)

Similarly, in the Book of Numbers, it is set forth: "And ye shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month a holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls; ye shall not do any work therein."

On the other hand, it explicitly occurs in the traditions that the day of 'Ashura (on which the Muslims are enjoined to fast) was a day of rejoicing among the Jews. As Imam Bukhari has related it on the authority of Abu Musa Ashari, the Jews regarded it to be a day of Eid and it was on seeing it that the holy Prophet advised his Companions also to keep fast on it.

In Saheeh Muslim, also, it is related from Qais bin Muslim that men of good-doing observed the fast of Ashura and celebrated it as the day of Eid, with their women wearing the best of clothes and ornaments. The Prophet, on seeing it, said to us, "You should also fast on this day."

It is, further, related by Koraib bin S'ad from Omar bin el-Khattab that, "On the Day of Judgment God will ask you only about two fasts, the fasts of Ramadan and the fast of the day of adornment (i.e., 'Ashura)."

In the light of the facts given above, it will be incorrect to say that 'Ashura is the Day of Atonement. Were it so, it would have been a day of lamentation and mortification while 'Ashura, as mentioned in the tradition, is a day of merriment and decoration.

The same fallacy is shared by a number of Western scholars as well. As for instance, Abraham Katish observes about the Day of Attonement in his book entitled, 'Judaism in Islam,' that "Mohammad, in the beginning, instituted it as a day of fasting for Muslims."

The assertion of the Jews themselves about 'Ashura that it was the day on which God had delivered the Israelites from their enemies is enough to set at rest all doubts in this connection. In the Torah it has been repeatedly mentioned as Abib which later came to be known as Nisan. About Abib, we read in Dairatul M'aarif, "it is a Hebraic word which means 'green'. It is the name of the first month of the Hebraic year. This name was given to it by Moses and it corresponds nearly to the month of April. When the Jews were exiled in Babylon they changed its name to Nisan, meaning 'the month of flowers.' Their 'Id-ul-Fateer (Passover) is also held in the middle of it."

Beruni, also, has admitted that it is wrong to suppose that the Day of Atonement signified the day on which God had drowned Pharaoh and his men. He says, "Their contention that on this day God had drowned Pharaoh is opposed to what is stated in the Torah because the event of drowning took place on the 21st of Nisan, which is the seventh day of Ayam-ul-Fateer (Passover). It is set forth in Torah (Ex. 12: 18): 'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even'."

We, therefore, conclude that 'Ashura, which is mentioned in the traditions related by Ibn-i-Abbas and others and on which day the Muslims have been exhorted to fast and was included among the near-obligatory duties in Islam before the fasts of Ramadan were prescribed, corresponds, in the largest measure, to the day which falls in the middle of the Hebraic month of Abib, whose name was changed to Nisan by the Jews during the period of their exile in Babylon and was celebrated by them as an 'Id and an event of fasting and entertainment. It was on this day that the Israelites had come out of Egypt and the Pharaoh was drowned.[b] In the second Book of Moses it is related: "And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the Lord brought you out from this place; there shall no leavened bread be eaten. This day came ye out in the month of Abib."[/b] (Ex. 13: 3-4)

In sum, the general consensus among Muslim theologians and religious scholars is that 'Ashura fell on the tenth day of the Arab month of Muharram in the second year of Migration and that it was later annulled by Ramadan.

Besides, any attempt to make the Lunar Arabian Calendar correspond to the Solar Jewish Calendar can, at the best, be only hypothetical. The ancient custom of Nasi has also taken a hand in adding to the confusion. This practice was quite common in Arabia, both before and after the advent of Islam, till it was prohibited by the Qur'anic injunction which reads: Postponement of a month is only an excess of disbelief, whereby those who disbelieve are misled. (ix: 37)

On the occasion of the Farewell Hajj, the holy Prophet had declared, "Time has returned to the original state that obtained when the heavens and the earth were created". These words were of Divine Inspiration for the Arab arrangement of time into days, weeks, months and years had been changed so frequently that it could not be relied upon nor restored to its original form through mathematical calculation. It is, therefore, incorrect to question the authenticity of successive Traditions merely on the basis of an erratic and inconstant Calendar.

It is also possible that the Jews of Madinah were different from the other Jewish communities where the fast of 'Ashura was concerned and observed it with greater enthusiasm and regularity, and, in this respect, they were similar to the Arabs who, seeing that so many important events had taken place on that day, fasted on it out of reverence.

It is related by Hazrat-at Ayesha , "the Quraish fasted on the day of 'Ashura during the period of Ignorance and the sacred Prophet also kept it." (Muslim). Further, the fast days among the Jews living in different countries differed from one another. We have seen how in the Jewish Encyclopedia it is indicated that apart from the fixed fast-days many fasts of a local or national character had become established among the Jews from the early days, which varied from place to place. Private fasts were also common among the Jews and one could take it upon oneself to fast on certain days in memory of certain events or at the time of adversity to arouse God's mercy. In these circumstances, it is quite possible that the fast of 'Ashura, on the tenth day of the first month of the Arab Calendar, was peculiar to the Jews living in Arabia alone. Perhaps, it is for this reason that the Talmud and the Jewish Calendar are silent on this score. Some historians have treated it as identical to the Fast of Atonement which all the Jews, wherever they be, consider obligatory. Thus, those who subscribe to this view are inclined to doubt the veracity of the afore-mentioned traditions. But their judgment is influenced by the ignorance of the habits and practices of the Jews living in various parts of the world, specially in Arabia where they had been settled for generations as a distinct community, possessing their own beliefs and customs and receiving local impressions in the historical course of things.

By Shaykh Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi

The fast of 'Ashura was prescribed before the fasts of Ramadan. The Jews observed it and so did the people of Arabia before the dawn of Islam.

It is related by Imam Bukhari on the authority of Ibn-i-Abbas that when the Prophet (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) came to Madinah he found that the Jews observed the fast of 'Ashura. He enquired about it from them and was told that it was the day on which God had delivered the Children of Israel from the enemy and Moses used to keep a fast on it as an expression of gratitude to the Almighty. The Prophet (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) thereupon, remarked that 'Moses has a greater claim upon me than upon you,' and he fasted on that day and instructed his followers to do the same.

It is also mentioned in Muslim that it is a most important day. On this day God had delivered Moses and his followers and drowned Pharaoh and his men. Moses fasted on it in thanksgiving. Imam Bukhari adds that it is related by Abu Bishr: "We also keep fast as a token of respect to Moses."

But the celebrated mathematician Abu Rehan Beruni challenged the veracity of these reports on the basis of a comparative study of the Jewish and Arabian Calendars. He writes: "It is said that 'Ashur is a Hebrew word which has become 'Ashura in Arabic. It stands for the tenth day of the Jewish month of Tisri. The fast observed on this day is called Yom Kippur. It came to be incorporated in the Arab Calendar and the name was given to the tenth day of the first month of their year in the same way in which it denoted the tenth day of the first month of the Jewish Calendar. It was instituted as a day of fasting among the Muslims in the first year of Migration. Later, when fasting was enjoined in the month of Ramadan it was dropped. A Tradition has it that when the Prophet came to Madinah and saw that the Jews observed the fast of 'Ashura he enquired about it and was told that it was the day on which God had drowned Pharaoh and his people and delivered Moses and his followers from them, and Moses used to fast on it in thanksgiving. The Prophet, then, remarked that Moses had a greater claim upon him than upon them and he fasted on that day and instructed his followers to do the same. When the fasts of Ramadan were prescribed, the Prophet neither enjoined the fast of 'Ashura nor forbade it.

But this report is fallacious and does not stand the test of enquiry. The first day of the month of Muharram in the first year of Hijrah (Migration) was Friday, which corresponds to the 16th of Tamuz, 933 (A.E.). As against it, the first day of that year among the Jews was Sunday, the 12th of Awwal which corresponds to the 29th of Safar. Hence, the fast of Ashura should have fallen on Tuesday, the 9th of Rabi-ul-Awwal, while the Migration had taken place during the first half of that month. The two dates, at any rate, do not correspond to each other."

He adds: "The contention that on this day God had drowned the Pharaoh, too, is not supported by what is given in the Torah. The event of the drowning of the Pharaoh had taken place, according to Torah, on the 21st of Nisan, which is the seventh day of the festival of Passover. The first Jewish fast of Passover, after the arrival of the Prophet in Madinah, occurred on Tuesday, the 22nd of Azhar 933 which corresponds to the 17th of Ramadan. This report also is, therefore, without a foundation."

With due respect to the scholarship of Beruni, it is clear that he has built his thesis wholly on conjecture. He has, for instance, surmised that the talk reported by Ibn-i-Abbas and other Companions had taken place on the very first day of the Prophet's arrival in Madinah as is evident from his observation, "when the sacred Prophet came to Madinah or entered it."

[b]This misconception is due to the ignorance of the science of Traditions and of the holy Companion's mode of narration, innumerable instances of which are available in the Traditions. For example, it is related by Anas bin Malik: "When the Prophet came to Madinah and (saw that) there were two days which the people of that place celebrated as festivals he enquired about their significance. (The people of Madinah) told, 'These were our days of fun and entertainment during the days of Paganism.' The Prophet, thereupon, observed, 'God has given you two better days in their place, 'Id-ul-Fitr and 'Id-ul-Adha'."

Now, will it be proper for anyone to infer from the above Tradition that the arrival of the Prophet in Madinah took place on the same day that was the day of celebration in that town, and to proceed to question the veracity of the Tradition on the ground that it was not chronometrically possible? Similar errors of interpretation have been made in respect of other traditions as well, like the one relating to pollination in date palms.
[/b]
Commenting on the argument advanced by Beruni, Allama Ibn-i-Hajr Asqallani says,

"He found it difficult to accept the tradition due to the misunderstanding that when the Prophet arrived in Madinah he saw the Jews in the state of keeping the fast of 'Ashura while, in fact, it was in the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal that the Prophet had come to Madinah. The answer to it is that he has erred in the interpretation of the tradition. What the tradition actually means is that the Prophet came to know of the fast of 'Ashura only when he had migrated to Madinah and made his enquiry, for the first time, after he had reached there. In other words, the Prophet, when he came to Madinah and stayed there till 'Ashura, found that the Jews fasted on that day."

There is left no chronological contradiction after Allama Asqallani's explanation, in the Tradition regarding the fast of 'Ashura.

AlBaqir: Umm Salamah (RA) where she constantly seeing her blessed husband (in her dreams) wailing for Hussein.

AlBaqir:
^@sino, you claim to follow the Sunnah but you are not ready to follow the Prophet in weeping for Hussein (alaih Salam)?! There are many ahadith to this effect. One of them has been posted already. Amazingly Prophet cried even before the death of Hussein.

You claim you follow the Sunnah, yet the very legacy the Nabi left {Thaqalain: Quran and his progeny} while he warned the Ummah {"I remind you, by Allah, of my Ahlulbayt"} is being undermine to forget.

You claim to love and (also) follow the Ahlulbayt, yet Hussein want you to weep for him and guarantee paradise to that effect; here you are threading the path of Yazid by calling it innovation.

What kind of a Sunnah is following the Jews in their practice?! Bring all your ahadith about Ashura fasting, that of Ibn Abbas will always contradict it and throw them into thrash-bin.

I have a message for you, Sino. An-Nabiyy, salallahu alaih WA a'alih, says {"Husseini min'ni wa Ana min al-Hussein: Hussein is from me and I am from Hussein} [Hadith sahih].

If you love Muhammad, its automatic you must love Hussein. Sheik Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy have this message for you:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10207940198206950&id=1356933376&_rdr

Sissie:
Masha Allah @Sino more ink to your pen

AlBaqir:
my dear brother Sino try to be just on your brothers please. Is it the pressure or insecurity that makes you synchronized our belief with that of the Trinitarian?! Alas, what about "sahih" ahadith in Bukhari and Muslim that says He sit down on His Throne, and only move down to the 1st heavens in the late part of the night to hear the dua of His Abd? Or that He showed His gigantic leg or that He will put His leg inside hell-fire for it to be satiated...are these (and more) not Christianic?

People like you and vedaxcool spare your precious time combating christians by exposing book of Genesis and the likes that says He came down, walking like a giant, looking for Adam; or that He sits on the Throne while His son, Jesus, sit beside Him. Are you being fair at all?!