• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Deep into Islam..

Rafidi

Legendary Member
Can you point out in what way it is different in principle, aside from the part of who is issuing it? If not, and if it's as such a 'condemned act and unjust judgment' as you pretend to claim in one instance, then I gather it would be so to you in the other instance too, or not? Do you mean to say that a 'condemned act and unjust judgment' becomes commended and just solely by virtue of who is issuing it, irrespective of the judgment/act itself? If tomorrow it was found out that the Chechen was commanded by the Ayotallah, does the Chechen guy's act (which you now appear to condemn) suddenly become just and commended?

It is called "context".

I dont argue based on speculation, or supposition. Dont waste my time with your BS and mental gymnastics. Just reading your post is repulsive because you always try to flip things around.

I told you I dont have to necessarily support Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa. That fatwa has a context though.

The hadith of Asma which is rejected as fabrication also has a context. It clearly portrayed her as the propagator of war and assassination.

I dont support mockery and rudeness. Similarly, if someone acts rudely, I dont think any jack who happens to be Muslim, without context and major reasons and by a professional ruling by an Islamic jurist should bring out his knife and commit slaughter.
 

Thoma

New Member
It is called "context".

I dont argue based on speculation, or supposition. Dont waste my time with your BS and mental gymnastics. Just reading your post is repulsive because you always try to flip things around.

I told you I dont have to necessarily support Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa. That fatwa has a context though.

The hadith of Asma which is rejected as fabrication also has a context. It clearly portrayed her as the propagator of war and assassination.

I dont support mockery and rudeness. Similarly, if someone acts rudely, I dont think any jack who happens to be Muslim, without context and major reasons and by a professional ruling by an Islamic jurist should bring out his knife and commit slaughter.


What is in the context of Rushdie or Patty's case that makes it a different act/judgment in principle, to you, beside the part of who is commanding it?
 

Totenkopf

New Member
The fact that there is a big problem in hadeeth is not something new. For the fact that Hadeeths are graded and many are rejected makes it clear that there are problematic hadiths. Often times horrible hadiths have been fabricated to justify the acts of certain men. Like the killing of Asma, the chief narrator is Muhammad Ibn Hajjaj. Possibly the son of Hajjaj, the butcher of Madina during the reign of Yazeed. I'm not an expert in Hadith science. But all scholars have faulted this hadith. For the fact that it appears in four places doesnt mean these are "four sources". What constitutes a source is the chain of narration and not the appearance in different books. For example, if I write a book and I copy the hadith, my book is not a primary source.

Further, even if we are to say that the event did happen for argument sake. If you read the sources, Asma was reportedly inciting people to war. That means she was promoting fitnah or bloodshed. Even in the narration itself, she is reported to have said this:

"Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise/ And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"

She was calling for the Prophet's assassination. So even if the event did take place, she was not that innocent. If you have to condemn one place, you must condemn the other for promoting bloodshed and encouraging the killings and calling for assassination. Being a woman doesnt justify her crimes or absolve her.

Thank you for replying Rafidi, You know, I could've written 4 sentences and refrained from giving the sources. Obviously, no one would take my words at face value.

The same applies to you, can you please provide me with the source(s) that confirms this story is fake? Can you also please provide me with a source about what exactly she said?

remember, she only criticized the prophet because he ordered the assassination of a jewish poet as per this quote from above:
فلما قتل أبو عفك، تأففت العصماء بنت مروان (وهي من بني أمية بن زيد، وزوجة يزيد الخطمي) من قتله، فصارت تعيب الاسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله

Thanks mate!
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
Thank you for replying Rafidi, You know, I could've written 4 sentences and refrained from giving the sources. Obviously, no one would take my words at face value.

The same applies to you, can you please provide me with the source(s) that confirms this story is fake? Can you also please provide me with a source about what exactly she said?

remember, she only criticized the prophet because he ordered the assassination of a jewish poet as per this quote from above:
فلما قتل أبو عفك، تأففت العصماء بنت مروان (وهي من بني أمية بن زيد، وزوجة يزيد الخطمي) من قتله، فصارت تعيب الاسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله

Thanks mate!

Please take a look at the below two video. They explain the generality of problems with hadiths. As for the narrators being problematic with the issues regard Abu Afak and Asma, go on YouTube and type:

الرد على مقتل عصماء بنت مروان

Also, dont say she only made poet. What's the meaning of وتؤنب? She was inciting bloodshed and the assassination of the Prophet. She wanted him killed, as per the same narrations in question.

If you still could not find the answers, let me know.

Pls check the below.


 

Totenkopf

New Member
Please take a look at the below two video. They explain the generality of problems with hadiths. As for the narrators being problematic with the issues regard Abu Afak and Asma, go on YouTube and type:

الرد على مقتل عصماء بنت مروان

Also, dont say she only made poet. What's the meaning of وتؤنب? She was inciting bloodshed and the assassination of the Prophet. She wanted him killed, as per the same narrations in question.

If you still could not find the answers, let me know.

Pls check the below.



Rafidi, thank you for the 2 clips. I did enjoy watching them even though they are unrelated to our subject. I particularly enjoyed the part where some woman picked lice from the prophet's head. I agree with the guy, what is wrong with people including stories like this. I know very well that when it comes to hadiths, there are disasters to be found even in the Sahihs of them. I like to focus on Quranic verses as much as possible rather than hadiths. The videos seem to be part of the sunni(in particular wahabi)/shia feud, as you know, I don't have a position in this fight.

Back to our topic, I did google الرد على مقتل عصماء بنت مروان and found only a few videos. One of them focused on sanad, sanad this, sanad that. I am not convinced and I will explain to you why.

Take this book I used as a source: الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) - السيد جعفر مرتضى
This book took the first prize by the Islamic republic of Iran حاز الكتاب على جائزة الكتاب الأول من الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية عام 1992
ـ إن هذه الطبعة تأتي بعد حصول هذا الكتاب على جائزة الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران لعام 1413 ه‍. ق. باعتباره الكتاب الأول في مجال كتابة السيرة النبوية المباركة.
You can see it here:

Now can you please convince me that the Islamic Republic of Iran gave the first prize to a book about the life of the Prophet that contains LIES about the prophet? Isn't that oxymoron? So really which books are trustable if I want to learn about the prophet's life when those that won prizes are no good? The worst part is why digitize the lies found in those books?
Can you imagine the Vatican giving first prize to a book that includes lies about Jesus's life? It makes no sense at all, it is self-defeating!

As for تؤنب it means to scold ie to rebuke (someone) angrily
I am willing to accept that some details may have been exaggerated but at the end of the day she got murdered for scolding the prophet.
I still need a link to an official source that says this incident never happened and a link that quotes what she said as an incitement to bloodshed and the assassination of the prophet. Until then, this remains a fact لا ينتطح فيها عنزان.

Cheers,
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
Rafidi, thank you for the 2 clips. I did enjoy watching them even though they are unrelated to our subject. I particularly enjoyed the part where some woman picked lice from the prophet's head. I agree with the guy, what is wrong with people including stories like this. I know very well that when it comes to hadiths, there are disasters to be found even in the Sahihs of them. I like to focus on Quranic verses as much as possible rather than hadiths. The videos seem to be part of the sunni(in particular wahabi)/shia feud, as you know, I don't have a position in this fight.

Back to our topic, I did google الرد على مقتل عصماء بنت مروان and found only a few videos. One of them focused on sanad, sanad this, sanad that. I am not convinced and I will explain to you why.

Take this book I used as a source: الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) - السيد جعفر مرتضى
This book took the first prize by the Islamic republic of Iran حاز الكتاب على جائزة الكتاب الأول من الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية عام 1992
ـ إن هذه الطبعة تأتي بعد حصول هذا الكتاب على جائزة الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران لعام 1413 ه‍. ق. باعتباره الكتاب الأول في مجال كتابة السيرة النبوية المباركة.
You can see it here:

Now can you please convince me that the Islamic Republic of Iran gave the first prize to a book about the life of the Prophet that contains LIES about the prophet? Isn't that oxymoron? So really which books are trustable if I want to learn about the prophet's life when those that won prizes are no good? The worst part is why digitize the lies found in those books?
Can you imagine the Vatican giving first prize to a book that includes lies about Jesus's life? It makes no sense at all, it is self-defeating!

As for تؤنب it means to scold ie to rebuke (someone) angrily
I am willing to accept that some details may have been exaggerated but at the end of the day she got murdered for scolding the prophet.
I still need a link to an official source that says this incident never happened and a link that quotes what she said as an incitement to bloodshed and the assassination of the prophet. Until then, this remains a fact لا ينتطح فيها عنزان.

Cheers,

1. Can you point to the part in the book of Sayyid Jaafar Murtada quoting the hadith? What is the author's position? Did he quote it as a true story or did he refute it or did he take a neutral stance by simply relaying a story like others before him did without verification but for the sake of compilation?

2. Three lines of reasoning have been given to you and you come out to simplify them by saying they dont matter or by saying, implicitly that you dont care. Thay simply means you already believe a side to the story and you are not looking for the truth or even open to reconsider your view.

The first line of reasoning is the fact that the main sources of the narrations on Abu Afak and Asma lack chains of narrators. This is not a simple matter when it comes to hadith. A hadith that lacks a chain is treated more or less as fairytale. A similar hadith is the story of Abdullah Ibn Sabaa and the origin of Shiism being the creation of a Jew. They emphasize the Jewishness of Abdullah Ibn Sabaa to demonize Shia Islam, as a creation by the enemies of Islam. This hadith goes back to one Saif Ibn Umar who lived tens of years after the purported person of Ibn Sabaa, who in fact is a fictitious character. Such stories arent new or wonderful. They are only so in the eyes of the Islamophobe or the ignorant Christian preacher who thinks these are gems for him to use to gain followers, while ignoring the actual reports in his own Bible.

The second line of reasoning is the fact that many other similar hadiths exist which were clearly fabrications. For the fact that the guy in the video is using Shia rhetoric to expose those hadith for their evident value as fabrications does not make his argument or presented facts as any less than the truth.

The third line of reasoning, and why I wont have a problem with my belief in the Prophet even if the killing of Asma took place is the fact that she did incite people to war and to assasinate the Prophet. This is evident in the hadith containing her poems you copied and posted earlier.

3. The manner of scolding matters. Going by her poems which you can read, there is call for bloodshed.


 

Totenkopf

New Member
1. Can you point to the part in the book of Sayyid Jaafar Murtada quoting the hadith? What is the author's position? Did he quote it as a true story or did he refute it or did he take a neutral stance by simply relaying a story like others before him did without verification but for the sake of compilation?

2. Three lines of reasoning have been given to you and you come out to simplify them by saying they dont matter or by saying, implicitly that you dont care. Thay simply means you already believe a side to the story and you are not looking for the truth or even open to reconsider your view.

The first line of reasoning is the fact that the main sources of the narrations on Abu Afak and Asma lack chains of narrators. This is not a simple matter when it comes to hadith. A hadith that lacks a chain is treated more or less as fairytale. A similar hadith is the story of Abdullah Ibn Sabaa and the origin of Shiism being the creation of a Jew. They emphasize the Jewishness of Abdullah Ibn Sabaa to demonize Shia Islam, as a creation by the enemies of Islam. This hadith goes back to one Saif Ibn Umar who lived tens of years after the purported person of Ibn Sabaa, who in fact is a fictitious character. Such stories arent new or wonderful. They are only so in the eyes of the Islamophobe or the ignorant Christian preacher who thinks these are gems for him to use to gain followers, while ignoring the actual reports in his own Bible.

The second line of reasoning is the fact that many other similar hadiths exist which were clearly fabrications. For the fact that the guy in the video is using Shia rhetoric to expose those hadith for their evident value as fabrications does not make his argument or presented facts as any less than the truth.

The third line of reasoning, and why I wont have a problem with my belief in the Prophet even if the killing of Asma took place is the fact that she did incite people to war and to assasinate the Prophet. This is evident in the hadith containing her poems you copied and posted earlier.

3. The manner of scolding matters. Going by her poems which you can read, there is call for bloodshed.


My friend I promise to come back and answer your questions in detail.
For now just a quick question because I am confused.

Let us suppose this hadith is fabricated, what is the purpose of including it (and other fabricated ones) in multiple books about the prophet's life? Let alone giving it first prize?
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
My friend I promise to come back and answer your questions in detail.
For now just a quick question because I am confused.

Let us suppose this hadith is fabricated, what is the purpose of including it (and other fabricated ones) in multiple books about the prophet's life? Let alone giving it first prize?

Hadith collectors or compilers of the hadiths and the sirah used to collect from far and wide every narration and document it. These reports have been documented into books. Each report is examined. Even the ones, for example that didnt make it into the two sahih books of the Sunnis were later on compiled into a book called Mustadrak al sahihain. The job used to be to gather and compiled as many reports as possible. Scholars of hadith would later scrutinise the veracity of the reports. That is just how it happened.
 

Totenkopf

New Member
Hadith collectors or compilers of the hadiths and the sirah used to collect from far and wide every narration and document it. These reports have been documented into books. Each report is examined. Even the ones, for example that didnt make it into the two sahih books of the Sunnis were later on compiled into a book called Mustadrak al sahihain. The job used to be to gather and compiled as many reports as possible. Scholars of hadith would later scrutinise the veracity of the reports. That is just how it happened.

Thank you for your reply. This makes total sense, gather all the narrations for documentation purposes and divide them into books with ones that are sahihs and others that are not.

1. Can you point to the part in the book of Sayyid Jaafar Murtada quoting the hadith? What is the author's position? Did he quote it as a true story or did he refute it or did he take a neutral stance by simply relaying a story like others before him did without verification but for the sake of compilation?

2. Three lines of reasoning have been given to you and you come out to simplify them by saying they dont matter or by saying, implicitly that you dont care. Thay simply means you already believe a side to the story and you are not looking for the truth or even open to reconsider your view.

The first line of reasoning is the fact that the main sources of the narrations on Abu Afak and Asma lack chains of narrators. This is not a simple matter when it comes to hadith. A hadith that lacks a chain is treated more or less as fairytale. A similar hadith is the story of Abdullah Ibn Sabaa and the origin of Shiism being the creation of a Jew. They emphasize the Jewishness of Abdullah Ibn Sabaa to demonize Shia Islam, as a creation by the enemies of Islam. This hadith goes back to one Saif Ibn Umar who lived tens of years after the purported person of Ibn Sabaa, who in fact is a fictitious character. Such stories arent new or wonderful. They are only so in the eyes of the Islamophobe or the ignorant Christian preacher who thinks these are gems for him to use to gain followers, while ignoring the actual reports in his own Bible.

The second line of reasoning is the fact that many other similar hadiths exist which were clearly fabrications. For the fact that the guy in the video is using Shia rhetoric to expose those hadith for their evident value as fabrications does not make his argument or presented facts as any less than the truth.

The third line of reasoning, and why I wont have a problem with my belief in the Prophet even if the killing of Asma took place is the fact that she did incite people to war and to assasinate the Prophet. This is evident in the hadith containing her poems you copied and posted earlier.

3. The manner of scolding matters. Going by her poems which you can read, there is call for bloodshed.



I will leave number 1 to the end.

For number 2, I did not imply I did not care. I actually watched all the videos you provided. I am in a BIG DILEMMA my friend and I will explain it to you:

On one hand the book in question is الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) - السيد جعفر مرتضى
The title of the book clearly says الصحيح meaning authenticated meaning the content has been verified
The writer is a respected scholar السيد جعفر مرتضى
The book won first prize in 1992 by the Islamic republic of Iran

You have answered me with youtube videos.
Who is the guy in the video? What are his credentials? is he a recognized scholar? Did he write any books? did he win any prizes?

You have to admit that you are not fair with me brother, I go to great length to bring you the best of muslim scholars, with links to all my quotes. You answer me with youtube videos of people I have never heard of.

This is where number 3 comes in, I asked you for a quote or a link to a respected authority, a scholar or a book that clearly says:
a. the story is fabricated
b. the content of 3asma2 poetry calls for bloodshed

Maybe the story is fabricated, maybe she did call for bloodshed. I am just asking for a link to an official explanation.

So now we are at a fork, before we continue I need an honest answer from you.
Do you believe an anonymous youtuber over a respected scholar like السيد جعفر مرتضى ? Yes or No?

If you pick youtube, our discussion ends here. I would actually beg you for a list of books about the prophet's life with 100% authenticated content so that I don't waste my time reading.

If you pick the scholar, this is where we go over number 1. We read exactly what the scholar said in his book and make a final decision.

Cheers!
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
Thank you for your reply. This makes total sense, gather all the narrations for documentation purposes and divide them into books with ones that are sahihs and others that are not.



I will leave number 1 to the end.

For number 2, I did not imply I did not care. I actually watched all the videos you provided. I am in a BIG DILEMMA my friend and I will explain it to you:

On one hand the book in question is الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) - السيد جعفر مرتضى
The title of the book clearly says الصحيح meaning authenticated meaning the content has been verified
The writer is a respected scholar السيد جعفر مرتضى
The book won first prize in 1992 by the Islamic republic of Iran

You have answered me with youtube videos.
Who is the guy in the video? What are his credentials? is he a recognized scholar? Did he write any books? did he win any prizes?

You have to admit that you are not fair with me brother, I go to great length to bring you the best of muslim scholars, with links to all my quotes. You answer me with youtube videos of people I have never heard of.

This is where number 3 comes in, I asked you for a quote or a link to a respected authority, a scholar or a book that clearly says:
a. the story is fabricated
b. the content of 3asma2 poetry calls for bloodshed

Maybe the story is fabricated, maybe she did call for bloodshed. I am just asking for a link to an official explanation.

So now we are at a fork, before we continue I need an honest answer from you.
Do you believe an anonymous youtuber over a respected scholar like السيد جعفر مرتضى ? Yes or No?

If you pick youtube, our discussion ends here. I would actually beg you for a list of books about the prophet's life with 100% authenticated content so that I don't waste my time reading.

If you pick the scholar, this is where we go over number 1. We read exactly what the scholar said in his book and make a final decision.

Cheers!

I actually reacted with a laugh because you are actually pretentious.

The guy in the video maybe an ordinary YouTuber but he is using texts. He is presenting evidence.

Also, the Sayyid you are mentioning, this is the first time I've come across his name.

Also, I asked you to present the part in his book where he mentioned the hadith. It could be he refuted it in his "shih sirah". What did he say about the hadith and what page? You only threw a book title and a claim at us without the details. I dont have the time to go through an entire book seacrhing for a hadith for the sake of this discussion. Provide us with the details. Also, because one person calls a book "sahih", that doesnt mean it is absolutely sahih or beyond scrutiny. The Shia position has always been that only the Quran is worthy of being called a sahih book. No hadith book is sahih but every hadith is open to scrutiny by each scholar.

I will search for you the stand of high ranking Shia authorities on the story of Asma Bint Marwan. And as soon as I find it, I will post it.
 

Totenkopf

New Member
I actually reacted with a laugh because you are actually pretentious.

The guy in the video maybe an ordinary YouTuber but he is using texts. He is presenting evidence.

Also, the Sayyid you are mentioning, this is the first time I've come across his name.

Also, I asked you to present the part in his book where he mentioned the hadith. It could be he refuted it in his "shih sirah". What did he say about the hadith and what page? You only threw a book title and a claim at us without the details. I dont have the time to go through an entire book seacrhing for a hadith for the sake of this discussion. Provide us with the details. Also, because one person calls a book "sahih", that doesnt mean it is absolutely sahih or beyond scrutiny. The Shia position has always been that only the Quran is worthy of being called a sahih book. No hadith book is sahih but every hadith is open to scrutiny by each scholar.

I will search for you the stand of high ranking Shia authorities on the story of Asma Bint Marwan. And as soon as I find it, I will post it.

I am glad I made you laugh, now where can I see the evidence mentioned in youtube? I would love to have links just like I provide you with links to whatever I post.

I will also gladly post the link to the book, first I need a clear answer from you, will you accept whatever the scholar has to say about this incident?

Thanks in advance for your search sir,
 

elAshtar

Legendary Member
I actually reacted with a laugh because you are actually pretentious.

The guy in the video maybe an ordinary YouTuber but he is using texts. He is presenting evidence.

Also, the Sayyid you are mentioning, this is the first time I've come across his name.

Also, I asked you to present the part in his book where he mentioned the hadith. It could be he refuted it in his "shih sirah". What did he say about the hadith and what page? You only threw a book title and a claim at us without the details. I dont have the time to go through an entire book seacrhing for a hadith for the sake of this discussion. Provide us with the details. Also, because one person calls a book "sahih", that doesnt mean it is absolutely sahih or beyond scrutiny. The Shia position has always been that only the Quran is worthy of being called a sahih book. No hadith book is sahih but every hadith is open to scrutiny by each scholar.

I will search for you the stand of high ranking Shia authorities on the story of Asma Bint Marwan. And as soon as I find it, I will post it.El

El Sayyed Jaafar is one of the prominent scholars in the field of Ta7qeeq... I attended some of his lessons before I left to Germany ten years ago. He died recently.
 

elAshtar

Legendary Member
On one hand the book in question is الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) - السيد جعفر مرتضى
The title of the book clearly says الصحيح meaning authenticated meaning the content has been verified
come again? The title doesn't say what you have concluded. Not everything mentioned in the book is authenticated.
 

elAshtar

Legendary Member
@Totenkopf The title of the book written by Sayyed Jaafar Murtada doesn't say that the whole content of the book is authenticated as is claimed by the Sunnis when they talk about Sa7ee7 muslim.
The title says: Al sa7ee7 men el sira i.e. What is true from. The preposition here is quite important. What Sayyed Jaafar did is taking what has been reported historically and then critically investigated it.

For example, regarding the murder of 3asma2, he presented what was 'reported' (the one in blue)

جاءها عمير بن عوف ليلا لخمس بقين من شهر رمضان المبارك، فوجدها نائمة بين ولدها، وهي ترضع ولدها - وعمير ضعيف البصر - فجسها بيده، فوجد الصبي على ثديها يرضع، فنحاه عنها، ثم وضع سيفه في صدرها حتى أخرجه من ظهرها، ثم ذهب إلى النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، فقال له (ص): أقتلت ابنة مروان؟
قال: نعم.
قال (ص): لا ينتطح فيها عنزان. أي لا يعارض فيها معارض (1).

هكذا زعم المؤرخون: وان كنا نشك في صحة ذلك، إذ لا يعقل ان ينحى ولدها عنها ولا تلتفت إليه، وتبقى ساكنة ساكتة، حتى يضع سيفه في
صدرها.
And then he made a comment (the one in Red). So, unlike what you are claiming. Sayyed Jaafar doubted what was reported regarding her murder!!!! You are welcome ;)
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
I am glad I made you laugh, now where can I see the evidence mentioned in youtube? I would love to have links just like I provide you with links to whatever I post.

I will also gladly post the link to the book, first I need a clear answer from you, will you accept whatever the scholar has to say about this incident?

Thanks in advance for your search sir,

From what I have seen, the account on Asma and Abu Afak are not in the hadith books. They are recorded in history books of Ibn Saad and Tabari. They have have no isnad. Hence, why scholars really pay no heed to what is regarded even by Sunnis themselves as baseless. Therefore, they do not even appear in Shia hadith compilations. I stand to be corrected.

You may please present to us the mention of these alleged events in the work of the Sayyid you mentioned. Let us see what he has to say.
 

Totenkopf

New Member
From what I have seen, the account on Asma and Abu Afak are not in the hadith books. They are recorded in history books of Ibn Saad and Tabari. They have have no isnad. Hence, why scholars really pay no heed to what is regarded even by Sunnis themselves as baseless. Therefore, they do not even appear in Shia hadith compilations. I stand to be corrected.

You may please present to us the mention of these alleged events in the work of the Sayyid you mentioned. Let us see what he has to say.


@Totenkopf The title of the book written by Sayyed Jaafar Murtada doesn't say that the whole content of the book is authenticated as is claimed by the Sunnis when they talk about Sa7ee7 muslim.
The title says: Al sa7ee7 men el sira i.e. What is true from. The preposition here is quite important. What Sayyed Jaafar did is taking what has been reported historically and then critically investigated it.

For example, regarding the murder of 3asma2, he presented what was 'reported' (the one in blue)

جاءها عمير بن عوف ليلا لخمس بقين من شهر رمضان المبارك، فوجدها نائمة بين ولدها، وهي ترضع ولدها - وعمير ضعيف البصر - فجسها بيده، فوجد الصبي على ثديها يرضع، فنحاه عنها، ثم وضع سيفه في صدرها حتى أخرجه من ظهرها، ثم ذهب إلى النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، فقال له (ص): أقتلت ابنة مروان؟
قال: نعم.
قال (ص): لا ينتطح فيها عنزان. أي لا يعارض فيها معارض (1).

هكذا زعم المؤرخون: وان كنا نشك في صحة ذلك، إذ لا يعقل ان ينحى ولدها عنها ولا تلتفت إليه، وتبقى ساكنة ساكتة، حتى يضع سيفه في
صدرها.
And then he made a comment (the one in Red). So, unlike what you are claiming. Sayyed Jaafar doubted what was reported regarding her murder!!!! You are welcome ;)

@elAshtar first, thank you sir for participating. I learned that the Sayyed passed away last year in October, my he RIP. I would have loved to meet him.

I agree with you, Al sa7ee7 min is what is true from, so the book should include what is true from the sira of the prophet via a critical investigation by the Sayyed.

Here's the page that mentions Abu Afak and 3asma2 along with others. Notice for Abu Afak, there is no commentary which implies there is no doubt about its authenticity.

For 3asma2, let's read it in 2 parts together. The first part being:

2 ـ قتل العصماء بنت مروان:

فلما قتل أبو عفك، تأففت العصماء بنت مروان (وهي من بني أمية بن زيد، وزوجة يزيد الخطمي) من قتله، فصارت تعيب الإسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وتقول الشعر في هجوه «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وتحرض عليه، واستمرت على ذلك إلى ما بعد بدر. فجاءها عمير بن عوف ليلاً لخمس بقين من شهر رمضان المبارك، فوجدها نائمة بين ولدها، وهي ترضع ولدها ـ وعمير ضعيف البصر ـ فجسها بيده؛ فوجد الصبي على ثديها يرضع، فنحاه عنها، ثم وضع سيفه في صدرها حتى أخرجه من ظهرها، ثم ذهب إلى النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»، فقال له «صلى الله عليه وآله»: أقتلت ابنة مروان؟

قال: نعم.

قال «صلى الله عليه وآله»: لا ينتطح فيها عنزان. أي لا يعارض فيها معارض([2]).

هكذا زعم المؤرخون: وإن كنا نشك في صحة ذلك، إذ لا يعقل أن ينحي ولدها عنها ولا تلتفت إليه، وتبقى ساكنة ساكتة، حتى يضع سيفه في صدرها.

هذا، وقد جاء في شواهد النبوة: أن عمير بن عدي الخطمي سمع أبياتها التي قالتها حين كان النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله» في بدر، والتي قالتها في ذم الإسلام والمسلمين، وكان ضريراً، فنذر: لئن رد الله رسوله سالماً من بدر ليقتلنها.

ففي ليلة قدومه «صلى الله عليه وآله» ذهب إليها عمير فقتلها؛ فلما رآه النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله» قال له: أقتلت ابنة مروان؟


قال: نعم.

فأقبل «صلى الله عليه وآله» على الناس، وقال: «من أحب أن ينظر إلى رجل كان في نصرة الله ورسوله؛ فلينظر إلى عمير بن عدي».

فقال عمر: إلى هذا الأعمى؟ بات في طاعة الله ورسوله!!.

فقال النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»: مه يا عمر، فإنه بصير، أو كما قال([3]).

ورجع عمير إلى قومه من بني خطمة؛ فقال لهم: يا بني خطمة، أنا قتلت ابنة مروان، فكيدوني جميعاً، ولا تنظرون.

فذلك أول ما عز الإسلام في دار بني خطمة، وكان من أسلم منهم يستخفي بإسلامه، ويومئذٍ أسلم رجال منهم بما رأوا من عز الإسلام([4]).

ولعل ما في شواهد النبوة من أن عميراً كان أعمى، وقد جاء هذا على لسان عمر أيضاً، قد جاء على سبيل المبالغة؛ لأنه كان ضعيف البصر بالفعل، فإن من الصعب على الضرير أن يقوم بعملية كهذه، وهي نائمة ليلاً بين ولدها.

إلا أن يقال: إنه إذا عرف مكانها الذي تنام فيه، فإن بإمكانه تمييز الطفل عن غيره بواسطة تلمس أبدانهم، كما هو صريح الرواية. ولكنها ـ كما قلنا ـ تبقى عملية صعبة على الرجل الضرير.

ولذلك فنحن نرجح طريقة المبالغة كما قلنا.


In blue, the Sayyed mentions a second source for this incident شواهد النبوة
Notice the second source does not mention she had a child sleeping on her ( he had a problem with this part in the first narration)
His take on this is that the way it was done was exaggerated لذلك فنحن نرجح طريقة المبالغة كما قلنا
Why ? Because the claim that 3amir was blind is the exaggeration, he was not and this is proved in the following commentary below.
He did not say it did not happen, if you continue reading you will see further commentary from the Sayyed. Surprising he still comments on the child part. Please see the following:

ج: مع موقف عمير في أصالته ونبله:

1 ـ يلاحظ: أن عمير بن وهب ينحي ولد العصماء عن صدرها، ثم يقتلها.

وهذا يؤكد: على أن الإسلام قد ربى أتباعه على أنه ليس ضد الإنسان، وإنما هو ضد مواقفه وتصرفاته المنحرفة عن الحق، والعدل، والفطرة.

فهو يريد فقط: أن يقضي على مصدر الخطر على الحق والفطرة.


وحينما لا يبقى ثمة سبيل إلا القضاء على مصدر الفتنة؛ وحيث يكون آخر الدواء الكي؛ فإنه لا بد أن يكتفى بالحد الأدنى، الذي يتحقق فيه الهدف الأقصى، وهو إقامة الدين والحق.

2 ـ ثم إننا لنكبر هذا التعقل النادر لعمير في موقف حرج وخطير كهذا، حتى إنه ليملك في هذه اللحظات الحساسة جداً أن يتخذ القرار الحاسم والمبدئي، وكما يريده الإسلام، بعيداً عن كل اضطراب وانفعال، لا سيما وهو ضرير، كما قيل، أو ضعيف البصر.

نعم، إنه يتصرف بهدوء واطمئنان، ووعي، حتى في أحرج اللحظات، وأكثرها إثارة للأعصاب، وتشويشاً للحواس.

3 ـ ثم هناك رواية شواهد النبوة، التي تضيف: أن بعض الصحابة قد نفس على عمير هذا الوسام النبوي الذي ناله عن جدارة واستحقاق، ولم يستطع أن يخفي ذلك في نفسه، بل ظهر في فلتات لسانه بتعبير فيه شيء من الجفاء الجارح، دعا الرسول الأكرم «صلى الله عليه وآله» إلى محاولة حسم الموقف، ثم التلطيف والتخفيف من وقع تلك العبارة، ثم معاودة التأكيد على جدارة عمير، واستحقاقه للثناء، وعرفان حقه، بقوله «صلى الله عليه وآله»: «مه يا عمر، فإنه بصير».

4 ـ
وهناك أيضاً موقف آخر لعمير في قومه، الذي أدى إلى أن يعز الإسـلام فيهم، ويسلم منهم رجـال. فإن في ثقـة عمير بنفسه وبدينه، وصلابته في التعبير عن هذه الثقة، حتى لقد صرح لهم: أنه لم يعد يخشى أحداً على الإطلاق ـ إن في ذلك ـ ما يجعل كل من يتردد في قبول الإسلام، بسبب خوفه، وضعف نفسه، يشعر بأن بإمكانه أن يجد في الإسلام نصيراً ومعيناً وحامياً له، ولم يعد ثمة ما يبرر موقفه السلبي منه.

ولأجل هذا نجد: أن عدداً منهم يدخل في الإسلام، حينما شعر بعزة الإسلام وبقوته في تلك القبيلة.

This incident happened after the killing of abu afak and resulted in more people embracing Islam from 3amir's tribe.
It cannot be ruled out just like that, why did the Sayyed include extra commentary if it was totally fabricated?

You can see the full page here:

Bonus reading: الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) ج23 - موقع الميزان
A list of all the people the Prophet ordered dead. Among them are two slave girls who used to sing satirical songs about him:
وهما قينتان لابن خطل، كانتا تغنيان بهجاء النبي«صلى الله عليه وآله»، فاستؤمن لإحداهما ـ فأسلمت ـ وقتلت الأخرى، قتلها علي«عليه السلام»
That's 7th century charlie hebdo....
 

elAshtar

Legendary Member
@elAshtar first, thank you sir for participating. I learned that the Sayyed passed away last year in October, my he RIP. I would have loved to meet him.

I agree with you, Al sa7ee7 min is what is true from, so the book should include what is true from the sira of the prophet via a critical investigation by the Sayyed.

Here's the page that mentions Abu Afak and 3asma2 along with others. Notice for Abu Afak, there is no commentary which implies there is no doubt about its authenticity.

For 3asma2, let's read it in 2 parts together. The first part being:

2 ـ قتل العصماء بنت مروان:

فلما قتل أبو عفك، تأففت العصماء بنت مروان (وهي من بني أمية بن زيد، وزوجة يزيد الخطمي) من قتله، فصارت تعيب الإسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وتقول الشعر في هجوه «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وتحرض عليه، واستمرت على ذلك إلى ما بعد بدر. فجاءها عمير بن عوف ليلاً لخمس بقين من شهر رمضان المبارك، فوجدها نائمة بين ولدها، وهي ترضع ولدها ـ وعمير ضعيف البصر ـ فجسها بيده؛ فوجد الصبي على ثديها يرضع، فنحاه عنها، ثم وضع سيفه في صدرها حتى أخرجه من ظهرها، ثم ذهب إلى النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»، فقال له «صلى الله عليه وآله»: أقتلت ابنة مروان؟

قال: نعم.

قال «صلى الله عليه وآله»: لا ينتطح فيها عنزان. أي لا يعارض فيها معارض([2]).

هكذا زعم المؤرخون: وإن كنا نشك في صحة ذلك، إذ لا يعقل أن ينحي ولدها عنها ولا تلتفت إليه، وتبقى ساكنة ساكتة، حتى يضع سيفه في صدرها.

هذا، وقد جاء في شواهد النبوة: أن عمير بن عدي الخطمي سمع أبياتها التي قالتها حين كان النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله» في بدر، والتي قالتها في ذم الإسلام والمسلمين، وكان ضريراً، فنذر: لئن رد الله رسوله سالماً من بدر ليقتلنها.

ففي ليلة قدومه «صلى الله عليه وآله» ذهب إليها عمير فقتلها؛ فلما رآه النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله» قال له: أقتلت ابنة مروان؟


قال: نعم.

فأقبل «صلى الله عليه وآله» على الناس، وقال: «من أحب أن ينظر إلى رجل كان في نصرة الله ورسوله؛ فلينظر إلى عمير بن عدي».

فقال عمر: إلى هذا الأعمى؟ بات في طاعة الله ورسوله!!.

فقال النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»: مه يا عمر، فإنه بصير، أو كما قال([3]).

ورجع عمير إلى قومه من بني خطمة؛ فقال لهم: يا بني خطمة، أنا قتلت ابنة مروان، فكيدوني جميعاً، ولا تنظرون.

فذلك أول ما عز الإسلام في دار بني خطمة، وكان من أسلم منهم يستخفي بإسلامه، ويومئذٍ أسلم رجال منهم بما رأوا من عز الإسلام([4]).

ولعل ما في شواهد النبوة من أن عميراً كان أعمى، وقد جاء هذا على لسان عمر أيضاً، قد جاء على سبيل المبالغة؛ لأنه كان ضعيف البصر بالفعل، فإن من الصعب على الضرير أن يقوم بعملية كهذه، وهي نائمة ليلاً بين ولدها.

إلا أن يقال: إنه إذا عرف مكانها الذي تنام فيه، فإن بإمكانه تمييز الطفل عن غيره بواسطة تلمس أبدانهم، كما هو صريح الرواية. ولكنها ـ كما قلنا ـ تبقى عملية صعبة على الرجل الضرير.

ولذلك فنحن نرجح طريقة المبالغة كما قلنا.


In blue, the Sayyed mentions a second source for this incident شواهد النبوة
Notice the second source does not mention she had a child sleeping on her ( he had a problem with this part in the first narration)
His take on this is that the way it was done was exaggerated لذلك فنحن نرجح طريقة المبالغة كما قلنا
Why ? Because the claim that 3amir was blind is the exaggeration, he was not and this is proved in the following commentary below.
He did not say it did not happen, if you continue reading you will see further commentary from the Sayyed. Surprising he still comments on the child part. Please see the following:

ج: مع موقف عمير في أصالته ونبله:

1 ـ يلاحظ: أن عمير بن وهب ينحي ولد العصماء عن صدرها، ثم يقتلها.

وهذا يؤكد: على أن الإسلام قد ربى أتباعه على أنه ليس ضد الإنسان، وإنما هو ضد مواقفه وتصرفاته المنحرفة عن الحق، والعدل، والفطرة.

فهو يريد فقط: أن يقضي على مصدر الخطر على الحق والفطرة.


وحينما لا يبقى ثمة سبيل إلا القضاء على مصدر الفتنة؛ وحيث يكون آخر الدواء الكي؛ فإنه لا بد أن يكتفى بالحد الأدنى، الذي يتحقق فيه الهدف الأقصى، وهو إقامة الدين والحق.

2 ـ ثم إننا لنكبر هذا التعقل النادر لعمير في موقف حرج وخطير كهذا، حتى إنه ليملك في هذه اللحظات الحساسة جداً أن يتخذ القرار الحاسم والمبدئي، وكما يريده الإسلام، بعيداً عن كل اضطراب وانفعال، لا سيما وهو ضرير، كما قيل، أو ضعيف البصر.

نعم، إنه يتصرف بهدوء واطمئنان، ووعي، حتى في أحرج اللحظات، وأكثرها إثارة للأعصاب، وتشويشاً للحواس.

3 ـ ثم هناك رواية شواهد النبوة، التي تضيف: أن بعض الصحابة قد نفس على عمير هذا الوسام النبوي الذي ناله عن جدارة واستحقاق، ولم يستطع أن يخفي ذلك في نفسه، بل ظهر في فلتات لسانه بتعبير فيه شيء من الجفاء الجارح، دعا الرسول الأكرم «صلى الله عليه وآله» إلى محاولة حسم الموقف، ثم التلطيف والتخفيف من وقع تلك العبارة، ثم معاودة التأكيد على جدارة عمير، واستحقاقه للثناء، وعرفان حقه، بقوله «صلى الله عليه وآله»: «مه يا عمر، فإنه بصير».

4 ـ
وهناك أيضاً موقف آخر لعمير في قومه، الذي أدى إلى أن يعز الإسـلام فيهم، ويسلم منهم رجـال. فإن في ثقـة عمير بنفسه وبدينه، وصلابته في التعبير عن هذه الثقة، حتى لقد صرح لهم: أنه لم يعد يخشى أحداً على الإطلاق ـ إن في ذلك ـ ما يجعل كل من يتردد في قبول الإسلام، بسبب خوفه، وضعف نفسه، يشعر بأن بإمكانه أن يجد في الإسلام نصيراً ومعيناً وحامياً له، ولم يعد ثمة ما يبرر موقفه السلبي منه.

ولأجل هذا نجد: أن عدداً منهم يدخل في الإسلام، حينما شعر بعزة الإسلام وبقوته في تلك القبيلة.

This incident happened after the killing of abu afak and resulted in more people embracing Islam from 3amir's tribe.
It cannot be ruled out just like that, why did the Sayyed include extra commentary if it was totally fabricated?

You can see the full page here:

Bonus reading: الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) ج23 - موقع الميزان
A list of all the people the Prophet ordered dead. Among them are two slave girls who used to sing satirical songs about him:
وهما قينتان لابن خطل، كانتا تغنيان بهجاء النبي«صلى الله عليه وآله»، فاستؤمن لإحداهما ـ فأسلمت ـ وقتلت الأخرى، قتلها علي«عليه السلام»
That's 7th century charlie hebdo....
Firstly, it is great to meet someone on this forum that is worth debating with on religious matters. I like your respectful, logical, and objective approach.
Secondly, I will look into what you mentioned. However, can you clarify the reason behind this debate ? That is, why are you discussing this incident with @Rafidi? Also, can you cite the link for the text u quoted cause if I recall correctly, there is more than one edition to this book.
Lastly, and here quoting you ' I agree with you, Al sa7ee7 min is what is true from, so the book should include what is true from the sira of the prophet via a critical investigation by the Sayyed.', this is not accurate.
The book can still contain unauthenticated Hadith or reported incident. Nevertheless, Sayyed Jaafar would have pointed this out.
 
Last edited:
Top