DHTML Menu / JavaScript Menu Powered by Milonic
Already a member? Sign In

Village Journals help
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.

The Event of Mubahila


"And unto him who disputeth with thee therein after the knowledge hath come unto thee, Say ! ( O' Our Apostle Muhammad ! ) ( Unto them ) come ye, let us summon our sons, and ( ye summon ) your sons, and ( we summon ) our women and ( ye ) your women, and ( we summon ) ourselves and then let us invoke the curse of God on the liars!" (3:60)

This verse refers to the famous event of ' Mubahila ' which took place in the year 10 A.H against the Christians of Najran. A deputation of 60 Christians of Najran headed by Abdul Masih their chief monkpriest came and discussed with the Holy Prophet (pbuh) the personality of Prophet Jesus (as). The Holy Prophet told them not to deify Jesus for he was only a mortal created by God, and not God Himself. Then they asked who the father of Jesus was. By this, they thought that since he was born without a father the Holy Prophet would helplessly accept Jesus' father being God himself. In reply to this question was revealed the Verse

"Verily, similitude of Jesus with God is as the similitude of Adam; He created him out of dust then said He unto him BE, and he became."

When the Christians did not agree to this line of reasoning, then this verse was revealed enjoining upon the Prophet to call the Christians to Mubahila. To this the Christians agreed and they wanted to return to their place and would have the Mubahila the next day.

Early next morning the Holy Prophet sent Salman al Farsi to the open place, fixed outside the city for the historic event, to erect a small shelter for himself and those he intended to take along with him for the contest. On the opposite side appeared the Christian prists, while at the appointed hour the Christians witnessed the Holy Prophet (pbuh) entering the field with Imam Hussain (as) in his lap, Imam Hasan (as) holding his finger, and walking beside him, Hadrath Fatima (as) and followed by Imam Ali al Murtaza (as). The Prophet (as) on reaching the appointed spot stationed himself with his daughter, her two sons and her husband, raising his hands towards the heaven said :

"Lord these are the People of my House"

The Chief Monk on knowing that the child in the lap of the Prophet was his young grandson, Imam Hussain (as), the child walking holding the Prophet's hand was his first grandson, Imam Hasan (as), the Lady behind him was daughter, his only surviving issue was Fatima (as) the mother of the two children and the one who followed the Lady was his son in law and cousin Imam Ali (as), the husband of Fatima (as) addressed the huge crowd of the people who had gathered on the spot, and addressed them saying:

"By God, I see the faces which, if they pray to God for mountains to move from their places, the mountains will immediately move!"

"O believers in the Jesus of Nazareth, I will tell you the truth that should ye fail to enter into some agreement with Muhammad and if these souls whom Muhammad has brought with him, curse you, ye will be wiped out of existence to the last day of the life of the earth !"

The people readily agreed to the advice counseled by their Leader. They beseeched the Holy Prophet ( pbuh& f ) to give up the idea of the agreed Mubahila and requested for themselves to be allowed to continue their faith, offering to pay ' Jizya '.

- Al Tabari, Commentary of the Quran, v 2 p 192 -> 193

Some of the significance of this event are as follows :

this event un-questionably establishes the truth about the spiritual purity of the Ahl al Bayt (as)

it proves beyond any doubt as to who are the members of the house of the Prophet ( pbuh)

the seriousness and the solemnity of the occasion demands absolute purity, spiritual as well as physical in the individuals to serve in the fateful occasion for the Holy Prophet to present them to God as the best one of His creation to be heard in the prayers of Truth !

References

Sahih Muslim, v 4 p 1285...: ( The third occasion is this ) when the following verse was revealed : Let us summon our children and your children. Allah's messenger ( pbuh& f ) called Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain and said : O Allah , these are my family .....
 

Add Comments

 
Add
 

  Comments on this journal

Login to find out (January 4, 2006 at 9:39pm)
khiladi now you are denying ayat 3:60
 
Login to find out (January 4, 2006 at 12:07pm)
"Youre basically stating that an event never happened on which a verse of the Qu'ran was revealed and which the Quran says DID happen (along with your OWN 3ulema)"

See, now you are accusing me of denying the Quran... NOWHERE IN THE QURAN DOES IT SAY THE EVENT HAPPENED... I challenge you to show me where it happened... show me where I denied the Quran...

In fact, the ayah expressly states that the possibility to "come together.." exists. It does not state, "We have come together..."

Further, ulema are not Prophets, and they make their conclusions based upon a number of factors...
 
Login to find out (January 4, 2006 at 12:04pm)
Salaams,

1. My criticism of them being is weak is based UPON EVIDENCE. I have brought out the weakness of the CONTENT ITSELF.

It is not a statement of opinion, without substantiation from evidence. It is not based upon appeal to authority, which is what you are doing. This is precisely why I hold that your claim of authority is subjective.

2. When one refers to ahl-bayt, I never stated my opinion on whom this includes. IN FACT, it ONLY includes the wives. Further, it is stated in such a way that one cannot build up any theology around the term.
The word 'ahl-bayt' is used in a purely LITERARY sense. It has no significance FROM THE SHAREEAH POINT OF VIEW. This is precisely how we get to point 3.

3. I also have an issue with the hadeeth quoted, but that is a different story. Because that too can be subjected to criticism, among them, it has nothing to do with the CONTEXT OF THE QURAN.

Often times, we tend to put hadeeth forward, as opposed to the Quran, simply to suit our sectarian view-points.
 
Login to find out (January 4, 2006 at 11:44am)
salam bro

Its really useless to continue this argument with you.

Were just going to go in circles here.

a)Youre basically stating that an event never happened on which a verse of the Qu'ran was revealed and which the Quran says DID happen (along with your OWN 3ulema)

b)Youre saying everythign I said was Weak BUT you neglected to show other scholars SAYING those narrations are weak but you decided on your own opinion they are weak.

c)And when I do show a verse about ahlul bayt (3as) you initially say ahlul bayt (3as) dont have to be followed, but then you do a 360 and contradict yourself and say where they do have to be followed provided they are the wives, since your interepration of 33:33 is inclusive of the wives. But interestingly enough your u3lema who include the wives ALSO include Imam Ali, Seyyida Zahra (3as) whereas our 3ulema dont include the wives but only include Imam Ali, Seyyida Zahra and Imam Hasan and Imam Hussein.

Funny how both camps include Imam Ali and Seyyida Zahra as ahlul bayt .................

lets end this discussion because honestly its not leading us anywhere.

Fe amani Allah
Mansoor
 
Login to find out (January 4, 2006 at 10:33am)
Salaam,

I really don't think you understand the argument. You are simply focused on the notion that some sunni scholars hold the same opinion.

Your argument, as with all others, is, it is included in the sunni books. I told you from the very beginning, you need to get out of this mindset. Scholars, especially when it comes to tafseer, collect MANY NARRATIONS, strong, weak, and clearly fabricated.

It is IRRELEVANT if a sunni scholar holds an opinion, if the evidence they hold the opinion on is weak. You can continue to propound the greatness of Imam Suyuti (R) or Imam Tabari (R) for that matter, but none of this matters in RESPECT TO THE EVIDENCE. If I say Imam Suyuti clearly ac knowledges the supremacy of Abu Bakr (R) over Ali (R), are you going to say,

"I must believe it, because Imam Suyuti (R) says it?"

"Your claim is the prophet (saw) didnt bring any of the ahlul bayt (3as), butYou still havent shown WHO the prophet (saw) brought with him on this event with the exception of this weak narration of one man, although You yourself admit that there is NO verse to substantiate this but rather a guess."

Notice ONCE AGAIN, that there are other narrations of the event. In Bukhari, the NARRATION DOES NOT MENTION THIS EVENT AT ALL. As I stated before, the rulers of Najran were TWO, and they refused to even fo to a mubahila, knowing full well that he was Prophet (AS).

How do you rectify this contradictory narrations? The fact of the matter is you CANNOT.

One says the mubahila never happened, the other says it does. The one that says it does is based upon WEAK NARRATIONS, and is further, as I showed FULL OF PATENT ABSURDITIES.

This is precisely why you rest your argument simply on, well Imam Suyuti says this or that.

"Show us a tafseer by someone who says other people other than ahlul bayt (3as) were there instead of arguing over how many monks, came and this and that; youre basically avoiding this issue."

THE EVENT NEVER HAPPENED. What don't you get? When Bukhari says that the two rulers of Najran, WHO WERE NOT CHIEF MONKS, refused to participate in the Lain, where do the 60 monks come in from?

This is not an issue about how many monks came? This is an issue of dramatzing an event with 60 monks that WERE NEVER THERE. The fact that these 60 monks allegedly admitted these people were people of God, shows how ridiculously absurd the story is.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CRITICISM NOW?

Whether Hakim, or Suyuti hold this opinion, DOES NOT ANSWER THESE BASIC CONTRADICTIONS. It is precisely why AHmed bin Hanbal, and other scholars say that one of the most useless books is the tafseer's, because they are based on INACCURATE TESTIMONY.

Further, every scholar knows the ASHAB-E-NUZUL, are so contradictory, that scholars hold countless opinions. There are narrations that claim Isaac (AS) was the one to be sacrificed according to ibn Abbass (R), and there are narrations that claim it was Ishmael (AS) who was the one to be sacrificed narrated through ibn Abbass (R). This is in the tafseer of Tabari.

So really, who are you trying to fool here?

"In another Sunni commentary of Quran, it is narrated on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Umar that:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH& HF) said: "Had there been any soul on the whole earth better than Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husain, Allah would have commanded me to take them along with me to Mubahala. But as they were superior in dignity and respect to all human be beings, Allah confined His choice on them only for participation in Mubahala."

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Baidhawi, under the commentary of Verse 3:61"


SO WHAT IS BADHAWI has included a FABRICATED NARRATION. The tafseer of al-Baaidawi INCLUDES COUNTLESS FABRICATED NARRATIONS. ANY SCHOLAR OF TAFSEER WILL TELL YOU THIS.

Further, Badhawi's tafseer includes narrations with both SUNNI and SHIA narrators. How do you argue it is EXCLUSIVELY SUNNI? If you want to argue that Badhawi was a sunni, than you might as well stop while your there.

What are you trying to pull off here?

"And on ANOTHER oacassion, The prophet (saw) mentioned ahlul bayt (3as) and who they SPECIFICALLY were in a hadith of yours: "Tradition of Cloak" is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:

The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH& HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending." Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663"

So you need to make up your mind. Because as is clear, Surah Ahzab was revealed during the Battle of Khandaq, which was at least 5 years before 10 AH, the year that the Mubahila was alleged to have happen. So were the panjtan declared the "People of the House" during the Battle of Ahzab or the Mubahila?

Further, like I said before, this narration is a separate issue, which we can discuss the chains of narrations also. But than again, if you want to rest your argument that it is in a sunni book, than it would be an exercise in futility.


"Also, have you become a mind reader and assume that Suyuti didnt knwo what he was talking about when he included the citations below? Wouldnt he have EXCLUDED the citation if it was false? Are you then implying that Suyuti , who you consider a great scholar, intentionally included somethign he thought was false or weak?"

YES, SUYUTI HAS INCLUDED NARRATIONS THAT ARE WEAK. THIS IS RECOGNIZED BY ALL THE SUNNI SCHOLARS. He further quotes MANY OPINIONS of the ASHAB E NUZOOL, but this does not mean it is his view. It is the same for Imam Tabari. He collects various narrations that people say are ascribed to a verse, and OFTEN TIMES DOES NOT GIVE HIS OPINION ON THE MATTER.

"So far, with the exception of you somehow thinking Hakim was Shia, I have used only sunni references and instead of refuting them, you keep avoiding the issue of sunni scholars having tafseers that show OTHERS who were at Mubahila."

I JUST REFUTED IT. NOBODY WAS AT AN EVENT THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

This is precisely why the author of the article does not include the hadeeth of Muslim. Saheeh Muslim MAKES NO MENTION OF THIS EVENT AT ALL. The author is being deceptive.

"Even if you manage to find them, the very fact that they exist in sunni references (we havent even touched shia references here) and AUTHENTIC ones at that, should be reason for you to stop arguing with baseless conjectures and to think for a moment. "

Baseless conjectures? How do two narrations that expressly contradict each other amount to baseless conjectures?

Your argument amounts to it is in the sunni books... YOU DON'T DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE... further, you have not established them as AUTHENTIC... you have added the words, because you know that they are NOT AUTHENTIC... you are trying to equate:

being in a sunni book as authentic...

when I give you a quote from Tabari which clearly shows he collected all sorts of narrations, and in fact, ibn Katheer's tafseer deals with a lot of the narrations Tabari quotes, what do you do?

You ignore it....

"I'm not here to bash any of the wives or sahaba, my main point is that we follow the ahlul bayt (3as) because in our traditions we say the prophet 9saw ordered us to and thats it. WE dont follow them for any ohter reason."

Actually, if we want to get down to it, the AHL-BAYT in the Quran is solely referring to the WIVES... and this can be proven simply from the Quran, the MOST AUTHENTIC BOOK IN HUMAN HISTORY..

we wouldn't even have to go into the hadeeth..

Wa salaam
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 6:59pm)
Nice post, brother Masomeen
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 5:58pm)
As salamu alaykum.

You are right, Seyyida Zahra (3as) did have a daughter. But that daughter is NOT considered part of ahlul bayt (3as). She is a good lady (Seyyida Zaynab) but ahlul bayt refer only to those five individuals at the time.

Your claim is the prophet (saw) didnt bring any of the ahlul bayt (3as), butYou still havent shown WHO the prophet (saw) brought with him on this event with the exception of this weak narration of one man, although You yourself admit that there is NO verse to substantiate this but rather a guess.

Show us a tafseer by someone who says other people other than ahlul bayt (3as) were there instead of arguing over how many monks, came and this and that; youre basically avoiding this issue.

And here is another tafseer from someone who is NOT Shia on that verse.

In another Sunni commentary of Quran, it is narrated on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Umar that:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH& HF) said: "Had there been any soul on the whole earth better than Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husain, Allah would have commanded me to take them along with me to Mubahala. But as they were superior in dignity and respect to all human be beings, Allah confined His choice on them only for participation in Mubahala."
Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Baidhawi, under the commentary of Verse 3:61


And on ANOTHER oacassion, The prophet (saw) mentioned ahlul bayt (3as) and who they SPECIFICALLY were in a hadith of yours: "Tradition of Cloak" is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:

The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH& HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."
Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

Also, have you become a mind reader and assume that Suyuti didnt knwo what he was talking about when he included the citations below? Wouldnt he have EXCLUDED the citation if it was false? Are you then implying that Suyuti , who you consider a great scholar, intentionally included somethign he thought was false or weak?

So far, with the exception of you somehow thinking Hakim was Shia, I have used only sunni references and instead of refuting them, you keep avoiding the issue of sunni scholars having tafseers that show OTHERS who were at Mubahila.

Also, without any scholarly reference you keep calling weak what others call strong.

Even if you manage to find them, the very fact that they exist in sunni references (we havent even touched shia references here) and AUTHENTIC ones at that, should be reason for you to stop arguing with baseless conjectures and to think for a moment.

I'm not here to bash any of the wives or sahaba, my main point is that we follow the ahlul bayt (3as) because in our traditions we say the prophet 9saw ordered us to and thats it. WE dont follow them for any ohter reason.

And so we go to them for our source of the sunnah of hte prophet as opposed to certain other wives or sahaba, because we say thats what the prophet 9saw asked us to do.

In the end all I can say is you are free to follow what you want based on what you believe is correct , and that is what we do as well.
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 5:10pm)
"In the above verse (3:61), according to what Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari (the great companion of the Prophet) said, the word "sons" refers to al-Hasan and al-Husain, the word "women" refers to Fatimah, and the word "our selves" refer to the Prophet and Ali. Thus Ali is referred as "the self" of the Prophet (Nafs of the Prophet).
Reference: al-Durr al-Manthoor by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v2, p38"

Further, we can tell this claim is absurd and baseless, and I doubt Suyuti (R) expressed this opinion... He may have quoted it, but this does not mean he held it to be authentic, especially considering:

Notice how in one instance they try and justify the use of plural for selves, by adding Ali (R) to the statement... Whom have they added to Fatima (R) to make daughters plural?
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 5:06pm)
Thus, when you say:

"You seem to imply that Tabari was basing this on almost hearsay like information, and then quote Muslim to refute it , but Hakim USES Muslim to conclude that Al Mubahila was meant for ahlul bayt."

Note that this is not a surprise considering Hakim. Further, the hadeeth quoted clearly contradict these accounts as I stated before.

1. The hadeeth in Muslim clearly states that the rulers of Najran, WHICH WERE TWO, nit sixty monks, did not even go for 'mubahila'. They further realized he was a Prophet (AS) before he had went. They also declare the people of Najran being quite familiar with the versus of the Quran.

2. It is alleged that the Christian monks OPENLY DECLARED TO THEIR TRIBE that these were people of God. Thus, they openly proclaimed their defeat before the people. Seems like a very 'profound' way to secure their spiritual and worldy leadership over their own people by saying the Prophet (S) spoke the truth, and yet still deny him. How many of the people do you think would have retained their faith?

3. The hadeeth in Bukhari and Muslim make no mention of the 'panjtan' in this incident.

4. The word used for 'our women' is plural. If the verse was referencing the ahl-bayt according to shia, since when was Fatima (R) the only women of the Prophet's family.

In fact, Fatima (R) had a DAUGHTER. Where did she go? The Prophet (S) had other daughters, and grand-daughters and grand-sons from other sides of his famile besides them. Are you declaring the Prophet (S) to be so merciless and heartless that he (S) did not include them in his family? Would you have done that, let alone the "Mercy to All the Worlds"?

Where did all these pious women and children go?

5. I searched for the hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim under the virtues of Ali (R) and it is not there... further, other hadeeth, according to Saheeh Muslim claim that the "People of the House" hadeeth was revealed for Surah Ahzab. If that is what you mean by the hadeeth of Saa'd bin Waqqas, it is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT INCIDENT.

6. As far as Salman Farsi (R), I don't claim he had any bias, nor do I claim the same for Saad bin Waqqas (R).
A hadeeth is composed of a chain of MANY PEOPLE. Thus, while Salman (R) and Saad (R) are not biased, those within the CHAINS MAY BE BIASED.

My point is that the name Salman (R) is no coincidence in this hadeeth, because it is one of the few Sahabah (R) alleged by the Rafidhis to not have turned apostate after the Prophet's (S) death. Why is he there all of the sudden?


The event NEVER HAPPENED.
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 4:24pm)
1. I never claimed Salman Farsi (R) was biased. I said it is NO coincidence that in this very narration that the one of the few Companions the Rafidhis claim did not turn apostate was him (R). The hadeeth in Sahih Muslim and Bukhair do not mention any of this additonal information narrated in Tabari's account, let alone Hakim's account. As far as the latTer, I will make a statement regarding him down below. IN FACT, THESE NARRATIONS ARE CLEARLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE AUTHENTIC ONE'S NARRATED BY THE TWO SHAYKHS.

2. Regarding Hakim's claim that the narration is authentic based upon the criteria of Bukhari is Muslim is another example where the shia are unfaithful in their tranmission of facts. First of all, Hakim makes countless exxagerated claims. Among them, he claims that Hadhrat Ali (R) allegedly being born in the Kaaba, is mutawattir. This is baseless. Second, HAKIM IS SHIA, AND THIS IS MENTIONED BY IMAM DHAHABI (R) AND IMAM IBN HAJR (R).

In fact, in his Mustadarak, this alleged criteria of being authentic according to the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim is so-oft repeated by Hakim for various hadeeth BASELESSLY. For example, the contemporary of Hakeem, Ibraaheem ibn Muhammad al-Armawy, states that Al Hakeem often says this. Ibraaheem than said, after critcizng him, the scholars of Hadeeth do not turn to his sayings. This is reported by Imam Dhahabi (R).

"Al-Sakhawi in 'al-Tawbikh' and others mention that he declares many forged reports to be rigorously authentic, not to mention weak ones, instead of
clinging to his own expressed precondition that only reports with chains of the rank of Bukhari's and Muslim's would be retained."
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 3:16pm)
You quote Muslim, but I also quote Muslim AND Tirmidhi who both have this narrated. Its interesting how we are getting TWO different quotes from Muslim. Should make us think here a bit.

Narrated Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas:
...And when the verse 3:61 was revealed, the Prophet called Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain. Then the Prophet said: "O Lord! These are my family members (Ahli)."

Note Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas is NOT someone who (unlike your claim of Salman Farsi) who would have been "biased" towards ahlul bayt (3as), When Imam Ali (3as) asked him for help during Siffeen and Jamal, he didnt participate, so he is not a sahaba who would have been "biased' towards the ahlul bayt (3as.)

Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of virtues of Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1871, the end of tradition #32.

Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p654

AND also
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p150, who said this tradition is authentic based on the criteria set by two Shaikhs, al-Bukhari and Muslim.

You seem to imply that Tabari was basing this on almost hearsay like information, and then quote Muslim to refute it , but Hakim USES Muslim to conclude that Al Mubahila was meant for ahlul bayt.

In what you stated, you mentioned only one man (other than the prophet (saw) came to face the Christians. Does it make any sense that the verse addresses all these categories (women, sons, etc.) and the Prophet (saw) brings one man?

al-Suyuti who was a great Sunni scholar, wrote:

In the above verse (3:61), according to what Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari (the great companion of the Prophet) said, the word "sons" refers to al-Hasan and al-Husain, the word "women" refers to Fatimah, and the word "our selves" refer to the Prophet and Ali. Thus Ali is referred as "the self" of the Prophet (Nafs of the Prophet).
Reference: al-Durr al-Manthoor by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v2, p38
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 2:29pm)
Notice the beauty of the verse:

1. Our sons... the ayah appeals to the emotional sense of a parent... the parent is most protective about his children.. further, the son BEARS THE LEGACY OF HIS FATHER...

2. Our women... notice how the Quran does not use the word daughter... the Quran does this in another instance in surah Baqarah... the reason for this is because the women, in the man's eye, appeals to a very strong sense of honor for himself...

thus, there is first that emotional appeal, and appeal based upon honor, and than ultimately ends with the person himself...

we also know that this is pretty much the make-up of the family.. a person first thinks about his family, when it comes to safety... he will put himself at risk, but never his own family...
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 2:20pm)
When I said made a mistake, the narration does not say the monks had known about the ahl-bayt before, but they came to know of them through others... but that does not change the criticism of the narrations..

As is clearly testified by the narrators, the one whom narrated the story in Tabari has clearly thrown in material that is not present in the other accounts.
Among them is his throwing in mention of the,

"Family of the Prophet."

This is precisely why Shibli Numaani has clearly stated, the people of hadeeth GIVE PREFERENCE OVER SEERAH. In fact, seerah is judged in light of hadeeth.
In fact, even according to the sunni hadeeths, the ayah of the House of the Prophet was allegedly made when the Prophet (S) was in the house of the wives of his Prophet (S), and he placed them under the sheet.

Further, the very ayah is not defining whom is the family of the Prophet (S). It is actually a rhetorical style of the Quran, meant to add even more seriousness to the rejection of these idolaters.. Not only does the Quran say, "Let us bring ourselves to this curse, but we will bring even our dear relatives..."
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 2:13pm)
Actually, I made a mistake in the following narration of Tabari, but it does not affect me point. The chief monk, according to this narration, came to know who these 5 were, and seeing the mraks of piety on their face became scared.

Either way, this portion like the others is clearly contradicted by the accounts of Bukhari. There is mention of 60 monks, and in regards to Bukhari, the dicussion is between 2 of the rulers of Najran, and that two secretly. It has nothing to do with this being proclaimed loudly, and such dramatic proclamations of these Christians.

FURTHER, HOW STRANGE WOULD IT BE FOR THESE RULERS TO PROCLAIM THESE WERE PEOPLE OF GOD, AND NOT FEEL THAT THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR POWER?
This proclamation is alleged to have been made in front of EVERYBODY...

This is akin to saying,

"They are on the truth. Don't even think about cursing them, but continue to follow us, the chief monks of Najran, despite them being on truth."

How strange these politicians are...
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 2:05pm)
In fact, the only mention of the debate in Saheeh Muslim, that I could find is:

"Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read" O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them."

Notice that it was Mughir b. Shu'ba who had come to Najran. FURTHER, NOTICE THAT THE AYAH CLEARLY SPEAKS ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN'S FULL FAMILIARITY WITH THE QURAN, THUS THE QUESTION:

"You read, "O Sister of Harun.." in the Quran....
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 2:02pm)
In fact, in the very next hadeeth, the only thing that is mentioned is:

"Narrated Hudhaifa:

The people of Najran came to the Prophet and said, "Send an honest man to us." The Prophet said, "I will send to you an honest man who is really trustworthy." Everyone of the (Muslim) people hoped to be that one. The Prophet then sent Abu Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah."

There is no mention of the ayah of the curse.
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 2:02pm)
In Sahih Bukhari, the following hadeeth relates:

"Al-'Aqib and Saiyid, the rulers of Najran, came to Allah's Apostle with the intention of doing Lian one of them said to the other, "Do not do (this Lian) for, by Allah, if he is a Prophet and we do this Lian, neither we, nor our offspring after us will be successful." Then both of them said (to the Prophet ), "We will give what you should ask but you should send a trustworthy man with us, and do not send any person with us but an honest one." The Prophet said, "I will send an honest man who Is really trustworthy." Then every one of the companions of Allah's Apostle wished to be that one. Then the Prophet said, "Get up, O Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah." When he got up, Allah's Apostle said, "This is the Trustworthy man of this (Muslim) nation."

NOTICE IN THIS HADEETH OF NAJRAN, THE CHRISTIANS OF NAJRAN ON THE WAY THERE ALREADY DECIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO LIAN. They already KNEW he was a Prophet (S), and knew that they would be unsucessful. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THEM SEEING THE FACES OF THE AHL-BAYT, and becoming scared.

There is no mention of this story.
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 1:56pm)
The story is full of absurdities because:

1. THE AUTHOR FAILED TO MENTION THE NUMBER OF THE AYAH COMPARING THE CREATION OF ADAM TO JESUS. Why would he do that?

The ayah actually PRECEDES THE ayah regarding the MUBAHILA. In fact, it is one verse BEFORE the ayah.

Why would a verse be placed before the 'mubahilah' verse, if it was revealed CONTINGENT upon the 'mubahilah' verse?

Further, this event is said to have happened in 10 AH. This means it was close to the event of the death of the Prophet (S), meaning that the Christians of Najran would have been FULLY AWARE OF THE VARIOUS AYAH WHICH DEALT WITH CHRISTIANITY, especially the claim that Jesus (AS) did not have a father. Are you arguing that over 20 years had passed since the revelation, that it took this long for the Quran to compare the creation of Jesus (AS) to Adam (AS)?

To argue that the Prophet (S) would somehow be refuted by a claim which was responded to countless times in the Quran shows just how woefully ficticious this story is.

2. The fact that the Christians WOULD KNOW THE FAMILY OF THE PROPHET (S) IS ESPECIALLY VALID. How could they be so knowledgable about this fact, YET WOEFULLY IGNORANT OF POINT 1? If they knew from the scriptures who these 'ahl-bayt' were, than how could they not know these other points? Further, everybody knows the corruption of the scriptures regarding the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (S), and in fact, they can clearly be shown. Where in the Old Testament or NT is there any notion of the Ahl-Bayt being mentioned?

3. The context of surah Imran clearly states that this verse was REVEALED AFTER A LONG TIME OF DEBATING. It was preceded by a number of verses that prove the human nature of Jesus (AS), WHICH INCLUDE THE COMPARISON BETWEEN ADAM (AS) AND JESUS (AS). This is precisely why the surah states:

"If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now AFTER (FULL) KNOWLEDGE HAS COME TO THEE, say: "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!"

3. NOBODY IS DISMISSING TABARI (R). What is being dismissed is the INDISCRIMINATE REPORTING BY TABARI (R): As far as Tabari, in the introduction to his Tarikh (Khubat al-Kitab), HE, HIMSELF, says:

"Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not
reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I
mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us."

Tarif Khalidi says:

".... in the History Tabari IS AT THE MERCY OF HIS TRANSMITTERS."

Tarif Khalidi, Arabic Historical Thought In The Classical Period, 1994, Cambridge University Press, pp. 76.

One may argue that this is his history and not commentary, BUT IN FACT, THE SAME IS THE CASE WITH HIS COMMENTARY. This is precisely the foundation of the scholarly criticism regarding it. He collects various narratives, without even commenting on them. This is precisely why ibn Kathir (R) has criticized many of them, and also one of the reasons ibn Kathir (R) is usually preferred, i.e. because of the chains of narration. THUS TO ARGUE THAT I AM DISMISSING TABARI, OR SUNNI SCHOLARS ARE DISMISSING TABARI BY CRITICIZING INDISCRIMINATE USAGE IS BASELESS.

4. "The Arabic word used in this verse is Nisa and it is Plura, yet none of hte wives were there nor any other "daughters" (other than Seyyida Zahra (3as) were there.

Can you explain that?"

THIS IS PRECISELY THE POINT. How can one claim that this verse was revealed exclusively for the ahl-bayt, when the Prophet had MORE THAN ONE DAUGHTER? Are you saying he did not fulfill the command of God Almighty by leaving his other daughters behind? You also do realize that Fatima (R) had another daughter? Where did she happen to go in this narration?
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 9:45am)
The jew priest knew Muhammed was the messiah because he exhibited all the messianic characteristics mentioned in the jewish scripture...
 
Login to find out (January 3, 2006 at 3:53am)
Khiladi: whether the chiefmonk knew these individuals by name personally or not, he could definitely see that it was not worth arguing the merits of religion with them, since he could tell simply by their look that they were in esteemed favor with God. How could he know? The same way a jew in a passing caravan could know that the little boy on a camel known as Muhammad was going to be the messiah.