Village Journals
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.
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.
How many forts comprised Khaybar?
Khaybar was comprised of many forts. It is typical of shia to conflate the fact that Ali (R) bore the standard of the Prophet (S) at Qamoos into being the SOLE conquerer 'Khaybar', without revealing the hand that other Companions (R) played in the matter. Much of shiaism is to attribute to Ali (R) single-handedly the success of Islam, as if the Companions (R) had nothing to do with it.
To quote Shibli Numaani:
"The oasis of the border of which Khaybar is situated is a very fertile spot. HERE THE JEWS CONSTRUCTED A NUMBER OF STRONG FORTS; THE RUINS OF SOME OF THEIR FORTIFICATIONS ARE STILL EXTANT."
Shibli Numaani than goes on to state, quoting Yaqubi, the historian, that Khaybar was composed of SIX FORTS. They include Salim, Qamus, Nitat, Qusarah, Shaqq, and Martabah.
The commentary of Sirat-un-Nabi, Budayani, corrects this statement of Shibli Numaani, and states that Khaybar was COMPRISED OF EIGHT FORTS:
Nitat, al-Shaqq (in Qamus it is al-hiqq), al-Na'im, al-Kutaiba, al-Watih, al-Sulalim, al-Mamus, and the fort of Sa'as bin Muadh.
Qamoos is the fort in which the Arab warrior, Marhab was located. Further, this fort was composed of the family of ibn Abi al-Huqaiq.
In fact, ibn Hisham records that when the Muslim army first entered Khaybar, the Jews sent their provisions to the FORT OF NA'IM, along with their women.
The first fort to be stormed was this same Fort Na'im. The expedition against this fort was led by Muhammad bin Maslama (R). This fort was easily taken. ibn Hisham records that Muhammad bin Maslama was killed by a stone launched from the parapet. But this is contradicted by more authentic narrations that state that he was involved in the battle of the fort of Qamoos.
There were other Sahabah (R) that conquered other forts, among them:
Umar (R), Saad bin Ubaidah (R), Khubaab bin Munzir (R), and Abu Bakr (R).
ibn Hisham records that the two forts attached to Qamoos were conquered by Abu Bakr (R) and Umar (R) respectively.
The fort of Qamoos, in which Marhab (R) was, is said to have been conquered by Ali (R), and this is reported through Bareeda bin Sufyan. Imam Bukhari says about him that he is unreliable.
In fact, all those traditions which attribute the conquest of Qamoos to Ali (R) go through him. Abu Daud says about him that he is insignificant, while Daruqtuni says that he is abandoned. It was also said about him that he was a drunkard.
IN FACT, the 'alleged failures' of Abu Bakr and Umar in this particular fort have all been reported through him. Coincidence?
Now what is the point?
It is quite obvious when one analyzes certain traditions regarding Ali (R), that the actual story was conflated into attributed the SOLE victory of Khayber to Ali (R). In fact, this can be be made manifest in examining how the narration of the standard being held by Ali (R) was conflated.
This is precisely why certain hadeeth only mention:
"I shall entrust the RAYA to a man, tomorrow morning, who would be dear to Allah and his Prophet. We were in the hope for it, but he, gave the RAYA to Hadrat Ali (R) and on his hands, the fort was vanquished."
Notice how, the narration does not mention:
1. The casualty of Marhab
2. The uprooting of the gate
3. Nor the alleged flight of Abu Bakr (R) and Umar (R).
It does not mention that many Companions (R) failed, and only mentions that the victory of Qamoos occured when Ali (R) was the STANDARD-BEARER. Further, the standard-bearer, according to Arab warfare, is not THE COMMANDER of the army. The ALAM standard is the MAIN STANDARD, and this was with the Prophet (S). In fact, the seerah writers failed to mention that in battle, the Prophet (S) also appointed RAYA flags for both the Aus and Khazraj.
In fact, Shibli Numaani points out in his Seerah, that the narration of Tabari that Umar (R) could not stand his ground has been related through Auf. Though some narrators consider him trustworthy, He is a RAFIDHI according to Bundar. Shibli Numaani states this is excessive, but it is acknowledged that he was qualified as shia, and any narration that is related staining Umar and Abu Bakr by a shia is considered unreliable. In fact, these narrations contradict the more reliable one's which make no mention of Abu Bakr and Umar running away. Furthermore, this narration has Abdullah bin Buraida, who reports it from his father, and the traditionists argue that hadeeth based upon this are not considered reliable.
We can even perform a more detailed analysis of the narrations, but the point is established.
To quote Shibli Numaani:
"The oasis of the border of which Khaybar is situated is a very fertile spot. HERE THE JEWS CONSTRUCTED A NUMBER OF STRONG FORTS; THE RUINS OF SOME OF THEIR FORTIFICATIONS ARE STILL EXTANT."
Shibli Numaani than goes on to state, quoting Yaqubi, the historian, that Khaybar was composed of SIX FORTS. They include Salim, Qamus, Nitat, Qusarah, Shaqq, and Martabah.
The commentary of Sirat-un-Nabi, Budayani, corrects this statement of Shibli Numaani, and states that Khaybar was COMPRISED OF EIGHT FORTS:
Nitat, al-Shaqq (in Qamus it is al-hiqq), al-Na'im, al-Kutaiba, al-Watih, al-Sulalim, al-Mamus, and the fort of Sa'as bin Muadh.
Qamoos is the fort in which the Arab warrior, Marhab was located. Further, this fort was composed of the family of ibn Abi al-Huqaiq.
In fact, ibn Hisham records that when the Muslim army first entered Khaybar, the Jews sent their provisions to the FORT OF NA'IM, along with their women.
The first fort to be stormed was this same Fort Na'im. The expedition against this fort was led by Muhammad bin Maslama (R). This fort was easily taken. ibn Hisham records that Muhammad bin Maslama was killed by a stone launched from the parapet. But this is contradicted by more authentic narrations that state that he was involved in the battle of the fort of Qamoos.
There were other Sahabah (R) that conquered other forts, among them:
Umar (R), Saad bin Ubaidah (R), Khubaab bin Munzir (R), and Abu Bakr (R).
ibn Hisham records that the two forts attached to Qamoos were conquered by Abu Bakr (R) and Umar (R) respectively.
The fort of Qamoos, in which Marhab (R) was, is said to have been conquered by Ali (R), and this is reported through Bareeda bin Sufyan. Imam Bukhari says about him that he is unreliable.
In fact, all those traditions which attribute the conquest of Qamoos to Ali (R) go through him. Abu Daud says about him that he is insignificant, while Daruqtuni says that he is abandoned. It was also said about him that he was a drunkard.
IN FACT, the 'alleged failures' of Abu Bakr and Umar in this particular fort have all been reported through him. Coincidence?
Now what is the point?
It is quite obvious when one analyzes certain traditions regarding Ali (R), that the actual story was conflated into attributed the SOLE victory of Khayber to Ali (R). In fact, this can be be made manifest in examining how the narration of the standard being held by Ali (R) was conflated.
This is precisely why certain hadeeth only mention:
"I shall entrust the RAYA to a man, tomorrow morning, who would be dear to Allah and his Prophet. We were in the hope for it, but he, gave the RAYA to Hadrat Ali (R) and on his hands, the fort was vanquished."
Notice how, the narration does not mention:
1. The casualty of Marhab
2. The uprooting of the gate
3. Nor the alleged flight of Abu Bakr (R) and Umar (R).
It does not mention that many Companions (R) failed, and only mentions that the victory of Qamoos occured when Ali (R) was the STANDARD-BEARER. Further, the standard-bearer, according to Arab warfare, is not THE COMMANDER of the army. The ALAM standard is the MAIN STANDARD, and this was with the Prophet (S). In fact, the seerah writers failed to mention that in battle, the Prophet (S) also appointed RAYA flags for both the Aus and Khazraj.
In fact, Shibli Numaani points out in his Seerah, that the narration of Tabari that Umar (R) could not stand his ground has been related through Auf. Though some narrators consider him trustworthy, He is a RAFIDHI according to Bundar. Shibli Numaani states this is excessive, but it is acknowledged that he was qualified as shia, and any narration that is related staining Umar and Abu Bakr by a shia is considered unreliable. In fact, these narrations contradict the more reliable one's which make no mention of Abu Bakr and Umar running away. Furthermore, this narration has Abdullah bin Buraida, who reports it from his father, and the traditionists argue that hadeeth based upon this are not considered reliable.
We can even perform a more detailed analysis of the narrations, but the point is established.
Comments on this journal
thus, it is not lack of honesty, or racism... it is a common fact of life in determining whether a person is valid in testimony on a matter or not..
1 person is what elevated Islam...
or
This one person, along with other Companions, elevated Islam.
Which is more logical, especially considering the almost impossible odds regarding Islam's supremacy...
But everytime I hear shia, the typical argument is "this occurs in sunni books".
Where is Ali (R) down-played in certain sunni books, when the Sunni scholars are critiquing various narrations that OCCUR IN THEIR OWN BOOKS...
Actually, it is not the only reason. That is why I stated, the bias is confirmed by OTHER NARRATIONS. Take an example:
2 narrators mention an event, without Abu Bakr or Umar.
1 narrator mentions an event with Abu Bakr and Umar, and this narrator is shia. Further, this narrator gives the impression that it was Ali (R) who conquered, when history clearly teaches us, and other narrators teach us that Khaybar was comprised of various forts, all conquered by various Sahabah (R), than it is quite obvious that this ONE NARRATOR is adding additional elements that were never present.
THIS IS ACADEMIC. Academic is not saying, well this book says Ali (R) broke down the gates of Khaybar single-handedly, and this gate could not be lifted by 40 people.
Brother, you said:
"In fact, Shibli Numaani points out in his Seerah, that the narration of Tabari that Umar (R) could not stand his ground has been related through Auf. Though some narrators consider him trustworthy, He is a RAFIDHI according to Bundar. Shibli Numaani states this is excessive, but it is acknowledged that he was qualified as shia, and any narration that is related staining Umar and Abu Bakr by a shia is considered unreliable. In fact, these narrations contradict the more reliable one's which make no mention of Abu Bakr and Umar running away. Furthermore, this narration has Abdullah bin Buraida, who reports it from his father, and the traditionists argue that hadeeth based upon this are not considered reliable."
According to this the only thing keeping him from being considered reliable in your eyes is that he is a Shiah. What about hadeeth from Sunni narrators staining Abu Bakr and Umar? If such hadeeth come from the Shiah they are outrightly rejected and if they come from Sunnis then what happens, do they get explained away to preserve their reputation? That is just prejudice, bias, discrimination, racism, whatever you want to call it, but not academic.
You believe that the Shiah downplayed the role of the companions and conflated the role of Imam Ali (AS). The Shiah believe that certain Sunni narrators did the opposite, downplaying the role of Ali and conflating the role of the companions.
At the end of the day, there is no escaping the fact that in knowledge, bravery, generosity, patience, worship, and many other virtues no one could match the degree reached by Imam Ali (AS). Our belief is that we should take the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) from those closest to him, and those closest to him are those who are the best in their religion, the Ahlul-Bayt (AS).
Wassalam