Author Topic: History vs. Hadith  (Read 10828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zulfiqarchucknorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
History vs. Hadith
« on: December 23, 2012, 02:16:05 PM »
Peace
I found many hadiths that state that non muslims be expelled from Arabia.
http://sunnah.com/search/expel-arabian-peninsula
However, history has shown us that non Muslims were still living their, The prophet didn't expel them and neither did Abu Bakr, Umar expelled the jews of Khaybar after they attacked Abdullah ibn Umaar and broke his arm, and he expelled them from hijaz, and he allowed them to visit hijaz for a 3 day visit. The christians of najran were expelled only after they broke a treaty.
These are found in history books and hadith.
isn't this a contradiction.

Offline Tanveer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Hello
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2012, 04:48:20 PM »
http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/657

Read misquoted narration 6. :D

Offline zulfiqarchucknorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2012, 05:30:13 AM »
But why didn't the prophet expel them?
Why didn't ABu Bakr expel them?why didn't umar expel them until the christians broke a treaty and the jews attacked hi son?

Offline Tanveer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Hello
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2012, 09:33:09 AM »
But why didn't the prophet expel them?
Why didn't ABu Bakr expel them?why didn't umar expel them until the christians broke a treaty and the jews attacked hi son?
They did get expelled from hijaz.

Offline zulfiqarchucknorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2012, 11:48:01 AM »
Yes they did
But the prophet didn't expel them
Neither did Abu Bakr, he didn't expel them.
Umar expelled them only after the Jews mistreated his son and the Christians broke a treaty, and stil they were allowed to return for 3 day visits.

Offline Tanveer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Hello
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2012, 01:52:03 PM »
Yes they did
But the prophet didn't expel them
Neither did Abu Bakr, he didn't expel them.
Umar expelled them only after the Jews mistreated his son and the Christians broke a treaty, and stil they were allowed to return for 3 day visits.
Im not 100% sure. Maybe there was a historical context that we've missed or isnt there. Or maybe the Prophet PBUH reconsidered his 'oath' if you will. But like i said. Im not 100% sure. There'll be a reason.

Offline zulfiqarchucknorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2012, 03:23:13 PM »
Peace
Well i can give you evidence, i know much more exeist and i have seen it but i dont remember where, or which source, however i did remember one.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/54/18
it says in the hadith "After the jews dislocated ibn umat's hands and feet...umar explled them"
This is just one, and you can find others like it, i did although i dont remember where.
so as you can see, it was only after the mistreated his son did umar expel the, and it was only Khaybar. As for the christians, it should be noted that they made a pact with the prophet that they would not indulge in certain activities hostile to islam, such as usury. But when they did, during umar's reign, they were expelled.
If the hadith was true then they would've been expelled during the prophet's reign or during Abu Bakr's, how come it was only umar that expelled them AFTER they did certain bad deeds?
Peace

Offline Tanveer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Hello
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2012, 03:33:36 PM »
Peace
Well i can give you evidence, i know much more exeist and i have seen it but i dont remember where, or which source, however i did remember one.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/54/18
it says in the hadith "After the jews dislocated ibn umat's hands and feet...umar explled them"
This is just one, and you can find others like it, i did although i dont remember where.
so as you can see, it was only after the mistreated his son did umar expel the, and it was only Khaybar. As for the christians, it should be noted that they made a pact with the prophet that they would not indulge in certain activities hostile to islam, such as usury. But when they did, during umar's reign, they were expelled.
If the hadith was true then they would've been expelled during the prophet's reign or during Abu Bakr's, how come it was only umar that expelled them AFTER they did certain bad deeds?
Peace
I honestly dont know. I think it would be best if you consulted a scholar on one of those Q-A sites.

Offline zulfiqarchucknorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2012, 06:36:29 PM »
but the problem with those sites is i cannot trust them 100%
i found many errors in many of them.

Offline Black Muslim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2012, 12:51:31 AM »
Hmmm . I can't really talk about things I'm not sure of , it would be dangerous . So I leave it to ones who know better .

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2013, 02:53:16 PM »
Peace
I found many hadiths that state that non muslims be expelled from Arabia.
http://sunnah.com/search/expel-arabian-peninsula
However, history has shown us that non Muslims were still living their, The prophet didn't expel them and neither did Abu Bakr, Umar expelled the jews of Khaybar after they attacked Abdullah ibn Umaar and broke his arm, and he expelled them from hijaz, and he allowed them to visit hijaz for a 3 day visit. The christians of najran were expelled only after they broke a treaty.
These are found in history books and hadith.
isn't this a contradiction.

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother,

I am not sure where is the contradiction that you're talking about.  The order of the Prophet, peace be upon him, was to expel all NON-MUSLIMS (no exceptions) from the Holy Lands.  Apparently, the order took sometime to be fully executed.  It's not like the Prophet can say to something "Be" and then it becomes.

I don't see a contradiction.  The problem that some narrations have, is that they have too lengthy narration chain, as just about every single one you gave had.  Obviously, some of these are either out of historical context, or out of context, or were isolated situation.  The Grand Order was to expel all non-Muslims out of the Holy Lands.  That we all agree upon.  The problem that you're raising is that some Jews and non-Muslims remained until Umar became a Caliph.

Well as you know, the Muslims had to deal with many many battles after the liberation of Mecca.  Wars with pagans and apostates (the army of the hypocrites), as you know, took place.  They wanted to destroy Islam and miserably failed.  Not only Islam prevailed and crushed all of them and converted all of Arabia to Islam, but Islam further conquored Persia and much Rome's lands. 

So it would make sense that some of the rotten Zionists remained in Arabia only because the Muslims just simply didn't have the chance nor the time to reach them.  But after the pagans and apostates (the army of the hypocrites and fake "Muslims") got crushed, then the time was suitable to clear our lands from all Zionist filth.  This is similar to the rotten idol-worshiping shias and their zionist imams in our lands today.  It'll take time to get rid of them.  But the Grand Goal is to remove all of them, insha'Allah.  Like the apostates, pagans and zionists 1,400 years ago, we also today don't need these zionist Islam-corruptors in our Holy Lands.  Insha'Allah, the corrupt royal family will be thrown out of our Holy Lands along with them, as well.  We must clean our Holy Lands from those rubbish as well.

The Arab Spring was born and the people errupted against the dictators.  After the fall of Iraq, so many armed militias were formed throughout the Middle East.  Praised be Allah Almighty, the Arabs have risen against their governments, and they will NOT stop.  The Arab world now is FILLED with well-armed militias.  And it will only grow and get better, insha'Allah.  These guys are now even building their own weapons.  Regardless of how long their victory will take, but it'll happen, insha'Allah, and REAL ISLAM will be restored, insha'Allah.  The shias' fatal mistake was that they clashed with the Arab Spring.  Alhamdulillah that they did.  The overwhelming majority of the Muslims world-wide were ignorants of zionist shiism.  And the Shias are finding out the hard way that they're on their way to extermination like rodents from one's home.  So both the shias and our dictators and their filthy royal families will be exterminated like rodents from our home, insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing).  It will take time, but it'll happen for sure, insha'Allah. 

Rest assured that the Middle East WILL NEVER EVER be the same again.  Those "Iron Fists" that were ruling us got chopped off!  Thanks to George W. Bush and his Crusader Holy War on Saddam Hussein.  Allah Almighty with His Divine Will and Wisdom Chose that clown and his neo-con zionist slaves to do it.  With close to 2 trillion US dollars, Bush was able to do it.  And now the Middle East is all armed militias, and they are rapidly growing.  But the difference between them and the militias that are in Latin America and Africa is that ISLAM KEEPS THEM EITHICAL AND MORAL & REAL SOLDIERS OF ALLAH ALMIGHTY, while the others that I mentioend turn to drug cartels and gangs and thugs who terrorize their own people with rapes and murders by the wholesale.

Look at Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Libya.  Complete chaos.  And by the way, Bangladesh and Pakistan are boiling right now.  Insha'Allah that part of the Muslim world will errupt soon, and the Muslims will clear their lands from the filthy and corrupt dictators and their royal families that are robbing their lands.  Believe me, the Muslim world is changing, and is changing for the better, insha'Allah.

I hope this helps, insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline zulfiqarchucknorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: History vs. Hadith
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2013, 09:07:08 AM »
Peace brother,
I just want to tell you that it was not a process that took gradual time, at the time of teh prophet and Abu Bakr, there were no actions taken to expel non muslims from arabia because of there faith, i would like to remind you that the wars of apostasy and stablization of thr muslim faith was early in Abu bakr's reign, after he was done, he had time to expel the non muslims but simply did not, and averted his attention to toher matters. When umar became caliph he still didnt take action, until 2 incidents, one was that the jews of khaybar attacked his son and dislocated his arm after they refused to pay tax.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/54/18
another incident was that the christians of najran used usury, something that broke the treaty they had with the muslims.
After these two, historical sources differ:
Some state that only those non muslims were expelled, others state that they were expelled only from those places, others state they were expelled from the hijaz only, but they were allowed to return for a 3 day visit.
Most sources agree that the jews of taima and al wadi were left alone.
Umar allowed the jews to live in yemen and they havehad a continuous presence there till present day.
Because of these contradictions, many scholars disagree on whther jews and christians were allowed to live in the peninsula, whther it is mecca & medina alone, the surrounding are, hijaz, or hijaz and yammama, but only a minority of the scholars, not even the 4 great imams, say that they should be expelled from all of arabia, some even say itwas only for a certain time.
peace

 

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube