🔷 Abū Bakr’s Final Testament
Delirium: The Prophet ﷺ or Abū Bakr?
One of the most famous and controversial episodes in early Islamic history is known as Rāziyyat al-Khamīs—“the Calamity of Thursday.”
During the final days of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, while he was seriously ill, he asked those around him to bring writing materials so that he could dictate something for the Muslim community, so that they would not go astray after him.
But what happened next became one of the most debated moments in Islamic history.
According to the famous reports preserved in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and other major sources, some of those present objected, arguing that the Prophet's illness had become severe. A dispute followed, and the writing was never completed.
The crucial question is the one preserved in the historical record:
Why was the Prophet's request not carried out?
🔸 Now Compare This With Abū Bakr’s Final Illness
Near the end of Abū Bakr’s life, he became seriously ill while preparing the document concerning his successor.
Historical reports describe him becoming unconscious during the process of dictation.
According to these reports, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān was writing the document. Abū Bakr reportedly began dictating the name of his successor, but before the sentence was completed, he lost consciousness.
ʿUthmān then completed the document by writing the name:
ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.
When Abū Bakr regained consciousness, he was informed of what had been written, and the succession document was accepted.
And this creates a striking historical comparison:
The Prophet ﷺ:
“Bring me something so I can write for you something after which you will not go astray.”
The objection:
“The illness has overcome him.”
Abū Bakr:
Seriously ill, dictating his succession document.
He loses consciousness.
ʿUthmān completes the document by naming ʿUmar.
Then Abū Bakr regains consciousness and confirms it.
So the question is not merely theological.
It is a question of historical consistency:
🔻 The Problem of “Delirium”
The reports concerning the Prophet's final request contain extremely strong language.
In some narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, the dispute includes the statement that the Prophet was overwhelmed by pain, while another report preserves the phrase:
“The Prophet has been overcome by illness.”
The famous narration in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim likewise records the dispute surrounding the Prophet's request for writing materials.
This is why the episode became known in Islamic historiography as Rāziyyat al-Khamīs—the calamity of Thursday.
The central issue is not simply whether the Prophet ﷺ was ill.
Everyone knew that he was ill.
The issue is whether his illness could legitimately be used as a reason to disregard an explicit request he himself had made.
And when we compare that episode with the succession of Abū Bakr, another question emerges:
Were the same standards applied to both men?
🔸 Let the Sources Speak
A responsible historian should not distort either episode.
The reports about the Prophet ﷺ must be examined in their original wording and context.
The reports about Abū Bakr's final testament must likewise be examined through their chains, variants, and historical context.
But one thing is undeniable:
The two episodes create a profound historical contrast.
The Prophet ﷺ requested writing materials so that he could leave guidance for the community.
His request was interrupted.
Abū Bakr later dictated his own succession arrangement while seriously ill.
His document was completed.
And the name of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb became the decisive result.
So the question remains:
This is not a question that should be answered with anger.
Delirium: The Prophet ﷺ or Abū Bakr?
One of the most famous and controversial episodes in early Islamic history is known as Rāziyyat al-Khamīs—“the Calamity of Thursday.”
During the final days of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, while he was seriously ill, he asked those around him to bring writing materials so that he could dictate something for the Muslim community, so that they would not go astray after him.
But what happened next became one of the most debated moments in Islamic history.
According to the famous reports preserved in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and other major sources, some of those present objected, arguing that the Prophet's illness had become severe. A dispute followed, and the writing was never completed.
The crucial question is the one preserved in the historical record:
Why was the Prophet's request not carried out?
🔸 Now Compare This With Abū Bakr’s Final Illness
Near the end of Abū Bakr’s life, he became seriously ill while preparing the document concerning his successor.
Historical reports describe him becoming unconscious during the process of dictation.
According to these reports, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān was writing the document. Abū Bakr reportedly began dictating the name of his successor, but before the sentence was completed, he lost consciousness.
ʿUthmān then completed the document by writing the name:
ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.
When Abū Bakr regained consciousness, he was informed of what had been written, and the succession document was accepted.
And this creates a striking historical comparison:
The Prophet ﷺ:
“Bring me something so I can write for you something after which you will not go astray.”
The objection:
“The illness has overcome him.”
Abū Bakr:
Seriously ill, dictating his succession document.
He loses consciousness.
ʿUthmān completes the document by naming ʿUmar.
Then Abū Bakr regains consciousness and confirms it.
So the question is not merely theological.
It is a question of historical consistency:
If severe illness was considered a reason to prevent the Prophet ﷺ from dictating a document for the Ummah, why was severe illness—and even temporary unconsciousness—not considered an obstacle when Abū Bakr's successor was being designated?
🔻 The Problem of “Delirium”
The reports concerning the Prophet's final request contain extremely strong language.
In some narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, the dispute includes the statement that the Prophet was overwhelmed by pain, while another report preserves the phrase:
“The Prophet has been overcome by illness.”
The famous narration in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim likewise records the dispute surrounding the Prophet's request for writing materials.
This is why the episode became known in Islamic historiography as Rāziyyat al-Khamīs—the calamity of Thursday.
The central issue is not simply whether the Prophet ﷺ was ill.
Everyone knew that he was ill.
The issue is whether his illness could legitimately be used as a reason to disregard an explicit request he himself had made.
And when we compare that episode with the succession of Abū Bakr, another question emerges:
Were the same standards applied to both men?
🔸 Let the Sources Speak
A responsible historian should not distort either episode.
The reports about the Prophet ﷺ must be examined in their original wording and context.
The reports about Abū Bakr's final testament must likewise be examined through their chains, variants, and historical context.
But one thing is undeniable:
The two episodes create a profound historical contrast.
The Prophet ﷺ requested writing materials so that he could leave guidance for the community.
His request was interrupted.
Abū Bakr later dictated his own succession arrangement while seriously ill.
His document was completed.
And the name of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb became the decisive result.
So the question remains:
If illness prevented the Prophet ﷺ from being trusted to dictate, why did illness not prevent Abū Bakr from appointing his successor?
This is not a question that should be answered with anger.
It should be answered by returning to the earliest sources, reading them carefully, and allowing the historical evidence to speak.
The standard applied to the Prophet ﷺ must not become weaker than the standard applied to those who came after him.
#RazziyyatAlKhamis #CalamityOfThursday #ProphetMuhammad #AbuBakr #UmarIbnAlKhattab #FinalTestament #SahihBukhari #SahihMuslim #Saqifah #IslamicHistory #EarlyIslamicHistory #AhlulBayt #HistoricalResearch #HistoryOfIslam #MuhammadKhoniferzadeh #SahebMedia
https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2725
🆔 @rahyafte_en
The standard applied to the Prophet ﷺ must not become weaker than the standard applied to those who came after him.
#RazziyyatAlKhamis #CalamityOfThursday #ProphetMuhammad #AbuBakr #UmarIbnAlKhattab #FinalTestament #SahihBukhari #SahihMuslim #Saqifah #IslamicHistory #EarlyIslamicHistory #AhlulBayt #HistoricalResearch #HistoryOfIslam #MuhammadKhoniferzadeh #SahebMedia
https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2725
🆔 @rahyafte_en
🔷 Examples of Censorship and Alteration in Historical Sources
How Can We Detect Changes in the Historical Record?
When studying the final days of Abū Bakr, we previously examined reports attributed to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, according to which Abū Bakr expressed regret over several actions from his past.
One of the most significant statements concerns the house of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها).
But there is another important issue here:
What happens to the same report when we follow it through different historical sources?
This is where historical source criticism becomes essential.
🔸 The Same Report, Different Versions
In some historical works, the statement attributed to Abū Bakr is preserved relatively explicitly.
In other transmissions, however, the sensitive portion is replaced with expressions such as:
“kadhā wa kadhā” — “such-and-such.”
And in some versions, portions of the report are omitted altogether.
This creates an important methodological question:
Why does the wording change?
A serious historian cannot simply choose the version that is most convenient.
Instead, the different versions must be placed side by side and examined.
🔸 What Does the Earlier Wording Say?
The report attributed to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf contains a statement in which Abū Bakr reportedly regretted entering the house of Fāṭimah.
One version conveys the meaning:
If this wording is accepted as historically reliable, it is highly significant because it indicates that entry into Fāṭimah’s house was acknowledged as an action worthy of regret.
But now comes the crucial part:
Do all historical sources preserve the same wording?
No.
And that is exactly why source criticism matters.
🔸 When “Such-and-Such” Replaces the Important Part
In some later transmissions, instead of preserving the specific action, the text becomes:
“I wish I had not done such-and-such…”
At first glance, this may seem insignificant.
It is not.
If an earlier or parallel transmission identifies the action while another version replaces it with an intentionally vague expression, the historian must ask:
What happened to the missing words?
Was the narrator uncertain?
Was the wording abbreviated?
Was the manuscript damaged?
Or did a later transmitter deliberately avoid preserving a politically sensitive statement?
We should not automatically assume censorship in every case.
But neither should we ignore the possibility when multiple textual variants point toward systematic omission or softening.
🔸 The “Kallālah” Example
Another part of the same cluster of reports concerns Abū Bakr's alleged regret over not asking the Prophet ﷺ about certain inheritance questions.
One of the issues mentioned is kallālah.
This becomes historically interesting because other reports portray Abū Bakr as having asked the Prophet ﷺ about the meaning or inheritance ruling concerning kallālah.
Therefore, when different versions of a report transform a potentially sensitive statement into something that sounds like a virtue or scholarly concern, the historian must examine how that transformation occurred.
This is a broader lesson in historical transmission:
A change of wording can sometimes change the meaning of an entire narrative.
🔻 How Does Historical Alteration Happen?
Imagine that:
📜 An early source preserves a specific statement.
Then, decades or centuries later:
📖 another historian quotes the earlier work but replaces a sensitive phrase with “such-and-such.”
Later:
📚 another author cites the same account without the omitted section.
Eventually:
❓ a reader encounters only the shortened version and assumes that the original account never contained the missing material.
This is why historians must distinguish between:
the original text,
later quotations of that text,
manuscript variants,
abridgements,
and editorial alterations.
How Can We Detect Changes in the Historical Record?
When studying the final days of Abū Bakr, we previously examined reports attributed to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, according to which Abū Bakr expressed regret over several actions from his past.
One of the most significant statements concerns the house of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها).
But there is another important issue here:
What happens to the same report when we follow it through different historical sources?
This is where historical source criticism becomes essential.
🔸 The Same Report, Different Versions
In some historical works, the statement attributed to Abū Bakr is preserved relatively explicitly.
In other transmissions, however, the sensitive portion is replaced with expressions such as:
“kadhā wa kadhā” — “such-and-such.”
And in some versions, portions of the report are omitted altogether.
This creates an important methodological question:
Why does the wording change?
A serious historian cannot simply choose the version that is most convenient.
Instead, the different versions must be placed side by side and examined.
🔸 What Does the Earlier Wording Say?
The report attributed to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf contains a statement in which Abū Bakr reportedly regretted entering the house of Fāṭimah.
One version conveys the meaning:
“I wish I had not opened Fāṭimah’s house, even if they had closed it for confrontation.”
If this wording is accepted as historically reliable, it is highly significant because it indicates that entry into Fāṭimah’s house was acknowledged as an action worthy of regret.
But now comes the crucial part:
Do all historical sources preserve the same wording?
No.
And that is exactly why source criticism matters.
🔸 When “Such-and-Such” Replaces the Important Part
In some later transmissions, instead of preserving the specific action, the text becomes:
“I wish I had not done such-and-such…”
At first glance, this may seem insignificant.
It is not.
If an earlier or parallel transmission identifies the action while another version replaces it with an intentionally vague expression, the historian must ask:
What happened to the missing words?
Was the narrator uncertain?
Was the wording abbreviated?
Was the manuscript damaged?
Or did a later transmitter deliberately avoid preserving a politically sensitive statement?
We should not automatically assume censorship in every case.
But neither should we ignore the possibility when multiple textual variants point toward systematic omission or softening.
🔸 The “Kallālah” Example
Another part of the same cluster of reports concerns Abū Bakr's alleged regret over not asking the Prophet ﷺ about certain inheritance questions.
One of the issues mentioned is kallālah.
This becomes historically interesting because other reports portray Abū Bakr as having asked the Prophet ﷺ about the meaning or inheritance ruling concerning kallālah.
Therefore, when different versions of a report transform a potentially sensitive statement into something that sounds like a virtue or scholarly concern, the historian must examine how that transformation occurred.
This is a broader lesson in historical transmission:
A change of wording can sometimes change the meaning of an entire narrative.
🔻 How Does Historical Alteration Happen?
Imagine that:
📜 An early source preserves a specific statement.
Then, decades or centuries later:
📖 another historian quotes the earlier work but replaces a sensitive phrase with “such-and-such.”
Later:
📚 another author cites the same account without the omitted section.
Eventually:
❓ a reader encounters only the shortened version and assumes that the original account never contained the missing material.
This is why historians must distinguish between:
the original text,
later quotations of that text,
manuscript variants,
abridgements,
and editorial alterations.
Rahyafte (The Guided Ones)
🔷 Examples of Censorship and Alteration in Historical Sources How Can We Detect Changes in the Historical Record? When studying the final days of Abū Bakr, we previously examined reports attributed to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, according to which Abū Bakr…
A later version is not automatically more reliable merely because it is easier to read or more favorable to a particular narrative.
🔸 The Historian's Responsibility
When we encounter conflicting versions, the correct response is not:
“This proves a conspiracy.”
Nor is it:
“There is nothing to investigate.”
The correct response is:
Find the earliest available version.
Compare every surviving transmission.
Identify what was added.
Identify what disappeared.
Examine the chains of transmission.
Check manuscript and edition differences.
Then determine which reading has the strongest historical basis.
This is the essence of historical source criticism.
And it becomes especially important when the subject concerns the political legitimacy of the earliest Islamic governments.
Because when an event has implications for legitimacy, succession, and the relationship between the ruling authorities and the household of the Prophet ﷺ, the possibility of selective transmission must be taken seriously—but also demonstrated, not merely asserted.
🔻 One Final Point
If a report appears in an early source, and a later source preserves the same report but removes its most sensitive sentence, the disappearance itself becomes a historical question.
The historian should ask:
That is how we move beyond inherited narratives.
History is not understood by repeating the latest version.
It is understood by tracing the history of the text itself.
#HistoricalCensorship #SourceCriticism #AbuBakr #FatimahAlZahra #HouseOfFatimah #IslamicHistory #EarlyIslamicHistory #AhlulBayt #HistoricalSources #HistoryOfIslam #Saqifah #Kallalah #ManuscriptStudies #TextualCriticism #MuhammadKhoniferzadeh #SahebMedia
https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2726
🆔 @rahyafte_en
🔸 The Historian's Responsibility
When we encounter conflicting versions, the correct response is not:
“This proves a conspiracy.”
Nor is it:
“There is nothing to investigate.”
The correct response is:
Find the earliest available version.
Compare every surviving transmission.
Identify what was added.
Identify what disappeared.
Examine the chains of transmission.
Check manuscript and edition differences.
Then determine which reading has the strongest historical basis.
This is the essence of historical source criticism.
And it becomes especially important when the subject concerns the political legitimacy of the earliest Islamic governments.
Because when an event has implications for legitimacy, succession, and the relationship between the ruling authorities and the household of the Prophet ﷺ, the possibility of selective transmission must be taken seriously—but also demonstrated, not merely asserted.
🔻 One Final Point
If a report appears in an early source, and a later source preserves the same report but removes its most sensitive sentence, the disappearance itself becomes a historical question.
The historian should ask:
What did the earliest form say?
When did the wording change?
Who transmitted the altered version?
And what historical context might explain the change?
That is how we move beyond inherited narratives.
History is not understood by repeating the latest version.
It is understood by tracing the history of the text itself.
#HistoricalCensorship #SourceCriticism #AbuBakr #FatimahAlZahra #HouseOfFatimah #IslamicHistory #EarlyIslamicHistory #AhlulBayt #HistoricalSources #HistoryOfIslam #Saqifah #Kallalah #ManuscriptStudies #TextualCriticism #MuhammadKhoniferzadeh #SahebMedia
https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2726
🆔 @rahyafte_en
🔷 Saqīfah and the Killing of a Child
When Historical Events Are Measured Against the Prophet’s Own Moral Standards
To understand the events surrounding Saqīfah and what followed, we must begin with a basic question:
What did the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ teach the Muslim community about women, children, and the defenseless?
Even in pre-Islamic Arabian society, violating the honor of women and attacking a family in its home could be regarded as a profound disgrace. Islam reinforced and elevated these protections.
The Prophet ﷺ repeatedly instructed Muslims not to kill women and children during conflict and emphasized restraint toward those who were not participating in warfare.
So when historical reports describe what allegedly happened at the house of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها), the issue cannot be examined merely as a political disagreement.
It must also be examined according to the moral standards established by the Prophet himself.
🔸 The Central Question
If the Prophet ﷺ taught his followers to protect women and children—even during war—then what should we make of reports concerning a confrontation at the home of his daughter?
And if some historical traditions further report that al-Muḥassin, the unborn child of Fāṭimah, was lost as a consequence of the confrontation, then the question becomes even more serious:
How could violence against the household of the Prophet be reconciled with the ethical principles he spent his life establishing?
This is not a minor historical detail.
It goes directly to the question of whether the conduct attributed to certain figures after the Prophet's death was consistent with the Sunnah and moral teachings of the Prophet ﷺ himself.
🔸 Islam Changed the Moral Standard
Pre-Islamic Arabia was not a society without moral rules. Even before Islam, there were social customs concerning the protection of women, children, guests, and family honor.
Islam, however, transformed these principles into religious obligations.
The Prophet ﷺ instructed Muslim armies:
Do not kill women.
Do not kill children.
Do not target those who are not combatants.
These principles became part of the ethical framework of Islamic warfare.
And this creates a profound historical contrast.
The Prophet ﷺ protected the vulnerable even in war.
So what should we think when reports describe armed men approaching the home of the Prophet's daughter?
🔻 The Question of al-Muḥassin
According to Shīʿī historical and theological tradition, Fāṭimah's unborn son, al-Muḥassin, was lost as a result of the confrontation at her home.
This particular detail is disputed in Sunni historical scholarship, and the reports concerning it must therefore be examined independently from the reports concerning the confrontation itself.
That distinction is important.
The historical evidence for a confrontation and threats against the house should not automatically be treated as identical to the evidence for every later detail attributed to that confrontation.
A serious researcher examines each claim separately.
But if the reports concerning the loss of al-Muḥassin are accepted, the moral question becomes unavoidable:
🔸 The Prophet's Treatment of Children
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ repeatedly demonstrated compassion toward children.
He condemned the killing of infants and strongly rejected the pre-Islamic practice of burying daughters alive.
The Qur'an itself condemns this practice with a terrifying image:
The message was unmistakable:
Children were not disposable victims of political or social conflict.
The vulnerable were to be protected.
The weak were not to be punished for the disputes of the powerful.
And the household of the Prophet ﷺ was not an ordinary household.
It was the home of Fāṭimah, the beloved daughter of the Messenger of Allah.
When Historical Events Are Measured Against the Prophet’s Own Moral Standards
To understand the events surrounding Saqīfah and what followed, we must begin with a basic question:
What did the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ teach the Muslim community about women, children, and the defenseless?
Even in pre-Islamic Arabian society, violating the honor of women and attacking a family in its home could be regarded as a profound disgrace. Islam reinforced and elevated these protections.
The Prophet ﷺ repeatedly instructed Muslims not to kill women and children during conflict and emphasized restraint toward those who were not participating in warfare.
So when historical reports describe what allegedly happened at the house of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها), the issue cannot be examined merely as a political disagreement.
It must also be examined according to the moral standards established by the Prophet himself.
🔸 The Central Question
If the Prophet ﷺ taught his followers to protect women and children—even during war—then what should we make of reports concerning a confrontation at the home of his daughter?
And if some historical traditions further report that al-Muḥassin, the unborn child of Fāṭimah, was lost as a consequence of the confrontation, then the question becomes even more serious:
How could violence against the household of the Prophet be reconciled with the ethical principles he spent his life establishing?
This is not a minor historical detail.
It goes directly to the question of whether the conduct attributed to certain figures after the Prophet's death was consistent with the Sunnah and moral teachings of the Prophet ﷺ himself.
🔸 Islam Changed the Moral Standard
Pre-Islamic Arabia was not a society without moral rules. Even before Islam, there were social customs concerning the protection of women, children, guests, and family honor.
Islam, however, transformed these principles into religious obligations.
The Prophet ﷺ instructed Muslim armies:
Do not kill women.
Do not kill children.
Do not target those who are not combatants.
These principles became part of the ethical framework of Islamic warfare.
And this creates a profound historical contrast.
The Prophet ﷺ protected the vulnerable even in war.
So what should we think when reports describe armed men approaching the home of the Prophet's daughter?
🔻 The Question of al-Muḥassin
According to Shīʿī historical and theological tradition, Fāṭimah's unborn son, al-Muḥassin, was lost as a result of the confrontation at her home.
This particular detail is disputed in Sunni historical scholarship, and the reports concerning it must therefore be examined independently from the reports concerning the confrontation itself.
That distinction is important.
The historical evidence for a confrontation and threats against the house should not automatically be treated as identical to the evidence for every later detail attributed to that confrontation.
A serious researcher examines each claim separately.
But if the reports concerning the loss of al-Muḥassin are accepted, the moral question becomes unavoidable:
What kind of political conflict could justify violence that resulted in harm to an unborn child in the household of the Prophet ﷺ?
🔸 The Prophet's Treatment of Children
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ repeatedly demonstrated compassion toward children.
He condemned the killing of infants and strongly rejected the pre-Islamic practice of burying daughters alive.
The Qur'an itself condemns this practice with a terrifying image:
“And when the girl who was buried alive is asked: for what sin was she killed?”
— Qur'an 81:8–9
The message was unmistakable:
Children were not disposable victims of political or social conflict.
The vulnerable were to be protected.
The weak were not to be punished for the disputes of the powerful.
And the household of the Prophet ﷺ was not an ordinary household.
It was the home of Fāṭimah, the beloved daughter of the Messenger of Allah.
Rahyafte (The Guided Ones)
🔷 Saqīfah and the Killing of a Child When Historical Events Are Measured Against the Prophet’s Own Moral Standards To understand the events surrounding Saqīfah and what followed, we must begin with a basic question: What did the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ teach…
🔻 History Must Be Judged by Its Own Standards
This is why the discussion surrounding the house of Fāṭimah cannot be reduced to a simple argument over political allegiance.
The deeper question is:
Did the actions attributed to the actors of that period conform to the moral and religious standards taught by the Prophet ﷺ?
If the answer is no, then the historian must explain the contradiction.
And if someone rejects the reports concerning physical violence or the loss of al-Muḥassin, then the correct approach is not merely to dismiss them.
Examine the sources.
Examine the chains.
Compare the versions.
Determine what is early and what is late.
Separate established facts from disputed details.
That is how history should be studied.
Not through blind loyalty.
Not through blind hatred.
But through evidence, context, and moral consistency.
🔻 One Final Question
The Prophet ﷺ spent his life teaching mercy toward the weak.
He prohibited the killing of women and children.
He condemned the killing of infants.
He taught his followers to respect human dignity.
So when we study what happened immediately after his death, we should ask one simple question:
That question deserves an honest historical investigation.
Because Saqīfah was not merely about who would govern.
It was also about what happened to the Prophet's family when political power was being established.
And the house of Fāṭimah remains one of the most painful and consequential questions in the history of early Islam.
#Saqifah #FatimahAlZahra #AhlulBayt #HouseOfFatimah #AlMuhassin #EarlyIslamicHistory #IslamicHistory #ProphetMuhammad #HistoryOfIslam #HistoricalResearch #SourceCriticism #AhlulBaytHistory #Justice #MuhammadKhoniferzadeh #SahebMedia
https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2727
🆔 @rahyafte_en
This is why the discussion surrounding the house of Fāṭimah cannot be reduced to a simple argument over political allegiance.
The deeper question is:
Did the actions attributed to the actors of that period conform to the moral and religious standards taught by the Prophet ﷺ?
If the answer is no, then the historian must explain the contradiction.
And if someone rejects the reports concerning physical violence or the loss of al-Muḥassin, then the correct approach is not merely to dismiss them.
Examine the sources.
Examine the chains.
Compare the versions.
Determine what is early and what is late.
Separate established facts from disputed details.
That is how history should be studied.
Not through blind loyalty.
Not through blind hatred.
But through evidence, context, and moral consistency.
🔻 One Final Question
The Prophet ﷺ spent his life teaching mercy toward the weak.
He prohibited the killing of women and children.
He condemned the killing of infants.
He taught his followers to respect human dignity.
So when we study what happened immediately after his death, we should ask one simple question:
If the reports of violence against Fāṭimah's household are true, how can those actions be reconciled with the moral legacy of the Prophet ﷺ?
That question deserves an honest historical investigation.
Because Saqīfah was not merely about who would govern.
It was also about what happened to the Prophet's family when political power was being established.
And the house of Fāṭimah remains one of the most painful and consequential questions in the history of early Islam.
#Saqifah #FatimahAlZahra #AhlulBayt #HouseOfFatimah #AlMuhassin #EarlyIslamicHistory #IslamicHistory #ProphetMuhammad #HistoryOfIslam #HistoricalResearch #SourceCriticism #AhlulBaytHistory #Justice #MuhammadKhoniferzadeh #SahebMedia
https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2727
🆔 @rahyafte_en
🔴 The “Four Stages” of U.S. Foreign Policy
✍️ Mostafa Amiri
Biblical Interpretation
⬇️
Ideology
⬇️
Policy
⬇️
Military Strategy
🔻 For further information:
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3233 (En)
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3234
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
Hello, and I hope you’re doing well.
One of my friends was telling me about a popular program in Iran. I haven’t watched the program myself, so I can’t comment on it directly, but apparently one of the experts was asked about the real issue behind the war.
After discussing various aspects of the conflict, the discussion eventually reached Israel. The expert argued that, in his view, the central issue behind the conflict between Iran, the United States, and Western civilization is ultimately the question of Israel.
In my opinion, he was right.
I strongly recommend taking some time to read the article we published in the previous post on our channel and studying it carefully.
The roots of a Torah-based interpretation of the Bible began to emerge in the 19th century.
As you know, the Bible is the sacred scripture of Christianity, while the Torah is the sacred scripture of Judaism. For more than a thousand years—and, in many respects, nearly two thousand years—the dominant Christian interpretation held that the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
But then, beginning in the 19th century, something gradually changed in Britain, the United States, and later throughout the Western world.
A new outlook began to emerge: No, the Jews are not to be regarded in that way. They are, in fact, a chosen people, and they should return to the land of Palestine and establish a state there so that, ultimately, our Messiah—Jesus Christ—can return for the second time.
Just look at how dramatically the picture changed.
The entire perspective was, in many ways, reversed.
In any case, if you read our previous post carefully, you will gain a clearer understanding of the foundations of Christian Zionism, or Evangelical Zionism.
Once you understand these foundations, you can better recognize and analyze many of the subsequent policies and movements of the United States and the West in the Middle East.
So, the previous article is not merely another article.
It reveals one of the important underlying questions of American foreign policy:
❓ Why is every U.S. president expected to support Israel?
❓ What is the story behind this commitment?
And perhaps most importantly:
❓ Why is war in the Middle East viewed by some within this ideological framework as part of a divine plan?
In reality, the previous article can fundamentally change the way you look at U.S. foreign policy and developments in the Middle East, because it gradually introduces you to the ideological and theological foundations behind these policies.
Ya Ali. 🖤
🆔 @rahyafte_en
✍️ Mostafa Amiri
Biblical Interpretation
⬇️
Ideology
⬇️
Policy
⬇️
Military Strategy
🔻 For further information:
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3233 (En)
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3234
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
Hello, and I hope you’re doing well.
One of my friends was telling me about a popular program in Iran. I haven’t watched the program myself, so I can’t comment on it directly, but apparently one of the experts was asked about the real issue behind the war.
After discussing various aspects of the conflict, the discussion eventually reached Israel. The expert argued that, in his view, the central issue behind the conflict between Iran, the United States, and Western civilization is ultimately the question of Israel.
In my opinion, he was right.
I strongly recommend taking some time to read the article we published in the previous post on our channel and studying it carefully.
The roots of a Torah-based interpretation of the Bible began to emerge in the 19th century.
As you know, the Bible is the sacred scripture of Christianity, while the Torah is the sacred scripture of Judaism. For more than a thousand years—and, in many respects, nearly two thousand years—the dominant Christian interpretation held that the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
But then, beginning in the 19th century, something gradually changed in Britain, the United States, and later throughout the Western world.
A new outlook began to emerge: No, the Jews are not to be regarded in that way. They are, in fact, a chosen people, and they should return to the land of Palestine and establish a state there so that, ultimately, our Messiah—Jesus Christ—can return for the second time.
Just look at how dramatically the picture changed.
The entire perspective was, in many ways, reversed.
In any case, if you read our previous post carefully, you will gain a clearer understanding of the foundations of Christian Zionism, or Evangelical Zionism.
Once you understand these foundations, you can better recognize and analyze many of the subsequent policies and movements of the United States and the West in the Middle East.
So, the previous article is not merely another article.
It reveals one of the important underlying questions of American foreign policy:
❓ Why is every U.S. president expected to support Israel?
❓ What is the story behind this commitment?
And perhaps most importantly:
❓ Why is war in the Middle East viewed by some within this ideological framework as part of a divine plan?
In reality, the previous article can fundamentally change the way you look at U.S. foreign policy and developments in the Middle East, because it gradually introduces you to the ideological and theological foundations behind these policies.
Ya Ali. 🖤
🆔 @rahyafte_en
🔴 How Has “Biblical Interpretation” Become America’s “War Machine”?
✍️ Mostafa Amiri
🔻 Selective interpretation of the Bible and its transformation into a political project.
▪️ The fusion of ideology, foreign diplomacy, and military strategy in the Middle East.
Four stages:
Biblical Interpretation
⬇️
Ideology
⬇️
Policy
⬇️
Military Strategy
🔻 This process—turning biblical interpretation into military strategy—is one of the most significant phenomena in the field of Western political theology.
✅ If you wish: Support our content production
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3243
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
🆔 @rahyafte_en
✍️ Mostafa Amiri
🔻 Selective interpretation of the Bible and its transformation into a political project.
▪️ The fusion of ideology, foreign diplomacy, and military strategy in the Middle East.
Four stages:
Biblical Interpretation
⬇️
Ideology
⬇️
Policy
⬇️
Military Strategy
🔻 This process—turning biblical interpretation into military strategy—is one of the most significant phenomena in the field of Western political theology.
✅ If you wish: Support our content production
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3243
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
🆔 @rahyafte_en
🔴 Is Lionel Messi a Zionist?
✍️ Mostafa Amiri
Although this cannot be stated with certainty, there are indications that Lionel Messi, the Argentine football star, may have an unusual affinity for Zionism.
Among the points cited are his visit to the Western Wall, wearing a Jewish amulet and prayer on his leg, and a red bracelet reportedly given to him by members of the Kabbalah movement, which he has worn for years.
During his famous visit to Israel, Messi was photographed wearing a Jewish religious cap while standing in front of the Western Wall.
But what draws even more attention is the red bracelet that Lionel Messi has reportedly worn for years. The issue goes beyond Netanyahu's support for him.
This bracelet was not created by a fashion designer or a sponsor. Rather, it is said to have roots in Kabbalah, a mystical tradition within Judaism.
The bracelet has seven knots, and according to Kabbalistic beliefs, each knot symbolizes protection and energy.
🔻 P.S.
Watch the video. Although it is in Arabic, you will understand the main points.
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3247
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
🆔 @rahyafte_en
✍️ Mostafa Amiri
Although this cannot be stated with certainty, there are indications that Lionel Messi, the Argentine football star, may have an unusual affinity for Zionism.
Among the points cited are his visit to the Western Wall, wearing a Jewish amulet and prayer on his leg, and a red bracelet reportedly given to him by members of the Kabbalah movement, which he has worn for years.
During his famous visit to Israel, Messi was photographed wearing a Jewish religious cap while standing in front of the Western Wall.
But what draws even more attention is the red bracelet that Lionel Messi has reportedly worn for years. The issue goes beyond Netanyahu's support for him.
This bracelet was not created by a fashion designer or a sponsor. Rather, it is said to have roots in Kabbalah, a mystical tradition within Judaism.
The bracelet has seven knots, and according to Kabbalistic beliefs, each knot symbolizes protection and energy.
🔻 P.S.
Watch the video. Although it is in Arabic, you will understand the main points.
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3247
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
🆔 @rahyafte_en
Telegram
عصر ظهور | ASRZOHUR
🔴 آیا لیونل مسی، یک صهیونیست است؟
✍️ مصطفی امیری
هرچند این مسأله به قطعیت نیست اما شواهدی وجود دارد که لیونل مسی ستاره آرژانتینی گرایش عجیب به صهیونیسم دارد از جمله: حضور در کنار دیوار ندبه، بستن حرز و دعای یهودی در ساق پا و دستبند قرمز که از سوی اعضای…
✍️ مصطفی امیری
هرچند این مسأله به قطعیت نیست اما شواهدی وجود دارد که لیونل مسی ستاره آرژانتینی گرایش عجیب به صهیونیسم دارد از جمله: حضور در کنار دیوار ندبه، بستن حرز و دعای یهودی در ساق پا و دستبند قرمز که از سوی اعضای…
🔴 The Final of Football and Politics / A Global Confrontation over the Palestinian Question
✍️ Guest Commentary
🔻 They say that football and politics should be kept separate. As a statement, this may sound reasonable and appealing. But the reality is that football has, to varying degrees, become intertwined with politics—at the domestic, regional, and international levels.
It can be argued that the final between Argentina and Spain is one of the most political finals in World Cup history. This match goes beyond a sporting competition; it has become a visible symbol of the deep confrontation and division in global politics and public opinion surrounding the Palestine–Israel conflict. The events following October 7 and the Al-Aqsa Flood have, however, shifted the balance of this confrontation in Europe more strongly toward Palestine.
On one side stands Argentina under Javier Milei, who since coming to power has emerged as a staunch and outspoken ally of Israel.
On the other side is Spain, which has become one of the strongest critics of Israel’s policies during the war in Gaza and has consistently maintained its supportive position toward Palestine.
This support has not remained confined to political circles; it has also permeated Spanish society, with Spain repeatedly becoming a focal point for large public demonstrations in support of Palestine and Gaza in recent years.
This attitude has even found expression in Spanish football. The public positions of Pep Guardiola, the renowned Spanish coach, in support of Palestine are one prominent example.
The volume of online content, comments, and media coverage suggests that many people around the world view this match not merely as a sporting contest, but as a symbolic battle over the Palestine–Israel conflict.
Reactions from senior Israeli officials have further intensified this polarization.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, openly expressed his support for the Argentine team and wished for Argentina to win the World Cup.
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3248
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
🆔 @rahyafte_en
✍️ Guest Commentary
🔻 They say that football and politics should be kept separate. As a statement, this may sound reasonable and appealing. But the reality is that football has, to varying degrees, become intertwined with politics—at the domestic, regional, and international levels.
It can be argued that the final between Argentina and Spain is one of the most political finals in World Cup history. This match goes beyond a sporting competition; it has become a visible symbol of the deep confrontation and division in global politics and public opinion surrounding the Palestine–Israel conflict. The events following October 7 and the Al-Aqsa Flood have, however, shifted the balance of this confrontation in Europe more strongly toward Palestine.
On one side stands Argentina under Javier Milei, who since coming to power has emerged as a staunch and outspoken ally of Israel.
On the other side is Spain, which has become one of the strongest critics of Israel’s policies during the war in Gaza and has consistently maintained its supportive position toward Palestine.
This support has not remained confined to political circles; it has also permeated Spanish society, with Spain repeatedly becoming a focal point for large public demonstrations in support of Palestine and Gaza in recent years.
This attitude has even found expression in Spanish football. The public positions of Pep Guardiola, the renowned Spanish coach, in support of Palestine are one prominent example.
The volume of online content, comments, and media coverage suggests that many people around the world view this match not merely as a sporting contest, but as a symbolic battle over the Palestine–Israel conflict.
Reactions from senior Israeli officials have further intensified this polarization.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, openly expressed his support for the Argentine team and wished for Argentina to win the World Cup.
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3248
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
🆔 @rahyafte_en
🔴 Trump: “Every Time Iran Kills an American Soldier, It Will Pay a Multiple Price.”
▪️ “This order has been communicated to the Secretary of War, Daniel Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all military leaders.”
Revenge. “Thārī wa al-Nār.”
Do these keywords sound familiar to you?
🔻 Source: The Independent (link).
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3250
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
🆔 @rahyafte_en
▪️ “This order has been communicated to the Secretary of War, Daniel Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all military leaders.”
Revenge. “Thārī wa al-Nār.”
Do these keywords sound familiar to you?
🔻 Source: The Independent (link).
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
https://t.me/asrzohur110/3250
🆔 @ASRZOHUR110
🆔 @rahyafte_en
Telegram
عصر ظهور | ASRZOHUR
🔴 ترامپ: «هر بار که ایران یک سرباز آمریکایی را میکشد، بهای آن را چند برابر پرداخت خواهد کرد».
▪️این دستور به وزیر جنگ، دنیل کین، رئیس ستاد مشترک ارتش، و تمامی رهبران ارتش ابلاغ شده است».
انتقام. «ثاری و النار». این کلیدواژه ها برای شما آشنا نیست؟
🔻منبع:…
▪️این دستور به وزیر جنگ، دنیل کین، رئیس ستاد مشترک ارتش، و تمامی رهبران ارتش ابلاغ شده است».
انتقام. «ثاری و النار». این کلیدواژه ها برای شما آشنا نیست؟
🔻منبع:…