Ali ‫ رضي هللا عنه و أرضاه‬would have whipped the Shias of today
April 26, 2013 at 2:53 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Shia vs Companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Yes, Ali would have given them a whipping that would make RafidhiCarneval aka Ashoora look like a child’s game:
Hafidh ibn Hajr quotes Ali :
‫وال يبلغني عن أحد يفضلني عليهما إال جلدته حد المفتري‬
“I will lash anyone who prefers me over Abu Bakr and Omar, the lashing of a slanderer.”
[Lisan al-Mizan, Vol. III P. 290]
Hafidh ibn Katheer in “Bidaya wal Nihaya” vol 7, chapter “ ‫”شيء من فضائل أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب‬
wrote:
‫ ولو شئت أن أسمي الثالث لسميت‬،‫ أيها الناس! إن خير هذه األمة بعد نبيها أبو بكر ثم عمر‬:‫وقد ثبت عنه بالتواتر أنه قال على منبر الكوفة‬
“And it’s proven from him [Ali] in “tawatur” form, that He said on the pulpit in Kufa: “O people!
The best one in this Ummah after her Prophet is Abu Bakr , then Omar , and if I wanted to say you
the third name, I would do that.”
‫رضي هللا‬-‫م) أنه دخل على علي‬699/‫هـ‬80( ‫جاء في ( طوق الحمامة ) ليحيى بن حمزة الزبيدي عن سويد بن غفلة الجعفي الكوفي المتوفى عام‬
‫ مالي‬:‫ فقال علي‬،‫ منهم عبد هللا بن سبأ‬،‫ ويروون أنك تضمر لهما مثل ذلك‬،‫ إني مررت بنفر يذكرون أبا بكر و عمر بسوء‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ في إمارته‬-‫عنه‬
‫ حتى اجتمع‬،‫ ونهض إلى المنبر‬،‫ ثم أرسل إلى ابن سبأ فسيره إلى المدائن‬،‫ معاذ هللا أن أضمر لهما إال الحسن الجميل‬: ‫ ثم قال‬،‫ولهذا الخبيث األسود‬
‫ إذا بلغني عن أحد أنه يفضلني عليهما جلدته حد المفتري‬: ‫ ثم قال‬،‫ الناس أثنى عليهما خيرا‬‫ الهور‬-‫ نشر إدارة ترجمة السنة‬،‫ السنة والشيعة‬،‫ إحسان‬،‫الهي ظهير‬.
In ‘Tuq Al-Hamamh’ by Yahya bin Hamzah Al-Zobaydi on the authority of bin Ghaflah Al-Jo’fi Al-Kufi
(80H) who said that he entered upon Ali – may Allah be pleased with him and said: ‘I passed by
some men. among them was Abdallah Ibn Saba’, who were talking negatively about Abu Bakr and
Omar saying that you [Ali] hold the same feelings towards them.’ Ali replied: ‘What does this
wretched black man (Ibn Saba’s mother was Ethiopian) want from me?’ He then said: “I seek
refuge in Allah in holding anything but beautiful respect for them both.” Then he sent after
Ibn Saba and exiled him to Al-Mada’in (former capital of the Persian empire) and ascended the
pulpit until the people were gathered, he then praised Abu Bakr and Omar, then he said: ‘If it
reaches me that anyone prefers me over them then I shall lash them as they do with the
slandering liar.’
NOTE: In fact this very same narration has been narrated by through different channels with
authentic chains such as in:
‘Al-Seerah’ by Abu Ishaq al-Fizari who narrates almost the same narration above on the authority
of Shu’ubah from Salamah bin Kaheel from abu Al-Za’araa from Zaid ibn Wahb. The
grading: narrators are trustworthy. Al-Khateeb made Takhreej for it in “al-Kifayah” p. 376 and said
that Abu ‘Abdullah al-Boushanji graded it as Sahih, Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah al-Imam said
in the commentary: It is narrated through other chains, it is Thabit.
So what is the ruling of denying tawatur?
Let me rephrase, what is the ruling of a narration that was narrated by people who hold TASHAYYU’
beliefs (Shi’ism of the past i.e. preferring Ali over other Sahaba in some sense) yet collectively
narrated what Ali bin Abi Taalib (RA) said in Kufa:
‘’The best of this Ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr and then Omar”.
[Bukhari , Ahmed, Ibn Abi Asim , Ibn Abi Shaiba, Ibn Asakir and others]
This has more than 20 narrators who are considered Shia, and the Shia narrators are:
Muhammad Ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Abdu Khair, Abu Juhaifa Wahb Al-Sewai, Al-Nazal Ibn Sabura, Abu
Al-Ja’d, Amr Ibn Huraith , Alqama Ibn Qais, Abu Mijlaz, Abdullah Ibn Salamah, Saed Ibn Qaes Alkhariqi, Abdullah Ibn Zurair Al-Qhafiqi, Al-Hakam Ibn Hajk, Zur Ibn Hubaish, Suwaid Ibn Ghafla, Amr
Ibn Madikarib, Al-Harith, Ali Ibn Rabea Al-Walibi, Masada Al-Bujali, Abu Kathir, Abu Ishaq Al-Sabei,
Amr Ibn Shurahabil
Some of the sub-narrators of the ahadith that show Ali (radiAllahuanh) praising Abu Bakr
(radiAllahuanh) and Umar (radiAllahuanh):
First generation: Some of them are: Muhammad Ibn Al-Hanafiyyah (Ali’s son, shia), ‘Amr bin
Huraith (shia), Wahb As-Siwa’i (shia), Abi Juhaifah (a great companion of Ali, shia), Abd-Khair alHamadani (shia), Habbah bin Juwain.
Among these are people who were from the shia of Ali, and
fought alongside him at Siffin. They are accepted by shia scholars (refer to Khui’s mu’jam). This is
mutawatir at the first generation.
Second generation: Some of them are: Zarr Ibn Hubaish, (shia), ‘Amir, Sha’bi, ‘Awn bin Abi
Juhaifah, Ishaq, Habib bin Abi Thabit, Abi Ishaq (shia), Khalid Az-Zayyat, Al-Musayyib, ‘Ataa,
Salamah bin Kuhail, Haroon bin Salman.
Again, one or more shias in the second generation. And
again mutawatir in this era.
Second/Third generation: Some of them are: Sa’id bin Masrooq, Abu Mu’awiya, Al-Ajlah, Khalid,
Younus bin Khabbab (shia), Shu’bah, Husain, Abu ‘Awwanah, Mansoor bin Abi Muzahim, Shareek,
Salih bin Abdillah at-Tirmidhi, ‘Umar bin Mujashi’, As-Sabi bin Al-Ash’ath, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah,
Mansoor bin Abdur-Rahman, Yahya bin Ayyub (shia), Isma’il, Malik bin Mughawwal, Bayan,
‘Asim.
Again one or more shias. And by now the hadith is well-known and widespread, and an
accepted highly mutawatir hadith.
Third/Fourth generation: Some of them are: Hammad bin Zayd, Wahb bin Baqiyyah, Yayha bin
Adam, Muhammad bin ‘Ubayd At-Tanafusi, Isma’il bin Ibrahim, Abu Abdillah, Waki’, Swaid bin Sa’id
(shia), Zakariyya bin Yahya Zahmawayh, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, Abdullah, Khalid bin Abdullah,
Abu Bahr Abdul-Wahid Al-Basri, Shihab bin Kharash, Mubarak bin Sa’id, Muhammad bin Fudhayl, Abu
Kuraib, and many more..
Once again, one or more shias narrated this in this generation. By now, the hadith has been
written down in books, and has reached incredible tawatur (way too chains to reject as being
fabricated), and is an accepted sahih hadith. Hence , I will not proceed with the rest of the
links in the chain (4th, 5th, 6th generations..). One early shia scholar who accepts this hadith is
Abdur-Razzaq As-San’ani, who has been listed in Ayatullah Khui’s Mu’jam as one of the
prominent shia scholars of the era.
One cannot deny such a mutawattir narration and claim that all 21 narrators were liars. It is
both illogical and impossible that 21 Shia men would all agree to lie and fabricate this narration
in the name of Ali .One might as well deny the Quran!!
And it is proven that such a athaar is clearly authentic and reaches the state of mutawatir, then
to reject it is like how the jews rejected the truth, while they knew what came to them was
the truth, so beware.
Here a detailed Takhrij by brother Efendi: http://gift2shias.com/2010/09/14/hadith-of-tafdildetailed-analyses/
PS:
And the Imams of Ahl Al-Bayt were ALSO upon the same Aqeedah:
Imam Baqir (father of Imam Al Sadiq) narrates from Abdullah ibn Jafar that he said :
Abu Bakr (‫ )رضي هللا عنه‬became our ruler, and he was the best caliph of Allah, and he was the most
merciful and kind upon us.
ٌ ‫َهذَا َحد‬
Hadith Grading: Saheeh.79/3 ‫اإل ْسنَا ِد َولَ ْم يُخ ِ َِّر َجاهُمستدرك حاكم‬
َ ‫ِيث‬
ِ ‫صحِ ي ٌح‬
and
‫بريء هللا ممن تبرأ من أبي بكر و عمر‬
Abu Abdullah Ja’afar bin Muhammad (AL-SADIQ) said: “Allah has dissociated himself from
those who have dissociated themselves from Abu Bakr and Omar.
“‫ فقبح هللا الرافضة‬،‫ أشهد باهلل إنه لبار في قوله غير منافق ألحد‬،‫ هذا القول متواتر عن جعفر الصادق‬:‫ قلت‬: ‫قال الذهبي‬
Hadith Grading: Imam Al Dhahabi said while commenting on the narration: This saying is Mutawati
r(100% authentic) from Jafar Al-Sadiq, I bear witness in front of Allah that he is honest in his saying
and not a Munafiq. May Allah increase the Rafidah in ugliness (for lying about the Ahl Al-Bayt)
Abu Bakr and Umar advised to Ali to marry Fatima
April 21, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | 2 Comments
‫‪1 Votes‬‬
‫‪Bismillah.‬‬
‫‪Shaykh of shias at-Toose narrated in his “al-Amali” (p 39) from Dakhak:‬‬
‫أتاني أبو بكر وعمر فقاال ‪ :‬لو أتيت رسول هللا ( صلى هللا عليه وآله ) فذكرت ‪ :‬سمعت علي بن أبي طالب ( عليه السالم ) يقول‬
‫قال ‪ :‬فأتيته ‪ ،‬فلما رآني رسول هللا ( صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم ) ضحك ‪ ،‬ثم قال ‪ :‬ما جاء بك يا أبا الحسن وما حاجتك ‪ .‬له فاطمة‬
‫؟ قال ‪ :‬فذكرت له قرابتي وقدمي في االسالم ونصرتي له وجهادي ‪ ،‬فقال ‪ :‬يا علي ‪ ،‬صدقت ‪ ،‬فأنت أفضل مما تذكر ‪ .‬فقلت ‪ :‬يا‬
‫”… رسول هللا ‪ ،‬فاطمة تزوجنيها ؟‬
Translation:
I heard Ali ibn Abu Talib (alaihi salam) said: Abu Bakr and Umar approached me and said: May be
you would approach prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and mentioned him Fatima?
(Ali) said: And I approached him, and when prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) seen
me, he laughed. Then he said: What brought you here, and what is your problem o abul Hasan? And
I (Ali) mentioned him my kinship, and my first acceptance of Islam, my help to him, and my jihaad.
He (prophet) said: You spoke the truth. And you are better than you said. I (Ali) said: O messenger
of Allah, Fatima.. Would you marry her to me?
Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam) had 8 children
March 27, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | Leave a
comment
Rate This
Shaykh of shias as-Saduq narrated in his book “al-Khisal” (p 404-405)
Translation:
115- (The compiler of the book narrated) that his father and Muhammad ibn al-Hassan – may God be
pleased with them – narrated that Sa’ed ibn Abdullah quoted Ahmad ibn Aba Abdullah al-Barqy, on
the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn Abi Umayr, on the authority of Ali ibn Abi
Hamzih, on the authority of Abi Basir, on the authority of Aba Abdullah as-Sadiq (alaihi salam),
“The Prophet brought six offspring from Khadijah – two boys named Qasim and Tahir who was also
called Abdullah and four daughters who are Umm Kulthum, Ruqayah, Zaynab and Fatimah. Ali ibn
Abi Talib (alaihi salam) married Fatimah (alaihi salam). Abul As ibn Rabia, who was one of the
Umayyads, married Zaynab. Uthman ibn Affan married Umm Kulthum but she died before the
marriage was consummated. When Uthman went to the Battle of Badr, the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ali) married off Ruqayah to him. The Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) also had a son named
Ibrahim from Maria al-Qibyiyya who is also called Umma Ibrahim and Um’ma Valad.
116-Muhammad ibn al-Hassan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Walid – may God be pleased with him – narrated
that Muhammad ibn al-Hassan al-Saffar quoted Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid, on the authority
of Abu Ali al-Vaseti, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Ismat, on the authority of Yahya ibn Abdullah,
on the authority of Amr ibn Abil Miqdam, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Aba
Abdullah as-Sadiq (alaihi salam), “Once when God’s Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) entered his
house, he (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) heard that Ayesha was yelling at Fatimah (alaihi salam). She was
saying, ‘O Khadijah’s daughter! I swear by God that you believe that your mother was better than
us. What was in her that made her nobler than us?’ Fatimah who was listening to her cried when
she saw the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). The Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) looked at her and
asked, ‘O daughter of Muhammad! Why are you crying?’ She replied, ‘Ayesha mentioned my
mother’s name with disrespect and I cried.’ The Prophet of God (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) became
angry, turned to Ayesha and said, ‘O Homeyra! Be silent. The Blessed the Sublime God has honored
kind women who give birth to children. Khadijah – may God may have mercy upon her – has brought
two sons from me. The first one is called Tahir, Abdullah or Mutah’har. The second one is called
Qasim. Khadijah has delivered four daughters for me who are Fatimah (alaihi salam), Ruqayah,
Umm Kulthum and Zaynab. However, you are one whom God has made barren and have not given
birth to any child for me.”
Curse of Allah, angels and all people be upon those infidels which say that he (sallalahu alaihi wa
ala alihi wa sallam) had only one daughter – Fatima!
Hadith: Companions are protection for this nation
February 27, 2013 at 5:37 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
Rate This
Bismillah,
Imam Musa ibn Jafar narrated from his forefathers, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam) said:
‫ فإذا قبض أصحابي دنا من أمتي ما‬-‫ و أصحابي أمنة ألمتي‬-‫ فإذا قبضت دنا من أصحابي ما يوعدون‬-‫أنا آمن ألصحابي‬
‫ ما دام فيكم من قد رآني من رآني‬-‫ و ال يزال هذا الدين ظاهرا على األديان كلها‬-‫يوعدون‬
I am protection (amanah) for my companions, and when I will go, (predestination) would get closer
to my companions. AND MY COMPANIONS ARE PROTECTION FOR MY NATION, AND IF THEY WILL GO,
(PREDESTINATION) WOULD GET CLOSER TO MY NATION. THIS RELIGION WOULD BE DOMINANT OVER
ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, UNTILL BETWEEN YOU WOULD BE PEOPLE WHICH SEEN THOSE WHO SEEN ME.
Source: Nawader Rawandi p 23; Biharul Anwar Majlisi (22/309-310)
Discussion: Just have a look, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t bind
protection and victory of Islamic nation with the presence of masoom Imam! He linked it to
presence of tabioon.
Omar’s poodle Ali Ibn Abi Talib – It’s a Rafidhi’s world
December 26, 2012 at 5:02 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, So called assault on Fatimah
(RA), Take a few minutes to think on this | 3 Comments
3 Votes
On the left you can see the visualisation of the Rafidhi belief of “the broken rib” (read a detailed
rebuttal of all their lies, HERE). It is quite normal for these pagans to potray the Prophets (!), Ahl
Al-Bayt and the Sahaba in the most pagan manner possible in their temples (“Husseiniyyah”), hence
they also dedicate some idols for “the broken rib” fairy-tale. First to get an impression (including a
special effect-Rafidhi-made theathric part of that so called incident) made by Rafidha, watch the
following:
Funky, isn’t it? So called “Coward” Omar dragging “brave” Ali through the streets of Madinah like a
poodle. OH WAIT! Ali did this to SAVE Islam (say Rawafidh)!You know the Islam including its most
important pillar (“Wilayah”), its branches like prayer, Zakah, fasting etc. Ali had to be Omar’s
poodle so he can save Islam … that Islam that was distorted (acc. to Shiism) anyway …
Here a comment by an Ex-Shia:
Come on, what should Ali have done? HELLO?! He was BUSY compiling the Qur’an (the one with the
right Tafsir which is HIDDEN with the HIDDEN saviour). Also IF he would have done anything than
Islam would have been destroyed! Although, errr … our great Maharajas (“Marjas”) do say that
Islam, right after the demise of the Prophet (‫ – )صل هللا عليه و آله‬from Aqeedah to Fiqh – had beene
distorted, even the Hajj and prayer were tampered, except among a minority of chosen ones, like
chemical Zurarah, our great narrator who liked to fart in the beard of our 6th infallible, as for the
rest of the Ummah, and even Shia, well just read about the Waqifiyyah and Fathiyyah a Bakri
might say … but that’s another story.
You know, actually … WAIT! Our great Firetemple priest Yasser Al-Habib gave a GREAT answer on
Faduck TV as to why Ali did not defend Fatimah (although he had plenty of time+super powers).
Our holy priest said that Othman the third Caliph of the Bakris did not protect his wive too … hmm
but isn’t that Qiyas, and isn’t Qiyas absolutely forbidden in our sect? Anyway, forget about the
Qiyas part, we, the Shit-ites do like to compare and make Qiyas between a eighty (!!!) years old
man (Khalifah Othman) and a young fresh Ali Ibn Abi Talib who had the power of controlling every
single atom (“Wilayah Al-Takwiniyyah belief, that Khomeini and all Shia Ayatullahs ascribe to our
Imams), except the atoms of Abu Bakr and Omar I guess …. hmm … anyway we like to make this
Qiyas (analogy) Priest Yasser does it too, you know, well … right … Othman was stormed by a MOB
of KILLERS and he had no super power unlike Superman, Spiderman, the Fantastic four and of
course our holy infallibles who have authority over the atoms of the universe, heck Ali’s sword (if
it wasn’t for Jibra’il) would have had cut the earth in two halfs, Ali is not even present in this
Dunya yet he can hear the request of millions in different languages, at different time and space
and deliver them to Allah (like Catholics believe regarding their saints), nah rather he HIMSELF
comes to the help (“Ya Ali Madad”) to the Afghani, Irani, Arab, Pakistani, English etc. Shi’ite when
he calls upon him … Now imagine how mighty he must have been when he was alive and not
buried.
Comparing Ali to a over an over eighty years old man seems somehow dodgy I agree, but we are
Rawafidh, we do Qiyas day and night, on top of it we make the most stupid Qiyas one ever could
do, we just add a “refutation” to that to impress our gullible followers. But yeah, in a way I agree
… actually … better not to compare him with Othman’s case at all, before the Bakris crease up, for
at the end of the day Othman’s WIVE had more manhood than (our Shi’ite version of) Ali, because
although she was an old woman she actually STOOD up and defended her husband against the
assassinators until they CUT OFF her fingers! Ali didn’t even LIFT a finger, poor man was so busy
compiling the Qur’an with its CORRECT Tafseer, which unfortunately is NOT accessable to ANYONE
in the world due to our holy hidden well/cellar dwelling saviour being into occultation and having
taken it with himself.
But then, some of our great miracles of Allah (Ayadollars) say thatAli DID do something, he did
defend his wife, in fact he BROKE Omar’s nose and sat on his chest and was about to KILL him!
ROARRRRR, this is the lion of Allah after all … until, yeah … until he REMEMBERED the will of the
Prophet ‫صل هللا عليه و آله‬, because the Prophet told him NOT to do anything if people take his rights
(unless Ali finds enough supporters i.e. 313) … you see now it makes PERFECTLY sense … ABALFAZLLLL! Oh, no … it doesn’t! I hope no Sunni reads this here, because first of all (acc. to us Shias)
the Prophet told Ali not to do anything and have patience if they take his rights, he did not say
don’t do anything against those who will try to kill your wive. Secondly, the other addition that
Ali DID resist against the assaulters makes the whole case much worse for us Shias, because it
COMPLETELY destroys the infallibility concept of our Imams, for the story says that Ali
(ALTHOUGH BEING ORDERED NOT TO DO ANYTHING), was about to KILL Omar and actually BROKE
his nose, until he >>> REMEMBERED <<< the will of the Prophet i.e. ALI FORGOT the will AND acted
against the Prophets will (for a while) just after he remembered the will, he stopped beating
Omar. Forgetting even the TINIEST thing and acting against the will of the Prophet is KUFR, that
makes Ali a Kafir. What a mess … So we Shia better shut up and keep smacking our chests and
heads with razor blades, the holy Ayadollars will bring up some other good explenation, they will,
they will … Salavaaat.
(DISCLAIMER: The story above is from Rafidywood, SOME sane Ayatullahs themselves could not
believe it, like Ayatollah Fadhlallah and even Al-Khoie did not express their belief in this incident,
the former doubted it even, instead of being rewarded he was accused of being a heretic by all
other major “Ayatullahs”.)
Did Omar (at least) threatened Fatimah? Disputed Sunni
narration analysed
December 26, 2012 at 2:33 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Invented myths and legends, So
called assault on Fatimah (RA) | 3 Comments
4 Votes
Alhamdulillah, we have got a number of articles in regards to the refutation of the sick belief of the
Rafidha named “the broken rib” i.e. their accusation that the Sahaba, particularly Abu Bakr, Omar,
Abu Ubaydah Ibn Al-Jarrah etc. burned down the house of Fatimah, slapped her, broke her ribs,
caused her miscarriage (killed her unborn son) and other fabricated stories straight from
Bollywood, pardon Rafidhiwood:
Wave of lies. Narrations on broken rib analysed.
Here another analysis
That article is absolutely unique for the English speaking audiance and a must-read, for it refutes
every possible Shubha (doubt) and narration that the Rafidha quote from our books to prove “the
broken rib” fairy-tale. In fact. In fact, we have already responded even to the narration they bring
up in our analyses today, the difference is that this narration might be considered Sahih (the only
Sahih narration in regards to that incident!) so we decided that it is worth to dedicated this
narration a detailed analyses, and trust us the result will be the absolute termination of Rafidhism,
they will wish to never have brought up this narration in the first place. Alhamdulillah previous
articles on the web in Arabic, then the translations into English have forced even Shia scholars (and
some laymen) to reconsider their approach, they know that in this age it is not that easy to fool
every Muslim layman i.e. the days where a Rafidhi could just throw a bunch of ultra-weak and
fabricated Tarikh book narrations (“Sunni sources”) in the face of a Sunni layman are over.
So many of these lies have been responded to, that the Rafidha themselves realised that they can’t
just use all the extremely weak and fabricated rubbish in some Tarikh books (and no, multiple lies
don’t make a lie true i.e. weak/fabricated narrations with unknown and lying narrators don’t
strenghten each other, these are basics of Ilm Al-Rijal). But there is one narration, in fact the only
(!) authentic (although it’s authenticity can be disputed due to more than one reason) narration
that speaks about the incident of Omar approaching Fatimah’s house, this has been narrated by
Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah. Ahl Al-Sunnah, unlike the Ahl Al-Bida’ have nothing to hide, they have
authenticated loads of narrations in favour of the Ahl Al-Bayt ‫رضوان هللا عليهم‬, they have weakened (!)
loads of narrations in the virtue of Mu’awiyah ‫ رضي هللا عنه‬and at the same time they have
authenticated loads of narrations in the favour of the major Sahaba ‫رضوان هللا عليهم‬, especially the
first four Caliphs ‫ رضوان هللا عليهم‬so it is as Shaykh Al-Albani (RH) said:
“That which the People of Hadith are upon is to mention the facts whether they are in their
favour or against them, as opposed to the people of desires, as Ibn Taymiyyah has mentioned many
times in his refutations of them.” Ad-Da’eefah, Vol. 12/p. 551.
Hence know oh Muslim and Muslimah, may Allah have mercy upon you, that some Rafidha scholars
are very well aware of the fact that the only narration worth to be considered a “proof” for the so
called “incident of the burning house” is a narration by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf. The likes
of Yasser Al-Habib for exampleadmitted that every single narration Shias (laymen and their stupid
clergy) mention (Ibn Qutaybah) are extremely weak and forged according to Sunni standards i.e.
they are no Hujjah (argument) in any academical dispute, but the Khabith (“Al-Habib”) and his
likes see their chance (the straw they clinch to) in the narration of Ibn Abi Shaybah, but we assure
you (that as usual) the following ruling can be applied on the Rawafidh:
» ‫الكتب » مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية » العقيدة‬.‫ ال لهم‬،‫ إال وهي عند التأمل حجة عليهم‬،‫ وال عقلية‬،‫هكذا أهل البدع ال يكادون يحتجون بحجة سمعية‬
‫كتاب األسماء والصفات الجزء الثاني‬
[...] and this is how the people of innovation (Ahl Al-Bida’) are. They barely can argue with a
textual or a rational proof, except that after examination (of their ‘evidence’) it turns out to
be against them and not in their favour.”
(Majmoo’ Al-Fatawah of Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, Aqeedah, the Book of the Names and
Attributes part two)
As for the narration:
Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah was Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah, an ocean of knowledge, a
Hadith master and a peer of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In his Musannaf he states the event as
follows:
‫اّلل بن عمر‪ ،‬حدِّثنا زيد بن أسلم‪ ،‬عن أبيه أسلم‪ ،‬انِّه حين بويع ألبي بكر بعد رسول ِّ‬
‫حدِّثنا محمد بن بشر‪ ،‬حدِّثنا عبيد ِّ‬
‫اّلل ـ صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم ـ‬
‫كان علي والزبير يدخالن على فاطمة بنت رسول ِّ‬
‫اّلل ـ صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم ـ فيشاورونها ويرتجعون في أمرهم‪ ،‬فلما بلغ ذلك عمر بن الخطاب‬
‫‪:‬خرج حتِّى دخل على فاطمة‪ ،‬فقال‬
‫واّلل ما من أحد أحبِّ إلينا من أبيك‪ ،‬وما من أحد أحبِّ إلينا بعد أبيك منك‪ ،‬وأيم ِّ‬
‫اّلل ـ صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم ـ! ِّ‬
‫يا بنت رسول ِّ‬
‫اّلل ما ذاك بمانعي إن‬
‫اجتمع هؤالء النفر عندك‪ ،‬إن أمرتهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬فلما خرج عمر جاءوها‪ ،‬فقالت‪ :‬تعلمون ِّ‬
‫أن عمر‬
‫باّلل لئن عدتم ليحرقن عليكم البيت‪ ،‬وأيم ِّ‬
‫قد جاءني وقد حلف ِّ‬
‫اّلل ليمضين لما حلف عليه‪ ،‬فانصرفوا راشدين‪ ،‬فَ َروا رأيكم وال ترجعوا إلي‪،‬‬
‫فانصرفوا عنها فلم يرجعوا إليها حتِّى بايعوا ألبي بكر‬
‫أخرجه أحمد في “فضائل الصحابة” (‪ )364/1‬وابن أبي شيبة في “المصنف” (‪ )432/7‬وعنه ابن أبي عاصم في “المذكر والتذكير” (‪)91/1‬‬
‫ورواه ابن عبد البر في “االستيعاب” (‪ )975/3‬من طريق البزار – ولم أجده في كتب البزار المطبوعة – وأخرجه الخطيب في “تاريخ بغداد”‬
‫‪ ) 75/6( .‬مختصرا ‪ :‬كلهم من طريق محمد بن بشر ثنا عبيد هللا بن عمر عن زيد بن أسلم عن أبيه به‬
‫قلت ‪ :‬وهذا إسناد صحيح ‪ ،‬فإن محمد بن بشر العبدي (‪203‬هـ) ثقة حافظ من رجال الكتب الستة‪ ،‬وكذا عبيد هللا بن عمر العمري المتوفى سنة مائة‬
‫وبضع وأربعون ‪ ،‬وكذا زيد بن أسلم مولى عمر بن الخطاب (‪136‬هـ)‪ ،‬وكذا أبوه أسلم مولى عمر ‪ ،‬جاء في ترجمته في “تهذيب التهذيب”‬
‫(‪ ) 266/1‬أنه أدرك زمان النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم ‪ ،‬إال أنه لم يكن في المدينة في وقت أحداث البيعة ‪ ،‬ألن محمد بن إسحاق قال ‪ :‬بعث أبو بكر‬
‫عمر سنة إحدى عشرة ‪ ،‬فأقام للناس الحج ‪ ،‬وابتاع فيها أسلم مواله ‪ .‬فيكون الحديث بذلك مرسال ‪ ،‬إال أن الغالب أن أسلم سمع القصة من عمر بن‬
‫‪ .‬الخطاب أو غيره من الصحابة الذين عاشوا تلك الحادثة‬
‫‪- Muhammad ibn Bishr from Ubaydallah Ibn Omar from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father Aslam the‬‬
‫‪Mawla of Omar.‬‬
‫‪When Abu Bakr received the pledges of allegiance after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Al-Zubayr‬‬
‫‪used to enter the presence of Fatima the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and consult with her‬‬
‫‪and hesitate in their allegiance. When news of this reached Omar ibn Al-Khattab, he came out‬‬
‫‪until he entered Fatima’s presence and said: “Daughter of the Messenger of Allah, none in all‬‬
‫‪creation was more dearly beloved to me than your father, and none is more beloved to us‬‬
‫‪after him than you. However, by Allah, this shall not prevent me, if that group gathers in your‬‬
‫‪house, to order that their door be set afire!” When Omar went out, they came and she said: “Do‬‬
‫‪you know that Omar came to me and swore by Allah that if you were to come back, he shall surely‬‬
‫‪burn the door with you inside! By Allah, he shall certainly fulfill what he swore, so go away in‬‬
‫‪peace (literally: Go away as RASHIDEEN!), flee from your opinion, and do not come back to see‬‬
‫‪me.” They left her and did not return to see her until they pledged their allegiance to Abu‬‬
‫”‪Bakr.‬‬
‫‪Source: Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah 7/432.‬‬
‫‪Islamqa.info (under the supervision Shaykh Al-Munajjid) grading:‬‬
I say: This Isnad (chain of Hadith) is SAHIH, this is due to Muhammad Ibn Bishr Al-Abdi (203 AH) is
THIQAH HAFIDH of the narrators of the six books (“Al-Kuttub Al-Sittah”), so is Ubaydallah Ibn
Omar Al-Omri, so is Zayd Ibn Aslam the Mawla (client) of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (136 AH), so is HIS
FATHER Aslam the Mawla of Omar and his TARJAMAH has been mentioned in “Tahdheeb AlTahdheeb” (1/266) that he has witnessed the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), except
that he wasn’t present in Madinah during the time of the Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr
Khalifatul-Rasulullah), this is because Muhammad Ibn Ishaaq says: “Abu Bakr sent Omar to lead the
Hajj in the year 11AH where he (Omar) bought Aslam, that is why the Hadith is Mursal, but as to
Aslam, then whatever he narrates is what he heard from Omar Ibn Al-Khattab or other Sahaba who
lived during the time the incident occured.
Now before we start analysing the narration in the Musannaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah, let us quote
some narrations that the Rafidha don’t like to mention in their foul game of “Hadith picking”
(picking and chosing what suits their desires), for the following narrations perfectly explain the
narration above, in terms of the how the Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) was finally given to the
Siddiq of this Ummah:
‫ وبين الزبير بن العوام الذي كان مع علي‬، ‫وقد جاء في بعض الروايات القوية أيضا أنه حصلت بعض المنازعات بين عمر بن الخطاب ومن معه‬
‫ ودرأ عنهم الشقاق والنزاع‬، ‫ إال أن هللا سبحانه وتعالى وقاهم فتنة الشيطان‬، ‫ وذلك في بيت فاطمة رضي هللا عنها‬، ‫ بن أبي طالب رضي هللا عنه‬.
‫ وأن محمد بن مسلمة كسر سيف‬، ‫ ( أن عبد الرحمن بن عوف كان مع عمر بن الخطاب رضي هللا عنه‬: ‫روى إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف‬
‫ وال سألتها هللا‬، ‫ وال كنت فيها راغبا‬، ‫ وهللا ما كنت حريصا على اإلمارة يوما وال ليلة قط‬: ‫ ثم قام أبو بكر فخطب الناس واعتذر إليهم وقال‬، ‫الزبير‬
‫ ولكن قُ ِلِّدتُ أمرا عظيما ما لي به من طاقة وال يد إال بتقوية هللا‬، ‫ وما لي في اإلمارة من راحة‬، ‫ ولكني أشفقت من الفتنة‬، ‫عز وجل في سر وعالنية‬
‫ فقبل المهاجرون منه ما قال وما اعتذر به‬. ‫ ولوددت أن أقوى الناس عليها مكاني اليوم‬، ‫ عز وجل‬.
، ‫ وإنا نرى أبا بكر أحق الناس بها بعد رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬، ‫ ما غضبنا إال ألنا قد أ ُ ِ ِّخرنا عن المشاورة‬: ‫قال علي رضي هللا عنه والزبير‬
‫ ولقد أمره رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم بالصالة بالناس وهو حي‬، ‫ وإنا لَنعلم بشرفه وكبره‬، ‫) إنه لصاحب الغار وثاني اثنين‬
، )70/3( ”‫) – ومن طريقه الحاكم في “المستدرك‬302/6( ”‫أخرجه موسى بن عقبة في “المغازي” – كما ذكره ابن كثير في “البداية والنهاية‬
287/30( ”‫ وعنه ابن عساكر في “تاريخ دمشق‬، )152/8( ”‫)وعنه البيهقي في “السنن الكبرى‬
‫ فهو من طريق إبراهيم بن المنذر الحزامي ثنا محمد بن فليح عن موسى بن عقبة عن سعد‬، ‫ على شرط البخاري‬، ‫ وإسناد هذه القصة صحيح‬: ‫قلت‬
‫ بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف عن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف به‬.
‫ ” هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين ولم يخرجاه ” انتهى‬: ‫ قال الحاكم‬.
‫ ” على شرط البخاري ومسلم ” انتهى‬: ”‫ وقال الذهبي في “التلخيص‬.
‫ ” إسناد جيد ” انتهى‬: )250/5( ”‫ وقال ابن كثير في “البداية والنهاية‬..
“Ibrahim the son of Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf narrated to us that (his father) Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf
was with Omar Ibn Al-Khattab when Mohammad Ibn Maslamah broke the swod of Al-Zubayr, then
Abu Bakr started his speech and apologised to the people and said: “By Allah, I was never cared
about leadership, nor did I want it, nor did I ask Allah for it privately or publicly, but I feared
‫‪fitna. There is no time to rest as a leader, and I have taken upon myself such a heavy duty only‬‬
‫‪with the power of Allah. If only the strongest was in my place today.‬‬
‫‪Ali [Ibn Abi Talib] and Al-Zubair said: We were not angered by anything except that we weren’t‬‬
‫‪brought into this discussion (Mashawirah/Shurah) sooner. We see Abu Bakr as the most rightful‬‬
‫‪after the Prophet (pbuh) and that he is the companion in the cave, and the second of two, and we‬‬
‫”‪know of his status and greatness, and the Prophet (pbuh) had him lead prayer while he was alive.‬‬
‫‪Source: Al-Hakim said in his Al Mustadrak 3/70. 4422: Sahih according to the conditions of the Shaykhayn, but they did not‬‬
‫‪narrated it. Al-Dhahabi agreed with Al-Hakim in his “Al-Talkhis” and Ibn Kathir in his Al Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, Vol 5 said:‬‬
‫‪“It’s chain is authentic, walillahi Al-Hamdu wal-Minnah. Musa Ibn Uqba narrated it in his “Al-Maghazi” as mentioned by Ibn‬‬
‫‪Kathir in his “Al-Bidaya ….”. Al-Bayhaqi narrated it in his “Sunan Al-Kubra” (8/152) and also Ibn Asakir in his “Tarikh Al‬‬‫‪Dimashq” (30/287).‬‬
‫قال ابن كثير في البداية والنهاية (‪ 693\6‬ط‪ .‬دار المعرفة‪ ،‬بيروت) في أحداث سنة ‪ :11‬وقد اتفق الصحابة –رضي هللا عنهم– على بيعة الصديق‬
‫‪:‬في ذلك الوقت حتى علي بن أبي طالب والزبير بن العوام –رضي هللا عنهما–‪ .‬والدليل على ذلك ما رواه البيهقي حيث قال‬
‫‪Ibn Kathir says in Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah (693/6): “The Companions – may Allah be pleased with‬‬
‫‪them – finally agreed with the Pledge of Allegiance to Abu Bakr at that time (After Saqifah, at‬‬
‫‪Saad’s House), even Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Al-Zubayr Al-Awwam – may Allah be pleased with both‬‬
‫‪of them. The proof for that, is what Al-Bayhaqi narrated:‬‬
‫في سنن البيهقي الكبرى (‪ :)143\8‬حدثنا أبو عبد هللا الحافظ (الحاكم صاحب المستدرك) إمال ًء‪ ،‬وأبو محمد بن أبي حامد المقري قراءة عليه‪ ،‬قاال‪:‬‬
‫ثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب (جي د) ثنا جعفر بن محمد بن شاكر (ثقة ثبت) ثنا عفان بن مسلم (ثقة ثبت) ثنا وهيب (ثقة ثبت) ثنا داود بن أبي هند‬
‫(ثقة ثبت) ثنا أبو نضرة (العبدي‪ ،‬ثقة) عن أبي سعيد الخدري (ر) قال‪ :‬لما توفي رسول هللا (ص)‪ ،‬قام خطباء األنصار (في دار سعد بن عبادة)‪،‬‬
‫فجعل الرجل منهم يقول‪« :‬يا معشر المهاجرين‪ ،‬إن رسول هللا (ص) كان إذا استعمل ر ُجالً منكم قَ َرنَ معَهُ رجالً مِ نِّا‪ .‬فنرى أن يلي هذا األمر‬
‫رجالن‪ :‬أحدهما منكم‪ ،‬واآلخر منا»‪ .‬فتتابعت خطباء األنصار على ذلك‪ .‬فقام زيد بن ثابت (ر) فقال‪« :‬إن رسول هللا (ص) كان من المهاجرين‪ .‬وإن‬
‫اإلمام يكون من المهاجرين‪ .‬ونحن أنصاره كما كنا أنصار رسول هللا (ص)»‪ .‬فقام أبو بكر (ر) فقال‪« :‬جزاكم هللا خيرا ً يا معشر األنصار‪ ،‬وثبِّتَ‬
‫قا ِئلَ ُكم»‪ .‬ثم قال‪« :‬أما لو ذلك لما صالحناكم»‪ .‬ثم أخذ زيد بن ثابت (وفي البداية والنهاية عمر بن الخطاب) بيد أبي بكر فقال‪« :‬هذا صاحبكم‬
‫ناس من األنصار‪ ،‬فأتوا به‪ .‬فقال أبو‬
‫فبايعوه»‪ .‬ثم انطلقوا‪ ،‬فلما قعد أبو بكر (ر) على المنبر‪ ،‬نظر في وجوه القوم فلم ير عليا ً (ر)‪ .‬فسأل عنه فقام ٌ‬
‫بكر (ر)‪« :‬ابن عم رسول هللا (ص) وختنه‪ ،‬أردتَ أن تش ُِّق عصا المسلمين؟»‪ .‬فقال‪« :‬ال تثريب يا خليفة رسول هللا (ص)»‪ .‬فبايعه‪ .‬ثم لم ير الزبير‬
‫بن العوام (ر)‪ .‬فسأل عنه‪ ،‬حتى جاءوا به‪ .‬فقال‪ « :‬ابن عمة رسول هللا (ص) وحواريه‪ ،‬أردت أن تشق عصا المسلمين؟»‪ .‬فقال مثل قوله‪« :‬ال تثريب‬
‫‪.‬يا خليفة رسول هللا»‪ .‬فبايعاه‬
‫قال البيهقي‪ :‬أخبرنا أبو الحسن علي بن محمد بن علي الحافظ اإلسفرائيني ثنا أبو علي الحسين بن علي الحافظ أنبأ أبو بكر محمد بن إسحاق بن‬
‫خزيمة (إمام األئمة) وإبراهيم بن أبي طالب‪ ،‬قاال‪ :‬ثنا بندار بن بشار (ثقة) ثنا أبو هشام المخزومي (ثقة ثبت) ثنا وهيب (ثقة ثبت) ثم فذكره بنحوه‪.‬‬
‫قال أبو علي الحافظ‪ :‬سمعت محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة يقول‪ :‬جاءني مسلم ب ن الحجاج (اإلمام صاحب الصحيح) فسألني عن هذا الحديث‪ ،‬فكتبته له‬
‫ٌ‬
‫حديث يسوي بدنة»‪ .‬فقلت‪« :‬يسوي بدنة؟ بل هو يسوي بدرة»‪.‬وهذا يدل كذلك على أنه في الجزء المفقود من‬
‫في رقعة‪ ،‬وقرأت عليه‪ .‬فقال‪« :‬هذا‬
‫ٌ‬
‫حديث صحي ٌح على شرط الشيخين ولم يخرجاه»‪،‬‬
‫صحيح ابن خزيمة‪ .‬والحديث أخرجه الحاكم في المستدرك على الصحيحين (‪ )80\3‬وقال‪« :‬هذا‬
‫وهو كما قال‪ .‬وأخرجه أحمد في مسنده (‪ )185\5‬مختصراً‪ .‬وقال مقبل بن هادي الوادعي في تعليقته على المستدرك‪( :‬صوابه على شرط مسلم‪،‬‬
‫ دار‬، 86‫ ص‬،3‫ ج‬:‫ المستدرك بتعليق الواعي‬:‫ انظر‬، )‫ كما في تهذيب التهذيب‬،ً‫ وهو المنذر بن مالك إال تعليقا‬،‫فالبخاري لم يخرج ألبي نضرة‬
‫الحرمين للطباعة والنشر والتوزيع‬.
[...] on the authority of Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri who said:
“When the Messenger of Allah had died (his companions convened at the house of Saad Ibn
Ubadah, AFTER THE SAQIFAH INCIDENT) the speakers of the Ansar stood up and one of them was
appointed (as a spokesman) and said: O men of the Ansar, verily when the Messenger of Allah
appointed a man from among you, he joined him with a man from among us. We see that this
matter [Caliphate] should be given to two men, to one of you and one of us. The speakers of the
Ansar followed them in that, hence Zayd Ibn Thabit [from the Muhajir Sahabah] stood up and said:
Verily, the Messenger of Allah was from the Muhajireen, and the Imam must be from the
Muhajireen, and we are going to be his supporters, just like we were the supporters of the
Messenger of Allah. Abu Bakr thereupon stood up and said: May Allah reward you with goodness
and keep you steadfast in your word, O’ men of the Ansar.
Zayd Ibn Thabit (and in the version of Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, Omar Ibn Khattab) grabbed the
hand of Abu Bakr and said: “This is your master, give him your pledge of obedience”. The Ansar
and Muhajir Sahabah pledged the allegiance to Abu Bakr and set off. Abu Bakr mounted the
platform (Minbar) and looked at the faces of the attendants and couldn’t see Ali amongst the
people. He asked about him, then some of of the Ansar went and came back with him (Ali). Abu
Bakr asked him: “O cousin of Allah’s Messenger and his son in law. Do you want to split the cause
of the Muslims? Ali said: “Don’t rebuke, o Caliph of the Messenger of Allah*!” Thereupon he
gave his pledge to Abu Bakr”. Abu Bakr also couldn’t see Al-Zubayr Al-Awwam. So he asked for
him until they came back with him. When Al-Zubayr arrived, Abu Bakr asked him: O cousin of
Allah’s Messenger and his Hawari (close disciple, a title givin to him by Rasulullah). Do you want to
split the cause of the Muslims? Al-Zubayr said: “Don’t rebuke, o Caliph of the Messenger of
Allah!” Thereupon he gave his pledge to Abu Bakr.”
*Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (Khalifatul-Rasulillah) is a title only given to Abu bakr (!), all
other Khulafa’, even Ali were called “Chief of the Believers” (Amir Al-Mu’minin). This is the utmost
form of respect and admission Ali could have shown to Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with them
both.
Source: by Al-Bayhaqi who said: “[...] Abu Ali Al-Hafidh said: I heard Mohammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn KHUZAYMAH (Imam of the Imams)
saying: “Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjaj (Imam Muslim!) entered upon me and asked me about this Hadith, so I wrote it down for him and
read it. He said: “This Hadith is worth a Badnah (precious camel).” I said: “A Badnah? Rather it is worth a Badrah (a Badrah is a
bag with 10.000 Dinar!)”. The Hadith was also narrated by Al-Hakim in his Al-Mustadrak ‘alaa Al-Sahihayn (80/3) and he said:
“This Hadith is Sahih according to the conditions of the Shaykhayn who did not narrate it.” It is as he said and it was also
narrated by Ahmad (185/5) and in Mujama’a Al-Zawa’ed (5/183), Rijal are people of Saheeh. Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (5/281),
chain thabit and saheeh and in al Sunan al Kubrah (8/143) with two SAHIH chains. Also in “Tarikh Al-Islam” by Al-Dhahabi.
More evidence that Ali was finally pleased with Abu Bakr’s Khilafah and gave the pledge of
alliance based on the fact that he believed in the superiority and worthiness of Abu Bakr for
the Cliphate
Before the Rafidha repeat the old repeated and boring tape of: “Ali was forced and only pledged
allegiance to avoid disunity, he saved Islam, blah, blah” let us provide you with the following
(although the narrations above are enough for they too clearly state that Ali believed that Abu Bakr
is superior to him, worthy of being the Caliph etc.)
Imam Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated in his “Sunnan” (2/563) via trustworthy narrators:
Narrated Qays bin al Abdi: I Witnesses the sermon of Ali on the day of Basrah, he said: ” He
praised Allah and thanked him and he mentioned the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala Aalihi wa
sallam) and his sacrifice to the people, then Allah swt took his soul. (After he said that) then the
Muslims saw that they should give the Caliphate to Abu Bakr (RA) so they pledged their allegiance
and made their promise of loyalty, and I gave my pledge and I promised him my loyalty, They
were pleased and so was I. He (Abu Bakr) did good deeds and made Jihad until Allah took his
soul may Allah have mercy on him.”
Shia-Mu’tazilite source:
‫ و لقد أمره رسول‬, ‫ و إنا لنعرف له سنه‬, ‫ إنه لصاحب الغار و ثاني أثنين‬, ‫قول أبو الحسن على بن أبى طالب ” و إنا نرى أبا بكر أحق الناس بها‬
332/1 ‫هللا بالصالة و هو حي ” شرح النهج البن أبى الحديد‬
Ali ibn Abi Talib said to Zubair: “(Although) we got angry momentarily at the time of consultation
(i.e. Saqifah), we can now see that Abu Bakr is the most deserving of the Caliphate: He was the
companion of the Messenger of Allah in the cave. We know of his life and we know that the
Messenger of Allah had ordered him to lead the prayers.” And then he (Ali) gave his Baya’ah (to
Abu Bakr).
(Sharh Nahjul-Balagha; Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed; Vol.1, p.132)
more sources:
…Ali came to Abu Bakr and said: “I don’t refuse to admit that your virtues entitle you to the
Caliphate. My sole complaint is that we are the close relatives of the Prophet, (so) why did
you then take Baya’ah at Saqifah Banu Sa’idah without consulting us? Had you called us there,
we would have taken Baya’ah at your hand ahead of everyone.”
Abu Bakr said in reply: “To treat the relatives of the Prophet well is dearer and more desirable
to me than to do so for my own relatives. I went to Saqifah Banu Sa’idah not for the taking of
Baya’ah but for putting an end to the dispute…I did not seek their support (for Caliphate).
Rather, they took their oath of allegiance to me on their own…Had I delayed the matter, it would
have posed a greater danger to the unity, integrity, and solidarity of Islam. How could I send for
you when there was no time?”
Ali listened with rapt attention to what Abu Bakr Siddiq said and withdrew his complaint
gracefully. The next day, he (Ali) pronounced his allegiance to Abu Bakr before a large
congregation in the Prophet’s Mosque.
Source: Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.275-276
In another account, Abu Bakr said:
“Never for a moment was I eager for authority (imara) nor did I want it or pray to Allah for it
secretly or publically. But I was afraid of disorder. I take no pleasure in authority. I have been
invested with a grave matter for which I have not the strength and can only hope (to) cope with it
if Allah gives me the strength. I would (only wish) that he who has the most strength for it were in
my place.”
Source: Seerah of Musa ibn Uqba
To which Ali said:
“We were angry only because we were not admitted to the council and we think that Abu Bakr
is the most worthy of supreme authority now that the apostle is dead. He was the one with the
apostle in the cave and we recognize his dignity and seniority; and the apostle put him in charge
of the prayers while he was still with us.”
Source: Seerah of Musa ibn Uqba
Last Shubha (doubt) the Rafidha can bring up is the Hadith in Al-Bukhari, where Aisha reported that
Ali did not give Bay’ah for six months, that too has been answered:
———————————————
So far we can conclude:
1. Ali and Al-Zubayr were upset for not being consulted in the Shura at Saqifah
2. Ali (and Al-Zubayr) never claimed that something was “usurped” from them, let alone the alien
Rafidhi concept of “Wilayah/Imamah”. They did not do Taqiyyah, hence they openly (at first)
expressed their sorrow, but in the end of the day (after Abu Bakr explained WHY he had to rush to
Saqifah) Ali and Al-Zubayr were pleased and acknowledges in public Abu Bakr’s superiority and his
right of being the Khalifah of Rasulullah.
3. Ali never made any Taqiyyah whatsoever, even years after Saqifah he publically praised Abu Bakr
and Omar (in undisputed, irrefutable Sahih+Mutawatir (mass narrated!) narrations.
4. Based on the aforementioned points and evidences no one can seriously claim that Ali was forced
to give the pledge or that he gave the pledge merely for the sake of keeping unity in the Ummah.
As for the Rafidhi methodoligy in this regards, then no one can put it better than Shaykh Al-Islam:
‫ وإلى األمور‬، ‫ فهم دائما يعمدون إلى األمور المعلومة المتواترة ينكرونها‬، ‫وأمثال هذه األكاذيب التي يعلم من له أدنى علم ومعرفة أنها كذب‬
ْ َ ‫ فلهم أوفر نصيب من قوله تعالى ( َو َم ْن أ‬، ‫المعدومة التي ال حقيقة لها يثبتونها‬
68‫ من اآلية‬:‫ق ) العنكبوت‬
َ ‫علَى اّللِ َكذِبا ً أ َ ْو كَذ‬
َ ‫ظلَ ُم مِ م ِن ا ْفت ََرى‬
ِ ِّ ‫ب ِب ْال َح‬
‫ وهذا حال المرتدين‬، ‫ ويكذبون بالحق‬، ‫ فهم يفترون الكذب‬،
493 / 4 ” ‫منهاج السنة النبوية‬.
[...] and such lies are known to be lies to everyone who possesses the slightest amount of
knowledge and understanding, yet they [the Rafidha] delibaretely reject KNOWN [authentic] and
MASS narrated facts, while at the same time they affirm any sort of falsehood, hence the
following verse applies to them: ‫ من اآلية‬:‫ق – العنكبوت‬
َ ‫ َو َم ْن َأ ْظ َلمُ مِم ِن ا ْفتَ َرى عَ َلى اّلل ِ َكذِباً َأ ْو كَذ‬And who does
ِ ِّ ‫ب ب ِ ْال َح‬
more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allâh or denies the truth, when it comes to him? Is
there not a dwelling in Hell for disbelievers?(Al-Ankaboot/68). So they invent lies, deny the truth
and this is in fact the state of the apostates.
Source: Minhaj Al-Sunnah 493 /4
Indeed, there are tons of MUTAWATIR narrations, proving the superiority of the Master Abu Bakr
over Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the Iman of Omar (the final verdict of Ali on Omar AFTER Omar’s death!) etc.
yet the Rafidha go and dig for any weak and extremely disputed text, even text that in essence is
not in their favour, just with the aim of making Takfir on the Sahaba.
Back to the Ibn Abi Shaybah narration – the Analyses
- Muhammad ibn Bishr from Ubaydallah Ibn Omar from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father Aslam the
Mawla of Omar.
When Abu Bakr received the pledges of allegiance after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Al-Zubayr
used to enter the presence of Fatima the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and consult with her
and hesitate in their allegiance. When news of this reached Omar ibn Al-Khattab, he came out
until he entered Fatima’s presence and said: “Daughter of the Messenger of Allah, none in all
creation was more dearly beloved to me than your father, and none is more beloved to us
after him than you. However, by Allah, this shall not prevent me, if that group gathers in your
house, to order that their door be set afire!” When Omar went out, they came and she said: “Do
you know that Omar came to me and swore by Allah that if you were to come back, he shall surely
burn the door with you inside! By Allah, he shall certainly fulfill what he swore, so go away in
peace, flee from your opinion, and do not come back to see me.” They left her and did not return
to see her until they pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr.”
Source: Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah 7/432.
Ponder over the following points:
1.
There is a difference of opinion in regards to the authenticity of this narration, some graded
it Sahih, some deem it Mursal (disconnected), in any case it is not in the favour of the Rafidha,
little they know. Actually accepting this narration should be the option of every Muslim.
2. This narration is a virtue for Omar (RA)
3. Because Omar placed the love of Fatima (RA) right after the love of her father (peace be upon
him.
4. Also because Omar would not tolerate or go easy on any man who may cause a division and
threaten the unity. This is the Sunnah of the Prophet (the Prophet even threatened to burn
down the houses of those who intentionally do not attend the Masjid for no valid reason. Ali
also threatened the one who causes the slightest form of disunity in Nahj Al-Balagha. The
Prophet said: “Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama
and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not
left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.” (Bukhari and Muslim)He also
threatened to cut the hand of Fatima if she stole:( ‫ أنهم كانوا إذا سرق فيهم‬: ‫ فإنما أهلك الناس قبلكم‬، ‫أما بعد‬
‫ لو أن فاطمة بنت محمد سرقت لقطعت يدها‬، ‫ والذي نفس محمد بيده‬، ‫ وإذا سرق فيهم الضعيف أقاموا عليه الحد‬، ‫) الشريف تركوه‬
Authenticated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim. We hope Rawafidh want suggest that this makes him
unjust, ill-mannered, and psychotic.Even the Prophet would be punished by Allah if he were to
fabricate against Allah (swt): 69:44 – 47And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We
assuredly had taken him by the right hand And then severed his life-artery, And not one of you
could have held Us off from him.This is supported by the view of Al-Tabtaba’ee as well: :‫والمعنى‬
‫{ ولو تقول علينا } هذا الرسول الكريم الذي حملناه رسالتنا وأرسلناه إليكم بقرآن نزلناه فيؤخذ بيده أو المراد قطعنا منه يده اليمنى أو المراد‬
‫لتقوله علينا { فما منكم من أحد عنه حاجزين } تحجبونه عنا‬
ُّ ‫النتقمنا منه بالقوة كما في رواية القمي { ثم لقطعنا منه الوتين } وقتلناه‬
‫وهذا تهديد للنبي صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم على تقدير أن يفتري على هللا كذبا ً وينسب إليه شيئا ً لم يقله وهو‬.‫وتنجونه من عقوبتنا وإهالكنا‬
‫بنبوته واختاره لرسالته‬
ِّ ‫رسول من عنده أكرمه‬.and there are other Sahih narrations:Rasulullah ‫صل هللا عليه و على‬
‫ آله و سلم‬says: “The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others”
(Muslim) . In fact, “When oath of allegiance has been taken for two KhalIfas, kill the one for
whom the oath was taken later” (Muslim)
5. The house was never burned (a Shia fairy-tale)
6. Fatima (RA) was never beat, let alone her ribs being broken (a Shia fairy-tale)
7. Mohsin, the unborn son of Fatimah was not killed, Rafidha claim (lots of contradicting
fabricated narrations, even in their books) that a number of Sahaba broke her ribs and caused
her miscarriage. Nothing but a lie, according to this SAHIH narration.
8. Omar did not even threat Fatimah, it was Fatimah herself, according to her own words who
understood that she has been excluded from Omar’s threat, this is because she was an Arab
(not like the Rafidha Majoos) who understood Arabic and hence she understood that Omar’s
concern was Ali and Al-Zubayr only. In fact every Arab speaker will realise it, but since the
Rafidha clergy is made up mainly by non-Arabs who are extremely weak in Arabic, then one
can’t expect much from their followers who either due to ignorance or blatant mistranslations
don’t realise/mention that Omar said the following to Fatimah: ‫( إن أمرتهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت‬Yet I
swear by God that it won’t stop me from gathering these people and commanding them to
burn this house down on them.). As you can see, it is ‘alayhim’ i.e. ON THEM. Omar due to
his love for Fatimah ‫ عليها السالم‬right from the very beginning EXCLUDED her from this Fitna and
threat as much as he could, and the rest of the narration (which the Rafidha in many cases
distort, by cutting out what is against their cult and desires) will prove that Fatimah not just
understood Omar well (i.e. she not being threatened AT ALL) rather she AGREED WITH HIM.
The narration goes on saying: [...] So when ‘Omar left they – Ali and Zubair – came so she told
them: “Do you know that ‘Omar came to me and swore by Allah that if you returned he would
burn the house on you? [...] As you can see my Muslim brother and sister, may Allah have
mercy upon you, Fatimah understood Omar very well, she understood that ‘Omar never
threatened her, she understood that she’s not the concern AT all, also she understood that it
is her hustband and Al-Zubayr who with their DELAY of their pledge were causing problems,
hence she said that Omar threatened to burn the house on them.
9. The last part is actually the part that pulverises Rafidism completely, hence you find
Rafidha scholars simply OMITTING the last part, the most CRUCIAL part of the narration, for it
refutes their ENTIRE sect:
[...] By Allah he would fulfill what he promised so be men of wisdom and FLEE FROM YOUR
OPINION and never come back (until you have given Bay’ah).” So they never returned until
they gave Abu Bakr the Baya’ah. Source: Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah 7/432. This proves that
Fatimah shared Omars view, in fact she WARNED Ali and Zubayr (who according to other Sahih
sources did delay the Bay’ah and finally gave the Bay’ah, as proven before) to FLEE from their
OPINION. This is indeed the most beautiful part of the narration, proving that Fatimah was a
Bakriyyah (Abu Bakr follower) even before her husband. She being upset LATER because of
Fadak is a whole other issue, for she never renounced the authority of Abu Bakr (hence she
went to him in the first place!). Ali gave Bay’ah, so another Shia lie is exposed (that he never
gave Bay’ah).
CONCLUSION:
Abu Bakr (ra) and the Sahaba were done in Saqifa, then they went to give the pledge of allegiance
to Abu Bakr (ra) in public, everyone gave it but when Abu Bakr (ra) looked he never found al-Zubair
(ra) and `Ali (ra), he called on them, Omar (ra) went to call on them, he learned that they were
meeting in Fatima’ (ra) house and did not attend the Bay`ah, he was angry and went to the house
(Then this narration happened), after this Fatima (ra) told al-Zubair (ra) and `Ali (ra) to go give the
pledge when they returned, they went and gave it and admitted the superiority and worthiness of
Abu Bakr (ra) and said they were only late and upest because they were angry that they weren’t
consulted in Saqifa, Abu Bakr (ra) explained to them how things went, and this is what made them
happy, otherwise Ali (and even Al-Zubayr) would have never given the Bay’ah, they were not
Taqiyyah-mongering cowards as the Rafidha potray them (rather him i.e. Ali, since Al-Zubayr just as
99% of the Sahaba is a Kafir to the Mushrik Rawafidh anyway).
And as you can see, every Muslim should accept the narration (those who weaken it have no strong
arguments in our opinion) with open arms, to Rawafidh one could say:
Congratulations for finding a narration that blows up the Rafidhi house burning/rip
breaking/cheek slapping/unborn child killing myth and confirms the direct Bay’ah of Ali and the
support of Fatimah for Abu Bakr’s Khilafah. Hang it up over your bed, this really should be
framed in gold:
To finish this off, let us now make a Hujjah upon the Rawafidh from their
own books, precisely the Bible of Rafidhism, the sanad-less “Nahj AlBalaghah”:
ِّ ‫أغزوهم قبل أن يغزوكم فو‬
‫اّلل ما غزى قوم فى عقر دارهم إالِّ ذلِّوا فتوا كلتم‬
Translation:
Ali said: “Attack them before they attack you, for by Allah, no people have been attacked in the
HEARTS OF THEIR HOUSES but they suffered DISGRACE”!
Our comment: True words, ya Aba Turab, may Allah have mercy upon you. But unfortunately this is
how the (so called Shia/followers/supporters) pagan, polytheist Rafidha Ummah potray Omar and
Ali in their religious Hindu-like ceremonies:
Must-Read: Omar’s poodle Ali Ibn Abi Talib – It’s a Rafidhi’s world
Shia answer and our rebuttal:
This is a Farsi (Persian) run website, by “Ayatullah Hussein Qazwini” (he is being called the “Shaykh
Al-Mufid of our age”, for his knowledge in refuting Sunnis, so say his blind-followers), a Rafidhi
“Ayatullah” residing in Qom. He was confronted by rebuttals of Sunnis in regards to our analysed
Ibn Abi Shaybah narration, that he too likes to use. Here the link:
‫بررسي روايت ابن أبي شيبه و تهديد عمر به آتش زدن خانه فاطمه‬
We will analyse their “rebuttal” so you can be a judge and see how insincere and ignorant their
“top” scholars are.
Valiasr-aj website by “Ayatullah” Qazwini:
‫ حضرت فاطمه سالم هللا عليها براى جلوگيرى از آتش زدن خانه و از بين رفتن فرزندان پيامبر به آنان گوشزد‬،‫ با توجه به جدى بودن تهديد‬:ً‫انيا‬
‫مىكند كه ديگر اين جا نياييد‬
It says that Fatimah took it serious because Omar was about to KILL her SONS (Al-Hassan and AlHussein). The two are not even mentioned in the narration, also Omar EXCLUDED Fatimah from his
threat, so on where did the confused Rafidhi included her sons into the narration?
‫ عبارت «فلم يرجعوا إليها حتى بايعوا ال بى بکر» دروغ محض است كه توسط ايادى بنى اميه به حديث افزوده شده است تا ثابت كنند كه‬:ً‫ثالثا‬
‫تهديد عملى نشده است با اين كه در صحيح بخارى و مسلم با صراحت آمده است كه حضرت علي عليه السالم تا شش ماه با ابوبكر بيعت نكرد‬
He says that the last part of the narration i.e. where Fatimah tells Ali and Al-Zubayr to go away, to
flee from their opinion and NOT TO COME back except in the state of having given Bay’ah to Abu
Bakr, is a Umavid (Bani Umayyah) invention. This is not an academical approach, you can’t use a
Hadith of your opponent (which is indeed a Hujjah/argument) and then decide which part of it you
like and which part you don’t. The opponent will either accept the complete narration or he will
reject it, in any case, it is not for the biased Shia scholar to first point to our narrations, and then
to tell us what part of the very narration is good and not good according to him. In fact, whatever
opposes their desire i.e. Rafidhi Madhab, must be a “Umawid” invention and what they DO like is
not a Bani Umayyah invention. He even claims (WITH NO EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER) that the
beginning of the narration where Omar expresses his love and respect towards Fatimah is a “Bani
Umayyah’”fabrication:
‫بررسي شبهات داللي روايت‬:
‫شبهه اول (جايگاه فاطمه (س) نزد خليفه دوم‬:
‫در روايت آمده است که عمر پيش از هر گونه اقدامى شخصا ً نزد فاطمه رفت و مقام و منزلت او را چنين بيان فرمود‬:
« ‫ و به خدا قسم هيچ کس پس از پدر بزرگوارت نزد ما محبوبتر از‬،‫اى فاطمه! به خدا قسم هيچ کسى نزد ما محبوبتر از پدر گرامى ات نيست‬
‫» شما نيست‬.
‫عملکرد عمر و بيان منزلت دختر گرامى رسول اکرم (صلى هللا عليه وسلم) نشانگر احترام و محبت او به اهل بيت رسول اکرم (صلى هللا عليه‬
‫وآله) مىباشد‬.
‫پاسخ‬:
1. ‫اين عبارات به ظاهر توسط ايادى بنى اميه به روايت افزوده شده تا عمل خليفه را موجه جلوه دهند؛ ولى به هر حال نتوانستهاند موضوع‬
‫ و دموکراسى افسانهاى بيعت ابوبکر را به نمايش بگذارند‬،‫!!هجوم به خانه وتهديد به آتش زدن خانه فاطمه را انكار كنند‬
Seriously, this is the level of argumentation of a child. We are discussing the Deen of Allah, yet we
see their “Ayatullahs” as usual playing with narrations, hiding narrations, picking and chosing and
now even CUTTING the narrations in parts they like US to believe in. What’s next? Remember, this
“Ayatullah” run website is a so called “Researchcentre” (‘Vali-e-Asr’) run by Ayatullah Qazwini and
his best students, a bunch of Shia clerics. It’s (narration/s) like a soup they like but also don’t like,
they fish out what they don’t like and simply say: THAT’S AN UMAVID FABRICATION!
Point is the narration is solid, either you accept all of it or leave all of it. They boldly claim that
parts of it MUST BEE a Bani Umayyah fabrication because Bukhari and Muslim reported that Ali
delayed his Bay’ah for six month. Little they know:
Ali bin Abi Talib (Allaah is well-pleased with him) firmly believed in the SUPERIORITY of Abu Bakr
Al-Siddiq (Allaah is well-pleased with him) and gave him the Bay’ah. – INCLUDING AN EXPLANATION
OF WHY OUR MOTHER AISHA A P P A R E N T L Y reported that Ali delayed his pledge.
Finally they have the audicaty to state the following:
‫ما اصال فرض را بر اين مىگيريم كه طبق اين روايت نمىتوان هجوم به خانه و آتش زدن آن را ثابت كرد؛‬
(Let’s say for the sake of argument that this narration does NOT proof that the house was burned
down …)
“For the sake of argument”? They are being delirious, for it is a fact according to the narration
itself i.e. NOTHING burned down, and NOBODY had been touched, in fact it proves that Fatimah
DISAGREED with the delay of Al-Zubay and Ali, as we said she was a Bakriyyah, ‫رضي هللا عنها‬, just like
her husband and Al-Zubayr.
This “refutation” is one of the most desperate attempts we have ever seen in my life. They raped
the narration, crippled it, took what they like, rejected what they don’t, just for the sake of saving
their ugly faces and keeping the fariy tale of the “broken rip of Fatimah” alive, a tool to fool and
stir up the emotions of their braindead followers, who believe in this lowlife, filthy and useless
version of Ali (Allah is well pleased with him):
The Incident of Al-Ifk, Aisha or Maria? – Rebuttal to Ammar
‘Nakshawani’ (Nakhjavani)
December 14, 2012 at 1:49 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts, So called "shia unity". | 13
Comments
5 Votes
The Rafidhi vagabond Ammar ‘Nakshawani’
(Nakshavani), is known for his numerous lectures (strictly under Shia and ignorant Sunni audience,
never ever has he confronted a known Sunni scholar), where he obviously tries to point with his
shabby gentility in the fields of rethoric speech, this is the only way he can somehow hide his
blatant ignorance and in many cases blatant lies, against the Ahl Al-Sunnah and the Sahabah of the
Messenger of Allah (may the peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him). He is known for visiting
various institutions, including public universities where he tries hard to somehow save the face of
the Rafidhi religion (a really hard task, indeed), by claiming that many things the opponents of
Shias accuse them of are false and propaganda, that Shias are not Takfiris, do not do Takfir on the
Sahabah, that they only disagree with SOME Sahabah blah, blah, blah. Ironically, no one else but
those Rafidha Majoos who are a bit more open in regards to their beliefs have exposed the
charlatan Nakhjavani to such a degree, that only a fool would fall for his “brotherhood-Sunni-Shiaunity” crap:
Ok, IF you were among those gullible Muslims (or even Shias) who thought that there is any
difference between ANY SHIA scholar/preacher etc. when it comes to the Sahaba and the wives of
the Prophet, then know that there is no difference, Yasser Al-Habib, Baqir Al-Majlisi, Al-Mufid etc.
did openly Takfir on Aisha and called her the murderer of the Prophet (!), so does the schmuck
Nakhjavani, the only difference is, Nakhjavani the charlatan (as he himself said once!) will have a
life after his preaching career i.e. he don’t want to mention the hot stuff in their books (Takfir on
Aisha, accusing her of being a fornicator, Takfir on 99% of the Sahaba etc.), for he wants to have a
peaceful and lavish life, once he has robbed his stupid followers of their money (with lies,
deceptions and tricks). Anyway, coming to the topic at hand, one can see that the charlatan
Nakhshavani is seemingly getting more and more open about those beliefs he normally never
mentions in universities. Here the clip, and we know it’s tedious and accompanied by his hideous
and arrogant way of speaking, one can’t but vomit at least, once, but try to hold yourself, and if
you don’t want to watch the whole lecture it’s fine enough, we just don’t want anyone to accuse us
of having refuted a ghost:
Nakhjavani claims:
The incident of al-Ifk has got nothing whatsoever to do with Aisha and her innocence, in fact she
and the Sahaba accused the Prophet’s wive Maria (the Coptic) of Adultery!
Gift2shias rebuttal:
1. The Ayah says:
‫ع إ‬
ُ ِ‫اْل إفك‬
‫عذَاٌٌ عَِِ ي ٌم‬
َ ُ‫اْلثإ ِم َو َّالذِي ت ََو َّلى ِكب َإرهُ مِ إن ُه إم َله‬
َ َ ‫سبُوهُ شَرّ ا ً لَّ ُكم بَ إل ُه َو َخ إيرٌ لَّ ُك إم ِل ُك ِّل امإ ِر ٍئ ِّم إنهُم مَّا ا إكت‬
َ ‫ص َبةٌ ِّمن ُك إم َال تَحإ‬
َ ‫س‬
ِ ‫ب مِ نَ إ‬
ِ ‫إِ َّن الَّ ِذينَ جَا ُؤوا بِ إ‬
Verily! Those who brought forth the slander are a group among you (Munafiqs). Consider it not
a bad thing for you (plural i.e. Prophet AND Sahaba/believers). Nay, it is good for you. Unto
every man among them will be paid that which he had earned of the sin, and as for him among
them who had the greater share therein, his will be a great torment.
Now the Sighah Al-Jam’ (addressing someone in the plural) has only been used for Allah subhanah
in the Qur’an. Like we/us etc., it is the majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis in Latin, literally, “the
plural of majesty”), this is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high
office. Now are the Rawafidh and Nakhjavani telling us that Aisha, the Mother of the Believers hold
a high position in the sight of Allah, hence He (SWT) addressed her with “those”?!?! After all the
heretic claims that Aisha’ accused Maryam the Coptic of Zina (fornication)! Surah 11-20 of Surah AlNur addresses a group of Hypocrites (like the Shia), read it to convince yourself.
Note: No one claims that these Ayat are for Aisha only, but they were particularly revealed for her
(case).
Only their sanad-less, weak and fabricated narrations (acc. to their OWN standars like in “AlHidayah Al-Kubra” by Imam Al-Ridha in which Abu Bakr, Omar and Hafsa are also implicated in the
false accusations against Maria. Nakhjavani, as the coward he is mentions it, without mentioning
the name of the Sahaba though!) report that OTHER than Aaisha accused Maria of Zina too, due to
their extreme weakness they can’t be taken as a proof (yet Nakhjavani builds his theory upon that
weak narration) what is left for them are other narrations (in Shia sources) that accuse Aaisha
ONLY, but this again contradict the verses that says a GROUP accused (acc. to the Rafidha) Maria of
Zina. So even their AUTHENTIC narrations are in their essence contradictory to the Qur’an and
history (as you will see, In Shaa Allah), and the extreme weak, rather sanad-less (!) narration he
mentions (where Abu Bakr, Omar, Hafsa etc. joined Aisha in accusing Maria of Zina) shouldn’t be
taken as evidence in the first place, by a HONEST researcher at least. Qur’an as usual refutes
Rafidhi lies.
2. The Ayat about the incident of Al-Ifk were revealed in the 5th or 6th year after Hijra. Maria AlQibtiyyah came to the Prophet (‫ )صل هللا عليه و على آله و سلم‬AFTER he had sent invitation letters to
Persia, Rome and Egypt. When the letter/invitation of the Messenger reached the Egyptian King, he
in return sent MARIA to the Prophet (as you know the PERSIAN MAJOOSI KINGS ripped the letter of
the Prophet apart), this was in the year 7th or 8th.
Conclusion: (basic maths, Nakhjavani did not mention a SINGLE time in his whole lecture!):
Ayat were revealed in : 5th/6th Hijra ( This is the strongest view and some even say the ‘Ijma’,
confirmed by the biggest historians of Islam, like Ibn Ishaq in his Tarikh and others. Musa bin
Uqbah, whose Tareekh is arguably better than Ibn Ishaaq, even suggests that Al-Ifk happened in
the year 4 AH, so from WHATEVER angle you look at it, be it the 4 AH or 5/6AH all of them
expose the Rafidhi fabricated view):
Maria came to the Prophet in : 7th/8th Hijra
I think the calculation and its result is obvious to everyone except the braindead Rawafidh who
potray the household of the Prophet as a house of Fahshaa’ (obscenity), where his wives are
adulteresses and the adulteresse+kafir wive accuses the other wive of adultery, yet the Prophet
keeps them all (while possessing the knowledge of the unseen according to the pagan Shia sect) and
never divorces any of them, what a sick religion Rafidhism is.
It i also noteworthy that Ammar Nakshawani’s main source (for his Rafidhi version) is a Hadith in
Tafseer Al-Qummi and Bihar Al-Anwar aka Bihar Al-Dhulumat aka Jame’ Al-Khurafat and other
books of Zandaqah (heresy). The curse of Allah be upon the liars, liars such as Ammar who KNOW
the truth, yet they hide it and deceive even their own followers with lies upon lies. They lie and
prefer fabricated and disgusting narrations over the truth. Here the translation of the Bihar Al-
Dhulamat wa Al-Zandaqat (“Al-Anwar”), narration, just read it and try not to vomit, look how sick
this disgusting, pagan, polytheistic Majoosi cult is:
The narration that accuses Aisha of havins accused Maria of Zina in Bihar Al-Anwar:
، ‫ عن‬، ‫ محمد بن عيسى‬: ‫ حدثنا‬، : ‫ قال‬، ‫ محمد بن جعفر‬: ‫ حدثنا‬-) 103 ( : ‫ ) – رقم الصفحة‬76 ( : ‫العالمة المجلسي – بحار األنوار – الجزء‬
‫ لما هلك إبراهيم بن رسول هللا (ص) حزن‬: ‫ سمعت أبا جعفر (ع) يقول‬: ‫ عن زرارة قال‬، ‫ حدثني عبد هللا بن بكير‬، : ‫الحسن بن علي بن فضال قال‬
، ‫ فبعث رسول هللا (ص) علياًًً (ع) وأمره بقتله‬، ‫ ما الذى يحزنك عليه ؟ فما هو إالِّ إبن جريج‬: ‫ فقالت عائشة‬، ً ‫عليه رسول هللا (ص) حزنا ً شديدا‬
ًًً‫ فلما رأى عليا‬، ‫فذهب علي (ع) إليه ومعه السيف وكان جريج القبطى في حائط فضرب علي (ع) باب البستان فأقبل إليه جريج ليفتح له الباب‬
‫ فلما خشى أن يرهقه‬، ً ‫ فوثب علي (ع) على الحائط ونزل إلى البستان وأتبعه وولى جريح مدبرا‬، ‫عرف في وجهه الشر فأدبر راجعا ً ولم يفتح الباب‬
، ‫ ما للنساء‬: ‫ ما للرجال وال له‬: ‫ فإذا ليس له‬، ‫ فلما دنا منه رمى جريج بنفسه من فوق النخلة فبدت عورته‬، ‫صعد في نخلة وصعد علي (ع) في إثره‬
: ‫ قال‬، ‫ ال بل إثبت‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫ يا رسول هللا إذا بعثتني في األمر أكون فيه كالمسمار المحمى أم إثبت ؟‬: ‫ فقال‬، )‫فإنصرف علي (ع) إلى النبي (ص‬
‫ الحمد هلل الذى صرف عنا السوء أهل البيت‬: ‫ فقال‬، ‫ ما للنساء‬: ‫ ما للرجال وماله‬: ‫والذى بعثك بالحق ماله‬.
On the authority of : Majlisi in his “Bihar Al-Anwar”, vol. 76, page 103 – Muhammad Ibn Jaafar said:
It is reported to us by: Muhammad Ibn Isaa – Al-Hassan Ibn Ali Ibn Fadhl who said that is reported
that – Abdullah Ibn Bakeer – Zurarah [ ‫ لعن هللا‬،‫ كذٌ علي وهللا‬- ‫زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى ومن قال ان هللا ثالث ثالثة‬
‫ ]زرارة‬said: I heard Aba Ja’far (Al-Baqir) (‫ )ع‬saying: “When Ibrahim the son of the Messenger of
Allah (‫ )ص‬demised, the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ص‬felt deep sorrow for him so Aaisha said : What is
it that makes you sad about him? He was just the son of Jurayh [i.e. Maria the mother of
Ibrahim betrayed the Prophet with Jurayh!]. Thereupon the Messenger (‫ )ص‬sent Ali (‫ )ع‬to kill him
[Jurayh], so Ali (‫ )ع‬while carrying a sword went to him and Jurayh the Qibti (the Coptic) was in his
garden so Ali (‫ )ع‬struck the gate of the garden thereupon Jurayh embraced him and was about to
open the door. When Jurayh saw Ali (‫ )ع‬he knew by looking at Ali’s (‫ )ع‬face that he (Ali) was up to
something bad (i.e. angry) so Jurayh turned back and did not open the gate, so Ali (‫ )ع‬jumped over
the wall and entered the garden and followed him while Jurayh was running and was scared that Ali
(‫ )ع‬might make him tired so he decided to climb up a palm tree and Ali (‫ )ع‬followed him up there.
When Ali (‫ )ع‬was about to catch him, Jurayh threw himsel off the palm tree and as a result his
‘Awra (private part) got exposed. [Ali saw] that he [Jurayh] did not have what males have and
neither what females have [i.e. he was a Mukhannath/hermaphrodite]. So Ali (‫ )ع‬went back to the
Prophet (‫ )ص‬and asked him: “O Messenger of Allaah, if you send me in regards to an issue, should I
carry it out without hesitating or should I first verifiy it? He said: “No, verify first” So he said: “By
the One that sent you with truth, he doesn’t have what men have nor does he have what women
have.” He (Prophet) said: “All praise is due to Allaah the One that keeps evil away from us Ahl
Al-Bayt“.
Note: They baltantly accuse Aaisha of having accused Maria of Zina, but in their zeal of fabricating
narrations they missed to eridacate the part which is been found in Sunni literature too, i.e. “All
praise is due to Allaah the One that keeps evil away from us Ahl Al-Bayt“. The Prophet – Peace
and Blessings of Allah be upon him, referred to his WIVE as Ahl Al-Bayt, here in SAHIH Sunni sources
too:
‫ ولقد ذكروا رجال ما‬،‫ فوهللا ما علمت على أهلي إال خيرا‬،‫ من يعذرني من رجل قد بلغني أذاه في أهل بيتي‬،‫ (يامعشر المسلمين‬:‫وهو على المنبر‬
‫ وما كان يدخل على أهلي إال معي‬،‫علمت عليه إال خيرا‬
[...] So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who would take
revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul (the one who accused Aisha of adultery!) then Allah’s
Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by
slandering my family/Ahli Bayti? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and
people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my
family except with me [...[ Sahih Bukhari (Volume 6 hadith 274)
Also, if you've watched the clip of Nakhjavani above, then remember what he said at min. 46:0046:10:
"... and honestly I don't wanna bring the names of those who discussed it ... who straight away
BELIEVED this is the baby of Jurayh ..."
Look at this coward Rafidhi, he already accused 'Aaisha of having injustly accused a chaste woman
of ZINA/ADULTERY! Do you know whom the Rawafidh and their sect of Shirk accuse of? Do you know
who was amongst the FIRST to believe in this slander and to upset the Prophet? It was Abu Bakr the
Siddiq and other major Sahaba according to the Rafidha, may Allah blacken their faces (even
more):
Their Shaykh Al-Saduq (Al-Kathoob) narrated in his Al-Khisal in a long Hadith in which Ali Ibn Abi
Talib addresses the people on the day of the Shura, and the narrative has been reported in AlHidayah Al-Kubra from Ali Ibn Musa Al-Ridha (Rafidha accuse him of being their 8th Imam, innocent
is he of them and their sect of Shirk) in much detail, the problem for the Rafidha is that the author
of this book Al-Husain ibn Hamdan is very weak), in which Abu Bakr, Omar and Hafsa are also
implicated in the false accusations. Al-Saduq also narrated in Al-Ilal from Aby Jafar (Muhammad
Al-Baqir, so called '5th infallible'):
“And when Al-Qaem (Rafidhi Mahdi) will stand, Al-Humayrah (nickname of Aisha, given by the
Prophet!) will be returned to him until he has given her the punishment of flogging, and until he
has avenged for the daughter of Mohammad, Fatima.” I said: “And why will he punish her by
flogging?” He said: “For her calumny against the mother of Ibrahim (Maria the Copitc)". I said:
“So how has Allah delayed it for Al-Qaem?” He said: “For Allah Almighty sent Mohammad [s] as a
mercy, and he will send Al-Qaem [a] as an avenger”.
*This narrative has also been narrated by the Rafidhi top scholars Al-Murtadha in his Al-Amali, from
Mohammad ibn Al-Hanafiyyah from his father (but without mention of the complete isnad, nor any
mention of Aishah).
The sincere truth-seeker should judge now, keeping the following points in his mind:
1. The disgusting and obvious fabricated report in Al-Hidayah Al-Kubra (by the Shia Rafidhi scholar
Hussein bin Hamdan Al-Khusaybi) includes the narration that Ammar Nakhjavani mentions (yet he
did not dare to mention the Sahaba’s names!), the narration that states that Abu Bakr, Omar, Hafsa
joined Aisha in her false allegations against Maria. This narration is false and extremely weak,
because the author of the book itself (Al-Khubaysi) is weak according to Shia standards they set
themselves.
2. In other Shia books (like in Al-Amali by Al-Murtadha) that story has been mentioned too, but
without even including Aisha.
What is left for the Shia (as stated before): Since the authenticity of the narration about the
Sahaba (Abu Bakr, Omar and Hafsa!) being included in the list of accusers (!) can’t be established,
the Shia and Nakhjavani have to drop their accusations against Abu Bakr, Omar and Hafsa. It is
although a shame for them, that this narration is not authentic, because that one would make
somehow sense, this is because as we have stated in the very beginning, the verses in Surah Al-Noor
clearly address a GROUP, that is why Nakhjavani (without mentioning the weakness of the
narration) included the WEAK narration of Al-Khubaysi in his lectures, he did not even give a hint
about the authenticity (knowing that his blind followers give a monkey about authenticity).
Anyway, what is left for Nakhjavani is quite devasting, for even their so called authentic narrations
(like the Muwathaq (reliable in Shia Hadith science) narration inTafseer Al-Qummi, by Al-Qummi,
does NOT mention a single word about a group, let alone the Sahaba, so ultimately even their
‘authentic’ narrations are of no use for their argumentation, because they clearly oppose the
Qur’an (that mentions a GROUP, not just Aisha!). Here their “reliable” narration from Tafsir AlQummi:
‫ ( ان الذين جاؤا باالفك عصبة منكم ال تحسبوه شرا لكم بل هو‬: ‫) واما قوله‬97 ‫ ص‬/ 2 ‫تفسير القمي – (ج‬
‫خير لكم ) فان العامة رووا انها نزلت في عائشة وما رميت به في غزوة بني المصطلق من خزاعة واما‬
‫ الخاصة فانهم رووا انها نزلت في مارية القبطية وما رمتها به عائشة والمنافقات‬.
‫ حدثنا عبد هللا بن‬:‫ حدثنا محمد بن عيسى عن الحسن بن علي بن فضال قال‬:‫حدثنا محمد بن جعفر قال‬
‫ لما مات إبراهيم ابن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه‬:‫ سمعت أبا جعفر عليهما السالم يقول‬:‫ قال‬،‫بكير عن زرارة‬
‫ فبعث رسول هللا‬.‫ ما الذي يحزنك عليه؟ فما هو إال ابن ج َُريإج‬:‫ فقالت عائشة‬،‫وآله حزن عليه حزنا شديدا‬
‫ وكان جريج القبطي في‬.‫ فذهب علي عليه السالم إليه ومعه السيف‬،‫صلى هللا عليه وآله عليًّا وأمره بقتله‬
‫ فلما رأى عليا عليه السالم‬.ٌ‫ فأقبل إليه جريج ليفتح له البا‬،‫علي عليه السالم باٌ البستان‬
ّ ٌ‫ وضر‬،‫حائط‬
‫ فوثب علي عليه السالم على الحائط ونزل إلى البستان‬.ٌ‫عرف في وجهه الغضب فأدبر راجعا ولم يفتح البا‬
‫واتبعه وولى جريج مدبرا‬.
Tafsir Al-Qummi (vol. 2) : “As for His saying : (11:Verily! Those who brought forth the slander are a
group among you. Consider it not a bad thing for you. Nay, it is good for you), then the ‘Aammah
(‘the commoners’ i.e. the Sunnis) have narrated that this verse was revealed for Aisha, when she
was accused (of adultery) in the battle of Bani Mustalaq from Khazaa’ah. As for the Khaassah
(‘the special ones, the Shia), then they narrated that this verse was revealed in regards to
Maria the Coptic , when she was accused (of adulter) by Aisha and the hypocrite. [chain of
narrators up to chemical Zurarah] Zurarah [ ‫ كذٌ علي‬- ‫زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى ومن قال ان هللا ثالث ثالثة‬
‫ لعن هللا زرارة‬،‫ ]وهللا‬said: I heard Abu Ja’far (Al-Baqir) (‫ )ع‬saying: “When Ibrahim the son of the
Messenger of Allah (‫ )ص‬demised, the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ص‬felt deep sorrow for him so Aaisha
said : What is it that makes you sad about him? He was just the son of Jurayh [i.e. Maria the
mother of Ibrahim betrayed the Prophet with Jurayh!]. Thereupon the Messenger (‫ )ص‬sent Ali (‫)ع‬
to kill him [Jurayh], so Ali (‫ )ع‬while carrying a sword went to him and Jurayh the Qibti (the Coptic)
was in his garden so Ali (‫ )ع‬struck the gate of the garden thereupon Jurayh embraced him and was
about to open the door. When Jurayh saw Ali (‫ )ع‬he knew by looking at Ali’s (‫ )ع‬face that he (Ali)
was up to something bad (i.e. angry) so Jurayh turned back and did not open the gate, so Ali (‫)ع‬
jumped over the wall and entered the garden and followed him while Jurayh was running and was
scared that Ali (‫ )ع‬might make him tired so he decided to climb up a palm tree and Ali (‫ )ع‬followed
him up there. When Ali (‫ )ع‬was about to catch him, Jurayh threw himself off the palm tree and as a
result his ‘Awra (private part) got exposed. [Ali saw] that he [Jurayh] did not have what males have
and neither what females have [i.e. he was a Mukhannath/hermaphrodite]. So Ali (‫ )ع‬went back to
the Prophet (‫ )ص‬and asked him: “O Messenger of Allaah, if you send me in regards to an issue,
should I carry it out without hesitating or should I first verifiy it? He said: “No, verify first” So he
said: “By the One that sent you with truth, he doesn’t have what men have nor does he have what
women have.” He (Prophet) said: “All praise is due to Allaah the One that keeps evil away from us
Ahl Al-Bayt“.
Source: Al-Qummi Tafseer Al-Qummi, vol. 2, pg. 99 (under tafseer of 24:11), Hadith is
Muwaththaq (Reliable).
NOTE: The same Ibrahim Al-Qummi is an OPEN Qur’an denier who according to Shia scholars
themselves want into extremes in regards to the belief of Tahrif, yet he’s still regarded as one of
their biggest scholars, he is their Ibn Kathir! just like Kulayni is their Imam Ahmad, yet the Rafidha
scholars openly believed in the distortion of the Qur’an:
They are satisfied with those who disbelieved in the main Thaql
Have you read it? This Kafir Mushrik Al-Qummi (and Al-Majlisi the Safavid who narrated the
same) i.e. their Ibn Kathir, their Tabari (imagine such things were in our Tafsir books!) has FILLED
his Tafsir with RAFIDHI TAHRIF narrations, to such an extent, that Shia scholars themselves were
shocked. This Kafir is the same who narrated the “Al-Ifk” version that the ignoramus Nakhjawani
quotes. Says alot about these devil’s, doesn’t it? But wait, it get’s worse, for the Kafir Al-Qummi
also narrated that Aisha (on her way to Basra) committed fornication (Zina) with the Sahabi Talha
(377‫ ص‬2‫ تفسير القمي ج‬Tafsir Al-Qummi, vol. 2, p. 377), may the curse of Allah be upon the Rafidha,
from Kulayni to Khomeini.
To dissapoint those who think that perhaps, only the ancient, rotten ‘scholars’ of Shiism accused
the wive of the Prophet, Aisha, the Mother of the Believers of having accused Maria the Coptic of
adultery, here a contemporary Tafsir, Al-Mizan fi tafsiri’l-Qur’an, popularly known as Tafsir alMizan written by “Ayatullah” Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai, the wrinkle face of Shirk:
And here is what Tabatabai has said concerning the Tafsir of this (Surah Maidah, verse 11) verse:
“The ayah refers to the incident of al-Ifk. And (according) to the narration of the Ahl Al-Sunnah
that a story of al-Ifk (big slander/audeltery) was thrown against Umm Al-Mu’minin Aishah, and
(according) to narrations of the Shiah this was revealed for Maria the Coptic, mother of Ibrahim”.
Source: Tabatabai, Al-Meezaan fee Tafseer al-Qur’aan, vol. 15, pg. 89
Note how this Shaytan does not mention that his sect believes that Aisha (the one he called
‘Umm Al-Mu’minin for Taqiyyah reasons) accused Maria of adultery!
Finally we shall bring some proper, authentic narrations he desperately tried to undermine (they’ll
be followed by a short and tidy refutation of the doubts Nakhjavani raised at some of the
Ahadith/narrators):
From ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Ubayd who said: “Ibn Abbas (Bani Hashimi of the Ahl Al-Bayt) sought
permission to enter upon Aaisha during her sickness which she died from (i.e. shortly before hear
demise!). So she refused. And he continued to persist and seek permission until she agreed for him
to enter. He entered and heard her saying: ‘I seek refuge by Allah from the fire. ‘He – Ibn Abbas –
said: ‘ O Mother of the Believers, indeed Allah, the Most Glorious, The Most Mighty has exempted
you from the fire. You are the first women whose excuse was revealed from the heavens“. [No.
1636, Fadha'il Al-Sahabah by Imam Ahmad :Rehmaullah: with the checking of Shaykh Al-Muhaddith
Wasiyullah al-'Abbas Al-Hindi who said it is Sahih.]
From ‘Asim Ibn Kulayb, from his father who said: ‘We went to Ali
and Aishah was
mentioned. So he [Ali] said:”The Khaleelah (the most beloved female) of the Messenger of Allah
“. [Hadith Hassan, Dhahabi said it's chain is authentic]
Here Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir in regards to the incident of Al-Ifk
Ammar happily accepts weak narrations – like the one that includes Abu Bakr and Omar into the
slander – yet he rejects the Sahih narrations by Aisha and Ibn Abbas the HASHIMI. That tells alot
about this man, for those who really seek the truth.
Additional rebuttals:
It would take ages to refute every point in Ammar’s video for several reasons. The first is that he
barely cites his sources. At times, he mentions specifics that one not find in the narrations. Take
for example the part in which he says that Ali was trying to beat a confession out of Buraira. We
couldn’t find this, this is because this is absolutely made-up, to stir the emotions of his followers
(just like he made-up some extra additions in the part where Aisha refused to take back her
accusation, there is no such thing mentioned in any Sunni or Shia Hadith!). There is also a problem
with his approach on history. He assumes that there is an agreement over everything that he says.
For example, he argues that Saad bin Muadh died before the event, and that there is a consensus
among historians that the event of Al-Ifk happened in the year 6 AH. However, Musa bin Uqbah,
whose Tarikh is arguably better than Ibn Ishaaq, suggests that Al-Ifk happened in the year 4 AH.
So, there is room for the questioning of historical dates pertaining to these matters and nothing is
completely set in stone with the existence of these differences of opinion. However, the view of
the majority seems to be that the event did take place in the year 6 AH, and that is fine since
mistakes do happen in these kinds of narrations.
It is also interesting to note that the problem with such contradictions in the narration seems to go
back to the fact that it is narrated by several Tabi’een who heard it from Aisha. Al-Zuhri narrates
this hadith through all of them together without differentiating each narration from each other. It
seems that this is one of the reasons why the scholars didn’t isolate a certain narrator as the person
that made the mistake. Most importantly, none of these contradictions imply any form of foul play.
These are mistakes at best. Of course, the biggest issue with Ammar’s lecture is the alternative he
gives. If he just stayed quiet it would have been a better lecture. However, instead he quoted
Tafsir Al-Qummi, with weak chains (a good number of Shia scholars completely reject that book)
are also weak and do not come close to the authenticity of the narration of Aisha or Ibn Abbas. Also
to argue that Ibn Abbas wasn’t there are the time is a weak argument. There is no reason to
believe that because he didn’t witness these actions that he assumed wrong for a total of 50+ years
without clarifying with other witnesses.
Confusion in regards to some narrators:
Another Shubha by Ammar (old and cheap one which he has taken from Rafidhi websites) is in
regards to a certain Sahabi who has been mentioned in the famous (and lenghty) Al-Ifk narration
(NOTE, the narration itself nukes Rafidhism for it proves that the wives ARE of the AHL AL-BAYT of
the Prophet according to the Prophet HIMSELF)
« ،‫علَ ْي ِه إِال َخي ًْرا‬
َ ُ‫عل ِْمت‬
َ ‫ َولَقَ ْد ذَك َُروا َر ُج ًال َما‬،‫علَى أ َ ْهلِي إِال َخي ًْرا‬
َ ُ‫عل ِْمت‬
َ ‫ فَ َوهللاِ َما‬،‫يَا َم ْعش ََر ْال ُم ْسلِمِ ينَ َم ْن يَ ْعذ ُِرنِي ِم ْن َر ُج ٍل قَ ْد بَلَغَنِي أَذَاهُ فِي أ َ ْه ِل بَ ْيتِي‬
‫علَى أ َ ْهلِي ِإال َمعِي‬
َ ‫»و َما َكانَ َي ْد ُخ ُل‬
َ
……….
‫فقام سعد بن معاذ األنصاري فقال أنا أعذرك منه يا رسول هللا إن كان من األوس ضربنا عنقه وإن كان من إخواننا الخزرج أمرتنا ففعلنا أمرك‬
“… so Allah’s Messenger got up (and addressed) the people (after Aisha had been accused of
adultery by the HYPOCRITES) and asked for somebody who would take revenge on Abdullah Ibn
Ubay Ibn Salool. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “Who will relieve me from a man who
has hurt me by slandering my AHL AL-BAYT? By Allah, I know nothing EXCEPT good about my Ahl
(family)“.
[...] so (Saad Ibn) Muaadh stood up and said: Allah’s Messenger, I defend your honour against him. If
he belong to the tribe of Aus we would strike his neck and if he belongs to the tribe of our brother
Khazraj and you order us we would comply with your order [...]
[A very long Hadith in Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6673, Chapter 10: HADITH PERTAINING TO
THE LIE ABOUT 'A'ISHA SIDDIQA (ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HER) AND ACCEPTING OF REPENTANCE OF
THOSE WHO BROUGHT FALSE ALLEGATION ABOUT HERBook 037]
Nakhjavani makes a big deal out of that and mentions the mistakes in the narration by stating that
the Sahabi Saad Ibn Muaadh was dead long time before, to be precice, he was dead after the battle
of Khandaq which was in 5AH, according the majority of Sunni historians, hence Saad Ibn Muaadh
was not alive when the incident of Al-Ifk 5/6AH occured, for the incident of Al-Ifk was after the
Ghazwa of Bani Mustalaq (which was AFTER the battle of Khandaq were Muaadh died!). How can
then Saad Ibn Muadh be mentioned in the narration (NOTE, he is NOT a narrator!)
Sounds funky and exciting, but be asured that the Rafidhi did nothing but recycling old (repeated)
Shubuhat by his fellow Rafidha propagandists, that have been refuted (although not in English)
thousands of times in Arabic, but he (just like his “Ayatullahs”) keeps recycling rubbish in the hope
that most Rafidha (anyway) and even Sunni laymen have no clue about these
contradictions/mistakes and the answers to them, so he just mentions as much as he can to finally
reach his goal, which is discarding the whole Sahih narration and basically accusing Aisha of being a
liar.
Rebuttal:
Firstly some scholars like Musa Ibn Uqba said that the Ghazwa of Al-Mustalaq (after which the
incident of Al-Ifk happened) occured in the year 4AH and not as the Jumhoor (majority) say in the
year 5/6AH, i.e. he argues that it happened BEFORE the battle of Khandaq, hence the presence of
Muaadh is not problematic at all (since he died in 5AH).
Besides that, the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim (actually a RIWAYAH/NARRATION, since it is not a
saying of the Prophet) is a very long Hadith, and mistakes do happen in these kinds of narrations. It
is also interesting to note that the problem with such contradictions in the narration seems to go
back to the fact that it is narrated by several tabi’een who heard it from A’isha. Al-Zuhri narrates
this hadith through all of them together without differentiating each narration from each other. It
seems that this is one of the reasons why the scholars didn’t isolate a certain narrator as the person
that made the mistake. However, the problem lies most probably in Alqama bin Waqqas, since we
haven’t seen any other narrations that mention Saad bin Muadh except for the ones that he is in.
Very long Hadith, with lots of details, are a difficult task in terms of memorisation, even for people
with a strong Hifdh (memory) it is problematic, so these mistakes do happen but certainly do not
change the major issues of an event/incident i.e. in our case the fact that without a shred of doubt
Aisha was the one being accused and the fact that the ayahs about the innocence of the one being
accused were definately revealed (acc. to all major and notable historians) before MARIA could
have ever become the Prophet’s wife i.e. they were revealed for the Mother of the Believers Aisha.
Ibn Ishaq mentions the incident and clarifies the issue about Saad Ibn Muadh:
. ‫وقال محمد بن إسحاق إن غزوة بني المصطلق كانت في سنة ست بعد الخندق وذكر فيها حديث اإلفك إال أنه قال عن الزهري عن عبيد هللا بن‬
‫ قال أبو‬. ‫فقال فقام أسيد بن الحضير فقال أنا أعذرك منه فرد عليه سعد بن عبادة ولم يذكر سعد بن معاذ‬. ‫عبد هللا بن عتبة عن عائشة ف ذكر الحديث‬
‫ وهذا هو الصحيح الذي ال شك فيه وذكر سعد بن معاذ وهم ألن سعد بن معاذ مات إثر فتح بني قريظة بال شك وكانت في آخر ذي‬: ‫محمد بن حزم‬
‫القعدة من السنة الراب عة وغزوة بني المصطلق في شعبان من السنة السادسة بعد سنة وثمانية أشهر من موت سعد وكانت المقاولة بين الرجلين‬
‫ المذكورين بعد الرجوع من غزوة بني المصطلق بأزيد من خمسين ليلة‬.
Summary:
Ibn Ishaaq (like the absolute majority) mentions that the incident of Al-Ifk happened in the year
6AH, after the battle of Khandaq, he also mentions the Hadith of Al-Ifk, with a slight but important
difference than in the Sahihayn:
[...] so Asyad Ibn Al-Hudhayr (instead of Saad Ibn Mu’adh) stood up and said: Allah’s Messenger, I
defend your honour against him [...]
As you can see, he did not mentioned Saad Ibn Muaadh and Ibn Hazm agreed with him, this is (as
explained before) because Saad Ibn Muaadh had passed away (at least) a year ago.
Also remember that the only narration mentioning Saad Ibn Muaadh is the narration of where
Alqama Ibn Waqqas is in the chain, so he most propably made the mistake.
Nasibis in the chain?
26:00. He says that Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib (the major Tabi’i, also known as the leader of the
Tabi’is!) didn’t give a damn about Zayn Al-Abidin and when being asked if he attends (Ali Ibn AlHussein) Zayn Al-Abidin’s (Rafidha believe him to be their “4th infallible Imam”, according to us
Muslims he was a major Tabi’i, the son of Al-Hussein Ibn Ali) funeral, he replied that two
mustahhab/recommended units of prayer are more beloved to him than praying for Zayn Al-Abidin.
Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib is one of the Tabi’i narrators of the incident of Al-Ifk, so this the deceiver
Nakhjavani wants to get rid of him and simply declare him unreliable. The huge accusation
Nakhjavani made against Imam Al-Musayyib is of course done without any reference (as usual),
hence we do the job for him, Sunnis and Shias so all can see and judge how literally shamelessly
Shia scholars and preachers lie:
Nakhjavani quoted accusation against a top scholars of the Salaf (Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib) from one
of their greatest “Shaykhs”, a master of lies and fabrications i.e. Al-Mufeed (the lunatic who
claimed to have refuted Omar Ibn Al-Khattab in a DREAM!)
‫ وأما ابن المسيب فليس يدفع نصبه وما اشتهر عنه‬:‫وقال المفيد في األركان‬
‫ أال تصلي على‬:‫من الرغبة عن الصالة على زين العابدين عليه السالم قيل له‬
‫ صالة ركعتين أحب إلي من‬:‫هذا الرجل الصالح من أهل البيت الصالح؟ فقال‬
‫ وروي عن مالك أنه كان‬،‫الصالة على الرجل الصالح من أهل البيت الصالح‬
‫ وهللا أعلم بحقيقة الحال‬،‫خارجيا إباضيا‬
In any case, Rafidha schlolars themselves doubt the authenticity of the above (i.e. what Nakhjavani
said about Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyab), here a Shia website:
http://qadatona.org/…5190/‫الرجال‬/‫ربي‬
‫فإن كتاب األركان وإن ذكره النجاشي والشيخ في كتب‬
‫ ومن ثم لم يصل إلى الشيخ المجلسي‬،‫الشيخ المفيد إال أنه ليس من كتبه المعروفة‬
‫وال إلى صاحب الوسائل وال إلى الشيخ النوري (قدس هللا أسرارهم) مع‬
‫ إذن لم يثبت أن طريق الشهيد‬،‫حرصهم الشديد على تتبع الكتب والرواية عنها‬
Summary:
The book where Al-Mufid mentioned that incident (about the funeral of Zayn Al-Abidin) is not
realible, since it is not even established if it was Al-Mufid’s book!
Besides, the Rafidha scholars themselves potray Saeeb Ibn Al-Musayyib in a good light, they claimed
he was a sort of hidden/undercover Rafidhi and student of Imam Al-Zayn Al-Abidin, others say that
he was a sincere (misguided) Sunni who loved Al-Zayn Al-Abidin. source.
Here an excerpt from the source above:
A young man from Quraysh was sitting in an assembly with Sa’id b. al-Musayyib and saw Ali b. alHusayn, peace be on them. “Who is that, Abu Muhammad?” the Qurash; asked Sa’id b. al- Musayyib.
“That is the lord of worshippers (Abidin), Ali b. al-Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be on them,”
he answered.
Allah exposes them at their own hands! This vile Rafidhi “Nakshawani” accused the major Tabi’i
(Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib) of being an enemy (i.e. Nasibi) of Imam Al-Sajjad/Zayn Al-Abidin, yet
(ironically) most likely it was Saeed Al-Musayyib (some say Al-Zuhri) who first called him (Ali Ibn AlHussein Ibn Abi Talib) the “Lord/master of worshippers” (Zayn Al-Abidin)!
It was narrated from Salih ibn Hassan that a man said to Said ibn Mussaib: “I haven’t seen anyone
more godfearing that such and such”. He asked: “Have you seen Ali ibn al-Hussain?” He answered
negative. Said said to him: “You didn’t seen anyone more godfearing than him” (“Sifatus saffa” p
417.)
Most of Imam Zayn Al-Aabidin’s narrations are from Abu Hurayrah and Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib.
They did not even let political rivalries impede their persuit of knowledge. That’s why we have
Imam Muhammad al-Baqir narrating Hadeeth from the Ummawi Khalifah Marwan bin al-Hakam.
It has been reported in SUNNI AND SHIA books that Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib said about Zayn Al-Abidin:
‫ ما رأيت أورع منه‬:‫قال سعيد بن المسيب‬.
“I have not seen anyone more pious than him”!
Even Rafidha scholars use this quote, so now Ammar knows better?
“Ayatullah” Al-Milani quotes the same saying above on his website (his source is a SHIA book!):
(Ibn Shihab) Al-Zuhri (also Tabi’i) (d. 124/742) was a well known jurist and traditionist and is
credited with being the first to call the Imam by the title ‘Zayn al-’Abidin’.
And there are generally many statements by the Salaf in praise of the great Imams of the Ahl AlBayt, who were all Sunnis and innocent of the Rafidha:
Zaynalabidin, al-Baqir and as-Sadiq
there are so many deceptions and blatant lies in his lecture, the more we watched it the more we
found out (we probably still missed alot, due to the huge number of lies), and how truthful the
Salaf and their followers were:
Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. the thorn in the throat of the Rafidha had already said:
‫ والرافضة من أخبث الناس كما أن اليهود من أخبث الناس ففيهم‬.‫ولهذا كانت الرافضة من أجهل الناس وأضلهم كما أن النصارى من أجهل الناس‬
‫نوع من ضالل النصارى ونوع من خبث اليهود‬.
65/2 ‫)منهاج السنة‬
“The Rafidah (“Shias”) are from among the most ignorant and misguided people just as the
Nasara (“Christians”) are from among the most ignorant people. And the Rafidah are one of the
filthiest people as the Jews are one of the filthiest people, for among them [the Rafidah] are the
types of the miguidance of the Nasara and the filth of the Jews”. [Minhaj Al-Sunnah 2/65]
And before someone jumps up and claims that what Ibn Taimiyyah said is a “Wahhabi” thing, then
know, o Muslim, may Allah have mercy on you, that the giants of the Salaf had the same opinion in
regards to the the Rafidha arch liars:
‫ ما رأيت أحدًا أشهد بالزور من الرافضة‬:‫قال اإلمام الشافعي‬
Imam Al-Shafi’i said: “I have not seen anyone among the people of desires more famous for
falsehood (bearing witness to more lies) than the Rafidha“.(narrated by Imam Al-Lalaka’ie,
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah in his Minhaj, Ikhtisaar Uloom Al-Hadeeth, by Ibn Katheer and many other
books)
___________________________
PS: Every single Shubha of Nakhjavani (and Yasser Al-Khabith) and other Rawafidh use have been
answered a long time ago, here some links refuting every single doubt of them, it’s really so much,
we try our best to update this thread, so keep visiting it, Inshaallah:
Arabic:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=181901
http://bayanelislam.net/Suspicion.aspx?id=03-02-0048&value=&type=
English:
Related to this topic: Part 1: Defence of Ahlelbayt[wives of Prophet/mothers of believers] from the
Religious Slanderers
For those who understand Arabic, here a lecture by one of Shaykh Dr Othman Al-Khamis’ students,
respdonding to similar doubts by the Kafir Yasser Al-Habib, who holds the SAME belief as Ammar the
NakhJAVANI:
Nakhjavani, Yasser Al-Khabith, Khomeini (who called Aisha more impure than a dog) are all on the
same Kafir Deen, the only difference is their approach:
finally for those who can ponder:
Verily! Those who brought forth the slander (against ‘Aishah the wife of the Prophet SAW) are a
group among you. Consider it not a bad thing for you. Nay, it is good for you. Unto every man
among them will be paid that which he had earned of the sin, and as for him among them who had
the greater share therein, his will be a great torment. (An-Nur 24:11)
Why then, did not the believers, men and women, when you heard it (the slander) think good of
their own people and say: “This (charge) is an obvious lie?” (An-Nur 24:12)
Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they (the slanderers) have not produced witnesses!
Then with Allâh they are the liars. (An-Nur 24:13)
Had it not been for the Grace of Allâh and His Mercy unto you in this world and in the Hereafter, a
great torment would have touched you for that whereof you had spoken. (An-Nur 24:14)
When you were propagating it with your tongues, and uttering with your mouths that whereof you
had no knowledge, you counted it a little thing, while with Allâh it was very great. (An-Nur 24:15)
And why did you not, when you heard it, say? “It is not right for us to speak of this. Glory be to
You (O Allâh) this is a great lie.” (An-Nur 24:16)
Allâh forbids you from it and warns you not to repeat the like of it forever, if you are
believers. (An-Nur 24:17)
Lie or ignorance from Mufid and muhaqiq of his book
October 10, 2012 at 5:15 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | 1 Comment
Rate This
Bismillah.
Salam Alaikum.
I’d like to share with small observation from the book of one of the top shia shaykhs known as
Mufid. In his book “Risala hawla hadith Nahnu Muasharul Anbiya la Nuwarith” (page 4), thk: Malik
al-Mahmudi, al-Mufid said:
Translation:
and Abu Bakr also rejected this inquiry from her by hadith which he narrated alone, that messenger
of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: We group of messengers are not to be
inherited from and all that we leave should be spend for charity.
and along with all, THIS REPORT IS WAHID, IT WAS NOT KNOWN, HEARD, AND REPORTED AT THAT
DAY BY ANYONE EXCEPT ABU BAKR.
In the footnote you can see muhaqiq says:
and even if chains of this report are many after that, and they increased to level of mutawatir in
the days of Muawiya.
Discussion:
1) We can see here baseless claim from author and muhaqiq. They claim that no one didn’t report
this hadith in that time except Abu Bakr.
Kattani in “Nazmul mutanaseera min al hadeethal mutawateera” (272) wrote:
“Narration that no one inherits from prophets, everything that they leave behind is for charity
Suyooti in “Azhar” reported it via:
1) Umar.
2) Uthmaan.
3) Ali.
4) Sad ibn Abi Vaqas
5) Abbas.
6) Abu Bakr.
7) Abdurrahman ibn Auf.
8. Zubayr ibn Awam.
9) Abu Hurayra.
10) Aisha
11) Talha
12) Huzayfa.
13) ibn Abbas.
13 sahaba in total
8 from “Ashara mubashara” reported this narration. So this hadeeth is close to “Who will lie upon
me
….
Ibn Hajar in “Amaliya Muhraja ala muhtasaru ibnul Hajeeb al Asli” said: “This narration, is authetic
and mutawateer”.”..
So on what base these filthy shia liars claim that no one didn’t report this hadith in that time?
Nothing but stupid ignorance and their imagination force them to get this conclusion.
2) There are sound shia reports with exactly same meaning. See our discussion of Fadak.
Why Mufid and almost each other shia scholar turn to be deaf and blind when they face with such
ahadeth in their books?
How is it possible to make a hint that Abu Bakr fabricated this report, if your OWN MASOOM IMAM
NARRATED THE VERY SAME REPORT IN YOUR SOUND BOOKS IN SOUND FORM?
How is it possible to be such two faced?
Verily, OMAR the chosen name by the Ahl al-Bayt
September 11, 2012 at 3:04 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Take a few minutes to think on this, The NAME
issue - lame Shia excuses | Leave a comment
2 Votes
… even if the polytheists get annoyed:
also ponder over the following, the hypocracy (and crocodile tears) of the Rafidah “Ayatullahs” is a
bit more than obvious:
Inheritance in the Qur’an (Fadak related)
July 28, 2012 at 8:34 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | 2 Comments
Tags: Fadak
Rate This
By brother Farid:
Bismillah alrahman alraheem,
The follow is some material from a very useful book called Difa’an ‘an Al-Aal wal As’haab (p. 260).
It goes without saying that this was originally in Arabic, but it was so useful to me, that I could not
help but translate some of the content. I will be skipping some parts due to the length, so those
that know Arabic should return to the original.
Rough translation:
Even though the differences between Abu Bakr and Fatima (raa) was one in which both parties saw
themselves as correct, it was the sensitivity of some in regards to Abu Bakr causes them to look at
things differently, which is the problem for it will be used for the sake of the condemnation of AlSiddique.
If we were to switch the characters in the story (Abu Bakr and Fatima) to two fuqaha or two marji’s
then both would have their status without any such condemnation or accusation due to intentions,
and we’d look at both with respect and appreciation since both have evidences for their arguments,
even though one has the stronger evidence. However, the case here is different. Abu Bakr is an
enemy to some, and since that is the case, then all evil is from him, and all his opinions are
mistakes, and that is how (they) measure these issues. (They) measure with emotions that cannot
be used to settle between any two people, so how can that be used when studying Islamic history
and shari’ah?!
The objective person will not be led by emotions, but to truth wherever it may be. He will stand,
and reflect, to put the dots on the letters, for Fadak is one of two things: It is either the
inheritance of the Prophet (pbuh) to Fatima, or a gift that he gave her on Khaibar…
[Author goes on to quote narration.]
As for the authenticity (of the narration of “the prophets do not leave an inheritance”) among Ahlul
Sunnah is known and doesn’t need clarification, and as for the Shias, then here it is:
Al-Kulayni narrated in Al-Kafi from Abi Abdullah, he said: The Prophet (pbuh) said, “The scholars
are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left
knowledge…
[Author quotes Al-Majlisi’s authentication from Mira’at Al-Uqool (1/111) and Khomaini’s reliance on
the hadith in Al-Hukooma Al-Islamiya (93).]
The usage of the evidence that Allah said about Zakariya, “Oh, give me from Thy presence a
successor, Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.” (Maryam 5-6) is a
strange one that lacks the logic from all the necessary aspects for the following reasons.
Firstly: It does not fit a pious man to ask Allah for a son to inherit his money, so how can we expect
this meaning to be attributed to the Prophet Zakariya (as) in that he would ask Allah for a son to
inherit his money?! Rather, the pious ask for offspring that will benefit them on the day of
judgement, so Zakariya wanted Allah to give him a son that would carry on the prophethood after
him, and inherit the old glory of the Aal of Yaqoub in prophethood.
Secondly: It is known that Zakariya was a poor carpenter, so what kind of money did he have that
made him ask Allah to grant him a son for the sake of monetary inheritance?! Rather, prophets, by
default, don’t save up, but spend their money for the sake of good.
Thirdly: The word al-irth, isn’t specific to money, but it is used for knowledge, prophethood,
kingship, and others, like when Allah says, “Then We gave the Scripture as inheritance unto those
whom We elected of Our bondmen.” (Fatir 32) And when Allah says, “These are the heirs, who will
inherit paradise. There they will abide.” (Al-Mu’minoon 10-11)
Fourthly: The narration “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not
leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge,” is clear that denying that they left money as
an inheritance, and this (argument) alone is sufficient.
Similarly, this is the case when Allah says, “And Solomon was David’s heir,” (Al-Naml 16) for
Sulaiman (as) didn’t inherit the money of Dawud (as), but rather, his prophethood, his wisdom, and
his knowledge, which is derived from these two reasons:
Firstly: Dawud (as) is famous for have a hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and he had
many children. So, how is it possible that only Sulaiman inherited from him?! So, specifically
mentioning Sulaiman (as) alone is not correct. (I, Farid, say: The opinion that Dawud had other
children is agreed upon by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Refer to Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya by
Ibn Katheer and 1 Chronicles – chapter 3.)
Secondly: If it was matter of inheriting money, then it wouldn’t be useful for it to be mentioned in
the book of Allah. For it is natural for a son to receive the inheritance of his father, and receiving it
isn’t a form of praise, nor to Dawud or Sulaiman (as), for even Jews and Christians leave
inheritances, so what does Sulaiman gain by being singled out in this verse?! Furthermore, the verse
is in context of praise for Sulaiman (as) and what Allah has specified for him in merit, and the
inheritance of money is something normal that all people share like eating, drinking, the burying of
the dead, and that which is like that isn’t narrated about the prophets, for it is useless, but that
which is narrated is that what includes a moral and a benefit. The words of one who says, “He died
and his son received his inheritance,” is like saying, “and they buried him,” or “they ate, drank,
and slept,” and other things that shouldn’t be including among the stories of the Qur’an.
The Shi’ah claim that the Sahaabah did not attend the funeral
July 19, 2012 at 10:04 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Q/A, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
Rate This
Question:
Asslam o alaikum..
Shia claims that Hazrat Abu Baker, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Usman were not present at time of
Janaza e Rasool. Is it true? If no! Then plz provide some authentic proves about Janaza e Rasool..
Jazak Allah…
Answer:
Bismillah,
wa Alaikum Salam.
Answered by Islamqa:
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/116375
The Shi’ah claim that the Sahaabah did not attend the funeral of
the Prophet
June 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to
wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell
lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607).
None of the groups that claim to belong to the ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) is known to tell lies more than the Shi’ah. This is something that has been well known
about them from ancient times. The imams referred to that in their books hundreds of years ago,
and they still have this hateful charcateristic.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The scholars are agreed, on the basis of reports and chains of narrators, that the Raafidah (the
Shi’ah) are the most mendacious of groups and that the lies among them are ancient. Hence the
imams defined them as being distinguished by the fact that they are liars.
Imam Maalik was asked about the Raafidah and he said: Do not talk to them and do not narrate
from them, because they tell lies.
Imam al-Shaafa’i said: I have never seen anyone who bears false witness more than the Raafidis.
Yazeed ibn Haroon said: You can narrate from any man of innovation (bid’ah), provided that he is
not active in calling others to his innovation, except al-Raafidah, because they are liars.
Shareek al-Qaadi said: Acquire knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidah, for they
fabricate hadeeth and take that as their religion.
This Shareek is Shareek ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Qaadi, the qaadi of Kufah, one of the peers of al-Thawri
and Abu Haneefah. He is one of the Shi’ah who said with his own tongue: I am one of the Shi’ah,
and this was his testimony concerning them.
These reports are proven; they were narrated by Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra
by him and others. End quote from Minhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (1/26-27).
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died on 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal 11 AH, after
the sun had passed its zenith, and he was buried on the Tuesday night, after all the people of
Madeenah had offered the funeral prayer for him, as Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased
with him) said: Some people came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said
du’aa’, then they left; then others came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and
said du’aa’, then they left, until all the people had come in. Narrated by al-Tirmidhi in alShamaa’il (p. 338) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in his review.
None of these Sahaabah who offered the funeral prayer for the Messenger (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) and were in Madeenah on that day should be thought of as having done
anything but attend the funeral of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is
something so obvious as to need no proof or evidence. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) was dearer to them than their spouses, fathers, mothers and children; he was even
dearer to them than their own selves, as Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: No person
was dearer to them than the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2754) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
But some people’s hearts are filled with hate and resentment against Islam and its people, so they
fabricate lies against them and slander them falsely, although they (the Sahaabah) are the best of
people after the Prophets and Messengers of Allaah, according to the testimony of the Messenger
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said: “The best of people are my generation, then
those who come after them, then those who come after them.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2652) and
Muslim (2532).
The one who slanders, denigrates and reviles them is in fact slandering the Messenger (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him), for they are his companions, students and supporters, and they
are the dearest of people to him.
There are reports which show that they attended his funeral, and the matter is too clear to need
any evidence, as stated above.
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The day that the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered Madeenah was the
brightest of all, and the day on which he died was the darkest of all, and as soon as we had finished
burying the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), we felt that our hearts had
changed.”
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (3618) and classed as saheeh by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah
(5/239).
Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said, when the people came back from burying her
father (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): O Anas, how could you bear to cover the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with earth? Narrated by alBukhaari (4462).
So where did these people get this fabrication?
But it is no wonder that they denied something that is well known and that no Muslim should be
unaware of, and they denied that the Qur’aan is preserved, and they claimed that it was distorted
and that something was taken away from it, and they impugned the honour of the Messenger of
Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and they reviled his Companions in the worst
manner, even though their virtue is mentioned in the Holy Qur’aan and the mutawaatir ahaadeeth
from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), on which the ummah is
unanimously agreed. It is no wonder that those who denied these things would come up with a
fabrication like this. “And Allaah encompasses them from behind! (i.e. all their deeds are within His
Knowledge, and He will requite them for their deeds)” [al-Burooj 85:20]; “And those who do wrong
will come to know by what overturning they will be overturned” [al-Shu’ara’ 26:227].
We ask Allaah to support His religion and cause His Word to prevail, and to defeat falsehood and its
people.
May Allaah send blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.
And Allaah knows best.
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/116375
Hate of Sahaba has its own result
May 16, 2012 at 9:14 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Ibn Abu Dunya narrated in his book “al-Uqubat” (p 218, #312):
Ahmad ibn Abdul-Ala said: Abu Rahv which was shia, said to me: We were sitting near Forbidden
Mosque in Mecca, when person, whose face was white from one side and black from other, stood up
and said: O people! Take an example from me, I use to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar. Once in the
night, when I was (sitting) the man came to me and hit me on my face. He said: “O enemy of Allah,
O sinner! Do you abusing Abu Bakr and Umar?” . When I stood up in the morning I seen myself in this
condition.
And again in ”al-Uqubat” (p 218, #313):
Umar ibn al-Hakim narrated from his uncle: We were on our way to Mecca, and with us was the one
who use to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar. We wanted to stop him but he didn’t listen. When he
separated from us to fulfil his natural need, bees attacked him. He asked us for help, and we tried.
But when bees attacked us we have to run. Bees didn’t left him util tear him apart.
And again in ”al-Uqubat” (p 60, #82):
Hakim ibn Jabir narrated from his slave girl: I seen Hasan ibn Ali, he made ablution and was using
towel. I felt hate towards him. When night came I slept, and when morning came I felt fire in my
liver.
(Narrator) Sufyan said: Her liver became wrong because she felt hate towards son of prophet
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
al-Mufid shoots himself in the leg
May 1, 2012 at 5:06 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
Rate This
al-Salamu `Aleykum
I came across something extremely dangerous written by the biggest of their scholar al-Sheikh alMufid, this man wanted to refute Ahlul-Sunnah and his argument is that: “Why do you Sunnies say
that Abu Bakr and `Umar and `Uthman are more worthy of caliphate? if these men fought and
spent in the cause of Allah then there are also others who were much better than they are, others
who spent more and fought harder, there are others who served Islam much more than they did.”
So he is teaching his Shia what to tell the Muslims when they debate with them, in his book “alIfsah fi Imamat Ameer al-Mumineen” pages 153-154-155:
‫ وأوجب ذلك عصمتهم من‬،‫ لما ادعيتموه لهم من اإلنفاق والقتال‬،‫ إن كان ألبي بكر وعمر وعثمان الوعد بالثواب‬:‫م يقال لهم‬
‫ بل هو لهؤالء‬،‫) وخالد بن الوليد وعمرو بن العاص أيضا‬2(‫ ألوجب ذلك ألبي سفيان ويزيد بن أبي سفيان ومعاوية‬،‫اآلثام‬
‫ لما نحن مثبتوه في المقال‬،‫ وهم به أحق من أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان وغيرهم ممن سميتموه‬،‫أوجب‬.
‫ وجعل رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله األمان لمن دخل داره تكرمة‬،‫وذلك أنه ال خالف بين األمة أن أبا سفيان أسلم قبل الفتح بأيام‬
2(‫) وكذلك كان إسالم يزيد بن أبي سفيان‬1(‫ وأسلم معاوية قبله في عام القضية‬،‫)له وتمييزا عمن سواه‬.
‫ ألن أبا سفيان أبلى‬،‫وقد كان لهؤالء الثالثة من الجهاد بين يدي رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله ما لم يكن ألبي بكر وعمر وعثمان‬
‫ وكانت راية رسول هللا صلى‬،‫ وفيه ذهبت عينه‬،‫ وقاتل يوم الطائف قتاال لم يسمع بمثله في ذلك اليوم لغيره‬،‫يوم حنين بالء حسنا‬
‫ وهو يقدم بها بين يدي المهاجرين واألنصار‬،‫هللا عليه وآله مع ابنه يزيد بن أبي سفيان‬.
‫ وفيه ذهبت‬،‫ وهو صاحب يوم اليرموك‬،‫وقد كان أيضا ألبي سفيان بعد النبي صلى هللا عليه وآله مقامات ومعروفة في الجهاد‬
‫ والراية مع‬.‫ يا نصر هللا اقترب‬:‫ وهو يقول‬،‫ وجاءت األخبار أن األصوات خفيت فلم يسمع إال صوت أبي سفيان‬،‫عينه األخرى‬
3(‫ وقد كان له بالشام وقائع مشهورات‬،‫)ابنه يزيد‬.
‫ولمعاوية من الفتوح بالبحر وبالد الروم والمغرب والشام في أيام عمر وعثمان وأيام إمارته وفي أيام أمير المؤمنين عليه السالم‬
‫وبعده ما لم يكن لعمر‬
‫ابن الخطاب‬.
،‫وأما خالد بن الوليد وعمرو بن العاص فشهرة قتالهما مع النبي صلى هللا عليه وآله وبعده تغني اإلطالة بذكرها في هذا الكتاب‬
‫) ولم يتأخر‬1(‫وحسب عمرو بن العاص في فضله على أبي بكر وعمر تأمير رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله إياه عليهما في حياته‬
‫ كما يدعى في غيره‬،‫إسالمه عن الفتح فيكون لهما فضل عليه بذلك‬.
2(‫ وأنفذه في سرايا كثيرة‬،‫)وأما خالد بن الوليد فقد أمره رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله في حياته‬.
[Then you(Shia) would say to them(Sunnies): If Abu Bakr and `Umar were promised the reward,
because of what you had claimed for them from spending(in the cause of Allah) and fighting( in the
cause of Allah), and that this necessities their safety from the sins, then this also should be applied
to abu Suffian, and Yazid(bin abu Suffian), and Mu`awiyah, and Khalid bin al-Walid and `Amro bin
al-`Aas, but rather they have more right to it and they are more worthy of it than Abu Bakr and
`Umar and `Uthman and the others which you have named, and we shall prove this to you.
This is because there is no disagreement between this nation that abu Suffian embraced Islam a
few days before the Fath(of Makkah), and the Prophet (SAWS) promised safety to all those who
entered his house in order to honor him and distinguish him from the rest, and Mu`awiyah
embraced Islam one year before him during the year of al-Qadiyyah(al-Hudaybiyah), and as such
was the Islam of Yazid bin abu Suffian. These three men had done more Jihad alongside the
prophet (SAWS) than Abu Bakr and `Umar and `Uthman, because abu Suffian did really good in the
battle of Hunayn, and he (also) fought on the day of al-Ta'ef like we never heard any man fight on
that day, and in it he lost his eye, and the flag of Rassul-Allah (SAWS) was with his son Yazid bin
abu Suffian, and he was holding it and leading the Mouhajirun and the Ansar.
Abu Suffian also had many well-known stances in Jihad after the prophet (SAWS), he is the man of
(the battle of) al-Yarmouk, and in it he lost his other eye, and it was reported that all the voices
disappeared (on that day) and none were heard except the voice of abu Suffian as he said "Come
closer O victory of Allah!" and the flag was held by his son Yazid, he also had (other) famous battles
in al-Sham.
As for Mu`awiyah he had naval expeditions and he had his conquests of al-Roum(Christians) and of
al-Maghrib(north Africa) and of al-Sham, during the caliphate of `Umar and `Uthman and his own
Emirate and the caliphate of Ameer al-Mumineen (as) and after him, but `Umar never had this.
As for Khalid bin al-Walid and `Amro bin al-`Aas their battles alongside Rasul-Allah (SAWS) and
after him are too famous and too numerous to collect in this book, it is enough to prove the
superiority of `Amro bin al-`Aas that the Prophet (SAWS) had appointed him as Ameer(leader) over
them both during his life (1), and his Islam was not later than al-Fath so that they(Abu Bakr &
`Umar) would have a virtue over him as is claimed in other cases.
As for Khalid bin al-Walid the Prophet (SAWS) appointed him as Ameer(leader of an army) during his
life and sent him in numerous battalions(armies).]
(1) – During Ghazwat That-ul-Salasil.
Comment:
By this al-Mufid wanted to refute the claim of Ahlul-Sunnah that Abu Bakr (ra) and `Umar (ra) were
superior and more deserving when it comes to Caliphate, what is more interesting is that al-Mufid
regardless of his evil intentions, mentioned the virtues and good deeds of the Sahaba which the
Shia hate the most.
So he’s telling us that Mu`awiyah (ra) served Islam more than the first two Caliphs, so if we declare
their superiority then Mu`awiyah (ra) is more deserving of this, because of these good deeds which
he testifies that he had.
But I don’t want this to be just another topic in which we attack the deviants, there should be
benefits here for us all.
Now if we ask the Shia or any Muslim layman regarding the famous pro-Palestinian English MP, we
ask: “Do you like George Galloway?” he will say: “Certainly, he speaks the truth and supports the
cause and defends us.” So then we ask: “Do you like George Galloway’s `Aqeedah and beliefs?”
Surely the answer would be: “No, I hate his Kufr and blasphemy.” This shows that you can like some
things about a person and hate other things about that same person, and if this was the case with a
Kafir like Galloway then how would it then be for a Muslim like Mu`awiyah (ra) who accompanied
Rassul-Allah SAWS) and made Jihad alongside him and made the conquests and the expeditions?
This is the same when it comes to the Muslims, we make Du`ah for Mu`awiyah (ra) because of all of
his great good deeds, but we do not praise him for Siffin in fact we condemn it and ask Allah to
forgive those who took part in it, and we say `Ali (ra) is closer to the truth and the opposing team
transgressed and strayed from the path because of their wrong Ijtihad.
As for Khalid bin al-Waleed (ra), he did a great mistake in the time of the prophet (SAWS):
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet sent (an army unit under the command of) khalid bin Al-Walid to
fight against the tribe of bani Jadhima and those people could not express themselves by saying,
“Aslamna(We have submitted)” but they said, “Saba’na! Saba’na! ” khalid kept on killing some of
them and taking some others as captives, and he gave a captive to everyone of us and ordered
everyone of us to kill his captive. I said, “By Allah, I shall not kill my captive and none of my
companions shall kill his captive!”
so what did he say to him? did he make Takfeer or Tafseeq? how did he handle the situation? The
Hadith continues:
Then we mentioned that to the Prophet and he said, “O Allah! I am free from what khalid bin AlWalid has done,” or “I disassociate myself from what Khalid had done.” and repeated it twice.
So as you can see the sin was great, but the prophet (SAWS) did not disown Khalid and make
Takfeer on him, but he disassociated himself from the sinful act that Khalid (ra) committed and
still appointed him to other matters.
And we as Muslims say “O Allah, we are free from and we disassociate ourselves from any act
committed by any Sahabi, any scholar, any Muslim that contradicts the wisdom of the Quran and
the Sunnah.”
wal-Salam,
Daughters of Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
April 28, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | 13 Comments
Rate This
Shaykh of shias Abu Jafar at-Toose in his “al-Mabsoot fi fiqh al-Imami” (4/159):
‫ وأمها خديجة أم‬، ‫ زوج فاطمة عليها السالم عليا وهو أمير المؤمنين صلوات هللا وسالمه عليه‬: ‫وألنه عليه السالم زوج بناته‬
‫ وتزوج الزبير أسماء بنت‬، ‫ لو كانت ثالثة لزوجناه إياها‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫ لما ماتت الثانية‬، ‫ وزوج بنتيه رقية وأم كلثوم عثمان‬، ‫المؤمنين‬
‫ وتزوج طلحة أختها األخرى‬، ‫ وهي أخت عايشة‬، ‫أبي بكر‬
Translation:
And he (alaihi salam) married his daughters: Married Fatima (alaihi salam) with Ali, commander of
faithful – salawatullah wa salamuhu alaih, and her mother Hadija, mother of believers. And married
Ruqayah and Umm Qulsum to Uthman, when second died, and said: If I had 3-d , I would married
her to you. And Zubair married to Asma bintul Abu Bakr and she was sister of Aisha, and Talha
married her other sister.
Abu Bakr in the cave with prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam)
April 17, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a
comment
1 Votes
Bismillah,
Allah Taala said in His Book:
[Shakir 9:40] If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved
expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to
his companion: Grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him and
strengthened him with hosts which you did not see, and made lowest the word of those who
disbelieved; and the word of Allah, that is the highest; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
This verse tells us story of migration, which was perfectly told by allama al-Mubarakfoore:
When the iniquitous decision had been made, Gabriel was sent down to Muhammad (Peace be upon
him) to reveal to him Quraish’s plot and give him his Lord’s Permission to leave Makkah. He fixed to
him the time of migration and asked him not to sleep that night in his usual bed. At noon, the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) went to see his Companion Abu Bakr and arranged with him
everything for the intended migration. Abu Bakr was surprised to see the Prophet (Peace be upon
him) masked coming to visit him at that unusual time, but he soon learned that Allâh’s Command
had arrived, and he proposed that they should migrate together, to which the Prophet (Peace be
upon him) gave his consent.
To make the necessary preparations for the implementation of their devilish plan, the chiefs of
Makkah had chosen eleven men: Abu Jahl, Hakam bin Abil Al-‘As, ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu‘ait, An-Nadr
bin Harith, Omaiyah bin Khalaf, Zama‘a bin Al-Aswad, Tu‘aima bin ‘Adi, Abu Lahab, Ubai bin
Khalaf, Nabih bin Al-Hajjaj and his brother Munbih bin Al-Hajjaj. All were on the alert. As night
advanced, they posted assassins around the Prophet’s house. Thus they kept vigil all night long,
waiting to kill him the moment he left his house early in the morning, peeping now and then
through a hole in the door to make sure that he was still lying in his bed. Abu Jahl, the great enemy
of Islam, used to walk about haughtily and arrogantly jeering at Muhammad’s words, saying to the
people around him: “Muhammad claims that if you follow him, he will appoint you rulers over the
Arabs and non-Arabs and in the Hereafter your reward will be Gardens similar to those in Jordan,
otherwise, he will slaughter you and after death you will be burnt in fire.” He was too confident of
the success of his devilish plan. Allâh, the All-Mighty, however, in Whose Hands lie the sovereignty
of the heavens and earth, does what He desires; He renders succour and can never be
overpowered. He did exactly what He later said to His Prophet:
“And (remember) when the disbelievers plotted against you [O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)] to
imprison you, or to kill you, or to get you out (from your home, i.e. Makkah); they were plotting
and Allâh too was planning, and Allâh is the Best of the planners.” [8:30]
At that critical time the plans of Quraish utterly failed despite the tight siege they laid to the
Prophet’s house, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and ‘Ali were inside the house. The Prophet
(Peace be upon him) told ‘Ali to sleep in his bed and cover himself with his green mantle and
assured him full security under Allâh’s protection and told him that no harm would come to him.
The Prophet (Peace be upon him) then came out of the room and cast a handful of dust at the
assassins and managed to work his way through them reciting verses of the Noble Qur’ân:
“And We have put a barrier before them, and a barrier behind them, and We have covered them
up, so that they cannot see.” [36:9]
He proceeded direct to the house of Abu Bakr who, immediately accompanied him and both set out
southwards, clambered up the lofty peak of Mountain Thawr, and decided to take refuge in a cave.
The assassins who laid siege to the house were waiting for the zero hour when someone came and
informed them that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) had already left. They rushed in and to their
utter surprise, found that the person lying in the Prophet’s bed was ‘Ali not Muhammad (Peace be
upon him). This created a stir in the whole town. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) had thus left his
house on Safar 27th, the fourteenth year of Prophethood, i.e. 12/13 September 622 A.D.
Knowing already that Quraish would mobilize all its potentials to find him, he played a clever trick
on them and instead of taking the road to Madinah in north side of Makkah as the polythiest would
expect, he walked along a road least expected lying south of Makkah and leading to Yemen. He
walked for 5 miles until he reached a rough rocky mountain called Thawr. There his shoes were
worn out, some said he used to walk tiptoe in order not to leave a trail behind him. Abu Bakr (May
Allah be pleased with him) carried him up the mountain to a cave called after the name of the
mountain, Cave Thawr. Abu Bakr first entered to explore the cave and be sure that it was safe,
closed all holes with pieces torn off from his clothes, cleaned it and then asked the Prophet (Peace
be upon him) to step in. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) went in and immediately laid his head in
Abu Bakr’s lap and fell asleep. Suddenly Abu Bakr’s foot was stung by a poisonous insect. It hurt so
much that his tears fell on the Prophet’s face. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) immediately
applied his saliva on Abu Bakr’s foot and the pain went off on the spot. They confined themselves
to this cave for three nights, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. ‘Abdullah, the son of Abu Bakr would go
to see them after dusk, stay the night there, apprise them of the latest situation in Makkah, and
then leave in the early morning to mix with the Makkans as usual and not to draw the least
attention to his clandestine activities. ‘Amir bin Fuhairah, while in the company of other shepherds
of Makkah tending his master Abu Bakr’s flock, used to stole away unobserved every evening with a
few goats to the cave and furnished its inmates with a plentiful supply of milk.
Quraish, on the other hand, were quite baffled and exasperated when the news of the escape of
the two companions was confirmed. They brought ‘Ali to Al-Ka‘bah, beat him brutally and confined
him there for an hour attempting desperately to make him divulge the secret of the disappearance
of the two ‘fugitives’, but to no avail. They then went to see Asma’, Abu Bakr’s daughter, but here
also their attempts went in vain. While at her door Abu Jahl slapped the girl so severely that her
earring broke up.
The notables of Makkah convened an emergency session to determine the future course of action
and explore all areas that could help arrest the two men. They decided to block all avenues leading
out of Makkah and imposed heavy armed surveillance over all potential exits. A price of 100 camels
was set upon the head of each one. Horsemen, infantry and tracers of tracks scoured the country.
Once they even reached the mouth of the cave where the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and Abu
Bakr were hiding. When he saw the enemy at a very close distance, Abu Bakr whispered to the
Prophet (Peace be upon him): “What, if they were to look through the crevice and detect us?” The
Prophet (Peace be upon him) in his God-inspired calm replied:
“Silence Abu Bakr! What do you think of those two with whom the Third is Allâh.”
It was really a Divine miracle, the chasers were only a few steps from the cave.
For three days Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr lived in the cave and Quraish
continued their frantic efforts to get hold of them.
The fact that Abu Bakr was with prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) during his
migration, and that it was him whom prophet (salallahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam) addressed with words: Grieve not, surely Allah is with us, is something well established in
the view of Islamic nation.
But surprisingly we have seen some shias rejecting this!
However we would like to bring them words of their scholar, Tabatabai, from his commentary.
He said:
‫والمراد بصاحبه هو أبو بكر للنقل القطعي‬
And the meaning of companion is Abu Bakr in accordance to concrete (qatiy) report
Abu Jafar at-Toose in his commentary “Tibyan” wrote:
‫وهو ابو بكر في وقت كونهما في الغار من حيث { قال لصاحبه } يعني ابا بكر { ال تحزن } اي ال تخف‬.
And that was Abu Bakr in the time when they were in the cave, when ( said to his companion)
meaning Abu Bakr, (grieve not) meaning don’t be afraid
Other shia scholar and commentator Faydh al-Kashani in his “Safi” said:
‫صاحِ ِب ِه } وهو أبو بكر { الَ تَحْ زَ ْن } ال تخف‬
َ ‫إ ْذ يَقُو ُل ِل‬
When he said to his companion – that was Abu Bakr, grieve not – don’t be afraid.
But THEY reviled them …
April 5, 2012 at 1:44 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Shia vs Companions, Take a few minutes to think on this |
Leave a comment
2 Votes
Also read the following excellent article by the Muhaddith of the Prophet’s (‫)صل هللا عليه و على آله و سلم‬
city, Allamah Abdul-Muhsin Al-’Abbad.
‘Umar (ra) takes the opinion of ‘Ali (ra) in al-Kafi
April 3, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies, Refuting shia
doubts | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Bismillah,
And he rejected his Quran, and he burned his house, and he tied him up, and he beat up his wife,
and he killed her unborn child, and he usurped his right, and he forced him to give him his daughter
in marriage otherwise he’d cut his hand ect… and all of those Shia accusations against Ameer alMumineen al-Farooq ‘Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) and look at what they wrote in their Kafi:
ُ‫سمِ ْعت‬
ِ ‫ع ِن ْالعَب‬
َ ‫يرة َ َع ْن‬
َ ‫سيْفِ ب ِْن‬
َ ‫عامِ ٍر‬
َ ‫اس ب ِْن‬
َ ‫ي‬
َ ‫س ِن ب ِْن‬
َ ‫أَبُو‬
َ ‫ي قَا َل‬
َ ‫ع ْن‬
َ ‫ي َع ِن ْال َح‬
َ ِ‫عم‬
ُّ ‫ي ْاأل َ ْشعَ ِر‬
ِِّ ِ‫ع ْب ِد الرحْ َم ِن ْالعَ ْرزَ م‬
ِِّ ِ‫ي ْال ُكوف‬
ٍِّ ‫ع ِل‬
ٍِّ ‫ع ِل‬
‫اس َما‬
ُ ‫ب أ َ َحد ُ ُه َما َو أُخِ ذَ ْاآلخ َُر فَ ِجي َء ِب ِه ِإلَى‬
ُ ‫ار ِة‬
ِ ‫ع َم َر فَقَا َل لِلن‬
ِ ‫ع ْب ِد‬
َ ‫أَبَا‬
َ ‫ع َم َر فَ َه َر‬
َ ‫اّلل ( عليه السالم ) يَقُو ُل ُو ِجدَ َر ُج ٌل َم َع َر ُج ٍل فِي ِإ َم‬
ْ
َ
ُ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َُ‫عنُقه‬
َ
َ
ُ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ُ ‫ب‬
ُ ْ‫س ِن قا َل اض ِْرب‬
ْ ‫صن َْع َكذا َو قا َل َهذا ا‬
ْ ‫ت ََر ْونَ قا َل فقا َل َهذا ا‬
َ ‫عنقهُ ف‬
َ ‫ض َر‬
َ ‫صن َْع َكذا قا َل فقا َل َما تَقو ُل يَا أبَا ال َح‬
Abdul-Rahman al-’Arzami said: I heard abu ‘Abdullah (as) say: During the emirate of ‘Umar, they
found a man (sleeping) with another man, so one of the two managed to run away and the other
was caught, they then brought him to ‘Umar who said to the people: “What do you think we should
do?” so one man said: “Do so and so” and another said: “Do so and so”, so ‘Umar said: “What do
you think O abu al-Hassan?” ‘Ali replied: “Strike his neck” then ‘Umar did so.
Source: al-Kafi 7/199.
Majlisi said “Sahih” in al-Miraat 23/304.
In al-Kafi vol.7 pg.214 under the chapter “What is required as punishment for the one who drinks”:
ُ ‫ْف َكانَ يَجْ ِلد‬
ِ ‫ع ْب ِد‬
َ ‫ير َع ْن أ َ ِبي‬
ِ َ‫س َع ْن أ َ ِبي ب‬
َ ‫ع ْن ُم َحم ِد ب ِْن عِي َسى‬
َ ‫ِيم‬
َ
ٍ ‫ص‬
َ ‫اّلل ( عليه السالم ) قَا َل قُ ْلتُ لَهُ َكي‬
َ ُ‫ع ْن يُون‬
ُّ ‫ع ِل‬
َ ‫ي بْنُ ِإب َْراه‬
ُ
ُ
َ
ُ
ِّ
َ
َ
َ
َ
‫ف‬
ُ ‫سو ُل اّللِ ( صلى هللا عليه وآله ) قا َل فقا َل َكانَ يَض ِْر‬
ُ ‫َر‬
ِ ‫ار‬
ُ ‫ب ثم ل ْم يَزَ ِل الن‬
ِ ‫ِي بِالش‬
َ ‫اس يَ ِزيد ُونَ َحتى َوق‬
َ ‫ب بِالنِعَا ِل َو يَ ِزيد ُ كل َما أت‬
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
‫ي بِ َها‬
‫ض‬
‫ر‬
‫ف‬
‫ر‬
‫م‬
‫ع‬
‫ى‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
)
‫السالم‬
‫عليه‬
(
‫ي‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫ل‬
‫ذ‬
‫ب‬
‫َار‬
‫ش‬
‫أ‬
‫ن‬
‫ا‬
‫م‬
‫ث‬
‫ى‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
.
َ‫ِين‬
ُ
ِ
َ‫ِك‬
ِ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ِ
َ
َ
ٌّ
َ
Yunus from abu Baseer from abu ‘Abdullah (as): I asked him: “How did the Prophet (SAWS) used to
whip?” He (as) said: “They would hit him with their boots and increase more if he drinks more until
he (SAWS) stopped at eighty, ‘Ali (as) advised ‘Umar to do so and he accepted it.”
Grading: Majlisi “Sahih” 23/329.
And check this out! The evil oppressor according to their religion punishes his own son and allows
his supposed “enemy” to beat him up!
al-Kafi vol.7 pg.214:
‫عبَ ْيد ُ‬
‫ِيم ُ‬
‫ع ِن اب ِْن بُ َكي ٍْر َ‬
‫ع ِن اب ِْن فَضا ٍل َ‬
‫ع ْن أَحْ َمدَ ب ِْن ُم َحم ٍد َ‬
‫ُم َحمد ُ بْنُ يَحْ يَى َ‬
‫ارة َ قَا َل َ‬
‫ع ْن ُز َر َ‬
‫سمِ ْعتُ أَبَا َج ْعف ٍَر ( عليه السالم ) يَقُو ُل أ ُق َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ٌ‬
‫ي ( عليه السالم ) ِب ِن ْسعَ ٍة َمثْنِي ٍة‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫ام‬
‫ق‬
‫ى‬
‫ت‬
‫ح‬
‫ه‬
‫ب‬
‫ْر‬
‫ض‬
‫ي‬
‫د‬
‫ح‬
‫أ‬
‫ه‬
‫ي‬
‫ْ‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫م‬
‫د‬
‫ق‬
‫ت‬
‫ي‬
‫م‬
‫ل‬
‫ف‬
‫ب‬
‫ْر‬
‫ض‬
‫ي‬
‫ن‬
‫أ‬
‫ر‬
‫م‬
‫ع‬
‫ه‬
‫ب‬
‫ر‬
‫م‬
‫أ‬
‫ف‬
‫ر‬
‫َم‬
‫خ‬
‫ال‬
‫ب‬
‫َر‬
‫ش‬
‫د‬
‫ق‬
‫ع َم َر َو‬
‫اّلل بْنُ ُ‬
‫ْ َ َ َ ِِ َُ ُ‬
‫ِ‬
‫ِ َ‬
‫ُ َ َ ْ َ ْ َ ِ َ َ ِ ُ َ‬
‫َ َ ِ ٌّ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ض َربَهُ بِ َها أ ْربَعِينَ‬
‫‪.‬ف َ‬
‫‪Zurarah said: I heard abu Ja’far (as) say: ‘Ubeidullah bin ‘Umar was to be punished for drinking‬‬
‫‪wine, so ‘Umar ordered that he be beaten as punishment but no one stepped up to do this task,‬‬
‫‪then ‘Ali (as) stood up and hit him with a solid object forty times.‬‬
‫‪Grading: Majlisi “Muwathathaq like Sahih.” al-Miraat 23/330‬‬
‫‪al-Kafi vol.7 pg.217:‬‬
‫ع ْه ِد أ َ ِبي بَ ْك ٍر‬
‫علَى َ‬
‫ب َر ُج ٌل ْالخ َْم َر َ‬
‫ع ْن أ َ ِبي َ‬
‫ع ِن اب ِْن بُ َكي ٍْر َ‬
‫ع ِن اب ِْن فَضا ٍل َ‬
‫ع ْن أ َ ِبي ِه َ‬
‫ِيم َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ( عليه السالم ) قَا َل ش َِر َ‬
‫ع ِل ُّ‬
‫ي بْنُ ِإب َْراه َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ً‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ِي ُم َحر َمةٌ قَا َل فَقَا َل لَهُ الر ُج ُل ِإ ِنِّي أ َ ْسلَ ْمتُ َو َحسُنَ ِإس َْالمِ ي َو َم ْن ِزلِي‬
‫ه‬
‫و‬
‫ِم‬
‫ل‬
‫و‬
‫ل‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
‫م‬
‫ع‬
‫َ‬
‫ن‬
‫ل‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
‫ا‬
‫ر‬
‫َم‬
‫خ‬
‫ب‬
‫َر‬
‫ش‬
‫أ‬
‫ه‬
‫ل‬
‫ل‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
‫ف‬
‫ر‬
‫ك‬
‫ب‬
‫ي‬
‫ب‬
‫أ‬
‫ى‬
‫ل‬
‫إ‬
‫ع‬
‫ف‬
‫َ‬
‫ِ ْتَ ْ‬
‫فَ ُر ِ َ ِ ِ َ ٍ‬
‫َ َْ َ َ َ َ َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ُّ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫بَيْنَ َ‬
‫ع َم َر فَقَا َل َما ت َقُو ُل فِي أ َ ْم ِر َهذاَ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ْ‬
‫عل ِْمتُ أن َها َح َرا ٌم اجْ تَنَ ْبت َها فَالتَفَتَ أبُو بَك ٍر إِلى ُ‬
‫ظ ْه َران َْي قَ ْو ٍم يَش َربُونَ الخ َْم َر َو يَ ْستَحِ لونَ َها َو ل ْو َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ٌ‬
‫ع َم ُر يُؤْ ت َى ال َح َك ُم فِي بَ ْيتِ ِه فَقَا َما َو الر ُج ُل‬
‫ع ِليِّا ً فَقَا َل ُ‬
‫الر ُج ِل فَقَا َل ُ‬
‫س ِن قَا َل فَقَا َل أبُو بَ ْك ٍر ا ْدعُ لَنَا َ‬
‫ع َم ُر ُم ْع ِ‬
‫ْس لَ َها إِال أبُو ال َح َ‬
‫ضلَة َو لَي َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ير ْال ُمؤْ مِ نِينَ ( عليه السالم ) فَأ َ ْخبَ َراهُ ِبقِص ِة الر ُج ِل َو قَص الر ُج ُل قِصتَهُ قَا َل فَقَا َل‬
‫أ‬
‫ا‬
‫َو‬
‫ت‬
‫أ‬
‫ى‬
‫ت‬
‫ح‬
‫اس‬
‫الن‬
‫ا‬
‫م‬
‫ه‬
‫ر‬
‫ض‬
‫ح‬
‫نَ‬
‫مِ‬
‫مِ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ِ َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َمعَ ُه َما َو َم ْن َ َ َ َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ُ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫عل ْي ِه ففعَلوا ذلِكَ بِ ِه فل ْم يَش َه ْد‬
‫ا ْبعَثُوا َمعَهُ َم ْن يَد ُ‬
‫عل ْي ِه آيَة التحْ ِر ِيم فليَش َه ْد َ‬
‫ار َمن َكانَ ت َال َ‬
‫ُور بِ ِه َ‬
‫على َم َجال ِِس ال ُم َه ِ‬
‫ص ِ‬
‫اج ِرينَ َو األن َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫علَيْكَ ال َحد‬
‫ع ْنهُ َو قَا َل لَهُ إِ ْن ش َِربْتَ بَ ْعدَهَا أقَ ْمنَا َ‬
‫علَ ْي ِه آيَةَ التحْ ِر ِيم فَخَلى َ‬
‫علَ ْي ِه أ َحد ٌ بِأنهُ قَ َرأ َ‬
‫‪َ .‬‬
‫‪‘Ali bin Ibrahim from his father from ibn Faddal from ibn Bakeer from abu ‘Abdullah (as): A man‬‬
‫‪drank wine during the time of Abu Bakr, so he was brought to Abu Bakr, so he said to the man: “Did‬‬
‫‪you drink wine?” He said “Yes” He said: “Why did you do this when it is Haram?” The man said: “I‬‬
‫‪became a Muslim and my Islam was correct and strong, but my house lies behind the house of some‬‬
‫‪folks who drink it and consider it Halal, If I knew it was Haram I would have avoided it.” Abu Bakr‬‬
‫‪then turned towards ‘Umar and said: “What do you say about this man’s issue?” ‘Umar replied: “It‬‬
‫‪is problematic, only abu al-Hassan can handle it.” so Abu Bakr said: “Call on ‘Ali” but ‘Umar said:‬‬
‫‪“If one seeks a judge he must go to his home.” so they both stood up with the man and those who‬‬
‫‪were present and they all went to Ameer al-Mumineen (as) and they both told him what the man’s‬‬
‫‪story was and the man narrated his story, ‘Ali said: “Send with him a man to accompany him to the‬‬
‫‪Majlis of the Mouhajirun and the Ansars, if any man among them had told him about the verse‬‬
‫‪which makes it forbidden then do that(Punishment) to him.” so they went and no one testified thus‬‬
‫”‪the man was released and he told him: “Do not go back to drinking again.‬‬
‫‪Grading: Majlisi “Hassan or Muwaththaq” 23/334.‬‬
‫‪al-Kafi 7/374:‬‬
‫اج قَا َل خ ََر َج َر ُج ٌل مِ نَ ْال َمدِينَ ِة ي ُِريد ُ ْالع َِراقَ فَأَتْبَعَهُ‬
‫ص ْف َوانَ ب ِْن يَحْ يَى َع ْن َ‬
‫ع ْن أ َ ِبي ِه َ‬
‫ِيم َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ع ْن َ‬
‫ع ِل ُّ‬
‫ي بْنُ ِإب َْراه َ‬
‫ع ْب ِد الرحْ َم ِن ب ِْن ْال َحج ِ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ُ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ً‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ِي بِ ِه َما‬
‫صخ َرة ف َ‬
‫ان أ َحدُه َما غال ٌم ِأل ِبي َ‬
‫شدَخَا بِ َها َرأ َ‬
‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ( عليه السالم ) فلما أت َى األع َْو َ‬
‫َام الر ُج ُل فأ َخذا َ‬
‫أَس َْودَ ِ‬
‫صن َ‬
‫سهُ فأخِ ذا فأت َ‬
‫ع ْبد ُ‬
‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ( عليه السالم ) َع ْن ذَلِكَ فَلَ ْم ي ُِج ْبهُ قَا َل َ‬
‫سأ َ َل أَبَا َ‬
‫سأَلُوهُ أ َ ْن يُقِيدَ ُه ْم فَك َِرهَ أ َ ْن يَ ْفعَ َل فَ َ‬
‫ُم َحمد ُ بْنُ خَا ِل ٍد َو َجا َء أ َ ْو ِليَا ُء ْال َم ْقت ُو ِل فَ َ‬
‫الرحْ َم ِن فَ َ‬
‫صنِيعَهُ ِإلَى أ َ ْه ِل ْال َمدِينَ ِة‬
‫َان ِب َواحِ ٍد فَ َ‬
‫شكَا أ َ ْو ِليَا ُء ْال َم ْقتُو ِل ُم َحمدَ بْنَ خَا ِل ٍد َو َ‬
‫ظنَ ْنتُ أَنهُ ك َِرهَ أ َ ْن ي ُِجيبَهُ ِألَنهُ َال يَ َرى أ َ ْن يُ ْقت َ َل اثْن ِ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ُ‬
‫َ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ْ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫َ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ُ‬
‫اّلل‬
‫د‬
‫ب‬
‫ْ‬
‫ع‬
‫ُو‬
‫ب‬
‫أ‬
‫ل‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
‫ف‬
‫وا‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫ف‬
‫ف‬
‫م‬
‫ك‬
‫ت‬
‫م‬
‫ال‬
‫ظ‬
‫ه‬
‫ي‬
‫ْ‬
‫ل‬
‫إ‬
‫وا‬
‫ك‬
‫ش‬
‫ا‬
‫ف‬
‫)‬
‫السالم‬
‫عليه‬
‫(‬
‫د‬
‫ٍ‬
‫م‬
‫ح‬
‫م‬
‫ب‬
‫َر‬
‫ف‬
‫ع‬
‫ج‬
‫وا‬
‫ع‬
‫ب‬
‫ات‬
‫ف‬
‫ه‬
‫ن‬
‫م‬
‫ك‬
‫د‬
‫ِي‬
‫ق‬
‫ي‬
‫ن‬
‫أ‬
‫م‬
‫ت‬
‫د‬
‫ر‬
‫أ‬
‫ن‬
‫إ‬
‫ة‬
‫َ‬
‫ن‬
‫ِي‬
‫د‬
‫م‬
‫ال‬
‫ل‬
‫َ‬
‫ِ ِ‬
‫ُ َ ْ مِ‬
‫َ ِ ِ‬
‫ِ ُ َ ْ َ ْنَ ُ َ‬
‫فَقَا َل لَ ُه ْم أ َ ْه َ ِ ِ َ ْ‬
‫َ ْ َ‬
ُ ُ‫عا ُه ْم ِليُقِيدَ ُه ْم اس َْود َوجْ ه‬
‫ار َكأَنهُ ْالمِ دَاد ُ فَذُك َِر ذَلِكَ ِأل َ ِبي‬
َ ‫غ َال ِم أ َ ِبي‬
َ َ‫( عليه السالم ) أَقِ ْد ُه ْم فَلَما أ َ ْن د‬
َ ‫ص‬
َ ‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ( عليه السالم ) َحتى‬
ْ
َ
ْ
ُ
ْ
َ
َ
ُ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ُ
ُ
ُ
ُ
‫اّلل َج ْه َرة ً فَقُت َِال‬
‫ب‬
‫ر‬
‫ف‬
‫ك‬
‫ي‬
‫ك‬
‫ه‬
‫ن‬
‫إ‬
‫ل‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
‫ف‬
ُ
‫د‬
‫ا‬
‫د‬
‫ال‬
‫ه‬
‫ن‬
‫أ‬
‫ك‬
‫ار‬
‫ص‬
‫ى‬
‫ت‬
‫ح‬
‫ه‬
‫ه‬
‫و‬
‫د‬
‫ْو‬
‫س‬
‫ا‬
‫ل‬
‫ت‬
‫ق‬
‫ي‬
‫ل‬
‫ِّم‬
‫د‬
‫ق‬
‫ا‬
‫م‬
‫ل‬
‫ه‬
‫ن‬
‫إ‬
‫اّلل‬
‫ح‬
‫ل‬
‫ص‬
َ‫ان‬
ِ
َ ِ‫م‬
ِ ِ ُ َ
ِ ‫ع ْب ِد‬
َ
َ ُ ْ‫َ ِ ُ َ َ َ ج‬
َ َ
ِ َ
ِ ُ َ‫اّلل ( عليه السالم ) فَقَالُوا أ َ ْ َ ك‬
ً ‫ َجمِ يعا‬.
‘Ali bin Ibrahim from his father from Safwan bin Yahya from ‘Abdul-Rahman bin al-Hajjaj: A man
left Madinah and headed to ‘Iraq, so two blacks followed him and one of them was a servant of abu
‘Abdullah (as), and when he reached (a location called) al-A’awas he fell asleep, so they both
carried a boulder and broke his skull with it, so they were brought to Muhammad bin Khaled bin
‘Abdullah al-Qusari (Governor of Madinah during al-Mansoor’s time) and the Awliyaa of the dead
man came and demanded that they be tied up, but Ibn Khaled hated to do this (without asking) so
he asked abu ‘Abdullah (as) about it be he never answered him. ‘Abdul-Rahman(Narrator) said: I
thought that he hated to answer him because he does not see that it is correct to kill two for one,
then the Awliyaa of the dead man complained about the action of Muhammad bin Khaled to the
people of Madinah, the people of Madinah told them: “If you seek to get justice done and you are
oppressed then go to Ja’far bin Muhammad (as) and complain to him.” So they did. Ja’far bin
Muhammad (as) said: “Tie them up!” and when they were brought and tied up, the face of the
servant abu ‘Abdullah (as) turned black like ink, when they mentioned it to abu ‘Abdullah (as) they
said: “May Allah fix your affair, when he was brought to be executed his face darkened like ink.”
He (as) said: “He used to blaspheme against Allah publicly” and both were killed.
Majlisi said “Hasan” because of Ibrahim bin Hashim 24/209 (but it is Sahih).
WHERE IS THE TAQQIYAH!?#
ً ‫ع ْم ِرو ب ِْن أ َ ِبي ْالمِ ْقدَ ِام قَا َل ُك ْنتُ شَاهِدا‬
ْ َ‫ض أ‬
ِ ‫سى َع ْن بَ ْع‬
َ ‫ع ْن‬
َ ‫ض ْي ِل‬
َ ُ‫ص َحابِ ِه َع ْن ُم َحم ِد ب ِْن ْالف‬
َ ‫ُم َحمد ُ بْنُ يَحْ يَى‬
َ ‫ع ْن أَحْ َمدَ ب ِْن ُم َحم ِد ب ِْن عِي‬
ْ
ْ
َ
َ
ُ
َ ‫ير ال ُمؤْ مِ نِينَ ِإن َهذَي ِْن الر ُجلَي ِْن‬
‫ط َرقَا أخِ ي لَي ًْال‬
ِ ‫ِع ْندَ ْالبَ ْي‬
ُ ‫ت ْال َح َر ِام َو َر ُج ٌل يُنَادِي بِأ َ ِبي َج ْعف ٍَر ال َم ْن‬
ُ ‫ور َو ه َُو يَط‬
َ ِ‫وف َو يَقُو ُل يَا أم‬
ِ ‫ص‬
‫ير ْال ُمؤْ مِ نِينَ كَل ْمنَاهُ فَ َر َج َع ِإلَى‬
ِ ‫فَأ َ ْخ َر َجاهُ مِ ْن َم ْن ِز ِل ِه فَلَ ْم يَ ْر ِج ْع ِإلَي َو‬
َ ِ‫صنَ ْعت ُ َما ِب ِه فَقَ َاال يَا أَم‬
َ ‫صنَعَا ِب ِه فَقَا َل لَ ُه َما َما‬
َ ‫اّلل َما أَد ِْري َما‬
ْ
ْ
ْ
َ
ُ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
‫ض ْرتهُ فقا َل ِألبِي َع ْب ِد اّللِ َج ْعف َِر ب ِْن‬
ْ َ‫صالة َ الع‬
ْ َ‫ص َالة َ ْالع‬
َ ‫ص ِر َو َح‬
َ ‫َان ف َواف ْوهُ مِ نَ الغَ ِد‬
َ ً ‫َم ْن ِز ِل ِه فَقَا َل لَ ُه َما َوافِيَانِي غَدا‬
ِ ‫ص ِر فِي َهذا ال َمك‬
ْ
َ
َ
ْ
ْ
ِّ
‫علَيْكَ إِال‬
ٌ ِ‫ُم َحم ٍد ( عليه السالم ) َو ه َُو قَاب‬
ِ ‫ير ال ُمؤْ مِ نِينَ اق‬
ِ ‫علَى يَ ِد ِه يَا َج ْعف َُر اق‬
َ ‫ض بَ ْينَ ُه ْم أ ْنتَ فَقَا َل لَهُ بِ َح ِقي‬
َ ‫ض‬
َ ِ‫ض بَ ْينَ ُه ْم فَقَا َل يَا أم‬
ْ
ُ
ُ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ُ
َ
َ
ُ
‫سوا قُدا َمهُ فَقَا َل َما تَقُو ُل‬
‫خ‬
‫ال‬
‫ء‬
‫ا‬
‫ج‬
‫م‬
‫ث‬
‫ه‬
‫ي‬
ْ
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫س‬
‫ل‬
‫ج‬
‫ف‬
‫ب‬
‫ص‬
‫ق‬
‫ى‬
‫ل‬
‫ص‬
‫م‬
‫ه‬
‫ل‬
‫ح‬
‫ر‬
‫ط‬
‫ف‬
)
‫السالم‬
‫عليه‬
( ‫ضيْتَ بَ ْينَ ُه ْم قَا َل فَخ ََر َج َج ْعف ٌَر‬
ِ
ُ َ‫ص َما ُء فَ َجل‬
ٍ
َ
ُ
َ َ‫ق‬
َ ِ
َ
َ
َ
َ َ
َ َ
َ
َ
َ
ً
ُ
َ
َ
َ
ْ
ْ
َ
َ
ْ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
‫صنَعَا بِ ِه فقا َل َما تقوال ِن‬
ُ ‫قَا َل يَا ابْنَ َر‬
َ ‫سو ِل اّللِ إِن َهذي ِْن ط َرقا أخِ ي ليْال فأخ َر َجاهُ مِ ن َمن ِز ِل ِه ف َو اّللِ َما َر َج َع إِلي َو َو اّللِ َما أد ِْري َما‬
ُ
ْ
َ
ُ ‫سو ِل اّللِ كَل ْمنَاهُ ثم َر َج َع إِلى َم ْن ِز ِل ِه فَقَا َل َج ْعف ٌَر ( عليه السالم ) يَا‬
ُ ‫غ َال ُم اكتُبْ بِس ِْم اّللِ الرحْ َم ِن الرحِ ِيم قَا َل َر‬
ُ ‫فَقَ َاال يَا ابْنَ َر‬
ِ‫سو ُل اّلل‬
َ
َ
ً
َ
َ
ْ
ْ
ُ
ْ
ْ
ْ
ُ ‫يم ْالبَ ِيِّنَةَ أَنهُ قَ ْد َردهُ ِإلَى َم ْن ِز ِل ِه يَا‬
َ
َ
ٌ
ُّ
ُ
ُ
‫غ َال ُم‬
‫ق‬
‫ي‬
‫ن‬
‫أ‬
‫ال‬
‫إ‬
‫ن‬
‫ض‬
‫ه‬
‫ل‬
‫و‬
‫ه‬
‫ف‬
‫ه‬
‫ل‬
‫ز‬
‫ن‬
‫م‬
‫ن‬
‫ه‬
‫ج‬
‫ر‬
‫خ‬
‫أ‬
‫ف‬
‫ل‬
‫ي‬
ْ
‫الل‬
‫ب‬
‫ال‬
‫ج‬
‫ر‬
‫ر‬
‫ط‬
‫ن‬
‫م‬
‫ل‬
‫ك‬
)
‫وآله‬
‫( صلى هللا عليه‬
َ‫ق‬
ُ
ِ
ِ‫ام‬
ِ
ِ
ِ‫م‬
ُ
َ
ُ
َ
ِ
ِ َ
َ
َ َ
ِ
ِ
َ
َ
َ
ْ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ُ
َ
ْ
َ
َ
ُ
ُ
ِّ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ُ
ُ‫ْن‬
َ
ُ
ُ
ُ
ُ
‫اّلل يَا‬
‫ل‬
‫و‬
‫س‬
‫ر‬
‫ب‬
‫ا‬
‫َا‬
‫ن‬
‫أ‬
‫ل‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
‫ف‬
‫ه‬
‫ل‬
‫ت‬
‫ق‬
‫ف‬
‫ه‬
‫أ‬
‫ج‬
‫و‬
‫ف‬
‫ا‬
‫ذ‬
‫ه‬
‫ء‬
‫ا‬
‫ج‬
‫م‬
‫ث‬
‫ه‬
‫ت‬
‫ك‬
‫س‬
‫م‬
‫أ‬
‫ي‬
‫ن‬
‫ك‬
‫ل‬
‫و‬
‫ه‬
‫ت‬
‫َل‬
‫ت‬
‫ق‬
‫َا‬
‫ن‬
‫أ‬
‫ا‬
‫م‬
‫اّلل‬
‫و‬
‫اّلل‬
‫ل‬
‫و‬
‫س‬
‫ر‬
‫ب‬
‫ا‬
‫ا‬
‫ي‬
‫ل‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
‫ف‬
‫ه‬
‫ق‬
‫ن‬
‫ع‬
‫ْر‬
َ
َ‫ْن‬
ْ‫ب‬
َ
ُ
ُ َ َ
ِ ِ ُ َ
َ َ
َ ْ ِِ َ
ِ ‫َح َهذَا فَاض‬
َ ِ َ ِ ِ ُ َ
َ َ
ِ ِّ ‫ن‬
ْ
َ
َ
ُ‫عنُقَهُ ثم‬
ْ
َ
ُ
ُ
َ
ِّ
ُ
ُ ‫ب‬
ُ ْ‫َح َهذا َو اض ِْرب‬
ُ ‫عنُقَ اآلخ َِر فَقَا َل يَا ابْنَ َر‬
َ َ‫ض ْربَ ٍة َواحِ دَةٍ فَأ َم َر أخَاهُ ف‬
َ ِ‫عذ ْبتهُ َو ل ِكنِي قَت َلتهُ ب‬
َ ‫سو ِل اّللِ َو اّللِ َما‬
َ ‫ض َر‬
ِ ِّ ‫غ َال ُم ن‬
ً ‫سنَ ٍة خ َْمسِينَ َج ْلدَة‬
ُ ‫س‬
ُ ‫ع ُم َرهُ َو يُض َْر‬
ُ َ‫علَى َرأْ ِس ِه يُحْ ب‬
َ ‫سهُ فِي ال ِسِّجْ ِن َو َوق َع‬
َ َ‫ أ َ َم َر بِ ْاآلخ َِر ف‬.
َ ‫ض َر‬
َ ‫ب فِي ُك ِِّل‬
َ َ‫ب َج ْنبَ ْي ِه َو َحب‬
‘Amro bin abi al-Miqdam said: I was present near the Ka’abah when a man started calling on abu
Ja’far al-Mansoor while he was making Tawaf, he would say: “O Ameer al-Mumineen, these two
men knocked on my brother at night and they took him out of his house and by Allah he never
returned to me, I do not know what they might have done to him!” So al-Mansoor said: “What have
you two done to him?” they answered: “We only spoke to him and then he returned home.” so he
said to them: “You two meet me tomorrow during the ‘Asr prayer in this same place.” So they did
that on the next day, al-Mansoor then said to abu ‘Abdullah Ja’far bin Muhammad (as) while
holding his hand: “O Ja’far, you judge between them.” abu ‘Abdullah (as) said: “O Ameer alMumineen, you judge between them.” so al-Mansoor said: “By my right on you, you need to judge
between them.” so they prepared a place for abu ‘Abdullah to sit in and the men sat in front of
him, he (as) said: “What say you?” the man said: “O son of Rassul-Allah (SAWS) these two knocked
on my brother at night and they accompanied him out of his house and by Allah he never returned,
I do not know what they did to him.” he (as) said: “What do you two say?” they said: “O son of
Rassul-Allah (SAWS) we spoke to him and then he went back home.” so Ja’far said: Write down: In
the name of Allah, the Prophet (SAWS) said: “every man who knocks on another at night and
accompanies him out of his home must guarantee him, unless he can prove that he returned him
back to his house.” Ja’far then said: “Boy, let that one step aside and strike the neck of this one.”
The man said: “O son of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), by Allah I did not kill him, I only held him and that
man came and stabbed him.” so Ja’far said: “Boy! let that one step aside and strike the neck of the
other one.” So the man said: “O Son of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), I did not torture him, I killed him with
one blow.” So he ordered that his neck be struck and ordered that the sides of the second man be
struck and he was imprisoned for life and lashed fifty times every year.
Source: al-Kafi 7/287.
Majlisi said “SAHIH” 24/39
WHERE IS THE TAQQIYAH!?
But wait, didn’t the Shia narrate many Hadiths stating to oppose the Fatwa of the Sunnies? didn’t
they narrate things along the lines of:
Shaikh of rawafidh, which they nick names as-Saduq in his book “Ilal ash-sharae” (2/532) entitled
chapter in following way:
‫العلة التي من أجلها يجب األخذ بخالف ما تقوله العامة‬
CHAPTER: “The reason why one should take what opposes the mainstream muslims”
First hadith from it:
1 ‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ع أ َ تَد ِْري ل َِم أُمِ ْرت ُ ْم ِب ْاأل َ ْخ ِذ‬
َ ‫ي َرفَعَهُ قَا َل قَا َل أَبُو‬
َ ‫يس‬
َ ‫َحدثَنَا أ َ ِبي َرحِ َمهُ اّللُ قَا َل َحدثَنَا أَحْ َمد ُ بْنُ ِإد ِْر‬
ِِّ ِ‫ع ْن أ َ ِبي ِإ ْس َحاقَ ْاألَر َجان‬
ُ
َ
ُ
ْ
ً
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ُ
ْ
ً
ُ‫ين‬
‫غي ِْر ِه إِ َرادَة ِ ِإل ْبطا ِل أ ْم ِر ِه‬
َ ‫عل ْي ِه األمة إِلى‬
َ ‫ف‬
َ ‫بِخِ َالفِ َما تَقُو ُل ْالعَامةُ فَقُ ْلتُ َال نَد ِْري فَقَا َل إِن‬
ٍ ‫ع ِليِّا ع ل ْم يَكن يَ ِد اّللَ بِد‬
َ ‫ِين إِال َخال‬
ْ
َ
ُ
ْ
ً
‫اس‬
ُ ِ‫ضدِّا مِ ْن ِع ْن ِد ِه ْم ِليَلب‬
ِ ‫علَى الن‬
َ ‫سوا‬
ِ ُ‫ير ْال ُمؤْ مِ نِينَ ع َع ِن الش ْيءِ الذِي َال يَ ْعلَ ُمونَهُ فَإِذَا أفت َا ُه ْم َجعَلوا لَه‬
َ ِ‫َوكَانُوا يَ ْسأَلُونَ أَم‬
Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) said: “Do you know why we order you to take that which opposes the
mainstream muslims?” I said: I don’t know. He said: “Because ‘Ali (alaihi salam) used to worship his
Lord with things that the nation (Mainstream muslims) used to then oppose in order to ruin his
caliphate, they used to ask Ameer al Mumineen(Ali) (alaihi salam) about things which they did not
know, and if he offered his fatwa then they would oppose it with something of their own to
misguide the people.
So now we need to reconcile between that allegation and their narration above which states that
‘Umar (ra) asked him and worked with his Fatwa.
Ali praise of Umar
February 29, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
In Nahjul Balagha, sermon 226, you can see such words of Ali:
May Allah reward such and such man who straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned
mischief and established the sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and
little shortcomings. He achieved good (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered
Allah’s obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing
ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.
Ibn Abil Hadeed al-Mutazili in his commentary of this book (3/12) said:
، ‫وقد وجدت النسخة التي بخط الرضى أبى الحسن جامع (نهج البالغة) وتحت (فالن) عمر‬
There is a copy written by ar-Razi Abul Hasan (which) gathered Nahjul Balagha, (where) under so
and so (written) Umar.
Muhammad Jawad al-Mughniyah in “Fi zilal Nahjul Balagha” (3/p 330) said:
‫ المراد بفالن‬:‫ وهو األشهر قيل‬،‫ عمر‬:‫ وقيل‬.‫أبو بكر‬
And it was said that under so and so (he) mean Abu Bakr, and it was said that (is about) Umar, and
that is more famous.
Jafar as-Sadiq on Abu Bakr
February 26, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | 1 Comment
2 Votes
al-Ardabili in his “al-Kashf al-ghumma fi marifatul aimma” (2/374) wrote:
Translation:
al-Hafidh Abdulaziz ibn al-Ahdar al-Janabezi - rahimahullah – said: Abu Abdullah Jafar ibn
Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib – alaihuma salam, as-Sadiq. His mother Ummu
Farwa her name Qareebah bintul Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr as-Sadiq – radi Allahu anhu.
And her mother Asma bintul Abdurrahman ibn Abu Bakr as-Sadiq and due to this, Jafar use to say:
Abu Bakr bore me twice.
On the doubt about burning scripts.
February 20, 2012 at 2:44 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Sayf at-Tamimi in his “ar-Ridda wal-Futuh wal Kitab al-Jamal” (p 53) narrated with his chain till
Suwayd ibn Qaflatah:
I heard Ali ibn Abi Talib – alaihi salam – said: O people! Allah, Allah, beware (about Him and about)
extremism regarding Uthman and your words about him: The one who burned the scripts! BY
ALLAH, HE DIDN’T BURN THEM EXCEPT BY ADVICE OF ALL COMPANIONS OF MUHAMMAD, ALL OF
THEM. He (Uthman) said: What do you say about this variant of reading that people differ in? Man
comes to man and says: My recitation is better that your recitation, and my recitation is better
(afdal) that your recitation. And this is resemblance to disbelievers. We (Ali says this) said: What is
your opinion O COMMANDER OF FAITHFUL? He said: I see that (we should) gather people around one
script, and if you differ this day, the day after yours the difference would be greater. (Ali said) and
we said: What a good opinion.
The same text this report was transmitted by ibn Abi Dawud in “al-Masahif” (1/77), and it was
authenticated by al-Hafidh in “Fath al-Bari” (9/18).
Hiding the ugly truth of the Shia
February 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies, Taqiyyah | 2
Comments
2 Votes
al-Salamu ‘Aleykum,
This is a topic for those who have a very good idea about how the Shia function, and they usually
function in two groups both having the same goal but the second group is much more dangerous,
meaning the likes of Khomeini who has the most evil of beliefs and intentions in his heart but
outwardly talks about “Unity” and “Love” between Twelver Shia and Muslims. Sometimes however
this “beautiful mask” that hides the vile truth of the shia is exposed by none other than the Shia
scholars themselves, and as you know Shiism in its true form can never spread among the Muslims
or the non-Muslims and this is one of the main reasons for hiding it. A Shia has to deceive in order
to get under people’s skin, in order to earn their trust and loyalty, then he starts spewing his
poison.
The Almighty says in his glorious book:
{ [Allah praises] those who convey the messages of Allah and fear Him and do not fear anyone
but Allah. And sufficient is Allah as Accountant. } [al-Ahzab : 39]
The Shia Imams usually act like they never read the above verse, this is why we find narrations of
lies and Taqqiyah constantly attributed to them and by God they are Innocent from this accusation,
but this religion has chosen to take the path of lies.
Some Shia scholars as you will see in the following example are too shy to disclose the “message of
Allah” and would rather keep it hidden, this is because the “message of Allah” according to their
religion is to curse and slander against Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) and all of their lovers. Shia
scholar and Muhaddith Yusuf al-Bahrani was commenting on what the other Shia scholar and
Muhaddith Ni’imatullah al-Jazaeri wrote in his book concerning the great Shia Safavid (Safawi)
scholar ‘Ali bin al-Hussein al-Karaki, (and it is quoted in Lulu al-Bahrain (p 148):
‫قال موالنا السيد نعمة هللا الجزائري في صدر كتابه شرح غوالي الئالي … وكان رحمه هللا ال يركب وال يمضي إال والباب‬
‫يمشي في ركابه مجاهرا ً بلعن الشيخين ومن على طريقتهما‬
“Mawlana al-Sayyed Ni’imatullah al-Jazaeri wrote at the beginning of his book Sharh Ghawali alLaalee … And He (al-Karaki) may Allah have mercy on him never used to ride his horse or walk the
streets unless he had his servant walking in front of him cursing the two sheikhs (Abu Bakr &
‘Umar) and cursing those who follow their way“
So here we see what the situation was when the Shia were in a position of power and when they
had a strong state, al-Karaki used to have people walking with him for the sole purpose of cursing
the companions, this is how deep the hatred runs. So al-Bahrani criticizes al-Jazaeri for uncovering
the truth of their great scholar because it caused harm to many of the Shia living in Islamic
countries, He said:
‫ إن ما نقله عن الشيخ المزبور من ترك التقية والمجاهرة بسب الشيخين خالف ما استفاضت به األخبار عن األئمة األخيار‬:‫أقول‬
‫ وقد نقل السيد المذكور أن علماء الشيعة في مكة‬، ‫ وهي غفلة من شيخنا المشار إليه إن ثبت النقل المذكور‬، ‫األبرار عليهم السالم‬
‫ أنكم تسبون أئمتهم في أصفهان ونحن في الحرمين نُعذب بذلك‬: ‫المشرفة كتبوا إلى علماء أصفهان من أهل المحاريب والمنابر‬
‫ وهو كذلك‬، ‫ انتهى‬، ‫اللعن والسب‬
“I say: What he related to us from the sheikh about leaving Taqqiyah and publicly cursing the two
sheikhs as opposed to what is found in the countless narrations from the pious Imams (as), this is
a mistake from our sheikh if it is proven to be true, and the Sayyed also mentioned that the Shia
scholars in Mecca wrote to the Shia scholars of Isfahan saying: { You curse and insult their Imams
in Isfahan and we in Mecca and Madinah have to face their wrath. } And this is true.”
Source: Lulu al-Bahrain page 147by Yusuf al-Bahrani.
Since most of the Shia narrations that curse the first three caliphs never do this by stating their
name, they instead refer to them as “The first and the second” or “Fulan and Fulan” where the
word “Fulan” “‫ ”فالن‬in Arabic is like saying “so-and-so”, for Taqqiyah purposes usually their names
aren’t mentioned publicly BUT anyone who is familiar with the Shia religion even the Shia laymen
know exactly who is being talked about , I shall provide a sample of this:
The Iranian grand Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi who lived in the Persian Safavid state
would discard Taqqiyah and state the obvious as to who “the first and the second” are.
al-Qummi wrote in his Tafseer 2/106: from al-Hassan bin ‘Ali from Salih bin Sa’ad: I heard abu
‘Abdullah (as) explain the saying of Allah: Surat al-Nur verse 40: {Or (they are) like
Darknesses} means Fulan and Fulan, {within an unfathomable sea which is covered by
waves} meaning Na’athal, {upon which are waves} meaning Talha and Zubair, {over which are
clouds – darknesses, some of them upon others} Mu’awiyah and Yazid and the Fitnah of bani
Umayyah, {When one puts out his hand} in the Darkness of their Fitnah, { he can hardly see it. And
he to whom Allah has not granted light – for him there is no light.} meaning an Imam from the
children of Fatima (as), he doesn’t have the light of an Imam which will guide him on the day of
judgement.
al-Majlisi commented on the above narration by his predecessor in Bihar al-Anwar 32/306: What is
meant by “Fulan and Fulan” are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and “Na’athal” is ‘Uthman , his enemies
used to call him Na’athal likening him to a sheikh with long beard in Egypt who used to be an idiot,
it also means a male Hyena .”
al-Kulayni narrated in al-Kafi 8/334: Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Qummi from his uncle ‘Abdullah bin
al-Salt from Yunus bin ‘Abdul-Rahman from ‘Abdullah bin SInan from Hussein al-Jammal from abu
‘Abdulah (as) regardin the saying of Allah: Surat Fussilat verse 29: {Our Lord, show us those who
misled us of the jinn and men [so] we may put them under our feet that they will be among the
lowest} He (as) said: It is They, then He (as) said: and Fulan was a devil.
al-Majlisi said in his Bihar al-Anwar 30/270: What is meant by ”Fulan” is ‘Umar . . meaning the
Jinn mentioned in the verse is ‘Umar, he used it as reference for him because he was a devil, either
because he came from the devil as he was the son of an act of adultery, or because he was a
trickster and a deceiver like the devil, and it is possible that “Fulan” here means Abu Bakr.
Many of the Shia scholars did not like their beliefs to be exposed in this way, Grand Ayatulla
Muhammad Asif al-Muhsini criticized al-Majlisi for this, because according to him declaring their
names would only harm the cause of the Shia and would make the Muslims hate them, al-Muhsini
said in Mashara’at Bihar al-Anwar 1/167:
‫ والطعن في جملة من أجزاء بحاره بالنسبة إلى قادة المخالفين‬، ‫ والتكفير‬، ‫ والتفسيق‬، ‫لم يمسك المؤلف رحمه هللا قلمه عن السب‬
‫ على أنه هو الذي نقل الروايات الدالة على وجوب التقية وحرمة إفشاء‬، ً‫ وهللا يعلم أنها كم أضرت بالطائفة نفسا ً وعرضا ً وماال‬،
‫ وأصر على التصريح بمرجع ضمائر التثنية في الروايات مع أن عوام المؤمنين يعرفونه فضالً عن خواصهم فأي‬، ‫األسرار‬
‫فائدة في هذا التفسير سوى إشعال نار الغضب والغيض واالنتقام ؟ وال أظنه قادرا ً على بيان جواب معقول على سلوكه هذا‬
“The author (al-Majlisi) did not restrain his pen from cursing and insulting and making Takfeer and
Tafseeq in his book of Bihar on the leaders of those who differ with us (sunnies), and Allah knows
how much this harmed the sect in many ways, it was he who reported the narrations that state
that we must hold on to Taqqiyah and that it is forbidden to reveal the secrets, but he insisted
on declaring what those pronouns were referring to in the narrations, although the laymen from
the believers (shia) know their meaning and so do the scholars, so what benefit can we draw
from such explanations other than igniting the flames of anger and revenge? I don’t believe he has
a legitimate excuse for what he did.”
- end -
Hasan made a treaty between two great groups of Islam
February 15, 2012 at 3:07 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
Rate This
This hadith is present in our books, just quoting it from shia book “Awali al-Ali” of ibn Abi Jumhoor
(p 102):
‫ فقال النبي‬-‫ص إن ابني هذاسيد و إن هللا تعالي يصلح به بين فئتين عظيمتين من المسلمين‬
Messenger (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: This son of mine is chief! Allah would make
a treaty by him between two big Islamic groups.
Imam Hasan made treaty with the group of Muawiyah.
Athar: Did Ali cursed Anas?
February 14, 2012 at 2:42 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Hadith analysis | 2 Comments
Rate This
Bismillah.
Salam alaikum, in the net at famous sites of heretics, you would see such claim against
companions:
When Ali said to Anas: “Why don’t you stand up and testify what you heard from the Messenger of
Allah on the day of Ghadir?” He answered, “O Amir al-Mumineen! I have grown old and do not
remember.” Thereupon Ali said: “May Allah mark you with a white spot (of leprosy; Alphosis)
unconcealable with your turban, if you are intentionally withholding the truth.” And before Anas
got up from his place he bore a large white spot on his face, Thereafter Anas used to say, “I am
under the curse of the righteous servant of Allah.”
They gave as a reference 3 books.
This athar isn’t saheeh or hasan, but it is weak.
First of all we don’t know where did these misguided quoted this version from! Because neither in
Hilliyatul Awliyah, nor in Musnad of Imam Ahmad, doesn’t stated that this person which was cursed
by Ali, was Anas. In Hilliyatul Awliya it comes in the volume 5/pages 26-27, without naming Anas,
and in Musnad (#964. thk: Arnawut) where stated that 3 person didn’t say that they remember such
words, and Ali prayed against them. And again no names.
Second. Chain in Hilliya weak due to uncertainty in narrator which suppose to hear this from Ali –
Umeyrat ibn Sad al-Hamadani. Yahya al-Qattan noticed that this man wasn’t from those who relied
upon. (see Mizanul itidal 3/298).
In Musnad this hadith come in the additions of Abdullah, and chain is also weak due to
uncertainty of Walid ibn Uqba and Simak ibn Ubayd.
Thirdly, even in Maaref of ibn Qutaiba stated that author said regarding this report that it has no
base.
InshAllah would be updated.
Our brothers which revolt against us
February 13, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Abul Abbas Abdullah ibn Jafar al-Himayri narrated in his “Qurub al-Isnad” book (p94/#318),
‫ « هم إخواننا بغوا‬: ‫ ولكنه كان يقول‬، ‫ أن عليا ً لم يكن ينسب أحدا ً من أهل حربه إلى الشرك وال إلى النفاق‬: ‫ عن أبيه‬، ‫جعفر‬
‫» علينا‬
Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and
neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us.
And in the same book, at page 93, hadith 313:
‫ ولكنِّا رأينا أنِّا‬، ‫ ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا‬، ‫ « إنِّا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم‬: ‫ أن عليا ً كان يقول ألهل حربه‬: ‫ عن أبيه‬، ‫جعفر‬
‫ ورأوا أنهم على حق‬، ‫على حق‬
Jafar from his father: Ali use to say about those who fought against him: We don’t fight them due
to our takfir upon them, and don’t fight them due to their takfir upon us, just we see that we are
upon thruth, and they see that they are upon truth.
Houses of wives and inheritance question
February 8, 2012 at 11:26 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | Leave a
comment
Rate This
Quote from ”as-Samtu Thamin fi manaqib Ummahat al-Muminin” (p 27), by Muhib ad-Deen atTabari:
The shiahs hold (opinion) that a prophet’s property is also inherited and these houses (of the wives)
were inherited by his wives. This contention is false and even if that was so they would have got
only one eight share. Sayidah Fatimah would have got half share while the remaining would have
gone to the asbah (relatives on the father’s side). However, we come across no evidence of anyone
having received a share of having waived his or her share, or permission sought from any of the
asbah to bury Sayydina Umar (in the house of Aisha), or to enclose the houses in the mosque.
Further it is also baseless to say that the houses didn’t belong to prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala
alihi wa sallam) wives but they only had the right to stay there. We do know that Sayyidah Sawdah
had left her house for Sayydidah Aisha and Sayyidah Safiyah’s house was sold by her heirs. Sayyidah
Aisha had also sold her house with the stipulation that she would reside there as long as she was
alive.
Most of the scholars contend that the houses belonged to the wives of the prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ala alihi wa sallam) and they had not inherited them.
Muawiyah on Ali
January 30, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
From book Qisas wal Ibar by Ali Muhammad Ali Dahil, p 15:
Translation:
“When the news of ‘Ali’s death reached Mu’awiyah, while he was sitting with his wife bint Qurthah
on a summer day, he said: “To Allah we belong and to him we shall return. They have lost a great
amount of wisdom and knowledge and virtue.”
His wife said: “yesterday you were criticizing him and now you praise him?”
He said: “Woe to you! you have no idea what they’ve lost from his knowledge and virtue and early
accomplishments (In Islam).”
Source: Tareekh Dimashq al-Kabeer 42/583.
What about tayamum?
January 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Invented myths and legends, Refuting shia doubts |
Leave a comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum.
Al-Hilli reported in his “Kashf al-yaqin” (p 58, manuscript):
‫ قَا َل‬.‫علَى أَث َ ِر ُك َما‬
ُ ‫علَ ْي ِه َوآ ِل ِه ألَبِي بَ ْك ٍر َو‬
َ ‫ي َحتى يُ َح ِدِّث َ ُك َما بِ َما َكانَ مِ ْنهُ فِي َل ْي َلتِ ِه َوأَنَا‬
َ ‫ضيَا إ َلى‬
ِ ‫ ْإم‬:‫ع َم َر‬
َ ُ‫صلى هللا‬
َ ِ‫ قَا َل َرسو ُل هللا‬:َ‫أَن َِس ب ِْن َمالِكٍ قَال‬
ٍِّ ‫ع ِل‬
.‫ َو َما َحدَثَ إال َخي ٌْر‬،َ‫ ال‬:َ‫َي ٌء؟ قَال‬
ُ ‫ضيْتُ َمعَ ُه َما فَا ْست َأْذَنَ أَبُو بَ ْك ٍر َو‬
َ ‫ي‬
َ ‫علَى‬
َ ‫ع َم ُر‬
َ ‫ضيَا َو َم‬
َ ‫ فَ َم‬:‫َس‬
ُ ‫أَن‬
ْ ‫ َحدَثَ ش‬،‫ يَا أَبَا بَ ْك ٍر‬:َ‫ فَقال‬.‫ فَ َخ َر َج إلَ ْي ِه َما‬،‫علَ ْي ِه السال ُم‬
ٍِّ ‫ع ِل‬
‫ي‬
ُ ‫قَا َل قَا َل لِي َر‬
َ ‫ يَا‬:َ‫علَ ْي ِه َوآ ِل ِه فَقال‬
َ ُ‫صلى هللا‬
َ ‫ضيَا إلَى‬
ِ ‫علَ ْي ِه َوآ ِل ِه َو ِلعُ َم َر ْإم‬
َ ُ‫صلى هللا‬
َ ‫ي‬
َ ِ‫سو ُل هللا‬
ُّ ‫ع ِل‬
ُّ ِ‫ َو َجا َء النب‬.ِ‫ي َحتى يُ َح ِدِّث َ ُك َما ِب َما َكانَ مِ ْنهُ فِي لَ ْيلَتِه‬
ٍِّ ‫ع ِل‬
ُ‫صبَحْ ت‬
ْ َ‫ارةِ َوأ‬
َ ‫ فَقا َل‬.‫ق‬
َ ‫ أ َ َردْتُ ْال َما َء لِلط َه‬:‫ي‬
ٌّ ‫ع ِل‬
ِ ِّ ‫ َح ِدِّثْ ُه َما فَإن هللاَ الَ يَ ْست َحْ يِي مِ نَ ْال َح‬:َ‫ فَقال‬.ِ‫ أ َ ْستَحْ يِي يَا َرسو َل هللا‬:َ‫ فَقال‬. َ‫َح ِدِّثْ ُه َما َما َكانَ مِ ْنكَ فِي لَ ْيلَتِك‬
َ ‫ب ْال َماءِ فَأ َ ْب‬
َ ‫ق فِي‬
َ ‫سيْنَ فِي‬
َ ‫ فَ َوج ْهتُ ْال َح َسنَ فِي‬،ُ‫أن تَفُوتَنِي الصالَة‬
ْ ُ‫َوخِ ْفت‬
‫ف قَ ِد ا ْنشَق َونَزَ َل‬
ِ ‫ط َل‬
َ ‫طآ‬
َ ‫ق َو ْال ُح‬
ٍ ‫ط ِري‬
ٍ ‫ط ِري‬
َ ‫ فَ َرأَيْتُ الس ْق‬. َ‫ فَأَحْ زَ َننِي ذَلِك‬،‫علَي‬
ْ ‫ارت َ َف َع الس‬
ْ ‫س‬
ِّ ‫ط ٌل ُمغ‬
َ َ‫ فَت‬،‫ع ْنهُ َوإذَا فِي ِه َما ٌء‬
‫ط ُل‬
ْ ‫ ثُم‬. ُ‫صليْت‬
ِ ‫ار فِي األ َ ْر‬
َ ‫ض نَحيْتُ ْالمِ ْندِي َل‬
َ
َ َ ‫طه ْرتُ لِلصالَةِ َوا ْغت‬
َ ُ‫علَي مِ ْنه‬
َ ‫س ْلتُ َو‬
َ ‫ فَلَما‬،‫َطى ِبمِ ْندِي ٍل‬
َ ‫ص‬
ْ ‫ أَما الس‬:‫ع َل ْي ِه السال ُم‬
‫ق‬
َ ‫ي‬
َ ُ‫صلى هللا‬
ُ ‫َو ْالمِ ْندِي ُل َو ْالتَأ َ َم الس ْق‬
َ ‫ي‬
ِ ‫ط ُل فَمِ نَ ْال َجن ِة َوأ َما ْال َما ُء فَمِ ْن نَ ْه ِر ْالك َْوثَ ِر َوأَما ْالمِ ْندِي ُل فَمِ ْن إ ْستَب َْر‬
ٍِّ ‫علَ ْي ِه َوآ ِل ِه ِلعَ ِل‬
ُّ ِ‫ فَقا َل النب‬.‫ف‬
َ‫ي فِي َل ْيلَ ِتكَ َو ِجب ِْري ُل يَ ْخ ِد ُمك‬
َ ‫ َم ْن مِ ثْلُكَ يَا‬.ِ‫ ْال َجنة‬. :
ُّ ‫ع ِل‬
Anas ibn Malik has reported that the Messenger of Allah said to Abu-Bakr and `Umar: Go to `Ali and
ask him about the last night event. I will follow you too. Anas further reports: Abu-Bakr, `Umar and
I headed for `Ali’s house. Reaching there, we asked Abu-Bakr Has anything happened? Abu-Bakr
said: If anything has happened, it is fair. Then, he said: The Messenger of Allah said to `Umar and
me: Go to `Ali to inform you of the event which happened to you last night. At this time, the
Messenger of Allah arrived and asked `Ali to tell us about the event of the last night. `Ali said: O
Messenger of Allah! I am ashamed of telling the story. The Holy Prophet (s.a) said: Tell us the
event, for God is not ashamed of telling the truth. `Ali said: O Messenger of Allah! Last night I was
in need of water for purification but I could not find any. I was afraid my morning prayer be
defaulted.Hence, I hastily sent Hasan and Husayn to two different directions to search for water
but they were late and there was no sign of water. A kind of sorrow overwhelmed me for not having
access to water. All of a sudden, I realized that the ceiling of the room cleft and a pail covered
with a piece of cloth came down. When I uncovered the pail, I saw that it was full of water. Having
purified myself with that water and having performed my prayer, I saw the pail of water going up
to heaven and the cleft ceiling turned back to its former position! The Holy Prophet rejoicingly
said: The pail was from heaven, the water was from Kawthar, and the cover was heavenly silk.
Then, the Holy Prophet added: O `Ali, who could be like you last night when Gabriel was serving
you?
Questions:
If time of pray is ending, and you afraid that you would miss it, because there is no water for
purification. What would you do?
a) You would miss prayer.
b) You would wait for a miracle.
c) You would make tayamum.
I remember shias mocked amiralmuminin Umar ibn al-Khattab, that he said to man who had no
purification, to miss prayer. We like Muslims know that each companion was fallible. And Umar
could simply forget. What happen with Ali?
Why to not make tayamum?
Iblis – believer?
January 25, 2012 at 11:22 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Invented myths and legends |
Leave a comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum, we all remember shia habit of usage hadith: Whoever hate Ali is Munafiq, and his
lover is Believer.
No we want to introduce this believer for shias.
Saduq in his “Ilal ush Sharae” (p 145) narrated that Iblis said:
COVER PAGE
Translation:
.. No I am not his Mawali, and not from his shias, BUT I LOVE HIM, no one hates him (Ali) except I
am partner in his children and his property..
So, exactly as shias say that each one who hates Ali (r.a) was munafiq, we call them to accept Iblis
as a believer.
Mu’awiyah’s Claim for the Caliphate
January 8, 2012 at 11:08 am | Posted in Defence of companions, History | Leave a comment
1 Votes
The following is evidence that Mu’awiyah’s true goal was not to become the caliph, but rather, his
right for avenging Uthman.
From Siyar A’alam Al-Nubala:
‫ أنت تنازع عليا أم أنت مثله‬:‫ وقالوا‬،‫ جاء أبو مسلم الخوالني وأناس إلى معاوية‬:‫ قال‬،‫ عن أبيه‬،‫ حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد‬:‫قال الجعفي‬
‫ والطالب‬،‫ وأنا ابن عمه‬،‫ ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما‬،‫ إني العلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق باالمر مني‬،‫ ال وهللا‬:‫؟ فقال‬
‫ وأسلم له‬،‫ فليدفع إلي قتلة عثمان‬،‫ فقولوا له‬،‫ فائتوه‬،‫بدمه‬.
‫ فلم يدفعهم إليه‬،‫ فكلموه‬،‫فأتوا عليا‬
Rough translation: Al-Ju’fi (Yahya bin Sulaiman, from his book “Siffeen”): Ya’la bin Ubaid, from his
father: Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani and a group of people entered upon Mu’awiyah, and they asked,
“Do you dispute Ali? Are you his equal?” He replied, “No, I am not, and I know that he is better than
me, and deserves this (khilafa) more than me, but don’t you know that Uthman was killed unjustly,
and that I am his cousin, and that I ask for his blood? So go to him (Ali), and tell him to bring forth
the killers of Uthman, and I will submit to him.” So, they went to Ali, and spoke to him, but he
didn’t hand them (the killers).
Ironically, the same narration can be found in Shia sources. See Waq’at Siffeen by Nasr bin
Muzahim:
‫ ] فقالوا‬،‫ [ قبل مسير أمير المؤمنين عليه السالم إلى صفين‬،‫وإن أبا مسلم الخوالنى قدم إلى معاوية في أناس من قراء أهل الشام‬
‫ ما أقاتل عليا وأنا أدعى أن‬:‫ وليس لك مثل صحبته وال هجرته وال قرابته وال سابقته ؟ قال لهم‬،‫ يا معاوية عالم تقاتل عليا‬:] ‫[ له‬
:‫ ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما ؟ قالوا‬،‫ ولكن خبروني عنكم‬،‫لى في اإلسالم مثل صحبته وال هجرته وال قرابته وال سابقته‬
‫بلى‬.
‫ وال قتال بيننا وبينه‬،‫ فليدع إلينا قتلته فنقتلهم به‬:‫قال‬.
Rough translation: And Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani came to Mu’awiya with a group of qura’a from the
people of Al-Shaam, before Ali went to Siffeen. They said, “Why do you fight Ali? You are not in his
level of suhba or hijra or closeness or earliness (in Islam). He said, “I don’t fight Ali with the claim
that I am like him in suhba, hijra, closeness or earliness, but tell me, aren’t you aware that
Uthman was killed unjustly?” They said, “Yes.” He said, “They if he gives us the killers, we’ll kill
them, and there will be nothing between us and him (Ali).”
Also, interestingly, the following, by Al-Tabari implies that Mu’awiyah was never seen as a caliph,
until after the death of Ali, nor was he given bay’a:
( ‫وفى هذه السنة) بويع لمعاوية بالخالفة بايلياء حدثنى بذلك موسى بن عبد الرحمن قال حدثنا عثمان بن عبد الرحمن قال أخبرنا‬
‫اسماعيل بن راشد وكان قبل يدعى بالشأم أميرا وحدثت عن أبى مسهر عن سعيد بن عبد العزيز قال كان على عليه السالم يدعى‬
‫بالعراق أمير المؤمنين وكان معاوية يدعى بالشأم االمير فلما قتل على عليه السالم دعى معاوية أمير المؤمنين‬
Rough translation: In this year, Mu’awiyah was given baya’a in Ilya’a. Musa bin Abdulrahman said
that Uthman bin Abdulrahman said, Isma’eel bin Rashid told us that “he (Mu’awiyah) used to be
called the ameer of Al-Shaam.” I was told that Abu Mushir that Sa’eed bin Abdulaziz said, “Ali used
to be called Ameer Al-Mu’mineen in Iraq, and Mu’awiyah was called the ameer in Al-Shaam, but
when Ali was killed, Mu’awiyah was later called Ameer Al-Mu’mineen.”
Also notice that Al-Tabari didn’t say that Mu’awiyah was given baya’a before this year. This implies
that nobody gave Mu’awiyah a baya’a for the khilafa before this time.
Ibn Katheer also says, “When Ali died, the people of Al-Shaam pledged their allegiance to
Mu’awiyah, as the Ameer Al-Mu’mineen, for there was nobody that could dispute them.”
Words of ibn Rahaweyh on Muawiyah (r.a)
January 5, 2012 at 2:31 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Hadith analysis | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Praise to Allah, in one from our previous posts we explained that there is sound report in praise of
Muawiyah.
But we can see shias using saying which is attributed to Imam al-Muhadith Ishaq ibn Rahaweyh, as if
he has said: There is nothing authentic from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) in
praise of Muawiyah.
We answer to this doubt:
1) Let us suppose that these words were correctly attributed to Imam. What would they mean?
There is no sound reports in this as he said? No. That would mean that he didn’t come across with
such reports. All that he has seen weak or fabricated reports about this.
2) This expression from ibn Rahaweyh was narrated by Hakim as it is in Siyar of Dhahabi (3/132) and
“Fawaid al Majmua” of Shawkani from the way of al-Asm Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Asm,
which said “narrated to me my father, which said: I heard ibn Rahaweyh saying”. And in “Fawaid”
words “narrated to my father” were dropped. And it is established, (because) al-Asm didn’t hear
from ibn Rahaweyh.
Yaqub ibn Yusuf ibn Maqal, Abu Fadl an-Naysaburi, father of al-Asm – status was unknown. His bio
was given by al-Hatib in his history (14/286), and what added upon these words (of ibn Rahaweyh,
that this Yaqub) came to Baghdad and narrated this from Ishaq ibn Rahaweyh. And from him
narrated Muhammad ibn Mukhalad.
Source: http://www.saaid.net/Doat/Althahabi/7.htm
Murtada on majority of companions
September 12, 2011 at 9:03 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
1 Votes
In his work “Shafi fi Imama” 3/114, Murtada said:
‫ وفيهم من يفضلهم على جميع األمة‬،‫ومعلوم أن جمهور أصحابه وجلهم كانوا ممن يعتقد إمامة من تقدم عليه عليه السالم‬
And it is known that majority of his companions, and most of them were from those
who believed in the Imamate of those who were preferred to (Ali) alaihi salam, and
between them were those who thought they (those who were before Ali) were best of
all nation.
Obviously talk is about companions of Ali
. If it about them, then it’s clear proof from
great shia scholar that majority of those who were companion of Ali
were close to ahle-
sunnah rather to rafidah of our time.
Doubt refuted: Abu Huraira misquoted hadith and attributed words of
Kaab al-Ahbar.
August 26, 2011 at 11:33 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a
comment
1 Votes
Rafida raised doubt against companion by saying:
in sahih muslim chapter of jumu’a-chapter of “fadhl” yawm al-jumu’a hadith number 854:
854 ‫وحدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد حدثنا المغيرة يعني الحزامي عن أبي الزناد عن األعرج عن أبي هريرة أن النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم قال خير يوم‬
‫طلعت عليه الشمس يوم الجمعة فيه خلق آدم وفيه أدخل الجنة وفيه أخرج منها وال تقوم الساعة إال في يوم الجمعة‬
abu hurairah said : the prophet (saww) SAID : the best day in which the sun has risen is the Friday,
in it Adam was created …etc
but in sahih abi khuzaimah abu hurarah said :
‫ خير يوم طلعت فيه الشمس يوم‬: ‫ عن أبي هريرة‬، ‫ عن أبي سلمة‬، ‫ عن يحيى‬، ‫ ثنا األوزاعي‬، ‫ نا محمد بن يوسف‬: ‫ حدثنا قال‬، ‫محمد بن يحيى‬
‫ أشيء سمعته من رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ؟‬: ‫ قلت له‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫ وفيه تقوم الساعة‬، ‫ وفيه أخرج منها‬، ‫ وفيه أسكن الجنة‬، ‫ فيه خلق آدم‬، ‫الجمعة‬
‫ بل شيء حدثناه كعب‬: ‫قال‬
mohamed ibn yahya narrated mohamed ibn ussof narrated al-awza’i from yahya from abi salamah
from abu hurairah he said : the best day in which the sun has risen is the Friday … so i asked him(
abu salamah asking abu hurairah) : did you hear this from rasool allah ?? he ( abu hurairah) said :it’s
rather something Kaab(Kaab al-ahbar ) told me !!!
here’s the hadith from sahih ibn khuzaimah :
‫ خير يوم طلعت فيه الشمس يوم‬: ‫ عن أبي هريرة‬، ‫ عن أبي سلمة‬، ‫ عن يحيى‬، ‫ ثنا األوزاعي‬، ‫ نا محمد بن يوسف‬: ‫ حدثنا قال‬، ‫محمد ب ن يحيى‬
‫ أشيء سمعته من رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ؟‬: ‫ قلت له‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫ وفيه تقوم الساعة‬، ‫ وفيه أخرج منها‬، ‫ وفيه أسكن الجنة‬، ‫ فيه خلق آدم‬، ‫الجمعة‬
‫ بل شيء حدثناه كعب‬: ‫قال‬
so did abu hurairah hear this from the prophet or from Kaab and if it’s from kaab how could he
attribute it to rasool allah (saww) ???
but more confusion is coming from the book of malik : muwatta malik :
243 ‫وحدثني عن مالك عن يزيد بن عبد هللا بن الهاد عن محمد بن إبراهيم بن الحارث التيمي عن أبي سلمة بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف عن أبي‬
‫هريرة أنه قال خرجت إلى الطور فلقيت كعب األحبار فجلست معه فحدثني عن التوراة وحدثته عن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم فكان فيما حدثته‬
‫أن قلت قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم خير يوم طلعت عليه الشمس يوم الجمعة فيه خلق آدم‬
narrated malik from yazeed ibn abdilleh ibn alhaad from mohamed ibn ibrahim ibn alharith altaimi
from abi salamah ibn abdirrahman ibn awf that abu hurairah said : i went out… so i met Kaab AlAhbar so i sat with him and he told me about tawraat (Torah) and i told him about rasool allah ,
and amongst what i told him i said : the prophet (saww) said: the best day in which the son has
risen is the The Friday …the hadith
Answered by brother Farid:
This deserves an explanation. First of all, let us collect the routes of the hadith in order to check
which specific version was narrated by more narrators.
The narration from the Muwatta goes through Yazeed bin Abdullah bin Al-Had, through Mohammed
bin Ibrahim bin Al-Harith Al-Taimi, through Abi Salama, to Abu Huraira. Abu Huraira is very specific
in saying that he heard this hadith from the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), and
that Ka’ab checked the Torah to confirm this.
The second hadith is the hadith in Saheeh Muslim, from Harmala bin Yahya, though Ibn Wahb,
through Yunus, through Ibn Shihab, through Abdulrahman Al-A’araj, through Abu Huraira who
indicates that he heard this from the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
The third is also in Saheeh Muslim, through Qutaiba bin Sa’eed, through Al-Mugheera Al-Hizami,
through Abi Al-Zinad, through Al-A’araj, up to Abu Huraira, to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala
alihi wa sallam).
A fourth can be found in Musnad Ahmad, through Yazeed, through Mohammed, through Abi Salama,
through Abu Huraira, to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Another chain can also be found in Musnad Ahmad through Mohammed bin Mus’ab, through AlAwza’ee, through Abi Ammar, through Abdullah bin Furookh, through Abu Huraira, to the Prophet
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Then again in Musnad Ahmad, through Yunus and Suraij, through Fulaih, through Sa’eed bin AlHarith, through Abi Salama, that Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi
wa sallam) narrated this hadith.
Al-Hakim narrated this through Abu Al-Abbas Mohammed bin Ya’qoub through Al-Rabee’ bin
Sulaiman, through Abdullah bin Wahb, through Ibn Abi Al-Zinad, through his father, through Musa
bin Abi Uthman, through his father, through Abu Huraira, to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala
alihi wa sallam). (Ibn Khuzaimah doesn’t include Abi Uthman though).
Notice the following:
The hadith is narrated by Abu Huraira through four of his students. They are the following:
Abi Salama – Al-A’araj – Abdullah bin Furookh – Abi Uthman
The following are the names of the students that narrated the hadith of each of their shaikhs up to
Abi Huraira:
1- Abu Salama: Mohammed bin Ibrahim bin Al-Harith – Mohammed bin Amr bin Alqama – Sa’eed bin
Al-Harith Al-Ansari
2- Al-A’araj: Ibn Shihab Al-Zuhri – Abu Al-Zinad
3- Abdullah bin Furookh: Abu Ammar
4- Abu Uthman: Musa bin Abi Uthman
So, here we have seven different chains up to Abu Huraira. Keep in mind that I am only limiting
myself to what was quoted from the student of the student of Abu Huraira, since lists like this will
never end. Plus, anything more is irrelevant. I also chose not to include a couple of other chains
due to major weaknesses or due to them being disconnected.
As you have quoted, by Ibn Khuzaimah, the only chain that states that the hadith is that of Ka’ab
Al-Ahbaar is that hadith of Yahya bin Abi Katheer through Abi Salama.
By this, he has went against seven other chains that state that this is the hadith of the Prophet
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), including three other students of Abi Salama that
specifically reported that this is the hadith of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
This was my initial view of this hadith, and I was reassured even further when I found Al-Albani’s
commentary in Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah. He said (p. 2/836):
‫ فلعل‬،‫ ورواه المصنف من طريقين آخرين عنه‬،‫ ويكفي أن مسل ًما أخرجه من طريق األعرج عن أبي هريرة‬،‫الحديث كله صحيح مرفوعًا بال ريب‬
‫العلة من يحيى فإنه مدلس‬.
Rough translation: The whole hadith is authentic without a doubt, and it is sufficient that (Imam)
Muslim quoted it through Al-A’araj through Abi Huraira, and the author (Ibn Khuzaimah) narrated it
through two other chains (Musa bin Abi Uthman and Abdullah bin Furookh), and it seems as through
the issue is with Yahya bin Abi Katheer who is a mudalis.
I say: Al-Albani seems to be correct. The only chains that attribute this hadith to Ka’ab Al-Ahbaar
are the chains with Yahya bin Abi Katheer. However, it isn’t necessary for one to believe that this is
due to Yahya bin Abi Katheer making tadlees, but it simply being an error on his part is a major
possibility.
This is an important statement that everyone should keep in mind about these hadiths:
Imam Muslim narrated in Kitab Al-Tamyeez (p. 95):
،‫ اتقوا هللا‬:‫ قال لنا بسر بن سعيد‬:‫حدثنا عبد هللا بن عبد الرحمن الدارمي حدثنا مروان الدمشقي عن الليث بن سعد حديثني بكير بن األشج قال‬
‫ ثم يقوم‬،‫ ويحدثنا عن كعب‬،‫وتحفظوا من الحديث فوهللا لقد رأيتنا نجالس أبي هريرة رضي هللا عنه فيحدث عن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
‫ وحديث كعب عن الرسول صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬،‫ حديث رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم عن كعب‬-‫فأسمع بعض من كان معنا – يجعل‬.
ًٌ ًٌ ًٌRough translation: Busr bin Sa’eed said: Fear Allah and be cautious with hadith, by Allah we
have sat with Abu Huraira and heard him narrated about the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi
wa sallam) and about Ka’ab Al-Ahbaar, then upon leaving, I hear those that are with us narrate the
hadith of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) attributing it to Ka’ab, and the hadith
of Ka’ab being attributed to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
This is a very specific criticism by Busr, and it is really relevant when examining hadiths like the
hadith quoted above.
It is due to this that we come to the conclusion that the errors here have nothing to do with Abu
Huraira, since even his students are in agreement. However, it was only at the tabaqa of Yahya bin
Abi Katheer that this issue arises.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that this hadith was narrated by other companions other than
Abi Huraira.
A couple of notable examples are the hadiths of Abu Lubaba and Sa’ad bin Ubada, both can be
found in Musnad Ahmad. Even though both of these hadiths are weak in theory, they do provide
more evidence that the hadith is not by Ka’ab, but rather the words of the Prophet (pbuh).
Yet, a strong hadith does exist in Musnad Ahmad as well:
‫قال حدثنا حسين بن علي الجعفي عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر عن أبي األشعث الصنعاني عن أوس بن أوس قال‬
‫قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم من أفضل أيامكم يوم الجمعة فيه خلق آدم وفيه قبض وفيه النفخة وفيه الصعقة فأكثروا علي من الصالة فيه فإن‬
‫صالتكم معروضة علي فقالوا يا رسول هللا وكيف تعرض عليك صالتنا وقد أرمت يعني وقد بليت قال إن هللا عز وجل حرم على األرض أن تأكل‬
‫أجساد األنبياء صلوات هللا عليهم‬
Rough translation: Hussain bin Ali Al-Ju’fi said: Abdulrahman bin Yazeed bin Jabir, through Abi AlAsh’ath Al-San’aani, through Aws bin Aws, through the Prophet (pbuh) said, “The best of days are
Fridays, it is when Adam was created, and died, and it is the time of the nafkh andsa’qa…”
Inshallah this is sufficient for the brothers that Abu Huraira has nothing to do with this, but rather,
Yahya bin Abi Katheer. Especially if you are implying that his is attributing the hadiths of Ka’ab to
the Prophet (pbuh) on purpose.
Alleged attack on Fatima – doubt refuted
August 6, 2011 at 7:58 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Refuting shia doubts, So called
assault on Fatimah (RA) | 2 Comments
4 Votes
ّ
‫إن عمر رفس فاطمة حتّى أسقطت بمحسن‬.
“umar kicked fatima asws, and that caused abortion of mohsin asws”
Shia quoted this report as a proof for their views that Umar attacked Fatima.
Here full article from shia site.
InshAllah we will address all doubts here.
1) All reports should contain two things: a) Text. b) Chain of reporters.
This one doesn’t contain any chain. In books which were quoted by this rafidi, there is mention of
only one narrator – Ibn Abi Daraam.
This in itself is enough to reject above mentioned report as non-established. In contrast to rafidis,
which would quote even Oxford dictionary to proof their points, we as an ahlesunnah wal jamaa,
wouldn’t accept story which would accuse noble companion without sound chain of reporters.
2) This report would be rejected even if it would contain sound report, because text of it is munkar
and shazz to well known history facts.
This alleged attack onFatimawould contradicts to well known fact. Many of aimma from ahlalbayt
named their sons – Umar.
Shias believe that after this alleged attack,Fatimasoon died due to this attack. After her death Ali
married other women, and he named his son from them Umar?!!!
3) Let us back to ibn Abi Daraam. Rafidi answered himself to his own doubt. First he said that
scholars rejected ibn Abi Daraam because he was rafidi. And then he quoted other narrators, which
we described as rafidi and we accepted as truthful by our scholars. Thanks to Allah, that he himself
answered to his own doubt that our scholars judged reporters due to their sect.
So ibn Abi Daraam wasn’t simply rafidi, but he was a liar. And this is verdict of ibn Hajar and
Dhahabi. Al-Hakim said he wasn’t truthful. (See Mizan 1/139, Lisan 1/268).
Rafidi quoted Siyar of Dhahabi, where he mentioned that ibn Abi Daraam was Imam and Hafidh. But
as all other rafidis, this one closed his eyes on fact that in the very same place, Dhahabi said that
ibn Abi Daraam wasn’t truthful in his narrations.
4) As for hadith which Dhahabi quoted from the way ibn Abi Daraam. Rafidi used words of Dhahabi
that hadith is agreed upon, as some kind of proof for reliability of ibn Abi Daraam.
This is only due to ignorance of rafidi, because “agreed upon” doesn’t mean that each narrator of
report is perfectly reliable. This term means that hadith was transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim!
See Muhammad ibn Futuh al-Humaydi “Jami beyna sahihayn al-Bukhari and Muslim” #805. Both
(Muslim 107-1599 and Bukhari 52) narrated this report by chains which doesn’t contain ibn Abi
Daraam.
5) As for doubt of rafidi that how it possible that imam would become rafidi liar, we have some
good examples in our time. For sure shining star of modern rafd – al-Tijani wasn’t Imam or even
scholar, he was layman soofe, but he became well known rafidi.
During the time of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was a companion, which
believed in Islam, left his hometown and made hijra to Abisiniyah and there accept Christianity.
So there is no problem in accepting fact that someone could change his religion.
In defence of Umar from offence of ahlal-nar.
July 13, 2011 at 1:25 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment
3 Votes
In defence of Umar from offence of ahlal-nar.
Bismillah.
Recently in the net I came across with article from misguided rafidi, where he attacks sayidina
Umar and Muslims in general. He raised some doubts around punishment of drunkard in Islamic
tradition.
First rafidi quoted hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari from Ali: “I would not feel sorry for one who dies
because of receiving a legal punishment, except the drunk, for if he should die (when being
punished), I would give blood money to his family because no fixed punishment has been ordered
by Allah’s Apostle for the drunk”.
Then this ignorant rafidi cited another report from Bukhari where stated that prophet (sallalahu
alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) lashed people for drinking alcohol. And rafidi asks: Whom he should to
believe? Because he see contradiction in two reports.
We say: Perhaps after prolonged participation in matams this misguided person injured his brains.
Because there is no contradiction between these two reports.
In the very same sahihayn was reported that in times of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam) indeed companions implemented hadd punishments on the drunkards by the order of Nabi
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Bukhari in Sahih, Kitab al-Hudood narrated:
Narrated ‘Uqba bin Al-Harith: An-Nu’man or the son of An-Nu’man was brought to the Prophet on a
charge of drunkenness. So the Prophet ordered all the men present in the house, to beat him. So all
of them beat him, and I was also one of them who beat him with shoes.
Narrated Abu Salama: Abu Huraira said, “A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. The
Prophet said, ‘Beat him!” Abu Huraira added, “So some of us beat him with our hands, and some
with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like a lash, and then when we
finished, someone said to him, ‘May Allah disgrace you!’ On that the Prophet said, ‘Do not say so,
for you are helping Satan to overpower him.’ “
So hadith of Ali should be understood in this way: Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
indeed ordered to punish drunkards, but he didn’t set prescribed form of this punishment, as said
Ali.
But it was also reported from Ali, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) preferred
one way of punishment. We will discuss it little bit later.
The rafidi then mocks Umar, and blames him in innovation, because he prescribed that punishment
should be increased till 80 lashes.
We would answer:
1) Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) in authentic report from Irbad ibn Sariyah
ordered us to follow to sunnah of guided caliphs (see: 1,2,3). And in accordance to agreed opinion
of Muslims, these guided caliphs are: shaykhan, then Uthman and Ali.
2) Umar didn’t increased punishment for no reason.
As it was reported in Bukhari, Kitab al-Hudood:
Narrated As-Sa’ib bin Yazid: We used to strike the drunks with our hands, shoes, clothes (by
twisting it into the shape of lashes) during the lifetime of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and the early part
of ‘Umar’s caliphate. But during the last period of ‘Umar’s caliphate, he used to give the drunk
forty lashes; and when drunks became mischievous and disobedient, he used to scourge them eighty
lashes.
Imam Muslim in Sahih, same chapter, narrated:
Anas b. Malik reported that a person who had drink wine was brought to Allah’s Apostle (may peace
be upon him). He gave him forty stripes with two lashes. Abu Bakr also did that, but when Umar
(assumed the responsibilities) of the Caliphate, he consulted people and Abd al-Rahman said: The
mildest punishment (for drinking) is eighty (stripes) and ‘Umar their prescribed this punishment.
And in same book:
Anas b. Malik reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) gave a beating with palm
branches and shoes, and that Abu Bakr gave forty lashes. When Umar (became the Commander of
the Faithful) and the people went near to pastures and towns, he said (to the Companions of the
Holy Prophet). What is your opinion about lashing for drinking? Thereupon Abd al-Rahman b. Auf
said: My opinion is that you fix it as the mildest punishment. Then ‘Umar inflicted eighty stripes.
3) It was reported from Ali, that he agreed with Umar on this punishment, and named it: SUNNAH.
Imam Muslim transmitted in Sahih, Kitab al-Hudood:
Hudain b. al-Mundhir Abu Sasan reported: I saw that Walid was brought to Uthmin b. ‘Affan as he
had prayed two rak’ahs of the dawn prayer, and then he said: I make an increase for you. And two
men bore witness against him. One of them was Humran who said that he had drunk wine. The
second one gave witness that he had seen him vomiting. Uthman said: He would not have vomited
(wine) unless he had drunk it. He said: ‘Ali, stand up and lash him. ‘Ali said: Hasan, stand up and
lash him. Thereupon Hasan said: Let him suffer the heat (of Caliphate) who has enjoyed its
coolness. (‘Ali felt annoyed at this remark) and he said: ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far, stand up and flog him,
and he began to flog him and ‘Ali counted the stripes until these were forty. He (Hadrat ‘Ali) said:
Stop now, and then said: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) gave forty stripes, and Abu
Bakr also gave forty stripes, and Umar gave eighty stripes, and all these fall under the category
of the Sunnab, but this one (forty stripes) is dearer to me.
From this report it’s clear that Ali didn’t object to Umar on his implementing of this hadd.
Someone could say that this report contradicts to report where he said that prophet (sallalahu
alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t prescribe special punishment. But that wouldn’t be correct. We
can easily reconcile between these two narrations by saying:
Yes, prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) indeed lashed drunkard 40 times. But as we
see in the narrations from Abu Huraira, and it was also reported from Abdurrahman ibn Azhar in
Sunnan Abu Dawud, some times drunkard was beaten by shoes, and other material at hand, in the
presence of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). So Ali was right, when he said that
there is no prescribed punishment for that. And he was right when he said that prophet (sallalahu
alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) punished drunkard with 40 lashes.
Agreement of Ali with ijtihad of Umar in this issue was also narrated by Abu Dawud:
Book 38, Number 4466:
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and AbuBakr gave forty lashes for drinking wine and
Umar made it eighty. And all this is sunnah, the model and standard practice.
And in reality that was their common ijtihad.
Imam Malik narrated in Muwatta:
Book 42, Number 42.1.2:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked advice
about a man drinking wine. Ali ibn Abi Talib said to him, “We think that you flog him for it with
eighty lashes. Because when he drinks, he becomes intoxicated, and when he becomes intoxicated,
he talks confusedly, and when he talks confusedly, he lies.” (80 lashes is the same amount as for
slandering) Umar gave eighty lashes for drinking wine.
And Allah knows best.
Aisha and slave woman – refuting the doubt of kuffar
July 11, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a
comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum, recently I came across with thread at shia forum, where paranoiac kaafira, directly
accused Aisha in being a pimp! La`natullahi alal kafirin!
Report #1
Abu Bakr narrated, he said: Waki’ told, quoting Al-’Alaa Bin Abdul Karim Al-Yamani, quoting
‘Ammar Bin ‘Imran, a man from Zaydillah quoting a woman of them, quoting Aisha that
she beautified a slave girl and walked around with her and said: May we catch some the young men
of Quraysh through her.
461 ( : ‫ ) – رقم الصفحة‬3 ( : ‫) إبن أبي شيبة – المصنف – كتاب النكاح – ما قالوا في الجارية تشوف ويطاف بها – الجزء‬
- ( 259 ) ‫ نا وكيع عن العالء بن عبد الكريم اليامي عن عمار بن عمران رجل‬: ‫ ) حدثنا أبو بكر قال‬1 ( . ‫ما قالوا في الجارية تشوف ويطاف بها‬
‫ لعلنا نصطاد بها شباب قريش‬: ‫ من زيد هللا عن امرأة منهم عن عائشة أنها شوفت جارية وطافت بها وقالت‬.
Only kuffar from rafidah, could use this report as evidence against mother of all believers.
Chain of this report contain several defects.
1) Unnamed woman from Zaydillah.
2) Ammar ibn Imran. His ahadeth are not authentic, as said ibn Hajar in Lisan, and Dhahabi in
Mizan.
So curse of Allah upon disbelievers, who use fabrications just to cast a shadow on the mother of
believers.
Majlisi on bayah of Hasan and Ali to others
July 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment
Rate This
In his “Biharul anwar” (44/31) Majlisi said:
‫ واالسباب‬، ‫ لكنا قد بينا جهة وقوعه‬، ‫ فقد كان ذلك‬، ‫فأما البيعة فان اريد بها الصفقة وإظهار الرضا والكف عن المنازعة‬
‫ وال حجة في ذلك عليه صلوات هللا عليه كما لم يكن في مثله حجة على أبيه صلوات هللا عليهما لما بايع المتقدمين‬، ‫المحوجة إليه‬
‫ وأمسك عن غالبهم‬، ‫ وكف عن نزاعهم‬، ‫ عليه‬.
“As for this Baya’ah (of al-Hassan to Mu’awiyah) if what is meant by it is him showing his
acceptance (of Mu’awiyah) and ending the dispute (over the Caliphate) then this has happened,
and we explained why it happened and the reasons that made it necessary, and this cannot be used
against him(al-Hassan) peace be upon him as it was the same for his father (‘Ali) peace be upon
them both when he (‘Ali) gave the Baya’ah to the ones before him (first three Caliphs) and he
ended the dispute with them and escaped their oppression.”
Contributed by brother TripolySunni.
Badruddin az-Zarkashi on accusations of Rafidah
May 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | 1 Comment
Rate This
Badruddin az-Zarkashi said:
12. After Quran clearly stated her purity, the one who accuse her becoming kaafir. The Hawarezmi
(568/1172) from scholars of our school in his book “al-Kafi”, chapter on apostasy says: “If anyone
would accuse Aisha in adultery he becomes kaafir. Because Quran revealed her purity. Stance of
other women isn’t like this”.
Imam Malik (179/795) said: “The one who would abuse her should be killed”. Abul Hattab ibn Dihye
(633/1235) in “Ajvibatul masail” says: “The book of Allah testify this view of imam Malik. Because
when Allah mentioned in the Quran that mushriks attributed child to Him, He praised Himself. He
said: “(21:26) And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a ! son. Glory be to Him”.
And when He mentioned Aisha, He said: “(24:16) And why did you not, when you heard it, say: It
does not beseem us that we should talk of it; glory be to Thee! this is a great calumny?” Like this!
How He praised (tanzih) Himself, He to purify Aisha again praised Himself. This was mentioned by
Qadi Abu Bakr ibnut-Tayiib (1).
13. Whoever would reject that her father Abu Bakr wa sahabi, becomes kaafir. This was mentioned
by imam Shafi (204/819).
Abu Abdullah Badruddin az-Zarkashi (d 794) “Al-Ijaba li iradi mastadrakahu Aisha alas sahaba” p 146
————————————1) Just pay attention that when Allah rejected accuse against Himself, He said “Glory be to Him”
and when he rejected accusation against Aisha, He said: glory be to Thee!
Few interesting reports from “Fadhail as-sahaba” of Daraqutni.
May 17, 2011 at 10:52 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Few interesting reports from “Fadhail as-sahaba” of Daraqutni. Darul Majid Asiriya.
#74 via double chain one till ibn Abi Umar and second till Uqba ibn Mukaram, both of them reported
from Sufyan, which narrated from Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, which reported that his father
Muhammad al-Baqir said: “Family (Ali) of Abu Bakr in the time of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala
alihi wa sallam) was called family (Ali) of Muhammad”.
#75 via chain till Sarij ibn an-Noman which reported from Sufyan ibn Ueyna, which reported from
Jafar ibn Muhammad words as above.
#76 via chain till Musadat ibn al-Yasa which reported from Jafar ibn Muhammad, which narrated
from his father words as above.
#77 via chain till Hasan ibn Salih, which heard Abdullah ibn al-Hasan saying: Abu Bakr presented to
Ali mother of Muhammad (ibn al-Hanafiyah)
#62 via chain from Jafar ibn Muhammad: “Sons of Fatima (alaiha salam) agreed in saying best from
what is possible to say regarding Abu Bakr and Umar”.
#57, 59 from Abu Khalid al-Ahmar: I asked Abdullah ibn al-Hasan about Abu Bakr and Umar, he said:
Sallallahu alaihima. And don’t salli upon those who don’t salli upon them”.
#53 via chain till Urwa ibn Abdullah al-Jufi, which said: I said to Abu Jafar (al-Baqir): You called
Abu Bakr – as-Siddiq?” He answered: “Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
called him as-Siddiq. And may Allah doesn’t testify words of the one who didn’t name him as-Siddiq
in this world and hereafter”.
#50 with chain till Fudayl ibn Marzuq which reported that Zayd ibn Ali in Husayn said: “As for me, if
I would be on the place of Abu Bakr I would do the same what he did in the matter of Fadak”.
#48 via double chain till Zayd ibn Ali which said: “Baraat from Abu Bakr and Umar (is) baraat from
Ali, may Allah be pleased with them”.
#41 with chain till ibn Abdullah as-Sairafi which said: I asked Abu Jafar (al-Baqir): What do you say
about Abu Bakr and Umar?” He said: “By Allah I befriend with them and ask forgiveness for them
and I didn’t met anyone from ahlalbayt except he would befriend with them”.
Did Aaisha [radhiallaahu anha] advocated murder of Uthmaan
[radhiallaahu anhu]?
May 15, 2011 at 9:20 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | 7 Comments
2 Votes
Q: Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman. How is it that following his murder,
she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended?
During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she
advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as)
on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray
Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her
desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)?
History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman “Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for
he is unbeliever”, see History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141, al-Iqd al-Farid, v4,
p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
A: The questioner has assumed as an historical fact the claim drawn from the named sources that
Sayyidah A’ishah advocated the killing of Sayyiduna ‘Uthman. He labours under the common
misconception that the simple fact that the moment something mentioned is in a history book it is
an incontrovertible fact. He fails to understand the need for authentication.
The fact of the matter is that in order for narrated information to be regarded as a valid basis for
making claims that affect one’s belief system, or influence the way one views personalities, the
information HAS to be authenticated. Leave aside reports of history; even the ahadith of Rasulullah
sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam have to be authenticated by rigorous criteria before store can be set by
it.
What does authentication entail? Does it amount to providing a mere reference to a source or two
such as what the questioner has given? Anyone who regards this as authentication hasn’t got the
vaguest idea of what authentication is or what it entails. The questioner and other like him would
be well advised to equip himself with some knowledge of the discipline before venturing boldly into
making claims that may well affect their destiny in the hereafter.
Coming now to the issue under discussion: The questioner provides the following four references for
his claim that history records Sayyidah A’ishah as saying about Sayyiduna Uthman, “Kill this old fool
(Na’thal), for he is unbeliever”:
1. History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
2. Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141,
3. al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
4. Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
LISAN AL-’ARAB
The book “Lisan al-’Arab” by Ibn Manzur is a not a work on history, but a lexicon of the Arabic
language. Does the questioner not see the utter ridiculousness of his endeavour to establish
historical truth by quoting a dictionary? His attempt is comparable to quoting scientific material
from an anthology of poetry.
SHARH IBN ABIL HADID
Ibn Abil Hadid was an extremist Shi’i whose beliefs would be repugnant even to the “moderate”
Shi’ah themselves. His views of the near-divinity of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib are reflected in his
poetry, some of which is reproduced in the editor’s introduction to his commentary on “Nahj alBalaghah”. As an extremist Shi’i, his being cited on a matter concerning the Sahabah cannot be
free from prejudice, and must therefore be called into question seriously.
If we are going to accept everything the Shi’ah say about the Sahabah, we will eventually end up
having to accept that beyond inciting the murder of Uthman, Sayyidah A’ishah was also guilty of
adultery, [as recorded by Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir (vol. 2 p. 377), Hashim al-Bahrani in
al-Burhan (vol. 4 p. 358) and Abdullah Shubbar in his Tafsir (p. 338)]; that the sixth of the seven
doorways of Hell will be exclusively for her [as stated in Bihar al-Anwar vol. 4 p. 378; and Tafsir al'Ayyashi vol. 2 p. 243]; and that she was a hypocrite who, along with the vast bulk of the Sahabah
turned apostate openly after the demise of the Nabi sallallahu `alayhi wasallam.
AL-’IQD AL-FARID
Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih’s book “al-’Iqd al-Farid” is a literary book about which the author states in his
introduction, “I have written this book, and I have chosen its rare jewels from amongst select
gemstones of literature.” He makes no claim that everything in his book is historically accurate and
authentic. Again, the absolute inappropriateness of establishing historical truth from a source as
unsuited for this purpose as a literary omnibus seems to escape the notice of the questioner.
IBN AL-ATHIR’S HISTORY
The fact that the questioner names this work as the ” History of Ibn Athir” appears to reveal that
he himself is unfamiliar with the book, and happens to be citing it from second or third hand
sources. For his information, the book’s proper title is “al-Kamil”. Had the questioner been familiar
with this book he would have been aware of the fact that this book is directly based upon Ibn Jarir
at-Tabari’s work; and had he been familiar with Tabari’s work he would have known that Tabari has
recorded the material in his book complete with chains of narrations. He would also have known
that Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol. 1 p. 24) declares that in
terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through
which it has come down to him.
In light of the above, let us now proceed to evaluate the authenticity of the statement which the
questioner has so boldlessly and recklessly (and also – mind you – ignorantly) ascribed to Sayyidah
A’ishah.
This statement is to be found on page 226 of the 5th volume of the edition of Tarikh at-Tabari
published by Dar al-Fikr, Beirut in 1418/1998. It is recorded by Tabari on the authority of the
following chain of narration:
Tabari narrates from ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-’Ijli, who narrates from Husayn ibn Nasr al’Attar, who narrates from his father Nasr ibn Muzahim al-’Attar…
Up to this point the following flaws present itself in the chain:
1. Of Tabari’s immediate source, ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-’Ijli, no trace can be found in the
biographical works of narrators. He is thus an unknown person.
2. The next person in the chain is Husayn ibn Nasr ibn Muzahim. Of him too, no trace is to be found
in the biographical literature ¯ hence another unknown person. The only thing that is known about
him is the fact that he is the son of Nasr ibn Muzahim.
3. Nasr ibn Muzahim presents a major problem. He was known in his lifetime as a forger of
historical material, and was condemned for it by, amongst others, the hadith expert Abu
Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb. His general unreliability as a narrator of historical material is echoed
by al-’Uqayli, Abu Hatim ar-Razi, ad-Daraqutni, al-’Ijli, al-Khalili and Ibn ‘Adi. He is described by a
number of these experts as a hardcore extremist Shi’i. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol. 7 p. 187) Even a
non-muhaddith such as the literary biographer Yaqut al-Hamawi describes him as an extremist Shi’i
who stands accused of forgery and is generally unreliable. (Mu’jam al-Udaba vol. 19 p. 225)
As may be expected, Shi’i hadith critics are generally more affable towards Nasr ibn Muzahim.
However, even they have located a problem with the historical material which he transmits. The
Shi’i hadith critic Abul ‘Abbas an-Najashi, for example, remarks about him that while he himself
was a person of righteous conduct, his problem was that he transmitted material on the authority
of unreliable sources. (Rijal an-Najashi vol. 2 p. 384) This statement of an-Najashi is corroborated
by al-’Allamah al-Hilli in al-Khulasah. (Jami’ ar-Ruwat vol. 2 p. 291)
With this background on Nasr ibn Muzahim, let us now proceed to investigate the sources on whose
authority Nasr ibn Muzahim has ascribed this alleged statement to Sayyidah A’ishah.
Nasr produces two separate chains of narrators through which he claims to have received this
information. They look as follows:
1. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from Sayf ibn ‘Umar, who narrates from Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and
Talhah ibn al-A’lam.
2. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from ‘Umar ibn Sa’d, who narrates from Asad ibn ‘Abdullah, who
narrates from some learned men whom he met.
The first chain of narration shows glaring defects. Sayf ibn ‘Umar is that historian whose total
unreliability has been a matter of much discussion, especially in Shi’i circles. The contemporary
Shi’i scholar, Murtada al-’Askari has written an interesting book in which he has pointed a finger of
accusation at this very same Sayf ibn ‘Umar. The charge which he levels against Sayf ibn ‘Umar is
that he is responsible for inventing of the personality of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba. Despite the flaws in al’Askaris’ research (upon which some light has been cast in an article that may be read at) this book
has been highly acclaimed in Shi’i circles, and everyone climbed on the bandwagon of labeling Sayf
ibn ‘Umar as a shameless liar and forger. But suddenly, when the material which Sayf transmits is
not about Ibn Saba, but disparages Sayyidah A’ishah, his unreliability is conveniently forgotten, and
an-Najashi! ‘s complaint of Nasr ibn Muzahim narrating from unreliable sources is cast to the wind.
Such “objectivity” leaves one in complete amazement.
Furthermore, Sayf ibn ‘Umar’s two sources, Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-A’lam, are
completely unknown entities.
Nasr ibn Muzahim’s second chain of narration suffers once again from the same defect. His
immediate source, ‘Umar ibn Sa’d is unknown, as is ‘Umar ibn Sa’d's source Asad ibn ‘Abdullah. The
person or persons from whom Asad ibn ‘Abdullah allegedly received the information are not even
named at all.
In summary it may therefore be said that not a single person in the entire chain of narration, from
Tabari up the final sources, may be relied upon at all. Is it on the basis of such worthless historical
material that the questioner wishes us to believe that Sayyidah A’shah advocated the killing of
Sayyiduna ‘Uthman?
If the questioner can bring himself to accept such worthless material, it creates a question in the
mind as to why he would do so. It cannot be because of the intrinsic value of the report itself, for it
has been adequately demonstrated here that the report has no value at all. The only reason for his
acceptance of such narrations will have to be his own sectarian prejudices. He himself will have to
answer to Allah for accepting and believing information provided by such worthless and unreliable
sources.
As for the rest of us, we abide by the instruction of Allah Most High: “O you who believe, when an
evil-doer comes unto you with news, then ascertain the truth, lest you harm people unwittingly,
and afterwards regret what you have done.” (49:6)
And since Sayyidah A’ishah was of the Muhajirin, it may be of interest to the questioner to note
what attitude Allah has instructed those who come after the Muhajirin and the Ansar to adopt
towards them: “And those who come after them, they say: Our Lord, forgive us and [forgive] our
brethren who preceded us in faith. And do not put in our hearts rancour towards the Believers. Our
Lord, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful.” (59:10)
Moulana M Taha Karaan
Darul Uloom al-Arabiyya al-Islaamiyyah, Western Cape, SA
The Jihad of Al-Hasan (ra) and Al-Hussain (ra) during the time of
Uthman (ra)
April 27, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, History | Leave a comment
Rate This
By brother Farid:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem,
Not too long ago, I stumbled upon several historical reports that Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain took part
in a few military expeditions during their early years. These historical reports seem to have been
overlooked by most people and I believe that it would be a good idea to share some of my findings
for the benefit of the readers.
- Both Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain were present in the army of Abdullah bin Abi Sarh according to Ibn
Khuldoon in the year 26 AH. (Tareekh Ibn Khuldoon, 917)
- Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain were in the army of Sa’eed bin Al-Aas who invaded Tabristan in the year
30 AH. (Tareekh Al-Tabari, 2/765)
- Ibn Katheer narrates the same event through Al-Mada’inee. (Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, 7/166)
- Al-Balathuri mentioned the names of Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain amongst those that were said to
have fought under Sa’eed bin Al-Aas in Tabristan. (Futooh Al-Bildaan, 309)
- They were in the army of Sa’eed bin Al-Aas in the conquest of Jurjaan which ended without
bloodshed. (Tareekh Al-Tabari, 2/765)
- Hamza Al-Sahami stated that Al-Hussain was involved in the conquest of Jurjaan, and mentioned
that it is said that Al-Hasan was there as well. (Tareekh Jurjaan, 43)
- Khaleefa bin Khayyat narrated that Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain were defending Uthman during the
day that he was killed and when Uthman asked his companions to leave, Al-Hassan was the last
person that left. (Tareekh Khaleefa, 102)
Keep in mind, that the events above all occurred during the time of Uthman, through multiple
sources. On the other hand, I failed to find any of this information in the books of the Shias that
contain detailed information on the Twelve Imams. There is pretty much nothing about Al-Hassan
or Al-Hussain from the death of the Prophet (pbuh) up until the time that Ali becomes the caliph. In
any case, I will try to look harder for these in the future.
The above implies that there was a strong bond between the Sibtain (ra) and Uthman (ra). This is
also a solid argument for those that say that Ali (ra) didn’t bother fighting during the reign of the
first three caliphs because he didn’t believe in their legitimacy as caliphs, since logically speaking,
he wouldn’t allow his sons to do so either.
Ibn Masood and Muawizatain
April 14, 2011 at 12:25 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
Rate This
We have discussed this shia claim previously, just additional information from brother Saad
(hafizahullah):
‘Allamah Sarfaraz Khan Safdar mentions in Khazain al-Sunan, 1:99, that the claim that Sayyiduna
ibn Masu’d (may Allah be pleased with him) didn’t consider Muawidhatayn to be part of the Qur’an
is an outright lie.Mufti Muhammad Sa’eed Khan mentioned that there are authentic proofs which
show that Ibn Masu’d considered Muawidhatayn to be part of the Qur’an. How could he not? To
deny one letter of the Qur’an iskufr, let alone two whole Surahs of the Qur’an. Mufti Zar Wali Khan
mentioned that it is proven that he recited the Muawidhatayn in prayer.
Also, there is an interesting discussion by Dr. Muhammad Muftasa al-A’zami in The History of the
Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation. He also discusses why the opinion of Hafiz ibn Hajr
is rejected and his error in the light of muhaddithin’s methodology. See p.201.
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/325010
Comment on speech 163 from “Nahjul balagha”
March 29, 2011 at 9:44 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | Leave a
comment
1 Votes
In “Nahjul balagha” (sermon 163) you can read that when people went to Amir al-mu’minin in a
deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested
him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him and
said:
by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead
you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not
come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret
which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have
heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and
(`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were not more close by acting in accordance to truth than you, since
you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold
relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.
Discussion:
This speech contains some major refutations to modern shia faith.
1) Words of commander of faithful:
I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not
aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you
which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you.
These words are great proof for fact that Ali wasn’t more knowledgeable than Uthman! Because he
said: I know nothing which you do not know. It is so obvious, that translators of this speech
to English have to corrupt it by inserting phrase (in this matter), between I know nothing and
which you do not know.
2) From text is also clear that in the view of sayidina Ali, sheykhan were acting in accordance to
haq! And they didn’t surpass Uthman in that!
Of course shias as usual would claim that this was taqqiyah and etc. But who cares about their
words?
3) Also in this speech is clear proof that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t
teach anything to Ali, what he didn’t teach to others! And that in his words: nor did we learn
anything in secret which we should convey to you
4) It’s clear that all those lunatics with turbans on their empty heads, lied and deceived their
followers, when they claim that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t have
daughter except Fatima! Because Ali here pointed to marriages of Uthman, which married twice on
the daughters of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Imam: Companions were truthful!
March 29, 2011 at 8:36 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Kulayni narrated in his “al-Kafi” (1/65), and Majlisi said it’s hasan (good):
3 – ‫ قلت البي عبدهللا عليه‬:‫ عن منصور بن حازم قال‬،‫ عن عاصم بن حميد‬،‫ عن ابن أبي نجران‬،‫ عن أبيه‬،‫علي بن إبراهيم‬
‫ إنا نجيب الناس على‬:‫ ثم يجيئك غيري فتجيبه فيها بجواب آخر؟ فقال‬،‫ ما بالي أسألك عن المسألة فتجيبني فيها بالجواب‬:‫السالم‬
‫ فأخبرني عن أصحاب رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله صدقوا على محمد صلى هللا عليه وآله أم‬:‫ قلت‬:‫ قال‬،‫الزيادة والنقصان‬
‫ أما تعلم أن الرجل كان يأتي رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله فيسأله عن‬:‫ فما بالهم اختلفوا؟ فقال‬:‫ قلت‬:‫ قال‬،‫ بل صدقوا‬:‫كذبوا؟ قال‬
‫ فنسخت االحاديث بعضها بعضا‬،‫المسألة فيجيبه فيها بالجواب ثم يجيبه بعد ذلك ما ينسخ ذلك الجواب‬.
Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn Abi Najran from ‘Asim ibn Humayd from
Mansur ibn Hazim who has said:”I said to (Imam) abu ‘Abdallah (alaihi salam), ‘It is confuses me
that when I ask you a question and you give an answer and then other person comes and you give a
different answer for the same question.’” The Imam replied, “We answer people in a larger and
reduced forms.” I then asked, “Did the Sahabah, companions of the holy Prophet speak the
truth or lies when narrating his Hadith?” The Imam replied, “They spoke the truth.” I then said,
“Why then they have differences?” Have you not considered the fact that a man would come to the
holy Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) and ask a question and would give him an answer and then he
would answer that would abrogate the previous answer. Thus, Ahadith abrogated other Ahadith.”
Accusation: Prophet (s) was busy in intercourse on his deathbed
March 29, 2011 at 7:41 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Allahu Akbar! Just another example of complete sick minds of shia writers. Their anger force them
to see things that want see in any possible texts.
Shiapen says:
Nasibi belief that Prophet (s) was busy in intercourse even in the moments preceding his death
(naudobillah)
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 144: Narrated ‘Aisha: that during his fatal
ailment, Allah’s Apostle, used to ask his wives, “Where shall I stay tomorrow? Where shall I stay
tomorrow?” He was looking forward to Aisha’s turn. So all his wives allowed him to stay where he
wished, and he stayed at ‘Aisha’s house till he died there. ‘Aisha added: He died on the day of my
usual turn at my house. Allah took him unto Him while his head was between my chest and my neck
and his saliva was mixed with my saliva.
Comment
We appeal to justice, does one engage in passionate kissing when one is on his death bed? Clearly
this reference should provide some form of directions for Salafi women with dying husbands,
namely if they are dying in slow agony they should immediately engage with their spouses with a
bout of passionate French kissing, and death will come iin a less painful manner. If a dying Salafi
man has two wives then it is essential that they take turns engaging his with passionate kissing,
that way his death will be less painful and the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) will be implemented in the
process.
SubhanAllah! How sick these people are!
First of all from this text it’s not clear that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) kissed
his wife on his deathbed.
Second, even if he did, so what? That’s something prohibited? If yes, we need to see shariah proof
for such prohibition.
Third, there is other text, in the very same sahihayh, which clearly explain us, that it happen not
due to kissing.
Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 732:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The Prophet expired in my house and on the day of my turn, leaning against my chest. One of us
(i.e. the Prophet’s wives ) used to recite a prayer asking Allah to protect him from all evils when he
became sick. So I started asking Allah to protect him from all evils (by reciting a prayer ). He raised
his head towards the sky and said, “With the highest companions, with the highest companions.”
‘Abdur-Rahman bin Abu Bakr passed carrying a fresh leaf-stalk of a date-palm and the Prophet
looked at it and I thought that the Prophet was in need of it (for cleaning his teeth ). So I took it
(from ‘Abdur Rahman) and chewed its head and shook it and gave it to the Prophet who cleaned his
teeth with it, in the best way he had ever cleaned his teeth, and then he gave it to me, and
suddenly his hand dropped down or it fell from his hand (i.e. he expired). So Allah made my saliva
mix with his saliva on his last day on earth and his first day in the Hereafter.
Refuting the doubt: Kissing wife in the public
March 29, 2011 at 6:42 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | 1 Comment
2 Votes
Shias are not stopping to surprise me with their sick understanding of shariah texts. Wallahi such
attempts to attack Sunnah and Islaam are nothing but a shame, and clear indication of fact that
majority of shia polemicists writers are nothing but a bunch of idiots.
Shiapen says:
Nasibi belief that Holy Prophet (s) tried to flirt with his wife in front of strangers (Naudobillah)
Imam Ibn Athir records in Usud al-Ghaba, Volume 1 page 56:
‫عن أسيد بن أبي أسيد أن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه و سلم تزوج امرأة من بلجون فبعثني فجئتها فأنزلتها بالشعب في أجم ثم أتيت‬
‫ أعوذ باهلل منك‬: ‫ فأتاها فأهوى إليها ليقبلها فقالت‬: ‫ يا رسول هللا جئتك بأهلك قال‬: ‫رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه و سلم فقلت‬
Usaid bin Abi Usaid said: ‘Allah’s messenger got married to a woman from Bani Joun (tribe), hence
he sent me to bring her to him, then I arrived with her to Shu’ab in Ajum, then I went to Allah’s
messenger (pbuh) and said to him:’ Oh Allah’s messenger, I have brought your wife for you’. Then
he (prophet) went to her and bowed to kiss her but she said: ‘I seek refuge in the Lord of you’
First of all, what is apparent from text? Man kissed his wife in front of others.
Question: Amazing that NONE FROM SHIAS, which I have ever seen, didn’t try to condemn their
top scholar for kissing the boy in the lips, but when it is reported that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa
ala alihi wa sallam) kissed his wife in front of others, these sick minded persons see big deal in this
report!
Other note, this report that they have cited is weak per chain. Chain in Usud al-Ghaba isn’t
complete. It was reported by ibn Sad in Tabaqat, and in the chain Musa ibn Ubeydat – MUNKAR ALHADITH.
Refuting some doubts regarding Aisha (r.a)
March 29, 2011 at 4:28 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment
1 Votes
As we seen AA moved their trash to new site. They have changed the address but not a content or
approach. We can still see them doing their best in attempt to accuse companions and Islam in
general. In this post we would deal with two accusations against Aisha, mother of all believers.
Shiapen says:
Ayesha and Hafsa tried to create rift between Prophet (s) and his wife Asma by attributing a lie to
Prophet (s)
We read in Tabaqat Ibn Saad: Hamza bin Abi Usaid narrated from his father that he said: ‘Allah’s
messenger got married to Asma bin al-Numan al-Jaunia. He sent me to bring her to him, then Hafsa
said to Ayesha or Ayesha said to Hafsa: ‘You color her hair while I will comb her hair’. Then they
both did that, then one of them said to her (Asma): ‘The prophet (pbuh) likes a woman to say to
him: ‘I seek refuge in the Lord of you’. When she entered on the prophet and he (prophet) closed
the door and advanced his hand to her, she said: ‘I seek refuge in the Lord of you.”
Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Volume 8 page 145
Chain of this is following: Hisham ibn Muhammad – Ibn al-Ghasil (that’s Abdurrahman ibn Sulaiman
ibn Abdullah) – Hamza ibn Abu Sayyad – Father.
Hisham ibn Muhammad al-Kalbi was abandoned. Rafidi, and not truthful. (“Mizanul itidal”
4/304/*9237).
Ibn al-Ghasil was saduq with softness in him. (“Taqrib” 3887)
And shiapen says:
Ayesha tried to incite Prophet’s wife Malika against Him (s)
We read in Tabaqat Ibn Saad:
Abu Masher said: ‘The prophet (pbuh) got married to Malika bint Kaab, she was very beautiful, thus
Ayesha went to her and said: ‘Are you not ashamed of getting married to the killer of your father?’
Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Volume 8 page 148
Ibn Sad reported it from his shaykh Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi, which was abandoned.
‘Ali and Mu’awiyah
March 27, 2011 at 12:38 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
It is reported that Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan asked Dirar ibn Damrah al Kinani to describe for him
the character and demeanor of his adversary, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. Dirar requested to be excused but
Mu’awiyah insisted. Dirar then said:
By God, Ali is far-sighted and dynamic. What he says is decisive and his judgement is just.
Knowledge and wisdom spring from his lips and are reflected in his actions. He shows no particular
liking for the world and its adornments and finds company in the night and its darkness.
By God, he was tender hearted and was wont to weep profusely. He would engage in deep thought
while wringing his hands and talking to himself. He preferred clothes that were just adequate and
food that was simple.
He was, by God, one of us. When we visited him he would draw us close to him, and if we asked
him for help he would respond willingly. In spite of our closeness to each other we would hesitate
to speak to him out of awe and reverence.
He had a generous smile, dazzling like a string of pearls. He respected the pious and loved the
poor. The strong would not find in him encouragement for any excesses and the weak would not
despair of his justice.
I bear witness by God that on many occasions in the middle of the night I saw him swaying side to
side in his mihrab (prayer niche) holding his beard, in a disturbed and restless state, and weeping
like a bereaved person. Even now it is as if I hear him saying: ‘Our Lord and Sustainer! Our Lord
and Sustainier!’ while beseeching Him.
And to the life of this world he says: ‘Do you display yourself to me? Do you look out expectantly
for me? Vanish from my sight. Entice someone other than me. I have relinquished you irrevocably.
Your life-span is short, your company is wretched, and your temptation is easy to fall into. Ah! Ah!
How little is the provision, how far away is the destination, and how desolate is the way…’
In spite of himself, the tears trickled down Mu’awiyah’s beard as he heard this account. As he
wiped his beard with the palm of his hand, those who were present also wept bitterly.
Mu’awiyah remarked: “Such was Abu al Hassan, may Allah have mercy on him. Tell us of your grief
for him, O Dirar.”
Dirar replied: “My grief (for Ali) is like the grief of a mother whose only child is slain on her lap.
Her tears will never dry up and her grief wil never subsidise.”
Saying that, Dirar stood up and departed.
[Al-Hilyah, 1/84]
_________________
Taken from: The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam by Tah Jabir al Alwani
SOURCE: http://kondori.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/%E2%80%98ali-and-mu%E2%80%99awiyah/
Most steady on the bridge
March 22, 2011 at 2:06 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
Book: Kitab an-Nawadir p 123
Author: Diyautdin Abu Rida Fadlullah ibn Ali al-Husayni ar-Rawandi.
‫ أشدكم حبا ألهل بيتي وألصحابي‬،‫ أثبتكم على الصراط‬:‫ قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله‬:‫قال عليه السالم‬
Alaihi salam said: Messenger of Allah, sallalahu alaihi wa ali said: Most steady from you on the
siraat those who more love my ahlalbayt and my companions.
http://al-asfoor.org/books/index.php?id=907
Thanks to brother
Prostration of Aisha on the news of Ali’s death
March 8, 2011 at 5:30 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | 1 Comment
4 Votes
We are going to refute another accusation against Aisha, inshAllah.
Rafida says:
‫ حدثنا‬:‫ قاال‬،‫ وعثمان بن أبي شيبة‬،‫ حدثنا عاصم بن عامر‬:‫ قال‬،‫ حدثنا أحمد بن حازم‬:‫ قال‬،‫حدثني محمد بن الحسين األشناني‬
‫لما أن جاء عائشة قتل علي عليه السالم سجدت‬:‫ قال‬،‫ عن أبي البختري‬،‫ عن عمرو بن مرة‬،‫ عن األعمش‬،‫جرير‬.
Narrated to us Muhammad b. Hussein al-Ashnani – narrated to us Ahmad b. Hazem, narrated to us
Aseem b. Ameer and Uthman b. Abi Shaybah , narrated to us Jarir, from Amash, from Amr b.
Murrah, from Abu Bukhtari that he said: When the news of Ali’s (r.a) death reached Aisha,
whereupon she prostrated (to thank God.) - Abul-Faraj al-Isfahani, “Maqatil al-Talibiyyin”, v.1,
p.11
First of all we would like to start from the author of book – Abul Faraj al-Isfahani.
Rafida quoted Dhahabi saying regarding him: “There is no harm in him”. But this saying isn’t
enough to judge this man as a narrator, or to describe him as a reliable one. Abul Faraj was shia, as
said Dhahabi in “Siyar”.
Second we should mention al-Amash, Sulaiman ibn Mikhran. Who was thiqat, but was known for
tadlis, and this report he transmitted in muanan form, without making clear if he heard it himself
or not.
Thirdly, Abul Bukhture didn’t narrated from Aisha. Imam Waliatdin Abu Zurah al-Iraqi in his “Tuhfat
al-Tahshil fi Dzikri Ruwat al-Marasil” (p 126-127) said:
Abu Hatim said: (Abul Bukhturi) didn’t heard from Ali, and didn’t seen him.
Al-Alai said: He narrated a lot disconnected (reports) from Umar, and Ali and ibn Masood, and
Huzayfa and others.
Abu Hatim said: (Reports) Abul Bukhturi from Aisha (is) mursal.
So even if we would accept Abul Faraj al-Isbahani as a reliable in ahadeth, this chain contains
possible irsal between al-Amash and Abul Bukhturi, and certain irsal between Abul Bukhturi and
Aisha.
Then rafidi said:
Let’s see another sources, for this incident.
‫وذهب بقتل علي عليه السالم إلى الحجاز سفيان بن أمية بن أبي سفيان بن أمية بن عبد شمس فبلغ ذلك عائشة فقالت‬:
ْ َ ‫فأ‬
‫ب ال ُمساف ُِر‬
ِ ‫عصاها واستقر بها النوى كما قر عينا ً باإليا‬
َ ‫لقت‬
“Sufyan b. Uyaynah brought the news of Ali’s death to Hijaz. When Ayesha (ra) was informed
about the murder of Ali (ra), she said:
“she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return
home”.
First of all that is not ibn Uyaynah, but ibn Umayah. Second it’s interesting why in contrast to first
report, this one, rafidi quoted without chain?
We would ask them, do you believe this report is authentic?
Because these words are part of much bigger narration from “Tabaqat”, let us quote it completely:
‫قال أخبرنا أسباط بن محمد عن مطرف عن أبي إسحاق عن عمرو بن األصم قال دخلت على الحسن بن علي وهو في دار عمرو‬
‫بن حريث فقلت له إن ناسا يزعمون أن عليا يرجع قبل يوم القيامة فضحك وقال سبحان هللا لو علمنا ذلك ما زوجنا نساؤه وال‬
‫ساهمنا ميراثه قالوا وكان عبد الرحمن بن ملجم في السجن فلما مات علي رضوان هللا عليه ورحمته وبركاته ودفن بعث الحسن‬
‫بن علي إلى عبد الرحمن بن ملجم فأخرجه من السجن ليقتله فاجتمع الناس وجاؤوه بالنفط والبواري والنار فقالوا نحرقه فقال عبد‬
‫هللا بن جعفر وحسين بن علي ومحمد بن الحنفية دعونا حتى نشفي أنفسنا منه فقطع عبد هللا بن جعفر يديه ورجليه فلم يجزع ولم‬
‫يتكلم فكحل عينيه بمسمار محمى فلم يجزع وجعل يقول إنك لتكحل عيني عمك بملمول مض وجعل يقول اقرأ باسم ربك الذي‬
‫خلق خلق اإلنسان من علق حتى أتى على آخر السورة كلها وإن عينيه لتسيالن ثم أمر به فعولج عن لسانه ليقطعه فجزع فقيل له‬
‫قطعنا يديك ورجليك وسملنا عينيك يا عدو هللا فلم تجزع‬
‫فلما صرنا إلى لسانك جزعت فقال ما ذاك مني من جزع إال أني أكره أن أكون في الدنيا فواقا ال أذكر هللا فقطعوا لسانه ثم جعلوه‬
‫في قوصرة وأحرقوه بالنار والعباس بن علي يومئذ صغير فلم يستأذن به بلوغه وكان عبد الرحمن بن ملجم رجال أسمر حسن‬
‫الوجه أفلج شعره مع شحمة أذنيه في جبهته أثر السجود قالوا وذهب بقتل علي عليه السالم إلى الحجاز سفيان بن أمية بن أبي‬
‫سفيان بن أمية بن عبد شمس فبلغ ذلك عائشة فقالت … فألقت عصاها واستقرت بها النوى … كما قر عينا باإلياب المسافر‬
Red marked is a part which use these shias. But let us translate the beginning of this report, which I
marked in green.
Narrated to me Asbat ibn Muhammad from Muttarif from Abu Ishaq from Amr ibn Al-Asam, which
said: I entered upon al-Hasan ibn Ali and he was in the house of Amr ibn Harith, I said to him:
People claim that Ali would be back before day of judgment, and he laughed. He answered:
SubhanAllah! If we would know that we wouldn’t marry his wifes, neither divide his inheritance. He
said: Abdurrahman ibn Muljam was in the prison, and when Ali ridwanullah alaihi wa rahmatuhu wa
barakatuhu died and was buried, al-Hasan ibn Ali send to Abdurrahman ibn Muljam, to take him out
from prison for execution….
Further al-Hasan mentioned execution till the end, and described how tongue of ibn Muljam was
cut. And in the end he mentioned the thing which was quoted by rafidah against Aisha.
So we want to question this rafidi who used this narration.
1) Do you believe in it completely? Or exactly as jews you believe in part of it, and reject the
other?
2) If you do believe in second part, you should believe in first one, because they were transmitted
via the single chain.
3) If you do believe in it completely, you should admit that ahlal- bayt laughed upon idea that Ali
would return before dooms-day, meaning they laughed upon the one of the pillars of your faith –
Rajat.
In defence of Abu Huraira, 2
March 8, 2011 at 5:09 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | 2 Comments
6 Votes
Salam alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatu.
It didn’t pass much time since we answered to one of the most stupid accusation against Abu
Hurayra by the very own shia sources.
Rafidi who made that accusation came with another stupidity.
He said:
So as you can see he is citing this hadith as a proof that Abu Huraira was liar. Hadith:
Volume 7, Book 64, Number 268:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Prophet said, ‘The best alms is that which is given when one is rich, and a giving hand is
better than a taking one, and you should start first to support your dependents.’ A wife says, ‘You
should either provide me with food or divorce me.’ A slave says, ‘Give me food and enjoy my
service.” A son says, “Give me food; to whom do you leave me?” The people said, “O Abu Huraira!
Did you hear that from Allah’s Apostle ?” He said, “No, it is from my own self.”
This hadith in itself is great proof that Abu Huraira was truthful. Because liar, would never admit
his lie so easy. Actually during these years of debates with rafidah, I have seen many liars. And
NONE OF THEM ever admit his lie. The person who would browse “Exposing shia lies” section of our
blog could see many examples, and believe me when you would show this to shias, they would
never admit that it’s lie.
Anyway let us go back to narration.
This hadith is a good example of Mudraj in ahadeth.
Mudraj
An addition by a reporter to the text of the saying being narrated is termed mudraj (interpolated).
For example, al-Khatib relates via Abu Qattan and Shababah — Shu’bah — Muhammad b. Ziyad —
Abu Hurairah — The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said, “Perform the
ablution fully; woe to the heels from the Fire!”
Al-Khatib then remarks, “The statement, ‘Perform the ablution fully’ is made by Abu Hurairah,
while the statement afterwards, ‘Woe to the heels from the Fire!’, is that of the Prophet (may
Allah bless him and grant him peace). The distinction between the two is understood from the
narration of al- Bukhari, who transmits the same hadith and quotes Abu Hurairah as saying,
“Complete the ablution, for Abu ‘l-Qasim (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said:‘Woe to
the heels from the Fire!’.”
Such an addition may be found in the beginning,in the middle, or at the end, often in explanation
of a term used. Idraj (interpolation) is mostly found in the text, although a few examples show that
such additions are found in the isnad as well, where the reporter grafts a part of one isnad into
another.
Let us break this hadith to parts:
Abu Huraira said: “The Prophet said, ‘The best alms is that which is given when one is rich, and
a giving hand is better than a taking one, and you should start first to support your
dependents”. - This is words of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Then Abu Huraira give an explanation to hadith, and said: A wife says, ‘You should either provide
me with food or divorce me.’ A slave says, ‘Give me food and enjoy my service.” A son says,
“Give me food; to whom do you leave me?” - This is idraj in text of hadith. And it’s common thing
which would be easily find in books.
So when people asked: “O Abu Huraira! Did you hear that from Allah’s Apostle ?”
He said, “No, it is from my own self.”
And his these words should be refered to explanation, and not a first sentence which is a hadith. So
if he intended to lie, when he was asked, he would say: Yes, those are words of prophet.
Then this rafidi gave another example of so called proof against Abu Huraira.
This hadith is also not a proof against that companion, because if ibn Umar didn’t know complete
version of hadith, that doesn’t mean that the one who knows that lied. Also in the very same
chapter from Muslim, which quoted this rafidi, you can see such ahadeth:
Book 010, Number 3821:
Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) narrated Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying: He who kept a dog ther than one meant for watching the fields or herds or hunting would
lose one qirat every day out of his reward (with God).
Book 010, Number 3828:
Sufyan b. Abu Zuhair (he was a person belonging to the tribe of Shanu’a and was amongst the
Conpanions of Allah’s Messenger [may peace be upon him ) said: I heard Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him) as saying: He who kept a dog (other than that) which is indispensable for
watching the field or the animals would lose one qirat out of his deeds every day. As-Sa’ib b Yazid
(one of the narrators) said: Did you hear it from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He
said: Yes. by the Lord of this mosque.
So conclusion? 1-st it was reported even from ibn Umar, that dog could be kept for the watching of
field. So we can easily reconcile between these two ahadeth, by saying: Ibn Umar first reported
hadith without mentioning dog for watching field, but when he heard Abu Huraira reporting that,
he also agreed upon that. Or simply he first forgot mentioning of field, and hadith from Abu Huraira
reminded him that. 2-nd, not only Abu Huraira and Ibn Umar, but also such companion like Sufyan
b. Abu Zuhair narrated permissibility of keeping dog for watching fields.
I am not saying, and I don’t believe that any shia would believe my explanation, but they can’t ask
from us to accuse companions basing on shia sick understanding of ahadeth.
I am leaving without comment accusations of rafidi from Iqdul-Fareed, because that book isn’t
known as authentic hadith source, or better to say it’s not a book of ahadeth at all.
Then rafidi quoted al-Mustadrak:
abu huraria said, umar said to me: o enemy of Allah and enemy of Islam! you betrayed the money
of Allah . He said: I said: I am not an enemy of Allah and not an enemy of Islam but an enemy to
whoever is an enemy of them and I did not betray the money of Allah but they were the costs for a
camel and spears added together. He said: return it and I said to him the same thing again.He said:
he fined me 12 000 . He said: then I stood up for midday prayer and said: O Allah, forgive the
commander of the faithful. And what was after that is that he wanted me to work and I didn’t do
it. Then he said: not and Yusuf did ask to work and he was better than you. Then I said: verily Yusuf
is a prophet son of a prophet son of a prophet son of a prophet and I am son of Umaymah and I fear
three and two. He said: don’t you say five? I said: no. He said: what are they? I said: I fear that I
speak without knowledge, and issue ruling without knowledge, and that my back gets beaten , and
that my representation/arguments gets insulted .
hakim says: sahih on the conditions of sheikhain but not written
dhabi says: sahih on the conditions of bukhari and muslim
Sayidina Umar was strict in rebuking the people which erred in his eyes, and if these words are
proof against Abu Huraira, we could remind to rafida the narration from sahih, where Abbas and Ali
are arguing in the presence of Umar. Abbas there also used hard words towards sayidina Ali. Does it
mean Ali was bad? No, simply they all were human which from time to time could lose their
patience.
Also we should mention that Umar was a person who appointed Abu Huraira as a governor of
Bahrain, then he was dismissed, because he was too soft with people. When he again asked to
become a governor, he refused it himself. (see Umar Nasuhi Bilmen “Tabaqatul mufasirin” 1/233)
As for accusations that Abu Huraira narrated maraseel, they are really funny. First of all it should
be known that it’s agreed opinion between our scholars that maraseel of any companion is
accepted.
Second, how in this case we should deal with tons of maraseel ahadeth which were narrated by shia
imams in their books?
Further this rafidi gave two narrations, in one of them Abu Huraira agreed with hadith from mother
of believers regarding person who is overtaken by dawn in a state of seminal emission during fasting
days, and he turned away from his fatwa. In other one:
ayesha called on abu huraira then said to him o abu huraira what are these narrations that you
report to us that you narrate in them about the prophet (s) did you hear other than what we heard
and did you see other than what we saw?
He said: o mother! the mirror and the eyeliner applicator used to keep you busy from Allah’s
prophet (s) and fixing / beautifying yourself for the prophet (s), and as regards to me by Allah
nothing used to keep me busy from him.
hakim says sahih but was not written
dhabi says sahih
and this narration is also mentioned in sair ul aalam nabala, vol 2, page 604,
and in the footnotes, sheikh shoaib arnawit says
So this rafidi after quoting these two narrations, said:
now, we can see the credibility and integrity of this man,
he gave a fatwa, and when umm salma, ayesha caught him
he got on to back foot, and say that they are more knowledgeable
and when ayesha asked him what is this all he is narrating
he says that you were always busy with the make up
and i was busy with ahadeeth; and so i know what you know not
great, so we have the right to ask abu huraira,
who is more knowledgalbe
you or ayesha?
and we would also like to ask nawasib as well
do you agree to the saying of abu huraira, that ayesha was busy with make up, and there fore
she remained ignorant of ahadeeth?
We would answer, it is not clear from text of second narration, what was a matter of dispute. Abu
Huraira agreed with first ruling from hadith, because:
1) He was not aware of that hadith, when he gave a fatwa.
2) And he understood that mother of believers, would be more knowledgeable in such matters like
what a person should do if he mets the day of Ramadan, while he is junub. Because they could
witness that from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), as they explained in hadith.
That’s why he said: They have better knowledge.
As for second hadith where he rejected objection of Aisha, he could be sure in things that he
narrated, because he was eye-witness of them. Or may be issue was regarding any matter of jihad
(for example), and for sure men companions could be much more knowledable in this than women.
And Allah knows best.
Abu Hurayrah and hanafiyah
January 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | Leave a
comment
3 Votes
One from the most popular objections against Abu Hurayah is claim that hanafiyah, and especially
Abu Hanifah didn’t narrate from him, because he was not reliable in their view.
However this is not true. And we have some good proofs for that.
Below you would see some quotations from “Kitab al-Athar” of Imam Abu Hanifah, which was
narrated by one of his closest student imam Muhammad.
1 – Muhammad said: Abu Hanifah informed us saying: “Uthman ibn Abdullah ibn Mawhab narrated to
us that he prayed behind Abu Hurayrah who used to say takbir every time he prostrated and every
time he lifted himself up”.
Muhammad said: “We adhere to this and it’s the verdict of Abu Hanifah”. (Kitab al-Athar p 46,
Turath Publishing)
2 – Muhammad said: “Abu Hanifah informed us from Kidam ibn Abd ar-Rahman that Abu Kibash
heard Abu Hurayrah saying: “How excellent an Adha sacrifice is a fat six-month old sheep”.
Muhammad said: “We adhere to this and it’s the verdict of Abu Hanifah, may Allah exalted is He,
have mercy on him”. (Ibid p 469)
3- Muhammad said: “Abu Hanifah informed us saying: “Isa ibn Abdullah ibn Mawhab narrated to us
saying: “I saw Abu Hurayrah praying over the funeral prayer over en and women, and placed the
men closer to himself and the women closer to the qiblah”. (ibid p 141)
So it’s clear that Abu Hanifah and hanafiyah didn’t only narrate from him, but also adhere to his
fatwas.
Some narrations of superiority of Abu Bakr
December 29, 2010 at 2:50 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
Hibatullah ibn al-Hasan al-Lalekai in “Sharhul Usul Itiqad Ahle-Sunna wal Jamaat” (#2446, p 1691)
from Mubarak ibn Fadalah: “I heard al-Hasan (al-Basri) swearing by Allah that messenger (sallalahu
alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) appointed Abu Bakr (as his heir)”. And I heard Muawiyah ibn Qurrah:
“Messenger (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) appointed Abu Bakr (as his heir)”.
And he narrated (#2448) from Abdurrahman ibn Abu Laila from Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “Best of
this nation after prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) is Abu Bakr, and whoever would
say other than this is muftari (slanderer) and upon him (thing) what is upon muftari”.
And from Yahya ibn Shaddad (#2453), that Ali said: “Best among us is Abu Bakr”.
When did Ali pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr
December 28, 2010 at 12:14 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment
4 Votes
By brother TripolySunni.
Sahih hadith by Abu Sa’eed al Khudri (RA) that Ali (RA) gave baya’ah immediatly to Abu Bakr al
Siddiq (RA):
Abu Sa’eed al Khudri may Allah be pleased with him said: When the Prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa
ala alihi wa sallam) soul passed away, people gathered at the place of Sa’ad bin Ubadah and
amongst them were Abu Bakr and Umar. A Khatib from the Ansar (supporters) spoke: “You know
that the Prophet of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was from the Mouhajirun
(immigrants) and his caliph must also be from the Mouhajirun, we were the ansar of the Prophet
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and we will be the ansar of his caliph just as we were his
Ansar”. Then Umar bin al Khattab stood up and said “This man from amongst the ansar speaks truth
and if it were anything other than this then we would not give you a baya’ah (Pledge of
allegiance)”, then he grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said: “This is your close companion so give
him baya’ah”. Then Umar and the Mouhajirun and the ansar all gave him baya’ah. Abu Bakr stood
on the pulpit and he looked at the faces of all the people there but he didn’t seen al Zubair, so he
called for him and and he came. Abu Bakr told him: “O son of the Prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala
alihi wa sallam) aunt and his disciple would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” Zubair
said: “Not at all O caliph of the prophet of Allah” then he stood and gave him baya’ah. Then he
looked at the faces of the people but did not spot Ali so he called for Ali bin abi Talib and he came.
Abu Bakr said: “O cousin of the prophet of Allah and the husband of his daughter would you want to
split the cause of the Muslims?” So Ali replied: “Not at all O caliph of the prophet of Allah”, then he
stood and gave him baya’ah.
Sources:
-Mujama’a al Zawa’ed (5/183), rijal are people of saheeh.
-Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (5/281), chain thabit and saheeh.
-Al Mustadrak (3/76) and al Sunan al Kubrah (8/143) with two SAHIH chains
Imam Muslim bin al Hajjaj (Author of Sahih muslim) and Imam al hafiz Muhammad bin Ishaq bin
Khuzaymah (Author of Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah) and Imam Ibn Katheer all talked about the importance
of this sahih narration.
Here weak narration which agrees with saheeh from above:
In the hadith of Habib bin Abu Thabit: Ali bin Abu talib was in his house then a man came to him
and told him “Abu Bakr has gotten ready for the Baya’ah” So Ali went out to the mosque wearing
only his Qamis without a Izar or a Ridaa and he was hasty because he hated to be late for the
baya’ah, then he gave the Baya’ah to Abu Bakr and sat down and later asked for his Ridaa so it was
brought for him and he wore it on top of his Qamis.
Source: Tareekh al tabari 3/207, the chain is broken, it contains Seif bin Umar and he is weak and
it contains Abdul Aziz bin Siyah who is trustworthy but is a Shia.
Ali and al Zubair were asked about the baya’ah and they said:
“We were only angry because we were late for the consultation, we see Abu Bakr as the most
deserving of the people to this position after the Apostle of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam), he is the companion in the cave and the second of the two and we know of his honour and
rank, The prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) had ordered him to lead the people in
prayer while he was alive”.
Sources: Al Bidayah wal nihayah (6/341), Khilafat Abu Bakr p67, chain is good.
Imam Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated in his “Sunnan” (2/563) via trustworthy narrators:
Narrated Qays bin al Abdi: I Witnesses the sermon of Ali on the day of Basarah, he said: ” He
praised Allah and thanked him and he mentioned the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam) and his sacrifice to the people, then Allah swt took his soul. (After he said that) then the
Muslims saw that they should give the Caliphate to Abu Bakr (RA) so they pledged their allegiance
and made their promise of loyalty, and I gave my pledge and I promised him my loyalty, They were
pleased and so was I. He (Abu Bakr) did good deeds and made Jihad until Allah took his soul may
Allah have mercy on him.”
Umar’s Marriage to Umm Kulthum
December 18, 2010 at 3:18 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, History | Leave a comment
9 Votes
By Nader Zaveri:
The marriage of `Umar to Umm Kulthoom, daughter of Imaam `Alee (‫)عليه السالم‬, is
seen as very controversial. Unfortunately, our Shee`ahs, try their very best by
taking shaadh (odd/rare) historical accounts in order to prove that Umm Kulthoom
did not marry `Umar. This is utterly wrong both historically and through our
Shee`ah books.
In this article, my concern is not on the books of history written by Sunnees or any
other sect, my concern, as it is always, is what is said about the marriage between
Umm Kulthoom and `Umar in the Shee`ah books. Have the Imaams talked about
this?
I will present SaHeeH (Authentic), Hasan (Good), Muwaththaq (Reliable) aHaadeeth
from the books of the Shee`ah in which it clearly states that `Umar married Umm
Kulthoom.
I want to merely discuss whether the marriage occurred or not, because this seems
to be the main concern amongst the shee`ahs. I do not want to get into if this is a
faDaa’il (merit) of `Umar or if it isn’t.
Here are two aHaadeeth that talk about where women should stay during her
`iddah, when her husband dies. Notice whose example the Imaams give to answer
the question.
‫سأ َ ْلتُ أ َ َبا‬
َ ‫ُم َحمدُ بْنُ يَحْ يَى َو‬
ُ ‫ع ْن‬
ُ ‫ع ِن النض ِْر ب ِْن‬
َ ‫سال ٍِم‬
َ ‫س َو ْي ٍد‬
َ ‫سعِي ٍد‬
َ ‫سى‬
َ ُ‫غي ُْره‬
َ ‫سلَ ْي َمانَ ب ِْن خَا ِل ٍد قَا َل‬
َ ‫ع ْن ِهش َِام ب ِْن‬
َ ‫سي ِْن ب ِْن‬
َ ‫ع ِن ْال ُح‬
َ ‫ع ْن أَحْ َمدَ ب ِْن ُم َحم ِد ب ِْن عِي‬
ُ ‫ت قَا َل َبلَى َحي‬
ُ ‫ت زَ ْو ِج َها ت َ ْعتَدُّ أ َ ْو َحي‬
ْ ‫ْث شَا َء‬
ْ ‫ْث شَا َء‬
‫وم‬
ِ ‫ي زَ ْو ُج َها أَيْنَ تَ ْعتَدُّ فِي َب ْي‬
ُ َ‫ع ِل ِّيا ً ع َلما َمات‬
ٍ ُ ‫ع َم ُر أَت َى أُم ُك ْلث‬
َ ‫ت ثُم قَا َل ِإن‬
َ ‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ع‬
َ
َ ‫ع ِن ْام َرأ َ ٍة ت ُ ُو ِِّف‬
َ ‫فَأ َ َخذَ ِب َي ِدهَا فَا ْن‬
‫ط َلقَ ِب َها ِإلَى َب ْيتِ ِه‬
From Sulaymaan bin Khaalid he said: “I asked Abaa `Abd Allaah (‫ )عليه السالم‬about a woman whose
husband dies, where should she do her `iddah, in the house of her husband, or wherever she wants?
He (‫ )عليه السالم‬said: “Yes, wherever she wants”, then he (‫ )عليه السالم‬said: “That `Alee ( ‫عليه‬
‫ )السالم‬brought Umm Kulthoom to his home when she became free, when `Umar died”
Source: Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 6, pg. 115, hadeeth # 1
Grading:
1.
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable)
à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 21, pg. 197
2.
Al-Majlisi I (Al-Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
à RawDah Al-Muttaqqoon, vol. 9, pg. 89
‫ع ْن َها‬
َ ‫ع ِن ْال َم ْرأَةِ ْال ُمت ََوفى‬
َ ُ‫سأ َ ْلتُه‬
َ ‫ع ْن أ َ ِبي‬
َ ‫ار‬
َ ‫َان َو ُم َعا ِويَةَ ب ِْن‬
َ ‫ع ْن‬
َ ‫ع ْن ُم َحم ِد ب ِْن ِزيَا ٍد‬
َ َ‫عة‬
َ ‫س َما‬
َ ‫ُح َم ْيدُ بْنُ ِزيَا ٍد‬
َ ‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ع قَا َل‬
ٍ ‫عم‬
َ ‫ع ِن اب ِْن‬
ٍ ‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ب ِْن ِسن‬
َ ‫وم فَا ْن‬
ُ ‫ت قَا َل بَ ْل َحي‬
ُ ‫زَ ْو ُج َها أ َ ت َ ْعتَدُّ فِي بَ ْيتِ َها أ َ ْو َحي‬
ْ ‫ْث شَا َء‬
ْ ‫ْث شَا َء‬
‫ط َلقَ بِ َها إِلَى َب ْيتِ ِه‬
ُ ‫ي‬
ٍ ُ ‫ع َم ُر أَت َى أُم ُك ْلث‬
َ ‫ت إِن‬
َ ِِّ‫ع ِليِّا ً ع لَما ت ُ ُوف‬
From `Abd Allaah bin Sinaan and Mu`aawiyah bin `Ammaar from Abee `Abd Allaah (‫)عليه السالم‬: He
said: I asked about the women whose husband dies, can she do her `iddah in her house or wherever
she wants? He (‫)عليه السالم‬said: “It is wherever she wants, that `Alee (‫ )عليه السالم‬brought Umm
Kulthoom to his home when she became free, when `Umar died”
Source: Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 6, pg. 115, hadeeth # 2
Grading:
1.
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 21, pg. 199
2.
Al-Majlisi I (Al-Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq Kal-SaHeeH
(Reliable like a SaHeeH (hadeeth))
à RawDah Al-Muttaqqoon, vol. 9, pg. 89
ُ ‫وم فَقَا َل ِإن ذَلِكَ فَ ْر ٌج‬
ُ ‫ع ِن اب ِْن أ َ ِبي‬
ٍ ُ ‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ع فِي ت َْز ِويجِ أ ُ ِ ِّم ُك ْلث‬
ُ‫ص ْبنَاه‬
ِ ‫غ‬
َ ‫ع ْن أ َ ِبي‬
َ َ ‫ارة‬
َ ‫سال ٍِم َو َحما ٍد‬
َ ‫ع َمي ٍْر‬
َ ‫ع ْن أ َ ِبي ِه‬
َ ‫ِيم‬
َ
َ ‫ع ْن ِهش َِام ب ِْن‬
َ ‫ع ْن ُز َر‬
ُّ ‫ع ِل‬
َ ‫ي بْنُ ِإب َْراه‬
From Zuraarah from Abee `Abd Allaah (‫ )عليه السالم‬said about the marriage of Umm Kulthoom. So
he (‫)عليه السالم‬said: “That this was the faraj* that was usurped from us”
Source: Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 5, pg. 346, hadeeth # 1
Grading:
1.
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Hasan (Good)
à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 20, pg. 42
*Faraj – Literally means “vagina”, but Al-Majlisi contends that the word “faraj”
does not mean “vagina” as this is a disrespectful way of putting it and our Imaam’s
were the most eloquent of speakers. Instead Al-Majlisi says “faraj” means “honor”.
(See: Al-Majlisi, BiHaar Al-Anwaar, vol. 42, 106 – 109)
Here is an interesting Hadeeth. This Hadeeth is weak, due to Ja`far bin Muhammad
Al-Qummee being majhool (unkown) according to Al-Majlisi (Milaadh Al-Akhyaar,
vol. 15, pg. 382), and Al-Khoei (Mu`jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 4, pg. 128, person
# 2305), but it is interesting to take out nonetheless since we already have SaHeeH
hadeeth proving the marriage took place.
ْ َ ‫ع ْن أَبِي ِه ع قَا َل َمات‬
‫ع َم َر ْب ِن‬
ُ ُ‫ي ع َو ا ْبنُ َها زَ ْيدُ بْن‬
ٍ ُ ‫ت أ ُ ُّم ُك ْلث‬
َ ُ‫وم ِب ْنت‬
َ ‫ع ْن َج ْعف ٍَر‬
َ ِ‫ع ِن ْالقَداح‬
َ ‫ي‬
َ ‫ُم َحمدُ بْنُ أَحْ َمدَ ب ِْن يَحْ يَى‬
ٍِّ ‫ع ِل‬
ِِّ ‫ع ْن َج ْعف َِر ب ِْن ُم َحم ٍد ْالقُ ِِّم‬
ْ ‫ع ٍة َواحِ دَةٍ َال ُيد َْرى أَيُّ ُه َما َهلَكَ قَ ْب ُل فَلَ ْم ي َُو ِ ِّر‬
ً ‫علَ ْي ِه َما َجمِ يعا‬
ِ ‫ْالخَطا‬
َ ‫صلى‬
َ ‫سا‬
َ ‫ب فِي‬
َ ‫ث أ َ َحدَ ُه َما مِ نَ ْاآلخ َِر َو‬
From Al-QadaaH from Ja`far (Al-Saadiq) (‫ )عليه السالم‬from his father (‫ )عليه السالم‬He said: “Umm
Kulthoom, daughter of `Alee (‫)عليه السالم‬, and her son Zayd bin `Umar bin Al-KhaTTaab died at the
same time. They did not know who passed away before, so they did not inherit from one another,
and they prayed (the funeral prayer) upon them together”
Source:
1.
Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, vol. 9, ch. 36, pg. 362, hadeeth # 15
Grading:
1.
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Majhool (Unknown)
à Milaadh Al-Akhyaar, vol. 15, pg. 382
Look at the name of the son of Umm Kulthoom, the Imaam has said, “her (Umm
Kulthoom) son, Zayd son of `Umar bin Al-KhaTTaab”. This is another proof to show
that the marriage had indeed taken place, as it is only one majhool narrator.
Here is a Hasan hadeeth in which it is giving the background on how the marriage
came into fruition. This sheds some light into the narration about “usurpation”.
َ ‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ع قَا َل لَما َخ‬
‫اس فَقَا َل لَهُ َما لِي أ َ بِي‬
ُ ‫ُم َحمدُ بْنُ أَبِي‬
ُ ِ‫ب ِإلَ ْي ِه قَا َل لَهُ أَم‬
َ ‫ط‬
َ ‫ع ْن أَبِي‬
َ ‫سال ٍِم‬
َ ‫ع َمي ٍْر‬
َ ‫ع ْن ِهش َِام ب ِْن‬
َ ‫ير ْال ُمؤْ مِ نِينَ ِإن َها‬
َ ‫ِي ْالعَب‬
َ ‫ص ِبيةٌ قَا َل َفلَق‬
َ ‫س قَا َل َو َما ذَاكَ َقا َل َخ‬
‫س َرقَ َو‬
ٌ ْ ‫بَأ‬
َ ‫ع ِّ ِو َرن زَ ْمزَ َم َو َال أَدَعُ لَ ُك ْم َم ْك ُر َمةً إِال َهدَ ْمت ُ َها َو َألُقِي َمن‬
َ ُ ‫ط ْبتُ إِلَى اب ِْن أَخِ يكَ فَ َردنِي أ َ َما َو اّللِ َأل‬
َ ُ‫علَ ْي ِه شَا ِهدَي ِْن بِأَنه‬
َ ‫َأل َ ْق‬
‫سأ َ َلهُ أ َ ْن َيجْ َع َل ْاأل َ ْم َر ِإلَ ْي ِه فَ َج َعلَهُ ِإ َل ْي ِه‬
ُ ‫ط َعن يَمِ ي َنهُ فَأَت َاهُ ْال َعب‬
َ ‫اس فَأ َ ْخ َب َرهُ َو‬
Hishaam bin Saalim from Abee `Abd Allaah (‫ )عليه السالم‬he said: “When he (`Umar) address (proposed)
to him (`Alee). Ameer Al-Mu’mineen (‫ )عليه السالم‬said to him “She is a child”. He said: So he (`Umar)
met Al-`Abbaas and he said to him: “What is wrong with me? Is there a problem with me?” He
(Abbaas) said: “And what is the matter?” He (Umar) said: “I addressed (proposed) before your
brother’s son (nephew), and he denied me. I swear by Allaah, I will fill the zamzam, leave no honor
for you without being destroyed. I will bring two witnesses upon him and (prove) he (is guilty) of
theft, and I will cut his right (hand)!” Then Al-`Abbaas went to him (Imaam `Alee) and gave him
the news (of what happened). And he (Abbaas) asked him (`Alee) to put the matter to him
(Abbaas). And he (`Alee) agreed.”
Source: Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 5, pg. 346, hadeeth # 2
Grading:
1.
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Hasan (Good)
à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 20, pg. 42
Based off other SaHeeH narrations and history, this is in reference to `Umar’s
marriage or what led up to `Umar’s marriage with Umm Kulthoom. Al-Kulayni has
put this under the chapter of ‫وم‬
ٍ ُ ‫“ َبابُ ت َْز ِويجِ أ ُ ِ ِّم ُك ْلث‬Marriage of Umm Kulthoom” .
Historically, Umm Kulthoom has been said to marry `Umar at a very young age,
while he was much older.
Our classical scholars have talked about this marriage taking place as well.
‫و روى أن عمر تزوج أم كلثوم بنت على عليه السالم‬
“And it is narrated that `Umar married Umm Kulthoom, daughter of `Alee (‫”)عليه السالم‬
Source: Al-Toosi, Al-MabsooT, vol. 4, pg. 272
As you can see, Umm Kulthoom, daughter of Imaam `Alee (‫)عليه السالم‬, did indeed
marry `Umar, and this isn’t some made up thing by the Sunnees to put `Umar at a
higher status.
Al-Shareef Al-MurtaDa (d. 436 AH) has also commented on the marriage taking
place in his book,Risaa’il Al-Shareef Al-MurtaDa. And here is what he said regarding
the narration of “faraj being usurped from us”. He talks about the how it is
“attested” in the SaHeeH narration from Abee `Abd Allaah (‫)عليه السالم‬.
‫ويشهد بصحته ما روي عن أبي عبد هللا عليه السالم‬
Source: Al-Shareef Al-MurtaDa, Risaa’il Al-Shareef Al-MurtaDa, pg. 148 – 150.
Here are some contemporary scholars who have talked about this marriage taking
place.
Here are some contemporary scholars who have talked about this marriage taking
place.
From Al-Khoei’s Website:
Question: Is it SaHeeH (authentic) that the second caliph (`Umar) married the
daughter of Imaam `Alee (‫?)عليه السالم‬
Answer: Such has been mentioned in history and narrations.
Here is what the Late FaDlullaah has said:
Question: Is it SaHeeH (authentic) that Sayyidah Umm Kulthoom, peace be upon
her, married `Umar bin Al-KhaTTaab or are these allegations?
Answer: That is what is mentioned in SaHeeH narrations.
Here is what the `Aalim Network of Al-Islam.org says:
As to the issue of marriage I believe it is also wrong. But if anyone wants to use this kind of events
against more basic idea he must know that first of all it was Omar himself who married Ali and
Fatemeh’ (AS) daughter, Ume Kulsum. Secondly When Omar asked Imam’s (AS) permission to marry
her, Imam (AS) refused and said she is too young for marrying him.
As you can see, Umm Kulthoom, daughter of Imaam `Alee (‫)عليه السالم‬, did indeed
marry `Umar, and this isn’t some made up thing by the Sunnees to put `Umar at a
higher status.
And Allaah knows best.
Ali on sheikhan (Abu Bakr & Omar)
December 8, 2010 at 10:06 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1 Votes
As it was narrated by ibn Asakir with a very weak chain, Ali (radi Allahu anh) said:
‫ال يجتمع حبي وبغض أبي بكر وعمر في قلب مؤمن‬
“Love of me, and hate of Abu Bakr and Umar couldn’t be together in the soul of believer”
Source: Mukhtasar Tarih Madinatul Dimashk 1/895
Similar words were narrated by sheikh Nabhani in “Ash-Sharaful Muabad li ali Muhammad” p 205;
Ibn Hajar al-Heythami in “Sawaiq al-muhriqa” (2/452, Muasasat Risala, Beirut); Ajurri “Shariah”.
Abuse of companions
December 8, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Islamic scholars and callers about Rafidah | Leave a
comment
Rate This
Sheikh Yusuf ibn Ismail an-Nabhani in his book “Ash-Sharaful Muabad li ali Muhammad” (p 178) said:
ٌ‫اطلعت للحافظ السيوطي علي رسالة سماها ” إلقام الحجر لمن زكي ساٌ أبي بكر وعمر ” نقل فيها االتفاق علي فسق سا‬
‫ مطلق الصحابة إذا لم يستحل ذلك وإذا استحله فهو كافر‬.
I came across with risala of al-Hafidh as-Suyuti, which he entitled “Al-Iqama al-Hajr zakie sabban
Abu Bakr and Umar”, where he reported agreement (between scholars) upon fisq of person who
would abuse (absolutely? (all) companions, if he wouldn’t think that it’s permitted. And if he think
it’s permitted, he’s kaafir.
And it the same book, at page 179, sheikh Nabhani wrote:
‫وعلي ” بسبب رافضي‬
‫ورأيت الشيخ تقي الدين السبكي صنف كتابا سماه ” خيرة اْليمان الجلي ألبي بكر وعمر وعثمان‬
ّ
‫ فحكم المالكي بقتله وصوبه السبكي فيما‬, ‫ فاستتيب فلم يتب‬, ‫وقف في المأل وسب الشيخين وعثمان وجماعة من الصحابة‬
: ‫فعل وألف في تصويبه الكتاٌ المذكور وذكر فيه عن القاضي حسين من أصحابنا وجهين فيمن سب أحد الشيخين أو الختنين‬
‫ ثم نقل عن الحنفية نقوال كثيرة بعضها بالتكفير‬, ‫ يفسق وال يكفر‬: ‫يكفر وإن لم يستحل ألن األمة أجمعت علي إمامتهم والثاني‬
‫ ولنكتف‬. ‫ وبعضها بالتضليل ثم مال السبكي إلي تصحيح التكفير لمآخذ ذكرها ثم نقل عن المالكية والحنابلة نقول كذلك ا هـ‬,
‫ بهذا هنا‬.
And I have seen sheikh Taqiatdin as-Subki wrote a book entitled “Hiyratul Imaan al-jali Abu Bakr wa
Umar wa Uthman wa Ali”. (He wrote it) due to a rafidi stood up in the public and abused two
sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar), Uthman and some other companions. He was called for repentance,
but he refused. Maliki (most likely here should be imam Malik and not malikiya) ruled that he
should be killed, and Subki seen such decision as a correct one. And he wrote a mentioned book for
supporting his view. And he mentioned there two views from Qadi al-Hussain from our companions
regarding those who abuse two sheikhs, or two son-in-laws. First view: Such person disbelieved
even if he don’t see (abusing of them) as permitted. Because nation agreed upon their imamate.
Second: He is sinner and not disbelieved, then he (Subki) narrated a lot of opinion of hanafiyah,
some of them in takfir, others that (such person) gone astray. Then Subki (himself) incline to takfir
by taking (opinions) that he mentioned. Then he narrated opinion from Malikiyah and Hanabila in
this (takfir). And it’s enough by this here.
Ibn Masood and two last surahs from Quran
November 28, 2010 at 6:22 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | 2 Comments
1 Votes
Bismillah wa salatu wa salamu ala rasulullah.
Shias use to spread to many doubts regarding ibn Masood (radi Allahu anhu) and his belief in
muawizatayn (two last surahs from Quran).
I’d like to highlight few points in response to doubts of rafidah.
First of all we need to discuss narrations where stated that he didn’t believe that those two surahs
were parts of Quran.
As far as I can see they mainly came from two ways.
First one narration of al-Amash and Abu Ishaq as-Sabei. Both of them known for their tadlis, and
they have narrated this hadith is muanan form without making clear if they heard it themselves or
not.
Second one from Asim ibn Abu Nujud. This narration contradicts to fact that the very same Asim
narrated one of the qiraats from Zirr from ibn Masood. And in it Muawizatayn and Fatiha
Imam Nawawi said in “al-Majmoa sharhul al-mahzab” (3/396):
‫ وما نقل عن‬.‫ وأن من جحد شيئا منه كفر‬.‫أجمع المسلمون على أن المعوذتين والفاتحة وسائر السور المكتوبة في المصحف قرآن‬
‫ابن مسعود في الفاتحة والمعوذتين باطل ليس بصحيح عنه‬
“Muslims agreed upon muawizaytan and Fatiha and other surahs which written in al-Mushaf of
Quran, and whoever would reject thing from it is kaafir, and what about was narrated from ibn
Masood regarding al-Fatiha and al-Muawizatayn is false, not authentic from him”.
Imam Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti in his priceless book “al-Itqan fi ulumil Quran” quoted ibn Hazm’s
opinion on idea that ibn Masood didn’t believe those surahs were part from Quran. He said:
‫ وفيها المعوذتان والفاتحة‬،‫ وإنما صح عنه قراءة عاصم عن زر عنه‬،‫هذا كذب على ابن مسعود وموضوع‬.
“This is lie upon ibn Masood, and fabrication. And authentic from him qiraat (of Quran) of Asim
from Zirr, and in it al-Muawizatayn and al-Fatiha”.
Fakhratdin ar-Razi said:
‫األغلب على الظن أن هذا النقل عن ابن مسعود كذب باطل‬
“It’s more likely to think that this (kind of) report from ibn Masood is lie and false”
Qadhi al-Bakillani said:
‫ فقد جهل‬،‫ فكل من ادعى أن عبد هللا بن مسعو ٍد أنكر أن تكونا من القرآن‬،‫وأما المعوذتان‬
“Regarding muawizatayn, whoever would claim that Abdullah ibn Masood rejected that they are
from Quran, is ignorant”.
The other proof that ibn Masood didn’t reject those two verses in hadith which was narrated from
him.
Suyuti in his “Durr al-Mansur” wrote:
‫ ”لقد أنزل علي آيات لم ينزل علي‬:‫وأخرج الطبراني في األوسط بسند حسن عن ابن مسعود عن النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم قال‬
.”‫مثلهن المعوذتين‬
Tabarani narrated in his “al-Awsat” by hasan chain from ibn Masood, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: “Upon me revealed verses, didn’t revealed like them before – alMuawizatayn”.
Shawkani said narrators of this hadith are thiqat in “Tuhwatu zakirin” (444)
And even if we would believe that it was narrated from ibn Masood in authentic form, we could say
that no one is perfect. Hafiz Bazzar after relating these traditions of Ibn Mas’ud in his Musnad, has
written that he is solitary and isolated in his this opinion; no one from among the Companions has
supported this view.
It possible to explain that Ibn Masood was not in fact a denier of the Mu’awwidhatayn being
Qur’anic but only refused to write them in the Mushaf. For, according to him, only that which the
Holy Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) had allowed, should be written in the Mushaf,
and Ibn Masood did not receive the information that the Holy Prophet had allowed this.
Who named Umar – al-Faruq?
November 13, 2010 at 2:36 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
It has been narrated in “Mukhtasar tareh madinatul dimashk” (1/2515):
‫عن أبي عمرو بن ذكوان قال قلت لعائشة ة رضي هللا عنها من سمى عمر الفاروق قالت النبي عليه السالم‬
From Abu Amr ibn Zakun: “I said to Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, who called
Umar – al-Faruq? She said: “Messenger (alaihi salam).
And it has been narrated in “Mukhtasar tareh madinatul dimashk” (1/2515):
‫عن ايوب بن موسى قال قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ان هللا جعل الحق على لسان عمر وقلبه وهو الفاروق فرق هللا به‬
‫ بين الحق والباطل‬.
From Ayub ibn Mosa in mursal form: “Prophet of Allah, sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam, said: “Allah placed truth upon tongue and soul of Umar, and he’s faruq, Allah
differed by him between truth and falsehood”.
Words that shias use to quote from ibn Shihab, that first one to call Umar – al-Faruq were
ahlalkitab, were narrated in balaghat form. Meaning without chain. I don’t claim that above two
mentioned stories are authentic, but one of them is at least has chain till prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Whoever abuses Mu’awiyyah, is a dog from the dogs of hell
October 19, 2010 at 11:29 pm | Posted in Aqeedah and fiqh of ahle-sunnah explained, Defence of companions, Islamic
scholars and callers about Rafidah | 1 Comment
1 Votes
‘Allamah Shihab al-Din Khaffaji (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Nasim al-Riyadh Sharh alShifa‘ regarding those who abuse Sayyiduna Mu’awiyyah (may Allah be pleased with him):
‫ومن يكن يطعن فى معاوية‬
‫فذاك كلب من كالب الهاويه‬
“Whoever abuses Mu’awiyyah, is a dog from the dogs of hell”.
Verse of purification.
October 13, 2010 at 12:27 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | 5 Comments
5 Votes
Allah Taala said in the Quran:
[Shakir 33:33] And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the
ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Messenger.
Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you
a (thorough) purifying.
In this short article we would discuss some beneficial points regarding this verse, and we would
answer to some blatant lies from shias.
At wilayat site, rafidi member Guided wrote (see screen shot):
Allah states in the Holy Qur’an:
‫إنما يريد هللا ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا‬
Allah only wishes to keep away from you all blemishes (al-rijz), O Ahl al-Bayt, and to purify you
absolutely.
Qur’an 33:33
This verse is popularly known as the Verse of Purification. All Shiites, as well as all honest hadith
scholars (Sunni or Shiite), unanimously agree that this verse was revealed concerning the group
known as Ashab al-Kisa, the People of the Cloak, namely the Holy Prophet, Imam Ali, Sayyidah
Fatima, Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn, peace be upon them all.
First of all we would say: sentence from Quran that cited this man, ISN’T SEPARATE VERSE, but it’s
part of verse. And beginning of that verse, is very clear indication that addressing was toward wifes
of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
This MISguided is on the same opinion as other shia, famous Abdulhussain Sharafutdin Musawi,
author of famous epistle “al-Murajiat”. That shia scholar very clear said that this verse in Quran has
been corrupted, either by error or deliberately. He said: “For it is quite possible that the
‘purification verse’ concerning the People of the House was revealed separately and then, when
the verses of the Qur’an were being assembled, was placed in the middle of the verses relating to
the wives of the Prophet, either in error or deliberately.”
And this misguided hold same opinion, and that’s why he quoted that part of verse as separate
verse, by omitting first part. This Misguided said: Those Sunni scholars who link the verse with
the Mothers of the Believers do so because it has been inserted in the middle of verses
addressing the latter by Uthman, the compiler of the Qur’an in our hands. Many verses have
been treated in the same manner.
And he said: But, the fact that an independent verse has been inserted by Uthman into another
does not change its real meaning.
So exactly as his satanic scholars, this ignorant accused Quran just for the sake of his own
argument. He would better believe that order of Quran corrupted, rather he would accept truth.
There is no single difference between his salaf, which believe that verses about Ali were deleted
from Quran, and between this ignorant , which claim that order of Quran is distorted.
Second, we would invoke curse of Allah upon liars! Because this man indeed lied, when claimed
that moslem hadith scholars agreed with rafida that this verse was revealed regarding ashabul-kisa.
By Allah he lied. The evidence, that this verse WASN’T revealed about those people, in hadith that
cited this maloon rafidi.
He said:
Narrated Umar ibn Abi Salamah who was brought up by the Prophet, peace be upon him: When THE
VERSE, <<Allah only desires to keep away from you all blemishes (al-rijz), O Ahl al-Bayt, and to
purify you absolutely>> (Qur’an 33:33), was revealed to the Prophet at the home of Umm Salamah
he called Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn and covered them with a cloak. Ali was behind him, the
Prophet also covered him under the same cloak and then said, “O Allah! THESE are my Ahl al-Bayt,
so keep away from them all blemishes (al-rijz) and purify them absolutely.” Umm Salamah said,
“Am I one of them, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You have your separate place. But, you are
unto a good (future).”
In this hadith stated that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) gathered family of Ali
(may Allah be pleased with all of them) under the cloak, WHEN THIS VERSE ALREADY WAS
REVEALED.
What was a reason for gathering them and praying to Allah, if this verse already was revealed
regarding them? As an example. A said to B: I would reward family of C. And after that B gathered
family of C, and said: o A! This is family of C, reward them. May be shias would claim that A didn’t
know who is family of C? Whoever would claim that Allah didn’t know something is kaafir per
agreed opinion.
Shias claim that Allah revealed upon beloved Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam),
that He cleaned family of Ali and purified them, and AFTER REVELATION, prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ala alihi wa sallam) gathered them under cloak and prayed to Allah: O Allah! THESE are my Ahl
al-Bayt, so keep away from them all blemishes (al-rijz) and purify them absolutely! What for? Did
not this verse was already revealed regarding them, as you claim?
The only possible explanation, verse wasn’t revealed regarding family of Ali (r.a), it was revealed
regarding wifes. And prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) wanted that blessing of this
verse would encompass family of his only alive daughter as well, so he gathered them under the
cloak and prayed to Allah.
Imam Jalal-ad-Din as-Suyuti in his “Jalalayn” said:
‫( وأقمن الصالة وآتين الزكاة وأطعن هللا ورسوله إنما يريد هللا ليذهب عنكم الرجس ) اإلثم يا ( أهل البيت ) أي نساء النبي صلى‬
. ) ً ‫هللا عليه وسلم ( ويطهركم ) منه ( تطهيرا‬
And maintain prayer and pay the alms, and obey God and His Messenger. Indeed God will but to rid
you of sin, O, People of the House, in other words, [O] women of the Prophet (s), and to purify you,
of it, with a thorough purification.
Ibn Kathir said in his commentary:
َ ُ‫ت َوي‬
‫ط ِ ِّه َر ُك ْم ت َْط ِهيـرا ً } وهذا نص في دخول أزواج النبي صلى هللا‬
ِ ‫س أ َ ْه َل ْٱلبَ ْي‬
ِّ ِ ‫عن ُكـ ُم‬
َ ‫ِب‬
َ ‫ { ِإن َما ي ُِريد ُ ٱّللُ ِليُ ْذه‬:‫وقوله تعالى‬
َ ْ‫ٱلرج‬
ً
ً
‫ أو مع‬،‫ إِما وحده على قول‬،‫ وسبب النزول داخل فيه قوال واحدا‬،‫عليه وسلم في أهل البيت ههنا؛ ألنهن سبب نزول هذه اآلية‬
}‫ت‬
ِ ‫س أ َ ْه َل ٱ ْلبَ ْي‬
ِّ ِ ‫ِب َعن ُكـ ُم‬
َ ‫ { إِن َما ي ُِريد ُ ٱّللُ ِليُ ْذه‬:‫ وروى ابن جرير عن عكرمة أنه كان ينادي في السوق‬.‫غيره على الصحيح‬
َ ْ‫ٱلرج‬
‫ حدثنا زيد بن‬،‫ حدثنا علي بن حرب الموصلي‬:‫ وهكذا روى ابن أبي حاتم قال‬.‫نزلت في نساء النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم خاصة‬
‫ِب‬
َ ‫ { إِن َما ي ُِريد ُ ٱّللُ ِليُ ْذه‬:‫الحباب حدثنا حسين بن واقد عن يزيد النحوي عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي هللا عنهما في قوله تعالى‬
‫ من شاء باهلته أنها نزلت في‬:‫ وقال عكرمة‬.‫ نزلت في نساء النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم خاصة‬:‫ت } قال‬
ِ ‫س أ َ ْه َل ْٱلبَ ْي‬
ِّ ِ ‫عن ُكـ ُم‬
َ
َ ْ‫ٱلرج‬
‫ و ِإن أريد أنهن المراد فقط‬،‫ فصحيح‬،‫شأن نساء النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم فإِن كان المراد أنهن كن سبب النزول دون غيرهن‬
‫ ففيه نظر‬،‫دون غيرهن‬
(Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a
thorough purification.) This is a clear statement that the wives of the Prophet are included among
the members of his family (Ahl Al-Bayt) here, because they are the reason why this Ayah was
revealed, and the reason of revelation come under (meaning of this verse) by itself or along with
others, which is correct view, regarding that the word is only one. Ibn Jarir recorded that `Ikrimah
used to call out in the marketplace: (Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of
the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification.) “This was revealed solely concerning
the wives of the Prophet.” Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said concerning the Ayah: (Allah
wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family,) “It was revealed solely
concerning the wives of the Prophet .” `Ikrimah said: “I can make mubahila with those who wants
to (reject) that this was revealed regarding women of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam)’. ‘ If he mean that they alone were reason of revelation, without anyone other, that’s
correct. But if he mean (that under ahlalbayt should be understand) only them, that’s
questionable.
Mawdudi said in the commentary to this verse in his “Tafhim”:
The context in which this verse occurs makes it manifest that the word ahl al-bait (people of the
house) here implies the wives of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah’s peace), because the
address begins with: “O wives of the Prophet,” and they are the addressees in the whole discourse
preceding it as well as following it. Moreover, the word ahl al-bait in Arabic is used precisely in the
sense in which the word “household” is used in English, which includes both a man’s wife and
children. No one would exclude the wife from the “household.” The Qur’an itself has used this
word at two other places besides this, and at both the wife is included in its sense, rather as the
most important member of the family. In Surah Hud, whcn the angels give the Prophet Abraham the
good news of the birth of a son, his wife exclaims: “Shall I bear a child now when I have grown too
old, and this husband of mine has also become old?” The angels say: What! Are you surprised at
Allah’s decree, O people of Abraham’s household? Allah’s mercy and blessings are upon you.” In
Surah Al-Qasas, whcn the Prophet Moses reaches the Pharaoh’s house as a suckling, and the
Pharaoh’s wife is in search of a suitable nurse for the child, the Prophet Moses’ sister says, “Shall I
tell you of a household whose people will bring him up for you and look after him well?” Thus, the
Arabic idiom and the usage of the Qur’an and the context of this verse, ‘all point clearly to the fact
that the Holy Prophet’s wives as well as his children are included in his ahl al-bait; rather the more
correct thing is that the verse is actually addressed to the wives and the children become included
in the household only because of the sense of the word. That is why according to lbn ‘Abbas and
‘Urwah bin Zubair and `Ikrimah, the word ahl al-bait in this verse implies the wives of the Holy
Prophet.
But if somebody says that the word ahl al-bait has been used only for the wives and none else can
be included in it, it will also be wrong. Not only this that the word “household” includes all the
members of a man’s family, but the Holy Prophet has himself explained that this includes even
himself. According to Ibn Abi Hatim, once when Hadrat `A’ishah was asked about Hadrat `Ali, she
said, Do you ask me about the person who was among the most loved ones of the Holy Prophet and
whose wife was the Holy Prophet’s daughter and most beloved to him?” Then she related the event
when the Holy Prophet had called Hadrat ‘Ali and Fatimah and Hasan and Husain (may Allah be
pleased with them all) and covered them all with a sheet of cloth and prayed: “O Allah, these are
my household, remove uncleanness from them and make them pure.” Hadrat ‘A’ishah says, “I said:
I also am included among your household (i.e. I may also be covered under the sheet and prayed
for). ” Thereupon the Holy Prophet replied” You stay out: you, . of course, are already included.” A
great many Ahadith bearing on this subject have been related by traditionalists like Muslim,
Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Ibn Jarir, Hakim, Baihaqi, etc. on the authority of Abu Said Khudri, Hadrat
‘A’ishah, Hadrat Anas, Hadrat Umm Salamah, Hadrat Wathilah bin Aqsa’ and some other
Companions, which show that the Holy Prophet declared Hadrat ‘AIi and Fatimah and their two sons
as his ahl al-bait. Therefore, the view of those who exclude them from the ahl al-bait is not
correct.
Similarly the view of those people also is not correct, who, on the basis of the above-cited Ahadith,
regard the wives of the Holy Prophet as excluded from his ahl al-bait. In the first place, anything
which has been clearly stated in the Quran cannot be contradicted on the basis of a Hadith.
Secondly, these Ahadith also do not have the meaning that is put on them. As related in some
traditions that the Holy Prophet did not cover Hadrat ‘A’ishah and Hadrat Umm Salamah under the
sheet of cloth which he put on the four members of his family, dces not mean that he had excluded
those ladies from his “household.” But it means that the wives were already included in ahl al-bait,
because the Qur’an, in fact, had addressed them as ahl al-bait. The Holy Prophet, however,
thought that the apparent words of the Qur’an might cause somebody the misunderstanding about
these members that they were excluded from the ahl al-bait. Therefore, he felt the need for
clarification in their case and not in the case of his wives.
A section of the people have not only misconstrued this verse to the extent that they have made
the word ahl al-bait exclusively applicable to Hadrat `AIi and Fatimah and their children to the
exclusion of the holy wives, but have gone even further and concluded wrongly from its words
“Allah only intends to remove uncleanliness from you and purify you completely”, that Hadrat ‘Ali
and Fatimah and their children are infallible like the Prophets of Allah. They say that
“uncleanliness” implies error and sin, and, as Allah says, these ahl al-bait have been purified of
this, whereas the words of the verse do not say that uncleanliness has been removed from them
and they have been purified. But the words are to the effect: “Allah intends to remove
uncleanliness from you and purify you completely. ” The context also does not tell that the object
here is to mention the virtues and excellences of the Holy Prophet’s household. On the contrary,
they have been advised here what they should do and what they should not, because Allah intends
to purify them. In other words, they have been told that if they adopted such and such an attitude
and way of life, they will be blessed with cleanliness, otherwise not. However, if the words “Allah
intends to remove uncleanliness from yon . . . ” are taken to mean that Allah has made them
infallible, then is no reason why all the Muslims who perform their ablutions before offering the
Prayer are not held as infallible, because about them also Allah says: “But Allah wills to purify you
and complete His blessings upon you.” (Al-Ma’idah: 6)
But let us go back to claim of this rafidi, he said:
All Shiites, as well as all honest hadith scholars (Sunni or Shiite), unanimously agree that this
verse was revealed concerning the group known as Ashab al-Kisa
1) Which one from known and well accepted sunni scholar reported such agreed opinion?
2) Which one from moslem hadith scholars ever said: THIS VERSE WAS
REVEALED REGARDING PEOPLE OF CLOAK?!! Name, book, page!
This ignorant liar, seen scholars of Islam narrating hadith of Kisa, and thought that this enough
proof that scholars thought verse was revealed regarding them. By Allah, no!
Further this misguided said:
The grand Salafi hadithist, al-Mubarakfuri, records in his Tuhfah al-Ahwazi, vol. 9, p. 48:
‫وقال أبو سعيد الخدري ومجاهد وقتادة وروي عن الكلبي أن أهل البيت المذكورين في االية هم علي وفاطمة والحسن والحسين‬
‫خاصة ومن حججهم الخطاب في االية بما يصلح للذكور ال لإلناث وهو قوله عنكم وليطهركم ولو كان للنساء خاصة لقال عنكن‬
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, Mujahid, Qatadah and al-Kalbi said that the Ahl al-Bayt mentioned in the verse
(33:33) are ONLY Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and part of their proofs was that the verse is
masculine in its grammatical form, and not feminine.
We would answer.
Narration regarding this from Abu Saeed al-Hudri isn’t established, rather it’s extremely weak.
It was narrated by Tabari in his tafsir with chain:
‫ عن أبـي سعيد‬،‫ عن عطية‬،‫ عن األعمش‬،‫ ثنا مندل‬:‫ قال‬،‫ ثنا بكر بن يحيى بن زبـان العنزي‬:‫ قال‬،‫حدثنـي مـحمد بن الـمثنى‬
َّ ‫علـي َر ِض َي‬
‫ قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬:‫ قال‬،‫ي‬
‫ وفِـي‬،‫ِـي‬
َ ُ‫اَّلل‬
َ ‫ َو َح‬،ُ‫ع إنه‬
َ ‫نَ َزلَ إت َه ِذ ِه اآليَةُ فِـي َخمإ‬
ّ
ّ ‫ ف‬:ٍ‫سة‬
ِّ ‫الـخدر‬: ” ‫س ٍن‬
َ ُ‫ت َوي‬
َّ ‫ َوفـاطِ َمةَ َر ِض َي‬،ُ‫ع إنه‬
َّ ‫سي ٍإن َر ِض َي‬
َّ ‫ط ِ ِّه َر ُك ْم { ” َر ِض َي‬
‫ع إنها‬
َ ُ‫اَّلل‬
َ ُ ‫اَّلل‬
َ ُ‫اَّلل‬
ِ ‫س أ ْه َل البَـ ْي‬
ِّ ‫ِب َع ْن ُك ُم‬
َ ‫ َو ُح‬،ُ‫ع إنه‬
َ ‫إنـ َما ي ُِريدُ اّللُ لِـيُ ْذه‬
َ ْ‫الرج‬
ً ‫} ت َْط ِهيرا‬.
There are problems in the chain. First that’s Bakr ibn Yahya ibn Zaban. Ibn Hajar said he’s maqbul
in “Taqrib”. There is uncertainty in him, Abu Hatim said he’s shaykh, ibn Hibban mentioned in
“Thiqat”. I couldn’t find anyone from critics of jarh and tadil, which would praise him. Second
problem is Mundal ibn Ali al-Kufi. Weak as said ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” (#6883). Abu Zurah said he
was soft, Ahmad said he’s weak. (“Mizanul itidal” 4/180). Third problem al-Amash, truthful, but
know mudalis, and this hadith he narrated in muanan form, without making clear if he heard it
himself or not. The last problem is Atiyah al-Awfi. We talked about him, and his narrating from Abu
Saeed al-Hudri before in details. It was also narrated by Tabarani in “Saghir” and Abu Shaikh in
“Tabaqat” via Atiyah again, and by Tabarani in “Awsat” where Atiyah accompanied by Sulaiman ibn
Qarm. We talked about him before.
Other name that this rafidi misguided quoted from Mubarakfuri, was Kalbi. That’s Muhammad ibn
Saeeb al-Kalbi, liar, abandoned narrator in accordance to agreed opinion.
Further this misguided rafidi said:
Also, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and his family, made some troubling predictions
about Aisha:
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to ‘Aisha’s house, he said thrice,
“Affliction (will appear from) HERE,” and, “from where the side of the Satan’s head comes
out.” Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 336
And:
Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came out from the house of
‘A’isha and said: It would be FROM THIS SIDE that there would appear THE HEIGHT OF
UNBELIEF. Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6941
Since Aisha was an instrument through which Satan inflicted shattering damages upon Islam, as
predicted in these hadiths, would it be logical to say she was absolutely pure and free from all
blemishes?
Praise to Allah, that He again revealed to us true face of this rafidi religion! Mother of believers
was an instrument for Satan?!!! Curse of Allah upon her enemies till the doomsday and punish of
Allah in the hereafter would be much stronger. We already discussed in details this allegation
against our beloved mother by this impure infidels. See answer here.
Further this misguided infidel quoted some opinions regarding what does it mean rijz in this verse,
and said:
This proves that the “Ahl al-Bayt” mentioned in the verse are absolutely free from Satan and his
works and influences!
And after that he quoted verse. Let us see our Book, which is free from any corruption, no matter
infidels would claim.
Allah said in surah al-Maida, verse 6:
َ ُ‫ج َولَـكِن ي ُِريد ُ ِلي‬
ِّ ُ‫َما ي ُِريد‬
َ‫طه َر ُك ْم َو ِليُتِم نِ ْع َمتَهُ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم لَعَل ُك ْم ت َ ْش ُك ُرون‬
َ ‫اّللُ ِليَجْ عَ َل‬
ٍ ‫علَ ْي ُكم ِ ِّم ْن َح َر‬
Mā Yurīdu Al-Lahu Liyaj`ala `Alaykum Min Ĥarajin Wa LakinYurīdu LiyuţahhirakumWaliyutimma
Ni`matahu `Alaykum
Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may
complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.
Now let us see discussed verse from surah al-Ahzab.
Taala said:
ً ‫ط ِ ِّه َر ُك ْم ت َْط ِهيرا‬
َ ُ‫ت َوي‬
ِ ‫س أ َ ْه َل ْالبَ ْي‬
ِّ ِ ‫ِب َعن ُك ُم‬
َ ‫إِن َما ي ُِريدُ اّللُ ِليُ ْذه‬
َ ْ‫الرج‬
Yurīdu Al-Lahu Liyudh/hiba `Ankumu Ar-Rijsa ‘Ahla Al-Bayti Wa Yuţahhirakum Taţhīrāan
Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you
a (thorough) purifying.
In both places Taala said that He want to purify. In one place He said that about nation of
Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), in other regarding ahlalbayt. Only fevered
imagination, which suffer from dreams about collective mutah marriage, and future matams, could
see different, and say, that in first place talk was such and such, but in second He wanted to make
someone masoom.
Allah Taala wish that we all be good Moslems, and we all would obey Him in the best way that we
can. Does that mean HE FORCES us to become good moslems? Or He makes us masoom?
Text of the discussed verse say:
Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify
you a (thorough) purifying.
Does it say: Allah kept away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purified
you a (thorough) purifying till your die??? By Allah, no!
In verse 11 of surah al-Anfal, Allah said:
َ ‫ان َو ِليَ ْر ِب‬
َ ‫عن ُك ْم ِرجْ زَ الش ْي‬
َ ُ‫علَ ْي ُكم ِ ِّمن الس َماء َماء ِلِّي‬
ِّ ِ َ‫إِ ْذ يُغ‬
‫علَى قُلُوبِ ُك ْم َويُث َ ِبِّتَ بِ ِه‬
َ ‫ط‬
َ ‫ِب‬
َ ‫اس أ َ َمنَةً ِ ِّم ْنهُ َويُن ِ َِّز ُل‬
َ ‫ط ِ ِّه َر ُكم بِ ِه َويُ ْذه‬
َ َ‫شي ُك ُم النُّع‬
ِ ‫ط‬
َ
ْ
‫األقدَ َام‬
‘Idh Yughashshīkumu An-Nu`āsa ‘Amanatan Minhu Wa Yunazzilu `Alaykum Mina As-Samā’i
Mā’anLiyuţahhirakum Bihi Wa Yudh/hiba `Ankum Rijza Ash-Shayţāni Wa Liyarbiţa `Alá
Qulūbikum Wa Yuthabbita Bihi Al-’Aqdāma
When He caused calm to fall on you as a security from Him and sent down upon you water from the
cloud that He might thereby purify you, and take away from you the uncleanness of the Shaitan,
and that He might fortify your hearts and steady (your) footsteps thereby.
In his commentary ibn Kathir said:
`Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, “When the Prophet arrived at Badr, he made
camp. At the time, there was a sandy piece of land between the idolators and the water (the wells
at Badr). Muslims felt weak and the Shaytan cast frustration into their hearts. He whispered to
them, `You claim that you are Allah’s supporters and that His Messenger is among you! However,
the idolators have taken over the water resource from you, while you pray needing purity.’ Allah
sent down heavy rain, allowing the Muslims to drink and use it for purity. Allah also removed
Shaytan’s whisper and made the sand firm when rain fell on it, and the Muslims walked on the sand
along with their animals, until they reached the enemy. Allah supported His Prophet and the
believers with a thousand angels on one side, five hundred under the command of Jibril and
another five hundred under the command of Mika’il on another side.”
An even a better narration is that collected by Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, author of AlMaghazi, may Allah have mercy upon him. Ibn Ishaq narrated that, Yazid bin Ruwman narrated to
him that, `Urwah bin Az-Zubayr said, “Allah sent rain down from the sky on a sandy valley. That
rain made the area where the Messenger of Allah and his Companions camped firmer so that it did
not hinder their movement. Meanwhile, the part that the Quraysh were camping on became
difficult to move in.” Mujahid said, “Allah sent down the rain on the believers before slumber
overtook them, and the rain settled the dust, made the ground firmer, made them feel at ease and
their feet firmer.” Allah said next, (to clean you thereby) using it after answering the call of
nature or needing to wash oneself, and this involves cleansing what is on the out side, (and to
remove from you the Rijz of Shaytan,) such as his whispers and evil thoughts, this involves sinner
purification, whereas Allah’s statement about the residents of Paradise,
So this verse was revealed about all moslems which participated in tha battle of Badr. Regarding all
of them Allah said that He “sent down upon you water from the cloud that He might thereby purify
you, and take away from you the uncleanness of the Shaitan“.
Rafidi after he cited this verse, said:
Here too, the purification was conditional upon the prerequisite worries of the Sahabah, and it was
limited in time and scope to the circumstances. No one can ever claim that the Sahabah were free
from all works and influences of Satan!
SubhanAllah! How easy?!! In one word: THIS PURIFICATION WAS LIMITED IN TIME! And all worries
gone! SubhanAllah! Not so fast, ya impure infidel!
What is a proof, that in this case it was limited, and in the case of ahlalbayt it was till the end of
their life? You words that no one ever claim that companions were free from sins are indeed
laughable! Because we would answer in very easy form: NO ONE EXPECT HERETICS FROM RAFIDA
EVER CLAIMED THAT ALI’S FAMILY WERE FREE FROM SINS.
He said:
Imam al-Suyuti in his Durr al-Manthur, vol. 6, p. 598 and Imam al-Alusi in hisTafsir, vol. 22, p. 43,
both record the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, interpreting this verse in these
words:
‫فأنا وأهل بيتي مطهرون من الذنوب‬
I and my Ahl al-Bayt are pure from sins.
This hadith isn’t authentic, but fabricated. (Silsila ad-daeefa 5495). These words are part of
bigger narration. Ibn Kathir gave it in his “Bidaya wa nihaya” (2/239) and said regarding it: In
it oddity and unacceptable (point) (gharabat wa nakarat). Abu Hatim said this hadith is false (batil)
(see “Ilalul hadith” by ibn Abu Hatim 4/72).
This hadith along with chain present in “Dalail” (1/92/#77, shamela) by Beyhaki. Starting from
Yaqub ibn Shayba al-Fasawe it runs:
‫ عن ابن عباس‬، ‫ عن عباية بن ربعي‬، ‫ عن األعمش‬، ‫ حدثنا قيس‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫حدثني يحيى بن عبد الحميد‬
Narrated to me Yahya ibn Abdulhamid, said: narrated to us Qays from al-Amash from Abayat ibn
Rabia from ibn Abbas.
Everyone except al-Amash discredited. Ibn Rabia was from qulatu shia. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/387).
Al-Amash himself mudalis, and again narrated in anana form. Qays, that’s ibn Rabia. Daraqutni and
Yahya said he’s weak. Nasai said he’s abandoned. He was shia with bad memory and rejected
narrations in pocket. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/393). Yahya ibn Abdulhamid al-Hamani was accused in lie.
(“Mizanul itidal” 4/392)
Further as a proof that purification in verse regarding moslems in the Badr, was limited in time,
this man cited hadith, where ansar accused prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). But
that wouldn’t be a proof. Because we would say that purification of Allah in the day of Badr
encompassed all sincere moslems, and no doubt hypocrites couldn’t be purified from rijz. So in that
hadith there is proof for that man, that purification of moslems in Badr was limited in time.
Then this misguided rafidi gave athar from Hasan:
Imam al-Hasan (as) said:
‫أنا من أهل البيت الذين أذهب هللا عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا‬
I am from that Ahl al-Bayt from whom Allah KEPT away ALL blemishes and PURIFIED absolutely.
Al-Haythami said:
‫ورواه أحمد باختصار كثير وإسناد أحمد وبعض طرق البزار والطبراني في الكبير حسان‬
Ahmad has narrated it in a highly summarized manner, and the chain of Ahmad and some of the
chains of al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani are hasan.
That words that he quoted are part of much bigger narration. Along with chain and in full form,
which contains these words, I found it in “al-Awsat” of Tabarani (#2155). Chain runs as follow:
‫أحمد بن زهير قال نا أحمد بن يحيى الصوفي قال نا إسماعيل بن أبان الوراق قال نا سالم بن أبي عمرة عن معروف بن خربوذ‬
‫عن أبي الطفيل‬
Ahmad ibn Zuhayr – Ahmad ibn Yahya as-Sofe – Ismail ibn Abban al-Warraq – Salam ibn Abu Amarat –
Maruf ibn Kharbuz – Abu Tufail.
There are several problems in this chain.
1) Maroof ibn Kharboodh. Ibn Hajar al-Askalani in “Lisanul mezaan” (7/395/n4888) noticed: Ibn
Hibban said he was upright, ibn Muin said he was weak. Tawseq of ibn Hibban doesn’t mean a lot,
because he use to make tawseq upon almost everyone, who wasn’t discredited. Dhahabi himself
included this narrator in his book “Mughni fi duafa” (6342) where he said: “Shia, upright. Yahya ibn
Muin said he’s weak. Ahmad said: “I don’t know grading of his narrations”. Abu Khatim said: “His
narrations are to be recorded”. Ibn Jawzi included him in his book “Duafa wal matrukin” (#3370).
Ukayli in his “Duafa” (1810) noticed that his narrations are not to be relied on, and they aren’t
known except by him.
In “Ilal wal marifatul rijal” of imam Ahmad, under the number 3519 it’s reported from his son: “My
father (i.e Imam Ahmad) said: “Maroof ibn Kharbooth, I don’t know status of his narrations”.
2) Salam ibn Abu Amarat al-Khorasani. Weak. (see “Kashaf” of Dhahabi #2210; “Tahzib al-kamal”
Mizzi 12/#2661; “Taqrib” #2709 and etc)
3) Ismail ibn Abban. Saduq in the eyes of Bukhari, and not strong in the eyes of Daraqutni (“Mizanil
itidal” 1/212). He was yatashayu.
Rafidi further said:
The Qur’an has confirmed the existence of evil-doers among the wives of the Prophet, peace be
upon him and his family
And then he quoted verse of Quran, let us see it without his idiotic notes.
[Shakir 33:28] O Prophet! say to your wives: If you desire this world’s life and its adornment, then
come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing
[Shakir 33:29] And if you desire Allah and His Messenger and the latter abode, then surely Allah
has prepared for the doers of good among you a mighty reward.
[Shakir 33:30] O wives of the prophet! whoever of you commits an open indecency, the
punishment shall be increased to her doubly; and this IS easy to Allah.
[Shakir 33:31] And whoever of you is obedient to Allah and His Messenger and does good, We will
give to her her reward doubly, and We have prepared for her an honorable sustenance.
Curse, curse and again curse of Allah, angels and all creation upon head of liars! WHERE IN THESE
VERSES STATED THAT BETWEEN WIFES OF OUR BELOVED PROPHET (SALLALAHU ALAIHI WA ALA ALIHI
WA SALLAM) WERE EVIL DOERS?!!!! In such case they should also say that between his noble wifes
were those who openly done indecency!!! And people who browsed our blog seen, that such cursed
infidels as Yasir al-Habith, aytushaytan Mujtaba Shirazi and other Amuli claimed that!
This misguided further said:
By contrast, we see Imam al-Hasan (as), as quoted by al-Haythami in his Majma’ al-Zawaid, vol. 9,
p. 172 saying these words to the Iraqis:
‫ فإنا‬، ‫يا أهل العراق اتقوا هللا فينا‬
َ ُ‫ت َوي‬
ِّ ‫ ونحن أهل البيت الذي قال هللا‬، ‫أمراؤكم وضيفانكم‬
﴾ ً ‫ط ِ ِّه َر ُك ْم ت َْط ِهيرا‬
ِ ‫س أ َ ْه َل ْال َب ْي‬
ِّ ِ ‫ع ْن ُك ُم‬
َ ‫ِب‬
َ ‫ ﴿ ِإن َما ي ُِريدُ هللاُ ِليُ ْذه‬: ‫عز وجل‬
َ ْ‫الرج‬
O people of Iraq! Fear Allah with regards to us, for we (Ahl al-Bayt) are your (divinely appointed)
rulers. We are the “Ahl al-Bayt”, about whom Allah the Majestic and Glorious, said << Allah only
wishes to keep away from you all blemishes (al-rijz), O Ahl al-Bayt, and to purify you absolutely.
Narrated by Tabarani in “al-Kabir” (3/157/#2695, shamela), via chain: Wahb ibn Abdullah – Khalid
(ibn Abdullah al-Wasete) – Hasin – Abu Jamilah – Hasan.
I couldn’t find narrator with name Hasin between shuyukh of Khalid. Ibn Asakir in his history
(13/269, shamela) narrated athar from Hasan via chain: Hasin – Maysarah ibn Abu Jamilah – Hasan.
Ibn Asakir noticed that correct would be Maysarah Abu Jamilah.
In “Taqrib” mentioned narrator Maysarah ibn Yaqub, Abu Jamilah. Ibn Hajar said he’s maqbul, and
that is mean there is uncertainty in him. Mizzi gave his bio in “Tahzib al kamal” and noticed that he
narrated from Hasan, and from him narrated Hasin ibn Abdurrahman as-Sulami. Ibn Abu Hatim
mentioned him in “Jarh wa tadil” without any note regarding his reliability. Allah knows best.
And in the end I’d like to remind you some ahadeth where stated that Umm Salam get positive
answer on her question. See link Hadith of cloak
Hadith of cloak
March 15, 2010 at 5:28 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Hadith analysis | 1 Comment
3 Votes
Salam alaikum.
We all know famous hadith of cloak, when prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
gathered family of Ali under his cloak. Shias use to cite the variant where Umm Salamah asking: Am
I with them? And she’s getting answer:
‫علَى َخي ٍْر‬
ِ ‫علَى َمكَانِكِ َوأ َ ْن‬
ِ ‫أ َ ْن‬
َ ‫ت‬
َ ‫ت‬
You are on your place and you are in goodness.
But there are other versions of this hadith.
1) Wasila ibn Athqa (r.a) asked: And I am too? Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
answered him: And you too.
Narrated by Tabari in his “Tafsir”:
،‫ عن أبـي عمار‬،‫ عن كلثوم الـمـحاربـي‬،‫ ثنا عبد السالم بن حرب‬:‫ قال‬،‫ ثنا الفضل بن دكين‬:‫ قال‬،‫حدثنـي عبد األعلـى بن واصل‬
‫ اجلس حتـى أخبرك عن هذا الذي‬:‫ قال‬،‫ فشتـموه فلـما قاموا‬،‫ إنـي لـجالس عند واثلة بن األسقع إذ ذكروا علـيا رضي هللا عنه‬:‫قال‬
‫ ” الل ُهم‬:‫ ثم قال‬،‫ فألقـى علـيهم كساء له‬،‫ي وفـاطمة وحسن وحسين‬
ِّ ‫ إذ جاءه علـ‬،‫ إنـي عند رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬،‫شتـموا‬
‫س َو َ‬
‫ط ِ ِّه ْر ُه ْم ت َْطهيرا ً ” قلت‪ :‬يا رسول هللا وأنا؟ قال‪ ” :‬وأ ْنتَ ” قال‪ :‬فوهللا إنها ألوثق‬
‫َهؤُالءِ أ ْه ُل بَـ ْيتِـي‪ ،‬الل ُهم أ ْذهِبْ َع ْن ُه ُم ِّ‬
‫الرجْ َ‬
‫‪.‬عملـي عندي‬
‫‪2) Wasila ibn Athqa asked and He (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) answered: You are‬‬
‫‪from my AHL.‬‬
‫‪Narrated by Tabari in his “Tafsir”:‬‬
‫حدثنـي عبد الكريـم بن أبـي عمير‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬ثنا الولـيد بن مسلـم‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬ثنا أبو عمرو‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬ثنـي شدِّاد أبو عمار قال‪ :‬سمعت واثلة بن‬
‫ي بن أبـي طالب فـي منزله‪ ،‬فقالت فـاطمة‪ :‬قد ذهب يأتـي برسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‪ ،‬إذ‬
‫األسقع يحدِّث‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬سألت عن علـ ِّ‬
‫جاء‪ ،‬فدخـل رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ودخـلت‪ ،‬فجلس رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم علـى الفراش وأجلس فـاطمة عن‬
‫ت‬
‫س أ ْه َل البَـ ْي ِ‬
‫ِب َع ْن ُك ُم ا ِّ‬
‫يـمينه‪ ،‬وعلـيا ً عن يساره وحسنا ً وحسينا ً بـين يديه‪ ،‬فلفع علـيهم بثوبه وقال‪ { ” :‬إنـ َما ي ُِريد ُ اّللُ لِـيُ ْذه َ‬
‫لرجْ َ‬
‫َويُ َ‬
‫ط ِ ِّه َر ُك ْم ت َْط ِهيرا ً } الل ُهم هَؤالءِ أ ْهلـي‪ ،‬الل ُهم أ ْهلـي أ َح ُّق ” قال واثلة‪ :‬فقلت من ناحية البـيت‪ :‬وأنا يا رسول هللا من أهلك؟ قال‪” :‬‬
‫َ‬
‫‪.‬وأنت من أهلـي ” ‪ ،‬قال واثلة‪ :‬إنها لـمن أ ْر َجى ما أرتـجي‬
‫‪Ibn Hajar al-Heythami authenticated this hadith from Wasila ibn Asqa in “Sawaiq” (2/423).‬‬
‫وفي رواية صحيحة قال واثلة وأنا من أهلك قال وأنت من أهلي قال واثلة إنها لمن أرجى ما أرجو‬
‫‪It was also reported by ibn Hibban in “Sahih” and chain authenticated by Shuayb Arnaut:‬‬
‫أخبرنا عبد هللا بن محمد بن سلم حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن إبراهيم حدثنا الوليد بن مسلم و عمر بن عبد الواحد قاال ‪ :‬حدثنا – ‪6976‬‬
‫األوزاعي عن شداد أبي عمار ‪ :‬عن واثلة بن األسقع قال ‪ :‬سألت عن علي في منزله فقيل لي ‪ :‬ذهب يأتي برسول هللا صلى هللا‬
‫عليه و سلم إذ جاء فدخل رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه و سلم ودخلت فجلس رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه و سلم على الفراش وأجلس‬
‫فاطمة عن يمينه و عليا عن يساره و حسنا وحسينا بين يديه وقال ‪ { ( :‬إنما يريد هللا ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم‬
‫تطهيرا } [ األحزاب ‪ ] 33 :‬اللهم هؤالء أهلي ) قال واثلة ‪ :‬فقلت من ناحية البيت ‪ :‬وأنا يارسول هللا من أهلك ؟ قال ‪ ( :‬وأنت‬
‫من أهلي ) قال واثلة ‪ :‬إنها لمن أرجى ما أرتجي‬
‫قال شعيب األرنؤوط ‪ :‬إسناده صحيح‬
‫‪3) Umm Salamah asked him and he (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) answered: You are‬‬
‫‪from My Ahl‬‬
‫”‪Tabari in “Tafsir‬‬
‫حدثنا أبو كريب‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬ثنا خالد بن مخـلد‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬ثنا موسى بن يعقوٌ‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬ثنـي هاشم بن هاشم بن عتبة بن أبـي وقاص‪ ،‬عن عبد هللا بن وهب بن‬
‫زمعة‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬أخبرتنـي أ ّم سلـمة أن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم جمع علـيا ً والـحَسنـين‪ ،‬ثم أدخـلهم تـحت ثوبه‪ ،‬ثم جأر إلـى هللا‪ ،‬ثم قال‪” :‬‬
‫‪ ،‬فقالت أ ّم سلـمة‪ :‬يا رسول هللا أدخـلنـي معهم‪ ،‬قال‪ ” :‬إنَّكِ مِ إن أ إهلِـي ” هؤالء أهل بـيتـي‬
Tabarani in “al-Kabir”:
2663 – ‫حدثنا بكر بن سهل الدمياطي ثنا جعفر بن مسافر التنيسي ثنا ابن أبي فديك ثنا موسى بن يعقوب الزمعي عن هشام بن‬
‫ عن أم سلمة أن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه و سلم جمع فاطمة و حسنا و حسينا رضي هللا‬: ‫هاشم عن وهب بن عبد هللا بن زمعة‬
‫ إنك من أهلي‬: ‫ قلت يا رسول هللا أدخلني معهم قال‬: ‫ اللهم هؤالء أهل بيتي قالت أم سلمة‬: ‫عنهما ثم أدخلهم تحت ثوبه ثم قال‬
Hadith of tafdil. Detailed analyses
September 14, 2010 at 12:44 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Salam alaikum wa rahmatullah.
From the introduction:
Praise is to Allah, who promised his faithful slaves victory and support by saying, “and helping the
believers is ever incumbent on Us”[1].
I bear witness that there is none to worshipped save Allah, One, with no partners. He sent His
Messenger Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi sallam) with guidance and the religion of Truth
to cause it to prevail over all religions even though the unbelievers may detest it. And I bear
witness that our Master, Prophet, and Beloved Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi sallam) is
the Messenger of Allah, He is the Imam of the Pious, the Master of the Messengers and the Mercy to
the worlds. And after this.
The main problem and difference between two main streams in Islam, is a question of superiority of
companions. Which one is best!? That’s was a main question between tashayu of first generations
and ahle-sunnah.
Praise to Allah that we have very heavy proof that Abu Bakr and Umar, were superior to Ali (may
Allah be pleased with them). We have words of saydina Ali.
Refuting doubt: Hazrat Umar Raped A Slave Girl During Ramadan?
August 29, 2010 at 12:06 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Hadith analysis | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu.
At famous shia forum I have seen thread titled “Hazrat Umar Raped A Slave Girl During Ramadan?”
They cited “Tabaqat” of ibn Sad, and even put scan page as a so called proof.
What can we say to this allegation?
First of all shias as usual lied, when they wrote that “Tabakat” of ibn Sad is “MOST AUTHENTIC
SUNNI REFERENCE”.
Ibn Sad rahimuhullah narrated in this book a lot of stuff from his shaykh Muhammad ibn Umar alWaqede. For example this athar was narrated from his way.
Here arabic text:
‫أخبرنا محمد بن عمر أخبرنا سيف بن سليمان عن قيس مولى بن علقمة عن داود بن أبي عاصم الثقفي عن سعيد بن المسيب قال‬
‫خرج عمر بن الخطاب على أصحابه يوما فقال أفتوني في شيء صنعته اليوم فقالوا ما هو يا أمير المؤمنين قال مرت جارية لي‬
‫فأعجبتني فوقعت عليها وأنا صائم قال فعظم عليه القوم وعلي ساكت فقال ما تقول يا بن أبي طالب فقال جئت حالال ويوما مكان‬
‫يوم فقال أنت خيرهم فتوى‬
Shaykh of ibn Sad in this athar, is Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqede. He was known liar. Abu Hatim
and Nasai accused him in fabrication. See his bio in “Mizanul itidal” (3/662/#7993).
“Sharhus sudur bi sharhil halal mawta wal qubur”
August 1, 2010 at 8:32 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum. Below I’d like to present to you two quotes from book by Jalal-ad-deen as-Suyote
“Sharhus sudur bi sharhil halal mawta wal qubur”.
P – 38:
“It was narrated by ibn Asakir from Abdurrahman al-Muharibi, which said: “The death came to
one man, he was asked to say “la ilaha ila llah”. He said: “I can’t, I was befriend with group of
people, they called me to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar”.
P- 72:
“It was narrated from Halef ibn Hawshab, which said: “A man died in Madain, and he was
covered up. He take the cover, and opened his face, and said: “In this mosque people who dye
their beards with henna, and they curse Abu Bakr and Umar, and making tabarru from them.
Angels that came to take my soul curses those people, and making tabarru from them”. He said
that, and died again”.
P 38:
P 72:
Religion of ibn Affan and religion of ibn Abu Talib
July 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | 1 Comment
2 Votes
Salam alaikum, at one popular shia site I seen this short article. It’s entitled “Imam Ali (as) and
Uthman followed DIFFERENT religions!”.
After such designing heading, rafidi wrote:
There is an interesting narration in Musnaf Abdur-Razzak 11/453, Hadith No. 20983:
‫أخبرنا عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن بن طاووس عن أبيه قال دخل بن عباس على معاوية فقال له إني ألراك على ملة بن ابي طالب فقال بن عباس ال‬
‫وال على ملة بن عفان‬
Abdur-Razzak – Mu’amar – Ibn Tawus – his father, who said: Ibn Abbas entered upon Mu’awiyah,
and Mu’awiyah said to him: “I see you practising the religion of Ibn Abi Talib (i.e. Imam Ali)”.
Ibn Abbas answered: “No, I do not practise the religion of Ibn Affan (i.e. Uthman)!
This is quite shocking. Isn’t it? And sadly, all the narrators are narrators of BOTH Sahih al-Bukhari
and Sahih Muslim!
So, the religion of Imam Ali (as) was different from that of Uthman and Mu’awiyah?
First of all, rafidi gave wrong translation.
Moawiya asked:
‫إني ألراك على ملة بن ابي طالب‬
I see you upon nation (millat) of ibn Abu Talib.
And ibn Abbas answered:
‫ال وال على ملة بن عفان‬
“No, and (I am) not upon nation of ibn Affan”.
Second, exactly in accordance to tradition of his forefathers, rafidi cut text of hadith.
Here hadith in complete form:
20983 – ‫أخبرنا عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن بن طاووس عن أبيه قال دخل بن عباس على معاوية فقال له إني ألراك على ملة‬
‫بن ابي طالب فقال بن عباس ال وال على ملة بن عفان قال طاووس يعني ملة محمد صلى هللا عليه و سلم ليست ألحد‬
He cut red marked part, where written: Tawos (one of the narrators) said: “It’s mean nation
(religion) of Muhammad sallahu alaihi wa sallam, doesn’t belong to one”.
By such answer, ibn Abbas showed that it’s incorrect to ascribe nation (religion) to anyone except
Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), people could err, moslems could fight against
each other, but their religion would remain the same, the one and only, religion of beloved prophet
Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Allah knows best.
Athar: Abu Bakr said ‘I did three things that I now regret…..
July 20, 2010 at 5:19 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Hadith analysis | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Athar: Abu Bakr said ‘I did three things that I now regret, they are: That I failed to show respect
towards the house of Fatima…….
Famous Rafidi AA site wrote following:
Abu Bakr said ‘I did three things that I now regret, they are: That I failed to show respect
towards the house of Fatima. I did not burn Fajaf Salmah. At Saqifa I transferred Khilafath to
Abu Ubaydah or Umar. There are three things that I wish I had done: When Asheesh bin Qays
was brought before me as prisoner I should have had him killed. When I sent Khalid bin Waleed
to the Land of the Kuffar I should have turned him in the direction of Zay Qasa. When sending
Khalid to Syria I should have sent Umar to Iraq. I regret that I did not get clarification from
Rasulullah (s) on three matters: Whether the Ansar had a share in the Khilafath. Who would
succeed him (s) as Khalifa.The inheritance of an aunt and nephew
However chain of this athar isn’t authentic, so these regrets of Abu Bakr aren’t proved, and most
likely it’s pure fabrication.
It was narrated by Al-Aqele (or al-Uqayli) in “Duafa al-kabir” (3/420, shamela), ibn Asakir in his
history (30/422), Tabarani in “Mojam al-kabir”, Tabari in history (2/619) via chain that contains
Alwan ibn Dawud al-Bajli.
Bukhari and Abu Saeed ibn Yunus said about him: “Munkar al-hadith”. Al-Uqayli said: “He has
ahadeth that couldn’t be relied upon, and which are not known except by him” (“Mizanul itidal”
3/108/#5763). Al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (№9030) said that it was narrated by Tabarani,
and in the chain Alwan ibn Dawud, and he’s weak.
And bonus another lie of AA site revealed.
These rawafidh said:
As proof we shall cite:
1. Tareekh Tabari Volume 2 page 24
2. Kanz al Khitab al Khilafath ma al Maar Volume 3 page 135
3. Al Imama wa al Siyasa Volume 1 page 18, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr
4. Murujh al Dhahab Volume 2 page 308 Dhikr Khilafath Abu Bakr
5. Iqd al Fareed, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr Volume 2 page 20
And few sentences after they wrote:
These five esteemed Sunni scholars noted Abu Bakr’s admission of his mistakes, so why do his
modern day champions go mad when we accuse Abu Bakr of making a mistake on the Fadak issue?
This is of course unpalatable for the followers of Abu Bakr, and their modern day advocate Al
Khider tries his best to muddy the waters and present both parties as correct…
And by Allah they lied! Masoode author of “Muruj az-zahab” was known shia scholar, and not sunni
one.
Hadeeth: Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) gave fadak as
gift to Fatima (r.a).
July 19, 2010 at 6:32 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Hadith analysis | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Hadeeth: Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) gave fadak as gift to Fatima (r.a).
It was narrated from Abu Saeed al-Hudri that after Allah revealed verse (surah al-Isra, 26 )“And give
to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy and the wayfarer, and do not squander wastefully”,
prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) called Fatima (r.a) and gave her land of Fadak as a
present.
This hadeeth is pure lie upon our beloved prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
First of all we should notice that this verse revealed in Mecca, and Fadak become a land of Moslems
only after hijra (see commentary of ibn Kathir). Second, if that happen, then why did she come to
Abu Bakr, and asked him about property, which was already in her possession?
These two points are enough reason to reject this narration, as a pure lie. But in addition to that
we would examine chain of this hadeeth.
Ibn Adi in “Kamil fi duafa” (5/190) narrated it from Abu Saeed via chain: Narrated to me al-Qasim
ib Zakariya, which said: narrated to me Abbad ibn Yaqub, which said: narrated to me Ali ibn Abis
from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Atiyyah from Abu Saeed al-Hudri.
This chain is good example of shia way of transmission.
1) Abbad ibn Yaqub Koofe. Shia. Abu Hatim and Ibn Khuzayma said he’s thiqat. Ibn Adi said: “And
Abbad ibn Yaqub, known from people of Kofa, and in him quluw in at-tashayu, and he narrated
ahadeth, which were rejected from him, in praise of ahlalbayt, and harm of others”. It was
reported that he use to say: “Allah is just, to let Talha and Zubayr enter the heaven”. And it was
narrated that he use to abuse Uthman (Mizzi “Tahzib al-kamal” 14/#3104). Ibn Hibban said: “He
was caller to rafd, and along with that narrated manakir from famous people, deserve to be
abandoned”. Dhahabi said that he was from qulatu shia, and from the head of innovations, but
saduq in his narrations. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/379/#4149). Hatib mentioned that ibn Khuzayma
stopped narrating from Abbad in the end (“Tahzib at-tahzib” 5/#183). Ibn Jawzi included Abbad in
his book on weak and abandoned narrators, and cited there opinion of scholars (“Duafa wal
matrukin” 2/p77).
2) Ali ibn Abis. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Juzajani, Azdi, Nasai said he’s weak. Ibn Hibban said
he made terrible mistakes, and deserve to be abandoned. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/134/#5872). Ibn Jawzi
included him in “Duafa wal matrukin” (2/p195) and noticed that Sade and others said he’s weak.
Saji said he had manakir (“Tahzib at-tahzib”7/#571). Ibn Adi said that his ahadeth to be recorded,
along with his weakness (“Kamil fi duafa” 5/#1347). Dhahabi in “Kashaf” (#3934) noticed his
weakness. Ibn Hajar said he’s weak in “Taqrib” (#4757)
3) Fudayl ibn Marzuq. His personality is a matter of disagreement between scholars. bn Maeen,
Sufyan ibn Ueyna said he’s thiqat. And it was narrated that ibn Maeen weakened him (see also ibn
Shahin “Tarih asma thiqat” #1122). Nasai said he’s weak, same opinion shared Uthman ibn Saeed.
Dhahabi in “Mizan” said: “Abu Abdullah al-Hakim said: “Fudayl ibn Marzuq isn’t from conditions of
sahih, it’s pity that Moslem narrated from him in Sahih”. Ibn Hibban said: “His ahadeth are
extremely munkar, and he was from those who erred upon truthful (when narrated from them), and
he narrated FABRICATIONS FROM ATIYYAH (Here he also narrating from ‘Atiyyah). I (Dhahabi) say:
ATIYYAH IS MORE WEAK THAN HIM (And he said he’s thiqat in “Kashaf” #4492). Ibn Adi said: “If his
ahadeth would be in line with ahadeth of truthful, he can me relied on in such cases”. (See
“Mizanul itidal” 3/362/# 6772). Ibn Abu Hatim narrated from his father, that he said about ibn
Marzuq: “He was saduq, salihul-hadeeth, erred a lot, his ahadeth to be recorded”, I (ibn Abu
Hatim) asked: “He’s to be rely on”? He said: “No” (“Jarh wa tadil” 7/#423). Ibn Jawzi included him
in “Duafa wal matrukin” (3/p9) and said: “Yahya said: “Thiqat”, and once said: “Weak”. Ar-Razi
said: “Not to be rely on”. Ibn Hibban said: “Erred upon thiqat, and narrated from
‘Atiyyah fabrications”.
Abu Bakr ibn Athram narrated that when Imam Ahmad was asked about ibn Marzuq, he answered: “I
don’t know anything except good about him” (“Sualat Abu Bakr ibn Athram li Ahmad ibn Hanbal” p
166/#239).
4) Last problem of this chain is ‘Atiyyah h ibn Sad al-Awfe al-Koofe. Scholars of Islam almost agreed
upon his weakness. Dhahabi, Abu Hatim, Nasai, Ahmad said he’s weak (“Mizanul itidal”
3/79/#5667). He was also weakned by Sufyan Thawri and Ibn Adi (“Tahzib al-kamal”
20/#3956). Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” #11125 said Atiyyah weak, abandoned.
Shaykh Muhammad Albani in his book on tawasul discussed ‘Atiyyah : “‘Atiyyah is weak as declared
by an -Nawawee in al-Adhkaar, Ibn Taimiyyah in al-Qaa’idatul-Jaliyyah and adh-Dhahabee in alMeezaan; indeed in ad-Du’afaa (88/1) he says: “They are agreed upon his weakness.” Also by alHaafidh al-Haithamee in various places in Majma’uz-Zawaa’id from them (5/236). He is also
mentioned by Aboo Bakr ibn al-Muhibb al-Ba’labakee in ad-Du’afaa wal-Matrookeen, and by alBoosayree as will follow. Likewise al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr says of him: “Truthful but makes many
mistakes; he was a Sbee’ee mudallis.” So he clarifies this narrator’s weakness and it is due to two
things: (i) The weakness of his memory as shown by his saying: “He makes many mistakes.” This is
like his saying about him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen: “weak in hadeeth” Even more clear is his
saying about him in “Talkbeesul-Habeer (p.24l, Indian edn.) whilst discussing another hadeeth: “It
contains ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa’eed al-‘Awfee and he is weak.” (ii) His tadlees. However al-Haafidh should
have explained the type of tadlees which he performed, since tadlees with the scholars of
hadeeth is of many types, the most well-known of which are:
(a)
That a narrator reports a narration from someone he met when in fact he did not directly
hear that narration from him, or that he narrated something from a contemporary whom he did not
actually meet, giving the impression that he heard it from him. For example by saying ‘From so and
so’ or ‘so and so said.’
(b)
That the narrator calls his Shaikh by an unfamiliar name or title, different to the name by
which he is commonly known in order to hide his true identity. The scholars have clearly stated
that this is something forbidden if his Shaikh was an unreliable narrator, and he does this to hide
his identity or to give the impression that he was a different reliable narrator with the same name
or title.103 This is known as tadleesusb-Shuyookh.
So in conclusion we say that ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from Aboo Sa’eed al – Khudree, radiyallaahu
‘anhu, then when he died he used to sit with one of the great liars well known for lying about
hadeeth, who was al-Kalbee. Then ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from him, but when doing so would call
him ‘Aboo Sa’eed’ to give the impression to those listening that he had heard these narrations from
Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree! This to me in itself would be enough to destroy the credibility of ‘Atiyyah,
so how about when we have in addition to it his weak memory! Therefore I would have been
pleased for al -Haafidh to clarify the fact that it was this evil type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah was
guilty of, even if only by an indication as he does in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen by his saying:
“Well-known for evil tadlees” as has preceded. It is as if al-Haafidh forgot or erred, or something
else, as humans are prone to make mistakes some – times, since he says about this hadeeth that in
one narration ‘Atiyyah says:
“Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me,” and he himself says about this: “Therefore through this we know
that we are safe from ‘Atiyyahs tadlees,” as Ibn ‘Alaan narrated from him, and some modern day
authors follow him blindly in that. I say: This declaration that he heard it from him would only be of
use if his tadlees were of the first type, but the tadlees of ‘Atiyyah is of the second and worse type
and will not be cured by this statement since he still said “Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me” which is
exactly the evil type of tadlees which he is known for.104 So from what has preceded it will be
clear that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to his poor memory and evil tadlees, so this hadeeth of his is weak.
As for the declaration of al-Haafidh that it is hasan, which has beguiled some people who have no
knowledge, then it is founded upon inadvertence. So be aware and do not be amongst those who
are unaware. In the hadeeth there are other weaknesses which I have spoken about in the
aforementioned book, so there is no need to repeat them since whoever wishes can refer to that.
As for the understanding of some people today that the saying of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in at-Taqreeb
amounts to declaration of the reliability of ‘Atiyyah, then this is something which is not correct at
all. I also asked Shaikh Ahmad ibn as- Haafidh upon this saying after our explanation of the type of
tadlees which ‘Atiyyah is guilty of, then this person is biased and following his desires. This is the
case with one who quoted this saying of al-Haafidh, using it as a reply to my declaration of the
weakness of the hadeeth. I say that he is biased since I know that he is aware of the type of tadlees
committed here and which is spoken of by me; this is because he is replying to these words of mine
about this hadeeth. However he feigns ignorance of that fact and doesn’t say a single word in reply
to it. Rather he pretends that the tadlees was of the first kind which can be removed by a narration
where it is clearly stated that a narrator heard it directly from his Shaikh. Will the readers excuse
me if I say:
Do such people not themselves deserve to be placed amongst those guilty of tadlees like ‘Atiyyah?!
Siddeeq when I met him in the Zaahiriyyah Library in Damascus about thi s understanding and he
too found it very strange. For when the mistakes of a narrator become many his reliability is
destroyed, as opposed to one whose mistakes are few. The first of these is weak whereas the
second is hasan in hadeeth. This is why al-Haafidh in Sharhun-Nukhbah says, that one whose
mistakes are many is the partner of one whose memory is poor, and he declares the ahaadeeth of
both of them to be rejected, so refer back to that along with the footnotes of Shaikh ‘Alee alQaaree (pp.!21&130). These people have been deceived by what they report from al -Haafidh that
he said in Takbreejul-Adhkaar. “The weakness of ‘Atiyyah is due to his being a Shee’ee, and due to
the fact that it is said that he committed tadlees; apart from this he is acceptable. “ So these
people, due to their paucity of knowledge or their lack of knowledge, do not have the courage to
explain their view that the scholars do indeed make mistakes. Rather they quote their words as if
they are secure from any error or slip whatsoever, especially if their words agree with what they
desire, such as is the case with this quote. Since it is clear here that these words run contrary to
the saying of al-Haafidh in at-Taqreeb where he shows that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to two reasons:
(i) Being a Shee’ee, which is not always a cause of weakness in the correct saying, and (ii) Tadlees
which is a weakness that can be removed as will follow. However he seemed to weaken this reason
by saying: “It is said…” Whereas in at-Taqreeb he definitely stated that he is a mudallis, just as he
declares him to be a shee’ee. Therefore al-Haafidh himself also says of him in TabaqaatulMudalliseen (p. 18): “A well known taabi’ee , weak in memory and well-known for
evil tadlees!’ and he mentions him in the fourth level about whom he says: “Those about whom
there is agreement then none of their hadeeth are acceptable unless they state clearly that they
heard it directly. This is due to their frequency in reporting by means of tadlees from weak and
unknown narrators, such as Baqiyyah ibn al-Waleed.”
He mentions this in his introduction. So both of these are clear statements from al-Haafidh himself
which prove that he erred in the sentence in question when casting doubt upon the status of
‘Atiyyah as a mudallis. This is one way in which there is contradiction between this saying and what
is found in at- Taqreeb. Then a further way in which there is contradiction is that in the
sentence in question he fails to describe him with what is another cause of his weakness, as has
preceded from him in the quote from Sharhun-Nukhbab,and that is his saying in at-Taqreeb: “He
makes many mistakes.” All of this shows us that al-Haafidh, rahimahullaah, was not aided by his
memory at the instance of his commenting upon this hadeeth. He therefore fell into this
shortcoming which is witnessed to by his words in the other books which have more right to be
depended upon. This is because in those books he quotes directly from the sources and abridges
what they say, as opposed to what he does inTakhreejul-Adhkaar. (end of quote from shaykh
Albani)
Jafar as-Sadiq on Abu Bakr as-Siddiq
July 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, History | 1 Comment
2 Votes
Salam alaikum, in his book “Kasfhul ghumma” Arbili quoted al-Hafith Abdulaziz, which said:
Abu Abdullah Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn al-Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib (a), as-Sadiq, his
mother was Ummu Farwa bintul Qaseem ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (radiAllahu
anhu), and her mother was Asma bintu Abdurrahman ibn Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, and due to that
Jafar said: “Abu Bakr as-Siddiq born me twice“.
Refuting shia doubt in question of inheritance.
July 12, 2010 at 5:03 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
3 Votes
Salam alaikum, in one from our previous posts, we have already talked about Fadak in details.
In their attempt to make any base for their position, shias trying to find a proof in the verses of
Quran.
And usually, they are bringing this one.
“And Sulaiman inherited Dawood…” Naml 27 : 16(Part)
First of all we should see these verses in context.
Taala said:
[27:15] And certainly We gave knowledge to Dawood and Sulaiman, and they both said: Praise be
to Allah, Who has made us to excel many of His believing servants. [27:16] And Sulaiman was
Dawood’s heir, and he said: O men! we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been
given all things; most surely this is manifest grace.
(Quoted from ahlal-bayt):
In this verse, Allah is clearly talking about Sulaiman (‫ )عليه السالم‬inheriting the knowledge of Dawud
(‫)عليه السالم‬. It has absolutely nothing to do with material possessions! Before and after the part about
Prophet Sulaiman (‫ )عليه السالم‬being Prophet Dawud’s heir (‫)عليه السالم‬, we see that the Quran is talking
about the special knowledge of the Prophets, especially the specific gift these Prophets were given
in regards to understanding the speech of animals. The same can be said of the verses that the Shia
propagandists use in regards to Prophet Zakariyyah (‫ )عليه السالم‬who asked Allah in the Quran to grant
him a son to become his successor.
It is obvious to all that these Quranic verses refer to the inheritance of the title of Prophethood,
and has nothing to do with materal possessions. Allah uses the word “al-irth” in the Quran which
does not refer to material possessions in the verses cited by the Shia. It is used to denote
knowledge, Prophethood, or sovereignity. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir in the
Quran, in which Allah says:
“Therefore We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen”
(Quran, Surah Fatir)
As well as in Surah al-Mu’minoon, Allah says:
“Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.” (Quran, Surah al-Mu’minoon)
Is Allah really talking about material possessions when he talks about these people? Truly this would
be a ludicrous assumption.
It would not be fitting for a pious man such as Prophet Zakariyyah (‫ )عليه السالم‬to be asking Allah to
grant him an heir who will inherit material possessions. This would be superficial. Instead, the
reality is that Prophet Zakariyyah (‫ )عليه السالم‬asked for a son who would bear aloft the standard of
Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Prophet Yaqoob (‫ )عليه السالم‬would
continue.
Indeed, it is well-known that Prophet Zakariyyah (‫ )عليه السالم‬was a poor man who earned his living as
a carpenter. What wealth could he possibly have had that would prompt him to request an heir
from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Prophets that they did not hoard anything beyond
their need, and they spent any surplus in charity.
As for the case of Prophet Dawud (‫)عليه السالم‬, it is well-known that he had 100 wives and 300
concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to
speak of the inheritance of material possessions, then why is Prophet Sulaiman (‫)عليه السالم‬
mentioned as the soleinheritor? This proves that the Quran is not talking about material possessions
but rather knowledge. Otherwise, Prophet Dawud (‫ )عليه السالم‬denied inheritance to his other
children, and this would violate the Shia rhetoric which state that people cannot deny inheritance
to the children of Prophets.
If these Quranic verses are assumed to speak of material inheritance, it does not make much sense
that it is being mentioned in the Quran, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter
(end of quote).
What kind of counterargument usually using shias? I heard: Knowledge isn’t something to be
inherited.
But that’s not true, and in addition to our words, I’d like to give few quotes from their most
reliable book of ahadeth, that knowledge indeed could be inherited.
In his book “Kafi” Kulayni entitled chapter in this way:
( ‫ يرث بعضهم بعضا العلم )عليهم السالم(أن االئمة‬،‫)ورثة العلم‬
The Imams (a.s.) are the Heirs of Knowledge to Inherit it one from the other
Just few ahadeth from this chapter:
1) “Kafi” vol 1, pp 221-222, Majlisi said it’s saheeh:
ُ ‫ار‬
‫ث َولَ إن يَ إه ِلكَ عَا ِل ٌم إِال بَق َِي مِ إن بَ إع ِد ِه َم إن يَ إعلَ ُم‬
َ ( ً ‫ع ِليّا‬
َ ‫علَ إي ِه السَّالم) قَا َل إِ َّن‬
َ ( ‫ع إب ِد هللا‬
َ ‫ع إَن أ َ ِبي‬
َ ‫علَ إي ِه السَّالم) كَانَ عَالِما ً َو إالع إِل ُم يُت ََو‬
‫ع إِل َمهُ أَوإ َما شَا َء هللا‬.
From Abu ‘Abdallah (alaihi salam) who has said the following. “Ali (alaihi salam) was a man of
knowledge and knowledge is inherited. Whenever a man of knowledge dies he leave another man of
knowledge behind who possess his knowledge or whatever Allah wants.”
2) “Kafi” vol 1, p 222, Majlisi said it’s hasan:
ُ ‫ار‬
)‫علَ إي ِه السَّالم‬
َ ( ‫ث َوكَانَ علي‬
َ ( ‫علَ إي ِه السَّالم) قَا َل إِ َّن إالع إِل َم الَّذِي نَ َز َل َم َع آدَ َم‬
َ ( ‫ع إَن ابي جعفر‬
َ ‫علَ إي ِه السَّالم) لَ إم ي ُرإ فَعإ َو إالع إِل ُم يُت ََو‬
‫إ‬
ُّ
‫إ‬
َ
َ
َ
َّ
َّ
‫إ‬
‫إ‬
‫إ‬
َ
َ
ُ
َ
‫إ‬
ُ
َ
‫ع ِل َم مِ ث َل عِلمِ ِه أوإ َما شَا َء هللا‬
َ ‫عَا ِل َم َه ِذ ِه اال َّم ِة َوإِنه ل إم يَ إهلِك مِ نا عَا ِل ٌم قط إِال خلفه مِ ن أه ِل ِه َمن‬.
From Abu Ja‘far (alaihi salam) who has said the following. “The knowledge that came with Adam
was not taken away. Knowledge is inherited. Ali (alaihi salam) was the knowledgeable person of
this nation (Muslims). No one from us have ever left this world without leaving behind one like him
in knowledge or what Allah wanted.”
3) “Kafi” vol 1, p 222, Majlisi said it’s saheeh:
ُ ‫ار‬
ُ ‫ث َوال يَم‬
‫ُوت عَا ِل ٌم ِإال َوت ََركَ َم إن يَ إعلَ ُم مِ ثإ َل ع إِلمِ ِه أَوإ َما شَا َء هللا‬
َ ( ‫قَا َل أَبُو َج إعفَ ٍر‬.
َ ‫علَ إي ِه السَّالم) إِ َّن إالع إِل َم يُت ََو‬
From Abu Ja‘far (alaihi salam) who has said the following. “Knowledge is inherited. No man of
knowledge dies without leaving behind one who is as knowledgeable as his predecessor or what
Allah wants.”
And there is another chapter in “Kafi”:
(‫)ان االئمة ورثوا علم النبي وجميع االنبياء واالوصياء‬
The Imams (alaihuma salam) inherited the knowledge of the Holy prophet (sallahu alaihi wa ali)
and all the prophets and their successors before them.
1) “Kafi” vol 1, p 224:
‫علَ إي ِه السَّالم) قَا َل قَا َل َرسُو ُل‬
َ ( ‫ِير ع إَن ابي جعفر‬
َ ‫ع ِل ّي ِ ب ِإن إال َحك َِم ع إَن‬
َ ‫ُم َح َّمدُ ب ُإن يَحإ يَى ع إَن أَحإ َمدَ ب ِإن ُم َح َّم ٍد ع إَن‬
ٍ ‫ع إب ِد الرَّ حإ َم ِن ب ِإن َكث‬
ُ
‫ض ِهبَة هللا ب ُإن آدَ َم َو َما مِ إن نَ ِب ّي ٍ َمضَى إِال َولَهُ َو ِص ٌّي َوكَانَ جَمِ ي ُع‬
َ َ‫علَ إي ِه َوآلِه) إِ َّن أَوَّ َل َو ِص ّي ٍ كَان‬
َ ُ‫صلَّى هللا‬
َ ( ‫هللا‬
ِ ‫علَى َوجإ ِه االرإ‬
ٌ
ُ
َ
‫إ‬
‫إ‬
‫إ‬
َ
َ
ُ
‫إ‬
ُ
‫إ‬
َ
َ
َ
‫إ‬
ٌ
ٌ
َ‫ين‬
ُ
‫علَيإهم السَّالم) َو ِإ َّن‬
(
‫د‬
‫م‬
‫ح‬
‫م‬
‫و‬
‫ى‬
‫س‬
‫ِي‬
‫ع‬
‫و‬
‫ى‬
‫س‬
‫ُو‬
‫م‬
‫و‬
‫م‬
‫ِي‬
‫ه‬
‫ا‬
‫إر‬
‫ب‬
‫إ‬
‫و‬
‫ح‬
‫و‬
‫ن‬
‫م‬
‫ز‬
‫ع‬
‫ال‬
‫و‬
‫ل‬
‫و‬
‫أ‬
‫ة‬
‫س‬
‫خ‬
‫م‬
‫ه‬
‫ن‬
‫ي‬
‫ب‬
‫ن‬
‫ف‬
‫ل‬
‫أ‬
‫ر‬
‫ش‬
‫ع‬
‫و‬
‫ي‬
‫ب‬
‫ن‬
‫ف‬
‫ل‬
‫أ‬
‫َة‬
‫ئ‬
‫ا‬
َ
َّ َ ُ َ َ
ِ‫اال إن ِبيَاءِ م‬
َ ‫َ ِ ّ ٍ مِ إ مإ‬
َ َ
َ ُ َ َِ
ِ َ
ِ ِ َ ٍّ ِ ِ
َ ‫عل َِّي بإنَ أ َ ِبي‬
َ ‫ث ع إِل َم االوإ ِصيَاءِ َوع إِل َم َم إن كَانَ قَ إبلَهُ أ َ َما إِ َّن ُم َحمَّدا ً َو ِر‬
َ ‫ب كَانَ ِهبَةَ هللا ِل ُم َح َّم ٍد َو َو ِر‬
َ‫ث ع إِل َم َم إن كَانَ قَ إبلَهُ مِ ن‬
َ
ٍ ‫طا ِل‬
ُ
‫إ‬
‫إ‬
‫إ‬
َ
َ
ُ
‫إ‬
َ
َ
ُ
‫إ‬
ُّ
ُ
ُ
ُ
َ
َ‫ين‬
ّ
‫ِي أَمِ ي ُر‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫ش‬
‫ع‬
‫ال‬
‫ة‬
‫ب‬
‫َا‬
‫ؤ‬
‫ذ‬
‫ِي‬
‫ف‬
‫و‬
‫د‬
‫ه‬
‫ش‬
‫ال‬
‫د‬
‫ي‬
‫س‬
‫و‬
‫ه‬
‫ل‬
‫ُو‬
‫س‬
‫ر‬
‫د‬
‫س‬
‫أ‬
‫و‬
‫هللا‬
‫د‬
‫س‬
‫أ‬
‫ة‬
‫ز‬
‫ح‬
‫ت‬
‫ك‬
‫م‬
‫ش‬
‫ع‬
‫ال‬
‫ة‬
‫م‬
‫ئ‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
‫ى‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫ل‬
‫س‬
‫م‬
‫ال‬
‫و‬
‫ي‬
‫ب‬
‫ن‬
‫اال‬
‫ِ َ ِ َرإ ِ َ وٌٌ َمإ‬
َ
ِ َ ‫ِ َاءِ َ ُرإ‬
َ
َ ِ‫َ َاء‬
ٌّ َ ِ ‫َ ِ َرإ‬
َِ َ ِ ِ َ َ َ
ُ ‫ي ُح َّج ٍة ت َ ُك‬
ُ ‫َالم َوأ َ َما َمنَا إاليَق‬
‫ون أ َ إبلَ َغ مِ إن َهذَا‬
َ ‫ إالم إُؤمِ نِينَ فَ َه ِذ ِه ُح َّجتُنَا‬.
ِ ‫يراثَنَا َو َما َمنَعَنَا مِ نَ إالك‬
َ ِ‫علَى َم إن أ َ إنك ََر َحقَّنَا َو َج َحدَ م‬
ُّ َ ‫ِين فَأ‬
From Abu Ja‘far (alaihi salam) who has said the following. “The Messenger of Allah has said, ‘The
first successor and executor of the will on earth was Hibbatullah, the son of Adam. No prophet has
ever left this world without first leaving behind one who would execute his will. The prophets were
one hundred twenty thousand persons. Five of them were commissioned Messengers, like Noah,
Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) Ali ibn abu Talib (alaihi salam) was
the Hibbatullah for Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). He inherited the knowledge of the
executors of the wills of the prophets and the knowledge of those who were before him. (Is not it
true) that Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) inherited the knowledge of the prophets and the
Messengers who lived before him? It is written on the columns of the throne, “Hamza is the loin of
Allah and the loin of His Messenger. He (Hamza) is the master of the martyrs. On top of the throne
is Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (a.s.). This evidence against those who deny our rights and refuse to yield to
us our right of inheritance. We are not forbidden to speak. Before us is all certainty. What
supporting evidence could be more clear than this.”
2) “Kafi” vol 1, p 224-225:
َ ‫ث دَاوُ دَ َوإِ َّن ُم َحمَّدا ً َو ِر‬
َ ‫سلَ إي َمانَ َو ِر‬
َّ ‫علَ إي ِه ال‬
‫سلَ إي َمانَ َوإِنَّا َو ِرثإنَا ُم َحمَّدا ً َوإِ َّن ِع إندَنَا ِع إل َم التَّوإ َرا ِة‬
ُ ‫ث‬
ُ ‫سالم) إِ َّن‬
َ ( ‫ع إب ِد هللا‬
َ ‫قَا َل أَبُو‬
ُ
‫ُور َوتِ إبيَانَ َما فِي إ‬
ُ ُ‫إس َهذَا ُه َو إالع إِل َم إِ َّن إالع إِل َم الَّذِي يَحإ د‬
َّ ‫َواال إن ِجي ِل َو‬
ُ ‫اح قَا َل ق إل‬
‫ث يَوإ ما ً بَ إعدَ يَوإ ٍم‬
َ ‫ت إِ َّن َهذَا لَه َُو إالع إِل ُم قَا َل لَي‬
ِ ‫الزب‬
ِ ‫االل َو‬
ً
‫إ‬
‫ع ٍة‬
‫د‬
‫ع‬
‫ب‬
‫َة‬
‫ع‬
‫ا‬
‫س‬
‫و‬
َ ‫سا‬
َ
َ
َ
َ َ
Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) said: “Solomon inherited David. Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali)
inherited Solomon and we inherited Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). We have the
knowledge of Torah and the Gospel (Injil), the Psalms, (al-Zabur) and the explanation of what
the tablets contained.” I (the narrator) said, “This certainly is the knowledge.”
So I want to ask shias who arguing to this verse about Sulaiman and Dawud (alaihuma salam), that
it’s about inheritance of worldly possessions, did prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi
wa sallam) inherited those alleged worldly possessions from Dawud (alaihi salam)? Of course no, so
talk here could be only about inheritance of knowledge, wisdom, and etc.
And there is other hadith in very same “Kafi” with a clear proof from imam, that in verse 16 of
surah Naml, talk is about inheritance of knowledge.
3) “Kafi” vol 1, p 225, Majlisi said it’s saheeh ala dhaher:
َ ‫علَ إي ِه َوآلِه) َو ِر‬
َ ‫سلَ إي َمانَ َو ِر‬
َ ‫علَ إي ِه السَّالم) إِ َّن دَاوُ دَ َو ِر‬
‫ث‬
َ ُ‫صلَّى هللا‬
ُ ‫ث ع إِل َم اال إن ِبيَاءِ َوإِ َّن‬
َ ( ‫ع إب ِد هللا‬
َ ‫فَقَا َل أَبُو‬
َ ( ً ‫ث دَاوُ دَ َوإِ َّن ُم َحمَّدا‬
‫إ‬
َّ
َّ
ً
َ
َ
َ‫ان‬
‫إ‬
‫علَ إي ِه َوآلِه‬
‫هللا‬
‫ى‬
‫ل‬
‫ص‬
‫ا‬
‫َّد‬
‫م‬
‫ح‬
‫م‬
‫ا‬
‫ن‬
‫ث‬
‫ر‬
‫و‬
‫ا‬
‫ن‬
‫إ‬
‫و‬
‫م‬
‫ي‬
‫ل‬
‫س‬
َ ُ
َ
َ ُ
َِ َِ َ ُ
Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) said: ”David inherited the knowledge of the prophets. Solomon
inherited David. Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) inherited Solomon and we inherited
Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali).
Walhamdulillahi rabil alamin.
Hasan al-Basri about Muawiya. Refuting the doubt
July 7, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Hadith analysis, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Salam alaikum.
This quote that attributed to Hasan al-Basri could be seen at many shia sites:
al-Hasan al-Basri said:
Muawiyah had four flaws, and any one of them would have been a serious
offense:
1. His appointment of trouble makers for this community so that he
stole its rule without consultation with its members, while there
was a remnant of the Companions and possessors of virtue among
them.
2. His appointment of his son as his successor after him, a drunkard
and a winebibber who wears silk and plays tunburs
3. His claim about Ziyad (as his son), while the Messenger of God
(PBUH&HF) has said: 'The child belongs to the bed, and the
adulterer should be stoned.'
4. His killing of Hujr and his companions. Woe unto him twice for Hujr
and his companions.
Sunni references :
- History of al-Tabari, English version, The Events of Year 51 AH, v8, p154
- History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p242
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v8, p130 who mentions the first
crime as: "His fighting Ali."
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p242
- Khilafat Mulukiyat, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, pp 165-166
I would leave without any comment their reference to book of al-Mawdude. Because he himself
quoted it from other sources. Ibn al-Athir in “Kamil” mentioned this without any chain. Ibn Kathir
quoted it in his history (8/140), by using expression ”and it was reported from Hasan al-Basri”.
Tabari narrated it in his history (as it quoted by ibn Jawzi in “al-Muntazam”), and in the chain is
Abu Mikhnaf Loot ibn Yahya. He was shia. Abu Hatim and others left him. Daraqutni said he’s
weak. Yahya ibn Muin said he wasn’t thiqat, and it was also reported that he said Loot is
nothing. (Mizanul itidal 3/419/#6992)
Ibn Jawzi in “al-Mawduat” (1/406) said that Abu Mikhaf was liar.
——————————–
Arabic text of discussed fabricated story:
‫قال أبو مخنف عن الصقعب بن زهير عن الحسن قال أربع خصال كن في معاوية لو لم يكن فيه منهن إال واحدة لكانت موبقة انتزاؤه على هذه األمة‬
‫بالسفهاء حتى ابتزها أمرها بغير مشورة منهم وفيهم بقايا الصحابة وذوو الفضيلة واستخالفه ابنه بعده سكيرا خميرا يلبس الحرير ويضرب‬
‫بالطنابير وادعاؤه زيادا وقد قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم الولد للفراش وللعاهر الحجر وقتله حجرا ويال له من حجر وأصحاب حجر مرتين‬
Refuting claims raised against Amir Al-Mu’minin `Umar ibn Al-Khattab
(may Allah be pleased with him)
July 5, 2010 at 8:42 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | 1 Comment
3 Votes
Quoted from Fatwas of shaykh bin Baz (rahimuhullah), part 26, p 366:
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah
and upon his family and Companions. I read the story copied from the book entitled “Al-Tarikh”
written by Ibn Jarir Al-Tabary (may Allah be merciful with him) regardingAmir Al-Mu’minin
(Commander of the Believers)`Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) which
reads as follows: ”I followed him until he entered a house, and then he entered a room. I took
permission to enter and I was given it. When I entered, I found him sitting on a mat and leaning
on two pillows made of leather and stuffed with palm fibers. He gave me one of them to sit on.
I saw a hall in which there was a curtain. He said, “O, Um Kulthum! Bring us lunch.” She
brought him bread, oil and salt. He said, “O, Um Kulthum! Shall you come out and eat with us?”
She said, “I hear the voice of a man with you.” He said, “Yes, and I do not think he is one of
the residents of the country.” She said, “If you wanted me to sit with men, you would bring me
clothes like those brought by Ibn Ja`far to his wife, by Al-Zubayr to his wife or by Talhah to his
wife.” He said, Is it not enough for you to be said that Um Kulthum bint `Ali ibn Abu Talib and
the wife of Amir Al-Mu’minin `Umar?” He said: “Come on, eat. If she had been satisfied, she
would have made you better food than this.”
This tale is false; it is not true according to rules of transmission and the principles to verifying
the meaning of the text. First: it is narrated by a group of weak narrators; some of them are
accused of being liars and the direct source of this tale from `Umar is an unknown person.
Thus, it is false according to the rules of transmission.
According to the principles of understanding the text, it is also false due to some reasons:
First, it contradicts what is known about `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), his strictness
in Hijab (veil), his extreme jealousy and his care that the Prophet should screen his wives until
Allah (Exalted be He) revealed the Ayah (Qur’anic verse) concerning Hijab.
Second, it contradicts the rulings of Islam that were well-known to `Umar and any other
scholar. The Qur’an and Sunnah (whatever is reported from the Prophet) prove the obligation
of wearing Hijab and the prohibition of free intermixing (of men and women)in a way that
causes Fitnah (temptation).
Third, its text is completely and logically rejected by anyone who contemplates it. In any case,
this tale about `Umar is undoubtedly fabricated, whether to slander him, call for the free
intermixing of men and women, or for other evil purposes. May Allah grant us safety!
Shaykh Abu Turab Al-Zhahiry, Shaykh Muhammad Ahmad Hisany and Dr. Hashim Bakr Habashy
did well in their reply to this tale, clarifying its fabrication, and making it clear that such a tale
cannot be attributed to Amir Al-Mu’minin `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with
him). May Allah reward them well, double their reward, grant us and them more knowledge
and success and make us and them of the supporters of Al-Haqq (the Truth).
Out of taking part in the clarification of truth and refutation of falsehood, I found it necessary
to write this brief statement to enlighten readers that this tale is false and degrading based on
the reasons mentioned above. May Allah guide us all to the straight path and save us from the
evils of ourselves and our misdeeds! He is All-Hearing, Ever-Near. May Allah’s Peace and
Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad!
Did the Messenger (peace be upon him) bequeath the caliphate to Ali?
July 5, 2010 at 8:05 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, History | Leave a comment
Rate This
Answered by shaykh bin Baz:
This saying is known to be claimed by only one Muslim sect, namely the Shi`ah (Shiites), and it
is a baseless saying which has no origin in authentic hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace be
upon him). There are however many proofs which maintain that the successor after the
Prophet (peace be upon him) was to be Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him).
This was also maintained by all other Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
However, he (peace be upon him) did not explicitly recommend this or issue a conclusive
recommendation on it. Yet, he gave orders that indicate it, such as when he ordered Abu Bakr
to lead the people in prayer at the time he (peace be upon him) was sick. Besides, when the
matter of succession was mentioned to him, he (peace be upon him) said: Allah and the
Mu’minun (believers) deny anyone (be successor) except Abu Bakr And for this reason, the
Companions pledged allegiance to him (may Allah be pleased with him) after the death of the
Prophet (peace be upon him), including `Aly (may Allah be pleased with him). They
unanimously agreed that Abu Bakr was the best of them. It was authentically reported in the
Hadith narrated by Ibn `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Companions (may Allah
be pleased with them) used to say during the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him): The
best of people in this Ummah (nation) after its Prophet is Abu Bakr, then `Umar, then `Uthman
And the Prophet (peace be upon him) agreed to this. There are successive narrations from
`Aly (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to say: The best of people in this Ummah
after its Prophet is Abu Bakr, then `Umar. He (may Allah be pleased with him) would also say,
“No one would give me preference over them except that I would whip him”, and he never
referred to himself as the best of the Ummah or that the Messenger (peace be upon him)
recommended him for succession. In addition, he never claimed that the Companions (may
Allah be pleased with them) wronged him or usurp his rights. On the other hand, upon the
death of Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her), he pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq a
second time in confirmation of the first pledge, to show the people that he sided with the
Muslim community and that he had no reluctance to pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr, (may Allah
be pleased with them all). Then, when `Umar, being stabbed, left the issue of nomination of a
successor to be decided through Shura (consultation) among six of the ten heaven-bound
Companions, including `Aly (may Allah be pleased with him). The latter, however, did not
disapprove of what was done by `Umar, neither during his life nor after his death.
Furthermore, he never said that he was more worthy of it than them all. How then can anyone
fabricate lies against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and say that “he
recommended that `Aly be a successor to him. Even `Aly himself did not claim that for himself,
nor did any of the Companions. Rather, they all agreed to the validity of having as successors
Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman. And this was acknowledged by `Aly (may Allah be pleased with
him), who cooperated with them all in Jihad (fighting in the Cause of Allah) and Shura and
other affairs. Then, the Muslims following the generation of the Companions unanimously
agreed to what the Companions had acknowledged. It is therefore not permissible for any
human or any sect, including the Shi`ah or anyone else to claim that `Aly was to be the
successor or that succession before him was null and void. Likewise, it is not permissible for
anyone to say that the Companions wronged `Aly and usurped his rights. Rather, this is of most
glaring falsities, which implies mistrust towards the Companions of the Messenger of Allah
(peace be upon him), including ‘Aly (may Allah be pleased with him, and with the rest of the
Companions). Allah (Exalted be He) preserved this Ummah of Muhammad and protected it from
collectively acknowledging anything wrong. In this regard, it was authentically reported that
the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned in many Hadiths that: A group of people from my
Ummah will remain steadfast, on the truth, victorious Therefore, it is impossible for the best
generation of the Ummah to unanimously agree to a falsehood, which is the succession of Abu
Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman. This could not even be claimed by anyone who believes in Allah and
the Day of Judgment, nor by anyone who has the slightest insight and knowledge about the
rulings of Islam. We seek help from Allah; for, there is no might nor power except with Allah,
the Most Great. This issue was extensively addressed by Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in his
book Minhaj As-Sunnah. Thus, if anyone wishes to know more about this issue should refer to
this book, since it is a great and informative book that is worthy of being read for the great
benefit of it. May Allah grant success. May Allah’s Peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad, his
family and his Companions.
(Quoted from Ibn Baz Fatwas Part No : 3,Page No:324-325)
Agreement of Ali with ijtihad of Umar and Uthman
June 29, 2010 at 3:26 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
Rate This
Imam Moslem narrated in “Sahih” (Book 017, Number 4231):
Hudain b. al-Mundhir Abu Sasan reported: I saw that Walid was brought to Uthmin b. ‘Affan as
he had prayed two rak’ahs of the dawn prayer, and then he said: I make an increase for you.
And two men bore witness against him. One of them was Humran who said that he had drunk
wine. The second one gave witness that he had seen him vomiting. Uthman said: He would not
have vomited (wine) unless he had drunk it. He said: ‘Ali, stand up and lash him. ‘Ali said:
Hasan, stand up and lash him. Thereupon Hasan said: Let him suffer the heat (of Caliphate)
who has enjoyed its coolness. (‘Ali felt annoyed at this remark) and he said: ‘Abdullah b.
Ja’far, stand up and flog him, and he began to flog him and ‘Ali counted the stripes until these
were forty. He (Hadrat ‘Ali) said: Stop now, and then said: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon
him) gave forty stripes, and Abu Bakr also gave forty stripes, and Umar gave eighty stripes, and
all these fall under the category of the Sunnab, but this one (forty stripes) is dearer to me.
Imam Abu Dawud as-Sijistane narrated in his “Sunnan” (Book 38, Number 4465):
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
Hudayn ibn al-Mundhir ar-Ruqashi, who was AbuSasan, said: I was present with Uthman ibn
Affan when al-Walid ibn Uqbah was brought to him. Humran and another man bore witness
against him (for drinking wine). One of them testified that he had seen him drinking wine, and
the other testified that he had seen him vomiting it.
Uthman said: He could not vomit it, unless he did not drink it. He said to Ali: Inflict the
prescribed punishment on him. Ali said to al-Hasan: Inflict the prescribed punishment on him.
Al-Hasan said: He who has enjoyed its pleasure should also bear its burden. So Ali said to
Abdullah ibn Ja’far: Inflict the prescribed punishment on him. He took a whip and struck him
with it while Ali was counting.
When he reached (struck) forty (lashes), he said: It is sufficient. The Prophet
(peace_be_upon_him) gave forty lashes. I think he also said: “And Abu Bakr gave forty lashes,
and Uthman eighty. This is all sunnah (standard practice). And this is dearer to me.”
And he also narrated (Book 38, Number 4466):
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and AbuBakr gave forty lashes for drinking wine and
Umar made it eighty. And all this is sunnah, the model and standard practice.
Both of hadith are sahih. (see “Sahih Sunnan Abu Dawud” by Albani 4480, 4481)
Imam Nawavi said:
“This narration is manifest proof that Ali (r.a) honoured the actions and commandments of
Umar and Abu Bakr by acknowledging their actions as a Sunnah, contrary to the lies which the
shias ascribe to him”.
(quoted from footnote at pages 90-91, from the book “Iqamil Hujjah ‘Ala Anna Ikthar Fil
ta’abud Laysa Bi Bid’at” (in english) by imam Abul Hasanat Abdulhai al-Lucknawi, printed by alHamra publication).
The Fitnah between Ali RAA and The Muslims of Al Sham, Who took part
in it?
June 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1 Votes
By brother TripolySunni
The Fitnah between Ali RAA and The Muslims of Al Sham, Who took part in it?
- ‫ لم يخف منهم أربعون‬، ‫ لما حدثت الفتنة كان عدد الصحابة عشرة آالف‬: ‫ عن محمد بن سيرين أنه قال‬، ‫عن أيوب السختياني‬
‫ واسنادها صحيح‬357 :‫ص‬11 ‫ ج‬، ‫ الجامع‬: ‫ معمر بن راشد‬.‫رجال‬.
From Ayyub al Sikhtiyani from Muhammad bin Sirin that he said: When the fitnah happened the
number of companions was ten thousand, Only forty men took part. Source: Mu’amar bin Rashed: Al
Jami’i 11/357, Isnad is Sahih.
2- (( : ‫ أن قال‬، ‫ عن محمد بن سيرين‬-‫ السختياني‬-‫ عن أيوب‬-‫ابن علية‬-‫ عن اسماعيل‬، ‫ عن أبيه‬، ‫عن عبد هللا بن أحمد بن حنبل‬
: ‫الخالل‬.)) ‫ بل لم يبلغوا ثالثين‬، ‫ فما حضر فيها مائة‬، ‫ عشرة آالف‬-‫صلى هللا عليه و سلم‬- ‫هاجت الفتنة و أصحاب رسول هللا‬
‫واالسناد صحيح‬. 182 :‫ ص‬3‫ ج‬، ‫ العلل و معرفة الرجال‬: ‫و احمد بن حنبل‬. 466 :‫ ص‬2‫ ج‬، ‫السنة‬.
From Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal from his father, from Ismail – ibn Aliyah – from Ayyub al
Sikhtiyani from Muhammad bin Sirin that he said: the Fitnah raged and the companions of the
messenger (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa sallam) were ten thousand, So not even a hundred of
them took part nor did they reach thirty. Source: Al Khalal: Al Sunnah 2/466. and Ahmad bin
Hanbal: Al Ilal wa Ma’arifat al Rijal 3/182, The Isnad is Sahih.
According to this 99.70% of the companions of the prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
didn’t take part in he Fitnah between Ali RAA and the Province of al Sham.
A narration which describes the situation from the point of view of a normal muslim:
َّ ‫الطعَ ِام‬
َّ َ‫ ال ِقت َا ُل أَحَبُّ إِلَ َّي مِ ن‬، ٌٌّ‫ َوإِنِّي لَشَا‬،َ‫ع ِل ّي ٍ َو ُمعَا ِويَة‬
ُ ‫”لَمَّا كَانَ َز َم‬:ِ‫قَا َل أَبُو العَا ِليَة‬
ُ ‫ فَت َ َجه إَّز‬،‫ب‬
‫س ٍن َحتَّى‬
َ ‫ان‬
َ ‫ت ِب َج َه ٍاز َح‬
ِ ّ‫الط ِي‬
‫إ‬
‫إ‬
َّ
َّ
َ
ُ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ ‫ان َما ي َُرى‬
ُ
َ
ُ
ُ
ُ
ُ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ُ
ُ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
‫ي‬
َ ‫ فَ ِإذَا‬،‫أَت َ إيتُهُم‬
ُّ ‫ أ‬:‫ فقلت‬،‫ ف َرا َجعإت نفسِي‬، ِ‫ هَل َل هؤالء‬، ِ‫ َوإِذا هَل َل هؤالء‬، ِ‫ كب ََّر هؤالء‬، ِ‫ إِذا كب ََّر هؤالء‬،‫ط َرفاه َما‬
ِ َّ‫صف‬
ُ
َ
ُ
َ
ّ
َ
‫إ‬
ً
ُ
َ
َ
‫على َهذا؟‬
َ ‫الف ِر إيقي ِإن أنَ ِزله كَافِرا؟ َو َمن أ إك َر َهنِي‬
ُ ‫إت َحتَّى َر َجع‬
ُ ‫سي‬
4/209 ‫(سير أعالم النبالء‬.‫ َوت ََر إكتُهُم‬،‫إت‬
َ ‫ فَ َما أَمإ‬:َ‫)قَال‬.
Abu al Aliyah Said: When the time of Ali and Muawiyah was upon us I was then young, I liked to
fight more than eating delicious food. So i prepared myself well for battle and I went there(Battle
field). I saw two long lines that extended infinity, If those make takbeer the others make takbeer,
and if those cheer the others cheer, So I reconsidered my position and thought: Which of the two
teams is a kaffir?
He said: So I went back and abandoned battle. Source: Siyar A’alam al nubala’a 4/209.
And this Abu al Aliyah is the one was the main reciter of Quran in Madinah (reading of Imam Nafi’i).
Allah said in Quran (49:9):
If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between
them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight
ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of
Allah; But if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair:
For Allah loves those who are fair (and just.)
(49:10) The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between
your two (contending) brothers; and fear God, that ye may receive Mercy.
It was al Hassan bin Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) who made peace finally
between the two in the year of Jama’ah or year of unity… This was foretold by the
Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa sallam):
:‫من حديث أبي بكرة رضي هللا عنه‬:
-‫”إن ابني هذا سيد ولعل هللا أن يصلح به بين فئتين من المسلمين عظيمتين‬:‫”قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬.
Narrated By Abu Bakr al Sideeq (may Allah be pleased with him):The
Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: This Son( Al Hassan) of mine is a
sayyed and maybe Allah will reconcile through him two great divisions of the muslims.
Source: Sahih al bukhari 3/1328 #3430, Al Sunan al kubrah 1/531 # 1718, Musnad
Ahmad 5/51 #20535 and others …
2-2:‫من حديث جابر رضي هللا عنه‬:
- ‫ إن ابني هذا سيد وليصلحن هللا به بين فئتين من المسلمين يعني الحسن بن علي‬:‫ قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬..
Narrated by Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him):
Prophet Of Allah (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: This son of mine is a
sayyed and Allah will reconcile by him two teams of Muslims – meaning al Hassan bin
Ali. Source: Al mu’ujam al Awsat 7/130 #7071 and 2/224 # 1810.
Also another similar hadith was narrated by Anas bin Malik RAA in al Sunan al Kubrah 6/72 # 10082.
More…
How many of those who took part in the battle of Badr took part in this Fitnah during the battle of
Jamal and Siffin?
‫ فإن‬، ‫و الزبير‬، ‫و طلحة‬، ‫و عمار‬، ‫ (( لم يشهد الجمل من أصحاب النبي عليه الصالة و السالم غير علي‬: ‫عن الشعبي أنه قال‬
‫)) جاؤوا بخامس فأنا كذاب‬
From al Sha’aby that he said: “From the companions of the prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa
sallam) those who witnessed al Jamal (Battle) were none other than Ali, Ammar, Talha, Zubair,
Bring me a Fifth and prove that I am a Liar”. Isnad is sahih, the Source: Imam Ahmad’s al ilal Fi
Ma’arifat al rijal 3/43, Musannaf ibn abi Shayba 7/538, Al Sunnah for al Khallal 2/467, Siyar A’alam
al nubala’a 9/107.
‫ ما لهم من سابع‬،‫ ما نهض في ذلك األمر إال ستة بدريين‬، ‫ (( باهلل الذي ال إله إال هو‬: ‫)) عن الشعبي أنه قال‬
from Al Sha’aby that he said: “by Allah the one and only, in that affair only six of the Ahlu Badr
took part with no seventh”. Source: Tareekh al tabari 3/6.
‫ أن علي بن أبي طالب رضي هللا عنه عندما ندب أهل المدينة للخروج معه للقتال لم‬، ‫و من مظاهر االعتزال الجماعي للفتنة‬
‫ ثم كرر عليهم دعوته‬. ‫ أنا رجل من المدينة‬: ‫ فقال له‬، ‫ فكلِّم عبد هللا بن عمر شخصيا للخروج معه‬، ‫و أبوا الخروج معه‬، ‫يوافقوه‬
‫ من البدريين‬7‫ الى‬4 : ‫و استجاب له ما بين‬، ‫ فتثاقل عنه أكثرهم‬، ‫للسير معه عندما سمع بخروج أهل مكة إلى البصرة‬
When Ali bin Abi talib (may Allah be pleased with him) asked the people of Madinah to
go out with him in battle they disagreed and refused, So he talked to Ibn Umar (may
Allah be pleased with them) personally regarding this but Ibn Umar replied: “I am
(but) a man of Madinah. Then he repeated this invitation when he heard that The
people of Mecca left for al Basarah but most refused this and only around 4 to 7 from
ahlu Badr accepted”. Source: Ibn Katheer Al bidayah wal nihayah 7/231.
‫ فَلَ ْم يَ ْخ ُر ُجوا إِال إِلَى‬، ُ‫”إِن ِر َجاال مِ ْن أ َ ْه ِل بَد ٍْر لَ ِز ُموا بُيُوت َ ُه ْم بَ ْعدَ قَتْ ِل عُثْ َمانَ نَض َر اّللُ َوجْ َهه‬: ‫َج‬
َ ُ‫قال بُ َكي ُْر بْن‬
ِ ِّ ‫ع ْب ِد اّللِ ب ِْن األَش‬
ُ
‫ُور ِه ْم‬
‫ب‬
‫ق‬
“”.
ِ
Bukayr bin Abdullah bin al Ashja’a said: “Men from Ahlu Badr remained in their homes
after the assassination of Uthman May Allah brighten his face, and they did not come
out except to their graves”. Source: “Al uzlah wal infirad” by ibn Abi al Duniyah 18 #9, Minhaj
al Sunnah 6/145.
More…
: ‫ قَا َل‬، ‫ص ِ ِّم‬
ُ ‫ َحدثَنَا‬:‫قال االمام أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة رحمه هللا‬
َ ، َ‫ع ْن َج ْعف َِر ب ِْن ب ُْرقَان‬
َ ،‫ي‬
ِ ‫ُّوب ْال َم ْو‬
َ ‫ع َم ُر بْنُ أَي‬
َ َ ‫ع ْن يَ ِزيدَ ب ِْن األ‬
ُّ ‫ص ِل‬
ْ
َ‫ير األ َ ْم ُر إلَي َوإِلَى ُمعَا ِويَة‬
ْ
ْ
ِّ
ُ
ُ ‫ص‬
ِ َ‫ َوي‬، ‫ قَتالَنَا َوقَتالَ ُه ْم فِي ال َجن ِة‬: ‫ فَقَا َل‬، َ‫ص ِفين‬
ِ ‫ع ْن قَتْلَى يَ ْو ِم‬
َ ‫ي‬
َ ‫سئِ َل‬
ٌّ ‫ع ِل‬
Al Imam Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shayba said: Umar bin Ayyoub al Mousili narrated from
Ja’afar bin Burqan from Yazeed bin al Assam that he said: Ali was asked about the
dead from the battle of Siffin so he answered: Our dead and their dead are in Heaven,
and the matter will be between me and Muawiyah. Isnad is sahih, Al musannaf 15/302
#39035.
Ashraf Ali Thanwi: Our belief about sahabah
June 15, 2010 at 4:29 pm | Posted in Aqeedah and fiqh of ahle-sunnah explained, Defence of companions | Leave a
comment
1 Votes
In his book “Bahishti zewar” chapter about faith, Ashraf Ali Thanwi (rahimuhullah) wrote:
Beliefs concerning the Sahabah (Companions)
1. 1. Those Muslims who have seen our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and have died as
Muslims, are known as Sahabah. Very great virtues have been mentioned with regard to
them. We have to love and think good of all of them. If we hear of any dispute or conflict
among them, we should regard it as a misunderstanding or a miscalculation. We should not
speak any ill of them.
The greatest among them are four Companions: Hadrat Abu Bakr Siddiq radiallahu anhu. He
took the place of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and supervised the matters of the
Deen. He is therefore called the first Khalifah. He is the best person in the entire ummat.
After him comes Hadrat Umar radiallahu anhu. He is the second Khalifah. After him is the
third Khalifah, Hadrat Uthman radiallahu anhu. After him is the fourth Khalifah, Hadrat Ali
radiallahu anhu.
2. The status of the Sahabah is so high that even the greatest of walis cannot reach a stage
equal to the lowest Sahabi.
3. All the children and wives of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam are worthy of respect.
Among his children, Hadrat Fatima radiallahu anha has the highest status. Among his wives,
Hadrat Khadija and Hadrat Aisha radiallahu anhuma have the highest status.
4. Ibn Qayum on ahadeth fi dhamm Muawiya, Amr and others
5.
June 14, 2010 at 12:36 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Hadith analysis | 1
Comment
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. Rate This
15.
16.
17. Salam alaikum.
18. Below you would see scans from book “Manar al muneef fi sahih wa dhaif” by ibn Qayum alJawziyah.
19. 1-st quote: “And from that: Narrations with criticism of Muawiya, all narrations in his
criticism are lie”.
20. Sheikh was talking about narrations elevated till prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam).
21. 2-nd quote: “and all narration with criticism of Amr ibn al-As are lie. And all narrations
with criticism of banu Umeyah are lie”.
22. 3-d quote: “and all narrations with criticism of Yazeed are lie, in the same way all
narrations with criticism of Waleed and Marwan ibn al-Hakam”.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Refutation: Asma did mutah?
28. June 6, 2010 at 1:30 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
Tags: Mutah
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37. 4 Votes
38.
39.
40. Salam alaikum.
41. I seen many times when shia accused sahabe Asma bintu Abu Bakr, that she commited
mutah.
42. As a proof they are giving narration from “Musnad” of Taylase.
43.
44.
‫حدثنا يونس قال حدثنا أبو داود قال حدثنا شعبة عن مسلم القرشي قال دخلنا على أسماء بنت‬
‫أبى بكر فسألناها عن متعة النساء فقالت فعلناها على عهد رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
45. Narrated Yunos narrated Abu Dawood narrated Sho’ba from Muslim al-Qurashi he said
: we visited Asma bint Abi Bakr and we asked her about MUTA OF WOMEN so she said
: WE did it during the time of rasool Allah
46. First of all even from this text, it’s not clear that Asma (r.a) did mutah herself. For
example if someone would ask: DOES MOSLEMS MAKING SACRIFICE? I would reply: YES WE
DO THAT. But I personally never done it with my own hands.
So answer of Asma: We did it during the lifetime of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam) doesn’t mean that she did it personally.
47. Also we should notice that there is other version of this hadith.
48. Tabarani in “Kabir”:
49.
50.
277 – ‫ ثنا أبو‬: ‫حدثنا عبد هللا بن أحمد بن حنبل و محمد بن صالح بن الوليد النرسي قاال‬
‫ ثنا أبو داود ثنا شعبة عن مسلم القري قال‬: ‫ حفص عمرو بن علي قال‬:
: ‫ فعلناها على عهد رسول هللا صلى‬: ‫دخلنا على أسماء بنت أبي بكر فسألناها عن المتعة فقالت‬
‫هللا عليه و سلم‬
51. Muslim al-Qurashi said : we visited Asma bint Abi Bakr and we asked her about MUTA
so she said : WE did it during the time of rasool Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
salam).
52. As you can see here, the talk wasn’t about mutah of women, but mutah in general, and
that could mean mutah al-haj. Allah knows better.
And there is another great proof, that Moslem was asking about haj at-tamattu in sahih of
imam Moslem:
53. Sahih Moslem.
Chapter 27: CONCERNING TAMATTU’ IN HAJJ
54. Book 007, Number 2854:
Muslim al-Qurri reported: I asked Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) about
Tamattu’ in Hajj and he permitted it, whereas Ibn Zubair had forbidden it. He (Ibn
‘Abbas) said: This is the mother of Ibn Zubair who states that Allah’s Messenger (may
peace be upon him) had permitted it, so you better go to her and ask her about it. He
(Muslim al-Qurri said): So we went to her and she was a bulky blind lady and she said:
Verily Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted it.
Book 007, Number 2855:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu’ba with the same chain of
transmitters, but with a slight variation of words.
55.
56. To benefit more on this topic [ Taken from research done by sh. Faisal al-Jassim]:
57. All the routes of this hadeeth is reported from the way of Shu’ba from Muslim al-Qarri from
Asmaa.
The following are the narrators who reported this Hadeeth from Shu’ba and they disputed
over its text:
58. a. Yunus bin Habeeb and Mahmoud bin Ghilaan from Abu Dawd from Shu’ba with the text
{Mu’ta of women}. [Musnad al-Tayalsi and Sunan Nasaie]
b. Amro bin Ali and Ibn Abdullah al-Saffar from Abu dawd from Shu’ba without the word
“women”. So its text is: {We asked her about the Mu’taa}. [al-Mu'jam al-kabeer by
Tabarani]
c. Abdurrhman bin Mahdi from Shu’ba without the word “women so the text of this route is
{We asked her about the Mu’taa} [ Sahih Muslim and others]
d. Ghandar from Shu’aba who said: Muslim said: I do not know whether it was the Mu’taa of
Hajj or the Mu’taa of women” [Sahih Muslim]
e. Rawh bin Ubadah from Shu’ba: {Mut’aa of Hajj} and in this report he mentioned the full
story: he said: I asked Ibn Abbas about the Mu’taa of hajj so he allowed it while Ibn alZubair did not allow it. So Ibn abbas said: go to his mother as she narrate that the Prophet
permits it as well and ask her about this matter. So we eneterd upon her and she was blind
huge woman and said: The Prophet permitted it” [ Sahih Muslim]
59. the following can be noted:
The Mu’taa of women was only reported from Abu dawud. However, who reported it from
his way disputed over it; one said it “Mut’aa of women” while others reporting from him
that he said: “The Muta’aa” without the word women.
60. The rest of routes are clearly show that what is preserved that it is about Mu’taa of Hajj.
61.
In defence of Khalid ibn Walid
62. June 1, 2010 at 5:36 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | 1 Comment
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71. 1 Votes
72.
73.
74. Refuting the argument that during the khilâfah of Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr (r) , Khâlid ibn alWalîd, the Sahâbî military commander, killed Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, and married his
widow on the very eve of his murder, without even waiting for her ‘iddah to expire.
75. The incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah is one of those cases which are frequently cited by Shî‘î
propagandists whose first step in the direction of convincing and converting the Ahl asSunnah almost invariably assumes the form of an attempt to prove how innately corrupt
and evil the Sahâbah were (na‘ûdhu billâh).
76. These are historical issues, and must be treated as such. This means that in judging their
historicity one should firstly include all the evidence which exists around the issue, both
general and specific, and secondly, be objective enough to look critically at the
authenticity of one’s material. Seeking to brand persons, and more especially the Sahâbah ,
as corrupt and irreligious on grounds of only one side of the available evidence, and
stubbornly refusing to critically scrutinise the historical material upon the basis of which a
claim of this serious nature is made, can only point to the fact that the accusers have an
agenda— an agenda which they are committed to promote and uphold, no matter to what
extent truth and honesty might be compromised in the process.
77. It is indeed a sad indictment of the objectivity of the Shî‘î propagandists that they refuse
point blank to take into consideration, when discussing the Sahâbah y , the wealth of âyât
in the Qur’ân which announce the merits of the Sahâbah y . Similarly, they refuse to pay
any attention to the numerous ahâdîth, both general and specific, in which Rasûlullâh r
himself extolls the virtues of his companions. Thirdly, they cannot bear to even cast a
glance at the services rendered to the cause of Islâm by any particular Sahâbî. To them the
vaguest notion of a black spot on the character of a companion of Rasûlullâh and a
champion of Islâm— even if amounts to nothing more an unsubstantiated, or even forged,
report in a book on history— is enough to render null and void decades of dedicated service
to the cause of Islâm, despite the fact that his service had been rewarded with approval by
Allâh and His Rasûl r .
78. Let us turn now to the actual issue. We will discuss it under two headings:
79. (1) The execution of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah
80. (2) Khâlid’s alleged marriage to Mâlik’s wife
81. The execution of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah
82. Shortly after the demise of Rasûlullâh r a number of tribes in the Arabian peninsula turned
away from Islâm. With many of them apostasy was expressed in the form of a refusal to pay
the zakâh. From Madînah Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t dispatched a number of punitive
expeditions. Khâlid ibn al-Walîd was placed in command of one such expedition.
83. After his victory against some of the apostate tribes, Khâlid set out for Banû Sulaym,
another of the apostate tribes. On his way towards Banû Sulaym he passed through the
lands of Banû Tamîm. Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah was a member of this tribe, and he had been
appointed zakâh-collector of Banû Tamîm by Rasûlullâh (saw) . Reports had been
circulating that Mâlik too, was withholding the zakâh.1 There were even more disturbing
reports about him having started to speak ill about Rasûlullâh, and referring to him in
derogatory terms.2
84. Sayyidunâ Khâlid t had orders from Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t to inspect the practices of the
people of the various locations he passed by in order to find out whether they were Muslims
or whether they too, had forsaken Islâm. If they heard the adhân and saw the people
performing salâh they could conclude that they were Muslims, and if they did not see them
upholding the salâh that would be an indication that they were not Muslim.3 In the case of
Banû Tamîm, Sayyidunâ Khâlid’s spies differed: some claimed that they did not make salâh,
while others claimed that they did.4 According to one report, their mu’adhdhin, a person
by the name of Abul Jalâl, was absent, which was the reason why no adhân was heard.5 It
has even been reported that they encountered armed resistance from Mâlik and his men at
an oasis called al-Ba‘ûdah.6 Those who put up the resistance, including Mâlik, were
captured and brought before Sayyidunâ Khâlid. He decided that they must be put to death.
This is how Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah was killed.
85. In Sayyidunâ Khâlid’s party was the Sahâbî Sayyidunâ Abû Qatâdah t . He was amongst those
who claimed that they had seen Mâlik’s people making salâh. He was thus understandable
upset at the decision of Sayyidunâ Khâlid, and returned immediately to Madînah to
complain to Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr . Sayyidunâ ‘Umar insisted that Khâlid be removed from
his position as commander on account of his impetuousness. Khâlid was summoned back to
Madînah and interrogated by the khalîfah, who concluded that Khâlid’s deed was an error
of judgement, for which it was not necessary to dismiss him.7
86. Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t was guided in this decision by two things. Firstly, the hadîth of
Rasûlullâh r wherein he described Khâlid as “the sword which Allâh unsheathed against the
Unbelievers”. The second was the fact that a similar occurrence took place in the time of
Rasûlullâh r , also with Khâlid ibn al-Walîd. He was put in command by Rasûlullâh r of an
expedition to Banû Jadhîmah. When Khâlid asked them to accept Islâm they responded by
saying “saba’nâ, saba’nâ”, a word which literally means “We have become Sabeans”, but
which had come to be used in the general sense of changing one’s religion. To Khâlid this
was not sufficient evidence of their acceptance of Islâm, and he gave the order for their
execution. When the news of their execution reached Rasûlullâh r he lifted his hands and
said, “O Allâh, I dissociate myself from what Khâlid has done.”8 Although Rasûlullâh r
dissociated himself from the haste Khâlid made himself guilty of, he did not punish him,
since it was an error in judgement on his part. A very regrettable error it was, but it was
still an error. It was for this reason that Rasûlullâh r did not hesitate to give Khâlid
command over other expeditions as well. Shortly after the Banû Jadhîmah incident
Rasûlullâh entrusted him with the mission to destroy the temple of the pagan goddess ‘Uzzâ
at a place called Nakhlah.9 In Jumâdâ al-Ulâ in the year 10 AH he was sent on a da‘wah
mission to Banû Hârith ibn Ka‘b, and they accepted Islâm at his hands without a drop of
blood being shed.10 It was also to Khâlid that Rasûlullâh r entrusted the expedition to
Ukaydir ibn ‘Abd al-Malik.11
87. Above all there was the day, at the battle of Mu’tah in the year 8 AH, when Khâlid ibn alWalîd would prove his valour and military genius by saving the day for Islâm and the Muslim
ummah in its first ever encounter with the Roman Empire. The three generals appointed by
Rasûlullâh r all attained martyrdom in succession, and the standard was taken over by the
valiant Khâlid, who through his sheer genius managed to save the honour of Islâm by
effecting a tactical withdrawal after what seemed like certain defeat. Rasûlullâh was
informed by Allâh of what had happened at Mu’tah, and although his eyes were filled with
tears at the martyrdom of his beloved cousin Ja‘far ibn Abî Tâlib, his adopted son Zayd ibn
Hârithah and the poet ‘Abdullâh ibn Rawâhah y , he saw reason to give the Muslims in
Madînah the glad tidings of Khâlid’s victory, saying, “then the standard was taken up by a
Sword from amongst the Swords of Allâh, and upon his hands did Allâh grant victory.”12
88. All of this show that Rasûlullâh r saw the Banû Jadhîmah incident, as regrettable as it was,
as a mistake on the part of Khâlid. In not punishing Khâlid for the execution of Mâlik ibn
Nuwayrah, and not dismissing him from his post as commander, Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t was
thus completely justified. His interrogation of Khâlid revealed that Khâlid had committed
an error of judgement, and the insistence of Sayyidunâ ‘Umar t that Khâlid be dismissed
was met by a resolute answer form Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t : “I will not sheath the sword that
was drawn by Allâh.”13 Like Rasûlullâh r did in the case of Banû Jadhîmah, Sayyidunâ Abû
Bakr paid out blood money to Mâlik’s brother Mutammim, and ordered the released of all
captives taken by Khâlid.13
89. Khâlid’s alleged marriage to Mâlik’s wife
90. With the passage of time the incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah became the object of the
attention of certain unscrupulous transmitters of history. An obnoxious tail was soon
introduced into the story in the form of Mâlik’s wife, who is named as Umm Tamîm bint
Minhâl. Khâlid, it was said, was so enamoured of the beautiful Umm Tamîm that he saw fit
to slaughter Mâlik and his entire tribe in order to possess her, and barely was the slaughter
over when he took her as his own wife.
91. In an allegation as serious as this one would have expected the party levelling the
accusation to produce reliable evidence to support their claim. However, all that is ever
produced is fragments of statements by historians. The accusers consistently fail to realise
that a quotation is of no value for as long as it cannot be authenticated. While they display
great vigour in levelling the accusation and stating their references, complete with volume
and page numbers, they conveniently and consistently forget to authenticate those “facts”.
The great imâm ‘Abdullâh ibn al-Mubârak stated a most profound truth when he said:
92. Isnâd (stating the chain of narration) is part of Dîn. Were it not for isnâd, anyone could
have said just what he wished.14
93. A study of the texts wherein reference is made to the story of the Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah
reveals that not a single one of them is reported with an uninterrupted chain of narration
that consists of reliable authorities. We may confidently say that we have looked at almost
all the available material on the issue of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, and we have found that they
may be classified into two types: (1) reports in which no mention at all is made of Mâlik’s
wife, and (2) reports in which she is mentioned. The former type includes material narated
via authentic as well as unauthentic chains of narration. As for the latter type (the reports
which make mention of Mâlik’s wife), they have been handed down exclusively through
highly unreliable chains of narration. They all suffer from two deficiencies: untrustworthy
or unknown narrators, and suspicious interruptions in the chain of narration. We might, for
example, look at the reports about Mâlik’s wife mentioned in sources like at-Tabarî’s Târîkh
and Ibn Hajar’s al-Isâbah:
94. (1) Khâlid married Umm Tamîm the daughter of Minhâl, and left her till her clean period
ended.15
95. This report appears in a long narrative documented by at-Tabarî on the authority of the
following chain of narration:
96. at-Tabarî— (narrrates from)— as-Sarî ibn Yahyâ— (who narrrates from) — Shu‘ayb ibn
Ibrâhîm— (who narrrates from)— Sayf ibn ‘Umar— (who narrrates from)— Sahl (ibn Yûsuf)—
(who narrrates from)— Qâsim (ibn Muhammad) and ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, who say…
97. This isnâd is extremely defective, on several counts. Firstly, it runs through the historian
Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tamîmî, whose extreme unreliabilty is a matter of consensus among the
rijâl critics. Ibn Hibbân has summed up their opinions of him in the words: “He narrates
forged material from reliable narrators. They (the critics) say he used to forge hadîth.” He
adds that Sayf was suspected of zandaqah (secret heresy).16 Of recent there has been
much protest by Shî‘î authors about reliance upon Sayf’s narrations about ‘Abdullâh ibn
Saba, (despite the fact that Sayf is not the only historian who mentions Ibn Saba and his
role). However, it seems when the very same Sayf narrates historical material in which the
Sahâbah y are maligned, a blind eye must be turned to his proven mendacity.
98. The second problem is with the person who narrates from Sayf, namely Shu‘ayb ibn
Ibrâhîm. This person, we are told by Ibn Hajar in Lisân al-Mîzân, was virtually unknown. He
quotes Ibn ‘Adî who says: “He is not known. He narrates ahâdîth and historical reports
which uncorroborated to a certain extent, and in which there is an element of prejudice
against the Salaf (early Muslims). ”17 Is it in any way acceptable to use information that
was handed down by a non-entity such as this to malign a man who was named “the Sword
of Allâh” by Rasûlullâh r , and who is one of those of whom it was stated in the Qur’ân:
99. Those of you who spent (their wealth) before the conquest (of Makkah) are not equal (to
the rest). They are greater in status than those who spent thereafter and fought. And all of
them have been promised good by Allâh. (al-Hadîd:10)
100.
Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t became Muslim before the conquest of Makkah.
101.
The third point of criticism against this isnâd is the person who appears as Sayf’s
direct source: Sahl ibn Yûsuf al-Ansârî. This person, like Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm, is unknown.18
The same may therefore be said of him as a narrator, and of the nature of his narration in
maligning the character of a Sahâbî who sacrificed so much for Islâm, as was said of
Shu‘ayb’s narration.
102.
Finally, even if we were to assume, for argument’s sake, that this isnâd is free from
all defects right up to Sahl ibn Yûsuf, there remains one crucial problem. The persons who
allegedly narrate the story appear here as Qâsim ibn Muhammad and ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb.
Neither of these two figures were even born at the time when the incident of Mâlik ibn
Nuwayrah occured. Whichever way one looks at it, this report simply does not conform to
the two most basic conditions for authenticity: reliability of the narrator, and an
uninterrupted chain of narration.
103.
Let us now look at another narration in Târîkh at-Tabarî:
104.
(2) ‘Umar told Khâlid: “You enemy of Allâh! You killed a Muslim man and thereafter
took his wife. By Allâh, I will stone you.”19
105.
The chain of narration on the authority of which this report reached at-Tabarî is as
follows:
106.
at-Tabarî— (narrrates from)— (Muhammad) ibn Humayd (ar-Râzî)— (who narrrates
from) — Salamah (ibn al-Fadl ar-Râzî)— (who narrrates from)— Muhammad ibn Ishâq— (who
narrrates from)— Talhah ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Abî Bakr— who says that it
used to be Abû Bakr as-Siddîq’s instruction to his armies…
107.
This isnâd too, is defective and unreliable. It is unreliable on account of Muhammad
ibn Ishâq, who was a much more truthful historian than Sayf ibn ‘Umar, but who used to
commit tadlîs. Tadlîs is when a narrator intentionally omits the name of his direct source
and ascribes his information to a source higher up in the chain of narration. Ibn Hibban
states about him: “The problem with Ibn Ishâq is that he used to omit the names of
unreliable narrators, as a result of which unreliable material crept into his narrations.
However, if he makes it clear that he has actually heard from the person whom he states as
his source, then his narration is authentic.”20 When we look at the way in which Ibn Ishâq
has narrated this incident from Talhah ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Abî Bakr, we
find that he has not explicitly stated that he heard this information from him. He uses the
ambiguous term ‘an, which was a common device used by narrators committing tadlîs. Ibn
Ishâq, we are told by Ibn Hajar, was well-known for committing tadlîs by omitting the
names of unreliable and unknown persons, and even from narrators who are regarded as
unreliable for more serious reasons.21
108.
Besides Ibn Ishâq himself, it must also be taken into consideration that Muhammad
ibn Humayd ar-Râzî, who appears in the isnâd as at-Tabarî’s direct source, has come under
severe criticism from the muhaddithîn. Many of them have outrightly labelled him as an
outright liar. He has also been proven to be dishonest in his claim to narrating the Maghâzî
of Ibn Ishâq from Salamah ibn Fadl. Some of the muhaddithîn who at one stage entertained
a good opinion of him had to change their opinions when it became clear that the man was
a shameless forger. One critic expresses his opinion as follows: “I have never seen a natural
liar, except for two persons: Sulaymân ash-Shâdhakûnî and Muhammad ibn Humayd. He
used to memorise all of his ahâdîth, and his hadîth used to grow longer every day.”22
109.
Besides the above, it must not be forgotten that the final source for this narration
wasn’t even born when Sayyidunâ ‘Umar t allegedly spoke these words to Sayyidunâ Khâlid
t . These were events that supposedly took place in the time of Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t , but
the one who tells us about it is his great grandson— three generations later. Like the
previous report, this one too, suffers from a huge gap in the chain of narration.
110.
Shî‘î authors have the habit of supplying incidents like this with multiple
references. In order to fully convince the uninformed Sunnî reader, they will quote not only
at-Tabarî as the source for the incident, but also Ibn Kathîr’s al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah, Ibn
al-Athîr’s al-Kâmil, etc. They conveniently forget that Ibn Kathîr and Ibn al-Athîr, and like
them, most later historians, draw directly from at-Tabarî, and have stated as much in their
respective introductions. It is thus of no benefit to quote them as separate references,
since all they do is quote at-Tabarî. And as for at-Tabarî himself, he has never claimed all
the material in his huge work to be the truth. On the contrary, he states very clearly in his
introduction:
111.
Whatever is to be found in this book of mine as quoted from some past source,
which the reader finds unacceptable or the hearer deems repugnant for the reason that he
does not see any authenticity in it or does not find real meaning in it, let it be known that
we are not responsible for it. The one responsible for it would be one of those who
transmitted it down to us. We for our part have only reproduced what has been transmitted
to us.
112.
A third report mentioning the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, which is widely quoted
by those wishing to add a tragically romantic flavour to their basic aim of harming the
reputation of Sayyidunâ Khâlid t , is the following:
113.
(3) Khâlid saw the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah. She was very beautiful. Thereupon
Mâlik told his wife, “You have killed me,” meaning that she will be the cause of his death.
And so it happened.23
114.
This twist to the story is usually quoted with Ibn Hajar’s work al-Isâbah as
reference. Closer inspection of that work reveals that Ibn Hajar quoted it from a source
called ad-Dalâ’il by one Thâbit ibn Qâsim. Despite a lenghty search for information about
this author or his book, we were unable to unearth a single fact about him in any of the
biographical dictionaries available to us. Neither the classical works (such as the
biographical works of al-Bukhârî, Ibn Abî Hâtim, Ibn Hibbân and al-Khatîb al-Baghdâdî) nor
the works of later scholars (such as adh-Dhahabî and Ibn Hajar) provide any clue as to who
Thâbit ibn Qâsim was, when his book ad-Dalâ’il was composed, and what it contains. Even a
contemporary work like al-A‘lâm of az-Ziriklî contains no information whatsoever about a
person called Thâbit ibn Qâsim. Therefore we may say with a great degree of confidence
that this report, as tragic and romantic as it may be, amounts to nothing more than a fable
spurned by the fertile imagination of some unscrupulous person. A fable such as this would
only be used against a Sahâbî like Sayyidunâ Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t by a person whose hatred
of the Sahâbah y has blinded him against all truth and reason.
115.
It is extremely unfortunate that the vicious and unscrupulous propaganda of the
Shî‘î missionaries has succeeded in turning the sentiments of many a Muslim against this
great son of Islâm and the pride of its military commanders. Having swallowed the story
about the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah hook, line and sinker, they now cannot bear to think
of Khâlid ibn al-Walîd except in the vilest of terms. They find themselves unable to
associate his name except with the concocted legend of the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah. All
his services rendered to Islâm, and even the title of “Sayfullâh” given to him by Rasûlullâh r
are simply ignored, and on the basis of nothing but a fable. It is heart rending to see the
brazenness with which Shî‘î authors like Muhammad Tijani Samawi in his book Then I was
Guided challenge the title of “Sayfullâh” (Sword of Allâh) bestowed upon Sayyidunâ Khâlid t
by none other than Rasûlullâh r , and to see them labelling him “the crippled sword of the
devil.”24 Such, unfortunately, is the destiny of those whose faith is founded upon fables
and legends.
116.
There is another point which definitely merits mention in this regard. The Imâmî
(Ithnâ ‘Asharî) Shî‘ah, for all their political rhetoric, have never in the history of Islâm been
known for positive political or military action.25 It is for this reason that the Shî‘ah, unlike
the Ahl as-Sunnah, do not have military leaders like Sayyidunâ Khâlid t of whom to be
proud, and whose names to invoke as paragons of courage and valour. Thus, when the need
arose for a person like Khumaynî to speak about Islâm’s military successes of yesterday, he
could not find anything of that nature within the legacy of his own tradition. It was the
history of the Sahâbah y — those very same Sahâbah whom he and his ilk had been
slandering and denouncing as apostates, hypocrites and unbelievers for centuries— that he
was forced to turn. Look at the tongue-in-cheek manner in which he writes in his book
Kashf al-Asrâr:
117.
The rulers of Islâm in those days did not sit in their courts upon silk carpets,
because the Prophet of Islâm forbade its use. The religious spirit was firmly implanted
within them, to the extent that it led a great Muslim commander to swallow a quantity of
lethal poison in the firm belief that the Rabb of Islâm and the Qur’ân will protect him
before the enemies of Islâm. That is exactly what happened when sixty persons from the
Muslim army attacked a Roman army of sixty thousand and gained the upper hand over
them. Similarly, a few thousand of them defeated seven hundred thousand Romans, and a
small number of Muslims overran the whole land of Iran. All of that was achieved through
the power of religion and faith, and not because they thought of religion and its tenets as a
shame and a disgrace. What is there in you which resembles that which they had? They
believed that death and martyrdom is happiness, and that martyrs enjoy the life of the
hereafter by the favour and grace of Allâh. It was on account of this that they achieved
those such astonishing success. The point is that they had a great amount of love for Dîn,
belief in the Unseen and partiality towards religiousness. As for ourselves, we are different
in all of those things, and thus will we remain…26
118.
These words speak for themselves. They are in no need of commentary of any sort.
However, there is maybe just one thing upon which light needs to shed, and that is the
identity of the “great Muslim commander who swallowed a quantity of lethal poison in the
firm belief that the Rabb of Islâm and the Qur’ân will protect him before the enemies of
Islâm”. That leader was none other than the Sword of Allâh, Sayyidunâ Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t
. The incident is documented by adh-Dhahabî in his work Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ from two
separate sources, both of which we reproduce here:
119.
Qays ibn Abî Hâzim says: I saw poison being brought to Khâlid, and it was asked,
“What is this?” The answer was given, “It is poison.” He said, “Bismillâh” and drank it. I
said, “By Allâh, this is a miracle, this is true courage.”
120.
Abu’s-Safar says: Khâlid stayed in al-Hîrah at the house of the mother of the Banû
Marâzibah. They said, “Be on your guard against the Persians, lest they poison you.” He
said, “Bring it to me.” He took it and said, “Bismillâh”, and did him no harm.27
121.
Maybe we can now understand why Khumaynî thought it prudent not to mention the
name of that “great Islamic leader.” But if one such as he could see and admit (albeit
grudgingly) that men like Khâlid ibn al-Walîd “had a great amount of love for Dîn, belief in
the Unseen and partiality towards religiousness” and that “we ourselves are different in all
of those things, and thus will we remain” (in other words that we can never compare
ourselves to men like Khâlid ibn al-Walîd) then why is it that some Shî‘î neophytes, who
regard themselves as followers of Khumaynî, cannot bear to spare even a single good
thought for the “great Islamic leader” Khâlid ibn al-Walîd, and continue to spread
calumnious falsehoods about him? Why does revolutionary Iran, which regards itself as the
manifestation of Khumaynî’s political philosophy, flood the Muslim world with literature in
which Sayyidunâ Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t is acrimoniously denounced as “the crippled sword of
the devil”? Is it in order to achieve the sanctimonious goal of Muslim unity, or simply to
score a point for Shî‘ism against the Ahl as-Sunnah?
122.
We will leave the reader to ponder over these questions.
123.
1. Ibn Hajar, al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 36 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut n.d.);
124.
Ibn Hibbân, Kitâb ath-Thiqât vol. 2 p. 164 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut,
reproduced from Hyderabad edition)
125.
2. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37; compare Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 273 (Dâr al-Kutub al-
‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1408/1988)
126.
Note that it is by no means our contention that all of these reports were in fact
true or that they have been authentically narrated. We quote it merely to show that there
is another face to the narrated material on the issue of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah as well— a face
that the Shî‘î propagandists would rather keep hidden and unknown.
127.
3. Khalîfah ibn Khayyât, Târîkh p. 104 (ed. Dr. Akram Diyâ’ al-‘Umarî, Dâr Taybah,
Riyadh, 2nd edition 1405/1985)
128.
4. adh-Dhahabî, Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ’ vol. 1 p. 377 (ed. Shu‘ayb al-Arnâ’ût et al,
Mu’assasat ar-Risâlah, Beirut, 7th edition 1410/1990)
129.
5. Khalîfah ibn Khayyât, Târîkh p. 105
130.
6. ibid. p.104
131.
7. ibid. p. 105. Also cited in Siyar vol. 1 p. 376
132.
8. Sahîh al-Bukhârî no. 4339
133.
9. Sîrat Ibn Hishâm vol. 4 p. 1282 (Dâr al-Fikr, Cairo n.d.)
134.
10. ibid. vol. 4 p. 1448
135.
11. ibid. vol. 4 p. 1378
136.
12. Sahîh al-Bukhârî no. 4262
137.
13. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37
138.
14. Sahîh Muslim vol. 1 p. 87 (with an-Nawawî’s commentary)
139.
15. Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 273 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1408/1988)
140.
16. Cited in al-Mizzî, Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 12 p. 326 (ed. Dr. B.A.Ma‘rûf,
Mu’assasat ar-Risâlah, Beirut, 1413/1992)
141.
17. Lisân al-Mîzân vol. 3 p. 176 (Dâr al-Fikr, Beirut)
142.
18. ibid. vol. 3 p. 146
143.
19. Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 274
144.
20. Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 24 p. 428
145.
21. Ibn Hajar, Ta‘rîf Ahl at-Taqdîs p. 38 (ed. Tâhâ ‘Abd ar-Ra’ûf Sa‘d, Maktabat al-
Kulliyyât al-Azhariyyah, Cairo n.d.)
146.
22. Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 25 p. 105
147.
23. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37
148.
24. Samawi, Then I Was Guided p. 188, (Ansariyan Publications, Qum, n.d.)
149.
25. Khumaynî’s reinterpretation of the doctrine of Wilâyat al-Faqîh, and his
widening of its scope to include the political arena as well, is unprecedented in the history
of Shî‘ism. (See Nazriyyat Wilâyat al-Faqîh by Dr. ‘Irfân ‘Abd al-Hamîd Fattâh, Dâr ‘Ammâr,
Amman, 1988.) It was, and still is regarded by many of the leading mujtahids of Iran and
Iraq as an innovation in Ja‘farî jurisprudence.
150.
26. Khumaynî, Kashf al-Asrâr p. 23
151.
27. Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ vol. 1 p. 376
152.
Hz. Ali[ra] on people who fought against him
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
June 1, 2010 at 2:16 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
165.
Majleese reported in “Biharal anwar” 32/324, that imam Jafar as-Sadik ra.gif said:
166.
‫ هم أخواننا بغوا علينا‬:‫إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك وال إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول‬
“Ale didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against to shirk or hypocrisy, but he
said: “The are our brothers, which rebel against us”.
167.
Ale ibn Abe Taleb (r.a) said regarding army of Moawiya (r.a) in “Nahjul-balaga”:
168.
“The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while
we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet and on the same principles and
canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet was concerned we never
wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they
were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on
these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of
Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am
actually innocent of it.”
169.
16490 – ‫أخبرنا أبو عبد هللا الحافظ أنبأ أبو الوليد الفقيه ثنا الحسن بن سفيان ثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ثنا‬
‫يزيد بن هارون عن شريك عن أبي العنبس عن أبي البختري قال سئل علي رضي هللا عنه عن أهل الجمل أمشركون‬
‫هم قال من الشرك فروا قيل أمنافقون هم قال إن المنافقين ال يذكرون هللا إال قليال قيل فما هم قال إخواننا بغوا علينا‬
170.
Source: Beykhake “Sunnan al-kubra” vol 8, p 173. Tahkeek by Muhammad
AbdulQader Ata.
171.
“(Chain) Abu Bukhture asked Ale (r.a) about people of Jamal. “Are they
mushreeks?”. He replied: “They ran from shirk”. Then i asked: “Are they hypocrites?” He
replied: “Hypocrites use to mention Allah seldom”. He was asked: “Then who are they?”.
Ale ra.gif replied: “They are our brothers that rebel against us”.
172.
This narration was also reported:
173.
37763 – ‫حدثنا يزيد بن هارون عن شريك عن أبي العنبس عن أبي البختري قال سئل علي عن أهل‬
‫الجمل قال قيل أمشركون هم قال من الشرك فروا قيل أمنافقون هم قال إن المنافقين ال يذكرون هللا إال قليال قيل إخواننا‬
‫بغوا علينا‬
174.
“Mosannaf” ibn Abu Shayba, Maktabatul Rashid-Riad 1409
175.
Did Umar (ra) ranaway from Battle of Hunain?
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
June 1, 2010 at 12:31 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
188.
The events that took place on the day of Al-Hunain.
189.
The Book Sealed Nectar by Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri
190.
Battle of Hunain
191.
On Wednesday night the tenth of Shawwal, the Muslim army arrived at Hunain.
Malik bin ‘Awf, who had previously entered the valley by night, gave orders to his army to
hide inside the valley and lurk for the Muslims on roads, entrances, narrow hiding places.
His orders to his men were to hurl stones at Muslims whenever they caught sight of them
and then to make a one-man attack against them.
192.
At early dawn the Messenger of Allâh (saw) started mobilizing his army and
distributing posts and flags to people. In the dark and just before dawn the Muslims moved
towards Hunain Valley. They started descending into it unaware of the presence of an
enemy lurking for them inside the valley. So at the moment they were camping, arrows
began showering intensively at them, whereas the enemy’s battalions started a fierce
attack against the Muslims, who had to retreat in disorder and utter confusion.
193.
The Messenger of Allâh (saw) turned to the right and said: “Come on, people! I am
the Messenger of Allâh. I am Muhammad, the son of Abdullah.” Those who stoodfast by him
were only few Emigrants and some of his kinsmen. The matchless bravery of the Prophet
was then brought to light. He went on and on in his attempts to make his mule standfast in
the face of the disbelievers while saying loudly:
194.
“Truly saying, I am the Prophet
I am the (grand) son of Abdul Muttalib.”
195.
However, Abu Sufyan, who was then holding the rein of the Prophet’s mule, and Al-
‘Abbas, who was holding its stirrup; were endeavouring to make it halt. The Messenger of
Allâh (saw) dismounted and asked his Lord to render him help.
196.
“O, Allâh, send down Your Help!”
Mulsims’ return to the Battlefield, and the fierceness of the Fight:
197.
The Messenger of Allâh ordered his uncle Al-‘Abbas — who was a sonorous voiced
man — to call out on the followers. As loudly as he could, Al-‘Abbas shouted: “Where are
the lancers?” “By Allâh,” Al-‘Abbas said, “Upon hearing my voice calling them back, they
turned round to the battlefield as if they had been oryxes (wild cows) tending towards their
calves.”
198.
“Here we are, at your service. Here we are.” They said. There you see them trying
to stop their camels and reverse to the battle. He who was unable to force his camel to
turn back, would take his armour, fling it round his neck, and hastily dismount his camel
with his weapon in his hand letting his camel move freely and run towards the voice source.
Voices would grow louder and louder till a hundred of them gathered round the Prophet and
resumed the fight.
199.
Those who were called out upon next were Al-Ansar, the Helpers, “O, folks of Al-
Ansar! Folks of Al-Ansar!”
200.
The last group to be called out upon were Bani Al-Harith bin Al-Khazraj. Muslims
battalions poured successively into the battlefield in the same manner that they had left it.
The stamina of both parties was superb. Both of them stoodfast and fought fiercely. The
Messenger of Allâh was so eagerly and furiously watching the battle that he said:
201.
“Now the fight has grown fierce.”
202.
Picking up a handful of earth, he hurled it at their faces while saying:
203.
“May your faces be shameful.”
204.
Their eyes were thick with dust and the enemy began to retreat in utter confusion.
205.
Reverse of Fortunes and the Enemy’s utter Defeat:
206.
Few hours had elapsed since the earth-handful was hurled at the enemy’s faces,
when they were shatteringly defeated. About seventy men of Thaqif alone were killed, and
the Muslims plundered all their riding camels, weapons and cattle.
207.
______________________________
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
208.
The Battle of Hunayn
209.
The battle of Hunayn occurred after the victory of Makkah, in the month of
Shawwal of the eighth year of Hijrah. After the Prophet conquered Makkah and things
settled, most of its people embraced Islam and he set them free. News came to the
Messenger of Allah that the tribe of Hawazin were gathering their forces to fight him, under
the command of Malik bin `Awf An-Nadri, as well as, the entire tribe of Thaqif, the tribes
of Banu Jusham, Banu Sa`d bin Bakr, a few people of Awza` from Banu Hilal and some
people from Bani `Amr bin `Amir and `Awf bin `Amir. They brought their women, children,
sheep and camels along, in addition to their armed forces and adequate supplies. The
Messenger of Allah marched to meet them with the army that he brought to conquer
Makkah, ten thousand from the Muhajirin, the Ansar and various Arab tribes. Along with
them came the Tulaqa’ numbering two thousand men. The Messenger took them along to
meet the enemy. The two armies met in Humayn, a valley between Makkah and At-Ta’if.
The battle started in the early part of the morning, when the Huwazin forces, who were
lying in ambush, descended on the valley when the Muslims entered. Muslims were suddenly
struck by the ambush, the arrows descended on them and the swords struck them. The
Huwazin commander ordered them to descend and attack the Muslims as one block, and
when they did that, the Muslims retreated in haste, just as Allah described them.
^^^
From the above incident it is very clear that Muslim army was not yet ready when the fierce
attack took place. Naturally, there was fear and confusion in *some* lines of the army
which cause them to retreated back for protection.
210.
Did the great Mujahid (umar bin al-Khattab) who made the majosi empire to kneel
down before him, retreat or run away from the battle ground as alleged by descendants of
majos (rawafid)?
211.
Those who stood firm with prophet (Allah’s peace and blessings upon him) from
sunni books.
212.
From commentary by ibn Kathir:
213.
There remained between a hundred and eighty Companions with the Prophet .
These included Abu Bakr, `Umar, Al-`Abbas, `Ali, Al-Fadl bin `Abbas, Abu
Sufyan bin Al-Harith, Ayman the son of Umm Ayman and Usamah bin Zayd.
214.
This information also present in “al-Bidaya wa nihaya”:
215.
‫ وأبو‬،‫ علي بن أبي طالب‬:‫فلما رأى رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم أمر الناس ومعه رهط من أهل بيته‬
‫ وقيل الفضيل‬،‫ والفضل بن العباس‬،‫ وأخوه ربيعة بن الحارث بن عبد المطلب‬،‫سفيان ابن الحارث بن عبد المطلب‬
.‫ وأسامة بن زيد‬،‫ وأيمن ابن أم أيمن‬،‫بن أبي سفيان‬
‫ والعباس آخذ بحكمة بغلته‬،‫ وعمر‬،‫ منهم أبو بكر‬:‫ ورهط من المهاجرين‬،‫ومن الناس من يزيد فيهم قثم بن العباس‬
‫البيضاء وهو عليها قد شجرها‬.
216.
It mentions the names of those who stood firm with prophet…(and group of Al-
Ansar: Among them Abu Bakr, Umar and Abbas…)
217.
Same you can read in Sirah by ibn Hisham:
218.
: ‫من ثبت معه صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
‫ وأبو‬، ‫ ومن أهل بيته علي بن أبي طالب والعباس بن عبدالمطلب‬، ‫وفيمن ثبت معه من المهاجرين أبو بكر وعمر‬
‫سفيان بن الحارث ‪ ،‬وابنه ‪ ،‬والفضل بن العباس ‪ ،‬وربيعة بن الحارث ‪ ،‬وأسامة بن زيد ‪ ،‬وأيمن بن عبيد ‪ ،‬قتل‬
‫يومئذ ‪.‬‬
‫‪Here you can see that those who stood firm with the Messenger were:‬‬
‫‪219.‬‬
‫‪And those who stood firm with him from among the Muhajirin were Abu Bakr and Umar,‬‬
‫…‪and from Ahlul Bait Ali bin Abi Talib and Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib‬‬
‫‪Also we can mention this:‬‬
‫‪220.‬‬
‫‪221.‬‬
‫رواية الطبري في كتابه تاريخ الرسل والملوك التي ذكر فيها ثبات سيدنا ابوبكر وعمر وعلي رضي هللا‬
‫عنهما يوم حنين‬
‫إال أنه قد بقي مع رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم نفر من المهاجرين واألنصار وأهل بيته‪ .‬وممن ثبت معه من‬
‫المهاجرين أبو بكر‪ ،‬عمر‪ ،‬ومن أهل بيته علي بن أبي طالب‪ ،‬والعباس بن عبد المطلب‪ ،‬وأبنه الفضل‪ ،‬وأبو سفيان بن‬
‫الحارث‪،‬‬
‫‪At-Tabari narrated in his book Tariq Al-Rusool Wal-Mulook where he mentions the‬‬
‫‪222.‬‬
‫‪firmness of Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all) on the day of Al‬‬‫‪Hunain.‬‬
‫‪There remain with Messenger of Allah (saw) group of Muhajirin and Ansar and from his Ahlul‬‬
‫‪Bait. And among those who stood firm from Al-Muhajirin were Abu Bakr, Umar and from his‬‬
‫…‪Ahlul Bait Ali bin Abi Talib, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib,‬‬
‫‪Waqede, even if we would acknowledge his weakness, can be used here as a‬‬
‫‪223.‬‬
‫‪support:‬‬
‫‪224.‬‬
‫قال حدثني عبد الرحمن بن عبد العزيز عن عاصم بن عمرو بن قتادة ‪ ،‬عن عبد الرحمن بن جابر بن عبد‬
‫هللا عن أبيه قال لما انكشف الناس وهللا ما رجعت راجعة هزيمتهم حتى وجد األسرى عند النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
‫مكتفين ‪ .‬قال والتفت رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم يومئذ إلى أبي سفيان بن الحارث وهو مقنع في الحديد وكان‬
‫ممن صبر يومئذ وهو آخذ بثفر بغلة النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم قال من هذا ؟ قال ابن أمك يا رسول هللا ‪ .‬ويقال إنه‬
‫قال من أنت ؟ قال أخوك – فداك أبي وأمي – أبو سفيان بن الحارث ‪ .‬فقال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم نعم أخي ‪،‬‬
‫ناولني حصى من األرض فناولته فرمى بها في أعينهم كلهم ‪ .‬وانهزموا ‪ .‬قالوا ‪ :‬فلما انكشف الناس انحاز رسول‬
‫هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ذات اليمين وهو واقف على دابته لم ينزل ‪ .‬إال أنه قد جرد سيفه وطرح غمده وبقي رسول‬
‫هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم في نفر من المهاجرين واألنصار وأهل بيته العباس وعلي ‪ ،‬والفضل بن عباس ‪ ،‬وأبو‬
‫سفيان بن الحارث ‪ ،‬وربيعة بن الحارث ‪ ،‬وأيمن بن عبيد الخزرجي ‪ ،‬وأسامة بن زيد ‪ ،‬وأبو بكر ‪ ،‬وعمر عليهم‬
‫‪ .‬السالم‬
‫‪In his book Al-Maghazi mentions hadeeths of Jabir bin Abdullah‬‬
‫‪225.‬‬
‫‪The Messenger of Allah (saw) remained with a group of al-Muhajirin and al-Ansaar‬‬
‫‪226.‬‬
‫‪and from his Ahlul Bait Al-Abbas, Ali, Al-Fadl bin Abbas, Abu Sufyan Ibn Al-Harith and‬‬
‫‪Rabee’3 bin Al-Harith…. Abu Bakr and Umar.‬‬
‫‪Also we can mention quote from “Zaad al maad” by ibn Qayum (r):‬‬
‫‪227.‬‬
‫‪228.‬‬
‫قال ابن إسحاق ‪ :‬فحدثني عاصم بن عمر بن قتادة ‪ ،‬عن عبد الرحمن بن جابر ‪ ،‬عن أبيه جابر بن عبد هللا ‪،‬‬
‫قال لما استقبلنا وادي حنين ‪ ،‬انحدرنا في واد من أودية تهامة أجوف حطوط إنما ننحدر فيه انحدارا ‪ .‬قال وفي عماية‬
‫الصبح وكان القوم سبقونا إلى الوادي ‪ ،‬فكمنوا لنا في شعابه وأحنائه ومضايقه قد أجمعوا ‪ ،‬وتهيئوا ‪ ،‬وأعدوا فوهللا ما‬
‫راعنا – ونحن منحطون – إال الكتائب قد شدوا علينا شدة رجل واحد وانشمر الناس راجعين ال يلوي أحد منهم على‬
‫أحد ‪ ،‬وانحاز رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ذات اليمين ثم قال إلى أين أيها الناس ؟ هلم إلي أنا رسول هللا أنا محمد‬
‫بن عبد هللا وبقي مع رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم نفر من المهاجرين واألنصار وأهل بيته وفيمن ثبت معه من‬
‫المهاجرين أبو بكر وعمر ‪ ،‬ومن أهل بيته علي والعباس وأبو سفيان بن الحارث وابنه والفضل بن العباس ‪ ،‬وربيعة‬
‫‪ .‬بن الحارث ‪ ،‬وأسامة بن زيد ‪ ،‬وأيمن ابن أم أيمن ‪ ،‬وقتل يومئذ‬
‫‪Imam ibnul Qayyim (rh) in his book Zaad Al-Mi’aad mentions same hadeeths of‬‬
‫‪229.‬‬
‫‪Jabir bin Abdullah but through different narrator.‬‬
And there remain with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings upon him) group from
al-Muhajirin and al-Ansaar and from his Ahlul Bait, among them who stood firm from alMuhajirin were Abu Bakr and Umar, and from his Ahlul Bait Ali, Al-Abbas….
230.
Number of sahaba who stood firm with the prophet
231.
At-Tirmidi narrated in his “Sunnan” (1739), Albani said chain is saheeh:
(Chain) Ibn Umar said:
232.
I have seen on the day of Hunain two groups turned their backs and there was
with the messenger of Allah (saw) 100 men.
233.
Ahmed and Al-Hakim narrated from hadeeths of Abdul Rahman bin Abdullah bin
Masud from his father who said: “We were with the messenger of Allah (saw) on the day of
Hunain when people deserted him, and those who stood firm where 80 men from Muhajirin
and Al-Ansar.
234.
Al-Heythami in “Zawaid” (6/183) said: “All narrators are saheeh except Harith ibn
Huthirat, who is also thiqat”. Ahmad Shakir said chain is authentic in his notes to Musnad.
235.
Ibn Kathir in his commentary and history mention that about 80, 100 companions
stood firm with prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
236.
In Sharh Muslim Imam Nawawi (rh) mentioned that 12 stood firm with prophet. In
fath Al-Bari Imam Ibn Hajr said it is likely that he took this hadeeths from Ibn Ishaq who
mentions the names of those who stood firm including Abu Bakr and Umar (Allah be pleased
with them)….Allah knows best.
237.
PS. by brother Umer.
238.
Fadak
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
May 30, 2010 at 8:33 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
251.
Regarding narration, that there is no inheritance from prophets.
252.
Kattani in “Nazmul mutanaseera min al hadeethal mutawateera” (272) wrote:
“Narration that no one inherits from prophets, everything that they leave behind is for
charity
Suyooti in “Azhar” reported it via:
1) Umar.
2) Uthmaan.
3) Ali.
4) Sad ibn Abi Vaqas
5) Abbas.
6) Abu Bakr.
7) Abdurrahman ibn Auf.
8. Zubayr ibn Awam.
9) Abu Hurayra.
10) Aisha
11) Talha
12) Huzayfa.
13) ibn Abbas.
13 sahaba in total
8 from “Ashara mubashara” reported this narration. So this hadeeth is close to “Who will
lie upon me
….
Ibn Hajar in “Amaliya Muhraja ala muhtasaru ibnul Hajeeb al Asli” said: “This narration,
is authetic and mutawateer”.”..
253.
Imam Jalal ad-deen as-Suyote in “al-Azhar al-mutanasera minal hadith al-
mutawatera” said:
254.
“Hadith #100: We are not to be inherited, whatever we left is for charity”.
255.
1) Shaykhan narrated it from Umar, Uthman, Ali, Sad ibn Abu Waqqas, Al-Abbas.
256.
2) Moslem narrated it from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Aburrahman ibn Auf, Zubayr ibn
Awwam, Abu Hurayra.
257.
3) Abu Dawud narrated from Aisha.
258.
4) Nasai from Talha.
259.
5) Tabarani from Huzayfa and ibn Abbas”.
260.
“al-Azhar al-mutanasera minal hadith al-mutawatera” p 273, #100, makabatul
Islami.
261.
Muhammad Kulayni narrated in “Kafi” vol 1, p 32:
262.
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa from
Muhammad ibn Khalid from abu al-Bakhtari from abu Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the
following.”The scholars are the heirs of the prophets because the prophets did not
leave any Dirham or Dinar, (units of money) as their legacy. What they left was
certain pieces of their statements.Those who acquired anything of these pieces of their
statements they have certainly gained a large share. You must be very careful, when
acquiring such knowledge, to see from what kinds of people you receive them. Among us
(the Ahlul Bayt, family of the holy Prophet s.a.) after every one there comes a just
person who removes (and exposes) the forgeries of the exaggerators from it (knowledge),
the infiltrated materials of the fallacious ones and the interpretations of the ignorant
ones.”
263.
Regarding the authenticity of this hadith, Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in
his commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mirâat al-Uqul:
[This] hadith has two chains of narration. The first is majhul [contains an unknown
narrator], and the second is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of
being sahih. (Mirâat al-˜Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)
264.
And here scan from Khomaynis book, where he also autheticated this narration.
265.
266.
Kulayni narrated in “Kafi”, bab “Fadlul Ilm”
267.
“Muhammad ibn al-Hassan and Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Sahl ibn
Ziyad and Muhammad ibn Yahya from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, all from Jafar ibn
Muhammad al-Ashâari from ‘Abdullah ibn Maymun al-Qaddah and Ali ibn Ibrahim from his
father from Hammad ibn Isa from al-Qaddah from abu Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the
following. “The holy Prophet has said, If one sets out on a journey to seek knowledge
Allah will lead him to the way that would take him to paradise. The angels will stretch
their wings for the pleasure of the seeker of knowledge and all that is in the heavens and
earth even the whales in the oceans will ask forgiveness for him (from Allah). The
excellence of the scholar over other people is like that of the moon over other stars
during a full-moon night. The scholars are the heirs of the prophets. The prophets did
not leave any Dirham or Dinar (wealth) as their legacy but they did leave knowledge
as their legacy. Whoever acquires a share from such legacy has gained a very large
share.
268.
Some other shia ahadeth about this issue:
269.
So these Ahadith of shia Imams collectively do testify to the Hadith reported by Abu
Bakr [ra].
270.
Ibn Babawaih, p. 58:
271.
9- “…….Abdullah b. Maymoun, narrated al-Sadiq Ja’far b. Muhammad from his
father, from his forefathers saying: The Messenger [saw] said: …….. Verily scholars are
the heirs of the prophets, for prophets did not leave behind (as an inheritance)
neither a Dinar nor a Dirham, rather they left knowledge as an inheritance…..”
272.
It is obvious for those who hold a bit of rationalism that he [saw] meant to say, the
Prophet have no heirs to inherit wealth from them, what they leave behind is knowledge,
and whoever picks knowledge is like the actual heir who inherits Dinars & Dirhams.
273.
Al-Ikhtisaas of al-Mufeed, p. 4
274.
” …. narrated Abul-Bukhturi, from al-Sadiq saying: Scholars are the heirs of
Prophets, that’s because Scholars did not leave behind for inheritance neither a
Dirham nor a Dinar, rather they left for inheritance Ahadith of their sayings….”
275.
Apparently Abu Abdullah (r.a) has erred here, because some scholars do leave
behind some wealth for inheritance, unless it was a slip of a tongue or an error by the
copiers.
276.
al-Mahaasin of al-Barqi, vol.1, pp 421-422
277.
“….Abul-Hasan said: The Meseenger [salallahu alayhi wa salam] brought them
what should be sufficient for them during his era, and what should be sufficient for
them after him: The Book of Allah, and the Sunnah of His Prophet”
278.
So clearly the distortion is in misunderstanding. The Ahadith are explicitly stating
the Prophets leave no money or its worth for inheritance, but they do leave a knowledge,
whoever picks it is actually an inheritor of the prophet.
279.
The above ahadith do support the Hadith reported by Abu Bakr [ra] as well as his
cause for keeping Fadak as a property for the State. Sure, had Abu Bakr[RA] or Omar [ra]
inherited Fadak for their ownselves, charges would have a merit, but they managed it as a
Sadaqah fi sabeelillah, and so did Ali [ra] when he became a Caliph.
280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
Did Uthman appoint his relatives at positions in government?
May 17, 2010 at 5:54 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment
1 Votes
293.
Salam alaikum.
294.
One of the most popular charges against Uthman is claim that he use to appoint his
close relatives to the government positions.
295.
In the time of Uthman’s ruling there were approximately 47 governors in the
different places of Islamic caliphate. (see their names here)
296.
And ONLY EIGHT from them were his close relatives.
297.
1) Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan.
298.
2) Said ibn al-As.
299.
3) al-Walid ibn Uqba.
300.
4) Abdullah ibn Ammar ibn Kurayz.
301.
5) Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abu Sarkh
302.
6) Abdullah ibn Samurah.
303.
7) Ali ibn Ade
304.
8.) Marwan ibn al-Hakam.
305.
These governors didn’t rule in the same time. For example Uthman take al-
Walid from his place and appointed Said ibn al-As instead of him. Close to his death time,
Uthman discarded Said as well. When Uthman died only 3 governors from banu umeyah
were ruling. Muawiya, Abdullah ibn Sad and Abdullah ibn Amir.
306.
Also it’s necessary to note, that Muawiyah wasn’t appointed by Uthman, he was
governor from the time of Umar.
307.
Marriage of Umm Qulsum bintu Ali and Umar ibn al-Khattab
308.
309.
May 17, 2010 at 4:42 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
Rate This
320.
Salam alaikum.
321.
We have seen many shias denying that Umar ibn al-Khattab was a husband of Umm
Qulsum bintu Ali ibn Abu Taleb. This historical fact is something that shia minds couldn’t
accept. It’s hard to claim at one hand that Umar was disbeliever, the one who killed
Fatima, the one whos daughter killed prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), and
on other hand to say that Ali married his daughter from Fatima to this man.
322.
This fact of marriage in itself is sufficient proof to reject all those mendacious
claims against sayidina Umar ibn al-Khattab. But is there any shia that want to accept the
truth?! Unfortunately their blind following to owners of turbans force majority of them to
close their eyes to well known facts of history.
323.
May Allah Taala guide all lost souls to real Islam.
324.
Muhaqiq al-Ardabili in his “Majmaul faidat” (11/529-530):
325.
‫ ماتت أم كلثوم بنت علي عليه السالم وابنها زيد بن عمر بن‬: ‫عن جعفر عن أبيه عليهما السالم قال‬
‫ فلم يورث أحدهما من اآلخر وصلى عليهما جميعا‬، ‫الخطاب في ساعة واحدة ال يدري أيهما هلك قبل‬
326.
“From Jafar from his fathers (alayhuma salam): Umm Qulsum bintu Ali (alayhi
salam) and her son Zayd ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab died in same hour, it wasn’t known
which one from them died first, and non of them inherited to other, and (funeral) pray
was done for both of them at one time”.
327.
This was also narrated by:
328.
Muhaqiq Sabzawari in “Kifayatul ahkam” (2/879); Sayed Ali Tabatabai “Riyadul al-
masail” (12/664); Jawhari in “Jawahir al-kalam” (39/308); Sayed Ali Bahbabani “Fawaidul
aliya” (1/79-80); Muhammad Sadiq Ruhani “Fiqhu sadiq” (24/496); Sheikh Toose “Tahzib alahkam” (9/362-363); Hurr al-Amili “Wasael ush shia” (26/314); Sayed Burjardi “Jamiul
ahadethu shia” (3/348).
329.
And here links to articles regarding this issue:
330.
http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/umm-kulthoom
331.
http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/rebuttal
332.
Here you can see screen shot from official site of Abul-Qaseem al-Khui
333.
334.
Question: Is it authentic that second caliph married daughter of imam Ali (alaihi
salam)?
335.
Answer: This is what came in history and narrations.
336.
Kulayni narrated in his “al-Kafi” (5/346):
338.
(Chain) from Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) that he said regarding marriage of Umm
337.
ُ ‫ع ِن اب ِْن أ َ ِبي‬
ِ‫ع ْب ِد اّلل‬
َ ‫ع ْن أ َبِي‬
َ َ ‫ارة‬
َ ‫سال ٍِم َو َحما ٍد‬
َ ‫ع ْن أ َ ِبي ِه‬
َ ‫ِيم‬
َ (
َ ‫ع َمي ٍْر َع ْن ِهش َِام ب ِْن‬
َ ‫ع ْن ُز َر‬
ُّ ‫ع ِل‬
َ ‫ي بْنُ ِإب َْراه‬
ُ
ْ
ُ
ْ
ُ ‫ج‬
‫ص ْبنَاهُ ) عليه السالم‬
‫و‬
‫َز‬
‫ت‬
‫ِي‬
‫ف‬
.
ٌ ‫وم فَقَا َل إِن ذَلِكَ فَ ْر‬
ٍ ‫يج أ ِ ِّم ُكلث‬
ِ ‫غ‬
ِ
ِ
Qulsum: “That was vagina that was steal from us”.
339.
Hadith is good (hasan) per Majlisi.
340.
341.
And here the same question answered by board of ayatolla Fadlullah. And answer
is: That was reported in authentic narrations
342.
343.
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
Narration about will of prophet (saws)
May 16, 2010 at 6:37 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
Rate This
355.
Salam alaikum.
356.
In “Musnad” of imam Ahmad (#693) there is a hadeth:
357.
‫حدثنا عبد هللا حدثني أبي ثنا بكر بن عيسى الراسبي ثنا عمر بن الفضل عن نعيم بن يزيد عن علي بن أبي‬
‫طالب رضي هللا عنه قال أمرني النبي صلى هللا عليه و سلم أن آتيه بطبق يكتب فيه ما ال تضل أمته من بعده قال‬
‫فخشيت ان تفوتني نفسه قال قلت انى أحفظ وأعي قال أوصى بالصالة والزكاة وما ملكت أيمانكم‬
358.
(Chain) from Ali ibn Abu Taleb, which said: “Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa
ala alihi wa sallam) ordered me to bring a paper, where he can write down something, so
his nation will never go astray after him. I was afraid that I can miss something, and said: “I
have good memory, and good understanding”. And he said: “I advice to you pray, zakat and
those whom one’s right hands possess”.
359.
Ahmad Shakir said: Chain is good.
360.
Albani said: Chain is weak.
361.
As far as I can see all narrators except Nuaym ibn Yazeed are upright. There is
uncertainty in this Nuaym. Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” said he’s unknown.
362.
363.
364.
365.
366.
367.
368.
369.
370.
371.
372.
373.
374.
375.
On so called bidah
May 12, 2010 at 3:54 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1 Votes
We have seen many shias attacking some companions of prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ala alihi wa sallam), due to they may be introduced something new into religion because
of needs of society. No one from Muslims should see anything bad in sunnah of rightly
guided caliphs. Because we were ordered to follow to their sunnah by prophet (sallalahu
alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) in authentic hadith of Irbad ibn Sariyah (r.a). Other strange
thing is, that shias are talking about bidah. Honestly seems to me that there is no such
definition in their religion. They are doing a lot of things that couldn’t be traced back to
prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). For example their mention Ali in adhan, or
they praying on tablets, or their matam and zanjir-zane and etc.
376.
Anyway below you would see some eye-opening info.
377.
Imam Abu al-Hasanat Abd al-Hai Lucknawi said:
378.
“Ali ibn Abu Talib (r.a) in his period of caliphate introduced a second Id prayer to
be performed in a Jami mosque, although the established Sunnah during the time of
Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), Abu Bakr, Umar adn Uthman (may Allah
be pleased with them), was the only one Jumua prayer was to be offered in in any one
town. Similary only one Id prayer was performed in any town. In the time of Ali’s
caliphate it was said to him that there are the weak and elderly within the town, and
they are unable to attend the place of prayer. Ali therefore appointed someone to lead
them in prayers in their local mosques”.
379.
Quoted from “Iqamil Hujjah ‘Ala Anna Ikthar Fil ta’abud Laysa Bi Bid’at”
(in english) by al-Lucknawi,
380.
edited by AbdulFatah Abu Ghudda p 13.
381.
So as it clear from this quote not only those companions that criticizing by shias,
were involved in introducing something new to religion due to need of society.
382.
383.
384.
385.
386.
387.
388.
389.
390.
391.
392.
393.
394.
395.
Jafar as-Sadiq on Abu Bakr and Umar
May 3, 2010 at 10:23 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
4 Votes
Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrated in his Sunnan (№1302, p 557):
396.
‫حدثني أبي حدثنا أسباط عن عمرو بن قيس قال سمعت جعفر بن محمد يقول برئ هللا ممن تبرأ من أبي‬
‫بكر وعمر‬
397.
Narrated to me my father, he said: narrated to me Asbat from Amr ibn Qays,
which said: I heard Jafar ibn Muhammad saying: Allah disassociate (1) himself from those
who disassociate themselves from Abu Bakr and Umar.
398.
Editor of book, Muhammad al-Qahtani noticed that chain is authentic.
399.
Dhahabi in “Siyar alamun nubala” (6/260) said: “This saying of Jafar is mutawater”.
400.
And Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated in the same book (#1303):
401.
‫حدثني أبي حدثنا محمد بن فضيل حدثنا سالم يعني ابن أبي حفصة قال سألت أبا جعفر وجعفرا عن أبي‬
‫بكر وعمر رضي هللا عنهما فقاال يا سالم تولهما وأبرأ من عدوهما فإنما كانا أمامي هدى وقال لي جعفر يا سالم أبو‬
‫بكر جدي أيسب الرجل جده قال وقال لي ال نالتني شفاعة محمد في القيامة إن لم اكن أتولهما وأبرأ من عدوهما‬
402.
From Salim ibn Abu Hafs: “I asked Abu Jafar and Jafar about Abu Bakr and Umar
(may Allah be pleased with them). And they say: “O Salim, befriend to them, and
dissolve from their enemies, indeed they were imams of guidance” And Jafar said to me:
“O Salim, Abu Bakr is my grandfather, does man can abuse his grandfather? And may the
intercession of Mohammad not reach me on the day of judgement, if I wouldn’t befriend
with them, and wouldn’t dissolve from their enemies”
403.
Dhahabi said in “Siyari” 6 volume at page 255:
404.
‫ وأمها هي أسماء‬،‫وأمه هي أم فروة بنت القاسم بن محمد بن أبي بكر التيمي‬
‫ ولدني أبو بكر الصديق مرتين‬:‫بنت عبدالرحمن بن أبي بكر ولهذا كان يقول‬.
405.
And his mother was Ummu Farwa bintul Qaseem ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr at-
Taymi, and her mother was Asma bintu Abdurrahmanibn Abu Bakr, that’s why he use to
say: “Abu Bakr as-Sadiq born me twice”.
406.
And in same book at page 259 Dhahabi narrated:
407.
،‫ أنبأنا محمد بن عمر القاضي‬،‫ أنبأنا داود بن أحمد‬:‫ وطائفة قالوا‬،‫كتب إلي عبد المنعم بن يحيى الزهري‬
‫ حدثنا محمد بن‬،‫ حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن إسماعيل االدمي‬،‫ أنبأنا أبو الحسن الدارقطني‬،‫أنبأنا عبد الصمد بن علي‬
‫ أن جعفر بن محمد‬،‫ حدثنا عبد الجبار بن العباس الهمداني‬،‫ حدثنا مخلد بن أبي قريش الطحان‬،‫الحسين الحنيني‬
‫ من‬:‫ فأبلغوهم عني‬،‫ ” إنكم إن شاء هللا من صالحي أهل مصركم‬:‫ فقال‬،‫أتاهم وهم يريدون أن يرتحلوا من المدينة‬
‫ فأنا منه برئ‬،‫ ومن زعم أني أبرأ من أبي بكر وعمر‬،‫ فأنا منه برئ‬،‫“ زعم أني إمام معصوم مفترض الطاعة‬.
408.
From AbdulJabar ibn Al-Abbas al-Hamadani: ”Jafar as-Sadiq came to them when
they were leaving Madinah and told them: You are inshallah from amongst the best of
people from your country (or from your Egypt) So report to them from me: He who
claims that I’m an infallible imam who must be obeyed, I disassociate myself from him
and he who claims that I disassociate myself from Abu Bakr and Umar, I disassociate
myself from him.”
409.
And at the same page of his “Siyar” Dhahabi narrated:
410.
‫ حدثنا علي بن‬،‫ حدثنا أبويحيى جعفر بن محمد الرازي‬،‫ حدثنا إسماعيل الصفار‬،‫وبه عن الدارقطني‬
‫ إنك تسألني عن‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ وسئل عن أبي بكر وعمر‬،‫ سمعت جعفر بن محمد‬،‫ حدثنا حنان بن سدير‬،‫محمد الطنافسي‬
‫رجلين قد أكال من ثمار الجنة‬
411.
By it by Al Daraqutni, which said: narrated Ismail el Saffar, which said: narrated
Abu Yahya Ja’afar Bin Mohammad Al Razi, which said narrated Ali Bin Mohammad Al
Tanafsi, which said: narrated Hanan Sadir: I heard Ja’afar Bin Mohammad and he was
asked about Umar and Abu Bakr He said: “You Ask me of two Men who ate from the fruits
of heaven”.
412.
And again in his “Siyar” in the same volume at page 258, he quoted ibn Uyanah
saying:
413.
‫ كان آل أبي بكر يدعون على عهد رسول‬:‫ قال‬،‫ حدثونا عن جعفر بن محمد ولم أسمعه منه‬:‫قال ابن عيينة‬
‫هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم آل رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬.
‫ نحو ذلك‬،‫ عن أبيه‬،‫وروى ابن أبي عمر العدني وغيره عن جعفر بن محمد‬
414.
They told us from Jafar ibn Muhammad but I never heard it from him, that he
said: “The Aal (family) of Abu Bakr during the time of rasulullah (sallalahu alaihi wa
sallam) were called the Aal of rasulullah (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam)”.
415.
And Ibn Abi Umar el Adani narrated along with others from Jafar, from his
father similar thing”.
416.
———–
417.
1) Or Allah is far from those who make tabarra from Abu Bakr and Umar.
418.
PS. Adapted from post of TripolySunni
419.
Oath of Ali and Zubayr to Abu Bakr
420.
421.
422.
423.
424.
425.
426.
427.
428.
429.
May 3, 2010 at 9:07 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | 1 Comment
6 Votes
430.
431.
432.
Salam alaikum.
433.
We have seen many shias using hadith of Aisha (r.a) like a proof that Ali (r.a) didn’t
ake an oath to Abu Bakr (r.a) during first 6 months of his ruling. However that’s not a
correct point of view. Our mother Aisha (r.a) narrated the vision of history that she knew.
But she wasn’t aware that Ali make an oath to her father during first days of his ruling.
434.
Imam Abdullah bn Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimuhullah) narrated in his book Sunnan:
435.
‫حدثني عبيد هللا بن عمر القواريري حدثنا عبد األعلى بن عبد األعلى حدثنا داود بن أبي هند عن أبي‬
‫نضرة قال لما اجتمع الناس على أبي بكر رضي هللا عنه فقال ما لي ال أرى عليا قال فذهب رجال من األنصار‬
‫فجاءوا به فقال له يا علي قلت ابن عم رسول هللا وختن رسول هللا فقال علي رضي هللا عنه ال تثريب يا خليفة‬
‫رسول هللا ابسط يدك فبسط يده فبايعه ثم قال أبو بكر ما لي ال أرى الزبير قال فذهب رجال من األنصار فجاءوا به‬
‫فقال يا زبير قلت ابن عمة رسول هللا وحواري رسول هللا قال الزبير ال تثريب يا خليفة رسول هللا ابسط يدك فبسط‬
‫يده فبايعه‬
436.
It was reported to me by Ubeydullah ibn Umar al-Qawarere, he said: reported to
me AbdulAla ibn AbdulAla, he said: reported to me Dawud ibn Abi Hanad from Abu
Nadra:
437.
When people agreed upon Abu Bakr – may Allah be pleased with him, he said:
“What happen to me? Why I don’t see Ali?” A man from ansar gone and came with him
(Ali). (Abu Bakr) said to him: “O Ali, You would say that you are son of prophet’s uncle,
and cousin of prophet?” (Ali answered): “Don’t rebuke, o caliph of messenger of Allah,
stretch you hand”. He stretched his hand and he made an oath. Then Abu Bakr said:
“What happen to me? Why I don’t see Zubayr?”. A man from ansar gone and came with
him. (Abu Bakr) said to him: “O Zubayr! You would say that you are son of aunt of
prophet, and his apostle?”. Zubayr said: “”Don’t rebuke, o caliph of messenger of Allah,
stretch you hand”. He stretched his hand and he made an oath.
438.
Quoted from “Kitabu Sunnan” #1292, p554.
439.
Editor of this book Muhammad al-Qahtani said: Chain is authentic.
440.
Different versions of this hadith could find in other books also.
441.
Imam Hakim (rahimuhullah) narrated it in his “Mustadrak” (#4457) with slight
difference. He said: Hadith is authentic in accordance to conditions of two shaykh.
442.
Beyhaki (rahimuhullah) narrated it in his “Itikadat” 1/ 349-350
443.
As it stated in this two books, Abu Nadra narrated it from Abu Sayed al-Hudri
444.
Answering the Peshawar Nights
445.
May 3, 2010 at 2:58 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies |
Leave a comment
Tags: Peshawar nights
446.
447.
448.
449.
450.
451.
452.
453.
454.
455.
456.
4 Votes
457.
The art of fictional narration
458.
The art of fictional narration can be traced back to the earliest civilizations, and
has assumed various different appearances over the centuries. The fact that this form of
narration is fictitious was never really used to discredit literary fiction, since the lessons
the author of Aesop’s Fables, for example, wished to impart, did not depend upon whether
his animal characters could or did really speak. Similarly, Shakespeare, in his quasihistorical works, does not attempt to convey to the reader the notion that the words or
actions he ascribes to his characters were really said or done by them.
459.
However, it is when the author of the fictional narrative tries to overstep the
bounds of fiction and confer upon his work the appearance of historical authenticity, that
his work loses the respectable designation “literary fiction”, and earns for itself the
ignominious epithet “literary hoax”.
460.
The Historicity of “Peshawar Nights”
461.
In the book “Peshawar Nights”, whose author is styled as “Sultan al-Wa’izin
Shirazi”, we have an example of a work which purports to be the record of a Sunni-Shi’i
debate. However, an objective analysis of the book leads us to the inevitable conclusion
that in this particular work Shirazi has done nothing more than employ the literary device
of fictional narration-a device that for centuries has found favour with Shi’i polemicists.
462.
Shi’i polemicists were quite aware that to actually engage the ‘ulama of the Ahl as-
Sunnah in debate would considerably curtail their advantage, and therefore they resorted
to the more convenient ploy of creating their own opponents, since by doing so they would
be able to manipulate the “opponent’s” arguments to their own advantage. Thus, when
Sultan al-Wa’izin Shirazi decided to choose this style of writing for his book, he was not
being original at all. He was merely imitating the precedent set by earlier Shi’i writers like
Abul Futuh ar-Razi and Radiyy ad-Din Ibn Tawus. Below we look at three works in this genre
by these two authors.
463.
Husniyyah
464.
A book by this title appeared during the latter half of the previous century,
purporting to be the record of a debate that had taken place at the court of Harun arRashid between Husniyyah, a slave girl owned by a merchant friend of Imam Ja’far asSadiq, and the Imams Abu Yusuf and ash-Shafi’i. This slave girl had supposedly stayed with
Imam Ja’far upto the age of twenty, and had acquired expertise in numerous branches of
knowledge from him. In the book she publicly humiliates the two Imams, defeating their
arguments and presenting them with “incontrovertible evidence” of the truth of the creed
of the Shi’ah.
465.
The book is full of anachronisms. For one, ash-Shafi’i came to Baghdad only after
the death of Abu Yusuf, so it is impossible that they could ever have taken part together in
any discussion. The book also speaks of a third learned man by the name of Ibrahim Khalid
of Basrah, who was supposedly regarded by Abu Yusuf as “superior in knowledge to them
all.” When they themselves were unable to answer the arguments of Husniyyah, they
referred the matter to this Ibrahim Khalid, but he too, was incapable of responding to her.
History, however, has recorded nothing of a person by this name, and the effort to identify
him with Abu Thawr, whose name was Ibrahim ibn Khalid, is futile, since Abu Thawr was a
Baghdadi by birth and lived there all his life. Far from being regarded as ash-Shafi’i's
superior, he was his student, and one of the four narrators of his qadim views. Even of
Husniyyah herself, the annals of history and biography have recorded nothing at all. It is
only in this belated document that mention is made of her existence.
466.
It is recorded by the prominent Shi’i bibliographer, Aqa Buzurg Tihrani in his
bibliographical lexicon adh-Dhari’ah that this booklet was originally found in the possession
of a sayyid in Syria by Mulla Ibrahim al-Astarabadi when the latter returned to Iran from
Hajj in the year 958/1551. He translated it into Persian, and it was first published in
1287/1870. (adh-Dhari’ah, vol. 4 p. 97 no. 452, 3rd edition, Dar al-Adwa’, Beirut
1401/1981)
467.
The Shi’i biographer Mirza ‘Abdullah Effendi al-Isfahani has done us a favour by
exposing the real author of the book Husniyyah, and his purpose in writing such a book. He
writes in his book Riyad al-’Ulama’:
468.
Such a degree of learning and eminence is accorded to Husniyyah in this booklet,
that it creates the impression of it being the fraudulent work of Shaykh Abul Futuh ar-Razi,
written and forged by him. He ascribed it to Husniyyah in order to bring disgrace to the
beliefs of the Ahl as-Sunnah, and to humiliate them by exposing their beliefs. (Riyad al’Ulama’ vol. 5 p. 407 (Maktabat Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi, Qum 1401/1981)
469.
This identification of Abul Futuh ar-Razi with the authorship of the booklet
Husniyyah is supported by Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin, the author of A’yan ash-Shi’ah, one of the
most authoritative contemporary biographical dictionaries of the Shi’ah. He states
categorically that this book “is the work of Abul Futuh ar-Razi”.
470.
Yuhanna the Christian
471.
This same Shaykh Abul Futuh ar-Razi is credited with the authorship of another
spurious polemical tract called Risalat Yuhanna an-Nasrani (the tract of Yuhanna [John] the
Christian). In this tract, quoted by a number of Shi’i writers as factual truth, a Christian by
the name of Yuhanna engages the Sunni ‘ulama of Baghdad in a debate during which he
demonstrates the “fallacies” in the creed of the Ahl as-Sunnah. Eventually he declares his
acceptance of Shi’ism as the true religion. Mirza ‘Abdullah Effendi ascribes this work to
Abul Futuh ar-Razi. The “strength” of this polemic is supposed to derive from the fact that
even a non-Muslim is able to discern the “falsehood” of Sunni belief from the “truth” of
Shi’ism.
472.
‘Abd al-Mahmud the Dhimmi
473.
Radiyy ad-Din Ali ibn Tawus belonged to a prominent Shi’i family that lived at Hillah
near Najaf at the time of the sack of Baghdad by the Tartars under Hulagu. Shi’ite
complicity in the fall of Baghdad is a fact of history. This explains why the Mongol
conquerors favoured the Shi’i intellectuals. Ibn Tawus, for example, was appointed Naqib
al-Ahsraf by Hulagu, the destroyer of Baghdad. He gladly accepted this office, having
earlier persistently refused it from the late Khalifah, al-Mustansir.
474.
With the fall of Baghdad came a new surge in Shi’ite propagation, the like of which
was only seen in the days of the Buwayhids during the 5th century. The high positions
occupied by Shi’i dignitaries in the Ilkhanid (Mongol) administration afforded the Shi’ah the
influence and leverage they needed to prosper. In Iraq the town of Hillah soon developed
into the most important center of Shi’i learning.
475.
This age also saw the composition of a number of polemical works. As the most
prolific Shi’i author of the time, it would be only natural for Ibn Tawus to contribute to this
genre of literature. However, he preferred to do so under an assumed identity. His book,
entitled at-Tara’if fi Madhahib at-Tawa’if, was written under the nom-de-plume ‘ Abd alMahmud ibn Dawud al-Mudari.
476.
He commences his book with the (patently false) statement that he is a man from
amongst the Ahl adh-Dhimmah (Jews or Christians living under the protection of the Muslim
state). He then proceeds on to a comparative study of different religious persuasions, and
predictably enough, ends up with Ithna ‘Ashari (Twelver) Shi’ism as the only true religion.
Like Abul Futuh ar-Razi before him, he seeks to inject objectivity into his work by assuming
the identity of a supposedly unbiased observer. (See Riyad al-’Ulama’ vol. 5 p. 407)
477.
____________________
478.
This survey of the use of fictional narration by Shi’i polemicists in history creates
the background against which we will now proceed to examine the historicity of “Peshawar
Nights” and its contents.
479.
Authorship
480.
The first thing which draws the attention of the unbiased reader should be the fact
that while there were two sides who participated in the discussion, the book itself came
from the peof the Shi’i participant exclusively. This fact might at first glance escape the
notice of the unsuspicious reader who has complete faith-to the point of gullibility-in the
goodwill of the author. However, no one possessed of a sense of discretion can help but
notice this discrepancy.
481.
The writer of the foreword seeks to make amends for this serious indictment of the
book’s historicity by stating that “four reporters recorded the discussions in the presence of
approximately 200 people (Shia and Sunni Muslims),” and that “local newspapers published
these accounts each following morning.” Yet, both Shirazi and his publishers fail to produce
the least bit of factual evidence in the form of copies of the newspaper reports from which
it is alleged that Shirazi ultimately compiled the book. All we have to vouch for the
occurrence of this ten-night discussion is the word of Shirazi himself.
482.
There is furthermore no external corroboration at all, least of all by the Sunni
participant or the five other dignitaries who are alleged in the translator’s preface (p. xviii)
to have publicly acknowledged their conversion to Shi’ism. Once again, we have nothing
but Shirazi’s own claim to support the historicity of the event upon which “Peshawar
Nights” is based.
483.
Publication
484.
The book is published not in Peshawar, the city in which the discussion reportedly
took place, but in Tehran. It is published not in Urdu or Pushtu, the language of the North
West Frontier, but in Persian, the language of Iran.
485.
It is highly unlikely that there was a Persian language newspaper in Peshawar, or in
the rest of India for that matter, at the time of the alleged debate. In India at that time,
Persian had diminished into an archaic language, more suited for the occasional moments
of inspiration of the romantic poet than for the practical use of the media. Shirazi himself
was merely a visitor to India, and is therefore not likely to have known either Urdu or
Pushtu. The question about how he came to transcribe his book from newspaper accounts
published in a language he did not know will remain a mystery for as long as one believes
that the book is the record of an historical debate. On the other hand, if one accepts the
much more plausible, rational, and indeed logical position that the author of the book has
employed the literary device of fictional narration, for whatever reason, the mystery is
immediately and conclusively solved.
486.
The participants
487.
The names of the participants are given as Hafiz Muhammad Rashid and Shaykh
‘Abd as-Salam, and they are said to be from Kabul. None of these two persons are
identified beyond their first names. Eponymous descriptions that identify persons in terms
of their localities or family connections, and which are so common amongst the ‘ulama of
India and Afghanistan, are conspicuously absent. The same is true for the third person,
Sayyid ‘Abd al-Hayy. Even the Nawab Sahib, whose conversion at the end of the 10th
session is prominently touted, is not clearly identified. Why, if the incident and the
personalities were as real as the author tries to make them seem, does he prefer to keep it
secret?
488.
Furthermore, Sunni-Shi’i polemics was at that time a very well developed
discipline. Shi’i proselytization in the established Sunni community had led to some Sunni
‘ulama taking up the task of debating and refuting the Shi’ah. Beginning with Shah
Waliyyullah and his son Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz, there were literally scores of Sunni ‘ulama who
specialized in Sunni-Shi’i polemics. At the time this debate was supposedly taking place in
the remote city of Peshawar, there lived in India an intellectual giant like ‘Allamah ‘Abd
ash-Shakur of Lucknow, a scholar whose devotion to Sunni-Shi’i polemics had earned him
the title “Imam Ahl as-Sunnah”. In 1345 when this debate allegedly occurred ‘Allamah ‘Abd
ash-Shakur was in his prime at the age of 52.(See Nuzhat al-Khawatir, vol. 8 p. 271) The
erudite Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri was at that time 53 years of age. (See Nuzhat alKhawatir, vol. 8 p. 90) If Sultan al-Wa’izin Shirazi was at all serious about an objective
discussion of Sunni-Shi’i differences, he would have been engaging scholars of this caliber,
and not figures of obscure historicity, who probably never existed outside his own
imagination.
489.
Sources
490.
Shirazi’s citation of sources cannot fail to attract the reader’s attention. The
translators ascribe this to his erudition: “Although the dialogue was extemporaneous, such
was the erudition of Sultanu’l-Wa`izin Shirazi … that the transcript serves as a detailed
bibliographical reference to hundreds of Sunni treatises well known and little known, in
which the claims of the Shi`ites are acknowledged.” (p. xviii) However, to the careful-and
knowledgeable-reader, this very same manner of citation reveals a fatal fault in the
authenticity of the book as a faithful record of a debate in 1345/1927.
491.
There are many occurrences of this phenomenon throughout the book, but a few
random examples should suffice to clarify its nature to the reader.
492.
One of the sources quoted by Shirazi, complete with volume and page numbers, is
the book at-Tarikh al-Kabir by Imam Bukhari. (See p. 229) This work would be printed in
Hyderabad, Deccan for the first time ever in the year 1362/1943, no less than 16 years
after the “debate” took place.
493.
Another work cited by Shirazi is Hilyat al-Awliya by Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani. (See p.
139) The first edition of this work was published in Cairo, from 1351/1932 to 1357/1938.
The printing of this first edition commenced 6 years after the date of the alleged debate in
Peshawar, and was completed 12 years after that date.
494.
The book Tarikh al-Khulafa by Suyuti is quoted with page number by Shirazi. (See p.
147) Yet the first ever edition of this book would appear in print in 1371/1952, 26 years
after the event.
495.
The Tarikh of Ya’qubi would be published for the first time by Dar Sadir in Beirut
only in 1960. Shirazi quotes from it, complete with page reference, 33 years before its first
edition would see the light. (See p. 147)
496.
The fifth volume of Baladhuri’s Ansab al-Ashraf would be published by the
University Press in Jerusalem in 1936. Sultan al-Wa’izin Shirazi cites from this very same
volume, to the point of supplying the page number, 9 years earlier. (See p. 146)
497.
Muruj adh-Dhahab by Mas’udi was first published by Dar Sadir in Beirut in
1368/1948, 3 years before Shirazi could quote it with volume and page numbers. (See p.
146)
498.
al-’Iqd al-Farid by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih is quoted with page and volume numbers by
Shirazi. (See p. 190) Yet it was printed for the first time in Cairo in 1952, a quarter century
after the alleged debate in Peshawar.
499.
al-Haythami’s book Majma’ az-Zawa’id is confidently cited by Shirazi, with page
and volume numbers. (See p. 82) Yet the book would be printed for the first time in 1352, 7
years later.
500.
‘Umdat al-Qari by Badr ad-Din al’Ayni was first published in 1348. Shirazi manages
to cite this work by page and volume numbers 3 years before its publication. (See p. 239)
501.
The book Tarikh Baghdad was first published by Maktabat al-Khanji in Cairo in
1349/1930. Again Sultan al-Wa’izin Shirazi manages the impossible by citing from this work
with page and volume numbers 4 years before its publication. (See p. 183)
502.
Thus Shirazi’s habit of supplying copious lists of references, and thereupon
attempting to inject authority into them by citing page and volume numbers, had an
unexpected-and a most definitely undesired-side effect. Instead of bolstering the authority
of his book, it destroyed the entire image of the book as the authentic record of an
objective debate.
503.
Aside from the above cases where Shirazi has made reference to sources which
were to be printed several years after the date of his alleged debate in Peshawar, he also
has the tendency to list a large number of references which he could never possibly have
laid hands or eyes on. Most of his references lack volume and page numbers. This shows
that he did not have access to these works, and was merely quoting them from secondary,
unnamed sources. A substantial number of them refer to books that have been completely
missing for ce, and of which nothing is known besides their titles.
504.
Source methodology
505.
One point of criticism which will recur throughout the book is the author’s
indiscriminate use of sources. In matters of Shari’ah and history, source methodology
accounts for four fifths of any textual argument. No quotation can be presented as an
authoritative argument if its authenticity has not satisfactorily been accounted for.
506.
The key word here is authenticity. No hadith is authentic simply for the reason of it
being documented in a book. Of all people, the Shi’ah are supposed to be the first to take
note of this fact. Whenever they are confronted with the fact that their hadith literature
contains a huge number of ahadith (2000, according to Ni’matullah al-Jaza’iri in al-Anwar
an-Nu’maniyyah) indicating that the present Qur’an suffered interpolation at the hands of
the Sahabah. To know just how much importance the Shi’ah attach to authenticity, one
needs only to look at the vehemence and fervour with which Ayatullah Muhammad Husayn
Burujirdi-the supreme Shi’i mujtahid upto his death in 1961-rejected the Shi’i ahadith
proving interpolation in the Qur’an as being “extremely weak”. (Lutfullah as-Safi, Ma’ alKahtib fi Khututihi al-’Aridah, p. 53)
507.
Is authenticity a principle that only the Shi’ah can invoke when things turn against
them? No person possessed of a sense fairness can fail to see the double standards of him
who complains when unauthentic quotations from his own legacy are used against him, but
freely quotes from the literature of his opponents without bothering to secure the
authenticity of what he quotes.
508.
In the following pages I will survey the sources of Sunni hadith cited by Shirazi. The
sources from which he cites Sunni hadith may be classified under three headings: (1)
primary sources (2) secondary sources (3) obscure sources.
509.
1. Primary sources
510.
Hadith books in this category are characterized by the fact that they utilize isnads
(chains of narration) for their material. It includes books such as the Musnad of Imam
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the six major works of al-Buhkari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, anNasa’i and Ibn Majah, the works of al-Bayhaqi, ad-Daraqutni, and of authors as late as Abu
Nu’aym al-Isfahani and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi.
511.
The narrated material in any collection utilizing isnads is as a rule only as good as
the isnad. In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim we have a unique case, in that these two
authors have applied a rigorous set of criteria to the ahadith which they admitted into their
collections. The ahadith in the Sahihayn are therefore all authentic, not simply for the fact
that they appear in those books, but because they conform to the criteria of authenticity
stipulated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.
512.
Books besides the Sahihayn are all subject to scrutiny of their isnads to determine
to what extent they conform to the criteria of authenticity. There never has been a claim,
neither by the authors of these works, nor by anyone else, that these works incorporate
exclusively authentic material. Muhaddithin like al-Hakim, the author of al-Mustadrak, and
Ibn Hibban, the author of at-Taqasim wal-Anwa’ (commonly known as Sahih Ibn Hibban),
have attempted to follow the example of al-Bukhari and Muslim by documenting only
authentic ahadith, but their criteria, as well as the extent to which they abided by those
criteria left a lot to be desired, and consequently came under censure from later
muhaddithin.
513.
Indiscriminate quoting from these works would therefore only occur if a person
suffers from one of two defects: ignorance of the science of hadith; or a Machiavellian
attitude of the end-in this case the conversion of the Ahl as-Sunnah-justifying the means.
Either of these defects is sufficient to disqualify anyone as an objective polemicist.
514.
1. Secondary sources
515.
Books in this category do not use isnads. Instead, they reproduce the texts of
hadith from the primary sources, and give a reference to the source from they have taken
it. An example here would be the book Majma’ az-Zawa’id by Abul Hasan al-Haythami. In
this work the author has collected those ahadith in the Musnads of Ahmad, al-Bazzar and
Abu Ya’la, and the three Mu’jams of at-Tabarani-al-Kabir, al-Awsat and as-Saghir-that do
not appear in the six major collections.
516.
Since the hadith collections in this category basically draw from the previous
category, the same is applicable to it in terms of authenticity as was stated for the primary
sources. In fact, when quoting from such secondary sources, the onus to prove authenticity
is even greater.
517.
Shirazi seems quite oblivious to-or ignorant of-the fact that works such as Majma’
az-Zawa’id merely reproduce ahadith from primary sources. Therefore he thinks nothing of
adducing Majma’ az-Zawa’id as a source after having already ascribed the hadith to alMu’jam al-Awsat of at-Tabarani. (See p. 82) This is but one example of many. One wonders
how someone who displays such an astonishing lack of proficiency in hadith could be bold
enough to present himself as an erudite scholar.
518.
Other books in this category are ad-Durr al-Manthur and Tarikh al-Khulafa, both by
as-Suyuti, Ihya’ ‘Ulum ad-Din by al-Ghazali, Tafsir Mafatih al-Ghayb (also known as at-Tafsir
al-Kabir) by Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi, Jami’ al-Usul by Ibn al-Athir, and Kanz al-’Ummal by ‘Ali
al-Muttaqi. This list is by no means exhausitive. These titles are mentioned merely by way
of example.
519.
1. Obscure sources
520.
Shirazi has shown an idiosyncratic predilection to quote from obscure and doubtful
sources. A number of his sources stand out prominently in this regard: Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah
by Sulayman al-Qanduzi al-Hanafi; Kifayat at-Talib by Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Kanji ashShafi’i; and Fara’id as-Simtayn by al-Hamawayni.
521.
The first of the three, al-Qanduzi, is described in Mu’jam al-Mu’allifin (vol. 4 p.
252) as a Sufi who lived during the latter half of the 13th/19th century. Al-Kanji, although
very prominently labelled by Shirazi as a Shafi’i, is completely unknown to biographers of
the Shafi’i fuqaha such as Imam an-Nawawi in Tahdhib al-Asma’ wal-Lughat, Ibn as-Subki in
Tabaqat ash-Shafi’iyyah al-Kubra, Ibn Qadi Shuhbah in his Tabaqat ash-Shafi’iyyah, and
Jamal ad-Din al-Isnawi in his Tabaqat. Having died in 658 (as stated by Zerekly in al-A’lam
vol. 7 p. 150) he lived at least a century before an-Nawawi (who died in 767) and two
centuries before the remaining biographers. It is therefore of great significance that that
not one of these biographers make any mention of him. Of al-Hamawayni I have not been
able to locate a single trace in any of the biographical dictionaries.
522.
When authors such as these compile works in which they include ahadith the like of
which was never heard of before them, what status shall be accorded to such ahadith? Shall
they be regarded as “authentic ahadith” from “your own reliable Sunni scholars”? I leave
this question to the great Imam Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi to answer. In his book al-Mahsul fi ‘Ilm
al-Usul (vol. 4 p. 299) he lists the kinds of narrations which are known with certainty to be
untrue and baseless. The fourth kind is the following:
523.
The narration which is narrated at a time when narrations have already become
established, and when it is searched for it cannot be found in books nor in the memories of
the narrators-such a narration is known to be baseless.
524.
The same line reasoning is to be found in Abul Husayn al-Basri’s book, al-Mu’tamad
(vol. 2 p. 79):
525.
A narration which, after the stabilization of hadith, is searched for but cannot be
traced in the corpus of hadith, is known for a fact to be a forgery, since we know that the
ahadith have been documented. The narration of a hadith after documentation can
therefore only be the narration of documented ahadith. So if we do not find that (i.e. we
find a hadith being narrated which was not previously documented) then we know it to be
an untrue narration.
526.
Thus, when you see the gloating manner in which Shirazi cites hadith from latter
day “Sunni” authors such as al-Qanduzi and al-Kanji, or the unknown Ibn al-Maghazili and
al-Hamawayni, then pity his gross lack of knowledge of this fieldof hadith, of which he has
set himself up as an expert. And if Shirazi deserves pity, how much more deserving of pity
would those be whose utter gullibility would lead them to swallow the fruits of his “erudite
scholarship” hook, line and sinker?
527.
———————————
528.
The question one cannot help asking oneself is this: Can a book as elliptical, as
blatantly dishonest, and as seriously defective in scholarship as this one ever serve to build
bridges over the yawning chasm which separates the Ahl as-Sunnah from the Shi’ah? This
book was never intended for that purpose. Its publication today stands as the unmistakable
recommitment by the Shi’ah of today to the ideal of yesterday. That ideal is to convert the
Ahl as-Sunnah to the faith of the Shi’ah. The author preferred to refer to himself in the
book as “Da’i”. This was mistranslated by the translators-who obviously do not know
Arabic-as “well-wisher”. Da’i does not mean well-wisher. It means missionary.
529.
After this introduction I will proceed to analyze and criticize the arguments of the
author in detail. The destruction of the historicity of the book has only removed the veil of
objectivity and fair dialogue that was clouding they sight of the credulous reader. Now that
the book has been revealed to be the work of a Shi’i missionary using a deceptive literary
device to win the trust and confidence of his credulous reader, the only thing that remains
is to critically analyze his arguments. Towards the fulfillment of that objective I seek the
aid of Allah.
Three issues are discussed by Shirazi in this session. After making reference to the fact that
he is a descendant of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, he has the Hafiz inquire about
his line of descent. Then, after having the Hafiz object to his genealogy, he launches into a
three page justification of his descent.
530.
Thereafter, he introduces a break for the ‘Isha prayer. He uses this juncture to
introduce discussion of a phenomenon which is to the lay person one of the most
conspicuous points of divergence between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi’ah. This is the
issue of combining prayers. The Shi’ah are known to combine the Zuhr and ‘Asr, as well as
Maghrib and ‘Isha prayers; Sunnis perform each prayer in its appointed time. The
questioner in this case is the Nawab, being the lay participant in the discussion. By citing a
hadith from Sunni books, he attempts to prove the validity of joining prayers, and at the
same time makes use of the opportunity to indulge in another favoured strategy of the Shi’i
proselytizer: casting aspersions against Imam al-Bukhari and his book, al-Jami’ as-Sahih.
531.
Shirazi then introduces the matter of how the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
radiyallahu ‘anhu was discovered at Najaf. He gives an apocryphal story of exactly how the
grave was discovered, and makes reference to Umayyad atrocities in history.
532.
Shirazi’s genealogy
533.
Before the actual discussion ensues, the Hafiz is made to stipulate it as condition
that “reference be made to ahadith and events that are based on indisputable evidence.”
He asks that they should “refrain from referring to doubtful sources.” To this Shirazi readily
and confidently agrees, but his lamentable failure to abide by this condition has already
been noted in the introduction.
534.
In trying to assure his audience of his integrity in this regard, he makes reference to
the fact that he is a descendant of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. He presents his
personal pride is this descent as guarantee that he would abide by this condition. The fact
that he fails to abide by it demonstrates one of three things: (1) He does not possess the
knowledge and skills required to distinguish between authentic and unauthentic sources; or
(2) he does not care enough for his genealogy to fulfil the condition for which he has made
it a guarantee; or (3) the genealogy itself is doubtful. This third deduction may appear
petty and vindictive at first glance, but closer inspection of Shirazi’s genealogy as stated in
the book gives us very solid grounds for having reservations about it.
535.
The historian Ibn Khaldun, through an inductive study of genealogies, formulated a
method of testing the authenticity of any genealogy. This method is based upon the natural
law of averages. It involves the median age to which people of this Ummah live, the age at
which they have children, and the fact that at any given time there are three generations
in co-existence. Essentially it comes down to assigning 3 persons for every 100 years
spanned by the genealogy.
536.
The line of descent given by Shirazi contains 27 persons. The name of Imam Ja’far
as-Sadiq is missing between Imam Musa al-Kazim and Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, which I
assume to be the error of the typesetter or the translators. We may therefore consider this
genealogy to contain 28 persons. Considering that the person at the one end-Sayyiduna ‘Ali
ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu-was born 23 years before the Hijrah, and that Shirazi
himself at the other end of the genealogy died 1390 years after the Hijrah, we have a
timespan of 1413 years. If we were to assign 3 persons for every hundred years, we would
be looking for a genealogy consisting of at least 42 persons. Shirazi’s genealogy falls short
of this figure by at least 14 persons. A difference of 3 or 4 would have been acceptable, but
it requires an extremely credulous mind to accept a genealogy that suffers from 14 missing
links as authentic.
537.
Next we turn to the issue of the descendants of Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu
‘anha. Shirazi makes the Hafiz object to him tracing his descent from the Nabi sallallahu
‘alayhi wasallam through Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha, since he is of the opinion
that “descent is recognized from the male side only.” Shirazi responds firstly by quoting an
alleged dialogue between Imam Musa al-Kazim (erroneously described in the text of
Peshawar Nights as Imam Musa Ja’far) and the Khalifah Harun ar-Rashid. This is the first
place in the book where he fails to comply with his undertaking to use only authentic
quotations, and it is significant to note that he is quoting from Shi’i sources. He fails to
inform his opponents that the quotation is documented in the books ‘Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida
and al-Ihtijaj on the authority of a defective chain of narrators.
538.
As-Saduq Ibn Babawayh, author of ‘Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida narrates it on the authority
of Abu Ahmad Hani ibn Muhammad al-’Abdi, and he on the authority of a person named
simply as Abu Muhammad. Abu Mansur at-Tabarsi has in al-Ihtijaj merely reproduced this
narration from ‘Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida. (See al-Ihtijaj vol. 2 p. 389) Abu Ahmad Hani ibn
Muhammad al-’Abdi and his source of information, Abu Muhammad, are completely
unknown figures. The only thing known about the former is that Ibn Babawayh narrates
from him, and that after mentioning his name, he writes “radiyallahu ‘anhu”. Shaykh
‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, the Shi’i expert on narrator biography, found himself at a total loss
for evidence of this person’s integrity, and could only rely upon Ibn Babawayh’s invocation
in his attempt to prove his integrity as a narrator. (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 290)
However, even the acceptance of Hani ibn Muhammad al-’Abdi as a reliable narrator fails
to solve the problem, since we face an insurmountable problem in the person of the second
narrator, named as Abu Muhammad. Nothing at all is known about this person. He is not
mentioned by name; only by his ambiguous kunyah, Abu Muhammad.
539.
The dialogue between Imam Musa al-Kazim and Harun ar-Rashid is lengthy one. It
covers four A4 pages in relatively fine print. It covers a variety of issues and is not
restricted to the deduction from the Qur’an that the progeny of Fatimah are descendants of
the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The brilliance of that deduction is marred by a hadith
which the Imam supposedly quotes to the Khalifah in the opening paragraph of the
dialogue. This hadith, which Imam Musa reportedly narrates on the authority of his
forefathers, the preceding Imams, from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, says that
when blood relations meet one another, the blood in their veins moves and becomes
agitated. The Khalifah is reported to hug the Imam in order to test the veracity of this
hadith, and-predictably enough-experiences an abnormal activity of the blood in his veins.
Any person who wants to ascertain the authenticity of this narration merely has to hug a
blood relative. He will soon come to know that this entire narration-the deduction from the
Qur’an included-was invented, either by Abu Ahmad Hani ibn Muhammad, or by his source
of information, the ambiguous Abu Muhammad.
540.
The fact that Sayyiduna Hasan and Sayyiduna Husayn radiyallahu ‘anhuma are the
sons of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam has never been an area of contention to the
Ahl as-Sunnah. For the Hafiz to contest this fact shows either his own ignorance-in which
case he is effectively disqualified as a spokesperson for the Ahl as-Sunnah-or reveals the
manipulative hand of Shirazi himself behind the characters in his drama. Had he been
courageous enough to engage recognized scholars like ‘Allamah ‘Abd ash-Shakur of Lucknow
in debate, he would not have had the puppeteer’s freedom to make his marionette say
whatever he wishes him to say. What he needed was an “opponent” with enough flexibility
that he can be made to appear helpless in the face of Shirazi’s own “erudition”, and
thereby effect a victory for Shi’ism over Sunnism.
541.
Since the point is really undisputed, there seems to be no sense in prolonging
discussion about it. However, since Shirazi is bent upon ridiculing the knowledge of his selfcopponent, he devotes another page to citations from a variety of “Sunni” books. The first
source he quotes is Ibn Abil Hadid, the commentator of Nahj al-Balaghah, whom he
describes as “one of your own great scholars”. ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah al-Mada’ini,
better known as Ibn Abil Hadid (died 655 AH) is not of the Ahl as-Sunnah, and never even
claimed to be. He was a self-professed Mu’tazili and a Shi’i. Shirazi himself calls him “Ibn
Abil Hadid Mu’tazali”. The Mu’tazilah never claimed to be of the Ahl as-Sunnah. If anything,
they regarded themselves as the opponents of the Ahl as-Sunnah. Is Shirazi so blinded by his
proselytizing zeal that he no longer sees his won glaring contradictions? Or is he simply
lacking in knowledge?
542.
As for Ibn Abil Hadid being a Shi’i, that is borne out by his own poetry. Some of his
most explicit declarations in this regard may be seen in Abul Fadl Ibrahim’s introduction to
his Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah. Ibn Kathir describes him as follows in al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah
(year 655, vol. 9 p. 82):
543.
Ibn Abil Hadid al-’Iraqi: the poet ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn
Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, ‘Izz ad-Din al-Mada’ini; the man of
letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shi’i. He is the author of a commentary on Nahj
al-Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Mada’in in the year 586. Then he went to
Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the favour
of the wazir Ibn al-’Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi’ism in
common.
544.
In the following paragraph Shirazi cites a hadith from Jabir ibn Abdillah: “Allah
created the progeny of every Prophet from his own generation, but my progeny was created
from the generation of ‘Ali.” He ascribes this narration to Kifayat at-Talib of Muhammad
ibn Yusuf Ganji, and as-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, both of whom cite it
from at-Tabarani. The books as-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah and Kifata at-Talib are both secondary
sources; they derive their material from primary sources. In this case the primary source is
al-Mu’jam al-Kabir of at-Tabarani, which was unavailable in print at the time when Shirazi
was writing his book. Today this book is in print, and thus reference to the original source is
possible. In al-Mu’jam al-Kabir (vol. 3 p. 45, hadith no. 2630) this hadith is found to be
narrated with an extremely defective chain of narrators. One narrator, namely Yahya ibn
al-’Ala ar-Razi, is a notorious forger known for narrating falsified ahadith. (See Tahdhib alKamal vol. 31 pp. 484-488) Once again Shirazi fails to fulfil his promise of making reference
to authentic ahadith exclusively. The only excuse that can possibly be made for him is
ignorance.
545.
A similar narration from Ibn ‘Abbas is quoted from the Manaqib of Khatib
Khwarizmi. This author, Abul Mu’ayyad Muhammad ibn Mahmud al-Khwarizmi lived during
the seventh century, and died in 655AH. (Mu’jam al-Mu’allifin vol. 12 p. 3; al-A’lam vol. 7
p. 87) This source therefore falls squarely within the bracket of late “obscure” sources
referred to in the introduction. The fact that al-Khwarizmi can come more than two
centuries after the era of documentation, and produce a hadith from Ibn ‘Abbas that no
one else before him knew of, is sufficient proof to reject it. Until and unless anyone can
produce an isnad for it, and prove the authenticity of that isnad, it will remain an
unauthentic quotation. Shirazi, having promised upon the sanctity of his descent to quote
exclusively from reliable sources, should have known better than to produce evidence from
a source of such obscurity.
546.
Next he cites a hadith from the above mentioned al-Khwarizmi in al-Manaqib,
Sayyid ‘Ali al-Hamadhani in Mawaddat al-Qurba, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, and
Sulayman al-Balkhi (al-Qanduzi) in his book Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah. He does not produce
page and volume numbers for any of these sources. The text of the hadith is as follows:
“These my two sons are flowers of this world, and both of them are Imams, whether they
are Imams openly or silently sitting at home.”
547.
Out of the four sources cited, only one is worthy of mention, which is the Musnad of
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The other sources are all secondary sources by latter day authors
who do not document their material with chains of narration. Al-Khawrizmi, as we have
seen, died in 655AH; Sayyid ‘Ali al-Hamadhani died in 786AH (more will be said about his
book Mawaddat al-Qurba later); and al-Qanduzi died as late as 1294AH/1877. It is therefore
most unscholarly for Shirazi to cite all three of these sources together with the Musnad of
Imam Ahmad, who died in 241AH. Out of the four cited sources, it is only the Musnad that
can give us an idea of the authenticity of the hadith.
548.
When we turn to the Musnad to look for the hadith, we encounter a most
unpleasant surprise. This hadith, so confidently quoted by Shirazi, is nowhere to be found
in the Musnad. The concordance al-Mu’jam al-Mufahras li-Alfaz al-Hadith an-Nabawi, the 11
volume Mawsu’at Atraf al-Hadith an-Nabawi, as well as modern day computer software
have given no trace of any hadith of this kind in the Musnad. It seems therefore that
Shirazi, beyond breaking his pledge of citing only reliable ahadith, has even resorted to
blatant dishonesty. This would explain why has omitted to supply volume and page numbers
for this particular hadith.
549.
In what remains of this passage he once again makes reference to al-Qanduzi’s
Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah, but this time he makes it clear that the author of this book uses
material from other sources. However, in one of the names he mentions in this regard,
Hafiz ‘Abd al-’Aziz ibn Abi Shaybah, he once again reveals his ignorance of history and
hadith literature. There never was a person by this name. The Ibn Abi Shaybah family of
Kufah had three scions who made a name for themselves as muhaddithin. One was Abu
Bakr, the other ‘Uthman, and the last one Muhammad. Allah alone knows where Shirazi
unearthed the name ‘Abd al-’Aziz ibn Abi Shaybah. His blunt insistence upon producing a
authoritative sounding list of references has produced many a ludicrous situation like this.
550.
In the next passage he quotes out of the blue from the writings of a person whom
he names as Abu Salih. This incoherent citation contains a hadith from Sayyiduna ‘Umar ibn
al-Khattab radiyallahu ‘anhu, which he ascribes to Hafiz ‘Abd al-’Aziz ibn al-Ahkdar, Abu
Nu’aym, at-Tabari, Ibn Hajar al-Makki and the suppositious Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji.
However, he consistently fails to provide authentication for the ahadith which he adduces
as proof. The same is true for the rest of the references which he provides in the passage.
What Shirazi sadly fails to comprehend is that a hadith is not proven authentic by the
amount of books which contain it, but rather by the hadith itself conforming to the criteria
of authenticity.
551.
It is worthy of note here that in this same passage Shirazi makes reference to the
marriage of Umm Kulthum, the daughter of Sayyiduna ‘Ali and Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu
‘anhum without denying its historical occurrence, as many Shi’i scholars are known to do.
He does this in the course of quoting a hadith which he presents as factual evidence. Does
this mean that Shirazi accepts the historicity of this marriage?
552.
In any event, here we have had our first sampling of Shirazi’s source methodology.
In an issue upon which there really exists no need for protracted debate he felt compelled
to brandish as many references as he could lay hands upon. In the process he unwittingly
revealed his unfamiliarity with his supposed sources. He also gave ample evidence of a
stark lack of expertise in the field of hadith. More importantly, he proved his readiness to
resolve to deception for the sake of impressing his reader with references.
553.
Combining prayers
554.
After having the Nawab ask him the reason for the Shi’ah combining prayers, Shirazi
introduces this phenomenon into the discussion. The Hafiz is made to offer the explanation
that the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam combined prayers only in extraordinary situations,
like when he was on a journey, or due to rain, and that he always offered his prayers
separately when he was at home.
555.
In refutation of this explanation, Shirazi cites a hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu
‘anhuma in which it is reported that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam combined the
Zuhr and ‘Asr, and Maghrib and ‘Isha prayers while in residence. Here Shirazi has used a
creative method of citation. The hadith he cites is in reality one single hadith. However, he
boldly states that “many ahadith confirm this fact”. Then, in order to show just how many
ahadith confirm this fact, he quotes the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas several times from a number
of different sources. By mentioning the various chains of narration up to Ibn ‘Abbas
radiyallahu ‘anhuma, even going to the extent that “Imam Muslim quotes a number of
ahadith on the issue”, Shirazi deceitfully tries to create the impression that there exists a
multitude of ahadith that prove the combining of prayers in residence. The fact of the
matter is that there is only one hadith,which is that of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma,
which happens to be narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas by a number of his students. The careful
reader will not fail to notice that each “separate” hadith cited by Shirazi ends with Ibn
‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma, and even the corroboration by Abu Hurayrah radiyallahu ‘anhu
is part of Ibn ‘Abbas’ hadith, and not technically an independent hadith.
556.
Be that as it may, the fact that there is only one hadith on this issue is
inconsequential as far as its authenticity is concerned. Since it conforms to the criteria of
authenticity, it has been accepted as authentic. What now remains to be done is to see
how this hadith fits in with the rest of the ahadith on the times of salah. Shirazi has the
Nawab express amazement at how this hadith (which is slyly referred to as “these ahadith”)
was ignored by the Ahl as-Sunnah, and how “learned men have adopted a different path”.
He brushes off the “explanations” of the Sunni scholars as unintelligible, but turns a
conspicuous blind eye to (or is perhaps ignorant of) the proper treatment of this hadith by
the ‘ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah.
557.
The hadith literature of both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi’ah concur upon the fact
that that the times of salah were given to Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam by Jibril
during the Meccan period. They agree that the time for Zuhr and Maghrib were given as
separate and distinct from that of ‘Asr and ‘Isha. This is further corroborated by the model
example of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The Shi’i scholar Ayatullah Musa al-Musawi
confirms this where he writes that “the habit of Rasulullah by which Muslims should abide,
was to perform every prayer within its time. Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam used to
lead the Muslims in prayer five times every day.” (al-Muta’amirun ‘ala al-Muslimin ashShi’ah p. 173)
558.
The only case which represents an ostensible departure from this norm is this
hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma. Shirazi would be well aware of the fact that in
the entire hadith literature there is only this one solitary hadith which apparently departs
from the established norm. He knows fully well that his argument in favour of combining
prayers would be crippled by mention of the fact that such combination is supported by a
single isolated hadith. He therefore attempts to make it appear as “several ahadith”.
559.
In any event, the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma appears to be out of
harmony with the Prophetic norm of performing every prayer within its specified time. This
norm is established on the basis of a substantially large number of ahadith, even in the Shi’i
hadith literature, and also the continuous practice of the Ummah. The ‘ulama of the Ahl asSunnah were thus faced with two possible approaches: either to harmonise this one
irregular hadith with the rest by giving it a suitable explanation; or to regard it as a
normative hadith in its own right, which sets an independent precedent. The majority of
them opted for the former approach.
560.
The reader might at this point get the impression that their opting for this position
was based on some sort of subjective bias. But this impression will soon disappear when he
learns that what lead them to this option was two aspects of the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas
radiyallahu ‘anhuma which Shirazi, for obvious reasons, preferred to keep unknown to his
readers. The first of the two aspects is the fact that not in a single version of the hadith is
it stated that either of the two combined prayers was perfomed out of its prescribed time.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of hadith is a matter of
consensus, states in Fath al-Bari that “in all of the versions of this hadith there is nothing
which indicates the exact time when the combining occurred.” (Fath al-Bari vol. 2 p. 30)
561.
The second aspect to consider here is the fact that one of the students of Ibn
‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma who narrates this hadith from him, explained the hadith in such
a way that it is left fully in accordance with the established norm. This student, Abu ashSha’tha Jabir ibn Zayd, whose version of the hadith is documented by both al-Bukhari and
Muslim, and several of the other well-known books of hadith, states that what this
“combination” of prayers entailed was for Zuhr to be performed during the last minutes of
its prescribed time, with ‘Asr then being performed immediately upon commencement of
its time. In this way the two prayers are combined without the established norm being
violated. This explanation for the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma was given by
Ibn ‘Abbas’ own student, and was accepted by a large majority of scholars, including the
Hanafi jurist Abu Ja’far at-Tahawi, the Malikis Ibn al-Majishun and Abul ‘Abbas al-Qurtubi,
and the Shafi’is Imam al-Haramayn, Ibn Sayyid an-Nas al-Ya’muri and Ibn Hajar al’Asqalani, amongst others.
562.
The other approach-of regarding this hadith to be normative in its own right-was
adopted by a minority of scholars of the Ahl as-Sunnah, including Imam Malik’s teacher
Rabi’ah ibn Abi ‘Abd ar-Rahman, the tabi’i Muhammad ibn Sirin, the Maliki jurist Ashhab ibn
‘Abd al-’Aziz and the Shafi’i jurists Ibn al-Mundhir and al-Qaffal ash-Shashi. These scholars
allow the combining of prayers, but with the proviso that it be for a need, and more
importantly, that it does not become a habit.
563.
It is this second point that is the point of divergence between them and the Shi’ah.
The Shi’ah have permitted the combination of prayers even without a need. This has given
rise to a situation where they habitually perform Zuhr and ‘Asr together, and Maghrib and
‘Isha together. Although they theoretically assert the superiority of performing each prayer
within its prescribed time according to the Prophetic norm, in practice they are very rarely
seen to uphold this norm. As such the combination of prayers has become the hallmark of
the Shi’ah.
564.
Shirazi has ventured to pour scorn on some of the explanations given by Sunni
commentators in explaining the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma. If only he had
consulted his own hadith sources before doing so he would have been spared the
embarrassment of revealing his ignorance of the hadith of the Shi’ah. One of the
explanations given by the Ahl as-Sunnah for the combining of prayers in the hadith of Ibn
‘Abbas is that it was done due to rain. Shaykh Abu Ja’far at-Tusi in his book al-Istibsar,
which is one of the four major books of hadith for the Shi’ah, records from Imam
Muhammad al-Baqir that on rainy nights the Nabi sallallahi ‘alayhi wasallam used to delay
Maghrib and hasten ‘Isha (exactly as explained by Jabir ibn Zayd) and perform the two
prayers jointly; and he used to say: “Whoever does not show mercy will not be shown
mercy.” (al-Istibsar vol. 1 p. 267, no. 966)
565.
This Shi’i hadith alone should have been reason enough for Shirazi, and indeed the
Shi’ah in general, to reconsider their habitual joining of prayers for no reason at all. It is
therefore very strange to see Shirazi reverently stating that “the Shia ulema, in obedience
to the Holy Imam and the progeny of the Holy Prophet, have unconditionally pethe offering
of prayers together.” What sort of obedience is this which ignores the words of the Imam
when it goes against their own desires? What sort of obedience is this which abandons the
established Prophetic habit of performing every prayer within its prescribed time for an
isolated incident which is subject to interpretation?
566.
Shirazi makes use of the opportunity to strike a blow at the integrity of Imam al-
Bukhari. He has the Hafiz meekly object that the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma
is not in Sahih al-Bukhari. He has no reason for introducing al-Bukhari into the issue, since it
is already accepted that hadith is recorded by Muslim, and its authenticity has thus been
established. Even if al-Bukhari did not document it, its authenticity will not be affected.
Therefore, this objection from the Hafiz must be read to serve another purpose. That
purpose is to malign the character of al-Bukhari. This Shirazi does by asserting that alBukhari did in fact document the hadith, but not under the expected chapter heading. He
has “deceitfully put them away from their proper place.” Did it ever occur to Shirazi or his
reader that al-Bukhari was under no compulsion to include the hadith into his book, and
that had he wanted to be deceitful, he would have omitted this hadith from his collection
altogether? Did it even occur to them that mentioning the hadith under the heading “Bab
Ta’khir az-Zuhr lil-’Asr” (meaning “Chapter on the delaying of Zuhr till ‘Asr”) is in fact its
proper place?
567.
Shirazi once again sacrifices his honesty upon the altar of expediency when he
asserts that people like an-Nawawi (misspelt as Nuri), Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, alQastalani and az-Zurqani (misspelt as Zarqani) have “admitted that these ahadith are
proofs of the acceptability of combining two prayers.” Yes, they have done so, and so have
numerous commentators and jurists before them. But they have never allowed the
unconditional combining of prayers like the Shi’ah do. Without exception, they have made
the permissibility of combining prayers subject to certain conditions. However, Shirazi
could not find within himself the honesty to reflect the conditions stipulated by the men
whose names he mentioned.
568.
Lastly, Shirazi has added the name “Zakariyya-e-Razi” to the above list of well
known hadith commentators. There has never been a commentator of Sahih al-Bukhari by
the name of “Zakariyya-e-Razi”. The only Razi whose name comes close to this is the
famous philosopher and physician Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya ar-Razi. The last thing
a philosopher would contemplate doing is write a commentary on hadith. Mention of his
name in this regard must therefore be seen as evidence of Shirazi’s penchant for inflating
his list of “authorities” so as to impress his gullible reader. This tendency occurs throughout
the book ad nauseam.
569.
How Shirazi’s ancestors migrated from Hijaz to Iran
570.
A story is briefly related here of how Shirazi’s “ancestor” Muhammad al-’Abid was
murdered in Shiraz on the orders of the “Abbasid King”. The details of the story have been
left out by Shirazi, but we will nevertheless take a closer look at the historicity of this
alleged event.
571.
Muhammad al-’Abid was the son of Musa al-Kazim. Mentioned of him has been made
by Shaykh al-Mufid in his book Kitab al-Irshad (p. 459). However, al-Mufid mentions nothing
at all about his supposed murder in Shiraz. Even Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar mentions nothing
about this event. If any author had to mention an event of this nature, that author would
have been Abul Faraj al-Isfahani, who devoted an entire book, entitled Maqatil atTalibiyyin, to documenting the killing of the descendants of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
radiyallahu ‘anhu and his brothers, by the Umayyads and the Abbasids. However, Maqatil
at-Talibiyyin is conspicuously silent on the murder of Muhammad, Ahmad and Husayn, the
sons of Musa al-Kazim, in Shiraz by the order of the “Abbasid King”. We are justified
therefore to question the historicity of the event.
572.
The story surrounding how Muhammad al-’Abid came to be buried in Shiraz, as
related by Sayyid Ja’far Al Bahr al-’Ulum in his book Tuhfat al-’Alim, is that he entered
Shiraz in Abbasid times and lived there till he died. He is reported to have made a living by
copying the Qur’an, and is said to have manumitted 1000 slaves. His grave was
“discovered” 6 centuries later during the time of the Zangid dynasty in a garden belonging
to a person named as Qutlugh. (Tuhfat al-’Alim, published as appendix to Bihar al-Anwar
vol. 48 p. 191) This story is supported by Muhammad Madhi al-Kharsan in his footnotes to
Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 48 p. 174) He informs us that a large number of those who trace their
descent from Musa al-Kazim, including himself, claim descent through this Muhammad al’Abid. Neither of these two sources mention anything about Muhammad al-’Abid being
killed. More importantly, none of them venture any information about the state of the
alleged grave for the 6 centuries before its “discovery”.
573.
His brother Ahmad, commonly known in Shiraz as “Shah Chiragh” is reported by
Sayyid Ja’far Bahr al-’Ulum to have come to Shiraz during the time of the Abbasid Khalifah
al-Ma’mun. The Abbasid governor of Shiraz, conspicuously named here as Qutlugh Khan,
stopped him on his way. A fight ensued and Ahmad’s followers deserted him. He is reported
variously to have been killed in that skirmish, or to have escaped into the city to where he
was followed and killed, and thirdly to have managed to elude his enemies in Shiraz where
he lived an anonymous life until he died a natural death. His grave too, was discovered
during Zangid times, when for the first time a structure was built over it.
574.
As for the third brother, Husayn, known as ‘Ala ad-Din, his story brings a weird
twist to the conspicuous Qutlugh. Sayyid Ja’far Bahr al-’Ulum tells us that during Zangid
times, several centuries after Abbasid rule, the governor of Shiraz was a person called
Qutlugh Khan. This governor had a garden, and the gardener noticed a wonderful light
emanating from the garden at night. Upon investigation they discovered a grave, and
through some means or the other they discovered that the person buried in the grave is
Husayn ibn Musa al-Kazim. Qutlugh Khan thereupon ordered a building to be constructed
over the grave.
575.
All three graves were discovered in Zangid times, 6 centuries after the death of
persons supposedly buried in them. All three brother came to Shiraz at the same time, but
none seem to have known of the other’s presence. All three became involved with a
Qutlugh Khan, but each one in his own unique way. It wouldn’t take an expert historian to
smell a rat here. A complete and rewarding study could be made of the proclivity of the
Iranians, especially in later centuries, to find the graves of sons of the Imams in Iran. Sites
called imamzadahs flourish in Iran. The Persian Da’irat al-Ma’arif-e Tashayyu’
(Encyclopaedia of Shi’a) lists over 350 such sites in Iran. In several cases the same person is
claimed to be buried at different locations. In the case of Ahmad ibn Musa al-Kazim, for
example, there is a rival grave for him in Kashan. (Da’irat al-Ma’arif-e Tashayyu’ vol. 2 p.
433) Muhammad al-’Abid too, has an alternate grave in Kakhak. (ibid. p. 432) The rival
grave of Husayn ibn Musa al-Kazim is in Tabas. (ibid. p. 322)
576.
This embarrassing confusion, and these obvious pointers to the fraud of the ones
who invented the graves at Shiraz, help one to understand the reason why Shirazi refused
to devote anything more than a 7 line paragraph to the story about how his ancestors
originally came to Iran. The actual history of Shi’ism in Iran will be dealt with later, under
the second session, where Shirazi has spoken of Iran and Shi’ism under the heading “Causes
of Iranians’ receptivity to Shi’ism”.
577.
The grave of ‘Ali
578.
Hereafter mention is made of the discovery of the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi
Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu at Najaf 150 years after his death. Shirazi explains the initial
secrecy surrounding the location of the graves in light of fear that the Umayyads would
desecrate the grave. However, what he doesnot explain is why the location of the grave
was revealed by Imam Musa al-Kazim to the Khalifah Harun ar-Rashid when the Abbasids,
according to the Shi’ah, were no less cruel to the ‘Alawis than were the Umayyads.
579.
Hasan al-Amin writes in his Shorter Shi’ite Encyclopaedia: “Then came Abbasid
rule. They were more severe upon the Alawides in their persecution and cruelty as well as
upon the Shi’ites as compared to the Omayyides. Their rule was more troublesome and
bitter for them, as a poet has said: ‘By God, the Omayyids did not do one-tenth in their
case, as Banu Abbas did.’ Amir Abul Faras al-Hamadani says: ‘Banu Harab (Omayyids) did
not succeed in these crimes even though though they intended to, as compared to your
success.’ (p. 36)”
580.
Harun ar-Rashid is the Khalifah to whom Imam Musa al-Kazim is reported to have
revealed the location of the grave. This same Harun is described by Hasan al-Amin as having
“made himself notorious for his cruelty to the Alawides and their friends and took to
extremes in their persecution.” (p. 40) It is interesting that just a few lines earlier Shirazi
was recalling how his “ancestors” were slaughtered by the Abbasids, and now he presents
the Abbasids as benevolent enough for Imam Musa al-Kazim to reveal to them the location
of his grandfather’s grave.
581.
He cites the martyrdom of Zayd ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, and that of his son Yahya ibn
Zayd as examples of Umayyad cruelty. If the cruelty that was visited upon these two great
personalities gives one reason to believe that the Umayyads were given to desecrate
graves, why is it that the alleged slaughter of Shirazi’s ancestors and others gave no one
reason to fear that the Abbasids would desecrate the grave of Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu
‘anhu?
582.
Shirazi appears ignorant of the fact that the exact manner and time of the
“discovery” of the grave at Najaf is a matter of contention in the Shi’i hadith literature. He
cites the story of Harun ar-Rashid and Musa al-Kazim as the point at which the grave
became known, but fails to take note that Mulla Baqir Majlisi has recorded in Bihar alAnwar (vol. 97 p. 164) a report according to which the location of the grave was known to
Abu Ja’far al-Mansur, who was Harun ar-Rashid’s grandfather. Abu Ja’far is reported to
have actually excavated the site to see if it really contains a grave. He also mentions that
Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq revealed its location in the time of the first Abbasid ruler Abul ‘Abbas
as-Saffah, who died in 130 AH. Shirazi is therefore clearly mistaken to claim that “the grave
remained virtually unknown until the days of Harun ar-Rashid.”
583.
His claim that Harun built a structure over the location shown to him by Imam Musa
al-Kazim clashes headlong with a report documented by Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 42 p.
185) in which a person by the name of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Duhaym reports visiting the
site secretly sometime after the year 260 AH, and found no building. All they found was a
few black stones around the grave. Harun ar-Rashid died in the year 193 AH.
584.
Furthermore, the discovery of a tablet in Syriac that bore an inscription declaring
this grave to have been prepared for ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu by the Prophet Nuh ‘alayhis
salam 700 years before the Deluge presents an anomaly in itself. Although Shirazi promised
to use only authentic sources, he fails to provide a source for this fantastic story. There is
also no trace of this aspect of the story in Bihar al-Anwar, a source which has given
considerable attention to the issue of the location of the grave. What Majlisi does record is
that the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu is in fact the grave of Sayyiduna Nuh
‘alayhis salam (vol. 97 p. 171) and not only that of Nuh, but also Adam, Hud and Salih
‘alayhimus salam. (vol. 97 p. 173)
585.
But let us turn to another matter now. Shirazi has cited as examples of Umayyad
atrocities the martyrdom of Zayd ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn and his son Yahya. However, there
is an element in the tragedy of Zayd, and even in that of his grandfather Husayn radiyallahu
‘anhuma which the Shi’ah always carefully avoid. That element is the role of the Shi’ah
themselves in those lamentable tragedies. The Umayyads were only half the problem. The
other half was the Shi’ah.
586.
When Zayd ibn ‘Ali declared revolt against the Umayyads, 40 000 of the Shi’ah
pledged allegiance upon his hand, 15 000 of them from the city of Kufah alone. With a
force this mighty, the Umayyad army would have been easily vanquished, and justice would
have been established. What happened that at the hour of the battle Zayd was left with
only 300 men? The story behind the disgraceful desertion of Zayd by the Shi’ah is told by
virtually every historian who has given a biography of Zayd or recorded the events of the
year 122 AH.
587.
Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask Zayd’s opinion
about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma. His reply was, “I have never heard any of
my family dissociate himself from them, and I myself have nothing but good to say about
them.” Upset with this reply, they deserted him en masse, and decided that he could not
be the Imam, but that the true Imam was his nephew Ja’far as-Sadiq. Out of the 40 000
who had pledged loyalty to him Zayd was left with only a few hundred. On the departure of
the defectors Zayd remarked, “I am afraid they have done unto me what they had done
unto Husayn.” It was here too that for the first time in history the Shi’ah were given the
name “Rafidah”, meaning “the rejectors”. This name was given to them by Zayd when they
rejected him after his refusal to dissociate himself from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu
‘anhuma.
588.
If the Umayyads were guilty on that day of shedding holy blood, then just as guilty
as them were the thousands of Shi’ah who would rather see a distinguished member of the
Ahl al-Bayt and the son of their Imam perish at the merciless hands of the Umayyads than
hear him speak favourably of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma. It is perhaps for this
reason that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq is reported in the Shi’i hadith literature to have said that
“no one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us.” (Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2
p. 414)
589.
However, Shi’i rancour against Zayd did not stop at that cowardly act of desertion.
To this very day their hadith literature is filled with sayings attributed to their Imams in
which Zayd is denounced as misguided innovator, and even an unbeliever for falsely
claiming to be an Imam. (Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 1 p. 467-471) The Umayyads killed Zayd
once, and crucified his body once. The Shi’ah, on the other hand, insult the memory of
Zayd ibn ‘Ali every time that they assert, in terms of the hadith which they ascribe to their
Imams, that “whoever raises the standard of revolt before the coming of the Mahdi is a
taghut (tyrant)”; and “whoever unrightfully claims Imamah is a kafir” and “a mushrik”,
“even if he be a descendant of ‘Ali and Fatimah” and “whoever revolts and calls people
towards himself, while there is amongst them someone who is better than him, is a deviant
innovator”. (Bihar al-Anwar vol. 25 pp. 325-328)
590.
It was not only Zayd who was maligned by the Shi’ah. Even his faithful followers,
who courageously kept up the resistance against the Umayyads, were branded as “enemies
of the Ahl al-Bayt” (Rijal al-Kashshi vol. 2 p. 494) despite the fact that they too, follow
Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt. It is a strange philosophy which denounces those who refused
to submit to injustice and humiliation as “enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt” while lauding those
who deserted the Ahl al-Bayt at the hour of need, and whose opposition to perceived
injustice was limited to the ritual cursing of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu
‘anhuma in the safety of their private gatherings.
591.
Therefore, if Zayd’s martyrdom was a tragic event, then so much more lamentable
is the attitude of the Shi’ah towards Zayd, both at the hour of his martyrdom and all the
way down history up to the present day. Therefore, it is blatant opportunism for Shirazi to
tell only half of the story, and to conveniently omit any sort of reference to the treachery
of his ancestors, the Sh’ah, and their disgraceful role in that tragic martyrdom
592.
Allah praises the companions of the Messenger sallallahu
alaihi wa alihi wa sallam
593.
April 19, 2010 at 10:55 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a
comment
594.
595.
596.
597.
598.
599.
600.
601.
602.
603.
604.
605.
Rate This
In many places in the Qur’an, Allah praises the companions of the
Messengersallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam. He says, {But My mercy encompasses all
things. So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakah and those
who believe in Our verses. Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet,
whom they find written [i.e., mentioned] in what they have of the Torah and the
Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes
lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of
their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in
him, honoured him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with
him – it is those who will be successful} [Al-A'raf: 156-157].
606.
And Allah says, {Those [believers] who responded to Allah and the Messenger
after injury had struck them. For those who did good among them and feared Allah is a
great reward. Those to whom people [i.e. hypocrites] said, “Indeed, the people have
gathered against you, so fear them.” But it [merely] increased them in faith, and they
said, “Sufficient for us is Allah, and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs.”} [Al 'Imran :
172-173].
607.
In another verse He says, {It is He who supported you with His help and with the
believers. And brought together their hearts. If you had spent all that is in the earth,
you could not have brought their hearts together, but Allah brought them
together. Indeed, He is Exalted in Might and Wise.} [Al-Anfal: 62-63].
608.
He further says: {O Prophet, sufficient for you is Allah and whoever follows you
of the believers} [Al-Anfal: 64].
609.
He says: {You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You
enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah} [Al 'Imran: 110].
610.
A host of other verses in praise of the companions are present in the Qur’an.
611.
The Shi’ites believe that the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi
wa sallam were true believers during the life of the Prophet, and they only became
apostates after that.
612.
Oh, how wonderful! How could they agree on the false claim that all the
companions became apostate after him? And for what reason?
613.
How could they have helped the prophet in times of hardships and difficulties,
sacrificing their souls as ransom for him, but then become apostates immediately after his
death, and without any specific reason?
614.
The only reason the Shi’ites could mention is that they became apostates because
they agreed to pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu.
615.
But the issue is, why would the companions of the Messenger of Allah agree on
giving their pledge to Abu Bakr? What threat were they afraid of from Abu Bakr? Had Abu
Bakr that kind of power and authority on them such that he could coerce them into
accepting him as a caliph? By the way, Abu Bakr was from the clan of Banu Taim among the
Quraishi tribe, who were the smallest clan in terms of population. The most populated and
influential clans among the Quraish were Banu Hashim, Banu ‘Abd ad-Dar and Banu
Makhzum.
616.
So if Abu Bakr was not strong enough to force the companions to give him their
pledge, then why would all of them sacrifice their jihad, their faith, their help for the
Prophet and the religion, their virtue of early acceptance of Islam, and sacrifice their world
and hereafter for the sake of someone not from their strongest and most influential clans,
that is Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu?
617.
If the companions became apostates after the death of the Prophet sallallahu
alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, as the Shi’ites believe, why then did they fight the apostates –
the followers of the most notorious pseudo-prophets: Musailamah, Tulaihah ibn Khuwailid,
al-Aswad al-’Ansi and Sijah, and others, and above that forced them to return to the fold of
Islam? Why did they not help these renegade parties or at least leave them alone, if they
were themselves apostates?
618.
Allah’s natural and legal rule on earth is that the immediate companions of all
Prophets are the best among the followers of their religion. That is why if the adherents of
any religion are asked: who are the best among the followers of your religion, they would
say: the companions of the Messengers.
619.
If the followers of the Torah are asked: who are the best among the followers of
your religion? They would say: the companions of Moses alaihis salam, and if the followers
of the Gospel would be asked the same question, they would surely say: the followers of
Jesus alaihis salam. The same is true of the followers of all the Prophets, and that is
because, the companions of any prophet are closer and more deeply associated with the
revelation sent down with that prophet, and their knowledge and acquaintance with
prophecy and prophets are stronger and more reliable.
620.
So, why should the case be different with our Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi
wa alihi wa sallam, whom Allah has chosen to bear the everlasting and all-encompassing
message, and who came with the complete and tolerant law? Why should the case be
different with this last Prophet for the advent of whom Allah had prepared messengers and
prophets before him, and the one who had been mentioned in all divinely revealed
books? How could his most immediate and close companions reject him – as the Shi’ites
believe -, while they were the ones who actually believed in him, helped, honoured and
supported him?
621.
What meaning have you – Shi’ites – left for the message of Muhammad sallallahu
alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, and what significance have you attached to this divine law,
having believed that the most close associates of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa
sallam had deserted him and became apostates? Going by your line of thinking, if his most
close associates were apostates, then those that came after them among those pious and
great warriors who left their families and homes in order to help and support the
Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, and fought their own fathers and brethren,
and after his death conquered many countries and brought them under Islam through their
sound knowledge and by the strong words of the Qur’an and the power of their swords – are
more deserving to become unbelievers, apostates and great losers.
622.
http://www.sunni-news.net/en/articles.aspx?article_no=3456
623.
The Shi’ites believe that most of the companions of the
Prophet (pbuh) except a very few number, were hypocrites
and unbelievers
624.
April 19, 2010 at 10:54 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a
comment
625.
626.
627.
628.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
634.
635.
636.
Rate This
The Shi’ites believe that most of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi
wa alihi wa sallam except a very few number, were hypocrites and unbelievers. If that was
the case, why didn’t those unbelievers destroy and wreck that small number that was with
the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam? If they argue that the companions only
became apostates after the Prophet’s death leaving only seven of them, why didn’t they
bring the whole message of the Prophet to an end by destroying the few number of Muslims
left, thereby reverting the situation to what it was in the days of their forefathers?
637.
Is it logically acceptable that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam failed
woefully in choosing his companions, while Khomeini succeeded in that?
638.
If the society of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa
sallamwas such as described by the Shi’ites: a society full of enmity between its populace;
its members full of envy against each other; each and every one of them striving for
nothing but political leadership; a society most members of which have become apostates
and left the religion of Allah – if not for a very small number of them… If all this were true
we wouldn’t have witnessed Islam gaining ground and reaching the apogee of its strength
and might, conquering various communities and bringing them under its umbrella and
thousands of their populace accepting it as a religion, all in the days of the
companions radiyallahu ‘anhum.
639.
The Shi’ites claim that reports (from the Prophet) on ‘Ali’s virtues and on his
assumed imamate are in very large numbers via Shi’ite narrators.
640.
It is imperative here to assert that the reports narrated by those who were not
among the sahabah will never be authentic, for they never met or saw the
Prophetsallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, nor did they hear anything from him. So their
reports from him must be part of what the scholars of hadith term mursal
andmunqati’. Those narratives will only be authentic if they report them throug
thesahabah and regard them the first authorities in that respect. And it is a known fact that
the sahabah respected and loved by the Shi’ites are very little in number, to be more
precise, they are a little more than ten, and this is below the required number for a report
to be termed mutawatir.
641.
On another side we find that the Shi’ites vilify the majority of the sahabah who
reported the virtues of ‘Ali, and accuse them of disbelief.
642.
If the Shi’ites believe that it is probable that those sahabah who were praised by
the Qur’an were liars and that they concealed some of the knowledge they knew
concerning ‘Ali’s virtues or his purported Imamate, regardless of their large number, they
must also accept that probability in the case of those little number they respect and love.
Nay, that probability in their case is even more in place and logical.
643.
The Shi’ites assume that all of the Prophet’s companions were apostates but a few,
not more than seven.
644.
The question is, what of the rest of the Ahl al-Bait like the progeny of Ja’far and
those of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhuma? Were they also apostates?
645.
We also find that ‘Ali did not consider his opponents unbelievers, not even
theKharijites who fought and harmed him, and declared him an unbeliever. What is wrong
with the Shi’ites that they fail to imitate him in that, even though they heedlessly and
boldly declare the companions of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, nay his
wives, the mothers of the faithful, to be infidels?
646.
The Shi’ites believe that the Sahabah were not reputable and just. But we find in
reliable Shi’i sources evidences that confirm their being reputable and just. They report
that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam has said in his farewell
pilgrimage speech: “May Allah bless the servant who heard my statement and fully
understood it, then conveyed it to him who did not hear…”[1]. How could the
Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam trust the Sahabah in conveying his message if
were they not reputable, just and reliable?
647.
If the number of hypocrites and apostates among the companions is as great as the
Shi’ites claim, how could Islam have been spread the way it was? And how could the Persian
and Roman empires have been conquered, nay how could Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) have
been brought under Islam?
648.
The Shi’ites present as proof – to their false claim that the sahabah became
apostates after the death of the Prophet – the hadith: “Some men among whom I know and
who know me would come to me (on the day of judgement, in order to drink from my pond)
but they would be driven away from it. And I would say: O, my companions, my
companions! But it would be said to me: ‘You know not what they innovated after you’[2].
649.
We reply them by saying, this hadith speaks in a general way without mentioning
anybody by name. It exempts neither ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, nor al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, nor
Abu Dharr, nor Salman al-Farisi, nor any other person among whom the Shi’ites believe
were not apostates. Nay, it does not even exempt ‘Aliradiyallahu ‘anhu himself. So, why
would you specify some and leave out others. This kind of selective discrimination can be
done by anyone, because anybody that has ill feelings against any of the companions can
claim that the hadith speaks about him.[3]
650.
The Sahabah’s major crime in the sight of the Shi’ites is their deviation from
thewilayah of ‘Ali and their failure to accept him as caliph (after the Prophet
immediately). For this, according to the Shi’ites, they lost their uprightness and
reputation. But why don’t they treat other Shi’ite sects, like ‘al-Futahiyyah’ and ‘alWaqifiyyah’, who also reject some of their so-called imams with the same token? Instead,
they even accept their reports and regard them upright[4]. What kind of contradiction is
this?
651.
652.
[1] Al-Khisal (p. 149-150, hadith No. 182).
653.
[2] Reported by al-Bukhari.
654.
[3] The hadith rather speaks about those Arab villagers (al-A’raab) who left the
religion of Islam after the death of the Prophet, and whom Abu Bakr and the rest of the
companions fought to make them return to Islam. As for the Prophet’s word “My
companions”, it still refers to those Arab villagers because they were following the religion
during his life and that is what he means by the word sahabihere. But if the Shi’ites will
claim that rather the closest companions are hereby referred to, they have no reason
whatsoever to exclude ‘Ali, ‘Ammar, al-Miqdad, Salman al-Farisi and those among the
companions whom they consider the only Muslims after the death of the Prophet, because
the wordsahabi is applicable to all of them. But we do not subscribe to this false
assumption, for all of the aforementioned together with all other companions – above all
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali – were the best of this Ummah, and were the leaders of
the faithful. The Prophet never refers to them in the hadith. But if they say that the
companions were apostates for accepting Abu Bakr as caliph after the death of the Prophet
instead of ‘Ali, then we remind them that ‘Ali himself and ‘Ammar, al-Miqdad, Abu Dharr
and Salman al-Farisi all accepted Abu Bakr instead of ‘Ali, so if the companions were
infidels for this particular reason the Shi’ites should raise their voice loudly and declare
these five as infidels as well. (Translator).
655.
[4] See for example: the books ‘Rijal al-Kisshi’ (p. 27; 219; 445; 465), ‘Rijal an-
Najashi’ (p. 28; 53; 76; 86; 95; 139), and al-Ardabili’s ‘Jami’ ar-Ruwat’ (1/413).
656.
http://www.sunni-news.net/en/articles.aspx?article_no=3456
657.
Acceptance of caliphate
658.
659.
660.
661.
662.
663.
664.
665.
666.
667.
668.
669.
April 18, 2010 at 3:14 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
670.
Salam alaikum.
671.
Ibn Abil-Hadeed Shii al-Motathele in his “Sharhul nahjul balagha” 2/50 wrote:
672.
، ‫ إنه لصاحب الغار‬، ‫ وإنا لنرى أبا بكر أحق الناس بها‬، ‫ ما غضبنا إال في المشورة‬: ‫وقال علي والزبير‬
‫ ولقد أمره رسول هللا ص بالصالة بالناس وهو حي‬، ‫وإنا لنعرف له سنة‬
673.
Ali and Zubayr said: We didn’t become angry (due to anything except we were
not included) in consultation, we see Abu Bakr most worthy from people to that, he was
companion in cave, and we assume to him sunnat, and prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala
alihi wa sallam) order him to (lead) people in pray when he was still alive”.
674.
And as it was reported by Toose in “Talkees ash-shafei” (2/372, source)wrote that
when Ali (r.a) was wounded he was asked:
675.
” ‫ ( أي الرسول ) إن‬: ‫ ما أوصى رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه و سلم فأوصى و لكن قال‬: ‫أال توصى ؟ قال‬
‫“ أراد هللا خيرا ً فيجمعهم على خيرهم بعد نبيهم‬
676.
“Wouldn’t you make bequeath (to someone)? He answered: “Prophet (sallalahu
alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t bequeath to someone so I can do. But he (it’s mean
prophet, sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: If Allah wants good for them, He
would gather them around best one after their prophet”.
677.
Sahih hadith in praise of Muawiyah
678.
April 12, 2010 at 8:14 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
679.
680.
681.
682.
683.
684.
685.
686.
687.
688.
689.
690.
691.
5 Votes
As it was reported by Tirmizi in “Sunnan” r4213:
‫ع ْب ِد‬
َ ‫ع ْن‬
َ ،َ‫ع ْن َر ِبي َعةَ ب ِْن َي ِزيد‬
َ ،‫يز‬
َ ‫سعِي ِد ب ِْن‬
َ ،‫ع ْبدُ األ َ ْعلَى بْنُ ُم ْس ِه ٍر‬
َ ‫ َحدثَنَا أَبُو ُم ْس ِه ٍر‬،‫َحدثَنَا ُم َحمدُ بْنُ َيحْ َيى‬
َ ‫ع ْن‬
ِ ‫ع ْب ِد ْال َع ِز‬
‫ي صلى هللا عليه وسلم أَنهُ قَا َل ِل ُم َعا ِويَةَ ” الل ُهم‬
ْ َ‫ مِ ْن أ‬، َ‫ َو َكان‬،َ ‫يرة‬
ُ ‫ب َر‬
ِ ‫ص َحا‬
َ ‫سو ِل اّللِ صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
َ ‫الرحْ َم ِن ب ِْن أ َ ِبي‬
َ ِ‫عم‬
ِِّ ‫ع ِن الن ِب‬
ٌ ‫سى َهذَا َحد‬
. ٌ‫سنٌ غ َِريب‬
َ ‫ِيث َح‬
َ ‫ قَا َل أَبُو عِي‬. ” ‫اجْ عَ ْلهُ هَا ِديًا َم ْه ِديًّا َوا ْه ِد بِ ِه‬
Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said to Muawiyah (r.a): “Allah, make him
(Muawiya ) guided, a guider, and guide people through him”.
692.
Chain:
1) Abdurrahman ibn Abu Umeyrat. Tirmizi said he was from companions. Ibn Hajar in
“Isaba” wrote:
693.
‫ذكره البخاري وابن سعد وابن البرقي وابن حبان وعبد الصمد بن سعيد في الصحابة وذكره أبو الحسن بن سميع في‬
‫الطبقة األولى من الصحابة الذين نزلوا حمص‬
“Bukhari, ibn Sad, ibn al-Barqi, ibn Hibban, Abdussamad ibn Sayed mentioned him as
companion, Abul Hasan ibn Sumay mentioned him in 1-st generations of companions
which settled in Hums”.
694.
And he also said:
695.
‫فعجب من قول بن عبد البر حديثه منقطع اإلسناد مرسل ال تثبت أحاديثه وال تصح صحبته‬
“And opinion of ibn abd-Al-Bar is amazing, (he claimed) that his narrations are broken,
chain is disconnected, and his narrations are not established and it’s not proven his talks
(with prophet, sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
696.
Hafidh Alaatdin al-Mughlutai in “al-Ibanah ila marifat al-mukhtalif fihim min as
sahaba” (2/24) said that Abu Nuaym, ibn Ghani, ibn Hibban, ibn Mandah mentioned him
amongst companions.
697.
2) Rabiat ibn Yazeed. Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” 1919said:
698.
‫ربيعة ابن يزيد الدمشقي أبو شع يب اإليادي القصير ثقة عابد من الرابعة مات سنة إحدى أو ثالث وعشرين‬
699.
“Rabiat ibn Yazeed ad-Dimashqi Abu Shuyab al-Iydi al-Qasii, thiqat, worshipper
from 4 (level) died in 21 or 23″.
700.
3) Sayed ibn Abdulaziz imam, thiqat. Got confused in the end. “Taqrib” 2358 He
was thiqat in accordance to ibn Muin, Abu Khatim and Ijli. “Tahzib at tahzib” 4/n 102.
701.
4) AbdulAla ibn Muskhar. Thiqat like Abu Dawud and Abu Khatim said. Ibn Hibban
mentioned in “Thiqat”. Khalili said: Thiqat, hafidh, imam. Hakim said: Imam thiqat.
“Tahzib at tahzib” 6/n 205.
702.
5) Muhammad ibn Yahya. As far as I understand that should be Muhammad ibn
Yahya ibn Ayub ibn Ibrahim ath-Thaqafi. Thiqat in accordance to Nasai and Maslamat. Ibn
Hibban mentioned in “Thiqat”. “Tahzib at tahzib” 9/n 836.
703.
Some other chains here in “Siyar”. In “Hiliyat” of Abu Nuaym 8/358, Tabarani “al-
Awsat” n656 and “Musnad Shamiin” n 2198, 2199, Ahmad in “Musnad” 17926. Sheikh Shuayb
Arnawut said: Narrators thuqat, narrators sahih. And then noticed ikhtilat of Sayed.
704.
Tirmizi said: Hadith hasan gharib.
Sheikh Albani said it’s sahih.
705.
Muhammad Ameen Shinqiti in “Ahadeth an-nabawiya fi fadhail Muawiya ibn Abu
Sufyan” wrote:
706.
‫ عن أبي مسهر حدثنا سعيد بن عبد‬:)240|5( ‫أخرج اإلمام البخاري بسند صحيح في التاريخ الكبير‬
‫ قال النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬:‫العزيز عن ربيعة بن يزيد عن (الصحابي عبد الرحمن) بن أبي عميرة قال‬
‫ «اللهم اجعلهُ هادِيا ً َمهديِّا ً واهده واه ِد به‬:‫»لمعاوية‬.”It was transmitted by imam Buhari in
his “Tareeh al-kabir” (5/240) via authentic chain: From Abu Musakhar, it
was reported to me by Sayed ibn Abdulaziz from Rabiat ibn Yazid from
(companion Abdurrahman) ibn Abu Umeyrat, which said: Prophet
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said about Muawiyah: “Allah,
make him (Muawiya :ra: ) guided, a guider, and guide people through
him”.
707.
Ibn Athakir said in “Tareeh madinatul dimashq” (59/106):
708.
‫ أخرجه‬،‫ي منذ أسلم‬
ِِّ ‫وأصح ما ُروي في فضل معاوية حديث أبي حمزة عن ابن عباس أنه كاتِبُ النب‬
‫ اللهم اجعله هاديا‬:‫ وبعد حديث ابن أبي َعميرة‬.‫ اللهم علمه الكتاب‬:‫ وبعده حديث العرباض‬.‫مسلم في صحيحه‬
‫”مهديا‬
“And most authentic that was narrated in merits of Muawiya narration of
Abu Hamza from ibn Abbas that he was scribe of prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ala alihi wa sallam) after he embraced Islam,it was reported by Muslim
in his Sahih, and after that narration of al-Irbad: O Allah teach him the
book, and after that narration of ibn Abu Umeyrah: O Allah make him
guided, a guider”.
709.
Mizzi in “Tahzib al-kamal” (vol 1, number 48) wrote:
710.
‫روى بإسناده عن أبي الحسن علي بن محمد القابسي قال سمعت أبا علي الحسن بن أبي هالل يقول سئل‬
‫أبو عبد الرحمن النسائي عن معاوية بن أبي سفيان صاحب رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم فقال إنما اإلسالم كدار‬
‫لها باب فباب اإلسالم الصحابة فمن آذى الصحابة إنما أراد اإلسالم كمن نقر الباب إنما يريد دخول الدار قال فمن‬
‫أراد معاوية فإنما أراد الصحابة‬
711.
“And he narrated with his chain from abul-Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad
al-Qabsi (or al-Qabusi) which said: I heard Abu Ali Al-Hasan ibn Abu
Khallal, that he said: Abu Abdurrahman an-Nasai was asked about
Mu’awiyah. His reply was: “Islam is like a house with a door. The door of
Islam is the Sahaba. Whoever speaks ill of the Sahaba seeks but to harm
Islam, just like one who knocks a door to enter a house. As for Mu’awiyah,
whoever speaks ill of him seeks to find a way to speak ill of the Sahaba.”
712.
Tabatabai on election of first caliph
713.
March 23, 2010 at 8:59 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting shia
doubts | Leave a comment
714.
715.
716.
717.
718.
719.
720.
721.
722.
723.
724.
Rate This
725.
Salam alaikum.
726.
Describing situation when first caliph was elected, Ayatolla Muhammad Husayn
Tabatabai, said:
727.
«This group (the one who chosed Abu Bakr) which was later to form the
majority, set forth in great haste to select caliph for the Muslims with the aim of
ensuring the welfare of the community and solving its immediate problems».
728.
Source: «A series of islam and shia» p 56, 1-st edition, printed in 2005.
729.
The interesting part in this quote is a fact, that this ayatolla admitted the aim of
Muslims which chose Abu Bakr. They aim wasn’t taking ruling from ahlel-bayt, or make
oppression. Aim was ensuring the welfare of the community.
730.
Very same Tabatabai said:
731.
“The first caliph was selected through the vote OF THE MAJORITY of the
companions”.
732.
Source: “A series of islam and shia” p 66, publisher: Al-Hoda
733.
Ali During the Reign of Caliph Abu Bakr
734.
735.
736.
737.
738.
739.
740.
741.
742.
743.
744.
745.
March 1, 2010 at 7:03 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Useful books | Leave a comment
1 Votes
746.
Ali During the Reign of Caliph Abu Bakr
747.
by S. Abul Hasan Nadwi
748.
Excerpted from “The Life of Caliph Ali” by Abul Hasan Nadwi
749.
The Decisive Hour
750.
The death of the Prophet was a decisive as well as a dangerous juncture for the life
and death of Islam. Islam was, at best, like a small island surrounded by the sea of
paganism, polytheistic beliefs, unruly traditions of the Arabian nomads and despotic
kingdoms. Arabs had only recently accepted Islam but they had no experience of a
corporate social order or leading a disciplined life.
751.
All the great religions of the world, which had in their own time prevailed over vast
spaces and claimed allegiance of great many peoples and nations, had already so deviated
from their original teachings or fallen prey to internal schisms and intrigues or external
encroachments that they had become almost lifeless. The only reason why these religions
had lost their vital spark was that those who had been charged with the responsibility of
guiding their co-religionists, after the death of the founders of those religions, lacked any
deep perception of the teachings and objectives of their religions, or were short of
sincerity and steadfastness so essential for the immediate successors of prophets and
architects of great religions. They were also deficient in zeal and carefulness and anxiety
required for preserving the purity of their faiths at a crucial stage. Often they were
worldly-minded or had a craving for fame and honour. The result was that these religions
were assimilated by philosophies and cults that had been designed to destroy them. It also
happened sometimes that a religion became resigned to the current of the time in order to
serve the interests of potentates but the result was that it became a tool of exploitation,
gained a little advantage but lost heavily. Brahminism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism had to
undergo such transformations in their initial stages. Judaism was no exception to this
misfortune and the Christianity was caught by a dangerous manipulation soon after Jesus
Christ.
752.
Ancient Religions
753.
Let us first see what happened to Judaism and Christianity, both of which were
based on revelation and Islam recognises their followers as ‘people of the Book.’
Contamination of Judaism in its earliest period has been thus described in the Jewish
Encyclopaedia; “The thunderings of the Prophets against idolatry show, however, that the
cults of the deities were deeply rooted in the heart of the Israeli people, and they do not
appear to have been thoroughly suppressed until the return from the Babylonian exile . . .
Through mysticism and magic many polytheistic customs again found their way among the
people, and the Talmud confirms the fact that idolatrous worship is seductive.
754.
Christianity had fallen a prey, in its very infancy, to the misguided fervour of its
overzealous evangelists, polytheism of the Romans and unwarranted interpretations of its
tenets by ignorant church fathers. The monotheistic creed preached by Jesus Christ had
been overcast by the gloomy clouds of deviations for which St. Paul (c. 10-65) was primarily
responsible, for he had usurped the authority of expounding the Christian creed as head of
the church. A number of Christian scholars have since reached the conclusion that the
present Christian creed of Trinitarianism implying incarnation and anthropomorphism,
taken over from Buddhism, was introduced into Christianity not by the apostles of Jesus
Christ but by St. Paul. These heterodox beliefs have been preserved as the official creed of
the Orthodox Church during the last nineteen hundred years.
755.
Ancient Hinduism or Brahminism had changed its course in the very beginning of its
journey : shorn of its simplicity and spiritual link with the Lord and Master of the world, it
had developed a passion for idolatry and multiplicity of deities so earnestly that their
number is reported to have reached 330 million.
756.
Buddhism fared no better than Hinduism: the mutilated form of later Buddhism had
hardly preserved anything of Gautama Buddha’s original teachings. It also became so
intensely idolatrous in its creed and practice that there remained almost nothing to
distinguish it from Hinduism except the names of idols and deities. Their fervour for
idolatry, escalated to the extent that but, the word for idol in Persian and Urdu, came to
be derived from Buddha itself.
757.
Zoroastrianism, too, met the same fate as maintained by the authors of the
Religions of the World. They say : “Zoroaster had hardly passed from the scene before a
reaction in the nature of a counter-reformation restored the old gods with their ancient
cults. They were welcomed with enthusiasm by persons who had long found satisfaction in
them. The magi[an] priests, who spearheaded the restoration, celebrated their return to
the ancient alters. Zoroaster’s faith, which had bravely set forth as monotheism, now found
itself submerged in a reinstated polytheism.”
758.
Succession to the Prophet – Demands and Conditions
759.
The death of the holy Prophet was as inevitable as the difficulties that the incident
was likely to bring about. This was the way of God which never changes.
760.
(That had been) the dispensation of Allah with those who have passed away, and
thou shall not find any change in the dispensation of Allah. [Qur'an 33:62]
761.
The only way to survive in such a difficult situation was to elect such a successor of
the Prophet who had been gifted by God with the qualities and capacity to reject all
aberrations and deviations and was able to keep Islam strictly on the path chalked out by
the Prophet. Such a man had to have the following qualities:
762.
(1) He must have enjoyed full confidence of the Prophet ever since his acceptance
of Islam; the Prophet must have evoked his sincerity and entrusted to him the responsibility
of acting on his behalf, particularly in matters relating to religion, and taken him in
confidence in delicate affairs and on perilous occasions.
763.
(2) He had to be a man of such indomitable courage and conviction that at a time
when the entire fabric of faith was in danger, when other lifelong companions of the
Prophet had become dejected, he should have stuck to his guns. His determination to face
the most adverse circumstances should have been reminiscent of the fortitude of the
prophets of old, who never compromised on any matter pertaining to faith and creed.
764.
(3) He should have had a deep comprehension of the religious truth and imbibed its
spirit to the extent that he was never unmindful of the example set by the Prophet in times
of war and peace, fear and calm, unity and breach and poverty and affluence.
765.
(4) Pristine purity and integrity of his faith should have been a thing more
cherished and precious to him than the honour of his own person or family and he should
have always been prepared to make the greatest sacrifice for it, unshaken by any fear or
favour.
766.
(5) He should have made it the aim and purpose of his life to accomplish and make
perfect the teachings of the Prophet without deflecting a hair’s-breadth from them.
767.
(6) He should have been unmindful of riches and fame and personal conveniences
like the Prophet. His character should have been so spotless that he should have never
conceived of taking any personal advantage of his position as a ruler nor allowed his family
marking a complete break from the traditions of royalty in the neighbouring countries.
768.
Abu Bakr – An Ideal Successor
769.
Abu Bakr had all the above mentioned qualities. His life during the time of the
Prophet and during the period of his caliphate demonstrates his steadfastness. There is
absolutely nothing – not even one incident – to cast any doubt about his character and
demeanour.
770.
The following incidents [will] demonstrate that Abu Bakr had all the qualities
mentioned above.
771.
(1) To what extent the Prophet placed reliance on Abu Bakr is revealed by the fact
that he had selected Abu Bakr to accompany him in the most dangerous journey of
migration from Makkah to Medina. It was the time when the Prophet’s enemies were
waiting in ambush for him. No man endowed with reason could trust and share his secret
with anyone in whom he did not have an implicit faith on such an occasion. The Prophet
knew that any false step would mean a disaster and that those pursuing him would not
leave any stone unturned to capture or kill him. A close confidant willing to lay down his
life for his master would have alone been trusted to accompany anyone in such a hazardous
journey.
772.
Abu Bakr’s companionship on the journey undertaken by the Prophet for migration
has been immortalized in the Qur’an as ‘second of the two.’
773.
When those who disbelieved banished him, the second of the two; when the two
were in a cave, and when he said to his companion, “do not grieve, verily Allah is with
us.“ [Qur'an 9:40]
774.
This is an honour solitary and unrivalled, that Abu Bakr enjoys among the Prophet’s
companions. So far as the question of appointing anyone as a deputy to superintend the
religious service is concerned, fasting and payment of the poor-due need no representative
since these can be performed by every man individually; a deputy is required to lead the
prayers and to act as a director during the Hajj. Abu Bakr was the only companion who
acted as the Prophet’s viceregent for these two religious services during the lifetime of the
Prophet.
775.
Abu Bakr thus enjoys the unique distinction of being appointed by the Prophet to
lead the prayers. ‘Ubaydullah b. ‘Abdullah relates; “I called upon ‘Aisha and said: ‘Is it
possible that you tell me about the illness and death, of the Prophet of God (peace be upon
him) in some detail.’ She replied, ‘Of course. When the Prophet’s illness became severe, he
enquired whether the people had performed the prayer. We said, “No, they are waiting for
you.” The Prophet asked [for water to be brought to him] in a basin. It was brought and he
sat down and took a bath. He fell unconscious as he tried to get up. On regaining
consciousness after a short while he again asked if the people had performed the prayer.
We said, “No, they have not and are waiting for you.” The Prophet again asked to bring
water in a basin. It was brought as desired by him. He tried to lift the basin, and fell
unconscious. He regained consciousness before long and again asked if the people had
performed prayers. He was again told that they had not, and were awaiting his arrival.
Thereafter he lost consciousness and on regaining it after a short while he again repeated
his question. We gave the same reply while people were sitting in the mosque expecting
the Prophet to lead the isha prayer. The Prophet sent for Abu Bakr to lead the
congregation. When the message reached Abu Bakr, he asked Umar to superintend the
prayer since he was very tender-hearted. But Umar refused saying that he [Abu Bakr] was
more suitable for the task. Thus Abu Bakr acted as the imam during that period. When the
Prophet felt somewhat better and the effects of illness decreased, he went out supported
by two men, one of whom was ‘Abbas. It was the time for zuhr prayer. Abu Bakr was about
to lead the prayer but he hesitated when he saw the Prophet coming to the .mosque. The
Prophet signalled him to get ahead and lead the prayer. He asked those supporting him to
let him be seated by the side of Abu Bakr. The Prophet thus led the prayer in a sitting
posture while Abu Bakr stood leading others. Ubaydullah further says that after he listened
this account from ‘Aisha he went to ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas and asked him whether he should
relate what he knew about the death of Prophet. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas gave his consent and
he rehearsed the report. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas endorsed it and asked, “Did ‘Aisha tell you the
name of the person who supported the Prophet along with ‘Abbas in going to the mosque?”
‘Ubaydullah said,’ No,’ and then ‘Abdullah informed him : ‘He was ‘Ali’.” [Sahih Bukhari,
Muslim]
776.
There is another report also related by Abu Musa who says, “When the Prophet
became seriously ill he ordered the people to tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayers. ‘Aisha said
entreatingly, ‘O Prophet of Allah, Abu Bakr is very tender-hearted. He will not be able to
lead the prayer in place of you.’ The Prophet repeated his order saying,
777.
‘Tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer. Women speak in the same way as they did to
Joseph.“
778.
The Prophet deputed Abu Bakr to direct the Hajj ceremonies in his place. It
involved a great responsibility and meant a compliment to him. Hajj was made incumbent
in 9 A. H. and the Prophet sent Abu Bakr in command of the Hajj in that very year to
enable the Muslims to perform the pilgrimage while the polytheists were at their pilgrim
stations. The number of Muslims performing Hajj with Abu Bakr was three hundred.
779.
(2) The inflexible determination and tenacity of Abu Bakr was revealed in the hour
of greatest trial of the Muslims. The death of the Prophet had stunned the Muslims. Some of
.them even refused to accept that the Prophet could ever die. A man like ‘Umar, known for
his sagacity and stout heart, declared that the Prophet had not died. He asserted in the
mosque before the people who had gathered there, ‘The Prophet will not depart until all
the disaffected have perished.’ At this critical hour Muslims needed a man of iron-will. As
soon as Abu Baker came to know what had happened, he came from his house and
dismounted from his horse at the door of the mosque as ‘Umar was speaking to the people.
He paid no attention to anyone and went in straight to ‘Aisha’s home where the Prophet
was lying covered by a mantle. He uncovered the face of the Prophet and kissed him,
saying, ‘May my father and mother be a ransom for you. You have tasted the death which
God had decreed: a second death will never overtake you. Then he replaced the mantle on
the Prophet’s face and went out. ‘Umar was still speaking and he said, ‘Gently, ‘Umar, be
quiet.’ But ‘Umar refused and went on talking, and when Abu Bakr saw that ‘Umar would
not be silent he went forward to the people who, when they heard him speaking, came to
him leaving ‘Umar. Giving thanks and praises to God he said, ‘O men, if anyone worships
Muhammad, let him know that Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships God, then God is
alive, immortal.’ Then he recited the Quranic verse:
780.
Muhammad is naught save an Apostle. Apostles have passed away before him.
Can it be that were he to die or be killed, you would turn back on your heels ? He who
turns back does no harm to God and God will richly recompense the grateful. [Qur'an
3:144]
781.
Those who were present on the occasion testified: ‘By God, it was as though the
people did not know that this verse had come down until Abu Bakr recited it that day.’
‘Umar said, ‘When I heard Abu Bakr reciting this verse, I was astounded and knew that the
Prophet was indeed dead.’
782.
(3) How deep was his understanding of Islam, and how zealous he was to adhere to
the path shown by the Prophet, is disclosed by his remark when he came to know that
several Arab tribes had refused to pay the poor-due and questioned its validity. His
meaningful utterance reveals his emotions and state of mind, and helps to determine his
place among the most earnest followers of Islam. Abu Bakr had asserted: ‘Revelation has
been discontinued, the Shari’ah has been completed: will the religion be curtailed while I
am alive. Those who had refused to pay the poor-due claimed that they were Muslims and
acknowledged other injunctions of Islam. This had made several eminent companions
uncertain about the lawfulness of waging war against them. But Abu Bakr was resolute and
absolutely clear in his mind; he never vacillated in his stand. It is related that he said, “I
will fight these tribes even if they refuse to give a halter. Poor-due is a levy on wealth and,
by God, I will fight him who differentiates between the prayer and poor-due.”
783.
There can be no denying the fact that refusal to pay the poor-due at that stage
would have opened the way to deviation from the teachings of the Prophet and encouraged
rebellion and anarchy. Had Abu Bakr been complaisant or lukewarm in suppressing the
unruly tribes, aberrations would have started cropping up and nobody would have been able
to curb them subsequently. Objections would have been raised about the congregational
and Friday prayers being held in the mosques, the month of Ramadan being earmarked for
fasting and the rituals performed during the Hajj or similar other matters. The Prophet’s
successors or the caliphs and the institution of jurisconsults keeping a watch over the
Shari’ah, Islamic injunctions and its limits would have been rendered ineffectual. Islam
would have scattered like the pearls of a broken necklace immediately after the Prophet’s
death. The stern attitude adopted by Abu Bakr, avoiding the least acquiescence and
indecision, therefore, seems to have been inspired by God. It incidently, evinces the truth
of Islam and that it is still present in its original shape to this day.
784.
(4) It is thus a historical fact that the role of Caliph Abu Bakr in the suppression of
apostasy and the conspiracy to break up Islam in its very beginning, was indicative of the
character of the prophets of God – none of whom had ever compromised with ungodliness in
his own time. This was the characteristic required of a successor to the Prophet which was
displayed in full measure by Abu Bakr during the period of his caliphate. Indeed, he
deserves thanks and invocation of all Muslims from the first day to the last.
785.
(5) Yet another decision taken by Caliph Abu Bakr reveals his acumen in the
matters relating to the likes and dislikes of the Prophet, the underlying reasons therefor
and his sincerity to implement them meticulously in accordance with the wishes of the
Prophet. Shortly before his death the Prophet had decided to despatch an expedition to
Syria under Usama. The army had actually left Medina and bivouacked at Juraf, at a little
distance from Medina when the Prophet breathed his last. Abu Bakr insisted on its
departure to give effect to his master’s last wishes although [since] Medina [was] hemmed
in on all sides in those days, anyone would have hardly dared taking this action. There was
the danger of apostates attacking Medina or other unruly tribes taking advantage of the
chaotic conditions prevailing around the capital of infant Islamic State.
786.
Abu Huraira has correctly estimated the far-reaching effect of the decision taken
by Abu Bakr. Abul ‘Araj relates from Abu Huraira : “I swear to God save whom no deity is
there that God would not have been worshipped, if Abu Bakr had not ascended the
caliphate.’ Abu Huraira repeated it thrice over and then related the incident of sending the
expedition under Usama. He said, ‘Abu Bakr despatched the army under Usama, saying, 1
will riot allow the army to return already sent by the Prophet : I will not fold the flag
unfurled by the Prophet !’ The result was that when Usama passed the tribes which were
disposed to rebellion and apostasy, they said to one another; ‘Had these prople not been
strong enough, they would not have ventured on this expedition. Let them go and face the
Romans.’ Thus the army went forth, fought the Romans and returned after defeating the
enemy. Thus the tribes prone to defection were reassured and continued to remain votaries
of Islam.”
787.
Those who turned apostate, repudiating Islam completely and those who gave up
Islamic way of worship like prayers etc., and reverted to paganism have been placed by
Khattabi in the first category of turncoats. Those who made a distinction between the
prayers and the poor-due and denied the obligatory nature of the latter, were listed by
Khattabi in the second category. Caliph Abu Bakr decided to fight both these groups on the
ground that they were all guilty of apostasy. The latter group had rejected a duty made
obligatory by Islam which amounted to its repudiation. This was the reason why Abu Bakr
had declared that he would fight those who drew a distinction between the prayers and the
poor-due which was a levy on wealth. There was also a third group which had refused to
pay the poor-due to the Caliph. They desired either to utilize it themselves or spend it
within their own tribe under their own supervision, This group also included certain persons
who were agreeable to pay the poor-due, but their chieftains had forbidden them to do so.
Abu Bakr’s reason for waging war against them was that they were rebels who had to be
given battle according to the Quranic injunction and consensus of the Muslims. Allah had
ordained,
788.
“And if one party of them does wrong to the other, then fight the party which
does wrong till it reverts to the commandment of Allah.” [Qur'an 49:9]
789.
Caliph Abu Bakr reduced all the insurgent tribes to order. Thereafter, he turned to
the suppression of imposters, who had laid a claim to prophethood. Great battles were
fought with them and they were finally defeated. The great imposter Musailama was killed.
Had this menace been allowed to survive, Islam would have been wiped out. Abu Bakr
eradicated the bane of apostasy, crushed those who had denied to pay the poor-due and
sent out eleven armies under different commanders who beat down the rebels of Sajah,
Bani Tamim and al-Fujat with the result that the people of Bahrain) Mahra and Yemen were
received back in Islam, The number of rebels and apostates who were sent to their doom in
Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula is estimated to be fifty thousand. Ibn Kathir has correctly
stated that: “Abu Bakr brought the fugitives of Islam back to its fold and truth was reestablised in its original shape. Complete uniformity was brought in the Arabian Peninsula
and no difference remained between those living far or near.”
790.
Muhammad b. Is’haq, who has been cited by lbn Kathir, says: “When Allah’s Apostle
died, apostasy broke out, Christianity and Judaism held up their heads, hypocrisy cropped
up and Muslims became like shrunken goats and sheep in a rainy and cold night, for the
Messenger of Allah had bid farewell to this world. And this state of affairs continued until
Allah unified them under the leadership of Abu Bakr.
791.
“Abu Bakr despatched Khalid b. Walid to Iraq who conquered a greater part of it.
He also won the battles of al-Anbar and Dumat al-Jandal. In several other battles Islam
emerged victorious.”
792.
Thus the work of pacification of the Peninsula was completed by Abu Bakr. It gave
Islam a foothold in the country of its origin which had to remain, for all times to come, its
source and criterion. Islam’s tide of conquest engulfed Iraq and Syria and the Muslims
directed their efforts to bring in as much part of the globe as possible under Islam. They
captured one country after another around Arabia and the process continued under Caliph
‘Umar and Caliph ‘Uthman. When Caliph Abu Bakr breathed his last, Damascus had already
fallen to the arms of Islam and the campaign culminating in the decisive battle of Yarmuk
was almost in its last stages. Of a fact, all the subsequent conquests whether they were
made during the caliphate of ‘Umar and ‘Uthman or in the Umayyad period owe their origin
to the efforts made by Caliph Abu Bakr during his lifetime. It was because of him that Islam
reached the distant corners of the world.
793.
(6) The two incidents related here are enough to demonstrate the frugal life of Abu
Bakr, his disdain for the worldly comfort and extreme cautiousness in taking any advantage
as the ruler of a mighty empire.
794.
Once the wife of Abu Bakr expressed the desire to have some sweet dish, but Abu
Bakr dismissed her saying that he did not possess the money to satisfy her desire. His wife
suggested that she could save something from the daily expenses to purchase the material
for preparing a sweet dish. Abu Bakr agreed and she made the savings over a period. When
she gave that amount to Abu Bakr for purchasing the required material he deposited it in
the public treasury, saying, “Experience shows that we can do with a smaller amount than
what I have been taking as a stipend.” He also directed to reduce his stipend by the amount
daily saved by his wife. He also made good the loss public treasury had suffered earlier by
the excess amount of stipend from his private property.
795.
When Caliph Abu Bakr was about to die, he said to his daughter : “O A’isha, the
camel of which we used to drink milk and the cup in which we kept sauce and the mantle
we wore are the things we used when we were the guardians of Muslims. After I am dead,
send them to Umar.” His wish was complied with and the articles in question were sent to
Umar who thereupon exclaimed, “Abu Bakr, may Allah bless you. You have placed your
successors in a difficult position.”
796.
Consultative Administration
797.
In the ages past, the temporal and spiritual leaderships were the preserve of
particular families. When Islam made its advent, the world was being crushed by these
hereditary leaderships. Those who wielded the sceptre acted as autocrats although they
had inherited the authority from their fathers, or in accordance with the will of outgoing
kings, or usurped authority through machinations or superior prowess. Public good or
interest of the people never had any say in the selection of the potentate. The entire
income of the country was treated as personal property of the rulers whose ingenuity was
always on the lookout for increasing their incomes, accumulating vast treasures and making
their lives as pleasurable as possible. It was not [uncommon] that the kings displayed
ostentatious magnificence and pageantry that defied one’s imagination, and is now known
only to those who have studied history. These rulers alienated from the common man by
impassable barriers, were regarded as descendants of celestial beings.
798.
The masses were, on the other hand, extremely poor and in great distress. The
ever-increasing taxes, burdensome levies) conscriptions and forced labour had crushed the
common man beyond description and they were forced to live like the beasts of burden.
799.
There was also another dominion. It was the spiritual empire. Its sovereignty was
vested in a particular family or its chosen individuals. Spiritual leadership was the domain
of these people who were revered as demigods. Inherited by the son from his father and
thus continuing from generation to generation, it had its own economic benefits. Those who
were possessed of ecclesiastical authority manipulated it for satisfying their carnal desires.
Treated as the intermediary between God and His creation, they had the power to make
lawful what was unlawful and vice versa. They promulgated religious laws at their sweet
will. The Qur’an has in its own inimitable manner given a vivid description of these people
which cannot be improved upon by any one.
800.
“O you who believe : surely many of the priests and monks (of the people of the
book) devour the substance of men in falsehood and hinder (people) from the way of
Allah.” [Qur'an 9:34]
801.
Among the Christians these priests were known by the name of ‘clergy.’ A Syrian
Christian scholar has defined the word as follows:
802.
“This name was given by the Christians to the persons ordained, or set apart, for
the service of religion. Their name signifies ‘a share’ or ‘inheritance’ almost in the same
sense as Pentateuch assigns priestly rights to the ‘sons of Levi’. . . Among the ancient
Egyptians and Hebrews a class was ordained for performing religious rites. The Christian
church had, from the very beginning, ministers who formulated its policies. If the church
was affluent and prosperous, the clergymen took full advantage of it. They were not merely
priests and spiritual guides, but were also treated as the source of wisdom and knowledge.
Under the Roman Empire they were exempt from all taxes. They were also not required to
do any social service. They had, in a way, a dominion over the people, within their own
sphere and even outside it.’” [P.Bustani, Da'iratul Ma'arif
803.
]
804.
[The] Zoroastrianism of Iran was not different from Christianity. A particular clan
was marked out for priesthood. During the past ages, the function was allocated to a tribe
of Media and under Zoroastrianism, the clan of ‘al-Moghan held the charge of spiritual
leadership.
805.
The priestly clan was regarded as the viceregent of God on earth, created to
administer the kingdom of God. It was the prerogative of a particular clan to give birth to
the holy men who were regarded as sharers of divinity and inherited the charge of oratories
or fire-temples.
806.
[The] Brahmins in India had the monopoly of everything sacred and spiritual. The
religious law allocated them the highest place in society which could never be attained by
anyone not belonging to that caste. “A Brahmin who remembers the Rig Veda,” says the
Manu Shostra, “is absolutely sinless, even if he debases all three worlds.” Neither could any
tax be imposed on a Brahmin, nor could he be executed for any crime. All religious rites
were to be performed by the Brahmin alone. Islam abolished both these hereditary
dominions which had been an instrument of tyranny and misery of the people of which the
history of countries like Rome, Iran and India are replete with examples. Islam entrusted
the responsibility of electing the Caliph to the Muslims – particularly those who were
judicious and well-informed among them, and prescribed the method of mutual
consultation for it. This was the reason why the holy Prophet had not expressly indicated
who will be the head of the Muslim commonwealth after him. Had it been necessary or a
part of his religious duty, the Prophet would have certainly done so. Had not Allah ordained
the Prophet?
807.
“O Messenger: Make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy
Lord, for if thou do it not, thou will not have conveyed His Message. Allah will protect
thee from mankind. Lo ! Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk.” [Qur'an 5:67]
808.
At another place the divine revelation had clearly stated:
809.
That was Allah’s way with those who passed away of old – and the
commandment of Allah is certain destiny – who delivered the messages of Allah and
feared Him, and feared none save Allah. Allah keepeth good account. [Qur'an 33:38,39]
810.
Ubaydullah b. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Utba narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘When Allah’s
Apostle was on his death-bed and there were certain persons in his house, the Prophet said:
Come near, I will write for you something after which you will not go astray
811.
‘
812.
. Some of them said, ‘Allah’s Apostle is seriously ill and you have the Qur’an.
Allah’s Book is sufficient for us.’ So the people in the house differed and started disputing.
When their differences increased and discussion became louder, Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Go
Away.’
813.
The Prophet remained alive for three days after this incident, but he did not ask for
the writing material nor specified who would be his successor. He did in fact express a
number of his last wishes but never mentioned the topic of his viceregency.
814.
Of the directions he gave during this period one was: ‘(Offer) prayers and be
considerate to those placed in your charge (i. e. slaves and bondswomen).’ ‘Ali also
relates, ‘The Prophet had given instructions in regard to prayer and poor-due and mildness
to those placed under one’s charge.’
815.
‘A’isha and Ibn ‘Abbas narrate: ‘When the time for departure of Allah’s Apostle
arrived, he started covering his face with a black blanket and remained so for a while. Then
he uncovered his face and said, ‘Allah’s curse be on the Jews and Christians for they took
the graves of their prophets as places of worship.’ The Prophet thus warned and forbade his
followers to act like them.
816.
In regard to the incident relating to the Prophet’s desire to bring some writing
material to him, ‘Abbas Mahmud al-’Aqqad writes:
817.
“The allegation that ‘Umar came in the way of Prophet’s dictating a testament and
nomination of ‘Ali as the Caliph is extremely contemptible and baseless. Such an
imputation on the character of any distinguished person amounts to his insult, much less a
man like ‘Umar. In fact the Prophet did not ask for paper to make a testament for
nominating ‘Ali or anybody else as a Caliph, for it was not at all necessary to make a
testament for the purpose. One word, a mere gesture, as he made for Abu Bakr to lead the
prayer, was enough for it. Everybody understood what the Prophet wanted of Abu Bakr.
818.
‘The Prophet remained alive for three days after asking for paper, but he did not
demand it again. Nobody could dare interpose himself between ‘Ali and the Prophet.
Fatima, the wife of ‘Ali was present with the Prophet until he breathed his last. If the
Prophet had so wished, he would have sent for ‘Ali and nominated him as his successor.
819.
Apart from the Prophet’s reticence, which was not because of any compulsion or
pressure, his usual practice was to deny positions of authority to the members of his family
and he did not even consider the common rules of inheritance proper for the Apostle Of
God. Now, if one were to see it in the light of his practice and reticence on this occasion,
he would find that nobody interposed himself nor the Prophet ever had any intention of
nominating ‘Ali as his Caliph.
820.
AI-’Aqqad has also discussed the question of transmission of caliphate through
inheritance. He has rightly observed that: “Had it (inheritance) been one of the
commandments of God, then it was queer that the Prophet left this world without any male
successor,” and the Qur’an to take its final shape without saying anything about the
caliphate being transferred to a member of the Prophet’s household. And, had it been the
Will of God or a religious necessity, it would have certainly taken effect as a thing
determined made against what had been destined would have been in vain in the same way
as all the labours made against laws of nature end up in a fiasco.
821.
Therefore, there is no explicit direction, no circumstantial indication, nor any
Providential will to support those who assert transference of caliphate though inheritance
and hold it to be confined to Hashimites.
822.
Oath of Allegiance to Abu Bakr
823.
The Muslims of Medina, both [the] Ansar and Muhajirin, were sapient [discerning]
and influential and their decision would have been accepted by all in the Arabian Peninsula
and outside it. But they stood at the crossroads when the Prophet bid farewell to the
world. They had either to make a concerted effort for spreading the message of Islam, and
for it to unanimously elect a leader who was respected by all for his moral virtues. Such a
leader had to be very close to the Prophet during his lifetime, enjoyed his confidence and
also been entrusted with responsibilities on crucial occasions. Alternatively, if Muslims were
not united and lacked unanimity of thought and action, Islam was likely to break up in
numerous factions like other religions which had splitted on the issue of leadership.
824.
Actually, the situation was even more complicated because the divisive forces
instantly surfaced in Medina, the hometown of Bani-Qahtan whose two tribes, the Aus and
Khazraj, had welcomed the Prophet in their town, provided asylum to the persecuted
Muslims and treated them as their brothers with an exemplary magnanimity and selfsacrificing zeal that had been praised by God:
825.
“Those who entered the city and faith before them, love those who flee unto them
for refuge.”
826.
Medina had been the hometown of these people where they had been living for
centuries before the immigrants had come to settle there. Therefore, it was not at all
astonishing if they considered one of them to be entitled to succeed the Prophet as the
leader of the community. Such a claim was rather justified in the obtaining circumstances
and polity [realm] of Arabin city states. ‘Umar lost no time in grasping the complexity of
the situation and the psychological reasons behind it. He visualised through his God-gifted
intelligence and foresight, as he had on several occasions earlier, the grave danger that lay
ahead. He knew that any delay on the part of those who were responsible for maintaining
unity and consensus among Muslims could be disastrous.
827.
He, therefore, did not procrastinate in the election of the Caliph. He made haste
because certain Ansars of Medina had mooted the question of having the Caliph from their
own ranks. They were not entirely unjustified in their proposal since they were the original
inhabitants of the city, but their two powerful clans, the Aus and Khazraj, had been at
loggerheads for a long time in the recent past. ‘Umar also knew that the people of Arabia
would be agreeable to accept the leadership of guraish only because they had held that
position in the past. He, therefore, induced the Muslims to pledge fealty to Abu Bakr at
Thaqifa Bani Sa’eda so that no internal dissensions might crop up among the Muslims. It was
the time when the Prophet had just died and his burial had yet to take place and unanimity
among Muslims was still intact. If a leader of Muslims was elected at the moment, he would
naturally superintend the last rites of the Prophet as their leader.
828.
The next day, people swore allegiance to Abu Bakr in the Mosque of the Prophet.
Abu Bakr said after praising the Lord, “Lo : I have been charged with the responsibility of
acting as your chief. I am not the best among you; if I do well, support me; if I make any
mistake, counsel me. To tell the truth is faithful allegiance; to conceal it is treason. Those
who are weak among you are strong in my sight until I restore their rights to them; and the
strong are weak in my sight until I make them restore the rights of others. Of a fact, the
people who give up striving in the way of God are abased; the people who allow lewdness
to flourish among them are made to suffer hardships by Allah. As I obey Allah, obey me; if I
neglect Allah and His Apostle, I have no more right to your obedience. Now come and
perform the prayers. May Allah have mercy on you.”
829.
The election of Caliph Abu Bakr was not fortuitous, nor was it the result of any
collusion that one may claim that there was some secret understanding between certain
persons which came to fruition. It had been ordained by God, the Most Wise, since He had
decided in His Mercy that Islam shall live and prosper. The election of the first Caliph was
also in accordance with the usage of the Arabs who decided all matters of significance
through an unfettered discussion and consultation and elected a chieftain who was ripe in
age, mature in Judgement, sincere and accomplished in leading the people in war and
peace. This had been their practice since ages past.
830.
An eminent Muslim penman, Justice Amir ‘Ali, who happened to be a Shia, has
described the practice of the Arabs in this regard. He says :
831.
“Among the Arabs, the chieftaincy of a tribe is not hereditary, but elective; the
principle of universal suffrage is recognised in its extremest form, and all the members of a
tribe have a voice in the election of their chief. The election is made on the basis of
seniority among the surviving male members of the deceased chieftain’s family. This old
tribal custom was followed in the choice of a successor to the Prophet, for the urgency of
the times admitted of no delay. Abu Bakr, who by virtue of his age and the position he had
held at Mecca occupied a high place in the estimation of the Arabs, was hastily elected to
the office of Khalifa (Caliph) or vicegerent of the Prophet. He was recognised as a man of
wisdom and moderation, and his election was accepted with their usual devotion to the
faith by ‘Ali and chief members of Mohammad’s family.”
832.
The Muslims, especially the Arabs, were really spared of hereditary autocracy by
the election of Caliph Abu Bakr. [A] Dynastic form of government is based on [an] ancestral
relationship in which race and blood assume undue importance and more often than not a
particular person or his family comes to be sanctified as exalted and holy. Had anyone
belonging to Bani Hashim been elected as the first Caliph, for which they were
“undoubtedly fully qualified, their religious and spiritual authority would have combined
with their temporal ascendancy, and Islam would have developed a form of priesthood akin
to the clerical system of the Christians. This would have surely given birth to an organised
church and priestly order with all the attendant evils of this system in Christianity,
Zoroastrianinsm and Brahminism. Religious, spiritual and political leadership in Islam would
have combined with an autocratic form of government in which all the powers would have
converged in a particular family, allowing it full scope for exploitation of the people. The
coming generations would have regarded them as their rulers possessing supernatural
powers. Entitled to receive tithes and tributes from their followers, they would have lived a
life of ease and pleasure. But this would have been contrary to the spirit and objective of
the teachings of the Prophet who had forbidden Banu Hashim to receive the poor-due. The
purpose behind this directive was that the Prophet never wanted his progeny to become
bloodsuckers, living on the earnings of others. Abu Huraira relates, “Once Hasan b. ‘Ali had
taken a date received by way of charity. As soon as the Prophet saw it, he made Hasan
vomit it, saying, ‘Do you not know that we never take anything of charity?‘ ” Another
lengthy report handed down from ‘Abdul Muttalib b. Rabi’a b. al-Harith contains the words,
“Charity is like dirt of [in the] hands of the people which is not permissible to the Prophet
and his progeny.”
833.
[The] Prophet’s household and the progeny of Hashim have been spared the
ignominy thus described by the Qur’an : “O you who believe! Surely many of the priests
and monks devour the substance of men in falsehood.” [Qur'an 9:34]Contrarily, the Prophet
always used to encourage his near relations to face tribulation and danger. ‘Ali has also
referred to this practice of the Prophet in one of his letters to Mu’awiyah in which he wrote
: “When the fire of battle was hottest and the people seemed [to lose] hope, the Prophet
used to ask the members of his family to go ahead and save others from the enemy’s
swords and lances. It was thus that ‘Ubayda b. Harith was killed in Badr, Hamza in Uhad
and Ja’afar in Muta.
834.
And, if the two leaderships (the spiritual and temporal) had been conferred upon
Bani Hashim by way of inheritance, it would have remained with them perpetually. Certain
Quraishites had then candidly observed that had [the] Bani Hashim been made rulers over
you, statecraft would have become their exclusive preserve and no other clan of the
Quraish would ever have become rulers.
835.
All those who have studied the history of [the] reformatory and revivalist
movements would be conversant with the endeavours initiated for a religious renaissance
which ended up with the advancement of any particular family, carving out a personal
kingdom, or enabling any particular family to attain political influence. That is why those
who are endowed with insight and comprehension of religious spirit, are always sceptical of
these movements as they are never sure about their ultimate outcome. It would be
relevant to recall here the conversation between Heraclius and Abu Sufian after the
Prophet sent a letter to the former inviting him to Islam. It shows the reaction of Heraclius
and what he wanted to know about the Prophet in order to form an estimate of him and his
mission. He asked Abu Sufian: ‘Had there been any king in his family?’ When Abu Sufian
replied in negative, Heraclius remarked: ‘Had it been so. I would have surmised that he was
trying to recover his lost kingdom.’ It is apparent that God had in His Wisdom already
destined that nobody from the Prophet’s family or one of the Hashamites should
immediately succeed him as his Caliph. The question asked by Heraclius shows his
knowledge of history. He wanted to ascertain if the man claiming prophethood was
interested in establishing a hereditary kingdom. But, if a hereditary kingdom had actually
come to be established in spite of it through a near relation of the Prophet succeeding him,
the verdict of history would have nevertheless been that the prophetic mission of the
Apostle of God was meant to vest his descendants with the mantle of kingship, power and
glory rather than for preaching the message of God. It was an affair preordained by God
that Abu Bakr of the clan of Bani Taym should be elected as the vicegerent of the holy
Prophet. Abu Bakr was succeeded by ‘Umar of Bani ‘Adi. ‘Uthman belonging to Banu
Umayyah took over from ‘Umar and then ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, the worthiest man in his clan, in
fact, among the companions of the Prophet then alive, was chosen to take up the
responsibility. The line of succession had by then removed all chances of any
misunderstanding that the temporal authority and command belonged to the household of
the Prophet. The sequence of succession left no occasion for anyone to make an allegation
about graft or jobbery against the Prophet’s family.
836.
Steadfastness of Abu Bakr
837.
All the biographers of the Prophet and scholars of Traditions are agreed that the
Prophet had said, “We prophets do not bequeath anything to anyone; whatever we leave
goes to charity.“
838.
Ahmad, the compiler of [the] Musnad, an authoritative work on Traditions, relates
from Abu Huraira that Allah’s Apostle said, “My descendants shall not apportion dinar and
dirham amongst them. Whatever I shall leave, apart from the maintenance of my wives
and their agent, shall go to charities.
839.
“
840.
Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud have recorded the above report of Abu Huraira
which has been handed down by Malik b. Anas. Bukari relates from ‘Urwah who heard it
from ‘A’isha: “When the Prophet died and his wives expressed the desire to ask ‘Uthman to
approach Abu Bakr for giving them their share of Prophet’s inheritance, ‘A’isha intervened
to say: ‘Did you not listen the Prophet saying that we do not bequeath any property!
Whatever we leave goes to charities.’
841.
A similar report finds a place in the Sahih of Muslim. The approach of the Prophet
in the matter of inheritance was not only befitting of a messenger of God but also in
keeping with his demeanour. Whenever there was any occasion of danger or it became
necessary to bear some loss, the Prophet asked the members of his own household or one
belonging to Bani Hashim to step forward, but where any advantage was to be had, he
asked them to fall behind. In the battle of Badr, as stated earlier, he sent forward Hamza,
‘Ali and Abu ‘Ubayda to face the three veteran warriors of the enemy. A major source of
income for the Muslim community, since the time of the Prophet to this day, is zakat or the
poor-due, but the Prophet made it unlawful for his own progeny and the descendants of
Banu Hashim to derive any benefit from it. On the occasion of farewell pilgrimage, the
Prophet abolished interest bearing loans and announced simultaneously,: “The first of our
usury I abolish is that of my own uncle ‘Abbas b. ‘Abdul Muttalib.” On the same occasion
he annulled the claims of blood-vengeance and the first claim on blood he proclaimed to
have been remitted was that of Ibn Rabi’a b. al-Harith, b. ‘Abdul Muttalib, his own
nephew. The proclamation made by him was:
842.
“The usury of the day of Ignorance is abolished, and the first of our usury I
abolish is that of my own uncle, ‘Abbas b. ‘Abdul Muttalib, and all of it is abolished. And
claims of blood-vengeance belonging to the pre- Islamic days have been waived. The
first claim on blood I give up is that of Ibn Rabi’a b. Al-Harith.” Soon after Abu Bakr took
over as Caliph, he had to face a difficult problem – a delicate issue for him since it involved
a perplexing question of emotional nature. It was a question relating to Shari’ah, but had a
political aspect also. It was also a sensitive matter and required to be dealt with in
accordance with the pronouncement and practice of his departed master, the Messenger of
God.
843.
Bukhari has narrated this incident on the authority of A’isha:
844.
“Fatima and ‘Abbas called upon Abu Bakr and demanded the legacy of Allah’s
Prophet. Both asked for the land in Fidak as well as the Prophet’s share (of booty) in
Khaybar. Abu Bakr said to them, ‘I have heard the Prophet saying, “We do not bequeath
any property to anyone; whatever we leave is to be deemed as charities.” Therefore, I
will allow only maintenance to the descendants of the Prophet. According to another
report Abu Bakr replied : “I have heard that the prophets do not have legatees [heirs]
but I will meet such of their expenses as were defrayed by the Prophet.”"
845.
There are other reports also which corroborate the determination of Abu Bakr
never to deviate, [not] even slightly, from the practice of the Prophet and follow only what
he knew to be the Prophet’s will. Fatima, however, continued to insist on her right of
inheritance either because she was not aware of the Prophet’s will or she considered the
Caliph competent to meet her wishes. Be that as it may, both held [steadfastly] to their
views.
846.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal relates Fatima as saying to Abu Bakr: ‘You know better what you
had heard from the Prophet.’
847.
Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. She held
herself aloof from Abu Bakr which shows that her grievance also persisted. Such complaints
and misunderstandings are, however, not uncommon among near relations. Often one
becomes very touchy about minor matters, particularly if one considers oneself to be right.
But the differences between Fatima and Abu Bakr never developed into animosity. Fatima’s
resentment was marked by a restraint which speaks of her civility and cordiality which
were the essential features of her character. ‘Amir narrates that when Fatima became
seriously ill, Abu Bakr paid a visit to her and asked for the permission to see her. ‘Ali said to
Fatima, “Abu Bakr is standing at the door and wants to come in. If you have no objection
allow him to see you.” Fatima asked, “Would you like me to permit him?” ‘Ali replied in
affir- mative and she gave her consent. Abu Bakr went in and offered his apologies and
Fatima was no more displeased with him. We bring the discussion on this issue to an end
with the observations of ‘Abbas Mahmad al-’Aqqad who writes in the Al-’Abqariyat alIslamiyah that “it is not at all reasonable to doubt the fidelity of Abu Bakr to the Prophet
simply because he did not allow Fatima to inherit the legacy of the Prophet. If this was his
attitude in the case of Fatima, he had also disallowed inheritance to his own daughter
A’isha, since there could be no legatees to a Prophet under the Islamic law. In fact, Abu
Bakr never wanted to refuse inheritance to the legatees of the Prophet, one of whom was
his own beloved daughter A’isha, but he did not want to deviate from the will of the
Prophet and the religious injunctions. To uphold religion was in his view more important
than to save any family from the financial loss.
848.
Abu Bakr had no other choice save what he decided in the matter of Prophet’s
inheritance. He knew that the prophets do not have legatees as the Prophet had himself
told him. When Abu Bakr was about to die, he instructed A’isha to forego everything he had
given her in favour of the Muslims, although she was entitled to possess them as a legacy
and gift from her father.
849.
Fatima
850.
I cannot proceed further without saying something more about Fatima, the
daughter of Allah’s Apostle.
851.
Fatima Zahra was the youngest and most beloved child of her father. Waqidi relates
on the authority of Abu J’afar al- Baqir that ‘Abbas said, “‘Fatima was born when K’aba
was being reconstructed and the Prophet was thirty-five years of age.” Mada’ini also
corroborates this statement but another report says that Fatima was born a year and few
days before the prophethood of her father. She was married to ‘Ali in the beginning of
Muharram 2 A. H.
852.
A Shi’ite scholar Shaikh Abu J’afar al-Tusi has provided incontrovertible evidence
that Abu Bakr had taken up the responsibility of purchasing the articles given to Fatima as
her dowry. Similarly A’isha and Umm Salma had lent assistance to ‘Ali in cleaning and
preparing his house for the marriage. Fatima was the only daughter of the Prophet who had
children and hence her descendants came to be regarded as the progeny of the Prophet. At
the time of her marriage, she was fifteen and a half years of age. Tabrani narrates from
A’isha that next to the Prophet she had found Fatima as the most pious. ‘Abdur Razzaq
relates from Ibn Juraih that Fatima was the youngest daughter of the Prophet as well as
dearest to him. Abu ‘Umar says that among the daughters of the Prophet, Zaynab was the
eldest, Ruqaiya was the next, then Umm Kulthum and the youngest was Fatima.
853.
Abdur Rahman b. Abi Nuaym relates on the authority of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that the
Prophet once said: ‘Fatima is the leader of women in Paradise.’ All the six authentic
collections of hadith record the saying of the Prophet who once said in a sermon delivered
from the pulpit of the Mosque : “
854.
Fatima is a part of my body. Whatever annoys her, irks me too. Whoever
disturbs her, causes trouble to me also
855.
.”
856.
A’isha states, “Once I saw Fatima coming. The way she was walking, exactly
resembled that of Allah’s Apostle. So long as Fatima was alive, Ali did not take any other
lady into marriage.” ‘Uqba b. Yaraym relates from Abu Th’alaba al-Khashni,: “Whenever
the Prophet returned from a journey or an expedition, he first went to the Mosque where
he offered two raka’ts of prayer, thereafter he went to see Fatima. After that he met his
wives.” ‘A’isha b. Talha narrates on the authority of A’isha who once said, “I have not seen
anyone bearing a greater resemblance to the Prophet in speaking than Fatima.” Fatima was
always extremely mindful of the likes and dislikes of the Prophet and considered nothing
[any] more important than to win her father’s pleasure. On the other hand, many incidents
are on record to show the intensity of Prophet’s love for his daughter.
857.
Abdullah b. ‘Umar says : ‘Whenever the Prophet went out on a journey he had the
last word with Fatima and whenever he returned home, he first saw Fatima.’ When the
Prophet returned from the expedition of Tabuk he learnt that Fatima had purchased a
‘headscarf and dyed it in saffron, hnng a curtain on her door and perhaps spread a mat in
her house. As the Prophet saw these articles, he returned and sat down in the mosque.
Fatima sent for Bilal and asked him to find out why the Prophet had gone back from her
door. Bilal went to the Prophet and asked him the reason for coming back. The Prophet
told him about the things he had seen and then Bilal communicated it to Fatima who at
once removed the objectionable things. She also changed her dress and put on the old and
patched clothing. Then Bilal again went to the Prophet and informed him of it. The Prophet
went to Fatima and said to her, “My father be your ransom, keep on in this manner.”
858.
Ibn ‘Umar relates, “‘Once Allah’s Apostle went to the house of Fatima but did not
enter the house. He returned from the doorsteps. Fatima told ‘Ali about it, who went to
the Prophet and enquired the reason for not going inside his house. The Prophet replied, ‘I
have seen a curtain hanging on the door. What have we to do with the world (meaning
decoration).’ ‘Ali narrated the reply given by the Prophet to Fatima who said, ‘Let me
know his wish and I would comply.’ ‘Ali again went to the Prophet and asked him what he
wanted. The Prophet thereupon told him to send the curtain to a certain person who
needed it.”
859.
Thauban, a slave of the Prophet, narrates : ‘Whenever the Prophet went away on a
journey, the last thing he did was to visit Fatima. Similarly, on return he first met Fatima.
Once when he returned from an expedition, he saw a curtain hanging on the door of
Fatima’s house. He also saw Hassan and Hussain wearing silver bracelets. The Prophet
stayed and did not enter the house. Fatima at once perceived the reason and she got the
curtain and the bracelets taken off. The children went weepingly to the Prophet who took
the bracelets and said to Tauban, ‘Take these to such and such person.’ Then pointing
towards Hasan and Hussain he continued: ‘
860.
These are the members of my household. I do not want them to enjoy the life of
this world. O Thauban, bring a necklace of date leaves for Fatima and also two
bracelets of ivory.’
861.
The deep and abiding love of Fatima for the Prophet is believable since he was her
father besides being the Apostle of God and the most admired of all the persons. Her
utterance after the death of the Prophet was more mournful than a long elegy. After the
burial of the Prophet was over, she said, “O Anas ! How did they throw dust on the
Prophet?”
862.
Fatima died six months after the Prophet had breathed his last. The Prophet had
assured her that she would be the first to meet him after leaving this fleeting world. He
had also once told her : “
863.
Are you not pleased that you will be the head of all the women in paradise ?
864.
“
865.
Imam Malik reports from Jafar Sadiq (who heard it from Zainul Abidin) that Fatima
died in the evening between maghrib and ‘isha prayers. Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Zubayr and
‘Abdur Rahman b. ‘Auf came to ‘All on hearing the news. ‘Ali asked Abu Bakr to lead the
funeral prayers. Abu Bakr objected to lead the prayers in his presence, but Ali insisted and
he yielded to his desire. She was buried in the same night. Ibn S’ad confirms this report in
the Tabaqat. He says that Mutrif b. “Abdullah al- Yasari told him on the authority of Abdul
‘Ala and Ibrahim that Abu Bakr led the funeral prayer of Fatima with four takbirs. ‘Abdur
Razzaq cites Ibn Juraih who said : ‘Fatima was the youngest daughter of the Prophet and
also dearest to him.’ Abu Umar says that the four daughters of the Prophet were Zaynab,
Ruqaiya, Umm Kulthum and Fatima.” As Waqidi reports, she died on the 3rd of Ramadan,
11 A. H / 22 November, 633 A. D. and she was buried the same night. She gave birth to
Hasan, Hussain, Muhsin, Umm Kulthum and Zaynab. May God be pleased with her.
866.
Ali’s Oath of Allegiance to Abu Bakr
867.
Reports differ about the timing of ‘Ali’s oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Hafiz Abu
Bakr al-Baihaqi relates on the authority of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri: ‘Abu Bakr ascended the
pulpit and cast a glance on the people. He did not find ‘Ali among them. So he sent for ‘Ali
and said, “O brother and son-in-law of the Prophet, would you like that the unity among
Muslims should be torn to pieces ?” ‘Ali replied, “I have no grudge or complaint, O Caliph,
of the Prophet.” He immediately swore allegiance to him. Al-Baihaqi adds that ‘Ali uttered
these words or this was their purport.
868.
Ibn Kathir adds : ‘A significant aspect of this affair is that ‘Ali took the oath of
allegiance on the very first day or the day following the death of the Prophet. This is
correct in point of fact since ‘Ali never gave up Abu Bakr’s companionship nor he absented
himself in any congregational prayer.
869.
It is commonly believed that ‘Ali did not initially take the oath of fealty to Abu Bakr
in deference to the wishes and sentiments of Fatima. He took the oath publicly six months
later when Fatima had died. Ibn Kathir and other historians are of the view that the
subsequent oath of allegiance by ‘Ali was in confirmation of the first one. A number of
reports to this effect are on record in the six authentic compilations of the Traditions
[Hadiths] and other books.
870.
871.
872.
873.
874.
875.
876.
877.
878.
879.
880.
881.
In defence of Abu Hurayrah (r.a)
February 8, 2010 at 4:43 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
882.
883.
Muslim in his Saheeh in Volume 1, writes that during the time of the Prophet
(PBUH) Umar bin Khattaab beat Aboo Hurayrah for fabricating lies.
884.
In Volume 2 of Saheeh Muslim, he quotes ‘Aa’ishah ra, “Aboo Hurayrah is a great
liar who fabricates ahaadeeth and attributes them to the holy Prophet.”
885.
In Volume 4 of Saheeh Muslim, Nadwee says “Imaam Aboo Haneefah said, ‘The
Companions of the Prophet (saw) were generally pious and just. I accept every haeeth
narrated by them, but I do not accept the ahadeeth whose source is Aboo Hurayrah, Anas
ibn Maalik, or Samrah ibn Jundab.’” I have the following comments:
886.
(1) It is obvious from the initial post that the information quoted is a poor
rephrasing of some well known incidents surrounding Aboo Hurayrah’s life – radiyallahu
‘anhu – which have been addressed by the scholars. These events are often used to discount
Aboo Hurayrah’s veracity and thereby negate a large section of the Sunnah.
887.
The two prominent sources in contemporary times for raising these allegations
against Aboo Hurayrah are the Shee’ah and the students of the orientalists.
888.
As for the former, many of these allegations are to be found in the work, Aboo
Hurayrah, by the Lebanese Shee’ee author, Abd al-Husayn Sharaf ul-Deen al-’Amalee.
889.
Aspects of this work were refuted by Dr. Muhammad Ajaaj al-Khateeb (Professor at
the University of Damscus, Colleges of Sharia and Education) in his Master’s thesis, al-Sunna
Qabl al-Tadween (Cairo: 1483/1963) and also in his work, Aboo Hurayrah Raawiya al-Islaam
(Cairo: 1962).
890.
Regarding the latter, most of the arguments of the Orientalists were summarized by
Mahmud Abu Rayyah of Egypt. In his work, Adwa’ ‘alas-Sunnat-il-Muhammadeeyah (Cairo:
1377/1958), Abu Rayya attempted to show that the Sunnah is fabricated in the whole and
toward that aim he raised questions on Aboo Hurayrah’s veracity.
891.
When Abu Raya’s book first appeared, a number of scholars addressed his
arguments. The most prominent responses were
892.
Dr. Mustafaa as-Sibaa’ee (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria), in his thesis,
al-Sunna wa Makanatuha fit-Tashree’ al-Islaamee, (Cairo: 1380/1961);
893.
Shaykh ‘Abdur-Razzaq Hamza (the head of Darul-Hadeeth in Makkah and Imaam of
Masjid al-Haram), Zulumat Abi Raya amam Adwa’ al-Sunnah al-Muhammadeeyah, (Cairo:
n.d.); and
894.
The definitive response by Shaykh ‘Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Yahyaa al-Mu’allamee al-
Yamanee (the Librarian of Masjid al-Haram), al-Anwaar ul-Kaashifah lima fee Kitaab Adwaa’
‘ala al-Sunnah min al-Zallal wa l-Tadleel wa l-Mujaazafah, (Cairo: 1378) – may Allah have
mercy with them all.
895.
(2) It should be noted that pertaining to most of the objections raised against Aboo
Hurayrah, there exists a definitive defense written by the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood scholar,
‘Abdul-Mun’im Saalih al-’Alee al-’Izzee, entitled Dif’a ‘an Abee Hurayrah (Baghdad:
1393/1973). In this work, al-’Izzi reviewed, page by page, over 110 classical works (most of
which are in a number of volumes, extending thousands of pages) with the aim of collecting
everything related to Aboo Hurayrah.
896.
With regards to the three specific objections raised against Aboo Hurayrah in the
post, the response is as follows:
897.
(3) ‘Umar never beated Aboo Hurayrah during the lifetime of the Prophet –
sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam – for lying against the Prophet.
898.
However, both ‘Abdul-Husayn al-’Amalee (p. 268) and Abu Rayya (pp. 163, 171)
report that ‘Umar struck Aboo Hurayrah with a shield for relating too many hadeeth upon
the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam – and accused him of lying. The source of this
incident is not Saheeh Muslim, but rather a Shee’ee text, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, by the
Shiite Mu’tazilite Ibn Abi al-Hadid who quotes Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi. Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi is a
third century, Shiite Mu’tazalite. Al-Iskafi relates this incident with no chain or authorities
(sanad). And thus this is an unverified historical incident that appears centuries after the
deaths of ‘Umar and Aboo Hurayrah. And moreover it is found in the works of those who
harbor religious animosities against Aboo Hurayrah and adverse theological positions toward
the Sunna. (See: al-Mu’allamee, al-Anwaer al-Kaashifah, pp. 152-153, al-Khateeb, alSunnah Qabl al-Tadween, p. 457, al-’Izzee, Difaa’ ‘an Abee Hurayrah, p. 123)
899.
Historically, the Jahmee, Bishr al-Mareesee was perhaps the first to claim that
‘Umar said that “the greatest liar among the narrators of hadeeth is Aboo Hurayrah.” To
this fabrication, Imam al-Darimee responded, “How could ‘Umar accuse him of lying against
the Messenger of Allah – sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam – and [at the same time] place his in
charge of important posts. Had [Aboo Hurayrah] been thought of by ‘Umar – radiyallahu
‘anhu – as [al-Mareesee] claimed, ‘Umar would not have entrusted [Aboo Hurayrah] with
the affairs of the Muslims, placing him in charge, time and time again.”
900.
Also, ad-Darimee rhetorically asks al-Mareesee, “If you were truthful in your claim,
then expose [to us] who narrated such. You will not be able to expose a trustworthy
narrator.” (See al-Darimi, Radd al-Imaam al-Darimee ‘Uthmaan ibn Sa’eed ‘alaa Bishr alMareesee al-’Aneed, pp. 132-135.)
901.
Interestingly, al-’Izzee shows that a number of grandsons of ‘Umar related hadeeth
from Aboo Hurayrah from the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam. Among whom: (a) Salim
ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar, who in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree alone relates three hadeeth; (b) and
Hafs ibn ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar, who in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree alone relates eleven hadeeth. al-
’Izzi comments (p. 123), “Did they not hear from their fathers that their grandfather
considered Aboo Hurayrah a liar?”
902.
(4) ‘Aa’ishah – radiyallahu ‘anha- never accused Aboo Hurayrah of lying. However,
there do exist a number of incidents where she corrected Aboo Hurayrah for erring in the
hadeeth he transmitted. This was not unique for Aboo Hurayrah, but rather ‘Aa’ishah
corrected a number of the Companions. Imaam al-Zarkashee (794 A.H.) has gathered and
commented upon all the statements wherein which ‘Aa’ishah corrected another of the
Prophet’s companions in his al-Ijaba li Irad ma Istadraakahu ‘Aa’ishah ‘ala -Sahaabah.
903.
Of these criticisms by ‘Aa’ishah, there exists one in Saheeh Muslim (Cairo: Vol. 3, p.
137). Specifically that Aboo Hurayrah related that the individual who at dawn (fajr) is in a
state of sexual defilement, he is not permitted fast. When ‘Aa’ishah and Umm Salamah
were questioned regarding this they informed that the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa
sallam – during the month of Ramadan would awake at dawn in a state of sexual defilement
not due to a dream (i.e., due to having sexual relations) and fast. When Aboo Hurayrah was
later questioned as to his source, he informed that he heard that from al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbas
and not the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – directly.
904.
Az-Zarkashee (Cairo: p. 57) informs that the ruling delivered by Aboo Hurayrah was
initially the ruling given by the Prophet -sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – but was later
abrogated. This abrogation it seems did not reach Aboo Hurayrah. That the ruling was
abrogated is echoed in the verses regarding the permissibilty of sexual relations with one’s
women during the night of Ramadan.
905.
Moreover, it should be noted that a number of the leading scholars among the
second generation (taabi’een), held the same opinion of Aboo Hurayrah. Among them was
‘Aa’ishah’s nephew, ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr. It seems that ‘Urwah interpreted ‘Aa’ishah’s
statement to indicate a ruling specific to the Prophet -sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam – and not
general for the umma. This opinion was also held by Taawoos, ‘Ataa’, Saalim ibn ‘Abd Allah
ibn ‘Umar, al-Hasan al-Basree, and Ibraaheem al-Nakha’ee. And thus we see this opinion
among the scholars of the tabi’in in the cities of Makkah, al-Madeenah, al-Basra, and alKoofah.
906.
Moreover, there are incidents which show that ‘Aa’ishah did not consider Aboo
Hurayrah to be a liar even if she corrected him at times. Among which is that ‘Aa’ishah
confirmed a hadeeth related by Aboo Hurayrah regarding the reward for following a funeral
bier which was questioned by Ibn ‘Umar. This is reported by al-Bukhaaree and Muslim. (See
al-’Izzee, pp. 234-235)
907.
Al-’Izzee (p. 110) also shows that when ‘Aa’ishah and Hafsah died Aboo Hurayrah
led the funeral prayers and Ibn ‘Umar was among the attendees. This is reported by al-
Bukharee in his Taareekh as-Saghaar, p. 52. Al-Haakim reports in al-Mustadrak (Vol. 4, p.
6), that Ibn ‘Umar was among the people and had no objections.
908.
Al-’Izzee remarks, “We know that the Muslims choose the best among them to lead
funeral prayers, how much more so when it is the wife of their Prophet – sallallahu ‘alaihi
wa sallam – in this world and the next?”
909.
One may surmize that had ‘Umar considered Aboo Hurayrah to be a liar and beat
him for that, how would Ibn ‘Umar allow (indeed, have no objections) Aboo Hurayrah to
lead the funeral prayer for his sister and Prophet’s wife, Hafsaa? If ‘Aa’ishah considered
Aboo Hurayrah to be a liar, would the Muslims permit Aboo Hurayrah to lead the funeral
prayers over her?
910.
(5) As for Abu Haneefah’s rejecting the narrations of these three companions.
911.
However, what does exists is a principle of Usool al-Fiqh among the Hanafee
scholars that those narrations of Aboo Hurayrah which are in agreement with analogy (alqiyaas) areadopted, and what is in disagreement with analogy, one sees if the hadeeth has
been accepted by the ummah, only then it is adopted; otherwise analogy is adopted in
preference to hadeeth. (See Usool al-Sarkhasee, Vol. 1, p. 341)
912.
The source of this principle is the Kufan scholar of the tabi’een, Ibraaheem an-
Nakha’ee, who would not adopt all the hadeeth of Aboo Hurayrah. Al-Dhahabi in his Mizaan
al-I’tidaal (Vol. 1, p. 35) reports that an-Nakha’ee explained his motivations by arguing that
Aboo Hurayrah was not a scholar of fiqh (faqeeh).
913.
In response, it should be noted: (a.) a number of scholars have objected to al-
Nakha’i's position. Among whom ath-Thahabi, Ibn Katheer and Ibn ‘Asaakir. (See aththahabi, Siyaar A’laam al-Nubalaa’, Vol. 2, p. 438 and Ibn Katheer, al-Bidaayah wanNihaayah, Vol. 8, pp. 109-110); (b.) Ibn ‘Abbas who is recognized as a faqeeh, once in a
gathering says to Aboo Hurayrah, “Give a fatwa O Aboo Hurayrah;” (c.) For 23 years, after
the death of ‘Uthmaan – radiyallahu ‘anhu – Aboo Hurayrah would deliever fatawa in alMadeenah. (See Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d, Vol. 2, p. 372). There are no objections by anyone to
Aboo Hurayrah’s knowledge of fiqh. Moreover, most of Aboo Hurayrah’s students among the
tabi’in where accomplished scholars and judges. (d.) In comparing, the instances where anNakha’ee did not adopt the narration of Aboo Hurayrah, we find that Aboo Hurayrah’s
narration is stronger than the opinion forwarded by an-Nakha’ee. (see al-’Izzee, pp. 237248)
914.
I hope this response will be satisfying. Again al-’Izzee’s defense is the definitive
work and it is in 500 pages.
915.
One final note, al-’Izzi also goes under the pen name Ahmad al-Rashid. You might
remember a couple of years ago he was arrested in the UAE (his place of residence) after
returning from the MAYA conference. Just recently, he was released.
916.
http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?id=162&category=19
917.
Ayatolla al-Khui on breastfeeding
918.
January 20, 2010 at 6:01 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting shia
doubts | 1 Comment
919.
920.
921.
922.
923.
924.
925.
926.
927.
928.
929.
1 Votes
930.
Salam alaikum.
931.
We have seen many shias awam and scholars, when they attack noble companions
for issue of adult breastfeeding. Our people of knowledge answered to those doubts. (see
here)
932.
Let us see now what shia scholar said about such issue.
933.
Abul Qasem al-Khui was asked and he answered:
‫ا‬
934.
‫لسؤال‬
‫ أم شخصا آخر ؟‬، ‫ سواء كان الشارٌ زوجها‬، ‫ماهو حكم شرٌ حليب المرأة‬
‫الفتوى‬
‫ال بأس بذلك في نفسه‬.
935.
Q. What is a ruling upon man on drinking milk of woman, whether the one who
drunk her husband or someone else?
A. Nothing wrong with that in itself
See question 5
936.
http://www.almohajery.com/hashemya62/f1/44food1.htm
937.
938.
Refuting attack regarding anal intercouse
939.
January 20, 2010 at 5:41 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia
lies, Refuting shia doubts | Comments Off
940.
941.
942.
943.
944.
945.
946.
947.
948.
949.
950.
951.
Rate This
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon
our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.
952.
Having anal intercourse with one’s wife is a repulsive and detested matter. It is
forbidden in Shariah according to the majority of Salaf from Sahabah, Thabieen, and the
Imams who came after them. The person who practices it is deprived from Allah’s Sight.
The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: Allah does not Look at the one who has
intercourse with his wife in her rectum.
Imam Ahmad , Abu Dawood and al-Nasa’e reported from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet
(Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: Accursed is the one who has anal intercourse with his
wife.
Imam Malik ‘s opinion in this matter is just as the opinion of other Imams, i.e. having
sex in anus is forbidden. Everyone who says otherwise about him (Imam Malik )
fabricates lies against him. Imam Ibn Katheer reported in his Tafseer from Israeel bin
Rooh who said, I asked Malik about making sex with wives in their anuses. He replied,
‘you are but Bedouins, does the act of tilling happen other than in the place of tilth? Do
not exceed the vagina. I said, people say that you allowed that? He answered, they
fabricate lies against me, they fabricate lies against me, and he kept repeating this
sentence’. This opinion is proved from Malik and the same opinion is held by Imams Abu
Hanifah , al-Shafi’e , Ahmad bin Hanbal and all his followers; prior to them, the
prohibition is also reported, through sound narration, by Sayeed bin al-Musayyih , Abu
Salamah , Ikramah , Tawoos , ‘Ataa , Sayeed bin Jubair , Urwah bin al-Zubair , Mujahid
bin Jaber , al-Hasan and many others. Salaf also strongly condemn it, furthermore some
of them even considered it as committing Kufr. [1:347]
What is reported from Ibn Umar in this concern is not more than merely a misconception.
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim thoroughly refuted it, and said what is reported from Ibn Abbas in this
concern is the same as, what was reported from Ibn Umar . Ibn Abbas said regarding this
verse: {Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but
do some good act for your souls beforehand and fear Allah, and know that ye are to meet
him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believes. }[2:223]. It
means having sex with wives while they are laying on their bellies or their backs. In all
cases pleasure should be sought only through vagina. The same opinion is also reported
from Ibn Umar . Imam Nasa’e reported from Abu al-Nadhar that he asked al-Nafi (the great
Imam and known pupil of Ibn Umar ) and said, It is being reported from you that you
allowed having sex in anus. He said, they uttered slander against me. I will inform you for
the reason of this misunderstanding. Once Ibn Umar was reciting some Qur’an while I was
there, he passed by the verse: {Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth
when or how ye will;…}[2:223] and said, O Nafi’ ! Do you know what this verse means? We
the clan of Quraish used to expose women in an uncomely matter during sex. When we
came to Medinah and married the women of Medina and tried to enjoy with them as we
used to enjoy with our women, they refused it since they used to have sex by only one way.
In this regard Allah revealed the verse: {Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach
your tilth when or how ye will;…}[2:223]. Then he ( Ibn Umar ) explained that the verse
means having sex in vagina from the backside.
We do not know anyone who ever reported from Imam al-Bukhari that he allowed anal sex
with one’s wife. He is far above saying such a matter.
We sum up that having sex in anus is totally forbidden and a major sin. It is also forbidden
according to the four Imams and others. Therefore, do not pay any attention to those who
allowed it based on their whims. They do not have any sound basis for their opinion,
neither from the Qur’an nor from the Sunnah.
Allah knows best.
953.
LINK TO FATWA
954.
Dr. Mustafa as-Sibai on shia sincerity
955.
January 15, 2010 at 3:34 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia
lies | Leave a comment
956.
957.
958.
959.
960.
961.
962.
963.
964.
965.
966.
967.
1 Votes
Dr. Mustafa as-Sibai (r) in his book «As-Sunnan wa makanatuha fi tashril islami»
(p42) said:
968.
«In 1953, I visited Abdulhusain Sharaf ad-Deen (al-Mousawi) (1), in Tyre. With
him were seated some Shiah scholars. We began to talk about prevailing conditions in
Muslim lands, and we agreed that Shiah and people of Sunnah should cooperate with one
another in the hope of alleviating the plight of many Muslims. During that gathering
Abdulhusain showed a great deal of enthusiastic approval for the propositions we were
putting forward. In the end, it was agreed that a conference should be held between
scholars of the sunnah and scholars of the shiah for the very purpose of bringing about a
practical cooperation between both groups. However, after only a short period of time, I
was shocked to see that Abdulhusain had just authored a book, which he filled with
curses against Abu Hurayrah.
969.
I was truly amazed at the disparity between Abdulhusain’s claims and between
his actions, actions that did not in the least point to a sincere desire to establishing some
form of cooperation between both groups and to erasing bitter memories. I witnessed a
similar attitude from many other shiah scholars. Although they profess to desire harmony
between both groups. Shiah scholars continue to portray the companions in an evil light,
because the goal of narrowing gap between people of the sunnah and the shiah, to
them, is nothing more than bringing the people of sunnah closer to beliefs of the
shiah».
970.
This book of dr. As-Sibai translated into english, and published by IIPH under the
name «The sunnah and it’s role in islamic legislation». Definitely a book that should be in
each Muslim’s library.
971.
You can buy it here.
972.
————————————–
973.
1) Famous shia author of book against Abu Hurayah, and author of al-Murajiat.
974.
Prophet’s wives were among Ahlul Bayt
975.
January 12, 2010 at 2:27 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting shia
doubts | Leave a comment
976.
977.
978.
979.
980.
981.
982.
983.
984.
985.
986.
Rate This
987.
by alsonnah
988.
Bismillah
All praises due to Allah.
َّ َ‫َوقَرإ نَ فِي بُيُوتِ ُك َّن َو َال تَبَرَّ جإ نَ تَبَرُّ َج إال َجا ِه ِليَّ ِة إاألُو َلى َوأَقِمإ نَ الص ََّالةَ َوآَتِين‬
َّ ُ‫اَّللَ َو َرسُو َلهُ إِنَّ َما ي ُِريد‬
َّ َ‫الزكَاةَ َوأَطِ عإن‬
‫س‬
َ ‫ِب‬
ّ ِ ‫ع إن ُك ُم‬
َ ‫اَّللُ ِلي إُذه‬
َ ‫الرجإ‬
‫يرا‬
ِ ‫أ َ إه َل إالبَ إي‬
ً ‫ت َويُ َط ِ ّه َر ُك إم ت إَط ِه‬
989.
[33:33]
990.
“And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance
of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Apostle. Allah
only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify
you a (thorough) purifying.”
991.
According to correct opinion of Ahlus Sunnah scholars, the above verse revealed
regarding the wives of the Prophet [SAW] but “Ahlal Bayt” (People of the House) also
includes other relatives of the Prophet [saw].
992.
But according to shia view, the red part of the verse revealed specifically for five
personalities only, viz., 1. Fatima [ra] 2. Ali [ra] 3. Hasan [ra] [4] Husain [ra] 5. Nine
descendents of Husain [ra].
993.
To support their claim they give many arguments. One of their argument is that the
red part of the verse uses masculine gender.
However this is a weak argument because these type of gender change are not new for
Quran. Quranic arabic is very rich and many times goes against the modern arabic
grammer. Just take a simple example, while talking to the wife of Ibrahim [as], angels also
used the same masculine gender.
ٌ‫ت إِنَّهُ حَمِ يدٌ َم ِجيد‬
َّ ُ‫اَّللِ َرحإ َمة‬
َّ ‫قَالُوا أَت َ إع َج ِبينَ مِ إن أَمإ ِر‬
َ ُ‫اَّللِ َوبَ َركَاتُه‬
ِ ‫علَ إي ُك إم أ َ إه َل إالبَ إي‬
994.
[11:73]
“They said: Do you wonder at Allah’s bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on
you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.“
995.
As we see here also, the Quran calls the wife of Ibrahim [as] Ahlal Bayt, and that
while using the musculine gender in sentence.
The verse say “salamun ‘alaikum ahlal bayt“, and the “kum” is the same term which is used
in 33:33, and is a masculine term.
996.
Now let me give an exact example from Hadith where Prophet [saw] used masculine
gender while referring to his wives as “Ahlal Bayt”.
997.
It is mention in Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage..
998.
‫ فتخلف‬.‫ فلما فرغ قام وتبعته‬.‫ وكان يبعثني فأدعوا الناس‬.‫ فأشبع الناس خبزا ولحما‬.‫ وشهدت وليمة زينب‬:‫قال أنس‬
”‫ كيف أنتم يا أهل البيت؟‬.‫ فيسلم على كل واحدة منهن “سالم عليكم‬.‫ فجعل يمر على نسائه‬.‫ لم يخرجا‬.‫رجالن استأنس بهما الحديث‬
‫ فلما بلغ الباٌ إذا هو بالرجلين قد‬.‫ يا رسول هللا ! كيف وجدت أهلك ؟ فيقول “بخير” فلما فرغ رجع ورجعت معه‬.‫ بخير‬:‫فيقولون‬
‫ فرجع ورجعت‬.‫ فوهللا ! ما أدري أنا أخبرته أم أنزل عليه الوحي بأنهما قد خرجا‬.‫ فلما رأياه قد رجع قاما فخرجا‬.‫استأنس بهما الحديث‬
}‫ {ال تدخلوا بيوت النبي إال أن يؤذن لكم‬:‫ وأنزل هللا تعالى هذه اآلية‬.‫ فلما وضع رجله في أسكفة الباٌ أرخى الحجاٌ بيني وبينه‬.‫معه‬
‫] اآلية‬53 ‫ اآلية‬/ٌ‫األحزا‬/ 33[http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D…Doc=1&Rec=3288
999.
Translation of the relevant part is…
Anas said: I also saw the wedding feast of Zainab, and he (the Holy Prophet) served
bread and meat to the people, and made them eat to their heart’s content, and he (the
Holy Prophet) sent me to call people, and as he was free (from the ceremony) he stood
up and I followed him. Two persons were left and they were busy in talking and did not
get out (of the apartment). He (the Holy Prophet) then proceeded towards (the
apartments of) his wives. He greeted with as-Salamu ‘alaikum to every one of them and
said: Members of the household, how are you?? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in
good state ‘How do you find your family? He would say: In good state.
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp… ber=3328#3328
1000.
Here Prophet [saw] greeted his wives as “Assalamu’alaikum. Kaifa antum ya
Ahlal Bayt“. The blue parts in the sentence represent masculine gender. Hence, we see
Prophet [saw] used the masculine sentence while greeting to his wives. Use of
masculine gender in the above hadith doesn’t change the fact that Prophet was
referring to his wives not any other members of his family.
1001.
The point here is Quranic arabic is very rich and modern arabic grammer
doesn’t cover all aspects of it. We can’t just distort the context of Quran, just because
it uses the masculine gender while talking to feminine, whose usage is proven for
feminine by the way in the arabic books.
1002.
Now the following are some narrations which prove without doubt that Wives of
the Prophet [saw] were among Ahlal Bayt…
1003.
Hazrat Aisha did consider herself among Ahlal Bayt
1004.
January 12, 2010 at 2:26 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting shia
doubts | Leave a comment
1005.
1006.
1007.
1008.
1009.
1010.
1011.
1012.
1013.
1014.
1015.
1016.
Rate This
35 – (1995) ‫ عن‬،‫ حدثنا جرير عن منصور‬:‫ قال زهير‬.‫ كالهما عن جرير‬.‫وحدثنا زهير بن حرٌ وإسحاق بن إبراهيم‬
‫ قال‬.‫إبراهيم‬:
‫ يا أم المؤمنين! أخبريني عما نهى عنه رسول هللا صلى‬:‫ قلت‬.‫ نعم‬:‫ هل سألت أم المؤمنين عما يكره أن ينتبذ فيه؟ قال‬:‫قلت لألسود‬
‫ أن ننتبذ في الدباء والمزفت‬،‫ أهل البيت‬،‫ نهانا‬:‫ قالت‬.‫هللا عليه وسلم أن ينتبذ فيه‬http://hadith.alislam.com/Display/D…Doc=1&Rec=4760
1017.
Ibrahim reported: I said to Aswad if he had asked the Mother of the Believers (in
which utensils) he (the Holy Prophet) disapproved the preparation of Nabidh. He (Aswad)
said: Yes. I said: Mother of the Believers, inform me about the utensils in which) Allah’s
Apostle forbade to prepare Nabidh. She (Hadrat ‘A’isha) said: He forbade us, the members
of his family [Ahlal Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar. I said to him: Do
you remember green pitcher, and pitcher? He said: I narrated to you what I have heard;
should I narrate to you which I did not hear? [Sahih Muslim
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp... ber=4918#4918]
1018.
Note- Ahlal Bayt in bracket is by me as a transliteration of what is present in arabic
source. (by brother al-sunnah)
1019.
Prophet (pbuh) called Aisha (ra) “Ahli Baytee” (my family) on
pulpit, during the incident of Ifk:
1020.
January 12, 2010 at 2:25 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting shia
doubts | Leave a comment
1021.
1022.
1023.
1024.
1025.
1026.
1027.
1028.
1029.
1030.
1031.
1032.
1 Votes
‫ فقال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه‬:‫ فقالت‬،‫فقام رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم فاستعذر يومئذ من عبد هللا بن أبي ابن سلول‬
،‫ فوهللا ما علمت على أهلي إال خيرا‬،‫ من يعذرني من رجل قد بلغني أذاه في أهل بيتي‬،‫ (يامعشر المسلمين‬:‫وسلم وهو على المنبر‬
‫ وما كان يدخل على أهلي إال معي‬،‫ ولقد ذكروا رجال ما علمت عليه إال خيرا‬http://hadith.alislam.com/Display/D…Doc=0&Rec=6951
1033.
“…So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who
would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then. Allah’s Apostle, while on the
pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering
my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed
a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except
with me,”
Sahih Bukhari- http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp…mb er=274#274
1034.
Just take a look at complete picture
1035.
January 10, 2010 at 7:22 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Take a few minutes to think on this
| Leave a comment
1036.
1037.
1038.
1039.
1040.
1041.
1042.
1043.
1044.
1045.
1046.
Rate This
1047.
Salam alaikum.
1048.
Want to share with some my thoughts.
1049.
1) It’s well known historical fact that Ali (r.a) didn’t marry with any other woman,
when Fatima (r.a) was still alive.
1050.
2) Fatima (r.a) died 6 months after death of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi
wa sallam).
1051.
Shias claim that: In these 6 months after death of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala
alihi wa sallam) Abu Bakr (r.a) steal caliphate from Ali (r.a), Umar (r.a) wanted to burn
house with Fatima (r.a) inside. Some of them even claim that Aisha (r.a) poisoned prophet
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
1052.
3) Keeping in mind above mentioned facts and claims, let us go back to other
historical facts.
1053.
After these 6 months, Ali (r.a) married to other women. It’s well known fact that
Ali (r.a) have sons from other wifes with names Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman. Imam al-Hasan
(r.a) named one from his children Talha. Imam al-Hussain (r.a) named his two sons Abu
Bakr and Uthman. It was reported that imam Jafar and Musa al-Kadhim named their
daughter Aisha.
1054.
So how is it possible to unite historical facts and shia false charges against
companions?! Can anyone even think about naming his child with name of person, who steal
his rights, who killed his wife?
1055.
This is a complete picture, when historical facts and shia charges against
companions combined together: Abu Bakr (r.a) steal caliphate, Umar (r.a) killed Fatima
(r.a) with door (these are shia charges), and after this theft, and her death Ali (r.a) married
other woman and named his son Umar (this is fact).
1056.
Which sane man could believe in such thing?
1057.
And second one: Aisha (r.a) poisoned prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa
sallam) (this is false charge), and then two masoom imams (Jafar and Musa) named theis
daughter Aisha (this is fact)?
1058.
Meaning of Qur’an (33:33)
1059.
December 30, 2009 at 2:25 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting
shia doubts | Leave a comment
1060.
1061.
1062.
1063.
1064.
1065.
1066.
1067.
1068.
1069.
1070.
1071.
Rate This
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon
our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.
1072.
Your question is about the following verse, Allah Says (interpretation of meaning):
{And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance,
and perform As-Salât (IqamâtasSalât), and give Zakât and obey Allâh and His Messenger.
Allâh wishes only to remove ArRijs (evil deeds and sins, etc.) from you, O members of the
family (of the Prophet SAW), and to purify you with a thorough purification.}[33:33].
1073.
Ibn Kathir said about the interpretation of the above verse: ‘This is a text which is
revealed exclusively concerning the wives of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) of
the members of the family of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam). The reason why
this verse was revealed is the wives of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam).’
1074.
There is only one interpretation about the revelation of the above verse….
1075.
Ikrima used to call out in the market, (the verse): ‘Allah wishes only to remove evil
deeds and sins from you, O members of the family of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa
Sallam) and to purify you with a thorough purification’ is exclusively revealed about the
wives of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam).’
1076.
It is reported in Saheeh Muslim from Zaid bin Al Arqam that Ahl al-Bayt (the
members of the family of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam)) are: “They are the
wives of the household of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), but the members of the
family of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) are also those who were not allowed to
take the Sadaqa after him. He said, ‘and who are they? He replied: He said: ‘They are the
family of Ali, the family of Aqil, the family of Jafar, and the family of Abbas, …”
1077.
Therefore, Ahl ul-Bayt (members of the family of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa
Sallam)) in the verse, it could either refer to the wives of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa
Sallam), because it is because of them that the verse was revealed, or to all the members
of Ahl ul-Bayt.
1078.
Anyway, either the verse was particularly revealed about the wives of the Prophet
(Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), or it is general about all the members of the family of the
Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), Imam Ali, Fatimah, Hassan and Hussein, may Allah be
pleased with them all, they are all among those whom Allah wanted to remove the evil
deeds and sins from.
1079.
Imam Muslim reported that Ayisha (Radiya Allahu Anha) narrated, “The Prophet
(Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) went out one morning, …… then Hassan bin Ali came, so let
him in, then Hussein came and entered with him, then Fatimah came and he let her
in. Then he said: “Allah wishes only to remove evil deeds and sins from you, o members of
the family of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) and to purify you with a thorough
purification”.
1080.
Allah knows best.
1081.
http://islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=87409&Option=FatwaI
d
1082.
Hafsah calling Safiyyah the daughter of a Jew
1083.
1084.
1085.
1086.
1087.
1088.
1089.
1090.
1091.
1092.
1093.
1094.
1095.
December 6, 2009 at 4:16 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Question: Could you please relate the hadith about Hafsah calling Safiyyah the
daughter of a Jew, and the Prophet showing that her lineage is an honor. Is it authentic? I
like this account, because some people claim that Islam dislikes Jews as people – on a
racial level. This proves that Islam has nothing against Jews as a people.
1096.
Answered by Sheikh Salman al-Oadah
On one occasion, the Prophet’s wife Hafsah chided her co-wife Safiyyah by calling her “the
daughter of a Jew”. She started to cry.
1097.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) then came in and asked her why she was crying.
She said: “Hafsah called me the daughter of a Jew.”
1098.
To this the Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “Verily, you are the daughter of a
Prophet, your uncle was also a Prophet, and you are the wife of a Prophet, so what does
she have over you to boast about?”
1099.
He then turned to Hafsah and said: “Fear Allah, O Hafsah.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî
(3862)]
1100.
[This hadîth is authentic. It has been determined to be authentic by al-Albânî in
Sahîh wa Da`îf Sunan al-Tirmidhî (3894) and al-Mishkât (6183).]
1101.
Safiyyah’s statement was true, because Safiyyah’s father, Hubayy b. Akhtab, was in
fact a Jew who had died without ever accepting Islam. Still, such a comment was meant as
a take on Safiyyah’s person, which was only more hurtful as it was coming from her cowife.
1102.
Safiyyah was a descendant of Aaron (peace be upon him). So, when Hafsah
insinuated that Safiyyah’s being of Jewish descent was something bad, the Prophet (peace
be upon him) showed Hafsah another way of looking at it: that Safiyyah was the descendant
of Prophet Aaron and that her uncle was Moses, and that her husband was Muhammad
(peace be upon them all), so there was no reason at all for her to be ashamed of being of
Jewish descent.
1103.
Who murdered al-Hasan bin Ali?
1104.
December 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1105.
1106.
1107.
1108.
1109.
1110.
1111.
1112.
1113.
1114.
1115.
1116.
1 Votes
Question: Who murdered al-Hasan, the son of `Alî (may Allah be pleased with
them both)?
1117.
Answered by Sheikh Khâlid Husayn
The books of biography and history do not pinpoint anyone as being the murderer of alHasan (may Allah be pleased with him).
1118.
It is consensus among scholars that he was poisoned. However, al-Hasan refused to
declare who poisoned him.
1119.
Imam al-Dhahabî relates in his book Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ (3/273) that al-Husayn
asked his brother al-Hasan: “O brother, tell me who gave you this drink (the poisoned
one)?”
1120.
Al-Hasan said: “Why. So you can kill him?”
1121.
He said: “Yes.”
1122.
Al-Hasan said: “I will not tell you anything. If it was the one I expect, then Allah
will give him a more severe punishment. Otherwise I will not accuse an innocent, so he will
be killed.”
1123.
The same is related by Ibn Hajr al-`Asqâlânî in al-Isâbah fî Tamyîz al-Sahâbah
(2/66).
1124.
And Allah knows best.
1125.
What do we say about Mu`âwiyah?
1126.
1127.
1128.
1129.
1130.
1131.
1132.
1133.
1134.
1135.
1136.
1137.
December 6, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1 Votes
1138.
Question: What do we say about Mu`âwiyah? Is it true that he instituted the
practice of cursing `Alî b. Abî Tâlib on the pulpit?
1139.
Answered by Sheikh Muhammad al-Turkî, professor at King Sa`ûd University
The narration that Mu`awiyah is the one who initiated cursing `Alî b. Abî Tâlib on the pulpit
is not authentic. Moreover, Mu`âwiyah was a prominent Companion who knew and
respected the other Companions, so it can not be believed on hearsay that he ordered
Muslims to do this.
1140.
I would like to warn the questioner not to rely on history books in these issues,
since these books are full of unauthenticated and spurious stories. Experts in history concur
with this.
1141.
The position of Ahl al-Sunnah on Mu`âwiyah is similar to their position on other
Companions. We ask Allah to bless them all and be pleased with them. Mu`âwiyah is one of
them, and his companionship with the Prophet (peace be upon him) is firmly established.
Hence, it is unlawful to derogate him, since he is a Companion, and whoever does so is
facing real danger in his religion and belief.
1142.
I remind my dear questioner of a what Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal said when he heard a
man derogate Mu`âwiyah and `Amr b. al-`Âs: “ This man dares to talk about them because
he has a corrupt heart. No one hates a Companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him)
except those who have a corrupted heart.”
1143.
When al-Hasan al-Basrî was asked about those who curse Mu`âwiyah and Ibn al-
Zubayr, he said: “May Allah curse those who curse them.”
1144.
You should warn others to the seriousness of this issue. May Allah guide us all to the
right path.
1145.
Hadith About Aisha’s House and Satan’s Horns [A
Sunni Perspective]
1146.
1147.
1148.
1149.
1150.
1151.
1152.
1153.
1154.
1155.
1156.
1157.
1158.
December 1, 2009 at 7:50 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | 2 Comments
4 Votes
Praise be to Allah for giving us this opportunity to defend the Prophet’s wife. Truly
what an amazing honor this is. May Allah raise us up with those who defend the Ahlel Bayt,
as opposed to those who slander the blessed Ahlel Bayt. As for those who slander and insult
the Prophet’s own wives, we can only imagine the Prophet’s anger towards these erring
people; indeed, not even the vilest and most debased Shia would tolerate someone
insulting his own wife! It will be the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah that will forever guard the
honor of our Beloved’s beloved.
1159.
Shia Slander Against the Mother of the Believers
1160.
Despite the fact that Umm al Mu’mineen Aisha is part of the blessed Ahlel Bayt, the
Shia propagandists revile her; of the many slanders they utter against her, one of their
favorites is to claim that the “horns of Satan” or the “head of Satan” would emerge from
Aisha’s house. This is based on their horrible misinterpretation of Sunni Hadith which they
then propagate amongst the ignorant ones amongst the Sunnis. In fact, the Hadiths in
question have nothing at all to do with Aisha, but rather the Prophet was simply pointing in
the direction of the East towards Iraq (i.e. the Persian Empire at that time). An analogy of
this is if a man asks which direction is Qiblah, and his friend points towards a certain house
on the street. This simply means that Qiblah is in that direction. The Prophet did not at all
mean that Aisha’s house would be the source of Satan’s horns, but rather he meant the
East. In relation to where the Prophet was standing, Aisha’s house simply happened to be in
the direction of the East.
1161.
Now let us reproduce the Hadiths from both Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. We
read:
1162.
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6938:
1163.
Ibn Umar reported that he heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying while he had turned his face towards the East: “Behold, turmoil would appear
from this side, from where the horns of Satan would appear.”
1164.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.ht
ml#041.6938
1165.
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6939:
1166.
Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood by the
door (of the apartment of) gafsa and, pointing towards the East, he said: “The turmoil
would appear from this side, viz. where the horns of Satan would appear,” and he
uttered these words twice or thrice; and Ubaidullah in his narration said: the Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) had been standing by the door of Aisha.
1167.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.ht
ml#041.6939
1168.
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6940:
1169.
Salim b. Abdullah reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Messenger
(may peace be upon him), while turning his face towards the East, said: “The turmoil
would appear from this side; verily, the turmoil would appear from this side; verily, the
turmoil would appear from this side–the side where appear the horns of Satan.”
1170.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.ht
ml#041.6940
1171.
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6941:
1172.
Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came out
from the house of Aisha and said: “It would be from this side (pointing to the East) that
there would appear the height of unbelief, viz. where appear the horns of Satan.”
1173.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.ht
ml#041.6941
1174.
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6942:
1175.
Ibn Umar reported: I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying
while pointing his hands towards the East: “The turmoil would appear from this side;
verily, the turmoil would appear from this side (he repeated it thrice) where appear the
horns of Satan.”
1176.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.ht
ml#041.6942
1177.
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6943:
1178.
Ibn Fudail reported on the authority of his father that he heard Salim b. Abdullah
b. Umar as saying: O people of Iraq, how strange it is that you ask about the minor sins
but commit major sins? I heard from my father Abdullah b. Umar, narrating that he
heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying while pointing his hand
towards the East: “Verily, the turmoil would come from this side, from where appear
the horns of Satan and you would strike the necks of one another…”
1179.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.ht
ml#041.6943
1180.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 336:
1181.
Narrated Abdullah:
1182.
The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing towards Aisha’s
house (i.e. Eastwards), he said thrice, “Affliction (will appear from) here,” and, “from
where the side of the Satan’s head comes out (i.e. from the East).”
1183.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.ht
ml
1184.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 212:
1185.
Narrated Salim’s father:
1186.
The Prophet stood up beside the pulpit (and pointed with his finger towards the
East) and said, “Afflictions are there! Afflictions are there, from where the side of the
head of Satan comes out,” or said, “..the side of the sun..” (i.e. the sun emerges from
the East)
1187.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.ht
ml
1188.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 213:
1189.
Narrated Ibn Umar:
1190.
I heard Allah’s Apostle while he was facing the East, saying, “Verily! Afflictions
are there, from where the side of the head of Satan comes out.”
1191.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.ht
ml
1192.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 214:
1193.
Narrated Ibn Umar:
1194.
The Prophet said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow
Your blessings on our Yemen.” The People said, “And also on our Najd (i.e. Iraq).” He
said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (North)! O Allah! Bestow Your
blessings on our Yemen (South).” The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! And also on our
Najd (i.e. Iraq).” I think the third time the Prophet said, “There (in the Najd, i.e. Iraq)
is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the
head of Satan.”
1195.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.ht
ml
1196.
Iraq was at that time referred to by the Arabs as the Najd, as stated in “Najd Qarnu
ash-Shaytan”. This has been stated by al-Khattabi, al-Kirmani, al-Ayni, an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr
and others. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajr said:
1197.
“Al-Khattabi said: ‘For the one who is in Medinah, then his Najd would be the
desert of Iraq and its regions (baadiya al-Iraaq wa Nawaaheehaa) for this is to the East of
the People of Medinah.”
1198.
This is made abundantly clear by the same narration recorded in alternate wording:
1199.
Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer, Compiled by Imam Al-Tabarani:
1200.
Narrated by Ibn Abbas:
1201.
The Prophet supplicated and said, “O Allah bestow your blessings on our Shaam
and Yemen.” A person from amongst the people said, “O Prophet of Allah, and Iraq?” He
said, “Indeed there (in Iraq) is the Horn of Satan, and the trials and tribulations will
come like mounting waves, and indeed harshness is in the East.”
1202.
“Pointed Towards”, Not “Pointed To”
1203.
It is Hadith Number 336 of Vol.4, Book 53 of Sahih Bukhari that the Shia
propagandists rely on most, namely because the translator used by the USC website (Muhsin
Khan) made a mistake in his translation. He translates it as “pointed to Aisha’s house”
instead of “pointed towards Aisha’s house.” However, the proper translation is “pointed
towards” and not “pointed to.” In the Arabic text of said Hadith, the words are “fa-ashaara
nahwa (towards) maskani `a’ishah” and not “fa-ashaara ila (to) maskani `a’ishah”.
Therefore, we see that the Prophet was simply pointing towards the direction of Aisha’s
house, and not at Aisha’s house specifically.
1204.
The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
1205.
At that time in history, Iraq was part of the Persian Empire; the Prophet had
dispatched an ambassador to the Persian Chosroes inviting him to Islam. The haughty
Persian leader scoffed at the Prophet’s call, rejecting to accept the “lowly” Arab
“barbarians” as spiritual leaders over and above the “mighty” Persians. Soon thereafter,
the Muslim Ummah would be propelled into an all-out war with the the Persian Empire;
Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab blitzed across Iraq and this is when the Fitnah began for the
Muslims. The perceptive reader should keep in mind that before the fall of Persia, the
Muslim Ummah was united under its Caliph and Dar al-Islam was expanding its borders.
Right after the liberation of Iraq from Persian domination, the assassinations of Caliphs
began.
1206.
The Muslims had indeed defeated the haughty and proud Persian Empire, but the
Persians carefully planned their revenge. The Persian governor Harmuzan was pardoned by
the Caliph, but he conspired against the Muslims to avenge his humiliating defeat. The
conquered Persians plotted against the Muslims, and it was their conspiracy plans which no
doubt the Prophet was referring to as “Satan’s horns”. It was from the ashes of the Persian
Empire that the Shia sect was formed, a mix between Islam and Zoroastrianism as well as
Persian nationalism.
1207.
The Persian governor Harmuzan became partners with Jafeena Al-Khalil and Saba
bin Shamoon (whose son was Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia sect); these three men
hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian POW from Iraq, to assassinate Caliph Umar. Today, the
modern day Persian Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they call him “Baba Shuja-e-din” which
can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” These Shia have a shrine erected for
this murderer, located in the Iranian city of Kashan called the Abu Lulu Mausoleum wherein
he is buried. The Shia travel from far distances to pray inside this shrine, and many of the
Shia fast on the day that Umar was killed, and even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Lulu is one
of the venerated founding figures of Shia ideology; the same people who conspired to kill
Umar were the ones who planted the seeds of the Shia movement.
1208.
Abu Lulu was hired by three men, and the third of these three was the father of
Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia faith. His intention in creating the Shia faith was to
create a sect within Islam that would split its ranks, create disunity, and–quite frankly–to
forever be a rebel movement against mainstream Islamic governments. And if we look
throughout history, we find that the Shia have always been rebels and turncoats, one of the
reasons they are referred to as “Rafidhis” (or turncoats). Not only they were turncoats, but
these Shia were Ahl al-Bidah (People of Innovation) for they adultered Islam with their
Magian beliefs. This was the Satan’s horn that emerged from the East, and no doubt this is
what the Prophet was referring to.
1209.
Aisha Did Not Start the Fitnah
1210.
The Shia argue that it was Aisha who started the Fitnah in the ranks of the Muslims
by organizing an army against Ali. But in fact, this is incorrect. First of all, Aisha did not
leave her house with the intention of instigating an armed revolt against Ali. Instead, she
left her house only with the intention of Islah (reformation). In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the
events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates that a man
asked Aisha why she had come to visit Ali, saying: “O mother, what moved you and pushed
you to this country?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between people.”
1211.
The word “Fitnah” refers to turmoil which causes disunity in the ranks of the
Muslim Ummah. Even before the time of the Battle of Camel, the Muslim ranks had become
split, so why should the Shia blame this on Aisha? The Fitnah began right after the Persians
assassinated the Caliph of the Muslims, which pre-dated the Battle of the Camel. In fact, it
was the murder of Umar ibn al-Khattab by the Persians that started the chain reaction
which resulted in the Battle of the Camel. Ubaidallah, Umar’s son, avenged the murder of
his father by plotting to kill the three men who hired the assassin Abu Lulu. Ubaidallah was
successful in killing two of the three men, but the third–Saba bin Shamoon–survived, and he
demanded that Ubaidallah be executed for his double murder. Caliph Uthman, however,
showed Ubaidallah mercy, despite Ali who advised the Caliph to execute him for his crime
of vigilante murder.
1212.
The fact that Uthman showed mercy upon Ubaidallah angered Saba bin Shamoon
and his son, Abdullah ibn Saba. These two men looked sympathetically towards Ali, due to
the fact that Ali had taken a harsh stance towards Ubaidallah’s actions. It was thus that
Abdullah ibn Saba “converted” to Islam and founded the Shia sect, calling the masses to
adore Ali and agitating them against Uthman. It was Abdullah ibn Saba’s propaganda against
Uthman that helped fan the flames of civil discontent and caused the people to rise against
the Caliph. And so it was that the Saba’ites (followers of Abdullah ibn Saba) assassinated
Uthman.
1213.
This murder of Uthman led to the rise of Ali as Caliph; the people demanded of Ali
that he apprehend the killers of Uthman and this was the cause of the Battle of Camel. The
people were upset with Ali for failing to apprehend the killers of Uthman–who happened to
be in his own party, but Ali chose to delay apprehending them due to the fact that he did
not want to alienate his own supporters in this time of civil discontent when he needed
them the most. So Ali decided to delay on apprehending the killers until after he
consolidated his power as Caliph, but the people were threatening to revolt against and
even kill Ali, who was even wrongfully implicated in the murder of Uthman. And so it was
that some of the people appealed to the Prophet’s wife to go talk to the Caliph on their
behalf. Aisha agreed to do this, only to prevent bloodshed and furnish Islah (reformation)
between the ranks of the Muslims. Aisha was hopeful that she could convince Ali to find the
killers and apprehend them posthaste.
1214.
When the Saba’ite killers of Uthman found out that Aisha was on her way to meet
the Caliph in order to urge him to apprehend the assassins, this naturally made them antsy
and fear for their lives. So it was they who attacked Aisha’s contingent and thus began the
Battle of the Camel, a result of the chain reaction that began with the Persian murder of
Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was thus that the Persians were the cause of the Fitnah, and
Aisha was innocent of that. Today, we find that the modern day Shia are soft towards the
Persian conspirators but harsh towards the Mother of the Believers! The truth is that the
Shia propagandists will be raised with those they love, and they will be raised up with the
likes of the Persian Abu Lulu, whereas the Muslims will be raised with the blessed Ahlel
Bayt including the Prophet’s wives. The Shia of today are the remnants of the Magian
Persian Empire, and they are from where Satan’s horns emerged.
1215.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said:
1216.
“The People of the East were disbelievers at that time and the Messenger of
Allah informed us that the trials and tribulations would arise from that direction and it
was as he said. And the first of the trials that arose, arose from the direction of the East
and they were the reason for the splitting of the Muslim ranks, and this is what Satan
loves and delights in. Likewise the innovations appeared from that direction.” (Fath alBari 13/58)
1217.
Conclusion
1218.
The Prophet was not at all referring to his own wife. If that were the case, then
nothing prevented him from simply pointing to his wife, instead of pointing towards Aisha’s
house in the direction of the East. In fact, although this Hadith is abused by the Shia
propagandists, in reality this same Hadith is a damnation of the Shia themselves for it was
they who the Prophet was warning against us. May Allah save us from Shi’ism, the horn of
Satan.
1219.
It is inconceivable that the Prophet of Islam would be buried at the spot wherefrom
Satan’s horns emerged. May Allah bless the Prophet’s Ahlel Bayt including his wives, the
Mother of the Believers.
1220.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi (abriged)
1221.
Who are the Naasibis and what is the ruling on them?
1222.
1223.
1224.
1225.
1226.
1227.
1228.
1229.
1230.
1231.
1232.
1233.
November 30, 2009 at 6:38 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
1234.
Praise be to Allaah.
1235.
Nasb in Arabic refers to setting something up or raising it. Mukhtaar al-Sihaah,
1/275.
1236.
In al-Qaamoos it says that the Naasibis (al-nawaasib, al-naasibah and ahl al-nasb)
are those whose religious beliefs include hating ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him)
because they set themselves up against him, i.e. took a hostile stance against him.
1237.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The Naasibis are
those who set themselves up against Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s household)
and hated them and slandered them. They are diametrically opposed to the Raafidis
(Shi’ah). Sharh al-Waasitiyyah, 2/283.
1238.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, explaining the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-
Jamaa’ah: They (i.e., the Sunnis) love the people of the household of the Messenger of
Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); they regard them with love and loyalty,
and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) concerning them… but they reject the way of the Raafidis who hate the
Sahaabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Naasibis who insult Ahl al-Bayt
in words and deed. Ahl al-Sunnah do not indulge in discussions about the disputes that took
place among the Sahaabah.
1239.
Al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah, Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 3/154.
1240.
So the Naasibis are those who hate Ahl al-Bayt, especially ‘Ali (may Allaah be
pleased with him), and some of them slander him and some accuse him of being a
rebellious evildoer, and some of them regard him as a kaafir, as was referred to by Shaykh
al-Islam (Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 7/339).
1241.
One of the most well-known groups who emerged from among the Naasibis were
the Khaarijis who rebelled against ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and regarded him
as a kaafir, and they added other innovations to that.
1242.
Undoubtedly rebelling and hating the Ahl al-Bayt and other Sahaabah is a serious
kind of bid’ah (innovation) that implies slandering this religion which was transmitted to us
via the Sahaabah, the Ahl al-Bayt and others.
1243.
With regard to whether they are to be regarded as kaafirs, this varies according to
the level of hatred for the Sahaabah, and their motives. In brief, if they hate them for
some worldly reason then that does not mean that they are kaafirs or hypocrites, but if it is
for a religious reason, because they are the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr. Anything in between that is an area
of scholarly dispute in general. See question no;45563
1244.
With regard to the ruling on the Khaarijis – who have a similar mentality to the
Shi’ah and added to that hatred of the Sahaabah, regarding the one who commits a major
sin as a kaafir, and other kinds of bid’ah – there is some difference of opinion among the
scholars. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
1245.
The ummah is agreed on condemning of the Khaarijis and regarding them as having
gone astray, but they dispute as to whether they are to be regarded as kaafirs. There are
two well-known views in the Madhhabs of Maalik and Ahmad. In the madhhab of al-Shaafa’i
there is also a dispute as to whether they are kaafirs. Hence there are two views in the
madhhab of Ahmad.
1246.
The first is that they are wrongdoers, and the second is that they are kaafirs like
the apostates, so it is permissible to kill them first, to kill those taken prisoner, and to
pursue those who run away. If possible they should be asked to repent as in the case of
apostates: if they repent all well and good, otherwise they are to be executed.
1247.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/518.
1248.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: With regard to viewing them as kaafirs and
stating that they will abide in Hell for eternity, there are also two well-known scholarly
views, which were both narrated from Ahmad. The two views apply to the Khaarijis and
those who went astray such as the Harooris, Raafidis and others. The most correct of these
views is that their beliefs which are well known to go against what the Messenger brought
constitute kufr. Similarly their actions which are like the actions of the kuffaar against the
Muslims are also kufr. I have mentioned the evidence for that elsewhere. But to declare a
specific individual among them to be a kaafir and to judge that he will abide in Hell forever
is dependent upon the conditions for declaring a person to be a kaafir being met and the
impediments to so doing being absent.
1249.
When we quote the verses and reports which speak of promises and warnings, and
who is a kaafir and a faasiq, we should quote them in a general sense. We cannot judge
that any specific individual is included in the general meaning of those texts, unless one of
the conditions is met with no impediment. We have already discussed this principle in
Qaa’idat al-Takfeer. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/500). And Allaah knows best.
1250.
The questioner should note that in their books the Raafidis who go to extremes with
regard to ‘Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt, and slander the Sahaabah and regard them as kaafirs,
often accuse those who disagreed with their falsehood of being Naasibis, but by Naasibis
they mean Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. They do this to express their dislike of them for
going against their falsehood and following the way of truth. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah
said: “With regard to Ahl al-Sunnah, they regard as friends all the believers. When they
speak it is on the basis of knowledge and fairness, unlike those who are ignorant or follow
their whims and desires; they reject the way of both the Raafidis and the Naasibis and they
hold all of the early generations in high esteem, and they recognize status and virtue of the
Sahaabah and respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt as prescribed by Allaah. They also recognize
the varying status of members of the early generation, and they recognize that Abu Bakr
and ‘Umar enjoyed precedence and had virtues that were not shared by anyone else among
the Sahaabah. Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 2/71
1251.
Based on this, we have to know who uses this word and who they are referring to by
that, lest we reject the truth, because of their describing the people of truth in an
incorrect manner. Because one of the characteristics of the people who follow innovation is
to attack Ahl al-Sunnah and describe them in offputting terms. What counts is that which is
in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the way of the earliest generations of this
ummah, no matter how much the followers of falsehood try to distort it.
1252.
Among the books which speak of the Naasibis and refute them and their ideas, and
discussed those who went to the other extreme, namely the Raafidis, is Manhaaj al-Sunnah
by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah. You can refer to this book or some of its abridged
editions.
1253.
We ask Allaah to guide us and you to follow His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and to protect us from misguidance and
temptations both obvious and subtle.
1254.
Islam Q&A
1255.
1256.
1257.
1258.
1259.
1260.
1261.
1262.
1263.
1264.
1265.
1266.
1267.
Ruling on hating the Sahaabah
November 30, 2009 at 6:37 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
1268.
Praise be to Allaah.
1269.
Undoubtedly it is a sign of great misfortune and misguidance if a person’s faith is
based on slandering the companions of the best of mankind (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) or arguing about the disputes that arose among them, instead of occupying
himself with doing that which will benefit him in both his worldly and spiritual affairs.
1270.
No one should have any reason to slander or hate or bear grudges against the
companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Their virtues are
many, for they are the ones who supported Islam and spread the faith; they are the ones
who fought the mushrikeen; they are the ones who transmitted the Qur’aan, Sunnah and
rulings. They sacrificed themselves, their blood and their wealth for the sake of Allaah.
Allaah chose them to be the companions of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him), so no one slanders them or hates them except a hypocrite whose does not love
Islam or believe in it.
1271.
It was narrated that al-Bara’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The Ansaar: no one loves them
but a believer and no one hates them but a hypocrite. Whoever loves them, Allaah will love
him, and whoever hates them, Allaah will hate him.”
1272.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3672; Muslim, 75.
1273.
If a man who hates the Ansaar cannot be a believer and that makes him a
hypocrite, then how about one who hates the Ansaar and Muhaajireen and those who
followed them in truth, and slanders them, curses them and denounces them and those
who love them as kaafirs – as the Raafidis do? Undoubtedly they deserve more to be
regarded as kaafirs and hypocrites, and of not being believers.
1274.
Al-Tahhaawi said, discussing the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah:
1275.
We love the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) and we do not neglect to love any one of them, nor do we disavow any one of
them. We hate those who hate them and who criticize them, and we only mention them in
good terms. Loving them is part of religious commitment, faith and ihsaan, and hating them
is kufr, hypocrisy and wrongdoing.
1276.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:
1277.
The way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to love the family (ahl al-bayt) of the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
1278.
The Naasibis love the Sahaabah but hate the family of the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him), hence they were called Naasibis because they set
themselves up (nasb) as enemies of the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him).
1279.
The Raafidis are the opposite: they love the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) – or so
they claim, but they hate the Sahaabah, whom they curse, denounce as kaafirs and
criticize.
1280.
Whoever hates the Sahaabah hates Islam, because they are the bearers of Islam and
the followers of the Chosen Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So
whoever hates them hates Islam, and this indicates that there is no faith in the hearts of
such people and that they do not love Islam.
1281.
This is an important basic principle which the Muslims should understand, namely
loving and respecting the Sahaabah, because that is part of faith. Hating them or hating
one of them is kufr and hypocrisy, because loving them is part of loving the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and hating them is part of hating the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
1282.
Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah.
1283.
Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah.
They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr
and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy.
1284.
This is a good explanation which does not contradict what we have mentioned
above, rather it explains it further and reinforces it.
1285.
Abu Zar’ah al-Raazi said: If you see a man criticizing one of the companions of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then know that he is a
heretic.
1286.
Imam Ahmad said: If you see a man mentioning one of the companions of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in a bad way, then call his
Islam into question.
1287.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
1288.
If a person slanders them in a way that does not impugn their good character or
religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being stingy or cowardly or lacking
in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then he deserves to be rebuked and
disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir because of that. This is how the words of
those who were not regarded as kaafirs by the scholars are to be understood.
1289.
If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of
scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere feelings or
religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they apostatized after the
death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from a
small group of no more than ten or so individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did
evil, then there is no doubt that such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is
stated in more than one place in the Qur’aan, that Allaah was pleased with them and
praised them. Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir,
because this implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or
evildoers and that the best of this ummah which is described in the verse “You are the best
of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning]
– the first generation – were mostly kaafirs and hypocrites. It implies that this ummah is the
worst of nations, and that the first generations of this ummah are the most evil. No doubt
this is blatant kufr, the evidence for which is quite clear.
1290.
Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or later
be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has punished some
of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports that they were turned
into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled such reports, such as al-Haafiz alSaalih Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi ‘an
Sabb al-Ashaab in which he narrated the punishments that befell such heretics.
1291.
In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah concerning
who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be judged to be kaafirs, and
others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding that.
1292.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool, p. 590-591.
1293.
Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said:
1294.
… This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders all
of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he slanders one of
the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is demeaning the virtue of the
Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him). So undoubtedly the person who does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of alTahhaawi, “and hating them is kufr” should be understood as meaning that hating all of the
Sahaabah is undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a
Sahaabi but for some personal reason, and that Sahaabi was, for example, one of those who
became Muslim before the Conquest of Makkah and of whose virtue we are certain – such as
the Raafidis who slander the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] – then al-Qaadi Husayn
stated that the one who slanders the two Shaykhs is a kaafir.
1295.
The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific
person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly reason
etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates one of the two
Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the Sahaabah who was lower in status than
two Shaykhs just because he was a companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) is also definitely kufr.
1296.
Fataawa al-Subki, 2/575.
1297.
And Allaah knows best.
1298.
Islam Q&A
1299.
Death of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her)
1300.
1301.
1302.
1303.
1304.
1305.
1306.
1307.
1308.
1309.
1310.
1311.
November 26, 2009 at 2:27 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
4 Votes
1312.
Salam alaikum.
1313.
Shia as a proffesional liars spreading materials as if sayidina Aisha (r.a) was killed
by Moawiyah (r.a) by getting into the ditch.May Allah disfigure all rafidha in this world as
they are going to be in hereafter!
1314.
Here is the narration which answer to that iftira (in Arabic). I got an English
translation, but slightly edited it:
1315.
Narrated Ibn Abu Mulaika:
1316.
Ibn ‘Abbas asked permission to visit Aisha before her death, and at that time she
was in a state of agony (the Arabic word used is Maghlouba). She then said: “I am afraid
that he [came here to] praise me“.
1317.
It was said to her: “He is the cousin of Allah’s Apostle and one of the prominent
Muslims” Then she said: “Allow him to enter.”
1318.
[When he entered] he said: “How are you?“
1319.
She replied: “I am Alright if I fear (Allah) (the Arabic is Bekhayr in Itaqayt)“
1320.
Ibn Abbas said, “Then you are Alright by the Will of Allah, you are the wife of
Allah’s Apostle and he did not marry any virgin except you and proof of your innocence
was revealed from the Heaven” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair entered after him and ‘Aisha said to
him, “Ibn ‘Abbas came to me and praised me greatly, but I wish that I was a thing
forgotten and out of sight.“
1321.
In the narration in Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad, authenticated by Shaykh Ahmad
Shakir, it states:
1322.
He said: Ibn Abbas asked permission to visit her as she was dying. [She did not wish
to allow him at first, so] she was told: O Mother, Verily, Ibn Abbas is one of your righteous
sons, and came to greet you and (give you farewell?). So she said: Then allow him if you
wish.
1323.
Ibn Abbas [May Allah be pleased with him] was allowed to enter. He said: Glad-
tidings my mother, the only thing between you and meeting Muhammad Prayers and Peace
of Allah upon him, and the loved ones [in another narration it adds 'and for that tiredness
and aching to go away'] is for your soul to leave your body. You were his most beloved wife,
and verily he did not love except that which is pleasant and righteous … he mentions many
other of her virtues, and adds that her innocence had been proclaimed in the Quran, so you
would not find a Masjid were Allah is being mentioned except that these verses would be
recited day and night.
She said: Leave me alone O Ibn Abbas, By [Allah] who my soul is in His Hands, I wish I was
something forgotten.
1324.
‫فرضي هللا عنها وأرضاها ولعن من أبغضها وعاداها‬
1325.
[2] So knowing these authentic tradition that describes the time right before her
death, I do not know how a Muslim would ask or even affiirm such a thing as she dying and
being buried in a ditch dug for her by Mu’awiya [May Allah be pleased with him].
1326.
[3] The narration of that ditch in itself is so retarded that even
without knowing this specific authentic tradition, one can affirm that it is a
fabricated lie…. I wanted to add something else, but noticed I have been
rambling on for too long, so I will just leave it at that … and in what our
respected brothers and sisters wrote for you is what should be sufficient for
you
1327.
PS. Thanks to brother al-Misri.
Did hadhrat Umar [ra] attacked the house of Hadhrat Faatima [ra] causing
her to abort the child in her womb?
November 25, 2009 at 10:30 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | 1 Comment
1 Votes
Q: One common thing Shias quote regarding Umar is that after the Event of Saqifa, Hazrat Ali
refused to give baya to Hazrat Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr ordered Umar and a couple of Sahaba to go to
Fatima’s house and bring Ali to him. According to sources such as The History of Tabari (and other
sources), the Sahaba led by Umar broke down the door and dragged Ali to Abu Bakr to pledge
Baya. This is all mentioned in some history books; Sahih al-Bukhari, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Sirah alNabawiyyah by Ibn Hisham, History of Tabari (Arabic), al-Isti’ab by Ibn Abd al-Barr, Tarikh alKulafa by Ibn Qutaybah, Kanz al-Ummal.
They surrounded Ali (AS) and burned the door of his house and pulled him out against his will and
pressed the leader of all women (Hadhrat Fatimah (AS)) between the door and the wall killing
Mohsin (the male-child she was carrying in her womb for six months).
A: Your Shiite associates have misled you with regards to the Bay’at to Abubakar (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) and the actions taken by Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). The actual incident is not how they
have portrayed it.
What ever has been mentioned with regards to this incident in the Saheehul Bukhari, Musnad
Ahmad, Kanzul Ummal, Albidayah wan Nihaayah, Alkaamil Li ibni Atheer, Seeratun Nabawi Li ibni
Hisham and Tareekhul Islaam Lith Thahabi, boils down to the fact that, after the demise of
Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) and the majority of the Ansaar and the Muhajireen were busy with the burial arrangements.
On the other hand a few Ansaar Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhum) gathered with Saad Bin Ubaadah
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah. Their intention was to appoint Saad Bin Ubaadah
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) as the Khalifah. Had this materialised without the mutual consent of the
Akaabir Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhum) and the Muhajireen Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhum) it would
have been very inappropriate. Seeing this one Sahabi immediately headed for the house of
Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and asked Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu), who was at the
time busy with the burial arrangements, to step outside the house. At first Umar (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) refused to come out due to his engrossment, but when the Sahabi hurried him and informed
him of the importance, Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) came outside and the Sahabi informed him of the
gathering of the Ansaar. On hearing this Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) immediately called Abubakar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu), who was also busy with the burial arrangements and refused to come out.
When Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) informed him of the importance of the issue, he immediately
headed for Saqeefa Bani Saaidah together with Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul
Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu).
This makes it very clear that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu)and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) did not
take any initial steps in trying to attain the Khilaafat; rather, they were busy in the burial
arrangements. Another Sahabi had come and informed Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) regarding the
gathering of the Ansaar.
From this incident one can understand the importance of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). Also,
Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) did not go to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah alone; rather he took Umar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) with him (these three
Sahabah are from amongst the ‘Ashara Mubash shararah i.e. the ten companions who were given
glad-tidings of Jannah in this world by Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)). Apparently Abubakar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) did not take Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Zubair (Radhiallaahu Anhu) with him
because they were the immediate relatives of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and it was more
appropriate for them to remain engaged in the burial arrangements. It has been mentioned in a
Hadith that after Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) delivered Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) into the
Raudhah Mubarak he said: “A person’s family and relatives are the ones responsible for arranging
his burial.” (Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. 2, Page 102)
Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) mentioned in detail during his Khilaafat that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) went to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah in order to inform and explain to the Ansaar. He did not know
that in the interim he would have the responsibility of appointing a Khalifah. This is also the
reason why he did not take Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) with him. When these three Sahabah reached
Saqeefa Bani Saaidah they saw that the Ansaar were in a very emotional state and were about to
appoint Sa’ad bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) as the Khalifah. This was under no circumstances
correct or appropriate. Besides the Muhajireen, none of the Ansaar would have been happy to take
Bay’at on the hands of Sa’ad bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and there was also a great fear that
there would have been a revolt. Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) has also indicated to this in his detailed
sermon which is mentioned in Bukhari. For this reason Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) stepped
forward and explained to them with great wisdom that the Khalifah should be from amongst the
Quraish because the entire Arab world respects them. After this Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu)
raised the hands of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) in
front of the congregation and requested them to take Bay’at on the hands of either of the two. The
Ansaar did not agree to this but they demanded that there should be an Ameer from amongst the
Ansaar as well as the Muhajireen which was also inappropriate. How could it be possible that there
be two different rulers in one country at the same time? On this occasion Umar (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) said: “Two swords can not be gathered in one sheath.” When Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) saw
that the differences were not settling and the arguing was not coming to an end and the fear of a
revolt was becoming imminent, he made Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) ascend the pulpit and
declared that he is taking Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). Before Umar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) could take Bay’at, an Ansaari Sahabi took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu). On seeing this all the Muhajireen and Ansaar that were present also took
Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) except Sa’ad bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu
Anhu). When proving that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) is worthy of Khilaafat, Umar (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) mentioned that “Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) forwarded Abubakar to lead the Salaat
during his lifetime and he is one of the Thaani ul Ithnain i.e. the companion of Nabi (Sallallaahu
Alayhi Wasallam) in the cave. How can Umar become the Khalifah while he is present?” Abu
Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) said the same thing. Zaid bin Thaabit (Radhiallaahu
Anhu), who was an Ansaari Sahabi, also said the same thing and expounded the virtues and the
importance of the Muhajireen to the Ansaar. In this manner, those Ansaar who wanted to appoint
Sa’ad bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) as the Khalifah, also willingly took the Bay’at on the hands
of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu).
This gathering was a coincidence. The Ansaar were the cause of this gathering. Abubakar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) did not gather them in order to attain the
Khilaafat; rather they were forced to go to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah in order to avert an uprising. If
this method was not adopted and these three Sahabah came away from Saqeefa Bani Saaidah, one
group of the Ansaar would have chosen a Khalifah from amongst them as they were in a great
emotional state and were not prepared to delay the appointment of a Khalifah. If at that time an
Ansaar Sahabi was appointed as the Khalifah in the absence of the senior Sahabah there was a great
possibility that the Arabs would have rejected him and disunion and bloodshed would have broke
out immediately after the demise of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). This is exactly what
a Sahabi indicated towards while admonishing the Ansaar Sahabah that: “You were the first to
support and assist Islam so do not be the first ones to finish it i.e. by quarrelling and fighting
amongst yourselves.”
Now one should ponder that upto this point what did Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) do wrong. They did not claim nor did they demand Khilaafat for themselves,
rather after explaining to the Ansaar, Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) proposed Umar (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) to be appointed as the Khalifah and Umar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) proposed Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) to be the Khalifah and all the present
Muhaajir and Ansaar Sahabah accepted the proposal of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). It is not proven
from any authentic text that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) has
conspired to do something and gathered the Ansaar at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah and their going there
was part of the conspiracy. If anybody claims this then they should bring forth their proofs. This is
also the reason why Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) had termed this Khilaafat as a coincidence during
his Khilaafat because they had no idea in their mind nor was it pre-planned. Ali (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) and other Muhaajir Sahabah did not take part in this Bay’at because they were engaged in
the burial arrangements of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and apparently they did not
even know what transpired outside of the house. One cannot say that Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and
other Muhaajir Sahabah’s failure to take the Bay’at was because they disagreed with it, rather this
is the reason why those Sahabah who were not present at the time of the Bay’at were not
taunted. A general Majlis took place the following day in the Masjid-un-Nabawi for everybody to
take the Bay’at so that nobody could raise any objection to Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) being
the Khalifah and that he did this in secret. It is also incorrect to level accusations against Abubakar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) of not calling Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and other
Sahabah to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah because when they left the home of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu
Alayhi Wasallam) they did not know what was going to happen, neither did they go there with the
intention of obtaining the Khilaafat themselves. Whatever happened at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah was a
coincidence and unexpected.
It is proven from few narrations that after the incident of Saqeefa Bani Saaidah, Abubakar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) returned to Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi
Wasallam)’s house to in order to assist with the burial arrangements. On the following day
Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) sat on the pulpit in the Masjid-un-Nabawi and Umar (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) stood in front of the Sahabah and said a few words and also excused himself for what he had
said on hearing of the demise of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). He further said that:
“Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) has passed away and you have the Qur’an with
you.” Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) then pointed towards Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and
mentioned his virtues and that he was Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)’s companion in the
cave and that he is more worthy of Khilaafat than anybody else and everybody should take Bay’at
on his hands. All the Sahabah present in the Masjid took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) and this was known as the general Bay’at. At the time of this Bay’at two very
important and famous Sahabah, i.e. Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Zubair (Radhiallaahu Anhu) were
not present. This was very confusing. Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) enquired of their
whereabouts. A few Sahabah of the Ansaar stood up and called Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Zubair
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) to the Masjid. When these two Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) arrived at the
Masjid Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) asked Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu): “Why haven’t you taken
Bay’at inspite of you being the cousin and son in-law of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)?
Do you wish to cause disunity amongst the Muslims?” On hearing this Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu)
excused himself and took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). Then Abubakar
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) asked Zubair (Radhiallaahu Anhu) the same question and also asked him
that: “Inspite of being the cousin of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and a Hawaari, do
you wish to create disunity amongst the Muslims?” He too excused himself and took Bay’at on the
hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu).
As far as what has been mentioned in a few narrations that Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) gathered at
the house of Fatima (R.A.) and Umar (R.A) went there and threatened them, I would like to say
that apparently after the burial of Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) and before the general Bay’at in the Masjid,
Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) and a few Muhajireen Sahabah gathered at the house of Fatima (R.A.)
and thought that because the general Bay’at had not yet been taken, we should appoint Ali (R.A.)
as the Khalifah. They discussed this matter amongst themselves and Zubair (R.A.) also announced
that he will back Ali (R.A.) with his sword. On the other hand many of the Muhajireen and Ansaar
had already taken Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.) at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah, now if another
Khalifah had to be appointed, there was a great fear of revolt and the Ansaar would again have
demanded that an Ameer be appointed from amongst them. Therefore, in order to suppress this
revolt Umar (R.A) went to Fatima (R.A.)’s house and at that time Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) were
not present. It has been stated in Kanzul Ummal that Umar (R.A) told Fatima (R.A.) that: “O the
daughter of Rasoolullah (S.A.W.), nobody from amongst the people is more beloved to me than your
father and nobody is more beloved to me than you after your father. I have received the bad news
that these people are gathering in your house and conspiring against the Khilaafat of Abubakar. If
they do not stop conspiring then by Allah! I will burn their homes.” On saying this Umar (R.A) left
and when Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) arrived at the house of Fatima (R.A.), Fatima (R.A.) said to
them: “Do you know that Umar came to see me and he has taken an oath that if you conspire
against the Khilaafat of Abubakar he will burn your homes? By Allah! Umar will most definitely
fulfil his oath. Therefore leave my house with the intention of dropping your opinions and thoughts
and do not return with the same object.” Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) left the house and did not
gather there again until they took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.). (Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 5,
Page 651)
From this narration of Kanzul Ummal a few points have become clear and evident:
When Umar (R.A) arrived at Fatima (R.A.)’s house Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) were not present,
therefore neither did Umar (R.A) meet them nor did a fight or quarrel break out.
1. Umar (R.A) associated with Fatima (R.A.) in a very respectful manner and also mentioned to
her that she was more beloved to him than his own children.
2. Umar (R.A) did not threaten Fatima (R.A.) in any way.
3. When Umar (R.A) left Fatima (R.A.)’s house, both Fatima (R.A.) and her home were sound and
intact. No harm was afflicted on either of them. Later when Ali (R.A.) arrived Fatima (R.A.)
did not complain of Umar (R.A) behaving in a disrespectful manner, rather she advised him not
to oppose Umar (R.A) and not to conspire against the Khilaafat of Abubakar (R.A.) in her house
in future.
4. Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.) without any coercion.
The accusations that have been levelled against Umar (R.A) that he broke down the door of Ali
(R.A.)’s house and approached Ali (R.A.) and Fatima (R.A.) in a disrespectful manner and due to
this Fatima (R.A.) suffered a miscarriage is totally false and a mere fabrication. In reality those
who levelled this accusation are disgracing and Ali (R.A.) and Fatima (R.A.) and also making a
mockery of Islam. Was Ali (R.A.) so cowardly that he could not defend his house nor avenge his
wife?! When Ali (R.A.) became Khalifah why did he not take revenge nor claim the blood money
from the family of Umar (R.A) for the child that he had lost?! The ones who narrate these types of
narrations are in actual fact the enemies of Islam. They portray the Sahabah (R.A.) in front of the
Kuffar in such a fallacious manner that they were thirsty for governance, they had no legal system,
the strong used to suppress the weak, to speak the truth was a crime, the oppressors were not
punished, lies were spoken in order to please rulers, just as the hypocrites they too had hatred in
their hearts for their rulers. Can your heart accept such accusations and nonsense? Could the
senior Sahabah behaved in such a manner? Were such Sahabah not capable of demolishing great
empires such as that of Qaisar and Kisra with scanty ammunitions and means? Will Allah Ta’ala
assist such oppressors?
The claim that Fatima (R.A.) had a miscarriage is a mere fabrication. It has been mentioned in an
authentic book of history, i.e. Albidayah wan Nihaayah, that during the lifetime of Rasoolullah
(S.A.W.), Fatima (R.A.) gave birth to a third son by the name of Muhassin and that this child passed
away in his childhood. This is why the majority of the historians mentioned only two sons of Fatima
(R.A.).
The reason why Umar (R.A) reacted staunchly with those who opposed the Khilaafat after Abubakar
(R.A.) was appointed as the Khalifah was because Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) has said: “If anybody else
claims Khilaafat after a Khalifah has been chosen from amongst the Muslims, then he should be
killed no matter who he may be.” (Sahih Muslim)
After the general Bay’at took place Abubakar (R.A.) said: “I never intended to be a Khalifah nor
did I demand it. If you are not pleased with this Bay’at then I will step down and you can appoint
someone else as the Khalifah.” Majority of the Muhajireen, especially Ali (R.A.) refused this offer
and said: “No, you (Abubakar) are more worthy of the Khilaafat than anybody else. Rasoolullah
(S.A.W.) forwarded you in such an important issue such as Salaat so how can we pull you
back.” When Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) were asked why did they not take the Bay’at in the
beginning? They replied that the reason was because they were consulted on the issue. It has been
narrated in the Shiite book “Ihtijaaj Tabrasi” that Ali (R.A.) took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar
(R.A.) and also performed Salaat behind him. Ali (R.A.) announced during his Khilaafat that
Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) did not bequest us to appoint the Khalifah and neither did he take a pledge
from us. If I had a pledge then I would have never allowed Abubakar (R.A.) to climb the Mimbar of
Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) but in reality Abubakar (R.A.) was worthy of Khilaafat. Rasoolullah (S.A.W.)
also forwarded him, we supported him and worked with him, and after his demise we assisted Umar
(R.A) and Uthmaan (R.A.)
One should ponder that if Ali (R.A.) had a pledge then he would have most definitely mentioned it
during his Khilaafat when there was no fear of anybody reprimanding him or threatening him. Had
Abubakar (R.A.) or Umar (R.A) oppressed him any way, he would have also mentioned it but he did
not mention anything of that sort.
We have elaborated in detail on the Khilaafat of Abubakar (R.A.). One should accept that which is
authentic and that which also suits the nature of the Sahabah Kiraam and Islam. Those narrations
which portray false pictures of the Sahabah and Islam will not be accepted because those who
opposed Islam while portraying themselves as Muslims fabricate such false narrations and spread
them in such a manner that causes disunion amongst the Muslims and also that they may disperse
into groups and start baying for each others blood. Not everything mentioned in the history books
are authentic and you should not bother arguing with the Shiites, rather you should worry about
being a practical Muslim. Also, you should mention the Sahabah in a respectful manner and do not
have hatred and prejudice for any Sahabi and inculcate love for all the Sahabah. To love them is a
sign of Imaan and to oppose them and hate them is a sign of hypocrisy.
If any Shiite keeps bothering you then you should ask him that: “Was Ali (R.A.) brave or
cowardly? If he was brave, then why did he conceal the truth? What prevented him from disclosing
the truth during the Khilaafat? If according to your belief (Shiite) Ali (R.A.) had any bequest
regarding Khilaafat and governmental issues but he was not able to express them openly, then how
did you find out about it? Where is this bequest of his and in which Kitaab is it to be found? Why
don’t you prove it from authentic sources.”
References:
Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2, Page 1009, 1072.
Fathul Baari, Vol. 12, Page 145, Hadith no. 6830, Vol. 13, Page 208, Hadith no. 7219
Musnad Ahmad ibni Hambal, Vol. 1, Page 55, Hadith 133, Page 121, Hadith 391
Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 5, Page 635, 643-657, Hadith no. 14131-14156
Raudhul Unuf, Sharah Seerah ibni Hisham, Vol. 4, Page 260
Albidayah wan Nihaayah, Vol. 5, Page 245-252, Vol. 6, Page 301-303, Vol. 7, Page 331
Alkaamil fit Taarikh li ibni Atheer, Vol. 2, Page 189-194
Taarikh ul Islam lith Thahabi, Page 5-14, Page 639-642
Hum Sunni kiyun Hain, Page 233-248
Shia ke Hazaar Sawaal ka Jawaab, Page 291
‘Abaqaat of Allamah Khalid Mahmood
And Allah Ta’ala knows best,
Mufti Muhammad Ashraf
Jameah Mahmoodiyah, Springs
Refuting claim that Abu Sufyan and his sons were cursed
November 1, 2009 at 11:55 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum.
Shias use to accuse Abu Sufyan and his two sons, Muawiya and Yazid ibn Abu Sufyan (may Allah be
pleased with them), that they were cursed by prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
They say:
if you would read the great History by Jarir Tabari, one of your eminent ulema, who wrote:
“The Holy Prophet saw Abu Sufyan riding a donkey. Mu’awiya was pulling it from the front, and
his son, Yazid, was pushing it from behind. The Prophet said, ‘Curse be upon the rider, the
puller, and the pusher.’
We would reply:
As it was noticed by shaykh Abu Ubayda ad-Dimashki (hafizahullah) ibn Jarir at-Tabari mentioned
this incident in his book without any chain.
Shia argue that in Musnad of imam Bazzar this hadith is present with chain.
We would reply:
There is no name mentioned in hadith which narrated by al-Bazzar, and nothing but a sick shia
understanding and belief could force us to believe that it was said about those three.
Here full hadith from imam al-Bazzar:
3839 – ‫ عن سفينة‬، ‫ عن سعيد بن جمهان‬، ‫ وحدثنا حماد بن سلمة‬، ‫ نا أبي‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫ نا عبد الصمد‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫حدثنا السكن بن سعيد‬
‫ فقال‬، ‫ رضي هللا عنه أن النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم كان جالسا فمر رجل على بعير وبين يديه قائد وخلفه سائق‬، : ” ‫لعن هللا‬
‫ ”القائد والسائق والراكب‬.
Wa Allahu Alam.
Ibn Masood and two last surahs of Quran
November 1, 2009 at 8:16 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Mawdudi in his commentary said:
Question whether Mu’awwidhatayn are, or are not, Quranic
The above discussion is enough to help one understand fully the theme and content of the two
Surahs, but since three points in the books of Hadith and commentary concerning these Surahs have
been discussed, which are likely to create doubts in the minds, it is necessary to clear them also
here.
First, whether it is absolutely established that these two Surahs are the Qur’anic Surahs, or
whether there is some doubt in this regard. This question arose because in the traditions related
from an illustrious Companion like Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud, it has been said that he did not
regard these two Surahs as the Surahs of the Qur’an and had eliminated these from his copy of the
Mushaf. Imam Ahmad, Bazzar, Tabarani, Ibn Marduyah, Abu Ya’la, Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal,
Humaydi, Abu Nu’aim, Ibn Hibban and other traditionists have related this from Hadrat Abdullah
bin Mas’ud with different chains of transmitters and mostly on sound authority. According to these
traditions, he not only eliminated these Surahs from the Mushaf but it has also been reported that
he used to say: “Do not mix up with the Qur’an that which is not of the Qur’an. These two Surahs
are not included in the Quran. This was only a command enjoined on the Holy Prophet (sallalahu
alayhi wa ala alihi salam) for seeking God’s refuge.” In some traditions there is also the addition
that he did not recite these Surahs in the Prayer.
On the basis of these traditions the opponents of Islam had an opportunity to raise doubts about the
Qur’an, saying that this Book, God forbid, is not free from corruption. For when, according to a
Companion of the rank of Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud, these two Surahs are an annexation to the
Qur’an, many other additions and subtractions also might have been made in it. To rid the Qur’an
of this blame Qadi Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani, Qadi Iyad and others took the stand that Ibn Mas’ud was
not in fact a denier of the Mu’awwidhatayn being Qur’anic but only refused to write them in the
Mushaf. For, according to him, only that which the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi
salam) had allowed, should be written in the Mushaf, and Ibn Mas’ud did not receive the
information that the Holy Prophet had allowed this. But this stand is not correct, for according to
sound evidence, it is confirmed that Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) had denied that
these were Surahs of the Qur’an. Some other scholars, for instance, Imam Nawawi, Imam Ibn Hazm
and Imam Fakhr-ud-din Razi, regard this as a pure lie and falsehood that Ibn Mas’ud had asserted
any such thing. ………
Now, the question is: How can the blame that attaches to the Qur’an because of these traditions of
Ibn Mas’ud correctly refuted? This question has several answers which we shall give below in
sequence:
1.Hafiz Bazzar after relating these traditions of Ibn Mas’ud in his Musnad, has written that he is
solitary and isolated in his this opinion; no one from among the Companions has supported this
view.
2. The copies of the Qur’an which the third Caliph, Hadrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with
him), had got compiled by the consensus of the Companions and which he had sent from the Islamic
Caliphate officially to the centers of the world of Islam contained both these Surahs.
3.The Mushaf which, since the sacred time of the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam)
till today, has the seal of consensus of the entire world of Islam, contains both these Surahs. The
solitary opinion of only Abdullah bin Mas’ud, in spite of his high rank, has no weight against this
great consensus.
4. It is confirmed by sound and reliable ahadith from the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi
salam) that he not only recited these Surahs in the Prayer himself but instructed others also to
recite them, and taught them to the people as the Surahs of the Qur’an. Consider, for instance, the
following ahadith:
We have cited on the authority of Muslim, Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Nasai the tradition of Hadrat Uqbah
bin Amir that the Holy Prophet told him about Surah Al-Falaq and Surah An- Nas, saying that those
verses had been revealed to him that night. A tradition in Nasai from Uqbah bin Amir is to the
effect that the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) recited both these Surahs in the
Morning Prayer. Imam Ahmad on sound authority has related in his Musnad the tradition from a
Companion that the Holy Prophet said to him, “When you perform the Prayer, recite both these
Surahs in it.”
In Musnad Ahmad, Abu Daud and Nasai this tradition of Uqbah bin Amir has been related: “The Holy
Prophet said to him: Should I not teach you two such Surahs as are among the best Surahs that the
people recite? He said: Do teach me, O Messenger of Allah. Thereupon the Holy Prophet taught him
the Mu’awwidhatayn. Then the Prayer began and the Holy Prophet recited the same two Surahs in
it also, and when after the Prayer the Holy Prophet passed by him, he said to him, ‘O Uqbah, how
did you like it?’ Then he instructed him to the effect: When you go to bed, and when you get up
from bed, recite these Surahs.”
In Musnad Ahmad, Abu Da’ud, Tirmidhi and Nasa’i there is a tradition from Uqbah bin Amir, saying
that the Holy Prophet exhorted him to recite the Mu’awwidhat (i.e. Qul Huwa Allahu ahad and the
Mu’awwidhatayn) after every Prayer.
Nasai, Ibn Marduyah and Hakim have related this tradition also from Uqbah bin Amir: “Once the
Holy Prophet was riding on a conveyance and I was walking along with him with my hand placed on
his sacred foot. I said: Kindly teach me Surah Hud or Surah Yusuf. He replied: In the sight of Allah
there is nothing more beneficial for the servant than Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq.”
A tradition from Abdullah bin Abid al-Juhani has been related by Nasai, Baihaqi and Ibn Sad, saying
that the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) said to him: “Ibn Abid, should I not tell
you what are the best things out of the means by which the seekers of refuge have sought refuge
with Allah? I submitted: Do teach me, O Messenger of Allah. He replied: Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbil- falaq
and Qul a-udhu bi Rabbin-nas – both these Surahs.”
Ibn Marduyah had related from Hadrat Umm Salamah: “The Surahs best liked by Allah are: Qul
a’udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbin-nas.”
Here, the question arises: what caused Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud the misunderstanding that these
two are not Surahs of the Qur’an? We get the answer to it when we combine two traditions: first,
that Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud asserted that this was only a command which the Holy Prophet
(sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam)was given to teach him the method of seeking refuge with Allah;
second, the tradition which Imam Bukhari has related in his Sahih, Imam Ahmad in his Musnad,
Hafiz Abu Bakr al- Humaidi in his Musnad, Abu Nu’aim in his Al-Mustakhraj and Nasai in his Sunan,
with different chains of transmitters, on the authority of Zirr bin Hubaish, with a slight variation in
wording from Hadrat Ubayy bin Kab, who held a distinguished place among the Companions on the
basis of his knowledge of the Qur’an. Zirr bin Hubaish states: “I said to Hadrat Ubayy: Your brother,
Abdullah bin Mas’ud, says these things. What do you say about this view? He replied: I had
questioned the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) about this. He said to me: I was told to say
‘qul’, so I said ‘qul’. Therefore, we too say the same as the Holy Prophet said.”
In the tradition related by Imam Ahmad, Hadrat Ubayy’s words are to the effect: “I bear witness
that the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) told me that Gabriel (peace be on him)
had told him to say: Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq; therefore, he recited likewise, and Gabriel asked
him to say: Qul a’udhu bi- Rabbin-nas; therefore he too said likewise. Hence, we too say as the
Holy Prophet said.” A little consideration of these two traditions will show that the word qul (say)
in the two Surahs caused Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud the misunderstanding that the Holy Prophet
(upon whom be peace) had been commanded to say: A’udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and A’udhu bi-Rabbinnas. But he did not feel any need to question the Holy Prophet about it. In the mind of Hadrat
Ubbay bin Kab also a question arose about his and he put it before the Holy Prophet. The Holy
Prophet replied: “Since Gabriel (peace be on him) had said qul, so I too say qul.” Let us put it like
this. If somebody is commanded and asked: “Say, I seek refuge”, he will not carry out the
command, saying: “Say, I seek refuge”, but he will drop the work “say” and say: “I seek refuge.”
On the contrary, if the messenger of a superior officer conveys to somebody the message in these
words: “Say, I seek refuge”, and this command is given to him not only for his own person but to be
conveyed to others, he will convey the words of the message verbatim to the people, and will not
have the permission to drop anything from the text of the message. Thus, the fact that these two
Surahs begin with the word qul is a clear proof that it is Divine Word, which the Holy Prophet
(sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) was bound to convey verbatim. It was not merely a command
given to him for his person. Besides these two Surahs, there are 330 other verses in the Qur’an
which begin with the word qul (say). The presence of qul in all these is a proof that it is Divine
Word. which was obligatory for the Holy Prophet to convey verbatim; otherwise if qul everywhere
had meant a command, the Holy Prophet would have dropped it and said only that which he was
commanded to say, and it would not have been recorded in the Qur’an, but, on the contrary, he
would have remained content with saying only what he was commanded to say.
Here, if one considers this, one can understand fully well how unreasonable it is to regard the
Companions as infallible and to make the clamor that a Companion has been defamed as soon as
one hears a saying or doing of his being described as wrong. Here, one can clearly see what a
blunder happened to be committed by an illustrious Companion like Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud
about two Surahs of the Qur’an. If such an error could be committed by an eminent Companion like
him, others also might commit an error. We can examine it in the scientific way, and describe it as
wrong if a thing said or done by a Companion is proved to be wrong. But wicked indeed would be
the person who went beyond describing a wrong act as wrong and started reproving and finding
fault with the Companions of the Holy Prophet of Allah (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam).
Concerning the Mu’awwidhatayn the commentators and traditionists have described the opinion of
Ibn Mas’ud as wrong, but no one has dared to say that by denying these two Surahs of the Qur’an,
he had, God forbid, become a disbeliever.(end of quote).
Did Khaalid ibn al-Waleed kill Maalik ibn Nuwayrah so that he could marry
his wife?
October 18, 2009 at 10:02 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
The noble Sahaabi Khaalid ibn al-Waleed was the Sword of Allaah that was unsheathed against the mushrikeen,
and the leader of the mujaahideen, (known as) al-Qurashi al-Makhzoomi al-Makki. He became Muslim in 7 AH
after the conquest of Khaybar, or it was said that it happened before that. He died in 21 AH, and is known for
many virtues. Among the most important reports about his virtues are the following:
1It was narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him):
That the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) announced the death of Zayd, Ja’far and Ibn
Rawaahah to the people before the news came to them and he said: “Zayd took the banner and was killed, then
Ja’far took (it) and was killed, then Ibn Rawaahah took (it) and was killed,” and his eyes were streaming with
tears, “then one of the swords of Allaah took the banner, until Allaah granted them victory.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4262).
2It was narrated that ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not regard any of his companions as
equal to me and Khaalid ibn al-Waleed from the day we became Muslim.”
Narrated by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (3/515) and by Abu Ya’la in al-Musnad (13/274). Al-Haythami said in
Majma’ al-Zawaa’id (9/350): its men are thiqaat.
Secondly:
This noble Sahaabi has been exposed to slander and misrepresentation by some of the Orientalists who accepted
all reports without researching or analyzing them, which were fabricated by some groups of Shi’ah out of hatred
towards this Sahaabi who excelled in fighting the kuffaar and protecting the Muslim state during the time of the
Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Among these slanders is the famous story about Khaalid killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah
and marrying his wife Layla bint Sinaan.
Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was known by the kunyah Abu Hanzalah; he was a poet and knight, one of the knights of
Banu Yarboo’, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) employed him to collect the zakaah
of his people.
The historical reports agree to some extent that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed by some of the troops of
Khaalid ibn al-Waleed, and that after that Khaalid married his wife Layla bint Sinaan.
As for the reason why Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed, and the circumstances surrounding this incident, the
reports vary, but most of the earlier historians who recorded this incident, such as al-Waaqidi, Ibn Ishaaq,
Wuthaymah, Sayf ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Sa’d, Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat and others, state that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah
refused to pay zakaah and withheld the zakaah camels, and he prevented his people from paying it, which led
Khaalid to kill him, without paying any attention to his claim that he was Muslim and prayed regularly.
Ibn Salaam said in Tabaqaat Fuhool al-Shu’ara’ (172):
The point on which there is consensus is that Khaalid debated with him and that Maalik agreed to pray but
refused to pay zakaah. End quote.
Al-Waaqidi said in al-Riddah (107-108):
Then Khaalid ordered that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah should be brought forward so that his neck might be struck,
and Maalik said: Are you going to kill me when I am a Muslim who prays facing the qiblah? Khaalid said to
him: If you were a Muslim you would not have withheld the zakaah and you would not have told your people to
withhold it. End quote.
This was also narrated by many of the later historians such as al-Tabari, Ibn al-Atheer, Ibn Katheer, al-Dhahabi
and others.
Some reports speak of the relationship between Maalik ibn Nuwayrah and the woman Sajjaah who claimed to be
a prophet, and they also mention some bad statments spoken by Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, from which it may be
understood that he had apostatized from the religion of Islam, as was mentioned by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah
wa’l-Nihaayah (6/322). He said:
It was said that Khaalid summoned Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, and warned him against following Sajjaah and
withholding zakaah. He said: Do you not know that it is the partner of prayer? Maalik said: Your companion
used to say that. He said: Is he our companion and not yours? O Diraar, strike his neck. So I struck his neck. End
quote.
So why did some of the Sahaabah criticize Khaalid for killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, as was done by ‘Umar ibn
al-Khattaab and his son ‘Abd-Allaah, and Abu Qataadah al-Ansaari?
The reason for that may be found in some reports, as it seems that the attitude of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah about
zakaah was ambiguous at first, and did not clearly deny that it was obligatory, and he did not pay it, so these
Sahaabah were not certain about his view on the issue. But Khaalid ibn al-Waleed accused him and killed him.
Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was outwardly a Muslim and prayed, Khaalid should not have been hasty and
should have investigated his case further, and see whether Maalik ibn Nuwayrah would change his mind about
zakaah. So some of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) denounced him for that.
It says in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) (6/322):
Khaalid sent the troops to al-Battaah, calling the people to Islam, and the leaders of Banu Tameem came to him,
hearing and obeying, and they paid the zakaah, except for Maalik ibn Nuwayrah. It is as if he was not certain
what to do and he was holding back. The troops came to him and took him and his companions prisoner, but the
soldiers disagreed about what to do with them. Abu Qataadah al-Haarith ibn Rib’i al-Ansaari bore witness that
they prayed, but others said that they did not give the adhaan or pray. End quote.
Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was one of the leaders and nobles of his people, and his stance was not clear at
the beginning, his brother Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah complained to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be
pleased with him) about what Khaalid had done, and he rebuked Khaalid and said that he had erred by rushing
to kill Maalik ibn Nuwayrah before referring the matter to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and the senior Sahaabah (may
Allaah be pleased with them).
Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat (1/17) narrated:
‘Ali ibn Muhammad narrated to us from Abu Dhi’b from al-Zuhri from Saalim that his father said: Abu
Qataadah came to Abu Bakr and told him that Maalik and his companions had been killed, and he was very
upset by that. Abu Bakr wrote to Khaalid telling him to come to him. Abu Bakr said: The worst that Khaalid
could have done is making the wrong decision. Abu Bakr reinstated Khaalid and paid the diyah for Maalik ibn
Nuwayrah, and he returned the prisoners and the wealth. End quote.
Ibn Hajar said in al-Isaabah (5/755):
His brother Mutammim came to Abu Bakr and eulogized his brother and urged him to pay the diyah and return
the prisoners, so Abu Bakr set the prisoners free. Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkaar said that Abu Bakr ordered Khaalid to
divorce the wife of Maalik, and ‘Umar rebuked Khaalid sternly about the case of Maalik, but Abu Bakr
pardoned him. End quote.
This is the most that can be said about the story of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah. Either
he was correct in killing him for withholding zakaah and denying that it was obligatory after the death of the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or he made a mistake and Khaalid rushed to kill him when
he should have examined the matter and established proof. Whatever the case, this is not a slander against
Khaalid (may Allaah be pleased with him).
Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Minhaaj al-Sunnah (5/518):
It is not known whether the blood of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was protected by sharee’ah, and we have no proof of
that. The most that can be said about the story of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah is that his blood was protected and that
Khaalid killed him as the result of a misjudgement. This does not mean that it would be permissible to kill
Khaalid (in retaliation), just as when Usaamah ibn Zayd killed the man who said Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah, the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him: “O Usaamah, did you kill him after he said
Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah? O Usaamah, did you kill him after he said Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah? O Usaamah, did you kill
him after he said Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah?” He denounced him for killing him, but he did not order that he be killed
in retaliation or require him to pay diyah or offer any expiation.
Muhammad ibn Jareer al-Tabari and others narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that
this verse – “and say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islam): ‘You are not a believer’” [al-Nisa’
4:94] – was revealed concerning Mardaas, a man from Ghatafaan. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) sent an army to his people, whose leader was Ghaalib al-Laythi, and his companions fled but he
did not flee, and he said, I am a believer. The cavalry came to him and he greeted them with salaam, but they
killed him and took his sheep. Then Allaah revealed this verse and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him) ordered that his wealth be returned to his people and that the diyah for him be paid to
them, and he forbade the believers to do such things. Similarly, Khaalid ibn al-Waleed killed Banu Judhaymah
as the result of misjudgement, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) raised his hands and
said: “O Allaah, I disavow before You what Khaalid has done.” But despite that the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not execute him because he had acted on the basis of a misjudgement. As
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not execute him even though he had killed more
than one of the Muslims of Banu Judhaymah on the basis of a misjudgement, so it was more appropriate that
Abu Bakr did not execute him for killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah.
As for the accusation that Khaalid ibn al-Waleed (may Allaah be pleased with him) killed Maalik ibn Nuwayrah
so that he could marry his wife because he desired his wife, it seems that this is an early accusation that Maalik
himself and some of his followers also made, but they had no clear evidence for that. Rather it seems that he
said that in order to conceal the real reason why he was killed, which was withholding zakaah. This is indicated
by the discussion between Khaalid and Maalik that was narrated by al-Waaqidi.
Al-Waaqidi said in Kitaab al-Riddah (107-108):
Maalik ibn Nuwayrah turned to his wife and looked at her, then he said: O Khaalid, for this will you kill me?
Khaalid said: No, rather for the sake of Allaah I will kill you, because of your recanting the religion of Allaah
and your withholding the zakaah camels, and your telling your people to withhold the zakaah of their wealth that
is due from them. Then Khaalid issued orders that he brought forward and his neck be struck.
It was said that Khaalid ibn al-Waleed married the wife of Maalik and consummated the marriage with her, and
the scholars are agreed on that. End quote.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said in al-Isaabah (5/755):
Thaabit ibn Qaasim narrated in al-Dalaa’il that Khaalid saw the wife of Maalik – who was very beautiful – and
after that Maalik said to his wife: You have killed me! Meaning: I will be killed because of you.
He said this as speculation, and it so happened that he was killed, but he was not killed because of the woman as
he thought. End quote.
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said in al-Sawaa’iq al-Muhriqah (1/91):
The correct view is that Khaalid did not deserve to be executed because Maalik apostatized and returned his
people’s zakaah to them when he heard of the death of the Messenger of Allaah, as the apostates did, and
Maalik’s brother admitted that to ‘Umar.
With regard to his marrying his wife, perhaps it was because her ‘iddah ended by her giving birth immediately
after he died, or it may be that she was detained in his home after the end of her ‘iddah according to Jaahili
custom. Whatever the case, Khaalid was too pious a man for anyone to think that he would do such a shameful
deed that was not done by even the least of the believers, so how about the Sword of Allaah that was unsheathed
against His enemies? What Abu Bakr did was right, not what ‘Umar suggested to him. That is supported by the
fact that when ‘Umar was appointed caliph, he did not prosecute Khaalid or rebuke him, and he never
mentioned this matter to him, so it is known that he realized that what Abu Bakr did was right, and he recanted
his objection. Otherwise he would not have ignored the issue when he had the power and authority to deal with
it, because he feared Allaah and would not compromise with regard to His sacred limits. End quote.
Dr. ‘Ali al-Sallaabi said in his book Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (219):
To sum up, there are those who accused Khaalid of marrying Umm Tameem immediately after she fell into his
hands, because he could not be patient in the face of her beauty and his desire for her, in which case his
marriage to her – Allaah forbid – would have been an act of immorality. This is a recently fabricated view that is
of no worth, because the classical sources make no reference to it. Rather it is contrary to the clear texts. AlMaawirdi said in al-Ahkaam al-Sultaaniyyah (47) that what made Khaalid kill Maalik was his withholding the
zakaah, which made it permissible to shed his blood. Thus the marriage contract between him and Umm
Tameem was invalidated, and the ruling on the wives of apostates, if they live in dar al-harb, is that they are to
be taken prisoner, not killed, as was indicated by al-Sarkhasi in al-Mabsoot (10/111). When Umm Tameem was
taken prisoner, Khaalid chose her for himself, and when she became permissible for him he consummated the
marriage with her as is stated in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah.
Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir commented on this issue by saying: Khaalid took her and had intercourse with her as a
concubine because she was a prisoner, and there is no ‘iddah in the case of a prisoner, but it is completely
haraam for her master to approach her if she is pregnant, before she gives birth, or if she is not pregnant, before
she has had one menstrual period. Then he may have intercourse with her and that is something that is permitted
according to sharee’ah and no one criticized that except his enemies who were opposed to him and saw their
opportunity in that action, so they took their chance and started claiming that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was a
Muslim, and that Khaalid had killed him because of his wife. As for what they said about him marrying his wife
on the night that he was killed, this is something that is not proven. If it were proven, there may be a way to
explain it which would mean that Khaalid could not be stoned to death. The fuqaha’ differ concerning the ‘iddah
of a woman whose husband has died – is it required in the case of a kaafir husband? There are two views. They
also differed as to whether a dhimmi woman is obliged to observe the ‘iddah following the death of her
husband. There are two views that are well known among the Muslims, unlike the ‘iddah following divorce. The
reason for that is intercourse; it is essential that it be established that the womb is empty. As for the ‘iddah
following the death of the husband, it is required as soon as the marriage contract is drawn up. If he dies before
consummating the marriage with her, should she observe ‘iddah following the death of a kaafir husband or not?
There is a difference of opinion concerning that. The same applies if he did consummate the marriage with her
and she had one menstrual period following the consummation.
This applies if he was originally a kaafir. As for the apostate, if he is killed or he dies in his apostasy, then
according to the view of al-Shaafa’i, Ahmad, Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad, she does not have to observe the
‘iddah of a woman whose husband has died, rather she should observe the ‘iddah of irrevocable divorce,
because the marriage became invalid when the husband apostatized. This separation is not a divorce (talaaq)
according to al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad, but it is a divorce (talaaq) according to Maalik and Abu Haneefah, hence
they did not oblige her to observe the ‘iddah of one whose husband has died, rather she should observe the
‘iddah of irrevocable divorce. If he did not consummate the marriage with her then she does not have to observe
‘iddah, just as she does not have to observe the ‘iddah following divorce (talaaq) in that case.
It is known that Khaalid killed Maalik ibn Nuwayrah because he thought that he was an apostate. If he had not
consummated the marriage with his wife, then she did not have to observe ‘iddah according to most of the
scholars, and if he had consummated the marriage, then she had to wait for one menstrual cycle to establish that
the womb was empty, not a full ‘iddah, according to one scholarly opinion; according to the other opinion, she
had to wait for three cycles. If he was a kaafir then his wife did not have to observe the ‘iddah following death
of the husband according to one scholarly opinion, and if it was required to establish that the womb was empty
by waiting for one cycle, then she may have already menstruated. Some of the fuqaha’ regard one cycle as
sufficient to establish that the womb is empty, so if she was at the end of her menses, that could have been taken
as evidence that her womb was empty.
To sum up, we do not know whether this matter happened in a way that leaves no room for ijtihaad, and making
accusations in such a manner is the speech of one who is speaking without knowledge, which is something that
is forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger. End quote.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
The Shi’ah claim that the Sahaabah did not attend the funeral of the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) refuted
October 18, 2009 at 9:58 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and
wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with
Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607).
None of the groups that claim to belong to the ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) is known to tell lies more than the Shi’ah. This is something that has been well known about them from
ancient times. The imams referred to that in their books hundreds of years ago, and they still have this hateful
charcateristic.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The scholars are agreed, on the basis of reports and chains of narrators, that the Raafidah (the Shi’ah) are the
most mendacious of groups and that the lies among them are ancient. Hence the imams defined them as being
distinguished by the fact that they are liars.
Imam Maalik was asked about the Raafidah and he said: Do not talk to them and do not narrate from them,
because they tell lies.
Imam al-Shaafa’i said: I have never seen anyone who bears false witness more than the Raafidis.
Yazeed ibn Haroon said: You can narrate from any man of innovation (bid’ah), provided that he is not active in
calling others to his innovation, except al-Raafidah, because they are liars.
Shareek al-Qaadi said: Acquire knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidah, for they fabricate
hadeeth and take that as their religion.
This Shareek is Shareek ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Qaadi, the qaadi of Kufah, one of the peers of al-Thawri and Abu
Haneefah. He is one of the Shi’ah who said with his own tongue: I am one of the Shi’ah, and this was his
testimony concerning them.
These reports are proven; they were narrated by Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra by him and
others. End quote from Minhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (1/26-27).
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died on 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal 11 AH, after the sun
had passed its zenith, and he was buried on the Tuesday night, after all the people of Madeenah had offered the
funeral prayer for him, as Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: Some people came in
and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left; then others came in and said
takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left, until all the people had come in. Narrated
by al-Tirmidhi in al-Shamaa’il (p. 338) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in his review.
None of these Sahaabah who offered the funeral prayer for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) and were in Madeenah on that day should be thought of as having done anything but attend the
funeral of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is something so obvious as to need no
proof or evidence. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was dearer to them than their
spouses, fathers, mothers and children; he was even dearer to them than their own selves, as Anas (may Allaah
be pleased with him) said: No person was dearer to them than the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him). Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2754) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh alTirmidhi.
But some people’s hearts are filled with hate and resentment against Islam and its people, so they fabricate lies
against them and slander them falsely, although they (the Sahaabah) are the best of people after the Prophets and
Messengers of Allaah, according to the testimony of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
who said: “The best of people are my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after
them.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2652) and Muslim (2532).
The one who slanders, denigrates and reviles them is in fact slandering the Messenger (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him), for they are his companions, students and supporters, and they are the dearest of people to
him.
There are reports which show that they attended his funeral, and the matter is too clear to need any evidence, as
stated above.
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The day that the Messenger of
Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered Madeenah was the brightest of all, and the day on
which he died was the darkest of all, and as soon as we had finished burying the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him), we felt that our hearts had changed.”
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (3618) and classed as saheeh by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (5/239).
Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said, when the people came back from burying her father (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him): O Anas, how could you bear to cover the Messenger of Allaah (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) with earth? Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4462).
So where did these people get this fabrication?
But it is no wonder that they denied something that is well known and that no Muslim should be unaware of,
and they denied that the Qur’aan is preserved, and they claimed that it was distorted and that something was
taken away from it, and they impugned the honour of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him), and they reviled his Companions in the worst manner, even though their virtue is mentioned in the
Holy Qur’aan and the mutawaatir ahaadeeth from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him), on which the ummah is unanimously agreed. It is no wonder that those who denied these things
would come up with a fabrication like this. “And Allaah encompasses them from behind! (i.e. all their deeds are
within His Knowledge, and He will requite them for their deeds)” [al-Burooj 85:20]; “And those who do wrong
will come to know by what overturning they will be overturned” [al-Shu’ara’ 26:227].
We ask Allaah to support His religion and cause His Word to prevail, and to defeat falsehood and its people.
May Allaah send blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Altering Athan by Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, Allegation refuted
October 18, 2009 at 8:50 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
2 Votes
All praise be to Allah, and may His peace and blessings be on the greatest
messenger, Muhammad. This is another lie against the best companions of the best
Messenger of Allah (may Allah be pleased with them all). That book may be
referring to some rumors that circulate between them, which is in part based on a
report in the Muwatta’ of Imam Malik, in which it is said,
” ‫جدَهُ نَائِ ًما فقال‬
ُ ‫َو َحدثَنِي عن َمالِكٍ أَنهُ بَلَغَهُ أَن ْال ُم َؤذِِّنَ جاء إلى‬
ُّ ‫صالَةِ ال‬
ِ ‫ع َم َر بن ْالخَطا‬
َ ‫صبْحِ فَ َو‬
َ ‫ب يُؤْ ِذنُهُ ِل‬
ِ َ‫ع َم ُر أ َ ْن يَجْ عَلَ َها في نِد‬
ُ ُ‫”الصالَة ُ َخي ٌْر ِمنَ الن ْو ِم فَأ َ َم َره‬
ُّ ‫اء ال‬
ِ‫صبْح‬
“And Malik told me that he was told that the Mu’adhen came to ‘Omar ibn al-
Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) to alert him to the prayer of subh
(morning) and found him asleep, so he said, “Prayer is better than sleep” so ‘Omar
ordered him to make it in the call to the subh (morning) prayer.” (Muwatta’ Malik,
Dar Ihya’ at-Turaath al-‘Arabi, Egypt, 1/72). This report is not authentic for Malik
does not say who told him ‘Omar did that. Al-Qurtubi said,
” ‫وأما قول مالك في الموطأ أنه بلغه أن المؤذن جاء إلى عمر بن الخطاب يؤذنه بصالة الصبح فوجده‬
‫نائما فقال الصالة خير من النوم فأمره عمر أن يجعلها في نداء الصبح فال أعلم أن هذا روى عن عمر من‬
‫جهة يحتج بها وتعلم صحتها‬.”
“And as for Malik’s statement …., I do not know that this was ever reported from
‘Omar through a chain that is credible and known to be authentic.” (Tafseer alQurtubi, Dar ash-Sha’b, Cairo, 6/228). There are reports to this effect by Ibn Abi
Shaibah and ad-Daraqutni and they are not authentic, for they have unknown
narrators. The reason why Ahl-us-Sunnah were keen to record everything, including
that which was reported through weak chains is to preserve all reports for the
examination of all generations, and for the record. If the report was true, which it is
not, then ‘Omar meant that the Mu’adhen should only use this phrase in his adhaan,
not at the door of the khaleefah, out of fear that some would start to make this a
habit and repeat parts of the adhaan at the door of the khaleefah. (See Tafseer alQurtubi, 6/228 for more clarification and that was the explanation of the
commentators on the Muwatta’ such as al-Bajey and others). This part of adhaan was
from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and it was both in
Maccah and al-Madeenah, and called by both Bilal and Abi Mahdhoorah. Abu
Dawood authentically reported from the grandson of Abi Mahdhoorah from his
father from Abi Mahdhoorah that he said,
“ ‫س َح ُمقَد َم َرأْ ِسي وقال تَقُو ُل هللا أ َ ْكبَ ُر هللا أ َ ْكبَ ُر هللا أ َ ْكبَ ُر هللا‬
ُ ‫ع ِلِّ ْمنِي‬
ُ ‫قال قلت يا َر‬
َ ِ‫سو َل اّلل‬
َ ‫ان قال فَ َم‬
ِ َ‫سنةَ ا ْألَذ‬
ُ‫ص ْوتَكَ ثُم تَقُو ُل أ َ ْش َهدُ أ َ ْن َال ِإلَهَ إال هللا أ َ ْش َهدُ أ َ ْن َال ِإلَهَ إال هللا أ َ ْش َهدُ أَن ُم َحمدًا رسول اّللِ أ َ ْش َهد‬
َ ‫أ َ ْك َب ُر ت َْرفَ ُع بها‬
‫ص ْوتَكَ بِالش َهادَةِ أ َ ْش َهدُ أ َ ْن َال ِإلَهَ إال هللا أ َ ْش َهدُ أ َ ْن َال ِإلَهَ إال‬
ُ ‫أَن ُم َحمدًا رسول اّللِ ت َْخ ِف‬
َ ‫ص ْوتَكَ ثُم ت َْرفَ ُع‬
َ ‫ض بها‬
‫هللا أ َ ْش َهدُ أَن ُم َحمدًا رسول اّللِ أ َ ْش َهدُ أَن ُم َحمدًا رسول اّللِ َحي على الص َالةِ َحي على الص َالةِ َحي على‬
‫صبْحِ قُ ْلتَ الص َالة ُ َخي ٌْر من الن ْو ِم الص َالة ُ َخي ٌْر من الن ْو ِم هللا أ َ ْكبَ ُر‬
ُّ ‫ص َالة ُ ال‬
َ ‫ْالفَ َالحِ َحي على ْالفَ َالحِ فَإ ِ ْن كان‬
‫هللا أ َ ْكبَ ُر َال إِلَهَ إال هللا‬.”
“I said, O messenger of Allah, teach me the sunnah (proper method) of adhaan, so
he (peace and blessings be upon him) wiped on my forelock and forehead and said,
say…and when it is the prayer of as-Subh (morning), say, as-salaatu khairun mina
an-nawm (prayer is better than sleep)…” (Abu Dawood, dar al-Fikr, Beirut, Chapter
of the Description of Adhaan, 1/136). Ibn Majah reported authentically from Sa’eed
ibn al-Musayyeb from Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him),
َ ُ ‫ص َال ِة ْالفَجْ ِر فَ ِقي َل هو نَا ِئ ٌم فقال الص َالة‬
“ ُ ‫خي ٌْر من الن ْو ِم الص َالة‬
َ ‫أَنهُ أتى النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم يُؤْ ِذنُهُ ِب‬
ْ ‫” َخي ٌْر من الن ْو ِم فَأُقِر‬
‫ِين ْالفَجْ ِر فَثَبَتَ ْاأل َ ْم ُر على ذلك‬
ِ ‫ت في ت َأْذ‬
“that he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to alert him to the
prayer of fajr (morning) and it was said that he (peace and blessings be upon him) is
asleep. He (Bilal) said, “prayer is better than sleep” and then it was made part of the
adhaan for fajr, and was there ever since.” (Sunna Ibn Majah, dar al-Fikr, Beirut,
Chapter of the Beginning of Adhaan, 1/72). This part of adhaan was known during
the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and was Bilal’s adhaan.
Suwaid ibn Ghaflah sent to his mu’adhen saying, “When you reach “hayy ala alfalaah”, then say “as-salaatu khairun mina an-nawm”, for this was the adhaan of
Bilal. Bilal did not make adhaan after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him),
nor did ‘Omar hear his adhaan except once, when they opened Jerusalem. (See
Tafseer al-Qurtubi, Dar ash-Sha’b, Cairo, 6/228). It is without any doubt that ‘Omar
did not add this part to the adhaan, and if one of the rightly guided khaleefahs
recommended anything, it is in conformity with the sunnah of the Prophet (peace
and blessings be upon him), for he said, ” َ‫شدِينَ ْال َم ْه ِد ِيِّين‬
ِ ‫اء الرا‬
ِ َ‫سن ِة ْال ُخلَف‬
ُ ‫سنتِي َو‬
ُ ‫”فَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم ِب‬
“Follow my sunnah and that of the rightly guided righteous khaleefahs after me”
(Sunan Ibn Majah, dar al-Fikr, Beirut, chapter of following the sunnah of the rightly
guided righteous khaleefahs, 1/15, Mustadrak al-Hakim & Sunan al-Baihaqi) This
does not mean they would add to the religion, nor would it mean they were
infallible, but rather their methodology is a guided one.
‘Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) was of the most diligent followers of the
sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). He said, speaking to the
Blackstone, “ َ‫سو َل اّللِ صلى هللا عليه وسلم يُقَ ِبِّلُكَ ما قَب ْلتُك‬
ُ ‫ع ِل ْمتُ أَنكَ َح َج ٌر َولَ ْو َال أ َ ِنِّي رأيت َر‬
َ ‫”وهللا لقد‬
“By Allah, I know that you are a stone, and had it not been that I saw the messenger
of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) kiss you I would have not kissed you.”
(Agreed upon, and the quoted wording is from Muslim, Book of Hajj, Chapter of
Kissing the Blackstone). The enemies of ‘Omar are so intrigued in assassinating his
character and personality because of his stature that is undeniable by any possessor
of sound intellect. It is he who – by the grace of Allah – defeated the evil empires of
the Romans and Persians, and it was he who rescued their subjects in ash-Sham,
Egypt, Iraq, parts of Turkey, Libya and Persia itself from the oppression of their
rulers and systems to the justice of Islam. His virtues, justice, tolerance and brilliance
are acknowledged by those of his adversaries amongst the European historians who
have some degree of sensibility, fairness and impartiality. The authors of the
Columbia History of the World said the following, “Umar’s organizational abilities
also contributed greatly to the Arabs’ success. He regularized the legal position of
the millions of non-Muslim subjects in his domain and set up an efficient
administrative system for the empire. Muhammad established the precedent of
“tolerance” for the “People of the Book,” the Jewish and Christian communities in
the northern Hijaz. ‘Umar left these communities undistributed except for the
payment of an annual tribute in the form of poll tax (jizya); indeed, he extended the
principle of toleration to cover not only all Christians and Jews in the empire, but
also the Zoroastrians of Persia. Non-Muslims groups formed their own selfadministered communities, lived under their own civil codes, and were governed by
their own religious leaders.” (The Columbia History of the World, Harper & Brown
1972, 1st Ed., pp. 264). He was counted as one of the 100 most influential figures in
the History of mankind by Michael Hart, who said, “After Muhammad himself, he
[‘Omar] was the principal figure in the spread of Islam…some expansion was bound
to occur, but not to the enormous extent that it did under ‘Umar’s brilliant
leadership.” (The 100, by Michael Hart, Citadel Press, NY, 1992, pp. 261-265). We
say, it was the grace of Allah and his help and support of ‘Omar that helped him do
all of this, for he received no training in leadership or administration to rank above
figures like Julius Caesar according to a westerner. Here is a piece of poetry about
‘Omar al-Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him), which records in poetic verses the
story of the ally of Chosroes who was surprised when he saw ‘Omar, the “king” who
defeated the greatest two empires of the time sleeping under a tree, without guards,
and covered by a piece of worn out cloth,
‫عطـالً وهو راعيهـا‬
ُ ‫الرعية‬
ُ ‫قد راع صاحب كسرى أن رأى‬
ِّ ‫عمرا ً *** بين‬
‫سورا ً من الجند واألحراس يَحميها‬
ُ *** ‫وعهـده بِملـوك الفُـرس أن لـها‬
‫رآه ُمستغرقـا ً في نـومـه فـرأى *** فـيه الجاللـة في أسْـمى معانيها‬
‫شتمالً *** ِببُردة كـاد طـول العهد يُبليهـا‬
ِ ‫فوق الثرى تحت ظ ِّل الدِّوح ُم‬
‫فَـهـان في عينـه مـا كـان يُكبِره *** من األكا ِسـر والدنيا بأيـديهـا‬
ِّ ‫وقال قولَـة‬
‫حـق أصبحت َمـثالً *** وأصبح الجيل بعـد الجيل يَرويهـا‬
‫ِأمنتَ لَ ِّمـا أقمـتَ العـدل بينهم *** فَنمتَ نـوم قـرير العين هانيهـا‬
It shocked the partner of Chosroes to have seen ‘Omar between the public as one of
them, when he is their leader. His experience with the kings of Persia was to have
fences of soldiers and guards for their protection. He saw him in deep sleep, and saw
in him majesty in its greatest expression. On the soil, underneath a tree, covered by a
piece of cloth, which is worn out by the passage of time. So, he despised what he
used to think was majestic about the kings of Persia, who had all the world under
their control. And he then said a statement of truth that became a dictum and
generations narrate it one after another. You have become secure when you
established justice between them, and thus, slept with contentment and comfort.
There is no wonder that ‘Omar was who he was! Is not it Allah’s best of creation and
greatest of Messengers who said about him,
“ ُ‫ض ِعيفًا َواّلل‬
ُ ‫أ ُ ِريتُ في ْال َمن َِام أ َ ِنِّي أ َ ْن ِز‬
ً ‫ع ذَنُوبًا أو ذَنُوبَي ِْن ن َْز‬
ٍ ‫ع بِدَ ْل ِو بَ ْك َرةٍ على قَ ِلي‬
َ َ‫ب فَ َجا َء أبو بَ ْك ٍر فَنَز‬
َ ‫عا‬
ْ َ‫ب فَا ْست َ َحال‬
‫ض َربُوا‬
ُ ‫َي ْغ ِف ُر له ثُم جاء‬
ِ ‫ع َم ُر بن ْالخَطا‬
َ ‫ي الناس َو‬
َ ‫ت غ َْربًا فلم أ َ َر‬
َ ‫ع ْبقَ ِريًّا َي ْف ِري فَ ِريهُ حتى َر ِو‬
َ ‫” ِب َع‬
ٌ ‫يرة‬
ٌ ِ‫س لها خ َْم ٌل َرق‬
ُ ‫ي ِعت‬
ُ ِ‫ي الطنَاف‬
َ ِ‫يق َم ْبثُوثَةٌ َكث‬
ُّ ‫ط ٍن قال بن ُجبَ ْي ٍر ْال َع ْبقَ ِر‬
ُّ ‫ي ِ وقال يحيى الز َرا ِب‬
ِّ ‫َاق الز َرا ِب‬
“While I was sleeping, I saw myself standing at a well, on it there was a bucket. I
drew water from the well as much as Allah wished. Then Ibn Abi Quhafa (i.e. Abu
Bakr) took the bucket from me and brought out one or two buckets (of water) and
there was weakness in his drawing the water. May Allah forgive his weakness for
him. Then the bucket turned into a very big one and Ibn Al-Khattab took it over and
I had never seen such a mighty person amongst the people as him in performing
such hard work, till the people drank to their satisfaction and watered their camels
that knelt down there.” (al-Bukhari, M. Khan’s translation, Volume 5, Book 57,
Number 16). The hadeeth addresses the accomplishments of ‘Omar, but when it
comes to his ranking, Abu Bakr is greater than him and second to none of the
ummah other than Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The
accomplishments of ‘Omar were a result of Allah’s support to him, not mere
intelligence, for he was a tribesman, who did not grow up in royal courts, nor did he
receive training in war tactics, particularly when it comes to fighting with the worlds
two greatest superpowers at the time. In summary, it was because of his piety and
Allah’s grace on him, and why not when it is he who scares the Shaytaan away, as
the Prophet said in the following hadeeth,
ُّ َ‫سا ِل ًكا فَ ًّجا ق‬
َ ‫ب َوالذِي نَ ْفسِي بيده ما لَ ِقيَكَ الش ْي‬
ُ ‫ط‬
“ َ‫سلَكَ فَ ًّجا غير فَ ِ ِّجك‬
ِ ‫إِي ًها يا بن ْالخَطا‬.”
َ ‫ط إال‬
َ ‫ان‬
“”O Ibn Al-Khattab! By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Never does Satan find you
going on a way, but he takes another way other than yours.” (al-Bukhari, M. Khan’s
translation, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 32) The companions were very united
under his leadership and they knew there was no one on earth better than him after
the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and Abu
Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). And here is what ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased
with him) had to say about him,
“ ‫صلُّونَ قبل أ َ ْن‬
ُ ‫ض َع‬
ٍ ‫عب‬
ِ ‫اس يقول ُو‬
َ ‫عن بن أبي ُملَ ْي َكةَ أَنهُ سمع بن‬
َ ‫ع َم ُر على‬
َ ُ‫ير ِه َفت َ َكن َفهُ الناس يَ ْدعُونَ َوي‬
ِ ‫س ِر‬
َ ‫ي بن أبي‬
َ‫ع َم َر وقال ما خَل ْفت‬
ُ ‫ب فَت ََرح َم على‬
ِ ‫ي ُْرفَ َع وأنا فِي ِه ْم فلم يَ ُر ْعنِي إال َر ُج ٌل‬
ٍ ‫طا ِل‬
َ ‫آخذٌ َم ْن ِكبِي فإذا‬
ُّ ‫ع ِل‬
ُ َ ‫ع َم ِل ِه ِم ْنكَ وأيم اّللِ إن كنت َأل‬
‫احبَ ْيكَ َو َح ِسبْتُ إني‬
ِ ‫ص‬
َ ‫أ َ َحدًا أ َ َحب إلي أ َ ْن ألقي اّللَ بِ ِمثْ ِل‬
َ ‫ظ ُّن أ َ ْن يَجْ عَلَكَ هللا مع‬
‫ع َم ُر‬
ُ ‫ع َم ُر َودَخ َْلتُ أنا وأبو َب ْك ٍر َو‬
ُ ‫يرا أ َ ْس َم ُع النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم يقول ذَ َهبْتُ أنا وأبو َب ْك ٍر َو‬
ً ‫كنت َك ِث‬
‫ع َم ُر‬
ُ ‫وخ ََرجْ تُ أنا وأبو َب ْك ٍر َو‬.”
َ
“Ibn ‘Abbas said, While I was standing amongst the people who were invoking
Allah for Umar bin Al-Khattab who was lying (dead) on his bed, a man behind me
rested his elbows on my shoulder, I turned back to see that the speaker was Ali bin
Abi Talib and he said, “(O `Umar!) May Allah bestow His Mercy on you. I always
hoped that Allah will keep you with your two companions, for I often heard Allah`s
Apostle saying, “I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went (somewhere). I, Abu Bakr and `Umar
came in. I, Abu Bakr and `Umar set out.` So I hoped that Allah will keep you with
both of them.” ( al-Bukhari, M. Khan’s translation, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 26)
Dear brother, let us learn the history of the greatest students and disciples of the
greatest teacher and messenger, and if anyone attempted to discredit them, then let
me remind you of the statement of Imam Abi Zur’ah (may Allah bestow mercy on
him),
“ ‫ وذلك أن‬،‫إذا رأيت الرجل ينتقص أحدا ً من أصحاب رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم فاعلم أنه زنديق‬
‫الرسول حق والقرآن حق وما جاء به حق وإنما أدى إلينا ذلك كله الصحابة وهؤالء يريدون أن يجرحوا‬
‫ والجرح بهم أولى وهم زنادقة‬،‫”شهودنا ليبطلوا الكتاب والسنة‬
“When you see a man put down one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah
(peace and blessings be upon him), know that he is zindeeq (heretic). That is because
the Messenger is true and the Quran is true and what he (the Messenger) brought
forth to us is true and all of this was conveyed to us by the companions. Those
people want to discredit our witnesses to invalidate the Quran and Sunnah and they
are the most worthy of dispraise, and they are zanadiqah (heretics).”
I would recommend for you to establish yourself in the true knowledge of Islam,
and then you may read for others after being well grounded in the knowledge of the
sunnah and mainstream Islam. Then, you will have answers ready for any suspicion
that gets out in your way. Otherwise, such suspicions and distortions can devour
your faith. O Allah, send your peace and blessings on Muhammad, his family and
companions. Allah knows best.
Answered by
Sheikh Hatem Mohammad Al-Haj Aly