Authored by:
ShiaofAhlulbayt
http://groups.msn.com/shiaofahlulbayt
Narrated Nafi':
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."
Sunni Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227
So in the eyes of Abdullah ibne Umar (the son of the second caliph of Ahl ul Sunnah) the bayya of Yazid (l.a) the slaughterer of Imam Hussain (as) opposed was "in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle!!!!" i.e. completely legitimate, and breaking the Jamaah would lead to individuals being raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement. So, Yazid was the khalifa of the Jamaah (as ibn umar states) and no matter how much the proponents of umar's son seek to distance themselves from Yazid, Abdullah ibne Umar deemed his station as Imam to be in accordance with conditions of Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s).
Did he deem the cursed Yazid to be on par with Imam Hussain a.s? Or the many other noteable and old sahaba? Or were there some other deeper politics going on? It is ironic when you are presented with something from your own most authentic books, you turn a blind eye towards it and run here and there to come up with weak narrations to oppose and reinstate a blind faith based on indoctrination.
The above mentioned Hadith was taken from Sahih Al Bukhari, a book considered not less then second to Quran by hardcore Ahl ul Sunnah wal Jamat clerics. It is ironic and infact revealing as to who the Uzbekistani Al-Bukhari was and how much of a weight his book of prophetic traditions, written hundreds of years after the demise of the Holy prophet pbuh, carries? It should make an average Sunni worry even more and pray for guidance because Al-Bukhari on one hand clearly mentions Abdullah Ibn Umar Ibn Al Khattab [one of the top most chiefs of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaat and member of their fabricated list of Ashra Mubashra (ten blessed companions) ] as the chief supporter, admirer and friend of the apostate Yazid and his kafir regime, while on the other hand this same Abdullah Ibn Umar is the third largest hadith narrator in the volumes of hadith of Sahih Al Bukhari. Certainly, this becomes even more disturbing because Muwatta of Malik (another Sihah Sittah hadith book of sunnis) has the largest number of narrations from none other then this same friend and supported of Yazid. Will the sunnis still complain to the shia as to why we object to their books of hadith and why we consider them to be of no weight in comparison to the writings and ahadiths of the members of Ahlulbayt a.s, the holy purified progeny of Mohammad pbuh? To the respected reader it should also be brought to notice that the second largest narrator in the books of Sahih Al Bukhari is Abu Huraira, a man famous for the hall of shame rather then fame. He has been dealt with briefly in another article titled "Abu Huraira or Paul". All readers are urged to read that article/booklet as well and yes as usual I have not quoted any shia book or hadith in examining him either. Lastly, the only other narrator who beats both Abu Huraira and Abdullah Ibn Umar is Aisha bint Abu Bakr who will be briefly discussed in the preamble to this article/booklet and shall be dealt with in far more well referenced detailed in a separate article.
It is not just the shia but infact no sane shia or other truth seeking / unbiased muslim (who studies history and ahadith without bias) would ever accept ahadith that are controversial in nature and originate specifically from people like Abdullah ibn Umar, Abu Huraira, Aisha bin Abu Bakr; people who are extremely blatant supporters of tyrannical heretics like Muwaviya and/or Yazid ibn Muwavia; people whose ugly face is defaced very well by Sahih Bukhari itself (for example in the hadith quoted at the outset, for Abdullah ibn Umar). Just because these people found there ways into the tyrannical-regime sponsored, nurtured and promoted books of Bukhari or Muslim, does not give them the license of being truthful, errorless or next to Quran! Certainly those who have some morals left and derive some lesson out of the tragedy of karbala would never have a bit of respect for anyone who equates giving allegiance to Yazid or befriending him or his army with following the Sunnah of Prophet and Jama'ah. May Allah prevent us from such disgusting innovations.
If the shia curse certain people or strongly dislike them (if not curse), it is not something hidden from a sunni historical point of view, as to why they do this. The excesses, violence, tortures, tyranny and blatant distortions of the Sunnah of the prophet pbuh were all so predominant in the early period of Islam (that is, after the death of the holy prophet pbuh) that if you read the other (not the rosy version) side of your own sunni hadith and history books, the truth shall come out shining and trust me, you do not need any shia books for this purpose and mere accusations that "oh this is a shia beleif" wont help here. Hundreds if not thousands of books are available within the sunni of school of thought that do exactly the job which they were not supposed to do: to deface the truth! and to unveil the hypocrisy in history of Islam. Fortunately, if the shia invest the time to heed and research the books, writings and historical narrations of the Ahl ul Sunnah, more then they do themselves, then the merit goes to the shia because as far as a sunni is concerned, save a few, hardly any would ever want to even consider for a second, the second thought of keeping, reading or relying on a shia text, hadith, tafseer book or any other material. This is a byproduct of their inherited hate against shia, based on false propaganda, intolerance and in many cases helplessness over inability to answer the shia scholars or laymen in a mutually convincing manner due to contradictions within their own books. On the other hand, the shia scholars and researchers have spent lifetimes and centuries to research Islam as a whole and with particular emphasis on both sunni and shia perspective to uncover the truth without bias. Who is better or at truth or at least following the better approach?
Is it the One who is ignorant towards everything and everyone else; doesn’t see any book, anyone or any thing else on the face of this earth except for himself, his book, his mirror and version of faith; has only hate, pride, arrogance, jealousy and intolerance for others who don’t ascribe to his version of thoughts, convictions or actions and preaches with arrogance, vanity, intentional false accusations and distortions aimed at maligning another community and for declaring others kafir at will?
Or is it the one who spends a large portion of his time actually reading, researching and quoting from the books of his very own opponent; invites him for debate as a loving tolerant brother; encourages him to research his very own books by highlighting facts from them; refrains from passing notorious fatwas of kufr against him; encourages the formula of unity in diversity despite academic or historical differences and avidly promotes humility, love, freedom of thought, action, conviction and speech as a part of preaching?
Here, I would leave it to the reader to rationally and honestly judge the answer.
As for myself, I would like to move forward and set a preamble to this interesting article/booklet.
(Note: References to the items in the preamble are present abundantly in Sunni books of history, hadith etc and are provided or shall be provided during detailed discussion of these individual events in separate dedicated articles. To keep the size of the preamble small and to keep the flow of the discussion intact, the Sunni references to events and facts in the preamble have been left for other detailed articles, some of which I have already published and put online, while others are awaiting to be written/compiled into new dedicated topic-specific articles/booklets.)
PREAMBLE TO THE DISCUSSION
When Imam Ali a.s was challenged by Muwaviya on the issue of 4th Caliphate and three deadly and bloody battles (nahrawan, siffin and jamal) were waged against the 4th caliph (Ali a.s) of the sunnis, Abdullah ibn Umar did not side with the fourth righteous sunni caliph; instead he gave allegiance to his financial sponsor MUWAVIYA, the son of Hinda, the infamous liver eater. Same was the case with Aisha, the wife of our holy prophet pbuh. She, not only rejected the caliphate of Hadrat Ali a.s but infact left her hometown Madina for Kufa and gathered an army including Talha, Zubair and other prominent Sahaba who ironically did not bring out their own wives for the so called jihad against Ali a.s but gave all the encouragement, moral, financial and military support to drag the wife of the holy prophet pbuh into the streets and battlefields of Arabia; all in strict opposition to the Quranic verses in Surah Al Ahzab which strictly prohibit and forbade the wives of the prophet to leave their homes. Such an event happening in the absence of her own husband (the prophet pbuh) and also the unanimous refusal of all other wives of the prophet pbuh (including Hafsa, the sister of Abdullah ibn Umar) to join this woman in such an unIslamic venture, further re-affirms our belief regarding the totally heretical and unIslamic actions of Ayesha during and after the life of the Holy Prophet pbuh.
Seated on a camel (after which her famous battle was named) this wife of the holy prophet pbuh, Aisha ibn Abu Bakr, enters the battlefield to fight against the Ahlulbayt a.s of the holy Prophet pbuh and their supporters; totally rejecting, challenging and mocking their supreme unquestionable and most superior position in Islam. In short, Aisha fought a battle (battle of Jamal) against not a non-Muslim tyrant but against the fourth righteous sunni caliph of her time, the cousin of the holy prophet pbuh; the husband of the chief of all women of paradise, fatima al zahra a.s and the father of Aal e Mohammad pbuh on whom darood is obligatory in the salat of all Muslims. Yes it is no one else but Imam Ali a.s, renowned as the fourth caliph in Sunnis who enjoyed this unparallel position in the history of Islam.
The Lion of Allah, Ali ibn abi Talib a.s and his army gave Aisha several messages of warning and invitations for dialogue and peace but she was blinded by thirst for power and tribal hatred towards bani Hashem and progeny of Mohammad pbuh. At the hands of the army of Ahlulbayt a.s, the heir and blood members of the family of the last prophet pbuh and their ardent supporters, Aisha faced a crushing, shameful defeat, ending in a scene wherein Aisha lay helpless and defeated on the battle ground because the four legs of her camel were chopped off by the saviour of Islam, Imam Ali a.s.
Dear Readers for a moment I request you to Pause and Reflect: How would this wife of the prophet pbuh face Allah and his messenger on the day of Judgement? Such shame had never been brought to the prophet pbuh by any of his wives. Especially after his (pbuh) demise, their sanctity and reputation is an even more important and delicate issue. The other wives of the Prophet, notably, Hadrat Bibi Umm e Salma Radi Allah Ta'ala Anho warned Aisha not to embark on this hell-bent mission against the righteous Imam Ali a.s. She reminded Aisha of the hadith that the Prophet pbuh equated anyone who fought Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s to one who fought him and Allah. She reminded Aisha about the hadith in which the prophet pbuh mentioned that after him the munafiqeen would be identified by their enmity and hate/disliking towards Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. Sadly and most regrettably and as usually, the daughter of Abu Bakr brushed aside the very sunnah and hadiths of the prophet she claimed osman of abandoning during his lifetime and embarked on a grave sinful mission of fighting, accusing and quarrelling with none other but the 4th Sunni Caliph, Hadrat Ali Karam Allah Wajho a.s. and the Ahlulbayt a.s of the Prophet of Islam pbuh.
Ayesha bint Abu Bakr had no competition in women, at least, when it came to anger, jealousy and arrogance. I would go as far as saying that she surpassed men in many cases. Her refusal to accept the warnings and hadiths by another most senior and pious wife (umm e salmah r.a) of the holy prophet pbuh demonstrates just that constant pattern of her rebellion and despite predictions by the prophet about Aisha leading the group of satans, 27 years before this event, she refused to reflect and the sunnah of the holy prophet pbuh and his hadith were conveniently discarded to keep the caliphate away from the lion of bani Hashim, Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib a.s.
In view of such events and objectionable track record of acts of Aisha during and after the life of prophet pbuh, we find it honestly, quite pathetic to see some ignorant sunni apologetics to have the nerve to claim that Ayesha was the most beloved wife of the Prophet pbuh (!!!), a blatant lie, refuted from their own sihah sittah books of hadith.
Certainly, it is proven without doubt that Malikatul Arab Khadijatal Kubra was the most beloved wife of the Holy Prophet pbuh and it is she who bore him progeny to last and it is she who Ayesha (from the books of sihah sittah) hated and envied most and often made the prophet furious and depressed by doing so. The reader must not also forget that whilst Hadrat Khadija spent a lot of time with the holy prophet pbuh, Aisha only lived with the prophet pbuh for only 8 years at most and in those 8 years most of her life she remained as a pre-teen (according to sunni hadith books). It is obvious from many sunni hadiths that she was still a child and playing with dolls while married to the prophet pbuh. How on earth did the sunnis then derive their sunnah or majority of hadith literature from a woman who was neither raised by the prophet pbuh, nor trained by the prophet pbuh and who lived as a minor as a great part of her married life, playing with dolls etc and then only spent 8 years of her life with the prophet pbuh!!! From some sunni sources (like Bukhari) it is suggested she married at age 6 (without consummation of course)...which means she was only 14 when the prophet pbuh died!!!...Other sunni narrations which are more widely quoted by a new brand of contemporary sunni scholars as the correct hadith for her age at time of marriage to prophet pbuh sets her age at marriage to be 9 years or in some cases 12 years old! Now if we add 8 years to this, we get a maximum of 17 years or 20 years of age. This is the mother from whom the sunnis take half their deen who spent most of her age in ignorance playing with dolls and then all of a sudden the holy prophet pbuh dies and she becomes the standard bearer of sunni hadith literature and in the process much more mature and well trained people (at the hands of prophet pbuh) like Imam Ali a.s, Bibi Fatima Zahra a.s are totally ignored.
No wonder for those who derive and claim half of their deen (in terms of hadith, tafseer, Islamic practices/ sunnah and history) from such a heretic woman, their beliefs, practices and understanding of Islam are bound to be as removed from the truth and real sunnah of the prophet pbuh as an isolated spill of impure oil floats on a deep ocean of knowledge. The sons (followers) of such a heretical, innovating and ungrateful mother cannot be logically expected to be any better either socially or intellectually. Like their mother (source of deriving innovative sunnah) they also don’t seek what lies beneath the surface of this shallow oil slick. Instead it is in engraved in their nature to rebel against the righteous and truthful, to pass fatwas of kufr against innocent minorities, to murder, pillage and quieten everyone else with force rather then knowledge; knowledge, the depth of whose oceans quenches the hearts of the truth seekers. Knowledge about whom the prophet pbuh declared Imam Ali a.s to be the gate of and none enters except through the gate
It could have been convenient for the sunni polemics to avoid or to even completely refute the existence of any event regarding such a battle between the prophet's wife and sahaba and Hadrat Ali a.s and remaining family of the prophet pbuh. However, it is not a small event, which can ever be deleted or forgotten. The scale of the first battle of Muslims (Battle of Badr) becomes insignificant when you see the scale of this battle. The Battle of Camel (or Jamal as it is known in Arabic) resulted in the tragic massacre of 30 thousand noteable Muslims including many many Sahaba and Tabi'een.
In short Aisha and a huge band of other companions (including Ibn Umar, Muwaviya, Talha, Zubayr) refused to acknowledge the righteous (4th) caliph of their time and infact blamed him for the murder of the third sunni caliph Osman bin Affan or some implicated him for patronising and protecting the murderers of Osman bin Affan. Ofcourse this was all a carefully planned and well staged drama orchestrated by Muwaviya and his Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah, the chief of satanical banu Omayya, and the ruler/governor of Syria (thanks to the second Caliph Umar for the gift of Syria's governorship).
Ironically, the same Muwaviya whom Aisha found so comforting in this plot against Ahlulbayt a.s and Ali a.s, killed her brother Mohammad ibn Abu Bakr who was indeed a true follower of Imam Ali a.s and a good man. This same Aisha cursed Muwavia for murdering her brother on one hand while on the other hand we see her hatred of Ali a.s and his family to be so tremendous that she forgets the blood of her own brother altogether and the same person she cursed and accused as the murderer of her brother (i.e Muwaviya) becomes her partner in battles against the 4th righteous Sunni Caliph, Imam Hadrat Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. In short these people, a large group of the very prominent Sahaba, whom the shia blamed for becoming apostates, munafiq or murtad right after the prophet pbuh's demise now showed their true colors by actually engaging in physical battles, propaganda, lies and threats against the Ahlulbayt a.s, the pure progeny of the prophet pbuh and Ali a.s, the shining father of Aal e Mohammad pbuh; the so called 4th caliph of today's Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaat. The prophecy (as mentioned in various sunni books) of the prophet pbuh that Ali would fight for the taweel (preservation of message of Quran) just like I fought for its revelation was suddenly coming true.
This Ameer ul Momineen Syedna Imam Ali a.s and his family: Imam Hassan a.s, Imam Hussain a.s and the rest of the family and blood of our holy prophet pbuh and their shia (this is where the concept of active shiaism gained its main force politically in Islam) were on one side while some of the very prominent names like Aisha, Talha, Zubayr, Muwavia, Abdullah ibn Umar were on the other side; all of them fighting with swords against the holy progeny and Ahlulbayt a.s of Mohammad pbuh, the last messenger of Allah.
Shameful indeed!!!
We see this pattern revived again in the painful events of the martyrdom of Imam Hassan ibn Ali and Imam Hussain ibn Ali a.s as well. These zalims did not spare majority of the descendants of Ali a.s. There hatred towards Ali from day was as clear and as bright as the shining sun on a cloudless day. What standards do you use to measure such horrible incidents? Does any sane person think that one can come up with a nonsensical, ludicrous excuse to cover up all these well documented facts in Sunni history and ahadith in order to paint a rosy picture of history of Islam? (Especially when these reports are not reported by one but many Sunni scholars and historians!)
Of course you cannot choose to ignore all this mayhem, chaos and disturbing reporting from a large spectrum of old/classical sunni historians/muhaddiths/mufassirs, unless you are a real ignorant self-serving person who has lost not just one but all his six senses! The hadiths, events and incidents speak for themselves! and from multiple Sunni sources (eg: narrators,authors, historians, mufassirs, muhadiths, etc). As long as the lies are not exposed and the history not unfolded, the truth shall not come to the eyes, heart or the mind of a genuine truth seeker.
A very common and usual scenario you face, while talking to majority of the sunni brothers and sisters is their complete lack of knowledge in history of Islam or literature of Hadith viz a viz its qualitative analysis. You will often find them shocked at many things even if you quote them from their so-called Sihah Sittah hadith books, let alone any others. They are so hard and blind in their inherited beliefs that they would reject even the most accurate hadith or historical event that might exist in even tens of sunni hadith, tafseer or hadith books. This is a general attitude, which they have developed and inherited as part of the process of hardcore regime, and mullah sponsored information-vaccination. This is the byproduct of hundreds of years of blind indoctrination in the name of Islam. It precisely is the major cause of blindness, deafness and dumbness in people. Precisely this is where violence, persecution and intolerance find most ideal grounds to breed and exactly that happened for the greater part in the Religion-Political History of Islam: namely, bloodshed, oppression, usurpation and tyranny in the name of Caliphate, Sunnah and Quran.
The refusal of accepting facts by a large portion of Ahlul Sunnah people (even though these facts are documented in the writings of their own classical historians, muhaddiths and scholars) demonstrates how great many of them have been deprived intellectually, abused mentally and blindfolded spiritually by the tyrannical dictatorial regimes and despotic tribes that ruled the lands of Islam for centuries and centuries and exploited the religion and blindly indoctrinated masses of people to cultivate a generation of self-serving and auto-replicating robot like people who would never listen or consider alternative opinion but would be ready to execute any opposer and would always play the same tune of "We are sunni, the saved sect, all others are kafir or all others will go to hell" over and over again; as taught, perfected and fed by their masters Muwaviya, Yazid, Haroon Rasheed and their descendants.
The reason why most Sunni elders, scholars or preachers refrain from discussing or debating on the vast repository of shameful historical events (which I have merely brushed as yet) in the history of Islam, is not incapability to do research or inaccessibility of material; but more so, it is because of their fear that a large number of truthseeking average Muslims might convert to some other school of thought, like shi'ism, after finding a large number of widely reported disgusting events and brutalities committed by some of the most infamous Sunni personalities and sahaba, against the immediate family and blood relations of the holy prophet pbuh and other fellow sahaba.
It is to protect these weak pillars of a so called strong Sunni-by-label -only-sect, that these proud arrogant and high pitched learned or elderly people are often found warning innocent truth seeking youth to refrain from finding out or debating on the ugly events in the history of Islam, e.g.: the wars which sahaba waged against each other; the cursing of sahaba for fellow sahabas; the exiling and executions of fellow sahabas by some of the most notable sahabas; the persecutions and tortures of sahabas towards fellow sahabas; the events surrounding the death (martyrdom) of the prophet pbuh and how he was called delirious and insane for wishing to write his will in paper by prominent sahaba; the events surrounding the martyrdom of imam Ali a.s and his two sons Imam Hassan a.s and Imam Hussain a.s; the highly moving events of the poisoning of al Hassan a.s and refusal of Ayesha and medinites to let him be buried next to his grandfather, the prophet pbuh and the showering of spears on his dead body/coffin; the massacre of the grandsons of Ali and prophet pbuh in a wholesale manner in karbala etc etc...The list goes on and on with each generation painted red with the blood and honor of the most pious and notable members of the holy prophet pbuhs family.
All these sins were done by the rulers to remain the kings, official priests and financial and political beneficiaries of Arabia. The foundation of this Jamaat, which claims to be Sunni by label (as if it has some copyright to this!), is based on lies, deception and double standards. Unfortunately it is this deception that its very own current day members (who are only Sunni because they were born one) do not know of and that is why when I speak against this Jama'at i mean no criticism to them. In my critique the finger is raised only at this Jama'at's actual innovators, creators, rulers, law makers, historical figures, political campaigners and scholars who lie despite knowing the truth. It is a Jamaa't which praises the liar, usurper, tyrant, oppressor on one hand with titles like razi allah ta'ala anho, imam, muhayyiuss sunnah, mohiyuddin, mujadid etc, while on the other hand it tries to be diplomatically shrewd by giving mere verbal praise to the usurped, oppressed and righteous as well. How clever! What an innovative way to not allow the truth seekers to reverse engineer the truth and how convenient to do all the crimes one can think of and then claim both the criminal and the victim as radi allah ta'alah anho. Subhan Allah, what a faith! No wonder that is why they call both Imam Ali a.s and Muwaviya the traitor and hypocrite as radi allah ta'ala anho even though they both fought not one but many battles against each other.
It is amazing how blind someone can become in his or her faith. Infact it is plain shocking that this Jama'at remains truly unmoved by the facts that are screaming from the annals of history. To them the blood of the martyrs is nothing and can be easily replaced by a single lie, which is in praise of muwaviya by none other but some muhadith sitting and fabricating hadith in his own Royal Court. How convenient! Astaghfirullah these criminals who fought Imam Ali a.s not once but many a times and launched propaganda against him and other people were busy attributing lies to the prophet pbuh in form of hadith in their hadith factories for decades. Yes, these were the places which later on served to be cradles for people like Abu Huraira, Ibn Umar, Abu Hanifa, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal etc etc ... these very royal courts of the Tyrant Umayyads (the descendants of Muwavia/Abu Sufiyan and Yazeed) and the Oppressive Abbasides (Haroon Rasheed and his descendants) were the arch enemies of the school of thought and people who associated from day one with Imam Ali a.s. They were the enemies of Imam Ali a.s from day one.
Like their forefathers Yazeed and Muwaviya fought battles in blood and sand with Hadrat Ali a.s and his sons, so did these abbasside and umayyads with the remaining descendants of Prophet pbuh/Ali a.s and their followers. The sons of the martyrs of karbala and the sons of their followers and enemies of the illegal self-declared Islamic dictatorial kingship were now called with dirty titles such as kafir, rafidi, lying shia or apostates etc...They were killed, tortured, persecuted and subjected to the fatwa and punishments of kufr by the most corrupt, promiscuous rulers in the courts of caliphs, ameers and kings. They were driven out of their homes and agonized and surely what goes in comes out similarly and the day is not far when this injustice will be reversed and the zalims will be treated similarly by the universal law of retribution.
This is the side of history that a sunni scholar would never dare to touch because his job is to precisely do what he is told: to just shout fatwas of kufr and then shout praises of radi allah ta'alah anho and then step down from the podium. Despite ugly blotches in their history of crimes (by their revered forefathers and progenitors of a newly-fabricated Sunnah attributed to prophet Mohammad pbuh), the group that came to be called as Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jam'at fought pitched battles and executions and persecutions against Ahlulbayt a.s and their descendants and ardent followers (shia). Yet ironically, they still praise the Ahlulbayt a.s; merely in a verbal parrot-like manner. This however is a practically meaningless and fruitless exercise because their fiqh/ teachings are neither derived from Ahlulbayt a.s nor is any of their imam, mufasir or muhadith from Ahlulbayt a.s. There mere calling "alayhis salam", "radi allah ta'ala anho" or "darood/salawat" is a hypocrite's game and this attitude is no different to that of a parrot who also merely recites words he does not understand nor knows what he is talking about. However, at least the parrot remains harmless and does not pretend he knows! The objective that the Sunnis historically achieved by using such verbal statements of respect and praise (which you find in today's Sunnis as part of belief via inheritance) was to be politically correct as apologetics and to be unblamable and diplomatic in the eyes of followers of all opposing factions that started erupting with the passage of time within their own so called Jama'at. These double standards and deceptions are proven and reinforced by the actions and actual treatment of many of their revered figures in history towards the Ahlulbayt a.s, the holy purified progeny of Mohammad pbuh and of course the details on that shall be saved for a future article/booklet.
The preamble to this article must end here for brevity and for the sake of moving onto the main topic of this article, which revolves around Abdullah Ibn Umar (the son of the second Caliph of Sunnis) and the detailed analysis of his role in Islam. It was very important to describe the whole scenario explained above and set the stage by giving a brief preamble. This preamble shall enable the reader to benefit even more from the facts that I shall report below and quote extensively from both the Quran and well referenced / infamous Sunni Hadith and History sources. Furthermore, this preamble should also, hopefully, motivate a lot of enlightened and truth seeking open-minded/unbiased people to inquire and research more about the many points and topics touched very briefly up till now. Inshallah, I shall by writing separate articles and booklets on each one of these issues/events (mentioned above) in order to leave no ambiguity or stone unturned. Now it is time to move onto the main topic:
Abdullah ibn Umar
He is one of the famous sahaba who played a major role in shaping the events that took place during the reign of the third sunni caliph, Osman bin Affan, as well as that of Banu Umayyah. Suffices him the fact that his father was Umar ibn al-Khattab to be glorified and loved by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" who consider Abdullah ibn Umar as one of the greatest faqihs and of all those who learned the "Prophet's ahadith." Even Imam Malik , the father of sunni maliki school of thought, relies on him in deducting most of his ahkam, filling his book Al-Muwatta' with his traditions. And if we turn the pages of the books of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," we will find them referring to him quite often, full of his praise.
Yet if we read the same that with researchers' discerning eyes, it will become clear to us that he was far from being just or truthful; rather, he was distant from the Prophet's Sunnah, from fiqh, and from the Shari`a.
Our first observation will be his extreme enmity and hatred towards the master of the Prophet's Progeny, Commander of the Faithful Ali ibn Abu Talib: he went as far as instigating others against him and regarded him as a commoner.
We have already indicated that he circulated many false ahadith, the gist of which is that the sahaba during the lifetime of the Prophet used to compare each one of them with the other in the presence of the Prophet heard, saying that the best of people was Abu Bakr then Umar then Uthman, then people after the latter were all alike, and that the Prophet used to hear all of this comparison without denying it.
This is a blatant lie derided by any rational person. We researched the life of Abdullah ibn Umar during the Prophet's lifetime, and we found out that he was too young to reach adolescence. He had no influence whatsoever among those who had a say, nor was his view taken into consideration. The Messenger of Allah died when Abdullah ibn Umar was, according to the best estimates, nineteen years old; so, how could he have said that they (the sahaba) used to compare each one of them with the other? This could only be children gossiping among themselves, the children of Abu Bakr, Uthman, in addition to his own brothers.
Nevertheless, it cannot be right to say that the Prophet was listening to such comparison without voicing his objection to it. This proves that this "tradition" is false and is indicative of ill intentions. Add to the above the fact that the Prophet never permitted Abdullah ibn Umar to accompany him during his battles with the exception of the Battle of the Moat (khandaq) and the other campaigns that followed it, when Abdullah was fifteen years old [Ref: 218]
There is no doubt that he was present at the Battle of Khaybar which took place in 7 A.H./628 A.D. and saw with his own eyes how both Abu Bakr and his father fled from the battle field. He undoubtedly heard the Messenger of Allah saying, "I shall give the standard tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger and who is loved by Allah and His Messenger, a brave one who attacks and never flees, a man the conviction of whose heart Allah has ascertained." When it was morning, he gave it to the one who terminated the pleasure of those who indulged therein, who dispersed the groups, who dispelled the clouds of calamities, who was adorned with graces, the ever-victorious Lion of Allah Ali ibn Abu Talib. [Ref: 219]
The tradition of the standard referred to above clearly highlights Ali's merits and superiority over all other sahaba. It demonstrates his status with Allah and His Messenger and his having won the love of Allah and His Messenger. Because of his hatred towards Ali, Abdullah ibn Umar regarded Ali as one of the commoners! We have already indicated that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" acted upon this tradition which their master Abdullah ibn Umar inspired to them, so they did not rank Ali ibn Abu Talib among the righteous caliphs. No, they did not do that, nor did they even recognize his caliphate except during the time of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (as we will prove in a future article with complete sunni references). They were exposed when traditions and traditionists became quite numerous, and when fingers were pointed at them accusing them of being Nasibis and of hating the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet, and when all Muslims came to know that hating Ali was one of the most obvious signs of hypocrisy. It was then that they felt compelled to recognize Ali's caliphate. It was only then that they added his name to the list of the "righteous caliphs." It was only then that they pretended, being pretentious and perfidious, to love Ahl al-Bayt.
We wish there had been someone to ask Ibn Umar the following question: "Why did all, or most of, Muslims after the demise of the Prophet dispute about who deserved most to be the caliph and narrowed their dispute to only Ali and Abu Bakr, and why neither your father [Umar ibn al-Khattab] nor Uthman ibn Affan had any popularity at that time?"
Was there anyone to ask the son of Umar ibn al-Khattab, "If the Prophet agreed with your view that nobody was the peer of Abu Bakr then Umar then Uthman, then why did he two days before his death choose a young man who grew no beard nor a moustache to be their leader, ordering them to march under his order and command? Was he then hallucinating, as your father described him of doing?"
We wish someone had asked Abdullah ibn Umar this question: "Why did the Muhajirun and the Ansars, having witnessed Abu Bakr swearing his oath of loyalty to Fatima al-Zahra, say to her: `By Allah! Had your husband and cousin come to us before Abu Bakr, we would not have equated him with any man at all,' which is an admission from the most prominent of the sahaba that they did not equate Ali with anyone else, had they not already sworn their oath of allegiance to him, an oath which they later called a mistake?" What is the value of the view of Abdullah ibn Umar, the conceited teenager who did not know how to divorce his wife, compared to that of such prominent sahaba? Finally, was there anyone to ask Abdullah ibn Umar, "Why did not the sahaba choose Ali ibn Abu Talib to be their caliph after Umar's murder and prefer him over Uthman, had it not been for his own refusal of the condition put forth by Abel-Rahman ibn Awf that he had to rule them according to the "Sunnah" of both shaykhs?" [Ref: 220]
.
But Abdullah ibn Umar was influenced by his father. He lived during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, and he noticed how Ali ibn Abu Talib was kept at bay, having no place among the ruling group nor any government post, with the people turning away from him after the death of his cousin and wife, the Leader of all Women, having had no material gains to attract people thereby.
Undoubtedly, Abdullah ibn Umar was the closest person to his father. He used to listen to his views, and he knew his friends and foes; hence, he grew up nurtured in hatred, grudge and animosity towards Ali in particular and Ahl al-Bayt in general. Once he saw Ali receiving the oath of allegiance from the Muhajirun and Ansar following Uthman's murder, and he could not tolerate it. He, then, revealed his hidden animosity and refused to swear the oath of allegiance to the Imam of the righteous and the wali of the faithful. He could no longer tolerate living in Medina, so he left it for Mecca pretending to perform the `umra.
Then we see Abdullah ibn Umar doing all he could do to discourage people and dissuade them from
Supporting the truth or fighting the oppressive group the fighting of which was ordered by Allah Himself till it reverted to His command. He, therefore, was among the earliest to betray the Imam of his time whom he was required to obey.
Once Imam Ali was killed, and Mu`awiyah attained victory over Imam al-Hasan ibn Ali, thus usurping the caliphate from him, Mu`awiyah delivered a speech to people in which he said, "I did not fight you so that you may pray or fast or perform the pilgrimage; rather, I fought you in order to take charge of you, and Allah has given me just that."
We then see Abdullah ibn Umar racing to swear the oath of allegiance to Mu`awiyah under the pretext that people were united in accepting his leadership after their disunity! I think it was he who named that year "Am al-jama`ah," year of the group, for he and his group of Banu Umayyah became "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" and will remain so till the time of the Hour.
Was there anyone to ask Abdullah ibn Umar and those who held his views from "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a": "Had there ever been any consensus in history such as the one attained for the Commander of the Faithful Ali ibn Abu Talib?" Abu Bakr's caliphate was "a mistake whose evil Allah shunned," [Ref: 221] and it was boycotted by a large number of the sahaba. Umar's caliphate was by recommendation; rather, it was a promise granted by Abu Bakr, and the sahaba had neither view, nor say, nor anything else to do with it. And Uthman's caliphate was achieved through a committee of three persons selected by Umar; rather, it was due to Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf forcing his own view over the rest.
As for Ali's caliphate, it was done through the voluntary and peaceful oath of allegiance of the Muhajirun and the Ansar; he wrote all Islamic domains asking those in charge of them to grant him their oath of allegiance, which they all did with the exception of Mu`awiyah in Syria. [Ref: 222]
What Ibn Umar and "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" were supposed to do was to kill Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan for declaring his mutiny and demanding the caliphate for himself according to the narrations, which they themselves have recorded in their Sahih books. One of these traditions states that the Messenger of Allah said, "If two caliphs receive oaths of allegiance, one after the other, you should kill the second." [Ref: 223]
He has also said, as recorded in Muslim's Sahih and in other books of hadith, "Whoever swears the oath of allegiance to an Imam, shakes his hand, and grants him his heart, let him grant him his all, but if another person comes to dispute with him, you should kill the latter." [Ref: 224]
But Abdullah ibn Umar did exactly the opposite: Instead of acting upon the Prophet's tradition, submit to his orders, fight and kill Mu`awiyah for having contested the caliph of the Muslims and lit the fire of dissension, he, we find out, refused to swear the oath of allegiance despite the Muslims' consensus in its regard. Instead, he swore it to Mu`awiyah who declared his mutiny, who disputed with the Imam and killed a number of innocent people, causing dissension the aftermath of which lingers till our time.
For this reason, I think that Abdullah ibn Umar was Mu`awiyah's accomplice in all the crimes and sins the latter had committed because he erected his authority and assisted him in forcing people to accept it, and in his confiscation of the caliphate which Allah and His Messenger decreed to be out of the each of the promiscuous and the sons of the promiscuous according to the sacred hadith.
Abdullah ibn Umar was not satisfied with doing all of that, so he rushed to swear the oath of allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah, the Yazid of wines, corruption, and apostasy, the promiscuous son of the promiscuous father, the cursed one and the son of the accursed.
Since Umar ibn al-Khattab, according to Ibn Sa`d who discusses him in his Tabaqat, used to say, "Caliphate is not suitable for a promiscuous person, nor for the son of a promiscuous person, nor for those who accept Islam after being vanquished," [Ref: 225] then how did Abdullah contradict his own father with regard to this principle which he himself had recorded? If Abdullah ibn Umar thus contradicted the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger with regard to the issue of caliphate, we will not then be surprised to find him doing the opposite of what his father had stated.
We would like to ask Abdullah ibn Umar this question: "What consensus was there with regard to swearing the oath of allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah from whom the righteous in the nation and the remnants of the Muhajirun and Ansar, including the master of the youths of Paradise Imam al-Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Abbas, and all those who kept them company and shared their views, dissociated themselves?"
What is well known is the fact that he himself used to be among those who in the beginning denounced Yazid receiving the oath of allegiance, but Mu`awiyah knew how to win him over: He sent him one hundred thousand dirhams which he accepted as a gift. When it was mentioned to him that the sender was soliciting his oath of allegiance to his son Yazid, he said, "Is this what he wanted? My creed, then, must be quite cheap..." [Ref: 226]
Yes, Abdullah ibn Umar sold his creed very cheaply as he himself admitted. He ran away from having to swear it to the Imam of the righteous but rushed to swear it to the leader of oppressors Mu`awiyah, then to the leader of the fornicators Yazid, thus bearing on his shoulders the burdens of the crimes omitted by Mu`awiyah's oppressive government. He, no doubt, carried the burdens of Yazid's crimes on his head for violating the sanctity of the Messenger of Allah and for killing the fragrant flower, the master of the youths of Paradise and of the Progeny of the Prophet, together with the righteous among the sons of the nation whom he killed in Karbala in the Battle of the Harra.
Abdullah ibn Umar was not satisfied with this much of the oath of allegiance to Yazid, so he pressured people to follow in his footsteps, terrorizing anyone who contemplated doing otherwise.
Al-Bukhari in his Sahih and other compilers of hadith state that Abdullah ibn Umar gathered his offspring, servants, and slaves when the people of Medina rejected Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah and said to them, "We swore the oath of allegiance to this man acting upon swearing it to Allah and His Messenger [Ref: 227] and I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying, `One who betrays will have a standard erected for him on the Day of Judgment, and it will be said to him: This is the betrayal of so-and-so,' and the worst type of betrayal, after associating someone with Allah, is one who swears the oath of allegiance to Allah and His Messenger then betrays it, [Ref:228] and none of you should unseat Yazid, nor should anyone among you see such unseating as honorable, else something tragic should happen between me and him." [Ref: 229]
Continued ....
PART 2
ShiaofAhlulbayt
http://groups.msn.com/shiaofahlulbayt
Narrated Nafi':
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."
Sunni Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227
So in the eyes of Abdullah ibne Umar (the son of the second caliph of Ahl ul Sunnah) the bayya of Yazid (l.a) the slaughterer of Imam Hussain (as) opposed was "in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle!!!!" i.e. completely legitimate, and breaking the Jamaah would lead to individuals being raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement. So, Yazid was the khalifa of the Jamaah (as ibn umar states) and no matter how much the proponents of umar's son seek to distance themselves from Yazid, Abdullah ibne Umar deemed his station as Imam to be in accordance with conditions of Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s).
Did he deem the cursed Yazid to be on par with Imam Hussain a.s? Or the many other noteable and old sahaba? Or were there some other deeper politics going on? It is ironic when you are presented with something from your own most authentic books, you turn a blind eye towards it and run here and there to come up with weak narrations to oppose and reinstate a blind faith based on indoctrination.
The above mentioned Hadith was taken from Sahih Al Bukhari, a book considered not less then second to Quran by hardcore Ahl ul Sunnah wal Jamat clerics. It is ironic and infact revealing as to who the Uzbekistani Al-Bukhari was and how much of a weight his book of prophetic traditions, written hundreds of years after the demise of the Holy prophet pbuh, carries? It should make an average Sunni worry even more and pray for guidance because Al-Bukhari on one hand clearly mentions Abdullah Ibn Umar Ibn Al Khattab [one of the top most chiefs of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaat and member of their fabricated list of Ashra Mubashra (ten blessed companions) ] as the chief supporter, admirer and friend of the apostate Yazid and his kafir regime, while on the other hand this same Abdullah Ibn Umar is the third largest hadith narrator in the volumes of hadith of Sahih Al Bukhari. Certainly, this becomes even more disturbing because Muwatta of Malik (another Sihah Sittah hadith book of sunnis) has the largest number of narrations from none other then this same friend and supported of Yazid. Will the sunnis still complain to the shia as to why we object to their books of hadith and why we consider them to be of no weight in comparison to the writings and ahadiths of the members of Ahlulbayt a.s, the holy purified progeny of Mohammad pbuh? To the respected reader it should also be brought to notice that the second largest narrator in the books of Sahih Al Bukhari is Abu Huraira, a man famous for the hall of shame rather then fame. He has been dealt with briefly in another article titled "Abu Huraira or Paul". All readers are urged to read that article/booklet as well and yes as usual I have not quoted any shia book or hadith in examining him either. Lastly, the only other narrator who beats both Abu Huraira and Abdullah Ibn Umar is Aisha bint Abu Bakr who will be briefly discussed in the preamble to this article/booklet and shall be dealt with in far more well referenced detailed in a separate article.
It is not just the shia but infact no sane shia or other truth seeking / unbiased muslim (who studies history and ahadith without bias) would ever accept ahadith that are controversial in nature and originate specifically from people like Abdullah ibn Umar, Abu Huraira, Aisha bin Abu Bakr; people who are extremely blatant supporters of tyrannical heretics like Muwaviya and/or Yazid ibn Muwavia; people whose ugly face is defaced very well by Sahih Bukhari itself (for example in the hadith quoted at the outset, for Abdullah ibn Umar). Just because these people found there ways into the tyrannical-regime sponsored, nurtured and promoted books of Bukhari or Muslim, does not give them the license of being truthful, errorless or next to Quran! Certainly those who have some morals left and derive some lesson out of the tragedy of karbala would never have a bit of respect for anyone who equates giving allegiance to Yazid or befriending him or his army with following the Sunnah of Prophet and Jama'ah. May Allah prevent us from such disgusting innovations.
If the shia curse certain people or strongly dislike them (if not curse), it is not something hidden from a sunni historical point of view, as to why they do this. The excesses, violence, tortures, tyranny and blatant distortions of the Sunnah of the prophet pbuh were all so predominant in the early period of Islam (that is, after the death of the holy prophet pbuh) that if you read the other (not the rosy version) side of your own sunni hadith and history books, the truth shall come out shining and trust me, you do not need any shia books for this purpose and mere accusations that "oh this is a shia beleif" wont help here. Hundreds if not thousands of books are available within the sunni of school of thought that do exactly the job which they were not supposed to do: to deface the truth! and to unveil the hypocrisy in history of Islam. Fortunately, if the shia invest the time to heed and research the books, writings and historical narrations of the Ahl ul Sunnah, more then they do themselves, then the merit goes to the shia because as far as a sunni is concerned, save a few, hardly any would ever want to even consider for a second, the second thought of keeping, reading or relying on a shia text, hadith, tafseer book or any other material. This is a byproduct of their inherited hate against shia, based on false propaganda, intolerance and in many cases helplessness over inability to answer the shia scholars or laymen in a mutually convincing manner due to contradictions within their own books. On the other hand, the shia scholars and researchers have spent lifetimes and centuries to research Islam as a whole and with particular emphasis on both sunni and shia perspective to uncover the truth without bias. Who is better or at truth or at least following the better approach?
Is it the One who is ignorant towards everything and everyone else; doesn’t see any book, anyone or any thing else on the face of this earth except for himself, his book, his mirror and version of faith; has only hate, pride, arrogance, jealousy and intolerance for others who don’t ascribe to his version of thoughts, convictions or actions and preaches with arrogance, vanity, intentional false accusations and distortions aimed at maligning another community and for declaring others kafir at will?
Or is it the one who spends a large portion of his time actually reading, researching and quoting from the books of his very own opponent; invites him for debate as a loving tolerant brother; encourages him to research his very own books by highlighting facts from them; refrains from passing notorious fatwas of kufr against him; encourages the formula of unity in diversity despite academic or historical differences and avidly promotes humility, love, freedom of thought, action, conviction and speech as a part of preaching?
Here, I would leave it to the reader to rationally and honestly judge the answer.
As for myself, I would like to move forward and set a preamble to this interesting article/booklet.
(Note: References to the items in the preamble are present abundantly in Sunni books of history, hadith etc and are provided or shall be provided during detailed discussion of these individual events in separate dedicated articles. To keep the size of the preamble small and to keep the flow of the discussion intact, the Sunni references to events and facts in the preamble have been left for other detailed articles, some of which I have already published and put online, while others are awaiting to be written/compiled into new dedicated topic-specific articles/booklets.)
PREAMBLE TO THE DISCUSSION
When Imam Ali a.s was challenged by Muwaviya on the issue of 4th Caliphate and three deadly and bloody battles (nahrawan, siffin and jamal) were waged against the 4th caliph (Ali a.s) of the sunnis, Abdullah ibn Umar did not side with the fourth righteous sunni caliph; instead he gave allegiance to his financial sponsor MUWAVIYA, the son of Hinda, the infamous liver eater. Same was the case with Aisha, the wife of our holy prophet pbuh. She, not only rejected the caliphate of Hadrat Ali a.s but infact left her hometown Madina for Kufa and gathered an army including Talha, Zubair and other prominent Sahaba who ironically did not bring out their own wives for the so called jihad against Ali a.s but gave all the encouragement, moral, financial and military support to drag the wife of the holy prophet pbuh into the streets and battlefields of Arabia; all in strict opposition to the Quranic verses in Surah Al Ahzab which strictly prohibit and forbade the wives of the prophet to leave their homes. Such an event happening in the absence of her own husband (the prophet pbuh) and also the unanimous refusal of all other wives of the prophet pbuh (including Hafsa, the sister of Abdullah ibn Umar) to join this woman in such an unIslamic venture, further re-affirms our belief regarding the totally heretical and unIslamic actions of Ayesha during and after the life of the Holy Prophet pbuh.
Seated on a camel (after which her famous battle was named) this wife of the holy prophet pbuh, Aisha ibn Abu Bakr, enters the battlefield to fight against the Ahlulbayt a.s of the holy Prophet pbuh and their supporters; totally rejecting, challenging and mocking their supreme unquestionable and most superior position in Islam. In short, Aisha fought a battle (battle of Jamal) against not a non-Muslim tyrant but against the fourth righteous sunni caliph of her time, the cousin of the holy prophet pbuh; the husband of the chief of all women of paradise, fatima al zahra a.s and the father of Aal e Mohammad pbuh on whom darood is obligatory in the salat of all Muslims. Yes it is no one else but Imam Ali a.s, renowned as the fourth caliph in Sunnis who enjoyed this unparallel position in the history of Islam.
The Lion of Allah, Ali ibn abi Talib a.s and his army gave Aisha several messages of warning and invitations for dialogue and peace but she was blinded by thirst for power and tribal hatred towards bani Hashem and progeny of Mohammad pbuh. At the hands of the army of Ahlulbayt a.s, the heir and blood members of the family of the last prophet pbuh and their ardent supporters, Aisha faced a crushing, shameful defeat, ending in a scene wherein Aisha lay helpless and defeated on the battle ground because the four legs of her camel were chopped off by the saviour of Islam, Imam Ali a.s.
Dear Readers for a moment I request you to Pause and Reflect: How would this wife of the prophet pbuh face Allah and his messenger on the day of Judgement? Such shame had never been brought to the prophet pbuh by any of his wives. Especially after his (pbuh) demise, their sanctity and reputation is an even more important and delicate issue. The other wives of the Prophet, notably, Hadrat Bibi Umm e Salma Radi Allah Ta'ala Anho warned Aisha not to embark on this hell-bent mission against the righteous Imam Ali a.s. She reminded Aisha of the hadith that the Prophet pbuh equated anyone who fought Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s to one who fought him and Allah. She reminded Aisha about the hadith in which the prophet pbuh mentioned that after him the munafiqeen would be identified by their enmity and hate/disliking towards Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. Sadly and most regrettably and as usually, the daughter of Abu Bakr brushed aside the very sunnah and hadiths of the prophet she claimed osman of abandoning during his lifetime and embarked on a grave sinful mission of fighting, accusing and quarrelling with none other but the 4th Sunni Caliph, Hadrat Ali Karam Allah Wajho a.s. and the Ahlulbayt a.s of the Prophet of Islam pbuh.
Ayesha bint Abu Bakr had no competition in women, at least, when it came to anger, jealousy and arrogance. I would go as far as saying that she surpassed men in many cases. Her refusal to accept the warnings and hadiths by another most senior and pious wife (umm e salmah r.a) of the holy prophet pbuh demonstrates just that constant pattern of her rebellion and despite predictions by the prophet about Aisha leading the group of satans, 27 years before this event, she refused to reflect and the sunnah of the holy prophet pbuh and his hadith were conveniently discarded to keep the caliphate away from the lion of bani Hashim, Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib a.s.
In view of such events and objectionable track record of acts of Aisha during and after the life of prophet pbuh, we find it honestly, quite pathetic to see some ignorant sunni apologetics to have the nerve to claim that Ayesha was the most beloved wife of the Prophet pbuh (!!!), a blatant lie, refuted from their own sihah sittah books of hadith.
Certainly, it is proven without doubt that Malikatul Arab Khadijatal Kubra was the most beloved wife of the Holy Prophet pbuh and it is she who bore him progeny to last and it is she who Ayesha (from the books of sihah sittah) hated and envied most and often made the prophet furious and depressed by doing so. The reader must not also forget that whilst Hadrat Khadija spent a lot of time with the holy prophet pbuh, Aisha only lived with the prophet pbuh for only 8 years at most and in those 8 years most of her life she remained as a pre-teen (according to sunni hadith books). It is obvious from many sunni hadiths that she was still a child and playing with dolls while married to the prophet pbuh. How on earth did the sunnis then derive their sunnah or majority of hadith literature from a woman who was neither raised by the prophet pbuh, nor trained by the prophet pbuh and who lived as a minor as a great part of her married life, playing with dolls etc and then only spent 8 years of her life with the prophet pbuh!!! From some sunni sources (like Bukhari) it is suggested she married at age 6 (without consummation of course)...which means she was only 14 when the prophet pbuh died!!!...Other sunni narrations which are more widely quoted by a new brand of contemporary sunni scholars as the correct hadith for her age at time of marriage to prophet pbuh sets her age at marriage to be 9 years or in some cases 12 years old! Now if we add 8 years to this, we get a maximum of 17 years or 20 years of age. This is the mother from whom the sunnis take half their deen who spent most of her age in ignorance playing with dolls and then all of a sudden the holy prophet pbuh dies and she becomes the standard bearer of sunni hadith literature and in the process much more mature and well trained people (at the hands of prophet pbuh) like Imam Ali a.s, Bibi Fatima Zahra a.s are totally ignored.
No wonder for those who derive and claim half of their deen (in terms of hadith, tafseer, Islamic practices/ sunnah and history) from such a heretic woman, their beliefs, practices and understanding of Islam are bound to be as removed from the truth and real sunnah of the prophet pbuh as an isolated spill of impure oil floats on a deep ocean of knowledge. The sons (followers) of such a heretical, innovating and ungrateful mother cannot be logically expected to be any better either socially or intellectually. Like their mother (source of deriving innovative sunnah) they also don’t seek what lies beneath the surface of this shallow oil slick. Instead it is in engraved in their nature to rebel against the righteous and truthful, to pass fatwas of kufr against innocent minorities, to murder, pillage and quieten everyone else with force rather then knowledge; knowledge, the depth of whose oceans quenches the hearts of the truth seekers. Knowledge about whom the prophet pbuh declared Imam Ali a.s to be the gate of and none enters except through the gate
It could have been convenient for the sunni polemics to avoid or to even completely refute the existence of any event regarding such a battle between the prophet's wife and sahaba and Hadrat Ali a.s and remaining family of the prophet pbuh. However, it is not a small event, which can ever be deleted or forgotten. The scale of the first battle of Muslims (Battle of Badr) becomes insignificant when you see the scale of this battle. The Battle of Camel (or Jamal as it is known in Arabic) resulted in the tragic massacre of 30 thousand noteable Muslims including many many Sahaba and Tabi'een.
In short Aisha and a huge band of other companions (including Ibn Umar, Muwaviya, Talha, Zubayr) refused to acknowledge the righteous (4th) caliph of their time and infact blamed him for the murder of the third sunni caliph Osman bin Affan or some implicated him for patronising and protecting the murderers of Osman bin Affan. Ofcourse this was all a carefully planned and well staged drama orchestrated by Muwaviya and his Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah, the chief of satanical banu Omayya, and the ruler/governor of Syria (thanks to the second Caliph Umar for the gift of Syria's governorship).
Ironically, the same Muwaviya whom Aisha found so comforting in this plot against Ahlulbayt a.s and Ali a.s, killed her brother Mohammad ibn Abu Bakr who was indeed a true follower of Imam Ali a.s and a good man. This same Aisha cursed Muwavia for murdering her brother on one hand while on the other hand we see her hatred of Ali a.s and his family to be so tremendous that she forgets the blood of her own brother altogether and the same person she cursed and accused as the murderer of her brother (i.e Muwaviya) becomes her partner in battles against the 4th righteous Sunni Caliph, Imam Hadrat Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. In short these people, a large group of the very prominent Sahaba, whom the shia blamed for becoming apostates, munafiq or murtad right after the prophet pbuh's demise now showed their true colors by actually engaging in physical battles, propaganda, lies and threats against the Ahlulbayt a.s, the pure progeny of the prophet pbuh and Ali a.s, the shining father of Aal e Mohammad pbuh; the so called 4th caliph of today's Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaat. The prophecy (as mentioned in various sunni books) of the prophet pbuh that Ali would fight for the taweel (preservation of message of Quran) just like I fought for its revelation was suddenly coming true.
This Ameer ul Momineen Syedna Imam Ali a.s and his family: Imam Hassan a.s, Imam Hussain a.s and the rest of the family and blood of our holy prophet pbuh and their shia (this is where the concept of active shiaism gained its main force politically in Islam) were on one side while some of the very prominent names like Aisha, Talha, Zubayr, Muwavia, Abdullah ibn Umar were on the other side; all of them fighting with swords against the holy progeny and Ahlulbayt a.s of Mohammad pbuh, the last messenger of Allah.
Shameful indeed!!!
We see this pattern revived again in the painful events of the martyrdom of Imam Hassan ibn Ali and Imam Hussain ibn Ali a.s as well. These zalims did not spare majority of the descendants of Ali a.s. There hatred towards Ali from day was as clear and as bright as the shining sun on a cloudless day. What standards do you use to measure such horrible incidents? Does any sane person think that one can come up with a nonsensical, ludicrous excuse to cover up all these well documented facts in Sunni history and ahadith in order to paint a rosy picture of history of Islam? (Especially when these reports are not reported by one but many Sunni scholars and historians!)
Of course you cannot choose to ignore all this mayhem, chaos and disturbing reporting from a large spectrum of old/classical sunni historians/muhaddiths/mufassirs, unless you are a real ignorant self-serving person who has lost not just one but all his six senses! The hadiths, events and incidents speak for themselves! and from multiple Sunni sources (eg: narrators,authors, historians, mufassirs, muhadiths, etc). As long as the lies are not exposed and the history not unfolded, the truth shall not come to the eyes, heart or the mind of a genuine truth seeker.
A very common and usual scenario you face, while talking to majority of the sunni brothers and sisters is their complete lack of knowledge in history of Islam or literature of Hadith viz a viz its qualitative analysis. You will often find them shocked at many things even if you quote them from their so-called Sihah Sittah hadith books, let alone any others. They are so hard and blind in their inherited beliefs that they would reject even the most accurate hadith or historical event that might exist in even tens of sunni hadith, tafseer or hadith books. This is a general attitude, which they have developed and inherited as part of the process of hardcore regime, and mullah sponsored information-vaccination. This is the byproduct of hundreds of years of blind indoctrination in the name of Islam. It precisely is the major cause of blindness, deafness and dumbness in people. Precisely this is where violence, persecution and intolerance find most ideal grounds to breed and exactly that happened for the greater part in the Religion-Political History of Islam: namely, bloodshed, oppression, usurpation and tyranny in the name of Caliphate, Sunnah and Quran.
The refusal of accepting facts by a large portion of Ahlul Sunnah people (even though these facts are documented in the writings of their own classical historians, muhaddiths and scholars) demonstrates how great many of them have been deprived intellectually, abused mentally and blindfolded spiritually by the tyrannical dictatorial regimes and despotic tribes that ruled the lands of Islam for centuries and centuries and exploited the religion and blindly indoctrinated masses of people to cultivate a generation of self-serving and auto-replicating robot like people who would never listen or consider alternative opinion but would be ready to execute any opposer and would always play the same tune of "We are sunni, the saved sect, all others are kafir or all others will go to hell" over and over again; as taught, perfected and fed by their masters Muwaviya, Yazid, Haroon Rasheed and their descendants.
The reason why most Sunni elders, scholars or preachers refrain from discussing or debating on the vast repository of shameful historical events (which I have merely brushed as yet) in the history of Islam, is not incapability to do research or inaccessibility of material; but more so, it is because of their fear that a large number of truthseeking average Muslims might convert to some other school of thought, like shi'ism, after finding a large number of widely reported disgusting events and brutalities committed by some of the most infamous Sunni personalities and sahaba, against the immediate family and blood relations of the holy prophet pbuh and other fellow sahaba.
It is to protect these weak pillars of a so called strong Sunni-by-label -only-sect, that these proud arrogant and high pitched learned or elderly people are often found warning innocent truth seeking youth to refrain from finding out or debating on the ugly events in the history of Islam, e.g.: the wars which sahaba waged against each other; the cursing of sahaba for fellow sahabas; the exiling and executions of fellow sahabas by some of the most notable sahabas; the persecutions and tortures of sahabas towards fellow sahabas; the events surrounding the death (martyrdom) of the prophet pbuh and how he was called delirious and insane for wishing to write his will in paper by prominent sahaba; the events surrounding the martyrdom of imam Ali a.s and his two sons Imam Hassan a.s and Imam Hussain a.s; the highly moving events of the poisoning of al Hassan a.s and refusal of Ayesha and medinites to let him be buried next to his grandfather, the prophet pbuh and the showering of spears on his dead body/coffin; the massacre of the grandsons of Ali and prophet pbuh in a wholesale manner in karbala etc etc...The list goes on and on with each generation painted red with the blood and honor of the most pious and notable members of the holy prophet pbuhs family.
All these sins were done by the rulers to remain the kings, official priests and financial and political beneficiaries of Arabia. The foundation of this Jamaat, which claims to be Sunni by label (as if it has some copyright to this!), is based on lies, deception and double standards. Unfortunately it is this deception that its very own current day members (who are only Sunni because they were born one) do not know of and that is why when I speak against this Jama'at i mean no criticism to them. In my critique the finger is raised only at this Jama'at's actual innovators, creators, rulers, law makers, historical figures, political campaigners and scholars who lie despite knowing the truth. It is a Jamaa't which praises the liar, usurper, tyrant, oppressor on one hand with titles like razi allah ta'ala anho, imam, muhayyiuss sunnah, mohiyuddin, mujadid etc, while on the other hand it tries to be diplomatically shrewd by giving mere verbal praise to the usurped, oppressed and righteous as well. How clever! What an innovative way to not allow the truth seekers to reverse engineer the truth and how convenient to do all the crimes one can think of and then claim both the criminal and the victim as radi allah ta'alah anho. Subhan Allah, what a faith! No wonder that is why they call both Imam Ali a.s and Muwaviya the traitor and hypocrite as radi allah ta'ala anho even though they both fought not one but many battles against each other.
It is amazing how blind someone can become in his or her faith. Infact it is plain shocking that this Jama'at remains truly unmoved by the facts that are screaming from the annals of history. To them the blood of the martyrs is nothing and can be easily replaced by a single lie, which is in praise of muwaviya by none other but some muhadith sitting and fabricating hadith in his own Royal Court. How convenient! Astaghfirullah these criminals who fought Imam Ali a.s not once but many a times and launched propaganda against him and other people were busy attributing lies to the prophet pbuh in form of hadith in their hadith factories for decades. Yes, these were the places which later on served to be cradles for people like Abu Huraira, Ibn Umar, Abu Hanifa, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal etc etc ... these very royal courts of the Tyrant Umayyads (the descendants of Muwavia/Abu Sufiyan and Yazeed) and the Oppressive Abbasides (Haroon Rasheed and his descendants) were the arch enemies of the school of thought and people who associated from day one with Imam Ali a.s. They were the enemies of Imam Ali a.s from day one.
Like their forefathers Yazeed and Muwaviya fought battles in blood and sand with Hadrat Ali a.s and his sons, so did these abbasside and umayyads with the remaining descendants of Prophet pbuh/Ali a.s and their followers. The sons of the martyrs of karbala and the sons of their followers and enemies of the illegal self-declared Islamic dictatorial kingship were now called with dirty titles such as kafir, rafidi, lying shia or apostates etc...They were killed, tortured, persecuted and subjected to the fatwa and punishments of kufr by the most corrupt, promiscuous rulers in the courts of caliphs, ameers and kings. They were driven out of their homes and agonized and surely what goes in comes out similarly and the day is not far when this injustice will be reversed and the zalims will be treated similarly by the universal law of retribution.
This is the side of history that a sunni scholar would never dare to touch because his job is to precisely do what he is told: to just shout fatwas of kufr and then shout praises of radi allah ta'alah anho and then step down from the podium. Despite ugly blotches in their history of crimes (by their revered forefathers and progenitors of a newly-fabricated Sunnah attributed to prophet Mohammad pbuh), the group that came to be called as Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jam'at fought pitched battles and executions and persecutions against Ahlulbayt a.s and their descendants and ardent followers (shia). Yet ironically, they still praise the Ahlulbayt a.s; merely in a verbal parrot-like manner. This however is a practically meaningless and fruitless exercise because their fiqh/ teachings are neither derived from Ahlulbayt a.s nor is any of their imam, mufasir or muhadith from Ahlulbayt a.s. There mere calling "alayhis salam", "radi allah ta'ala anho" or "darood/salawat" is a hypocrite's game and this attitude is no different to that of a parrot who also merely recites words he does not understand nor knows what he is talking about. However, at least the parrot remains harmless and does not pretend he knows! The objective that the Sunnis historically achieved by using such verbal statements of respect and praise (which you find in today's Sunnis as part of belief via inheritance) was to be politically correct as apologetics and to be unblamable and diplomatic in the eyes of followers of all opposing factions that started erupting with the passage of time within their own so called Jama'at. These double standards and deceptions are proven and reinforced by the actions and actual treatment of many of their revered figures in history towards the Ahlulbayt a.s, the holy purified progeny of Mohammad pbuh and of course the details on that shall be saved for a future article/booklet.
The preamble to this article must end here for brevity and for the sake of moving onto the main topic of this article, which revolves around Abdullah Ibn Umar (the son of the second Caliph of Sunnis) and the detailed analysis of his role in Islam. It was very important to describe the whole scenario explained above and set the stage by giving a brief preamble. This preamble shall enable the reader to benefit even more from the facts that I shall report below and quote extensively from both the Quran and well referenced / infamous Sunni Hadith and History sources. Furthermore, this preamble should also, hopefully, motivate a lot of enlightened and truth seeking open-minded/unbiased people to inquire and research more about the many points and topics touched very briefly up till now. Inshallah, I shall by writing separate articles and booklets on each one of these issues/events (mentioned above) in order to leave no ambiguity or stone unturned. Now it is time to move onto the main topic:
Abdullah ibn Umar
He is one of the famous sahaba who played a major role in shaping the events that took place during the reign of the third sunni caliph, Osman bin Affan, as well as that of Banu Umayyah. Suffices him the fact that his father was Umar ibn al-Khattab to be glorified and loved by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" who consider Abdullah ibn Umar as one of the greatest faqihs and of all those who learned the "Prophet's ahadith." Even Imam Malik , the father of sunni maliki school of thought, relies on him in deducting most of his ahkam, filling his book Al-Muwatta' with his traditions. And if we turn the pages of the books of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," we will find them referring to him quite often, full of his praise.
Yet if we read the same that with researchers' discerning eyes, it will become clear to us that he was far from being just or truthful; rather, he was distant from the Prophet's Sunnah, from fiqh, and from the Shari`a.
Our first observation will be his extreme enmity and hatred towards the master of the Prophet's Progeny, Commander of the Faithful Ali ibn Abu Talib: he went as far as instigating others against him and regarded him as a commoner.
We have already indicated that he circulated many false ahadith, the gist of which is that the sahaba during the lifetime of the Prophet used to compare each one of them with the other in the presence of the Prophet heard, saying that the best of people was Abu Bakr then Umar then Uthman, then people after the latter were all alike, and that the Prophet used to hear all of this comparison without denying it.
This is a blatant lie derided by any rational person. We researched the life of Abdullah ibn Umar during the Prophet's lifetime, and we found out that he was too young to reach adolescence. He had no influence whatsoever among those who had a say, nor was his view taken into consideration. The Messenger of Allah died when Abdullah ibn Umar was, according to the best estimates, nineteen years old; so, how could he have said that they (the sahaba) used to compare each one of them with the other? This could only be children gossiping among themselves, the children of Abu Bakr, Uthman, in addition to his own brothers.
Nevertheless, it cannot be right to say that the Prophet was listening to such comparison without voicing his objection to it. This proves that this "tradition" is false and is indicative of ill intentions. Add to the above the fact that the Prophet never permitted Abdullah ibn Umar to accompany him during his battles with the exception of the Battle of the Moat (khandaq) and the other campaigns that followed it, when Abdullah was fifteen years old [Ref: 218]
There is no doubt that he was present at the Battle of Khaybar which took place in 7 A.H./628 A.D. and saw with his own eyes how both Abu Bakr and his father fled from the battle field. He undoubtedly heard the Messenger of Allah saying, "I shall give the standard tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger and who is loved by Allah and His Messenger, a brave one who attacks and never flees, a man the conviction of whose heart Allah has ascertained." When it was morning, he gave it to the one who terminated the pleasure of those who indulged therein, who dispersed the groups, who dispelled the clouds of calamities, who was adorned with graces, the ever-victorious Lion of Allah Ali ibn Abu Talib. [Ref: 219]
The tradition of the standard referred to above clearly highlights Ali's merits and superiority over all other sahaba. It demonstrates his status with Allah and His Messenger and his having won the love of Allah and His Messenger. Because of his hatred towards Ali, Abdullah ibn Umar regarded Ali as one of the commoners! We have already indicated that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" acted upon this tradition which their master Abdullah ibn Umar inspired to them, so they did not rank Ali ibn Abu Talib among the righteous caliphs. No, they did not do that, nor did they even recognize his caliphate except during the time of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (as we will prove in a future article with complete sunni references). They were exposed when traditions and traditionists became quite numerous, and when fingers were pointed at them accusing them of being Nasibis and of hating the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet, and when all Muslims came to know that hating Ali was one of the most obvious signs of hypocrisy. It was then that they felt compelled to recognize Ali's caliphate. It was only then that they added his name to the list of the "righteous caliphs." It was only then that they pretended, being pretentious and perfidious, to love Ahl al-Bayt.
We wish there had been someone to ask Ibn Umar the following question: "Why did all, or most of, Muslims after the demise of the Prophet dispute about who deserved most to be the caliph and narrowed their dispute to only Ali and Abu Bakr, and why neither your father [Umar ibn al-Khattab] nor Uthman ibn Affan had any popularity at that time?"
Was there anyone to ask the son of Umar ibn al-Khattab, "If the Prophet agreed with your view that nobody was the peer of Abu Bakr then Umar then Uthman, then why did he two days before his death choose a young man who grew no beard nor a moustache to be their leader, ordering them to march under his order and command? Was he then hallucinating, as your father described him of doing?"
We wish someone had asked Abdullah ibn Umar this question: "Why did the Muhajirun and the Ansars, having witnessed Abu Bakr swearing his oath of loyalty to Fatima al-Zahra, say to her: `By Allah! Had your husband and cousin come to us before Abu Bakr, we would not have equated him with any man at all,' which is an admission from the most prominent of the sahaba that they did not equate Ali with anyone else, had they not already sworn their oath of allegiance to him, an oath which they later called a mistake?" What is the value of the view of Abdullah ibn Umar, the conceited teenager who did not know how to divorce his wife, compared to that of such prominent sahaba? Finally, was there anyone to ask Abdullah ibn Umar, "Why did not the sahaba choose Ali ibn Abu Talib to be their caliph after Umar's murder and prefer him over Uthman, had it not been for his own refusal of the condition put forth by Abel-Rahman ibn Awf that he had to rule them according to the "Sunnah" of both shaykhs?" [Ref: 220]
.
But Abdullah ibn Umar was influenced by his father. He lived during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, and he noticed how Ali ibn Abu Talib was kept at bay, having no place among the ruling group nor any government post, with the people turning away from him after the death of his cousin and wife, the Leader of all Women, having had no material gains to attract people thereby.
Undoubtedly, Abdullah ibn Umar was the closest person to his father. He used to listen to his views, and he knew his friends and foes; hence, he grew up nurtured in hatred, grudge and animosity towards Ali in particular and Ahl al-Bayt in general. Once he saw Ali receiving the oath of allegiance from the Muhajirun and Ansar following Uthman's murder, and he could not tolerate it. He, then, revealed his hidden animosity and refused to swear the oath of allegiance to the Imam of the righteous and the wali of the faithful. He could no longer tolerate living in Medina, so he left it for Mecca pretending to perform the `umra.
Then we see Abdullah ibn Umar doing all he could do to discourage people and dissuade them from
Supporting the truth or fighting the oppressive group the fighting of which was ordered by Allah Himself till it reverted to His command. He, therefore, was among the earliest to betray the Imam of his time whom he was required to obey.
Once Imam Ali was killed, and Mu`awiyah attained victory over Imam al-Hasan ibn Ali, thus usurping the caliphate from him, Mu`awiyah delivered a speech to people in which he said, "I did not fight you so that you may pray or fast or perform the pilgrimage; rather, I fought you in order to take charge of you, and Allah has given me just that."
We then see Abdullah ibn Umar racing to swear the oath of allegiance to Mu`awiyah under the pretext that people were united in accepting his leadership after their disunity! I think it was he who named that year "Am al-jama`ah," year of the group, for he and his group of Banu Umayyah became "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" and will remain so till the time of the Hour.
Was there anyone to ask Abdullah ibn Umar and those who held his views from "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a": "Had there ever been any consensus in history such as the one attained for the Commander of the Faithful Ali ibn Abu Talib?" Abu Bakr's caliphate was "a mistake whose evil Allah shunned," [Ref: 221] and it was boycotted by a large number of the sahaba. Umar's caliphate was by recommendation; rather, it was a promise granted by Abu Bakr, and the sahaba had neither view, nor say, nor anything else to do with it. And Uthman's caliphate was achieved through a committee of three persons selected by Umar; rather, it was due to Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf forcing his own view over the rest.
As for Ali's caliphate, it was done through the voluntary and peaceful oath of allegiance of the Muhajirun and the Ansar; he wrote all Islamic domains asking those in charge of them to grant him their oath of allegiance, which they all did with the exception of Mu`awiyah in Syria. [Ref: 222]
What Ibn Umar and "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" were supposed to do was to kill Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan for declaring his mutiny and demanding the caliphate for himself according to the narrations, which they themselves have recorded in their Sahih books. One of these traditions states that the Messenger of Allah said, "If two caliphs receive oaths of allegiance, one after the other, you should kill the second." [Ref: 223]
He has also said, as recorded in Muslim's Sahih and in other books of hadith, "Whoever swears the oath of allegiance to an Imam, shakes his hand, and grants him his heart, let him grant him his all, but if another person comes to dispute with him, you should kill the latter." [Ref: 224]
But Abdullah ibn Umar did exactly the opposite: Instead of acting upon the Prophet's tradition, submit to his orders, fight and kill Mu`awiyah for having contested the caliph of the Muslims and lit the fire of dissension, he, we find out, refused to swear the oath of allegiance despite the Muslims' consensus in its regard. Instead, he swore it to Mu`awiyah who declared his mutiny, who disputed with the Imam and killed a number of innocent people, causing dissension the aftermath of which lingers till our time.
For this reason, I think that Abdullah ibn Umar was Mu`awiyah's accomplice in all the crimes and sins the latter had committed because he erected his authority and assisted him in forcing people to accept it, and in his confiscation of the caliphate which Allah and His Messenger decreed to be out of the each of the promiscuous and the sons of the promiscuous according to the sacred hadith.
Abdullah ibn Umar was not satisfied with doing all of that, so he rushed to swear the oath of allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah, the Yazid of wines, corruption, and apostasy, the promiscuous son of the promiscuous father, the cursed one and the son of the accursed.
Since Umar ibn al-Khattab, according to Ibn Sa`d who discusses him in his Tabaqat, used to say, "Caliphate is not suitable for a promiscuous person, nor for the son of a promiscuous person, nor for those who accept Islam after being vanquished," [Ref: 225] then how did Abdullah contradict his own father with regard to this principle which he himself had recorded? If Abdullah ibn Umar thus contradicted the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger with regard to the issue of caliphate, we will not then be surprised to find him doing the opposite of what his father had stated.
We would like to ask Abdullah ibn Umar this question: "What consensus was there with regard to swearing the oath of allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah from whom the righteous in the nation and the remnants of the Muhajirun and Ansar, including the master of the youths of Paradise Imam al-Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Abbas, and all those who kept them company and shared their views, dissociated themselves?"
What is well known is the fact that he himself used to be among those who in the beginning denounced Yazid receiving the oath of allegiance, but Mu`awiyah knew how to win him over: He sent him one hundred thousand dirhams which he accepted as a gift. When it was mentioned to him that the sender was soliciting his oath of allegiance to his son Yazid, he said, "Is this what he wanted? My creed, then, must be quite cheap..." [Ref: 226]
Yes, Abdullah ibn Umar sold his creed very cheaply as he himself admitted. He ran away from having to swear it to the Imam of the righteous but rushed to swear it to the leader of oppressors Mu`awiyah, then to the leader of the fornicators Yazid, thus bearing on his shoulders the burdens of the crimes omitted by Mu`awiyah's oppressive government. He, no doubt, carried the burdens of Yazid's crimes on his head for violating the sanctity of the Messenger of Allah and for killing the fragrant flower, the master of the youths of Paradise and of the Progeny of the Prophet, together with the righteous among the sons of the nation whom he killed in Karbala in the Battle of the Harra.
Abdullah ibn Umar was not satisfied with this much of the oath of allegiance to Yazid, so he pressured people to follow in his footsteps, terrorizing anyone who contemplated doing otherwise.
Al-Bukhari in his Sahih and other compilers of hadith state that Abdullah ibn Umar gathered his offspring, servants, and slaves when the people of Medina rejected Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah and said to them, "We swore the oath of allegiance to this man acting upon swearing it to Allah and His Messenger [Ref: 227] and I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying, `One who betrays will have a standard erected for him on the Day of Judgment, and it will be said to him: This is the betrayal of so-and-so,' and the worst type of betrayal, after associating someone with Allah, is one who swears the oath of allegiance to Allah and His Messenger then betrays it, [Ref:228] and none of you should unseat Yazid, nor should anyone among you see such unseating as honorable, else something tragic should happen between me and him." [Ref: 229]
Continued ....
PART 2
Categories:
English
17 comments:
all wrong....
Ok if this is wrong it means this hadith above from sahih bukhari is wrong, then leave such a book which is not 'sahih'.
How far have u gone in ur love for Umar and Ibn Umar that u r now denying the facts found in ur 'sahih' bukhari!!!
dont blame us, all the references r from ur books.
Abdullah ibn Umar supported Husayn ibn Ali. Stop slandering him even if it is from Bukhari. Do not drag his name down as they have done.
So All this just to prove your point? Why not leave biased view and accept the truth that Yazeed was not the killer of Hussain (May Allaah be pleased with him) but some of his army leaders were the culprits. You should respect Ibn Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) and do justice.
Why not leave biased view and accept the truth that Yazeed was not the killer of Hussain (May Allaah be pleased with him) but some of his army leaders were the culprits. You should respect Ibn Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) and do justice.
I hope you dont want to propagate that Ibn Umar and all other companions were also involved and that only you and you like minded are right. If thats the case then you will never accept that commander of yazeed's militant group was involved in killing.
I dont understand why u people are so adamant to protect Yazid ( the accursed ) in spite of clear proofs from the history books which indicate that Yazid had given clear instructions to his commanders to either extract pledge of allegiance from Imam Hussain(AS) or kill him.
Did Yazid punished Shimr, Ibn Ziyad and Omar e Saad for their crimes if he had not ordered them to kill Imam(AS).
Yazid's crimes did not stopped after killing Imam Hussain(AS). He ordered his soldiers to attack Medina and event of Harra took place where thousands of people including many companions of Prophet(SAWA) were killed. His soldiers also attacked Kaaba after the attack on Medina.
What do you say Mr. Anonymous about all these crimes of Yazid(the accursed) ????
Shame on you Muslims for supporting Yazid - the killer of Imam Hussain(AS)
Assalamoalaikum,
I am amazed by the research work done .
We need to understand few things very clearly.
1-Humans are living under different classifications and cinditions
2-History books have facts of different perspective and conditions too.
3-Outcomes are those in which masses are living with a common perspective.
4-Who is creating hatred and misunderstandings more.
5-Who is agitating others for violence?
6-Who is making Islam,struggle of Holy Prophet PBUH and his comapanions and progeny invane and unsuccessful.
7-Who is taking charge and becoming the judge of actions of others ?
..
...
Shites are people who said they are right.
They mocked Hazrat AbdUllah ibn Umar for doing so and so.
So now what we can do
I am a Sunni and I believe the final outcomes
We sunnis love Hazrat Ali
am I a Shite?
Why i am not following Hazrat AbdUllah Ibn e Umar?
The i noticed that my Questions have answers?
If Hazrat Aqeel brother of hazrat Ali can fight Hazrat ali in Badr or taking side of Hazrat Muawia in Jang-e-Siffin.
When Hazrat AbdUllah ibn Umar mocked Yazid for KARBALA tragedy.
When Due to Hazrat AbdUllahs Wife Mukhtar gor released from Yazid prison
When Hazrat Zain took oath to Yazid
When Hazrat Imam Hasan and Hazrat Imam Hussain took oath to Hazrat Muawiah
When Hazrat Ali forgave Marwan many times
SO many other facts.
now people love sahabas and ahle bait .So our shite brothers have facts in historocal books.
ok then live in history .
believe in the incidental and connectionless facts.
and agitate people.
Why people on other side of Jamal,Siffin not cursing Hazrat Ali as many were killed there too.
Why in sunnis mosques we are not following Hazrat Muawih tradition of cursing HAZRAT ALI.
Now the hidden agenda.
Islam was fruitless.
muslims have no true believe.
so ok let us convert to shite
then we read their internal history
who to follow
Hazrat Ziad fivers
Hazrat Ismail
Bohris
Alawi
How we satisfy ourselves
Why after killings of ancestors Hazrat Ali Raza was with Mamon and married his daughter.
....
...
Now make islam a complicated matter for all
so after beliving that will your heart practice any thing ar read Quran.
OK OK waait
wait for Imam Mehdi
he will bring the real Quran.
And hang so and so..
Now AbdUllah Ibn Saba is successful
wow
nice website
keep it up
Have we got all he facts to give our best judgements.
Mr. Ubaidullah Saleem,
Wa alaikum assalaam,
I read your comments and found that you are not sure about some of the historical facts and are also confused about reasons behind some of the events in early islamic history.
I would advice you to read in depth the islamic history and find out the conclusion yourself. What I understood after reading your comments is that you are still affected by the sayings of your scholars against shias. I am surprised by your conclusion that we are spreading hatred. Have you ever seen sunnis killed by shias???. History is full of details about the killings and oppressions on shias just because we disliked some of the companions of Prophet(SAWA) for their wrong deeds and we love the progeny of Prophet and take our deen from them. I request to study the beliefs of Shias in details and better contact some educated shias and ask them the reasons for their beliefs. Definitely u would get a satisfactory reply.
Some of the points quoted by you are absolutely wrong and cannot be proved.
1. Where did u find Hazrat Aqeel fighting the Prophet(SAWA) in Badr ????
2.God forbid, Shias do not mock any Companion. What we have quoted are found in several of sunni and shia books.
3. You said you love Hazrat Ali, Good, right !! Tell me how many traditions are there in your Sihah e Sitta from 'Gate of Knowledge' - Hazrat Ali(AS). What kind of love is this that your books contain so less traditions( Ahadiths) from Ahlul Bayt ???
4.Where have your find Hazrat Hasan(AS) and Hazrat Hussain(AS) taking oath of Muawiya(may Allah curse him for cursing Hazrat Ali(AS))???
5. There was a treaty signed between Imam Hasan(AS) and Muawiya like the treaty of Hudaybiya between Prophet(SAWA) and Kuffars.
6. Where did u find Hazrat Ali (AS) forgiving Marwan ???. If Hazrat Ali did not take revenge from someone doesnt proves that he has forgiven that guy.
7.We shias are not living in history. We are scrutinizing the historical facts to find out who we should follow after Prophet(SAWA) and from whom we should take our deen. That is the reason research is necessary to know the correct islamic beliefs and Sharia.
8. Interesting you are admitting that Muawiya use to curse Hazrat Ali(AS), still using 'Hazrat' before his name.
9. Ask your Scholars why they are defending Muawiya - the bitterest enemy of Alhul Bayt??
10.Where did you find Hazrat Imam Reza with the maamoon ? Go and study the history properly. The vicegerency was imposed on Imam Reza(AS).
11. Yes wait for Imam Mahdi. He will get the same Quran but a complete one with the tafseer of each and every ayat written by Hazrat Ali(AS) - which was not accepted by Umar and Abu Bakr.
12. When he comes, we will see whome he will hang, u need not worry ....
13. Abdullah ibn saba is a myth and propoganda done by the early sunnis against shias.
14. Our scholars have proved each and everything but unfortunately u dont listen.
15. Only Shia asna Ashri ( twelvers) are the followers of the progeny of prophet(SAWA). Other sects got deviated from the main stream and are in minority.
visit the link to know about this myth
http://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/abdullah-ibn-saba-part-1
I appreciate your hard work but pity that it is not in the right direction..
Our site is for spreading awareness and not to spread hatred among muslims.
Just shun the actions of Umar, Abu Bakr, Muawiya, Yazid and be a true follower of Prophet(SAWA) and his Ahlul Bayt.
well people in 2015 are making judgments for the people specially selected by Allah and his messenger PBUH. shamefully you people are arguing ILME GHAYB of prophet. it seems like prophet never knew to whom he should get married or for whom he should make pray to accept Islam.
Lol so unlucky you shias are. Stop claiming yourself the follwer of Ahlul Bayt. EVIL MINDS.
well people in 2015 are making judgments for the people specially selected by Allah and his messenger PBUH. shamefully you people are arguing ILME GHAYB of prophet. it seems like prophet never knew to whom he should get married or for whom he should make pray to accept Islam.
Lol so unlucky you shias are. Stop claiming yourself the follwer of Ahlul Bayt. EVIL MINDS.
Mr. Ehtesham Naqvi,
Your munafeqat is proved by the fact that you are using a Shia Sayyed name to post a message to malign Shias !!!!!
If u are really a Shia you would have not asked this question....!!!!
This shows how hypocrite you r !!!
U should be ashamed of yourself that talking senseless !!!!!
Tell me DId Prophet Nuh and Prophet Loot did not know to whom they were marrying ?????. Then why Allah has criticized these prophet's wives in Quran.?????? Allah had called the wives of these Prophet as jahannami becoz of their Kufr...
So mr.. first go and read Quran and then blame shias. Shias are not fool and they really love Ahle Bayt.
Features and Consequences of the Battle
The battle of Badr was remarkable in more ways than one. It demonstrated the great devotion of the disciples to the cause and their complete faith in the Prophet and his mission. Ranged before them in the Mencan ranks were many of their close relatives, their own sons, fathers, or uncles. Thus, the Prophet's uncle 'Abbas, 'Ali's brother 'Aqil, Abu Bakr's son, Hudhaifa's father and 'Umar's maternal uncle, to name a few, figured in the Meccan army. Yet the disciples never faltered. Personal feelings and sentiments were subordinated to the supreme cause. Such was the material from which Islam arose. The battle also proved that mere numerical superiority and matching valor are of no avail if the cause is not righteous. God helps those who make sacrifices in His cause.
The battle of Badr had far-reaching consequences. Till then, the Muslims were a harassed band avoiding any major conflict. This victory gave them confidence in their physical power. They could now meet force with force. They were soon recognized as a power to be reckoned with and smaller tribes were cautioned against joining forces against them.
This victory dealt a severe blow to the prestige of the Quraish. A number of their chiefs, such as Abu Jahl, 'Utbah, Shaibah, Zam'ah, 'Aas ibn Hisham, and Umayyah ibn Khalaf had been killed and, consequently, Abu Sufyan became their undisputed chieftain. 'Abdullah ibn Ubay and his oscillating followers professed Islam, though in name only, and as munafiqun (hypocrites), they were always a source of danger. The Jews of Medina and its vicinity were alarmed at the new power that had emerged. Their enmity towards the Muslims, however, did not abate, and a Jewish tribe, Banu Qinaqa', had to be punished not long after Badr as will be discussed later. The ignominy of the defeat made the Meccans more bitter and furious and the cry of "Revenge!" was on all lips.
Features and Consequences of the Battle
The battle of Badr was remarkable in more ways than one. It demonstrated the great devotion of the disciples to the cause and their complete faith in the Prophet and his mission. Ranged before them in the Mencan ranks were many of their close relatives, their own sons, fathers, or uncles. Thus, the Prophet's uncle 'Abbas, 'All's brother 'Aqil, Abu Bakr's son, Hudhaifa's father and 'Umar's maternal uncle, to name a few, figured in the Meccan army. Yet the disciples never faltered. Personal feelings and sentiments were subordinated to the supreme cause. Such was the material from which Islam arose. The battle also proved that mere numerical superiority and matching valor are of no avail if the cause is not righteous. God helps those who make sacrifices in His cause.
The battle of Badr had far-reaching consequences. Till then, the Muslims were a harassed band avoiding any major conflict. This victory gave them confidence in their physical power. They could now meet force with force. They were soon recognized as a power to be reckoned with and smaller tribes were cautioned against joining forces against them.
This victory dealt a severe blow to the prestige of the Quraish. A number of their chiefs, such as Abu Jahl, 'Utbah, Shaibah, Zam'ah, 'Aas ibn Hisham, and Umayyah ibn Khalaf had been killed and, consequently, Abu Sufyan became their undisputed chieftain. 'Abdullah ibn Ubay and his oscillating followers professed Islam, though in name only, and as munafiqun (hypocrites), they were always a source of danger. The Jews of Medina and its vicinity were alarmed at the new power that had emerged. Their enmity towards the Muslims, however, did not abate, and a Jewish tribe, Banu Qinaqa', had to be punished not long after Badr as will be discussed later. The ignominy of the defeat made the Meccans more bitter and furious and the cry of "Revenge!" was on all lips.
https://www.al-islam.org/life-muhammad-prophet-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/battles#features-and-consequences-battle
JAnabe Aqil did come with the Meccan Army.....Reason was ,he was forced to go by the Meccan....Secondly It was long time he did not see his cousin Muhammed sawa and son Ali...Seeing this an opportunity Aqeel joined the Meccan Army...Did you see in the history any active participation of Aqeel in Badr or his opposition for prophet sawa ???
Dear Obaidullah Saleem......
On the day of Badr, when Aqeel was taken as prisoner...Umar wanted Ali ( as) to kill Aqeel
The only aim of Umar was to assure that Aqeel may be killed, although the Messenger of Allah (S) had announced at the beginning of the battle and that no one from Bani Hashim should be killed, because they have not taken part in the battle at their own choice. Such courage is surprising against the prisoners who were tied up while Umar did not display any valor during battles and he did not slay a single infidel.
Ref : https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol-2-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/greater-battle-badr
Post a Comment
براہ مہربانی شائستہ زبان کا استعمال کریں۔ تقریبا ہر موضوع پر 'گمنام' لوگوں کے بہت سے تبصرے موجود ہیں. اس لئےتاریخ 20-3-2015 سے ہم گمنام کمینٹنگ کو بند کر رہے ہیں. اس تاریخ سے درست ای میل اکاؤنٹس کے ضریعے آپ تبصرہ کر سکتے ہیں.جن تبصروں میں لنکس ہونگے انہیں فوراً ہٹا دیا جائے گا. اس لئے آپنے تبصروں میں لنکس شامل نہ کریں.
Please use Polite Language.
As there are many comments from 'anonymous' people on every subject. So from 20-3-2015 we are disabling 'Anonymous Commenting' option. From this date only users with valid E-mail accounts can comment. All the comments with LINKs will be removed. So please don't add links to your comments.