Monday, August 29, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
ام کلثوم ابو بکر کی بیٹی
حضرت ابو بکر کی طرح حضرت عائشہ اورحضرت عمر کے درمیان وسیع تعلقات کا قائم ہونااس احتمال کے قوی ہونے پر مزید دلالت کرتا ہے۔ عمر ی موصلی اور عمر رضا کحالہ نے بھی اس واقعہ کو اپنی کتابوں میں نقل کیا ہے ۔۲#
پس معلوم ہونا چاہئے کہ یہ دو ام کلثوم ہیں ایک مادر عبداللہ ابن عمر اور دوسری ابو بکر کی لڑکی ۔ ان دونوں کا رابطہ عمر سے سبب بنا کہ لوگ مشکوک ہو کر سمجھ بیٹھے کہ ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام کی شادی عمر سے ہوئی جب کہ ایسا نہیں ہے ۔ ۳#
--------------------------------
۱۔ابن قتیبہ ؛ المعارف ص ۱۷۵۔
۲۔عمر موصلی؛الروضة الفیحاء فی تواریخ النساء ص/ ۳۰۳۔ عمر رضا کحا لہ؛ اعلام النساء ج /۴ ،ص/ ۲۵۰
۳۔ فرید سائل۔ افسانہ ازدواج (بررسی ازدواج حضرت ام کلثوم با عمر در مدرک شیعہ و سنی) ص/۲۰و۲۲
بعض موٴرخین نے زید بن عمر کی ماں ام کلثوم بنت جردل خزاعی لکھا ہے ۔لہٰذا اسم کے مشابہ ہونے کی وجہ سے ام کلثوم بنت علی ﷼ لکھ دیا گیا ، چنانچہ طبری کہتے ہےں : زید اصغر اور عبیدالله(جو جنگ صفین میں مارے گئے تھے ) کی ماں ام کلثوم بنت جردل خزاعی تھی ، جس کے درمیان اسلام نے عمر سے جدائی کروادی تھی۔ ۱# اکثر موٴرخین ام کلثوم بنت جردل اور عمر کے درمیان شادی زمانہ جاہلیت میں جانتے ہیں ۔۲#بعض کا کہنا ہے کہ یہ ام کلثوم بنت عقبہ بن معیط تھی۔ بعض تاریخ سے یہ ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ یہ ام کلثوم بنت
عاصم تھی ۔
ماحصل
اگر ہم نفسیاتی اور عقلی طور پر اس واقعہ کے منفی ہونے پر نظر ڈالیں توحسب ذیل باتوں سے اس کی تائید ہوتی ہے:
۱) ۔ ام کلثوم اسی فاطمہ بنت رسول کے بطن سے تھیں جن سے عقد کرنے
--------------------------------
۱۔تاریخ طبری ج /۳، ص /۲۶۹، کامل ابن اثیر ج /۳، ص /۲۸۔
۲۔الاصابہ ج /۴، ص /۴۹۱۔ صفوة الصفوة، ص /۱۱۶۔ تاریخ المدینہ المنورة، ج/۲، ص/ ۶۵۹۔
کی خواہش پر عمر کو دربار رسالت سے جواب مل چکا تھا ، لہٰذا جس فعل کو رسول نے فاطمہ ﷼ کے لئے مناسب نہ سمجھا علی ﷼ان کی بیٹی کے لئے کس طرح اسے مناسب سمجھیں گے؟
۲)۔ ام کلثوم اسی ماں کی بیٹی تھیں جو جیتے جی عمر سے ناراض رہیں اور مرتے دم بھی وصیت کر گئیں کہ وہ ان کے جنازے میں شریک نہ ہوں ، کیا حضرت علی علیہ السلام اس بات سے غافل تھے کہ اگر ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے کردی تو فاطمہ ﷼ کی روح کے لئے یہ رشتہ تازیانہ ثابت نہ ہوگی؟
۳)۔ جیسا کہ ہم نے گزشتہ بحث میں عرض کیا کہ ام کلثوم اور عمر کے سن میں زمین وآسمان کا فرق تھا، نیز روایت کے مطابق ام کلثوم کی شادی ان کے چچا زاد بھائی سے پہلے ہی طے ہوچکی تھی،توپھر ان دونوں باتوں کو مد نظر رکھتے ہوئے حضرت علی علیہ السلام عمرسے شادی کر نے کے لئے کیسے راضی ہوگئے؟
۴ )۔ اگر ہم حضرت علی علیہ السلام اور عمرکے درمیان تعلقات پر غور کریں تو اس بات کا فیصلہ کرنا آسان ہوجاتا ہے، کیونکہ رسول کی وفات کے بعد سے ہی حضرت علی ﷼ اور عمرکے درمیان تنازع شروع ہوگیا تھا یہاں تک کہ آپ کے گلے میں رسی کا پھندہ ڈالنے والے عمر تھے ، خلافت کا رخ عمرکی وجہ سے اپنے محور سے منحرف ہوا ،فاطمہ﷼ کا پہلو عمر نے شکستہ کیا ،شکم مادر میں محسن کی شہادت عمر کی وجہ سے ہوئی،ان تمام باتوں کے ہوتے ہوئے کیا حضرت علی علیہ السلام کے بارے میں کوئی انسان سوچ بھی سکتا ہے کہ آپ راضی و خوشی اپنی بیٹی عمر سے بیاہ دیں گے ؟!
۵)۔ بعض لوگوں کا یہ کہنا کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام نے عمر سے خوف زدہ ہوکر ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے کردی تھی ، تو یہ بات وہی حضرات کہہ سکتے ہیں جو تاریخ اسلام کا مطالعہ نہیں رکھتے ، جس کی تیغ کا لوہا بدر و احد ، خبیرو خندق کے بڑے بڑے شہسوار اور سورما مان چکے ہوں وہ ان للو پنجو لوگوںسے ڈر کر اپنا سارا وقار خاک میں ملاکر بیٹی سے شادی کردےں گے ! حیرت ہے ایسی عقلوں اور سوج بوجھ پر !
البتہ مسئلہ خلافت پر صبر کرتے ہوئے تلوار کا نہ اٹھاناایک دوسری بات ہے ، کیونکہ نبی اکرم کی وصیت تھی کہ علی ﷼اس سلسلہ میں تم صبر کرنا ،اگر علی ﷼ اس موقع پر صبر نہ کرتے اور تلوار اٹھا لیتے تو بہت سے ایسے افراد جو ابھی نئے نئے مسلمان ہوئے تھے اسلام سے پلٹ جاتے ،اور مسلمان اپنی خانہ جنگی کے شکار ہو جاتے ، جس کے نتیجہ میں خارجی طاقتیں اسلام پر غالب ہوجاتیں اور اسلام کا شیرازہ بکھر جاتا، لیکن جہاں تک ام کلثوم کی شادی کا مسئلہ ہے تو اس میں آپ کیوں کسی سے خوف کھاتے ؟یہ کوئی دین اسلام کی نابودی کا مسئلہ تو تھا نہیں کہ اگر آپ ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے نہ کرتے تو عمر جنگ پرآجاتے جس کے نتیجہ میں مسلمانوں کے درمیان تمام نہ ہونے والی جنگ شروع ہو جاتی !اور جب اس جنگ کے کوئی اسباب دریافت کرتا تو یہ کہا جاتا کہ یہ جنگ عمر کی شادی نہ ہونے کی وجہ سے ہوئی !!اور پھر کیا حضرت عمر بھی اس بات کو سوچ رہے ہوں گے کہ اگر شادی نہ ہوئی تو جنگ کریں گے، ہم اس بات کو بعید از عقل سمجھتے ہےں کہ عمر ایک بچی سے شادی کرنے کے لئے اتنا ہلڑ ہنگامہ پسند کرتے !!
لہٰذا جو لوگ عمر سے محبت کا دعوی کرتے ہیں ان سے گزارش ہے کہ اس قضیہ کو طول دے کر برائے خدا ان کی مزید توہین نہ کریں،علامہ سبط ابن جوزی بڑے سمجھدار نکلے کہ انھوں نے اپنے دادا کی بات کو رد کرتے ہوئے فوراً لکھ دیا کہ اس واقعہ سے عمر کی فضیلت نہیں بلکہ ان کی منقصت
ہوتی ہے ۔
۶) ۔ کچھ روایتوں میں آیا ہے کہ اس شادی میں عمر نے چالیس ہزار درہم مہر رکھا تھا، یہ پہلو بھی عمر کی تنقیص پر دلالت کرتا ہے،کیونکہ اہل سنت کا ہر فرد اس بات کو جانتا ہے کہ عمرنے فقیرانہ زندگی میں خلافت کی چکی چلائی ہے ، آپ کی تنخواہ ایک معمولی انسان کے برابر تھی ، چنانچہ تاریخ ابن خلدون میں آیا ہے: عمر کے کپڑوں میں ہمیشہ پیوند لگے ہوتے تھے، آپ کی قمیص میں ستر پیوند تھے ، اسی طرح ایک مرتبہ آپ نماز عید پڑھانے نکلے تو جوتوں میں کئی پیوند لگے ہوئے تھے، ایک مرتبہ گھر سے باہر نہیں نکلے معلوم کرنے پر پتہ چلا کہ ان کے پاس کپڑے نہیں تھے ، اور آپ کے تہہ بند میں ۱۲ پیوند لگے ہوئے تھے۔
ان تمام باتوں پر غور کرنے سے پتہ چلتا ہے کہ چالیس ہزار درہم مہر کی روایت من گھڑت اور جعلی ہے، اس کا حقیقت سے کوئی سرو کا رنہیں ہے ، ممکن ہے یہ روایت دشمنان اسلام کی جانب سے اسلامی راہنماؤں کی توہین کی خاطر سوچے سمجھے پروپیگنڈے کی ایک کڑی ہو۔
اہم واقعہ اہل سنت کی اہم کتابوں نہیں!!!
جناب ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے یہ واقعہ نہ تو صحیح بخاری میں ہے نہ صحیح مسلم میں ،حتی کسی بھی صحاح ستہ میں یہ واقعہ موجود نہیں ہے اور نہ ہی اہل سنت کی کسی بھی مشہور مسانید و معاجم میں اس قسم کی کوئی روایت موجود ہے ۔
یہاں پر جائے تعجب ہے کہ اگر ایسا ہوتا تو عمر کی خلافت محکم کرنے کے لئے ضرور اہل سنت کے علماء اپنی مشہور و معروف کتابوں میں تحریر فرماتے۔
اور یہ نا ممکن ہے کہ اتنے بڑے اور اہم واقعہ سے ان لوگوں نے غفلت کی ہو؟ پس معلوم ہوا کہ اس طرح کے واقعہ کی کوئی بنیاد و اساس نہیں ہے۔ ورنہ اتنے آسانی سے اس واقعہ کو ہرگز نظر انداز نہ کرتے۔ اپنی اہم کتابوں صحاح و مسانید میںاس واقعہ کو ضرور تحریر فرماتے۔
صاحب کنز العمال متقی ہندی تحریر فرماتے ہیں : جس وقت عمر نے حضرت علی ابن ابی طالب علیہ السلام سے ان کی لڑکی ام کلثوم سے خوستگاری کی تو حضرت علی علیہ السلام نے فرمایا : ابھی وہ چھوٹی ہے اور میں اسے اپنے بھتیجے سے منسوب کر چکا ہوں ۔ ۱#
ایک اور واقعہ
مرحوم محقق شوشتری کی کتاب”ارشاد“ سے استفادہ کرتے ہوئے یہاں پر بیان کرنا چاہتاہوں کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی دو لڑکیوں کا نام
ام کلثوم تھا۔ایک ام کلثوم کبریٰ جو فاطمہ زہرا سلام اللہ علیہا سے تھیں اور دوسری ام کلثوم صغریٰ جو (ام ولد )کنیزکی لڑکی تھیں۔
اہل سنت والجماعت اس بات پر اصرار کرتے ہیں کہ یہ ام کلثوم حضرت فاطمہ زہرا ﷼ کی بیٹی تھیں جن سے عمر نے شادی کی درخواست کی تھی تاکہ عمر کا رسول خدا ﷺسے سببی رشتہ ہوجائے ، لیکن تاریخ سے ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی ایک دوسری لڑکی ام کلثوم نام کی تھیں ، جوجناب فاطمہ ﷼کے بطن سے نہیں تھی ، اسی طرح بعض موٴرخین کا کہنا ہے کہ
--------------------------------
۱۔کنز العمال ، ج/۱۳ ص/ ۶۲۵
حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی دواور لڑکیاں زینب صغری اور ام کلثوم صغری نام کی تھیں اور وہ دونوں ام ولد تھیں ۔۱#
ابن قتیبہ نے بھی ام کلثوم کو صرف امام علی علیہ السلام کی لڑکی جانا ہے جو حضرت فاطمہ زہرا علیہا السلام کے بطن سے نہیں تھیں ، کہتے ہیں : اس کی ماں ام ولد اور کنیز تھی ۔ ۲#
صاحب ”ارشاد“ لکھتے ہیں کہ زینب صغریٰ کی کنیت ام کلثوم تھی جو فاطمہ زہرا سلام اللہ علیہا کی اولاد سے تھیں۔
شاید اسی وجہ سے مورخین نے اشتباہ کیا ہے کہ ام کلثوم کبریٰ کی شادی عمر بن خطاب سے ہوئی ۔کیوں کہ دونوں ام کلثوم کے باہم مل جانے کی وجہ سے یہ اشتباہات وجود میں آئے۔
--------------------------------
۱۔تاریخ موالید الائمة ص ۱۶۔ نور الابصار ص ۱۰۳۔ نہایة الارب ج ۲، ص ۲۲۳۔
۲۔ابن قتیبة ؛ المعارف ص ۱۸۵۔
آیة اللہ اعظمیٰ مرعشی نجفی کا نظریہ
آیة اللہ مرعشی نجفی ۺکی تحقیق یہ ہے کہ ام کلثوم ابوبکر کی بیوی اسماء بنت عمیس کی لڑکی تھیں جن کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے ہوئی تھی ۔ابوبکر کے مرنے کے بعد اسما بنت عمیس نے حضرت علی علیہ السلام سے شادی کرلی ۔ لہٰذا یہ بچی بھی محمد ابن ابوبکر کی طرح حضرت علی علیہ السلام کے گھر آئی اور حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی تربیت میں پلی بڑھی بعد میں عمر بن خطاب نے اس لڑکی سے شادی کر لی ۔
(خلاصہ واقعہ یہ تھا)جس کو لوگوں نے عمر کی اہمیت بڑھانے کے لئے ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام سے شہرت دے دی۔ ۱#
--------------------------------
۱۔ تاریخ تحلیل و سیاسی اسلام ج/۲،ص/۵۹۔ڈاکٹر علی اکبر محسنی
مختصر تنقیدی تبصرہ
وہ بنیادی اور اہم مطالب جو اس موقع پر بیان کئے جا نے کے قابل ہےں وہ یہ ہےں:
بعض روایات میں یہ داستان ائمہ معصومیں علیہم السلام سے اہل سنت کے راویوں سے نقل ہوئی ہیں ۔ایسی روایتیں الطبقات ابن سعد، المستدرک حاکم ، السنن الکبریٰ بیہقی اور الذریہ الطاہرہ میںموجود ہےں ۔
اس قسم کی روایتوں کے بارے میں ان باتوں کی طرف توجہ دینی چاہئے :
پہلی بات : اہل سنت کے اس قسم کی روایات اور احادیث کے مطالعہ اور تحقیق سے ہم اس نتیجہ پر پہنچے ہیں کہ مخالفین اہلبیت علیہم السلام یا کچھ متعصب اہل سنت حضرات چاہتے ہیں کہ ایسی باتیں اہلبیت علیہم السلام کی طرف منسوب کریں جوان کی شان کے خلاف ہواور جس سے ان کی شخصیت مجروح ہو ۔یہی وجہ ہے کہ ایسی باتیں کسی بھی معصوم علیہ السلام کی طرف نسبت دے کر نقل کردیتے ہیں ۔
مثلا جس وقت چاہا کہ رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ و سلم و ان کی اکلوتی بیٹی حضرت فاطمہ زہرا سلام اللہ علیہا اور ان کے بلا فصل خلیفہ حضرت علی ابن ابی طالب علیہ السلام کی شخصیتوں کو مجروح کریں اور ان پر اشکالات واردکریں تو ابو جہل کی بیٹی سے حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی خواستگاری کی داستان کو جعل کر کے اہل بیت علیہم السلام کی طرف منسوب کر دیا۔
یا اسی طرح جس وقت چاہا کہ صحابہ کی فضیلت میں کوئی حدیث گڑھیںتو ” صحابہ کو ستاروں سے تشبیہ“ دے کر امام جعفر صادق علیہ السلام کی طرف منسوب کر کے جعل کر دیا۔
بالکل اسی طرح ” جناب ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے“کی داستان بھی ان ہی جعل شدہ روایتوں میں سے ہے جس کی کوئی حقیقت نہیں ۔
پس معلوم ہونا چاہئے کہ یہ دو ام کلثوم ہیں ایک مادر عبداللہ ابن عمر اور دوسری ابو بکر کی لڑکی ۔ ان دونوں کا رابطہ عمر سے سبب بنا کہ لوگ مشکوک ہو کر سمجھ بیٹھے کہ ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام کی شادی عمر سے ہوئی جب کہ ایسا نہیں ہے ۔ ۳#
--------------------------------
۱۔ابن قتیبہ ؛ المعارف ص ۱۷۵۔
۲۔عمر موصلی؛الروضة الفیحاء فی تواریخ النساء ص/ ۳۰۳۔ عمر رضا کحا لہ؛ اعلام النساء ج /۴ ،ص/ ۲۵۰
۳۔ فرید سائل۔ افسانہ ازدواج (بررسی ازدواج حضرت ام کلثوم با عمر در مدرک شیعہ و سنی) ص/۲۰و۲۲
بعض موٴرخین نے زید بن عمر کی ماں ام کلثوم بنت جردل خزاعی لکھا ہے ۔لہٰذا اسم کے مشابہ ہونے کی وجہ سے ام کلثوم بنت علی ﷼ لکھ دیا گیا ، چنانچہ طبری کہتے ہےں : زید اصغر اور عبیدالله(جو جنگ صفین میں مارے گئے تھے ) کی ماں ام کلثوم بنت جردل خزاعی تھی ، جس کے درمیان اسلام نے عمر سے جدائی کروادی تھی۔ ۱# اکثر موٴرخین ام کلثوم بنت جردل اور عمر کے درمیان شادی زمانہ جاہلیت میں جانتے ہیں ۔۲#بعض کا کہنا ہے کہ یہ ام کلثوم بنت عقبہ بن معیط تھی۔ بعض تاریخ سے یہ ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ یہ ام کلثوم بنت
عاصم تھی ۔
ماحصل
اگر ہم نفسیاتی اور عقلی طور پر اس واقعہ کے منفی ہونے پر نظر ڈالیں توحسب ذیل باتوں سے اس کی تائید ہوتی ہے:
۱) ۔ ام کلثوم اسی فاطمہ بنت رسول کے بطن سے تھیں جن سے عقد کرنے
--------------------------------
۱۔تاریخ طبری ج /۳، ص /۲۶۹، کامل ابن اثیر ج /۳، ص /۲۸۔
۲۔الاصابہ ج /۴، ص /۴۹۱۔ صفوة الصفوة، ص /۱۱۶۔ تاریخ المدینہ المنورة، ج/۲، ص/ ۶۵۹۔
کی خواہش پر عمر کو دربار رسالت سے جواب مل چکا تھا ، لہٰذا جس فعل کو رسول نے فاطمہ ﷼ کے لئے مناسب نہ سمجھا علی ﷼ان کی بیٹی کے لئے کس طرح اسے مناسب سمجھیں گے؟
۲)۔ ام کلثوم اسی ماں کی بیٹی تھیں جو جیتے جی عمر سے ناراض رہیں اور مرتے دم بھی وصیت کر گئیں کہ وہ ان کے جنازے میں شریک نہ ہوں ، کیا حضرت علی علیہ السلام اس بات سے غافل تھے کہ اگر ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے کردی تو فاطمہ ﷼ کی روح کے لئے یہ رشتہ تازیانہ ثابت نہ ہوگی؟
۳)۔ جیسا کہ ہم نے گزشتہ بحث میں عرض کیا کہ ام کلثوم اور عمر کے سن میں زمین وآسمان کا فرق تھا، نیز روایت کے مطابق ام کلثوم کی شادی ان کے چچا زاد بھائی سے پہلے ہی طے ہوچکی تھی،توپھر ان دونوں باتوں کو مد نظر رکھتے ہوئے حضرت علی علیہ السلام عمرسے شادی کر نے کے لئے کیسے راضی ہوگئے؟
۴ )۔ اگر ہم حضرت علی علیہ السلام اور عمرکے درمیان تعلقات پر غور کریں تو اس بات کا فیصلہ کرنا آسان ہوجاتا ہے، کیونکہ رسول کی وفات کے بعد سے ہی حضرت علی ﷼ اور عمرکے درمیان تنازع شروع ہوگیا تھا یہاں تک کہ آپ کے گلے میں رسی کا پھندہ ڈالنے والے عمر تھے ، خلافت کا رخ عمرکی وجہ سے اپنے محور سے منحرف ہوا ،فاطمہ﷼ کا پہلو عمر نے شکستہ کیا ،شکم مادر میں محسن کی شہادت عمر کی وجہ سے ہوئی،ان تمام باتوں کے ہوتے ہوئے کیا حضرت علی علیہ السلام کے بارے میں کوئی انسان سوچ بھی سکتا ہے کہ آپ راضی و خوشی اپنی بیٹی عمر سے بیاہ دیں گے ؟!
۵)۔ بعض لوگوں کا یہ کہنا کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام نے عمر سے خوف زدہ ہوکر ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے کردی تھی ، تو یہ بات وہی حضرات کہہ سکتے ہیں جو تاریخ اسلام کا مطالعہ نہیں رکھتے ، جس کی تیغ کا لوہا بدر و احد ، خبیرو خندق کے بڑے بڑے شہسوار اور سورما مان چکے ہوں وہ ان للو پنجو لوگوںسے ڈر کر اپنا سارا وقار خاک میں ملاکر بیٹی سے شادی کردےں گے ! حیرت ہے ایسی عقلوں اور سوج بوجھ پر !
البتہ مسئلہ خلافت پر صبر کرتے ہوئے تلوار کا نہ اٹھاناایک دوسری بات ہے ، کیونکہ نبی اکرم کی وصیت تھی کہ علی ﷼اس سلسلہ میں تم صبر کرنا ،اگر علی ﷼ اس موقع پر صبر نہ کرتے اور تلوار اٹھا لیتے تو بہت سے ایسے افراد جو ابھی نئے نئے مسلمان ہوئے تھے اسلام سے پلٹ جاتے ،اور مسلمان اپنی خانہ جنگی کے شکار ہو جاتے ، جس کے نتیجہ میں خارجی طاقتیں اسلام پر غالب ہوجاتیں اور اسلام کا شیرازہ بکھر جاتا، لیکن جہاں تک ام کلثوم کی شادی کا مسئلہ ہے تو اس میں آپ کیوں کسی سے خوف کھاتے ؟یہ کوئی دین اسلام کی نابودی کا مسئلہ تو تھا نہیں کہ اگر آپ ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے نہ کرتے تو عمر جنگ پرآجاتے جس کے نتیجہ میں مسلمانوں کے درمیان تمام نہ ہونے والی جنگ شروع ہو جاتی !اور جب اس جنگ کے کوئی اسباب دریافت کرتا تو یہ کہا جاتا کہ یہ جنگ عمر کی شادی نہ ہونے کی وجہ سے ہوئی !!اور پھر کیا حضرت عمر بھی اس بات کو سوچ رہے ہوں گے کہ اگر شادی نہ ہوئی تو جنگ کریں گے، ہم اس بات کو بعید از عقل سمجھتے ہےں کہ عمر ایک بچی سے شادی کرنے کے لئے اتنا ہلڑ ہنگامہ پسند کرتے !!
لہٰذا جو لوگ عمر سے محبت کا دعوی کرتے ہیں ان سے گزارش ہے کہ اس قضیہ کو طول دے کر برائے خدا ان کی مزید توہین نہ کریں،علامہ سبط ابن جوزی بڑے سمجھدار نکلے کہ انھوں نے اپنے دادا کی بات کو رد کرتے ہوئے فوراً لکھ دیا کہ اس واقعہ سے عمر کی فضیلت نہیں بلکہ ان کی منقصت
ہوتی ہے ۔
۶) ۔ کچھ روایتوں میں آیا ہے کہ اس شادی میں عمر نے چالیس ہزار درہم مہر رکھا تھا، یہ پہلو بھی عمر کی تنقیص پر دلالت کرتا ہے،کیونکہ اہل سنت کا ہر فرد اس بات کو جانتا ہے کہ عمرنے فقیرانہ زندگی میں خلافت کی چکی چلائی ہے ، آپ کی تنخواہ ایک معمولی انسان کے برابر تھی ، چنانچہ تاریخ ابن خلدون میں آیا ہے: عمر کے کپڑوں میں ہمیشہ پیوند لگے ہوتے تھے، آپ کی قمیص میں ستر پیوند تھے ، اسی طرح ایک مرتبہ آپ نماز عید پڑھانے نکلے تو جوتوں میں کئی پیوند لگے ہوئے تھے، ایک مرتبہ گھر سے باہر نہیں نکلے معلوم کرنے پر پتہ چلا کہ ان کے پاس کپڑے نہیں تھے ، اور آپ کے تہہ بند میں ۱۲ پیوند لگے ہوئے تھے۔
ان تمام باتوں پر غور کرنے سے پتہ چلتا ہے کہ چالیس ہزار درہم مہر کی روایت من گھڑت اور جعلی ہے، اس کا حقیقت سے کوئی سرو کا رنہیں ہے ، ممکن ہے یہ روایت دشمنان اسلام کی جانب سے اسلامی راہنماؤں کی توہین کی خاطر سوچے سمجھے پروپیگنڈے کی ایک کڑی ہو۔
اہم واقعہ اہل سنت کی اہم کتابوں نہیں!!!
جناب ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے یہ واقعہ نہ تو صحیح بخاری میں ہے نہ صحیح مسلم میں ،حتی کسی بھی صحاح ستہ میں یہ واقعہ موجود نہیں ہے اور نہ ہی اہل سنت کی کسی بھی مشہور مسانید و معاجم میں اس قسم کی کوئی روایت موجود ہے ۔
یہاں پر جائے تعجب ہے کہ اگر ایسا ہوتا تو عمر کی خلافت محکم کرنے کے لئے ضرور اہل سنت کے علماء اپنی مشہور و معروف کتابوں میں تحریر فرماتے۔
اور یہ نا ممکن ہے کہ اتنے بڑے اور اہم واقعہ سے ان لوگوں نے غفلت کی ہو؟ پس معلوم ہوا کہ اس طرح کے واقعہ کی کوئی بنیاد و اساس نہیں ہے۔ ورنہ اتنے آسانی سے اس واقعہ کو ہرگز نظر انداز نہ کرتے۔ اپنی اہم کتابوں صحاح و مسانید میںاس واقعہ کو ضرور تحریر فرماتے۔
صاحب کنز العمال متقی ہندی تحریر فرماتے ہیں : جس وقت عمر نے حضرت علی ابن ابی طالب علیہ السلام سے ان کی لڑکی ام کلثوم سے خوستگاری کی تو حضرت علی علیہ السلام نے فرمایا : ابھی وہ چھوٹی ہے اور میں اسے اپنے بھتیجے سے منسوب کر چکا ہوں ۔ ۱#
ایک اور واقعہ
مرحوم محقق شوشتری کی کتاب”ارشاد“ سے استفادہ کرتے ہوئے یہاں پر بیان کرنا چاہتاہوں کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی دو لڑکیوں کا نام
ام کلثوم تھا۔ایک ام کلثوم کبریٰ جو فاطمہ زہرا سلام اللہ علیہا سے تھیں اور دوسری ام کلثوم صغریٰ جو (ام ولد )کنیزکی لڑکی تھیں۔
اہل سنت والجماعت اس بات پر اصرار کرتے ہیں کہ یہ ام کلثوم حضرت فاطمہ زہرا ﷼ کی بیٹی تھیں جن سے عمر نے شادی کی درخواست کی تھی تاکہ عمر کا رسول خدا ﷺسے سببی رشتہ ہوجائے ، لیکن تاریخ سے ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی ایک دوسری لڑکی ام کلثوم نام کی تھیں ، جوجناب فاطمہ ﷼کے بطن سے نہیں تھی ، اسی طرح بعض موٴرخین کا کہنا ہے کہ
--------------------------------
۱۔کنز العمال ، ج/۱۳ ص/ ۶۲۵
حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی دواور لڑکیاں زینب صغری اور ام کلثوم صغری نام کی تھیں اور وہ دونوں ام ولد تھیں ۔۱#
ابن قتیبہ نے بھی ام کلثوم کو صرف امام علی علیہ السلام کی لڑکی جانا ہے جو حضرت فاطمہ زہرا علیہا السلام کے بطن سے نہیں تھیں ، کہتے ہیں : اس کی ماں ام ولد اور کنیز تھی ۔ ۲#
صاحب ”ارشاد“ لکھتے ہیں کہ زینب صغریٰ کی کنیت ام کلثوم تھی جو فاطمہ زہرا سلام اللہ علیہا کی اولاد سے تھیں۔
شاید اسی وجہ سے مورخین نے اشتباہ کیا ہے کہ ام کلثوم کبریٰ کی شادی عمر بن خطاب سے ہوئی ۔کیوں کہ دونوں ام کلثوم کے باہم مل جانے کی وجہ سے یہ اشتباہات وجود میں آئے۔
--------------------------------
۱۔تاریخ موالید الائمة ص ۱۶۔ نور الابصار ص ۱۰۳۔ نہایة الارب ج ۲، ص ۲۲۳۔
۲۔ابن قتیبة ؛ المعارف ص ۱۸۵۔
آیة اللہ اعظمیٰ مرعشی نجفی کا نظریہ
آیة اللہ مرعشی نجفی ۺکی تحقیق یہ ہے کہ ام کلثوم ابوبکر کی بیوی اسماء بنت عمیس کی لڑکی تھیں جن کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے ہوئی تھی ۔ابوبکر کے مرنے کے بعد اسما بنت عمیس نے حضرت علی علیہ السلام سے شادی کرلی ۔ لہٰذا یہ بچی بھی محمد ابن ابوبکر کی طرح حضرت علی علیہ السلام کے گھر آئی اور حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی تربیت میں پلی بڑھی بعد میں عمر بن خطاب نے اس لڑکی سے شادی کر لی ۔
(خلاصہ واقعہ یہ تھا)جس کو لوگوں نے عمر کی اہمیت بڑھانے کے لئے ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام سے شہرت دے دی۔ ۱#
--------------------------------
۱۔ تاریخ تحلیل و سیاسی اسلام ج/۲،ص/۵۹۔ڈاکٹر علی اکبر محسنی
مختصر تنقیدی تبصرہ
وہ بنیادی اور اہم مطالب جو اس موقع پر بیان کئے جا نے کے قابل ہےں وہ یہ ہےں:
بعض روایات میں یہ داستان ائمہ معصومیں علیہم السلام سے اہل سنت کے راویوں سے نقل ہوئی ہیں ۔ایسی روایتیں الطبقات ابن سعد، المستدرک حاکم ، السنن الکبریٰ بیہقی اور الذریہ الطاہرہ میںموجود ہےں ۔
اس قسم کی روایتوں کے بارے میں ان باتوں کی طرف توجہ دینی چاہئے :
پہلی بات : اہل سنت کے اس قسم کی روایات اور احادیث کے مطالعہ اور تحقیق سے ہم اس نتیجہ پر پہنچے ہیں کہ مخالفین اہلبیت علیہم السلام یا کچھ متعصب اہل سنت حضرات چاہتے ہیں کہ ایسی باتیں اہلبیت علیہم السلام کی طرف منسوب کریں جوان کی شان کے خلاف ہواور جس سے ان کی شخصیت مجروح ہو ۔یہی وجہ ہے کہ ایسی باتیں کسی بھی معصوم علیہ السلام کی طرف نسبت دے کر نقل کردیتے ہیں ۔
مثلا جس وقت چاہا کہ رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ و سلم و ان کی اکلوتی بیٹی حضرت فاطمہ زہرا سلام اللہ علیہا اور ان کے بلا فصل خلیفہ حضرت علی ابن ابی طالب علیہ السلام کی شخصیتوں کو مجروح کریں اور ان پر اشکالات واردکریں تو ابو جہل کی بیٹی سے حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی خواستگاری کی داستان کو جعل کر کے اہل بیت علیہم السلام کی طرف منسوب کر دیا۔
یا اسی طرح جس وقت چاہا کہ صحابہ کی فضیلت میں کوئی حدیث گڑھیںتو ” صحابہ کو ستاروں سے تشبیہ“ دے کر امام جعفر صادق علیہ السلام کی طرف منسوب کر کے جعل کر دیا۔
بالکل اسی طرح ” جناب ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے“کی داستان بھی ان ہی جعل شدہ روایتوں میں سے ہے جس کی کوئی حقیقت نہیں ۔
عمر خطاب کے قول کے مطابق ''رسول خدا (ص) متعہ کو حلال اور جائز سمجھتے تھے ''ہم بھی اس کو جائز مانتے ہیں
متعہ
عبداللہ : جب تمام مسلمان متعہ کے حرام ہونے پر اجماع رکھتے ہیں تو آپ شیعہ حضرات اس کو جائز کیوں مانتے ہیں ۔
رضا: عمر خطاب کے قول کے مطابق ''رسول خدا (ص) اس کو حلال اور جائز سمجھتے تھے ''ہم بھی اس کو جائز مانتے ہیں ۔
عبد اللہ : پیغمبر (ص) نے کیا کہا تھا ۔
رضا : جاحظ ، قرطبی ، سرخسی حنفی ، فخر رازی اور بہت سے دوسرے اہل سنت اماموں نے نقل کیا ہے کہ عمر نے خطبہ میں کہا متعتان کانتا علیٰ عہد رسول اللہ (ص) و انا انہی عنھا و اعاقب علیھا متعۃ الحج و متعۃ النساء رسول (ص) کے زمانہ میں دو متعہ جائز تھے میں انہیں منع کررہا ہوں اور جو اس کا مرتکب ہوا اس کو سزادوں گا ، متعہ حج (۳۸)اور متعہ نسائ(۳۹) ( ازدواج موقت )۔
تاریخ ابن خلکان میں آیا ہے کہ عمر نے کہا دو متعہ پیغمبر (ص) اور بوبکر کے زمانہ میں جائز تھے اور انھیں منع کرتا ہوں۔(۴۰)
آپ کا اس کے بارے میں کیا نظریہ ہے کیا عمر کا یہ کہنا کہ دومتعہ رسول (ص) کے زمانے میں جائز اور حلال تھے ایک سچی بات ہے یا جھوٹ ہے ۔
عبداللہ: عمر سچ کہہ رہے ہیں ۔
رضا : تو پھر رسول (ص) کے کہنے کو چھوڑ دینا اور عمر کے کہنے کو مان لینے کی کیا وجہ ہے ۔
عبد اللہ: اس بات کی وجہ عمر کا منع کرنا ہے
رضا: تو پھر ( حلال محمد(ص) روز قیامت تک حلال ہے اور حرام محمد (ص) روز قیامت تک حرام ہے (۴۱) ) کا کیا مطلب یہ ایک ایسی بات ہے جس پر تمام علمائے اسلام بغیر کسی استثناء کے متفق ہیں ۔
عبداللہ: ( کچھ فکر کرنے کے بعد ) صحیح کہہ رہے ہیں ، لیکن پھر عمر بن خطاب نے اس کو حرام کیسے کردیا اور انکے پاس اس کے لئے کیا سند تھی ۔
رضا: یہ ان کا پنا اجتہاد تھا اگر چہ ہروہ اجتھاد جو نص کے مقابلہ میں کیا جائے قابل قبول نہیں ہے ۔
عبداللہ : حتی اگر وہ اجتہاد عمر بن خطاب کا ہو ؟!
رضا: اگر اس سے بھی بزرگ کا ہو تب بھی اس پر توجہ نہیں کی جاسکتی آپ کی نظر میں خدااور رسول(ص) کا فرمان پیروی کرنے لائق ہے یا عمر بن خطاب کی بات ؟
عبداللہ : کیا قرآن میں متعہ اور اس کے جائز ہونے کے سلسلہ میں کوئی آیت آئی ہے ؟
رضا: ہاں خداوند عالم فرماتا ہے :فما استمتعتم بہ منھن فأتوھن اجورھن فریضۃ۔۔۔۔ ؛؛؛سورہ نساء ۲۴ ۔ پس جو بھی ان عوتوں سے تمتح(متعہ)کرے ان کی اجرت انھیں بطور فریضہ دیدے ۔۔۔۔)
مرحوم علامہ امینی نے اہل سنت کی کتابوں سے بہت زیادہ مدارک اکٹھا کیے ہیں کہ جن میں سب کے سب اس آیت کی شان نزول کو متعہ کے بارے میں مانتے ہیں اور اسی کو متعہ کے جائز ہونے کی سند قرار دیتے ہیں(۴۲)
عبد اللہ: آج تک اس بارے میں کچھ بھی نہیں جانتا تھا ۔
رضا: کتاب الغدیر کا مطالعہ کرنے سے آپ دیکھیں گے کہ اس میں وہ تمام باتیں موجود ہیں جو میں نے کہیں اور یہ کہ حلال خدا ورسول(ص) کو صرف عمر کے کہنے سے کیسے کنارہ کردیا جئے ؟ آخر ہم کس کی امت ہیں رسول خدا(ص) کی یا عمر کی ؟
عبد اللہ : ہم تو رسول (ص) کی امت ہیں ، اور عمر کی فضیلت اس لئے ہے کہ وہ رسول کی امت میں سے ہیں ۔
رضا: تو پھر وہ کیا چیز ہے جو تم کو رسول کو کہے پر چلنے سے روکتی ہے ؟
عبد اللہ : متعہ کے حرام ہونے پر مسلمانوں کا اتفاق مجھے ایسا کرنے پر مجبور کرتا ہے ۔
رضا: لیکن یہ مسئلہ مسلمانوں کا مورد اتفاق نہیں ہے ۔
عبداللہ : کس طرح ۔
رضا: جس طرح کہ تم نے ابھی کہا کہ شیعہ متعہ کوجائز سمجھتے ہیں شیعہ مسلمانوں میں تقریبا ً آدھے ہیں جو کہ ایک عرب تک ہیں(۴۳) اب جبکہ شیعوں کی اتنی بڑی جماعت اس کو جائز اور حلال سمجھتی ہے توپھر یہ اتفاق نظر کیسے وجود میں آئیگا ؟ ۔
اس بھی آگے بڑھ کر معصوم اماموں کہ جو رسول کے خاندان سے تھے کہ جن کی مثال پیغمبر(ص) نے کشتی نوح سے دی تھی
'' مثل اہل بیتی فیکم کمثل سفینۃ نوح ''(۴۴)میرے اہل بیت(ع) کی مثال تمہارے درمیان کشتی نعح کی طرح ہے
اور یہ بھی فرمایا ''انی تارک فیکم الثقلین کتاب اللہ وعتری اہل بیتی ''(۴۵) ۔میں تمہارے دو گرانقدر چیزیں چھوڑیں جارہا ہوں ایک کتاب خدا دوسرے میرے اہل بیت''۔ یہ بزرگان ( اہل بیت جن کی پیروی نجات کا راستے اور اللہ سے قربت حاصل کرنا ہے اور ان سے منھ پھیرنا اور دوسروں کی بات ماننا گمراہی ہے ) متعہ کو جائز سمجھتے تھے اور اس کے منسوخ ہونے کو نہیں مانتے تھے شیعوں نے بھی اس مسئلہ میں ان کی پیروی کی ہے ،امیرالمؤمنین (ع) سے روایت ہے کہ آپ (ع) نے فرمایا''لولا ان عمر نھی عن المتعۃ ما زنی الاشقی۔ اگر عمر متعہ سے نہ روکتے تو بیشک شقی کے علاوہ کوئی اپنے دامن کو زنا سے آلودہ نہ کرتا۔(۴۶)
حضرت علی (ع) کے کہنے کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ عمر کے متعہ کو روکنے کی وجہ سے لوگ متعہ نہ کرسکے اور چونکہ ہر ایک دائمی بیوی کا خرچ نہیںاٹھا سکتا تو ناچار ہو کر وہ اپنے دامن کو زنا سے آلودہ کرتا ۔
مسلمانوں کے رہبروں کا متعہ کو جائز ماننا اور یہ کہ بہت سے صحابی ،تابعین اور مسلمانوں نے قرآن اور رسول کی اجازت سے استدلال کیا ہے اور عمر کے منع کرنے کو باطل مانا ہے تو پھر یہ کہنا کہاں جائز ہے کہ اس بات میں مسلمانوں پر اجماع ہے اور کس اتفاق نظر کی بات کہی جارہی ہے یہاں پر میں ان لوگوں میں سے کچھ کا ذکر کرتا ہوں جنھوں نے متعہ کو جائز مانا ہے ۔
(۱) عمران بن الحصین کہتے ہیں: متعہ کی آیت قرآن میں آئی ہے اور دوسری آیت نے اس کو منسوخ نہیں کیا ہے ۔ رسول خدا(ص) نے ہم کو اس کی اجازت دی اور ہم نے ان کے ساتھ حج تمتع کیا اور جس وقت انھوں نے وفات کی انھوں نے اس تمتع سے نہیں روکا لیکن اس شخص ( عمر بن خطاب ) نے رسول کی وفات کے بعد اپنی رائے سے جو چاہا کہا (۴۷)
(۲) جابر بن عبداللہ اور ابوسعید خذری ۔ یہ دونوں کہتے ہیں عمر کی خلافت کے درمیانی زمانہ تک ہم متعہ کرتے تھے ،یہاں تک کہ عمر نے عمر وبن حریث کے معاملہ میں اس کو لوگوں کے لئے حرام کردیا ۔
(۳) ابن حزم نے ''المحلی''میں اور زرقانی نے ''شرح المؤطا ''میں عبداللہ بن مسعود کو ان لوگوں میں شامل کیا ہے جو متعہ کو جائز مانتے تھے حافظان حدیث نے بھی ان سے روایت کی ہے کہ انہوں نے کہا غزوہ میں رسول (ص) کے ساتھ جنگ کررہے تھے اور اپنی بیوی کو اپنے ساتھ نہیں لایا تھا ہم نے رسول (ص) سے کہا اور فرمایا یارسول خدا(ص)
رسول نے ہم کو اس کام سے روکا اور اجازت دی کہ ایک معین مدت تک کے لئے بیوی حاصل کرلیں ( متعہ کرلیں ) پھر یہ آپ آیت پڑھی:
"یا ایھا الذین امنوا لا تُحرموا طیبٰت ما احل اللہ لکم و لا تعتدوا اِنّ اللہ لا یُحب المعتدین" ( سورہ مائدہ آیت ۸۷ )اے ایمان والو جن چیزوں کو خدا نے تمہاتے لیے حلال کیا ہے انھیں حرام نہ بناءو اور حد سے اگے نہ بڑھو کہ خدا تجاوز کرنے والوں کو پسند نہیں کرتا(۴۸)
(۴)عبد اللہ بن عمر ۔احمد بن حنبل ( حنبلیوں کے امام ) اپنی سند کے ذریعہ عبداللہ بن نعیم اعرجی سے روایت نقل کی ہے کہ اس نے کہا کہ عبداللہ بن عمر کے پاس تھا ، ایک شخص نے متعہ کے بارے میں سوال کیا تو انہوں نے کہا خدا کی قسم رسول (ص) کے زمانہ میں ہم زنا کار نہیں تھے (اپنی احتیاج کو متعہ کے ذریعہ پورا کرلیتے ) (۴۹)۔
(۵) سلمہ بن امیہ بن خلف ابن حزم نے ''المحلی '' میں اور زرقانی نے شرح المؤطامیں نقل کیا ہے کہ مسلمہ بن امیہ متعہ کو جائز اور مباح جانتے تھے
(۶) معبدین امیہ بن خلف ،ابن حزم نے ان کو متعہ مباح جاننے والوں میں شمار کیا ہے ۔
(۷) زبیر بن العلوام ، راغب کہتا ہے عبداللہ بن زبیر نے عبداللہ بن عباس کے متعہ کو جائز سمجھنے کی وجہ سے سر زنش کی ابن عباس نے اس سے کہا اپنی ماں سے پوچھو کہ کیسے .................اس نے اپنی ماں سے جاکر سوال کیا اس کی ماں نے جواب دیا تم متعہ کے ذریعہ دنیا میں آئے ہو (۵۰) یہ داستان متعہ کے جائز ہونے پر دلالت کرتی ہے ۔
(۸)خالد بن مہاجربن خالد مخزمی ، وہ ایک شخص کے نزدیک بیٹھا تھا کہ ایک دوسرا آدمی آیا اور متعہ کے بارے میں سوال کیا خالد نے اس کے مباح ہونے کا جواب دیا ۔
ابن ابی عمرہ انصاری نے اس سے کہا ، آہستہ ( اتنی آسانی سے کیوں فتویٰ دے رہے ہو ) خالد نے کہا خدا کی قسم اس کام کو میں نے پرہیز گاروں کے سردار کے زمانہ میں انجام دیا ہے (۵۱)
(۹) عمر بن حریث حافظ عبد اللہ الرزاق نے اپنی کتاب ''مصنف '' میں ابن حریح سے نقل کیا ہے کہ ابوالزبیر نے میرے لئے نقل کیا کہ جابر نے کہا کہ عمربن حریث کوفہ آیا ، اور وہں ایک کنیز سے متعہ کیا اس کنیز کو جب وہ حاملہ تھی عمر کے پاس لایا گیا ، عمر نے اس ماجر ہ کو عمر سے پوچھا اس نے بھی تائید کی اسی وجہ سے عمر نے متعہ کو روک دیا (۵۲)
(۱۰) ابن ابی کعب
(۱۱) ربیعہ بن امیہ
(۱۲) سمیر (سمرۃ ) بن جندب
(۱۳) سعید بن جبیر
(۱۴) طاؤس یمانی
(۱۵) عطاابومحمد مدنی
(۱۶) سدی
(۱۷) مجاھد
(۱۸) زفربن اوس مدنی ، اور دوسرے بزرگ صحابہ ، تابعین ، اور بزرگ مسلمانوں نے عمر کے اس فتویٰ واجتہاد کو محکوم کیا ہے ۔
اے عبد اللہ اتنی تفصیل کے ساتھ کہ اب بھی تم متعہ کے حرام ہونے پر مسلمانوں کے اجماع کی بات کرو گے ۔
عبداللہ۔ میں معافی چاہتا ہوں جو کچھ میں نے آپ سے کہا وہ سب میری سنی ہوئی باتیں تھیں اور ان کے صحیح ہونے کے بارے میں کوئی مطالعہ و تحقیق نہیں تھی اب میں اس نتیجہ تک پہونچ ہوں کہ اسی طرح کے سائل میں تحقیق و مطالعہ کروں تاکہ حقائق کو بے جاتعصب مذہبی سے دور ہوکر حاصل کرسکوں اور ان کی حقیقت کو سمجھ سکوں ۔
رضا۔ تو اب آپ مانتے ہیں کہ متعہ جائز و مباح ہے ۔
عبدا للہ ۔ جی ہاں ، اور یہ بھی سمجھتاہوں کہ اس کے منع کرنے والوں صرف اپنی خاہشات پر عمل کیا اور قرآ ن نے جو حکم اس کے جائز ہونے کے لئے دیا ہے اس کو کسی دوسری آیت کے ذریعہ منسوخ نہیں کیا اور اس نتیجہ پر بھی احکام خدا کو نہیں بدل سکتے ، میں ابھی تک تعجب کررہا ہوں کہ کس طرح عمر نے یہ فتویٰ دیا اگر آپ یہ مہربانی کریں کہ مجھے کچھ کتابو ں کے نام بتادیں کہ جو بغیر کسی تہمت کے ان موضوع پر بحث کرتی ہو ۔
رضا ۔ علامہ امینی کی ''الغدیر ''علامہ شرف الدین کی ''النص والاجتہاد ''اور ''الفصول المہمہ '' اور استاد توفیق الفکیکی کی ''المتعہ''ایسی کتابیں ہیں جن کا مطالعہ آپ کرسکتے ہیں ، ان کتابوں کو دقت کے ساتھ پڑھو ۔
عبد اللہ ۔ یقینا ایسا ہی کروں گا داور خدا سے آپ کے لئے نیکی چاہوں گا ۔
رضا۔ یہاں پر اہل سنت پر ایک اور اشکال وارد ہوتا ہے کہ جو ان کے عمر کے فتوء کو ماننیکے بارے میں ہے ۔
عبد اللہ ۔ کیا اشکال ہے ۔
رضا ۔عمر نے متعہ زنان اور متعہ حج دونوں سے روکا ہے پھر اہل سنت متعہ حج کو جائز کیوں مانتے ہیں اور متعہ زنان کو حرام کہتے ہیں اگر عمر کا فتویٰ صحیح تھا تو پھر دونوں متعہ حرام ہے اور اگر باطل تھا تو دونوں متعہ جائز ہے ۔
عبداللہ ۔ کیا اہل سنت متعہ حج کو جائز مانتے ہیں ۔
رضا ۔ ہاںاگر آپ ان کی کتابوں کی طرف رجوع کریں تو اس حقیقت کی طرف آگاہ ہوجائیں گے ۔
عبد اللہ ۔ آپ کا بہت بہت شکریہ ۔
سبحان ربک رب العزہ عمایصفون و سلام علی المرسلین والحمد للہ رب العالمین (صافات آیت ۱۸۰۔۱۸۲)
صادق حسینی الشیرازی
عبداللہ : جب تمام مسلمان متعہ کے حرام ہونے پر اجماع رکھتے ہیں تو آپ شیعہ حضرات اس کو جائز کیوں مانتے ہیں ۔
رضا: عمر خطاب کے قول کے مطابق ''رسول خدا (ص) اس کو حلال اور جائز سمجھتے تھے ''ہم بھی اس کو جائز مانتے ہیں ۔
عبد اللہ : پیغمبر (ص) نے کیا کہا تھا ۔
رضا : جاحظ ، قرطبی ، سرخسی حنفی ، فخر رازی اور بہت سے دوسرے اہل سنت اماموں نے نقل کیا ہے کہ عمر نے خطبہ میں کہا متعتان کانتا علیٰ عہد رسول اللہ (ص) و انا انہی عنھا و اعاقب علیھا متعۃ الحج و متعۃ النساء رسول (ص) کے زمانہ میں دو متعہ جائز تھے میں انہیں منع کررہا ہوں اور جو اس کا مرتکب ہوا اس کو سزادوں گا ، متعہ حج (۳۸)اور متعہ نسائ(۳۹) ( ازدواج موقت )۔
تاریخ ابن خلکان میں آیا ہے کہ عمر نے کہا دو متعہ پیغمبر (ص) اور بوبکر کے زمانہ میں جائز تھے اور انھیں منع کرتا ہوں۔(۴۰)
آپ کا اس کے بارے میں کیا نظریہ ہے کیا عمر کا یہ کہنا کہ دومتعہ رسول (ص) کے زمانے میں جائز اور حلال تھے ایک سچی بات ہے یا جھوٹ ہے ۔
عبداللہ: عمر سچ کہہ رہے ہیں ۔
رضا : تو پھر رسول (ص) کے کہنے کو چھوڑ دینا اور عمر کے کہنے کو مان لینے کی کیا وجہ ہے ۔
عبد اللہ: اس بات کی وجہ عمر کا منع کرنا ہے
رضا: تو پھر ( حلال محمد(ص) روز قیامت تک حلال ہے اور حرام محمد (ص) روز قیامت تک حرام ہے (۴۱) ) کا کیا مطلب یہ ایک ایسی بات ہے جس پر تمام علمائے اسلام بغیر کسی استثناء کے متفق ہیں ۔
عبداللہ: ( کچھ فکر کرنے کے بعد ) صحیح کہہ رہے ہیں ، لیکن پھر عمر بن خطاب نے اس کو حرام کیسے کردیا اور انکے پاس اس کے لئے کیا سند تھی ۔
رضا: یہ ان کا پنا اجتہاد تھا اگر چہ ہروہ اجتھاد جو نص کے مقابلہ میں کیا جائے قابل قبول نہیں ہے ۔
عبداللہ : حتی اگر وہ اجتہاد عمر بن خطاب کا ہو ؟!
رضا: اگر اس سے بھی بزرگ کا ہو تب بھی اس پر توجہ نہیں کی جاسکتی آپ کی نظر میں خدااور رسول(ص) کا فرمان پیروی کرنے لائق ہے یا عمر بن خطاب کی بات ؟
عبداللہ : کیا قرآن میں متعہ اور اس کے جائز ہونے کے سلسلہ میں کوئی آیت آئی ہے ؟
رضا: ہاں خداوند عالم فرماتا ہے :فما استمتعتم بہ منھن فأتوھن اجورھن فریضۃ۔۔۔۔ ؛؛؛سورہ نساء ۲۴ ۔ پس جو بھی ان عوتوں سے تمتح(متعہ)کرے ان کی اجرت انھیں بطور فریضہ دیدے ۔۔۔۔)
مرحوم علامہ امینی نے اہل سنت کی کتابوں سے بہت زیادہ مدارک اکٹھا کیے ہیں کہ جن میں سب کے سب اس آیت کی شان نزول کو متعہ کے بارے میں مانتے ہیں اور اسی کو متعہ کے جائز ہونے کی سند قرار دیتے ہیں(۴۲)
عبد اللہ: آج تک اس بارے میں کچھ بھی نہیں جانتا تھا ۔
رضا: کتاب الغدیر کا مطالعہ کرنے سے آپ دیکھیں گے کہ اس میں وہ تمام باتیں موجود ہیں جو میں نے کہیں اور یہ کہ حلال خدا ورسول(ص) کو صرف عمر کے کہنے سے کیسے کنارہ کردیا جئے ؟ آخر ہم کس کی امت ہیں رسول خدا(ص) کی یا عمر کی ؟
عبد اللہ : ہم تو رسول (ص) کی امت ہیں ، اور عمر کی فضیلت اس لئے ہے کہ وہ رسول کی امت میں سے ہیں ۔
رضا: تو پھر وہ کیا چیز ہے جو تم کو رسول کو کہے پر چلنے سے روکتی ہے ؟
عبد اللہ : متعہ کے حرام ہونے پر مسلمانوں کا اتفاق مجھے ایسا کرنے پر مجبور کرتا ہے ۔
رضا: لیکن یہ مسئلہ مسلمانوں کا مورد اتفاق نہیں ہے ۔
عبداللہ : کس طرح ۔
رضا: جس طرح کہ تم نے ابھی کہا کہ شیعہ متعہ کوجائز سمجھتے ہیں شیعہ مسلمانوں میں تقریبا ً آدھے ہیں جو کہ ایک عرب تک ہیں(۴۳) اب جبکہ شیعوں کی اتنی بڑی جماعت اس کو جائز اور حلال سمجھتی ہے توپھر یہ اتفاق نظر کیسے وجود میں آئیگا ؟ ۔
اس بھی آگے بڑھ کر معصوم اماموں کہ جو رسول کے خاندان سے تھے کہ جن کی مثال پیغمبر(ص) نے کشتی نوح سے دی تھی
'' مثل اہل بیتی فیکم کمثل سفینۃ نوح ''(۴۴)میرے اہل بیت(ع) کی مثال تمہارے درمیان کشتی نعح کی طرح ہے
اور یہ بھی فرمایا ''انی تارک فیکم الثقلین کتاب اللہ وعتری اہل بیتی ''(۴۵) ۔میں تمہارے دو گرانقدر چیزیں چھوڑیں جارہا ہوں ایک کتاب خدا دوسرے میرے اہل بیت''۔ یہ بزرگان ( اہل بیت جن کی پیروی نجات کا راستے اور اللہ سے قربت حاصل کرنا ہے اور ان سے منھ پھیرنا اور دوسروں کی بات ماننا گمراہی ہے ) متعہ کو جائز سمجھتے تھے اور اس کے منسوخ ہونے کو نہیں مانتے تھے شیعوں نے بھی اس مسئلہ میں ان کی پیروی کی ہے ،امیرالمؤمنین (ع) سے روایت ہے کہ آپ (ع) نے فرمایا''لولا ان عمر نھی عن المتعۃ ما زنی الاشقی۔ اگر عمر متعہ سے نہ روکتے تو بیشک شقی کے علاوہ کوئی اپنے دامن کو زنا سے آلودہ نہ کرتا۔(۴۶)
حضرت علی (ع) کے کہنے کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ عمر کے متعہ کو روکنے کی وجہ سے لوگ متعہ نہ کرسکے اور چونکہ ہر ایک دائمی بیوی کا خرچ نہیںاٹھا سکتا تو ناچار ہو کر وہ اپنے دامن کو زنا سے آلودہ کرتا ۔
مسلمانوں کے رہبروں کا متعہ کو جائز ماننا اور یہ کہ بہت سے صحابی ،تابعین اور مسلمانوں نے قرآن اور رسول کی اجازت سے استدلال کیا ہے اور عمر کے منع کرنے کو باطل مانا ہے تو پھر یہ کہنا کہاں جائز ہے کہ اس بات میں مسلمانوں پر اجماع ہے اور کس اتفاق نظر کی بات کہی جارہی ہے یہاں پر میں ان لوگوں میں سے کچھ کا ذکر کرتا ہوں جنھوں نے متعہ کو جائز مانا ہے ۔
(۱) عمران بن الحصین کہتے ہیں: متعہ کی آیت قرآن میں آئی ہے اور دوسری آیت نے اس کو منسوخ نہیں کیا ہے ۔ رسول خدا(ص) نے ہم کو اس کی اجازت دی اور ہم نے ان کے ساتھ حج تمتع کیا اور جس وقت انھوں نے وفات کی انھوں نے اس تمتع سے نہیں روکا لیکن اس شخص ( عمر بن خطاب ) نے رسول کی وفات کے بعد اپنی رائے سے جو چاہا کہا (۴۷)
(۲) جابر بن عبداللہ اور ابوسعید خذری ۔ یہ دونوں کہتے ہیں عمر کی خلافت کے درمیانی زمانہ تک ہم متعہ کرتے تھے ،یہاں تک کہ عمر نے عمر وبن حریث کے معاملہ میں اس کو لوگوں کے لئے حرام کردیا ۔
(۳) ابن حزم نے ''المحلی''میں اور زرقانی نے ''شرح المؤطا ''میں عبداللہ بن مسعود کو ان لوگوں میں شامل کیا ہے جو متعہ کو جائز مانتے تھے حافظان حدیث نے بھی ان سے روایت کی ہے کہ انہوں نے کہا غزوہ میں رسول (ص) کے ساتھ جنگ کررہے تھے اور اپنی بیوی کو اپنے ساتھ نہیں لایا تھا ہم نے رسول (ص) سے کہا اور فرمایا یارسول خدا(ص)
رسول نے ہم کو اس کام سے روکا اور اجازت دی کہ ایک معین مدت تک کے لئے بیوی حاصل کرلیں ( متعہ کرلیں ) پھر یہ آپ آیت پڑھی:
"یا ایھا الذین امنوا لا تُحرموا طیبٰت ما احل اللہ لکم و لا تعتدوا اِنّ اللہ لا یُحب المعتدین" ( سورہ مائدہ آیت ۸۷ )اے ایمان والو جن چیزوں کو خدا نے تمہاتے لیے حلال کیا ہے انھیں حرام نہ بناءو اور حد سے اگے نہ بڑھو کہ خدا تجاوز کرنے والوں کو پسند نہیں کرتا(۴۸)
(۴)عبد اللہ بن عمر ۔احمد بن حنبل ( حنبلیوں کے امام ) اپنی سند کے ذریعہ عبداللہ بن نعیم اعرجی سے روایت نقل کی ہے کہ اس نے کہا کہ عبداللہ بن عمر کے پاس تھا ، ایک شخص نے متعہ کے بارے میں سوال کیا تو انہوں نے کہا خدا کی قسم رسول (ص) کے زمانہ میں ہم زنا کار نہیں تھے (اپنی احتیاج کو متعہ کے ذریعہ پورا کرلیتے ) (۴۹)۔
(۵) سلمہ بن امیہ بن خلف ابن حزم نے ''المحلی '' میں اور زرقانی نے شرح المؤطامیں نقل کیا ہے کہ مسلمہ بن امیہ متعہ کو جائز اور مباح جانتے تھے
(۶) معبدین امیہ بن خلف ،ابن حزم نے ان کو متعہ مباح جاننے والوں میں شمار کیا ہے ۔
(۷) زبیر بن العلوام ، راغب کہتا ہے عبداللہ بن زبیر نے عبداللہ بن عباس کے متعہ کو جائز سمجھنے کی وجہ سے سر زنش کی ابن عباس نے اس سے کہا اپنی ماں سے پوچھو کہ کیسے .................اس نے اپنی ماں سے جاکر سوال کیا اس کی ماں نے جواب دیا تم متعہ کے ذریعہ دنیا میں آئے ہو (۵۰) یہ داستان متعہ کے جائز ہونے پر دلالت کرتی ہے ۔
(۸)خالد بن مہاجربن خالد مخزمی ، وہ ایک شخص کے نزدیک بیٹھا تھا کہ ایک دوسرا آدمی آیا اور متعہ کے بارے میں سوال کیا خالد نے اس کے مباح ہونے کا جواب دیا ۔
ابن ابی عمرہ انصاری نے اس سے کہا ، آہستہ ( اتنی آسانی سے کیوں فتویٰ دے رہے ہو ) خالد نے کہا خدا کی قسم اس کام کو میں نے پرہیز گاروں کے سردار کے زمانہ میں انجام دیا ہے (۵۱)
(۹) عمر بن حریث حافظ عبد اللہ الرزاق نے اپنی کتاب ''مصنف '' میں ابن حریح سے نقل کیا ہے کہ ابوالزبیر نے میرے لئے نقل کیا کہ جابر نے کہا کہ عمربن حریث کوفہ آیا ، اور وہں ایک کنیز سے متعہ کیا اس کنیز کو جب وہ حاملہ تھی عمر کے پاس لایا گیا ، عمر نے اس ماجر ہ کو عمر سے پوچھا اس نے بھی تائید کی اسی وجہ سے عمر نے متعہ کو روک دیا (۵۲)
(۱۰) ابن ابی کعب
(۱۱) ربیعہ بن امیہ
(۱۲) سمیر (سمرۃ ) بن جندب
(۱۳) سعید بن جبیر
(۱۴) طاؤس یمانی
(۱۵) عطاابومحمد مدنی
(۱۶) سدی
(۱۷) مجاھد
(۱۸) زفربن اوس مدنی ، اور دوسرے بزرگ صحابہ ، تابعین ، اور بزرگ مسلمانوں نے عمر کے اس فتویٰ واجتہاد کو محکوم کیا ہے ۔
اے عبد اللہ اتنی تفصیل کے ساتھ کہ اب بھی تم متعہ کے حرام ہونے پر مسلمانوں کے اجماع کی بات کرو گے ۔
عبداللہ۔ میں معافی چاہتا ہوں جو کچھ میں نے آپ سے کہا وہ سب میری سنی ہوئی باتیں تھیں اور ان کے صحیح ہونے کے بارے میں کوئی مطالعہ و تحقیق نہیں تھی اب میں اس نتیجہ تک پہونچ ہوں کہ اسی طرح کے سائل میں تحقیق و مطالعہ کروں تاکہ حقائق کو بے جاتعصب مذہبی سے دور ہوکر حاصل کرسکوں اور ان کی حقیقت کو سمجھ سکوں ۔
رضا۔ تو اب آپ مانتے ہیں کہ متعہ جائز و مباح ہے ۔
عبدا للہ ۔ جی ہاں ، اور یہ بھی سمجھتاہوں کہ اس کے منع کرنے والوں صرف اپنی خاہشات پر عمل کیا اور قرآ ن نے جو حکم اس کے جائز ہونے کے لئے دیا ہے اس کو کسی دوسری آیت کے ذریعہ منسوخ نہیں کیا اور اس نتیجہ پر بھی احکام خدا کو نہیں بدل سکتے ، میں ابھی تک تعجب کررہا ہوں کہ کس طرح عمر نے یہ فتویٰ دیا اگر آپ یہ مہربانی کریں کہ مجھے کچھ کتابو ں کے نام بتادیں کہ جو بغیر کسی تہمت کے ان موضوع پر بحث کرتی ہو ۔
رضا ۔ علامہ امینی کی ''الغدیر ''علامہ شرف الدین کی ''النص والاجتہاد ''اور ''الفصول المہمہ '' اور استاد توفیق الفکیکی کی ''المتعہ''ایسی کتابیں ہیں جن کا مطالعہ آپ کرسکتے ہیں ، ان کتابوں کو دقت کے ساتھ پڑھو ۔
عبد اللہ ۔ یقینا ایسا ہی کروں گا داور خدا سے آپ کے لئے نیکی چاہوں گا ۔
رضا۔ یہاں پر اہل سنت پر ایک اور اشکال وارد ہوتا ہے کہ جو ان کے عمر کے فتوء کو ماننیکے بارے میں ہے ۔
عبد اللہ ۔ کیا اشکال ہے ۔
رضا ۔عمر نے متعہ زنان اور متعہ حج دونوں سے روکا ہے پھر اہل سنت متعہ حج کو جائز کیوں مانتے ہیں اور متعہ زنان کو حرام کہتے ہیں اگر عمر کا فتویٰ صحیح تھا تو پھر دونوں متعہ حرام ہے اور اگر باطل تھا تو دونوں متعہ جائز ہے ۔
عبداللہ ۔ کیا اہل سنت متعہ حج کو جائز مانتے ہیں ۔
رضا ۔ ہاںاگر آپ ان کی کتابوں کی طرف رجوع کریں تو اس حقیقت کی طرف آگاہ ہوجائیں گے ۔
عبد اللہ ۔ آپ کا بہت بہت شکریہ ۔
سبحان ربک رب العزہ عمایصفون و سلام علی المرسلین والحمد للہ رب العالمین (صافات آیت ۱۸۰۔۱۸۲)
صادق حسینی الشیرازی
صحابہ کے بارے میں وہابیوں کا عقیدہ
الف: پہلے یہ ثابت کیا جاچکا ہے کہ وہابی عقائد کے مطابق اکثر صحابہ یا کافر ہیں یامشرک! اور اس میں وہ تمام صحابہ شامل ہیں جو پیغمبر(ص) کی وفات کے بعد آپ (ص)سے شفاعت طلب کرتے تھے اور آپ کی قبر مبارک کی زیارت کے لئے جاتے تھے یا اسے جائز سمجھتے تھے، یا دوسروں کو یہ اعمال انجام دیتے ہوئے دیکھتے،مگر بیزاری کا اظہار نہیں کرتے تھے، حتی کہ جو لوگ اس کے جواز کے قائل تھے اوروہ انہیں کافر یا مشرک اور ان کی جان و مال وغیرہ کو حلال نہیں قرار دیتے تھے وہ بھی اسی حکم میں ہیں!!
یہ بات وہابی عقائد کا لازمہ ہے اور ان کا موجودہ نظریہ بھی یہی ہے۔
لیکن یہ لوگ اپنی باتوں کے دوران صحابہ کا جو احترام کرتے ہوئے دکھائی دیتے ہیں ،در حقیقت ان باتوں کے ذریعہ یہ لوگ سادہ لوح عوام کو فریب دیتے ہیں کیونکہ ان کے سامنے یہ اپنا اصل عقیدہ بیان کرنے سے ڈر تے ہیں لہذا ان کے خوف کی وجہ سے صحابہ کی تکفیر کے مسئلے کو صحیح انداز سے بیان نہیں کرتے ۔
ب: وہابیوں نے پیغمبر(ص) کے بعدزندہ رہ جانے والے صحابہ کو ہی نشانہ نہیں بنایا بلکہ آنحضر(ص)ت کی حیات طیبہ میں آپ کے ساتھ رہنے والے صحابۂ کرام بھی ان کی گستاخیوں سے محفوظ نہ رہ سکے. بانی وہابیت محمد بن عبد الوہاب کے یہ الفاظ ملاحظہ فرمایئے:
''اگر چہ بعض صحابہ آنحضرت (ص) کی رکاب میں جہاد کرتے تھے، آپ کے ساتھ نماز پڑھتے تھے، زکوٰۃ دیتے تھے، روزہ رکھتے تھے اور حج کرتے تھے پھر بھی وہ کافر اور اسلام سے دور تھے''!! [الرسائل العملیۃ التسع، مؤلفہ محمد بن عبد الوہاب، رسالۂ کشف الشبہات، ص۱۲۰، مطبوعہ ۱۹۵۷ء
ج: صحابہ کے بارے میں وہابیوں کے اس عقیدہ کی تائید ان چیزوں سے بھی ہوتی ہے جو ان کے علماء اور قلم کاروں نے یزید کی تعریف اور حمایت میں تحریر کیاہے۔ جب کہ تاریخ میں یزید جیسا ،صحابہ کا اور کوئی دشمن نہیں دکھائی دیتا جس نے صحابہ کی جان و مال اور عزت و آبرو کو بالکل حلال کر دیا تھا نیز یزید جیسا اور کوئی ایسا شقی نہیں ہے جس نے تین دن تک اپنے لشکر کے لئے(واقعہ حرّہ میں) مدینہ کے مسلمانوں کی جان و مال اور آبرو ،سب کچھ حلال کردی ہو۔
چنانچہ تین دنوں کے اندر مدینہ میں جو لوگ بھی مارے گئے وہ صحابہ یا ان کے گھر والے ہی تھے اور جن عورتوں اور لڑکیوں کی عزت تاراج کی گئی ان سب کا تعلق بھی صحابہ کے گھرانوں سے ہی تھا. یہی وجہ ہے کہ آئندہ سال مدینہ کی ایک ہزار کنواری لڑکیوں کے یہاں ایسے بچوں کی ولادت ہوئی جن کے باپ کا کچھ پتہ ہی نہیں تھا۔
واقعہ حرّہ سے پہلے یزید کی سب سے بڑی بربریت کربلا میں سامنے آئی جب اس نے خاندان رسالت و نبوت کی اٹھارہ (۱۸) ہستیوں کو تہ تیغ کر ڈالا جن کے درمیان آنحضرت (ص) کے پیارے نواسے اور آپ کے دل کے چین حضرت امام حسین(ع) نیز ان کے بیٹے، بھتیجے اور دوسرے اعزاء و اقرباء حتی کہ۶ مہینے کا شیر خوار بچہ بھی تھا۔
یزید کا ایک بڑا جرم یہ بھی ہے کہ اس نے مکۂ مکرمہ پر حملہ کر کے خانۂ کعبہ میں آگ لگوائی۔
جی ہاں!
وہابی حضرات اسی یزید کے قصیدہ خواں ہیں! اب اس کا راز کیا ہے ؟یہ کون بتائے!۔
ہوسکتا ہے (شاید) صحابہ اور ان کی عورتوں اور بچوں کے اوپر ظلم و تشدد اور ان کے ساتھ اس ناروا سلوک کی بنا پر ہی یہ لوگ یزید کی تعریف کرتے ہوں!! ...
مزید تعجب یہ کہ! یزید نماز نہیں پڑھتا تھا. اور شراب پیتا تھا۔۔۔۔۔۔اور فقہ امام ابو حنیفہ کے مطابق (وہابی حضرات جس پر عمل پیرا ہونے کے مدعی ہیں) انہیں اُس کی صرف اِسی حرکت کی بنا پر اسے کافرقرار دے دینا چۂے مگر وہ پھر بھی اس کی تعریف کرتے ہیں اور اسے معذور قرار دیتے ہیں۔
آخر کیا وجہ ہے؟ کہ یزید کی ان تمام حرکتوںکو جاننے کے باوجود یہ لوگ اسے کچھ نہیں کہتے؟ بلکہ اس کی تعریف کرتے ہیںمگر جن لوگوں نے قبر پیغمبر(ص) سے شفاعت طلب کرلی یا وہ آپ کی زیارت کی نیت سے آپ(ص) کی قبر مبارک پر چلے گئے ان کو کافر قرار دیدیا، چاہے وہ بڑے بڑے صحابہ، تابعین یا مجتہدین کرام ہی کیوں نہ ہوں؟۔
کیا یہ سب کچھ اس لئے ہے کہ یزید نے اصحاب پیغمبر (ص)کا خون بہایا، ان کی عزت و آبرو کو تاراج کیا اور ان کی ناموس کو ظالموں کے لئے مباح کر دیا تھا؟!
جناب ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر سے ایک افسانہ
مسلمانوں کے درمیان ام کلثوم کی شادی کا مسئلہ ایک اہم مسئلہ بن کر رہ گیا ہے کچھ لوگ شک و شبہ میں پڑے ہوئے ہیں اور کچھ لوگ متحیر اور سر گرداں ہیں کہ ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے ہوئی ہے ؟ لہٰذا اس بات کو روشن کرنے کے لئے مختصر اور مفید مضمون پیش کر رہے ہیں ۔
ابن عبد البر نے کتاب استیعاب میں آپ کا ذکر کیا ہے اور سبط ابن جوزی نے اپنی کتاب ”تذکرۃ الخواص“ میں حضرت فاطمہ زہراسلام اللہ علیہا کی اولاد کا ذکراس ترتیب کے ساتھ کیا ہے حضرت امام حسن علیہ السلام حضرت امام حسین علیہ السلام ناب زینب اور جناب ام کلثوم ۔علامہ سید محسن عاملی مرحوم نے اپنی کتاب اعیان الشیعہ میں ذکر کیا ہے کہ آپ کی شادی جناب عون ابن جعفر طیا ر کے ساتھ ہوئی تھی جب کہ استیعاب ،اصابہ،اسد الغابہ جیسی کتابوں میں خلیفہ عمر خطاب کے ساتھ آپ کی شادی کی روایتیں لائی گئی ہیں جو جعلی ہیں۔
جب کہ علامہ محسن عاملی نے تحقیق کے بعد اس بات کا یقین حاصل کیا ہے کہ سرے سے یہ واقعہ ہی وجود میں نہیں آیا اور اس شادی کی روایت من گڑھت ہے اور اسے خلیفہ عمر کے فضائل کے طور پر گڑھا گیا ہے جو صحیح نہیں ہے ۔اس سلسلے میں روایات واخبا رسے متعلق اس قدر اختلافات موجود ہیں جو خود اس واقعہ کی نفی پر دلالت کرتی ہیں ۔اور صاحب ریاحین الشریعہ نے بھی اس روایت سے مختلف اقوال و اخبار کو جمع کرنے کے بعد لکھا ہے کہ میں سرے سے اس عقیدے کا منکر ہوں اور اس پر عقیدہ نہیں رکھتا کہ یہ شادی واقع ہوئی ہو گی ۔
ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے ہوئی یہ روایت غلط ہے اورقابل قبول نہیں کیوں کہ یہ روایت زبیر ابن بکار سے نقل کی گئی ہے یہ شخص محققین کے نزدیک قابل وثوق اور مورد اطمینان نہیں ہے ۔ جو کچھ اس نے نقل کیا ہے وہ بر بنائے دشمنی اورتہمت ہے ۔
زبیر ابن بکار حضرت علی علیہ السلام کا بہت بڑا دشمن تھا۔اس کا دل بنی ہاشم کے کینہ و دشمنی سے بھرا ہوا تھا اس وجہ سے اس کی کوئی بھی بات قابل قبول نہیں ہے۔
دوسری بات یہ کہ اس نے جو روایتیں نقل کی ہیں اس میں بھی بہت زیادہ تضادپایا جاتا ہے ۔لہٰذا کبھی کہتا ہے کہ خود حضرت علی علیہ السلام نے ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے اپنی مرضی سے کی۔کبھی کہتا ہے کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کے چچا جناب عباس علیہ السلام نے ام کلثوم کی شادی اپنے ذمہ لے لی تھی۔کبھی کہتا ہے کہ: یہ شادی ڈرانے دھمکانے سے کی گئی یعنی عمر نے دھمکی دی تھی۔اور کبھی کہتا ہے کہ :یہ شادی ایثارواختیارسے وقوع پذیر ہوئی۔
ان متضاد باتوں سے ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ یہ واقعہ عمر کی اہمیت بڑھانے کے لئے گڑھا گیا ہے۔اور یہ اختلافات حدیث کے بطلان پر دلالت کرتی ہے ۔لہٰذا اس کی کوئی حقیقت ہی نہیں ہے․ (۱)
مرحوم شیخ مفید (رح)،ابو سہل نوبختی اور ابن شہر آشوب نے اس روایت سے انکار کیا ہے اس کے نفی میں شیخ محمد جواد بلاغی نے ایک مفصل رسالہ لکھا ہے ۔اور عبد الرزاق مقدم وناصر حسین لکھنوی نے شدت سے اس واقعہ سے انکار کیا ہے۔
بہت سے اہل سنت بھی اس روایت کے منکر ہیں ۔اور ان کے انکار کرنے کی علت یہ ہے کہ انھوں نے اس طرح کی شادی عمر کے لئے تاریخ کی معتبرکتابوں نہیں دیکھاہے۔
پس لوگوں کے ذہنوں میں اس شادی کے آنے کی علت کیا ہے؟؟
شاید لوگوں کی ذہنوں میں یہ سوال پیدا ہو کہ اگر اس قسم کی کوئی روایت نہیں تو پھر کیوں لوگوں کے درمیان رائج ہے۔اور لوگوں کو وہم وگمان میں ڈال دیا ہے کہ شاید یہ شادی ہوئی ہو؟
یہ روایت ابو محمد حسن ابن یحییٰ کی کتاب سے منتشر ہوئی ہے اور کچھ لوگوں نے اس روایت کے بارہ میں کہا ہے کہ اس کو ایک علوی نے بیان کیا ہے لہٰذا یہ روایت صحیح ہے ۔ جب کہ انھوں نے اس کو زبیر ابن بکار سے نقل کیا ہے ۔
اس وہم وگمان کا منشا شاید یہ ہو کہ عمر کی ایک بیوی کا نام ام کلثوم تھا جو عبد اللہ ابن عمر کی ماں تھی ۔ام کلثوم جرول خزاعیہ کی لڑکی تھی۔چوں کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی لڑکی کا نام بھی ام کلثوم تھا لہٰذا لوگوں نے اس بات کوام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام سے مشہور کردیا ۔اور یہی سبب بنا کہ بعض لوگ جناب ام کلثوم کو عمر کی بیوی تصور کرنے لگے۔
دوسری بات یہ بھی ہے کہ ام کلثوم نام کی ابوبکر کی ایک لڑکی تھی جس کے بارہ میں لوگوں کا خیال ہے کہ یہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی لڑکی ہے ۔جس کے لئے عمر نے خواستگاری کا پیغام بھیجا تھا۔
یہ بات اور زیادہ روشن وواضح ہوجائے اس لئے اس کی طرف بھی اشارہ کردینا ضروری سمجھتاہوں۔
ابو الفرج اصفہانی جوعلمائے اہل سنت میں شمار ہوتے ہیں اپنی کتاب ”اغانی“ جلد دو ص/۱۰۳ جو دار الفکر بیروت سے چھپی ہے میں روایت نقل کرتے ہیں :قریش کے ایک شخص نے عمر بن خطاب سے کہا: تم ام کلثوم دختر ابوبکر سے شادی کیوں نہیں کرلیتے تا کہ ابوبکر کے مرنے کے بعد تمھار ی دوستی ان کے خاندان سے محکم ہو جائے اور تم ان کے رشتہ داروں میں شامل ہو جاؤ۔
عمر نے جواب دیا: ہاں کیوں نہیں۔میں چاہتاہوں کہ ایسا ہی کروں ۔ابھی فوراً تم عائشہ کے پاس جاوٴ اور اس رشتہ کا جوا ب تم میرے پاس لاوٴ۔ وہ شخص عائشہ کے پاس گیا، جو کچھ عمر نے اس سے کہا تھا اس نے عائشہ کے سامنے بیان کردیا ۔عائشہ نے ظاہراً خوشی خوشی اس رشتہ کو قبول کرلیا۔اس کے بعد مغیرہ ابن شعبہ عائشہ کے پاس گیا تو کیا دیکھا کہ عائشہ غمگین اور غصہ کی حالت میں ہیں اس نے پوچھا آخر تم کو کیا ہوا تم غمگین کیوں ہو؟
عائشہ نے عمر کے پیغام کو مغیرہ سے بیان کیا اور کہا یہ نوجوان لڑکی ہے ہم چاہتے کہ اس کی زندگی خوش گوار ہونہیں چاہتے کہ ساری عمر تلخیوں میں گزارے کیوں کہ عمر غصہ ور اور خشن شخص ہے میں نہیں چاہتی کہ میری بہن اس کے ساتھ زندگی کزارے۔
مغیرہ نے عائشہ سے کہا :یہ کام ہمارے ذمہ چھوڑدو تا کہ میں تمھارے اس مشکل کو حل کر دونگا اس کے بعد وہ عمر کے پاس گیا اور بولا کہ خوش رہو اور بچے زیادہ ہوں میں نے سنا ہے کہ تم ابوبکر کے خاندان سے وصلت کرنا چاہتے ہو،تم نے ابو بکر کی لڑکی ام کلثوم سے شادی کا پیغام بھیجا ہے ۔عمر نے کہا : ہاں ایسا ہی ہے ۔
مغیرہ نے کہا یہ ٹھیک ہے لیکن تم اپنے خاندان میں سب سے زیادہ غصہ اور بد اخلاق ہو یہ لڑکی ابھی نئی نئی جوان ہوئی ہے پس تم ہمیشہ اس کے اوپر اعتراض کرو گے اور مارو پیٹو گے اور وہ فریاد کرے گی اور اپنے باپ کو یاد کرے گی ،عائشہ بھی تمھارے اس حرکت سے ناراض اوررنجیدہ ہوں گی۔اس وقت دونوں ابوبکر کو یاد کریں گی جس سے ان غم تازہ ہو جائے گا ۔ اور یہ بات برابر تکرار ہوتی رہے گی۔
عمر نے مغیرہ سے پوچھا تم کس وقت عائشہ کے پاس گئے تھے جو اس قسم کی بات کر رہے ہو ؟۔عائشہ نے اپنی بہن کے لئے مجھے پسند کر لیا ہے !مغیرہ نے جواب دیا میں ابھی ابھی ان کے پاس گیا تھا ، اس وقت اسی کے پاس سے آرہا ہوں ۔
عمر نے کہا :میں سمجھ گیا ، میں ان لوگوں کو پسند نہیں ہوں اور تونے ان سے ضمانت بھی لیا ہے اور قول بھی دیا ہے کہ تو مجھ کو اس کام سے منصرف کرے ۔
پس معلوم ہونا چاہئے کہ یہ دو ام کلثوم ایک مادر عبداللہ ابن عمر اور دوسری ابو بکر کی لڑکی ان دونوں کا رابطہ عمر وسے سبب بنا کہ لوگ مشکوک ہو کر سمجھ بیٹھے کہ ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام عمر کی شادی عمر سے ہوئی جب کہ ایسا نہیں ہے ۔ (۲)
ابن عبد البر نے کتاب استیعاب میں آپ کا ذکر کیا ہے اور سبط ابن جوزی نے اپنی کتاب ”تذکرۃ الخواص“ میں حضرت فاطمہ زہراسلام اللہ علیہا کی اولاد کا ذکراس ترتیب کے ساتھ کیا ہے حضرت امام حسن علیہ السلام حضرت امام حسین علیہ السلام ناب زینب اور جناب ام کلثوم ۔علامہ سید محسن عاملی مرحوم نے اپنی کتاب اعیان الشیعہ میں ذکر کیا ہے کہ آپ کی شادی جناب عون ابن جعفر طیا ر کے ساتھ ہوئی تھی جب کہ استیعاب ،اصابہ،اسد الغابہ جیسی کتابوں میں خلیفہ عمر خطاب کے ساتھ آپ کی شادی کی روایتیں لائی گئی ہیں جو جعلی ہیں۔
جب کہ علامہ محسن عاملی نے تحقیق کے بعد اس بات کا یقین حاصل کیا ہے کہ سرے سے یہ واقعہ ہی وجود میں نہیں آیا اور اس شادی کی روایت من گڑھت ہے اور اسے خلیفہ عمر کے فضائل کے طور پر گڑھا گیا ہے جو صحیح نہیں ہے ۔اس سلسلے میں روایات واخبا رسے متعلق اس قدر اختلافات موجود ہیں جو خود اس واقعہ کی نفی پر دلالت کرتی ہیں ۔اور صاحب ریاحین الشریعہ نے بھی اس روایت سے مختلف اقوال و اخبار کو جمع کرنے کے بعد لکھا ہے کہ میں سرے سے اس عقیدے کا منکر ہوں اور اس پر عقیدہ نہیں رکھتا کہ یہ شادی واقع ہوئی ہو گی ۔
ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے ہوئی یہ روایت غلط ہے اورقابل قبول نہیں کیوں کہ یہ روایت زبیر ابن بکار سے نقل کی گئی ہے یہ شخص محققین کے نزدیک قابل وثوق اور مورد اطمینان نہیں ہے ۔ جو کچھ اس نے نقل کیا ہے وہ بر بنائے دشمنی اورتہمت ہے ۔
زبیر ابن بکار حضرت علی علیہ السلام کا بہت بڑا دشمن تھا۔اس کا دل بنی ہاشم کے کینہ و دشمنی سے بھرا ہوا تھا اس وجہ سے اس کی کوئی بھی بات قابل قبول نہیں ہے۔
دوسری بات یہ کہ اس نے جو روایتیں نقل کی ہیں اس میں بھی بہت زیادہ تضادپایا جاتا ہے ۔لہٰذا کبھی کہتا ہے کہ خود حضرت علی علیہ السلام نے ام کلثوم کی شادی عمر ابن خطاب سے اپنی مرضی سے کی۔کبھی کہتا ہے کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کے چچا جناب عباس علیہ السلام نے ام کلثوم کی شادی اپنے ذمہ لے لی تھی۔کبھی کہتا ہے کہ: یہ شادی ڈرانے دھمکانے سے کی گئی یعنی عمر نے دھمکی دی تھی۔اور کبھی کہتا ہے کہ :یہ شادی ایثارواختیارسے وقوع پذیر ہوئی۔
ان متضاد باتوں سے ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ یہ واقعہ عمر کی اہمیت بڑھانے کے لئے گڑھا گیا ہے۔اور یہ اختلافات حدیث کے بطلان پر دلالت کرتی ہے ۔لہٰذا اس کی کوئی حقیقت ہی نہیں ہے․ (۱)
مرحوم شیخ مفید (رح)،ابو سہل نوبختی اور ابن شہر آشوب نے اس روایت سے انکار کیا ہے اس کے نفی میں شیخ محمد جواد بلاغی نے ایک مفصل رسالہ لکھا ہے ۔اور عبد الرزاق مقدم وناصر حسین لکھنوی نے شدت سے اس واقعہ سے انکار کیا ہے۔
بہت سے اہل سنت بھی اس روایت کے منکر ہیں ۔اور ان کے انکار کرنے کی علت یہ ہے کہ انھوں نے اس طرح کی شادی عمر کے لئے تاریخ کی معتبرکتابوں نہیں دیکھاہے۔
پس لوگوں کے ذہنوں میں اس شادی کے آنے کی علت کیا ہے؟؟
شاید لوگوں کی ذہنوں میں یہ سوال پیدا ہو کہ اگر اس قسم کی کوئی روایت نہیں تو پھر کیوں لوگوں کے درمیان رائج ہے۔اور لوگوں کو وہم وگمان میں ڈال دیا ہے کہ شاید یہ شادی ہوئی ہو؟
یہ روایت ابو محمد حسن ابن یحییٰ کی کتاب سے منتشر ہوئی ہے اور کچھ لوگوں نے اس روایت کے بارہ میں کہا ہے کہ اس کو ایک علوی نے بیان کیا ہے لہٰذا یہ روایت صحیح ہے ۔ جب کہ انھوں نے اس کو زبیر ابن بکار سے نقل کیا ہے ۔
اس وہم وگمان کا منشا شاید یہ ہو کہ عمر کی ایک بیوی کا نام ام کلثوم تھا جو عبد اللہ ابن عمر کی ماں تھی ۔ام کلثوم جرول خزاعیہ کی لڑکی تھی۔چوں کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی لڑکی کا نام بھی ام کلثوم تھا لہٰذا لوگوں نے اس بات کوام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام سے مشہور کردیا ۔اور یہی سبب بنا کہ بعض لوگ جناب ام کلثوم کو عمر کی بیوی تصور کرنے لگے۔
دوسری بات یہ بھی ہے کہ ام کلثوم نام کی ابوبکر کی ایک لڑکی تھی جس کے بارہ میں لوگوں کا خیال ہے کہ یہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی لڑکی ہے ۔جس کے لئے عمر نے خواستگاری کا پیغام بھیجا تھا۔
یہ بات اور زیادہ روشن وواضح ہوجائے اس لئے اس کی طرف بھی اشارہ کردینا ضروری سمجھتاہوں۔
ابو الفرج اصفہانی جوعلمائے اہل سنت میں شمار ہوتے ہیں اپنی کتاب ”اغانی“ جلد دو ص/۱۰۳ جو دار الفکر بیروت سے چھپی ہے میں روایت نقل کرتے ہیں :قریش کے ایک شخص نے عمر بن خطاب سے کہا: تم ام کلثوم دختر ابوبکر سے شادی کیوں نہیں کرلیتے تا کہ ابوبکر کے مرنے کے بعد تمھار ی دوستی ان کے خاندان سے محکم ہو جائے اور تم ان کے رشتہ داروں میں شامل ہو جاؤ۔
عمر نے جواب دیا: ہاں کیوں نہیں۔میں چاہتاہوں کہ ایسا ہی کروں ۔ابھی فوراً تم عائشہ کے پاس جاوٴ اور اس رشتہ کا جوا ب تم میرے پاس لاوٴ۔ وہ شخص عائشہ کے پاس گیا، جو کچھ عمر نے اس سے کہا تھا اس نے عائشہ کے سامنے بیان کردیا ۔عائشہ نے ظاہراً خوشی خوشی اس رشتہ کو قبول کرلیا۔اس کے بعد مغیرہ ابن شعبہ عائشہ کے پاس گیا تو کیا دیکھا کہ عائشہ غمگین اور غصہ کی حالت میں ہیں اس نے پوچھا آخر تم کو کیا ہوا تم غمگین کیوں ہو؟
عائشہ نے عمر کے پیغام کو مغیرہ سے بیان کیا اور کہا یہ نوجوان لڑکی ہے ہم چاہتے کہ اس کی زندگی خوش گوار ہونہیں چاہتے کہ ساری عمر تلخیوں میں گزارے کیوں کہ عمر غصہ ور اور خشن شخص ہے میں نہیں چاہتی کہ میری بہن اس کے ساتھ زندگی کزارے۔
مغیرہ نے عائشہ سے کہا :یہ کام ہمارے ذمہ چھوڑدو تا کہ میں تمھارے اس مشکل کو حل کر دونگا اس کے بعد وہ عمر کے پاس گیا اور بولا کہ خوش رہو اور بچے زیادہ ہوں میں نے سنا ہے کہ تم ابوبکر کے خاندان سے وصلت کرنا چاہتے ہو،تم نے ابو بکر کی لڑکی ام کلثوم سے شادی کا پیغام بھیجا ہے ۔عمر نے کہا : ہاں ایسا ہی ہے ۔
مغیرہ نے کہا یہ ٹھیک ہے لیکن تم اپنے خاندان میں سب سے زیادہ غصہ اور بد اخلاق ہو یہ لڑکی ابھی نئی نئی جوان ہوئی ہے پس تم ہمیشہ اس کے اوپر اعتراض کرو گے اور مارو پیٹو گے اور وہ فریاد کرے گی اور اپنے باپ کو یاد کرے گی ،عائشہ بھی تمھارے اس حرکت سے ناراض اوررنجیدہ ہوں گی۔اس وقت دونوں ابوبکر کو یاد کریں گی جس سے ان غم تازہ ہو جائے گا ۔ اور یہ بات برابر تکرار ہوتی رہے گی۔
عمر نے مغیرہ سے پوچھا تم کس وقت عائشہ کے پاس گئے تھے جو اس قسم کی بات کر رہے ہو ؟۔عائشہ نے اپنی بہن کے لئے مجھے پسند کر لیا ہے !مغیرہ نے جواب دیا میں ابھی ابھی ان کے پاس گیا تھا ، اس وقت اسی کے پاس سے آرہا ہوں ۔
عمر نے کہا :میں سمجھ گیا ، میں ان لوگوں کو پسند نہیں ہوں اور تونے ان سے ضمانت بھی لیا ہے اور قول بھی دیا ہے کہ تو مجھ کو اس کام سے منصرف کرے ۔
پس معلوم ہونا چاہئے کہ یہ دو ام کلثوم ایک مادر عبداللہ ابن عمر اور دوسری ابو بکر کی لڑکی ان دونوں کا رابطہ عمر وسے سبب بنا کہ لوگ مشکوک ہو کر سمجھ بیٹھے کہ ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام عمر کی شادی عمر سے ہوئی جب کہ ایسا نہیں ہے ۔ (۲)
واضح ہو!
دوسری بات یہ کہ ام کلثوم کی شادی کا واقعہ نہ تو صحیح بخاری میں ہے اور نہ صحیح مسلم میں حتی کسی بھی صحاح ستہ میں نہیں ہے اور اہل سنت کی کسی بھی مشہور مسانید و معاجم میں بھی اس قسم کی کوئی اثر موجود نہیں ہے ۔
یہاں پر جائے تعجب ہے کہاگر ایسا ہوتا تو عمر کی خلافت محکم کرنے کے لئے ضرور لکھتے۔
اور یہ کیسے ممکن ہے کہ اتنا اہم واقعہ سے ان لوگوں نے غفلت کیا ہو؟ پس معلوم ہوا کہ اس طرح کے واقعہ کا کوئی بنیاد ی اساس نہیں ہے۔و الا اتنے آسانی سے اس واقعہ کو ہرگز نہ چھوڑتے اور اپنی کتابوں صحاح و مسانید میں ضرور تحریر فرماتے۔
خلاصہ کلام:
مرحوم محقق شوشتری کی کتاب”ارشاد“ سے استفادہ کرتے ہوئے میں یہاں پر بیان کرنا چاہتاہوں کہ حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی دو لڑکیوں کا نام ام کلثوم تھا۔ایک ام کلثوم کبریٰ جو فاطمہ زہرا سلام اللہ علیہا سے تھیں اور دوسری ام کلثوم صغریٰ جو (ام ولد )کنیزکی لڑکی تھیں۔
صاحب ”ارشاد“ لکھتے ہیں کہ زینب صغریٰ کی کنیت ام کلثوم تھی جو فاطمہ زہرا سلام اللہ علیہا کی اولاد سے تھیں۔
شاید اس کی وجہ یہی رہی ہوکہ مورخین نے اشتباہ کیا ہے کہ ام کلثوم کبریٰ کی شادی عمر بن خطاب سے ہوئی ۔کیوں کہ دونوں ام کلثوم باہم مل جانے کی وجہ سے یہ اشتباہات وجود میں آئے۔
آیۃ اللہ مرعشی نجفی (رح) کی تحقیق یہ ہے کہ ام کلثوم ابوبکر کی بیوی اسماء بنت عمیس کی تھیں ۔ابوبکر کے مرنے کے بعد اسما بنت عمیس نے حضرت علی علیہ السلام سے شادی کرلی ۔ لہٰذا یہ بچی بھی محمد ابن ابوبکر کی طرح حضرت علی علیہ السلام کے گھر آئی اور حضرت علی علیہ السلام کی تربیت میں پلی بڑھی بعد میں عمر بن خطاب نے اس سے شادی کرلی ۔
(خلاصہ واقعہ یہ تھا)جس کو لوگوں نے عمر کی اہمیت بڑھانے کے لئے ام کلثوم بنت علی علیہ السلام سے شہرت دے دی۔ (۳)
(۱)۔ احمد رحمانی ہمدانی ”فاطمہ زہر(ع)شادمانی دل پیامبر(ص)“ ترجمہ افتخار زادہ ص/۸۷۵و۷۸۶
(۲)۔ فرید سائل۔ افسانہ ازدواج (بررسی ازدواج حضرت ام کلثوم با عمر در مدرک شیعہ وسنی)ص/۲۰و۲۲
(۳)۔ تاریخ تحلیل و سیاسی اسلام ج/۲،ص/۵۹۔ڈاکٹر علی اکبر محسنی
Bogus Ahadeeth !!!
سیدنا ابوہریرہ رضی اللہ عنہ کہتے ہیں کہ نبی کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا: “ تم سے پہلے بنی اسرائیل میں ایسے لوگ گزر چکے ہیں جن سے فرشتے باتیں کرتے تھے (جنہیں الہام ہوتا تھا) اگرچہ وہ نبی نہ تھے اور اگر میری امت میں سے کوئی ایسا ہوا تو وہ عمر (رضی اللہ عنہ) ہوں گے۔”
More here
Monday, August 22, 2011
Abdullah ibn Umar and hate towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) - Part 2
Continued from : Part 1
Yazid's oppression received a boost when Abdullah ibn Umar supported him and urged people to swear the oath of fealty to him, so he raised an army under the command of Uqbah, one of the leading adulterers of his time, ordering him to assault Medina, the city of the Prophet, permitting him to do whatever he wished in it. Uqbah, therefore, killed ten thousand sahabis and took their wives as captives then confiscated their property. He also killed seven hundred huffaz of the Holy Qur'an according to the prominent Sunni scholar/historian al-Baladhuri, permitting his army to rape many free Muslim women to the extent that the latter gave birth to an estimated one thousand illegitimate babies. Then he forced them to swear that they were all slaves of his master Yazid... Was not Abdullah ibn Umar his accomplice in all of that, since he supported and empowered him? I leave the researchers to derive their own conclusion.
Abdullah ibn Umar was not satisfied with all of that; rather, he went beyond it to swear the oath of allegiance to Marwan ibn al-Hakam, the bedeviled accursed one, the promiscuous adulterer, who fought Ali openly and killed Talhah and did so many horrible things such as burning the House of Allah and shelling it with catapults, demolishing one of its corners and killing in that incident Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, in addition to other shameful actions.
Then Ibn Umar reaches in swearing his oath of allegiance new heights when he swore it to al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, the greatest apostate who used to make fun of the Holy Qur'an and label it as Arab martial poetry, preferring his master Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan over the Messenger of Allah. This al-Hajjaj is the same one who was known by the elite as well as the commoners as having belittled all Islamic tenets.
In his Tarikh, the world famous Sunni Scholar, hafiz Ibn Asakir indicates that two men disputed with one another about al-Hajjaj. One of them said that he was a kafir, an apostate, whereas the other said that he was a daall mu'min, a believer who went astray. When they persisted, they asked al-Sha`bi about his view. Al-Sha`bi said, "He is a mu'min [believer] in as far as oppression and tyranny are concerned, a kafir [disbeliever] in Allah, the Great." [Ref: 230]
This criminal al-Hajjaj is the one who violated everything, which Allah decreed not to be violated. Historians record that he was excessive in killing, torturing and mutilating the corpses of the righteous of the nation, especially Shi`a followers of Muhammad's, for these suffered at his hands more than at the hands of anyone else.
In his Tarikh, Ibn Qutaybah says that in one single day, al-Hajjaj killed more than seventy thousand men to the extent that the blood flow reached the mosque's door as well as the highways. [Ref: 231] And in his Sahih, al-Tirmidhi, having counted those executed by al-Hajjaj, says, "After his [al-Hajjaj's] death, eighty thousand prisoners were found in his jail, including thirty thousand women." [Ref: 232]
Al-Hajjaj used to compare himself to the Lord of Might and Honor: whenever he passed by the jail and heard the prisoners crying of pain and pleading for mercy, he used to say to them [what the Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an]: "Remain in abjection therein, and do not speak to me" (Holy Qur'an, 23:108).
Such is al-Hajjaj who was prophesied by the Messenger of Allah before his demise; he said, "There is in [the tribe of] Thaqeef a liar and an annihilator." What is strange is that the narrator of this tradition is none other Abdullah ibn Umar himself! [Ref: 233]
Yes, Abdullah ibn Umar was reluctant to swear the oath of allegiance to the best of mankind after the Prophet and did not support him, nor did he even prays behind him; therefore, Allah, Glory to Him, humiliated him. He went to al-Hajjaj once and said, "I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying, `Whoever dies owing an oath of allegiance will die the death of jahiliyya.'" Al-Hajjaj the accursed, thereupon, despised him and pointed his foot at him saying, "My hand is busy right now; so, swear your oath of allegiance to this." He used to pray behind al-Hajjaj, the apostate, and behind his wali Najdah ibn Amir, head of the Kharijites. [Ref: 234]
There is no doubt that Abdullah ibn Umar preferred to pray behind these men only because they were famous for cursing and denouncing Ali after the prayers. Ibn Umar used to gratify his hidden grudge and animosity whenever he heard such cursing, feeling very contented at heart and very satisfied therewith. For this reason, we find the sect of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" enjoining prayers behind the righteous as well as the promiscuous based on what their master and the faqih of their sect Abdullah ibn Umar doing likewise and praying behind the apostate al-Hajjaj and the Kharijite Najdah ibn Amir.
As for the Prophet's statements such as these: "The one who should be the Imam of people is their best in reciting the Book of Allah. If they all recite it equally well, he should be the most knowledgeable of the Sunnah. If they all know the Sunnah equally well, he should be their foremost in having participated in the Hijra. If they had all participated in the Hijra at the same time, he should be the foremost in having accepted Islam...," they surely are discarded...
None of these four merits, namely reciting the Holy Qur'an, safeguarding the Sunnah, early participation in the Hijra, and early acceptance of Islam, applies to those to whom Ibn Umar swore his oath of allegiance and behind whom he prayed: neither in Mu`awiyah, nor in Yazid, nor in Marwan, nor in al-Hajjaj, nor in Najdah, the Kharijite...
This, of course, is only one of the Sunnah injunctions, which Abdullah ibn Umar violated. He discarded them altogether and acted exactly to their contrary. He abandoned the master of the Prophet's purified Progeny, namely Ali, in whom all these and many more merits were combined. Rather, he turned his back to him and went to join the corrupt ones, the Kharijites, the apostates, the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, praying behind them!
How many are the violations of the faqih of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" Abdullah ibn Umar, violations of both the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger? If we wish, we can gather them in a separate book, but the following examples, which are quoted from their own books and Sahihs, should suffice to back our argument:
Violations of Abdullah ibn Umar of the Book and the Sunnah
Allah, the Most Exalted One, has said in His Glorious Book, "Fight the one [party] that acts wrongfully till it returns to obeying Allah's Command" (Holy Qur'an, 49:9). The Messenger of Allah has said, "O Ali! You shall fight after me the renegades, those who equal others with Allah, and the heretics."
Abdullah ibn Umar violated this text of the Holy Qur'an as well as the above quoted tradition, and he violated the consensus (ijma`) of the nation, of the Muhajirs and the Ansar who fought beside the Commander of the Faithful, following his own view and saying, "I shall not fight in the dissension, and I shall pray behind whoever wins." [Ref: 235] Sunni Historian Ibn Hajar has indicated that Abdullah ibn Umar was of the view that one should avoid fighting during a dissension even if one of the two parties is right and the other is wrong. [Ref: 236]
Truly strange, by Allah, is the case of Abdullah ibn Umar who sees one party being right and the other being wrong yet refraining from supporting the right one or from curbing the wrong party till it returns to obedience to Allah! He performed his prayers behind whoever won, albeit if the winner was a wrong doer! This is exactly what happened to Ibn Umar, for Mu`awiyah won and subdued the nation, forcing his authority on it. Ibn Umar then came and swore the oath of allegiance to Mu`awiyah and prayed behind him despite all the crimes and sins which he had committed and which are beyond one's imagination and with which Ibn Umar was fully familiar.
The wrong doers from the leaders of oppression, due to their numerical superiority, won victory over the leaders of the truth who were the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. So the latter were excluded from authority, whereas the promiscuous, the adulterers, the straying criminals, came to rule the nation with force and oppression.
Ibn Umar abandoned the truth all of it, so history does not record any friend for him nor any affinity towards Ahl al-Bayt five of whose Imams were his contemporaries. He did not pray behind a single one of them. He did not quote one of their ahadith, and he did not recognize a single virtue or merit of any of them.
We have come to know, while discussing the Twelve Imams in this book, what his view with regard to the ones whom he labelled as the twelve caliphs was. He regarded as authentic the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Yazid, al-Saffah, Salam, al-Mansour, Jabir, al-Mahdi, al-Amin, and their team head [Mu`awiyah], saying, "All these twelve are descendants of Banu Ka`b ibn Luayy, and they are all unmatched in righteousness."[Ref: 237]
Do you see among these men any of the Imams of guidance from the Prophet's Progeny who were described by the Messenger of Allah as the ark of salvation and the peers of the Qur'an?
For this reason, you cannot trace any presence for them among "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," nor is there even one Imam from Ahl al-Bayt on the list of imams and caliphs they emulate. Such is the case of Abdullah ibn Umar in his violation of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. As for his own ignorance of the same, you may say whatever you wish. Among the indications of such ignorance is his being unaware of the fact that the Prophet permitted women to wear sandals when wearing the ihram garb; Ibn Umar issued fatawa prohibiting it. [Ref: 238]
Another is the leasing of his farms during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah as well as during the reign of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Mu`awiyah to the extent that one of the sahaba talked to him near the end of Mu`awiyah's reign and told him that the Messenger of Allah had prohibited it. [Ref: 239]
Yes; such is the faqih of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a;" he did not know that it was haram to lease farms, and there is no doubt that he used to issue his verdicts permitting it during that entire period which lasted from the time of the Prophet to the end of Mu`awiyah's reign, a period of about fifty years...
Yet another example is Ayesha denouncing his verdict that a deceased person is tormented because of the weeping of the living over him, and also with regard to morning athan, and his saying that the month is twenty-nine days. She opposed him in several other issues as well.
Other examples are recorded by both shaykhs, namely al-Bukhari and Muslim, in the Sahih of each one of them: Abdullah ibn Umar was told that Abu Hurayra used to say, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, `Whoever walks behind a coffin will receive one karat of rewards.'" Ibn Umar responded by [sarcastically] saying, "Abu Hurayra has surely been generous with such karats!" Ayesha, however, testified to the authenticity of Abu Hurayra's tradition saying, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying so." It was then that Ibn Umar said, "We surely have missed quite a few karats!"[Ref: 240]
Suffices us in this regard the testimony of Umar ibn al-Khattab with regard to his son Abdullah: On his deathbed, Umar was asked by a flatterer, "Why don't you recommend Abdullah ibn Umar to be the next caliph?" Umar said, "Shall I recommend a man who does not know even how to divorce his wife [according to the Shari`a]?"
Such is Abdullah, the son of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and nobody knew him better than his father. As for the false traditions whereby he served his master Mu`awiyah, these are quite numerous indeed. We would like to mention a few of them by way of sampling: He said, "The Messenger of Allah said, `A man from the people of Paradise will soon come to you,' whereupon Mu`awiyah came. Then he said, `Tomorrow, a man from the people of Paradise will come to you;' Mu`awiyah came. Then he repeated the same about the next day, whereupon Mu`awiyah came."
Another is his saying, "When the Ayat al-Kursi was revealed, the Messenger of Allah told Mu`awiyah to write it down. `What shall I get if I do so?' asked Mu`awiyah. He said, `Whenever anyone recites it, you will receive the reward of its recitation.'"
Another is his saying, "Mu`awiyah will surely be resurrected on the Resurrection Day outfitted with a robe of the light of iman."
I do not know why "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" did not add Mu`wiyah's name to the list of the ten men who received the glad tidings of going to Paradise since their master Ibn Umar emphasized thrice, in three consecutive days, that Mu`awiyah was to go to Paradise. Since people on the Resurrection Day will be raised bare-footed, naked, Mu`awiyah will be their very best because he will be outfitted with a robe made of the light of iman! So read such statements and wonder!
Such is Abdullah ibn Umar; such is the extent of his knowledge; such is his fiqh and violation of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet; such is his enmity towards the Commander of the Faithful and the pure Imams from the Progeny of the Prophet, and such is his loyalty and flattery of the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, the enemies of humanity.
The only person who was on clear guidance from his Lord, who never doubted the truth even for the twinkling of an eye, was Ali ibn Abu Talib, Allah's peace be upon him, with whom the truth revolved wherever he revolved, accompanying him wherever he went. So congratulations to whoever follows and emulates him. In fact, the Messenger of Allah himself said, "You, O Ali, and your followers [Shi`as] are surely the victorious on the Day of Judgment." [Ref: 244]
Is He then Who guides to what is right more worthy of being followed, or he who does not guide unless he himself is guided? What is the matter with you? How do you judge? (Holy Qur'an, 10:35)
Surely Allah, the Great, has said the truth.
The Righteous Caliphs According to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah"
These, according to them, are the four caliphs who ascended the seat of caliphate following the demise of the Messenger of Allah. "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" advocate these caliphs' superiority over all other people with the exception of the Prophet in the same chronological order of their caliphate. This is what we hear even these days. We have, however, come to know from previous researches that Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib, peace be upon him, was not counted among them as one of the caliphs, much less a righteous one; rather, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal added his name at a much later time to the list. Prior to that, he used to be cursed from the pulpits in all Muslim lands and throughout the Umayyad Empire.
In order to shed more light on this subject, and so that the reader may feel comfortable about the truth regarding this regretful fact, his attention is invited to the following:
We have already said that Abdullah ibn Umar is regarded by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" as one of the most prominent faqihs, and Malik makes him his major authority upon whom he depends in his book Al-Muwatta'. He is also relied upon by both al-Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih written by each of them. All other transmitters of hadith, without any exception, rely on him.
This man was famous for his open hatred of the Commander of the Faithful Ali ibn Abu Talib. History tells us that he refused to swear the oath of allegiance to Ali, yet he rushed to swear his oath of allegiance to the cursed al-Hajjaj, the enemy of Allah and His Messenger. [Ref: 122]
Abdullah ibn Umar revealed what he was hiding in his chest and disclosed his best-kept secret when he said that he could not count even one single favor or merit or good quality of Ali that warranted placing him in the fourth place after Uthman ibn Affan.
We have already come to know that he favored only Abu Bakr and Umar; as for Ali, peace be upon him, he, in his assessment, was among the commoners, if not the very least important among them.
Let me provide you with another fact which narrators of hadith and historians have recorded, and which openly expresses the hateful and antagonistic nature of Ibn Umar towards Ali and all Imams from the pure Progeny of the Prophet: Abdullah ibn Umar has said the following while trying to explain the tradition of the Prophet in
Which he said, "The caliphs after me shall be twelve; all of them are from Quraysh":
This nation shall have twelve caliphs who are: Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, Umar al-Farooq, Uthman Thul Noorain, Mu`awiyah and his son as the kings of the holy lands (Mecca and Medina), al-Saffah, Salam, Mansour, Jabir, al-Mahdi, al-Ameen, Ameer al-Asab, who all are from Banu Ka`b ibn Luayy, and they are righteous and peerless. [Ref: 123]
So read this statement, dear reader, again and wonder about such faqih who is so highly respected by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" and notice how he distorts the facts and turns them upside down, making Mu`awiyah and his son Yazid as well as al-Saffah [a title meaning: the blood-shedder] the best of Allah's servants, further stating that they are peerless! Surely grudge and ignorance have blinded his eye sight just as envy and animosity have blinded his mind [Ref: 124] to the extent that he cannot see any merit or favor for the commander of the Faithful Ali over whom he prefers Mu`awiyah, the morally depraved man, and his atheist, criminal, and blood-thirsty son Yazid.
Abdullah ibn Umar is the son of his father. Whatever comes from its source surprises nobody, and every pot drips of its contents. His father used all possible means to exclude Ali, peace be upon him, from the caliphate, and to make him look insignificant in the eyes of the public. And here we see his [Umar ibn al-Khattab's] spiteful and hateful son, despite Ali's ascension to the caliphate after Uthman's murder and after having received the oath of allegiance from the Muhajirun and Ansar, refusing to swear the oath of allegiance to Ali and trying his best to put his light out and stir people against him in order to cause his downfall. He, therefore, kept making statements and fooling people into thinking that Ali, peace be upon him, had no merits,
and that he was like any other ordinary man.
Abdullah ibn Umar served the Umayyad dynasty and crowned both Mu`awiyah and his son Yazid with the crown of caliphate, telling lies and fabrications about the Prophet, recognizing the caliphate of al-Saffah and al-Mansour and all promiscuous rulers of Banu Umayyah, preferring them over the master of the Muslims and the wali of the believers according to the text of the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. Yet he did not recognize Ali's caliphate even when it actually took place! How strange!
Enmity of "Ahl al-Sunnah" Towards Ahl ul-Bayt a.s Reveals their Identity
Any researcher stands dumbfounded when he collides with the reality about "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" and comes to know that they were the enemies of the pure Progeny of the Prophet, following those who fought Ahl al-Bayt and cursed them and spared no means to murder them and obliterate their legacy. This is why you find "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" placing the label of "reliable" on all traditionists if they are Kharijites or Nasibi followers of Uthman. They charge and accuse all the traditionists who are loyal to Ahl al-Bayt of being "weak."
You do not find such matters recorded openly in their books. But when they try to challenge the authenticity of accurate traditions recounting the merits of Ali ibn Abu Talib, they label them as "weak," saying, "Among the chain of its narrators is so-and-so who is a Rafidi." [Ref: 126]
And they label as "sahih," authentic, false traditions, which were fabricated in order to raise the status of and glorify the other caliphs even if their narrators were Nasibis. Being a Nasibi, according to them, is indicative of one's zeal about the Sunnah.
Sunni Historian, Ibn Hajar, for example, says the following about Abdullah ibn Idris al-Azdi, a very well known Nasibi, "He was a man who followed the Sunnah and Jama`ah, a zealot with regard to the Sunnah, and a follower of Uthman." [Ref: 127]
About Abdullah ibn Awn al-Basri he says, "He is held as reliable, and he is a man of piety and zeal about the Sunnah and toughness against the people of innovations. Ibn Sa`d has said that Abdullah ibn Awn al-Basri was a follower of Uthman." [Ref: 128]
And about Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzjani, who was famous for hating Ali, peace be upon him, he says that his sect was Hareezi, i.e. a follower of Hareez ibn Uthman of Damascus, the sect known as Nasibism [Ref: 129] Sunni Historian Ibn Hayyan describes Ibrahim as being zealous about the Sunnah, a man who memorized hadith.
It is noteworthy that this same Nasibi whom they praise by saying that he is zealous about the Sunnah and that he memorized hadith used to take the opportunity of other traditionists gathering at his door [asking permission to enter] to send one of his slave-girls with a hen in her hand to tour the town then to go back to her master, Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzjani, to tell him that she could not find anyone to slaughter it for her; he would then cry out: "Subhan-Allah! There is none to slaughter a hen whereas Ali in broad day light slaughters twenty thousand Muslims!"
Through such cunning and conniving, the Nasibis, enemies of Ahl al-Bayt, try to dissuade people from following the truth and mislead them through such false accusations in order to fill the Muslims' hearts, especially those of traditionists [such as the ones who used to meet al-Jawzjani to learn hadith from him] with hatred and animosity towards Ali ibn Abu Talib, peace be upon him, and thus permit cursing, taunting, and condemning him.
You can find such phenomenon even in our time. Despite the claim of contemporary "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" that they love Ahl al-Bayt and seek Allah's Pleasure with our master Ali, karrama-Allahu wajhahu (Allah glorified his countenance), as they say, if you narrate one hadith containing one of the virtues of Ali, peace be upon him, they ridicule you, charge you with Shi`ism, with being an innovator, and with being "extremist."
When you, however, discuss the caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar, and other sahaba they feel very comfortable talking to you. This is exactly the doctrine of their "good predecessors." Historians have transmitted saying
that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to label as "weak" any traditionist who belittled Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman, while holding in high esteem Ibrahim al-Jawzjani, the afore-mentioned Nasibi, praising him a great deal. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal corresponded with him, recited his books from the pulpit, and used his works in support of his arguments.
If this is the case with regard to Ahmad ibn Hanbal who forced his contemporaries to recognize the caliphate of Ali, whom he ranked as their fourth, do not ask me about the others who did not admit even one single merit for Ali, or about those who cursed and condemned him from the pulpits during Fridays and Eids. Sunni Historian, Al-Dar Qutni, for example, says, "Ibn Qutaybah, spokesman of Ahl al-Sunnah, inclines to ascribing human characteristics (to Allah) and deviates from the line of the Prophet's `Itrat."
This proves that most "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" deviated from the path of the Progeny of the Messenger of Allah.
Al-Mutawakkil, whom traditionists called muhyi al-Sunnah, the person who revived the Sunnah, and whom Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to respect and hold in high regards and whose orders he endorsed in appointing judges, was one of the most notorious Nasibis who were antagonistic towards Ali and his Ahl al-Bayt, so much so that his grudge prompted him to desecrate the graves of both Ali and his son Husayn, peace be upon them. He used to forbid anyone from visiting their sites and would kill anyone named "Ali." In his dissertation, al-Khawarizmi quotes him saying that he used to generously reward with money only those who cursed the descendants of Abu Talib, peace be upon them, and support the sect of Nasibism. [Ref: 131]
Needless to say, Nasibism is one of the sects of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a;" therefore, the promoter of Nasibism, namely al-Mutawakkil, is the same one labelled as muhyi al-Sunnah, the person who revived the Sunnah; so, consider. infamous Sunni historian, Ibn Kathir, in his Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, tells us that when "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" heard al-A`mash narrating the tradition of the roasted bird, which contains a praise of Ali ibn Abu Talib (peace be upon him), they took him out of the mosque then washed the place where he used to sit. [Ref: 132]
They also opposed the burial of Imam Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, author of Al-Tafsir al-Kabir (the great exegesis) and the great historian, for no reason other than his admission of the authenticity of hadith al-Ghadeer in which the Prophet is quoted saying, "Whoever regards me as his/her mawla (master), this Ali is (henceforth) his/her master." He collected its sources from various avenues. Those sources were quite numerous, so they came to be referred to as mutawatir, consecutively reported. Sunni Historian, Ibn Kathir has said, "I have seen one of his books wherein he compiled the traditions relevant to the Ghadeer incident, and it was in two huge volumes, in addition to another book in which he compiles the incidents relevant to the tradition of the roasted bird." [Ref: 133]
Ibn Hajar, another renowned sunni historian, too, has discussed him in his book Lisan al-Mizan, saying, "He is the great Imam and the highly respected interpreter of the Qur'an; he is trustworthy, truthful, and there is a good deal of Shi`ism in him and support (for Ahl al-Bayt, as) which is not detrimental (to his reliability)" [Ref: 134]
When Imam al-Nasa'i, the great traditionist and one of the authors of Al-Sihah al-Sittah (the six books of traditions which the Sunnis regard as sahih, authentic), wrote a book dealing with the merits of the Commander of the Faithful Ali, he was asked about Mu`awiyah's "merits," whereupon he answered: "I do not know of any except that the Messenger of Allah said to him once: `May Allah never satisfy your stomach.'" He was, therefore, beaten on his genitals till he lost consciousness. His body was carried to some place to die of such beating.
Sunni Historian, Ibn Kathir tells us the following in his Tarikh where he describes the violent confrontations that took place in Baghdad in 363 A.H./954 A.D. between the Shi`as and "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" on the anniversary of Ashura:
"A group from "Ahl al-Sunnah" seated a woman on an animal to play the role of Ayesha and brought some of their men to play Talha and al-Zubayr. They expressed their objective thus: "We want to fight the followers of Ali." A large number of people were killed." [Ref: 135]
This is what goes on nowadays, too: "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" attack Shi`as on Ashura in order to prohibit them from participating in the commemorative procession, killing many innocent Muslims.
After having conducted such an expose, it becomes clear to us that the Nasibis who antagonized Ali, peace be upon him, and who fought Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, are the ones who labelled themselves "Ahl al-Sunnah," and we have already come to know what "Sunnah" they mean and to what "consensus" they refer.
It is self-evident that whoever antagonizes the Progeny of the Messenger of Allah is an enemy of their grandfather the Prophet, and whoever antagonizes the Messenger of Allah is an enemy of Allah. It is likewise self-evident that anyone who is an opponent of Allah, His Messenger and Ahl al-Bayt cannot be among the true servants of the Merciful One, nor can he be among the followers of the Sunnah except when such a "Sunnah" is meant to be the "sunnah" of the devil. As for the Sunnah of the Merciful One, it is loving Allah and His Messenger and Ahl al-Bayt, following them and following in their footsteps. The most Exalted One has said, "Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it except to love my near relatives" (Holy Qur'an, 42:23).
So how can one compare Mu`awiyah with Ali, or the "imams" of misguidance with the Imams of guidance?
This is a clear statement for people, and guidance, and admonition, to those who fear their Lord.
(Holy Qur'an, 3:138)
Sunni References to the above article are below in
numerical order:
(Important Note: No Shia hadith or book or personality was used in the discussion above)
[122] Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi is the one who is very well known for his promiscuity, apostasy, crimes, and total lack of respect for the faith. Al-Hakim has recorded on p. 556, Vol. 3, of his Al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Asakir has also recorded on p. 69, Vol. 4, of his book, the fact that al-Hajjaj used to say, "Ibn Mas`ud claims that he recited a Qur'an revealed from Allah, and Allah is nothing more than a filth of the Arabs." He also used to say, "Fear Allah as much as you want, for doing so is completely futile, and listen to and obey the commander of the faithful Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan for you will then be generously rewarded." Also Ibn Aqeel records on p. 81 of his book Al-Nasaih al-Kafiya saying that al-Hajjaj delivered a speech once in Kufa and referred to those who were visiting the grave site of the Prophet at Medina thus: "May they perish! They go around sticks and decaying cadaver; why don't they go round the mansion of the commander of the faithful Abd al-Malik? Don't they know that someone's successor is better than his messenger?”
[123] This is stated on p. 140 of al-Suyuti's book Tarikh al-Khualfa, p. 140. Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 6, p. 67, and also in the history books of Ibn Asakir and al-Dhahabi.
[124] Read it and do not forget the statement of the Prophet which al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded and which says: "Loving Ali ibn Abu Talib is a sign of iman (conviction), and hating him is a sign of hypocrisy," and the hypocrites during the time of the Prophet used to be identified by their hatred towards Ali .
[126] What they mean by "Rafidi" [literally: rejectionist] is someone who follows Ali and rejects the caliphate of those who preceded him in ruling over the Muslims.
[127] Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vol. 5, p. 145 and Vol. 1, p. 82.
[128] It is well known that the followers of Uthman are the Nasibis who accused Ali of being kafir, apostate, and they accused him of killing Uthman ibn Affan. They are headed by Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, Uthman's cousin; so, he is their chief and leader.
[129] The Nasibis are Ali's enemies and the enemies of his Ahl al-Bayt from among the Kharijites, the Qasitis, and the renegades who antagonized him and fought him. After his martyrdom, they took to cursing and condemning him.
[130] Al-Dhahabi, Lisan al-Mizan, Vol. 3, p. 357.
[131] Refer to p. 135 of al-Khawarizmi's Rasaail (Letters).
[132] [As an act of purification from najasa, uncleanness or filth.] This incident is narrated on p. 147, Vol. 11, of Ibn Kathir's book Al Bidaya wal Nihaya.
[133] Ibid.
[134] This is mentioned when Ibn Hajar, author of Lisan al-Mizan, discusses the biography of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari.
[135] Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya fil Fitan wal Malahim, Vol. 11, p. 275.
[218] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 3, p. 158, in a chapter dealing with children reaching the age of adolescence. It is also mentioned in a chapter on adolescence in the Book of Government of Muslim's Sahih.
[219] The tradition of the standard is mentioned by al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Dawud, and all other traditionists.
[220] Al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. 5, p. 40. Al-Suyuti,, Tarikh al-Khulafa, p. 104. Ibn Qutaybah, Tarikh. Ahmad, Musnad, Vol. 1, p. 75.
[221] This statement was made by Umar ibn al-Khattab at the Prophet's Mosque in Medina shortly before his death. __ Tr.
[222] Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Vol. 7, p. 586.
[223] Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 6, p. 23. Al-Hakim, Mustadrak, Vol. 2, p. 156. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 8, p. 144.
[224] This is recorded in Muslim's Sahih, in al-Bayhaqi's Sunan, and in Ibn Majah's Sunan.
[225] Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat, Vol. 3, p. 248.
[226] Al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 5, p. 31. Ibn Abd al-Birr, Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 2, p. 396. Usd al-Ghabah, Vol. 3, p. 289.
[227] Did Allah and His Messenger enjoin swearing the oath of allegiance to adulterers and criminals? Or did He enjoin swearing it to the righteous when He said, "Surely Allah is your Wali and His Messenger and those who believe who uphold the prayers and who pay the zakat even as they prostrate"?
[228] How we wish Ibn Umar had said the same to Talhah and al-Zubayr who reneged from their oath of allegiance to Ali and fought him, and how we wish "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" acted according to this tradition in classifying men! If violating the oath of allegiance is one of the greatest sins which follow apostasy, what is the fate of Talhah and al-Zubayr who did not only violate their oath of allegiance but also violated people's honor, killed innocent people and confiscated their wealth, and betrayed the promise?
[229] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 1, p. 166. Ahmad, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 96. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 8,
p. 159.
[230] Ibn Asakir, Tarikh, Vol. 4, p. 81.
[231] Ibn Qutaybah. Tarikh al-Khulafa, Vol. 2, p. 26.
[232] Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Vol. 9, p. 64.
[233] Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Vol. 9, p. 64. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 91.
[234] Ibn Sa`d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 4, p. 110. Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla, Vol. 4, p. 213.
[235] Ibn Sa`d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 4, p. 110.
[236] Ibn Hajar states this fact on p. 39 of his book Al-Fath al-Bari.
[237] Al-Suyuti quotes this statement in his book Kanz al-Ummal, and it is quoted in the history books of both Ibn Asakir and al-Dhahabi. To know the other references with the number of their pages and volumes, refer to the chapter in this book dealing with the twelve successors according to the Sunnis.
[238] Abu Dawud, Sunan, Vol. 1, p. 289. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 5, p. 25. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 29.
[239] Al-Bukhari, Sahih. Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 5, p. 21.
[240] This is recorded by al-Bukhari in his Sahih in a chapter dealing with the virtues of walking behind borne coffins in his Kitab al-Janaaiz (Book of Borne Coffins).
Yazid's oppression received a boost when Abdullah ibn Umar supported him and urged people to swear the oath of fealty to him, so he raised an army under the command of Uqbah, one of the leading adulterers of his time, ordering him to assault Medina, the city of the Prophet, permitting him to do whatever he wished in it. Uqbah, therefore, killed ten thousand sahabis and took their wives as captives then confiscated their property. He also killed seven hundred huffaz of the Holy Qur'an according to the prominent Sunni scholar/historian al-Baladhuri, permitting his army to rape many free Muslim women to the extent that the latter gave birth to an estimated one thousand illegitimate babies. Then he forced them to swear that they were all slaves of his master Yazid... Was not Abdullah ibn Umar his accomplice in all of that, since he supported and empowered him? I leave the researchers to derive their own conclusion.
Abdullah ibn Umar was not satisfied with all of that; rather, he went beyond it to swear the oath of allegiance to Marwan ibn al-Hakam, the bedeviled accursed one, the promiscuous adulterer, who fought Ali openly and killed Talhah and did so many horrible things such as burning the House of Allah and shelling it with catapults, demolishing one of its corners and killing in that incident Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, in addition to other shameful actions.
Then Ibn Umar reaches in swearing his oath of allegiance new heights when he swore it to al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, the greatest apostate who used to make fun of the Holy Qur'an and label it as Arab martial poetry, preferring his master Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan over the Messenger of Allah. This al-Hajjaj is the same one who was known by the elite as well as the commoners as having belittled all Islamic tenets.
In his Tarikh, the world famous Sunni Scholar, hafiz Ibn Asakir indicates that two men disputed with one another about al-Hajjaj. One of them said that he was a kafir, an apostate, whereas the other said that he was a daall mu'min, a believer who went astray. When they persisted, they asked al-Sha`bi about his view. Al-Sha`bi said, "He is a mu'min [believer] in as far as oppression and tyranny are concerned, a kafir [disbeliever] in Allah, the Great." [Ref: 230]
This criminal al-Hajjaj is the one who violated everything, which Allah decreed not to be violated. Historians record that he was excessive in killing, torturing and mutilating the corpses of the righteous of the nation, especially Shi`a followers of Muhammad's, for these suffered at his hands more than at the hands of anyone else.
In his Tarikh, Ibn Qutaybah says that in one single day, al-Hajjaj killed more than seventy thousand men to the extent that the blood flow reached the mosque's door as well as the highways. [Ref: 231] And in his Sahih, al-Tirmidhi, having counted those executed by al-Hajjaj, says, "After his [al-Hajjaj's] death, eighty thousand prisoners were found in his jail, including thirty thousand women." [Ref: 232]
Al-Hajjaj used to compare himself to the Lord of Might and Honor: whenever he passed by the jail and heard the prisoners crying of pain and pleading for mercy, he used to say to them [what the Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an]: "Remain in abjection therein, and do not speak to me" (Holy Qur'an, 23:108).
Such is al-Hajjaj who was prophesied by the Messenger of Allah before his demise; he said, "There is in [the tribe of] Thaqeef a liar and an annihilator." What is strange is that the narrator of this tradition is none other Abdullah ibn Umar himself! [Ref: 233]
Yes, Abdullah ibn Umar was reluctant to swear the oath of allegiance to the best of mankind after the Prophet and did not support him, nor did he even prays behind him; therefore, Allah, Glory to Him, humiliated him. He went to al-Hajjaj once and said, "I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying, `Whoever dies owing an oath of allegiance will die the death of jahiliyya.'" Al-Hajjaj the accursed, thereupon, despised him and pointed his foot at him saying, "My hand is busy right now; so, swear your oath of allegiance to this." He used to pray behind al-Hajjaj, the apostate, and behind his wali Najdah ibn Amir, head of the Kharijites. [Ref: 234]
There is no doubt that Abdullah ibn Umar preferred to pray behind these men only because they were famous for cursing and denouncing Ali after the prayers. Ibn Umar used to gratify his hidden grudge and animosity whenever he heard such cursing, feeling very contented at heart and very satisfied therewith. For this reason, we find the sect of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" enjoining prayers behind the righteous as well as the promiscuous based on what their master and the faqih of their sect Abdullah ibn Umar doing likewise and praying behind the apostate al-Hajjaj and the Kharijite Najdah ibn Amir.
As for the Prophet's statements such as these: "The one who should be the Imam of people is their best in reciting the Book of Allah. If they all recite it equally well, he should be the most knowledgeable of the Sunnah. If they all know the Sunnah equally well, he should be their foremost in having participated in the Hijra. If they had all participated in the Hijra at the same time, he should be the foremost in having accepted Islam...," they surely are discarded...
None of these four merits, namely reciting the Holy Qur'an, safeguarding the Sunnah, early participation in the Hijra, and early acceptance of Islam, applies to those to whom Ibn Umar swore his oath of allegiance and behind whom he prayed: neither in Mu`awiyah, nor in Yazid, nor in Marwan, nor in al-Hajjaj, nor in Najdah, the Kharijite...
This, of course, is only one of the Sunnah injunctions, which Abdullah ibn Umar violated. He discarded them altogether and acted exactly to their contrary. He abandoned the master of the Prophet's purified Progeny, namely Ali, in whom all these and many more merits were combined. Rather, he turned his back to him and went to join the corrupt ones, the Kharijites, the apostates, the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, praying behind them!
How many are the violations of the faqih of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" Abdullah ibn Umar, violations of both the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger? If we wish, we can gather them in a separate book, but the following examples, which are quoted from their own books and Sahihs, should suffice to back our argument:
Violations of Abdullah ibn Umar of the Book and the Sunnah
Allah, the Most Exalted One, has said in His Glorious Book, "Fight the one [party] that acts wrongfully till it returns to obeying Allah's Command" (Holy Qur'an, 49:9). The Messenger of Allah has said, "O Ali! You shall fight after me the renegades, those who equal others with Allah, and the heretics."
Abdullah ibn Umar violated this text of the Holy Qur'an as well as the above quoted tradition, and he violated the consensus (ijma`) of the nation, of the Muhajirs and the Ansar who fought beside the Commander of the Faithful, following his own view and saying, "I shall not fight in the dissension, and I shall pray behind whoever wins." [Ref: 235] Sunni Historian Ibn Hajar has indicated that Abdullah ibn Umar was of the view that one should avoid fighting during a dissension even if one of the two parties is right and the other is wrong. [Ref: 236]
Truly strange, by Allah, is the case of Abdullah ibn Umar who sees one party being right and the other being wrong yet refraining from supporting the right one or from curbing the wrong party till it returns to obedience to Allah! He performed his prayers behind whoever won, albeit if the winner was a wrong doer! This is exactly what happened to Ibn Umar, for Mu`awiyah won and subdued the nation, forcing his authority on it. Ibn Umar then came and swore the oath of allegiance to Mu`awiyah and prayed behind him despite all the crimes and sins which he had committed and which are beyond one's imagination and with which Ibn Umar was fully familiar.
The wrong doers from the leaders of oppression, due to their numerical superiority, won victory over the leaders of the truth who were the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. So the latter were excluded from authority, whereas the promiscuous, the adulterers, the straying criminals, came to rule the nation with force and oppression.
Ibn Umar abandoned the truth all of it, so history does not record any friend for him nor any affinity towards Ahl al-Bayt five of whose Imams were his contemporaries. He did not pray behind a single one of them. He did not quote one of their ahadith, and he did not recognize a single virtue or merit of any of them.
We have come to know, while discussing the Twelve Imams in this book, what his view with regard to the ones whom he labelled as the twelve caliphs was. He regarded as authentic the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Yazid, al-Saffah, Salam, al-Mansour, Jabir, al-Mahdi, al-Amin, and their team head [Mu`awiyah], saying, "All these twelve are descendants of Banu Ka`b ibn Luayy, and they are all unmatched in righteousness."[Ref: 237]
Do you see among these men any of the Imams of guidance from the Prophet's Progeny who were described by the Messenger of Allah as the ark of salvation and the peers of the Qur'an?
For this reason, you cannot trace any presence for them among "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," nor is there even one Imam from Ahl al-Bayt on the list of imams and caliphs they emulate. Such is the case of Abdullah ibn Umar in his violation of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. As for his own ignorance of the same, you may say whatever you wish. Among the indications of such ignorance is his being unaware of the fact that the Prophet permitted women to wear sandals when wearing the ihram garb; Ibn Umar issued fatawa prohibiting it. [Ref: 238]
Another is the leasing of his farms during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah as well as during the reign of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Mu`awiyah to the extent that one of the sahaba talked to him near the end of Mu`awiyah's reign and told him that the Messenger of Allah had prohibited it. [Ref: 239]
Yes; such is the faqih of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a;" he did not know that it was haram to lease farms, and there is no doubt that he used to issue his verdicts permitting it during that entire period which lasted from the time of the Prophet to the end of Mu`awiyah's reign, a period of about fifty years...
Yet another example is Ayesha denouncing his verdict that a deceased person is tormented because of the weeping of the living over him, and also with regard to morning athan, and his saying that the month is twenty-nine days. She opposed him in several other issues as well.
Other examples are recorded by both shaykhs, namely al-Bukhari and Muslim, in the Sahih of each one of them: Abdullah ibn Umar was told that Abu Hurayra used to say, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, `Whoever walks behind a coffin will receive one karat of rewards.'" Ibn Umar responded by [sarcastically] saying, "Abu Hurayra has surely been generous with such karats!" Ayesha, however, testified to the authenticity of Abu Hurayra's tradition saying, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying so." It was then that Ibn Umar said, "We surely have missed quite a few karats!"[Ref: 240]
Suffices us in this regard the testimony of Umar ibn al-Khattab with regard to his son Abdullah: On his deathbed, Umar was asked by a flatterer, "Why don't you recommend Abdullah ibn Umar to be the next caliph?" Umar said, "Shall I recommend a man who does not know even how to divorce his wife [according to the Shari`a]?"
Such is Abdullah, the son of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and nobody knew him better than his father. As for the false traditions whereby he served his master Mu`awiyah, these are quite numerous indeed. We would like to mention a few of them by way of sampling: He said, "The Messenger of Allah said, `A man from the people of Paradise will soon come to you,' whereupon Mu`awiyah came. Then he said, `Tomorrow, a man from the people of Paradise will come to you;' Mu`awiyah came. Then he repeated the same about the next day, whereupon Mu`awiyah came."
Another is his saying, "When the Ayat al-Kursi was revealed, the Messenger of Allah told Mu`awiyah to write it down. `What shall I get if I do so?' asked Mu`awiyah. He said, `Whenever anyone recites it, you will receive the reward of its recitation.'"
Another is his saying, "Mu`awiyah will surely be resurrected on the Resurrection Day outfitted with a robe of the light of iman."
I do not know why "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" did not add Mu`wiyah's name to the list of the ten men who received the glad tidings of going to Paradise since their master Ibn Umar emphasized thrice, in three consecutive days, that Mu`awiyah was to go to Paradise. Since people on the Resurrection Day will be raised bare-footed, naked, Mu`awiyah will be their very best because he will be outfitted with a robe made of the light of iman! So read such statements and wonder!
Such is Abdullah ibn Umar; such is the extent of his knowledge; such is his fiqh and violation of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet; such is his enmity towards the Commander of the Faithful and the pure Imams from the Progeny of the Prophet, and such is his loyalty and flattery of the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, the enemies of humanity.
The only person who was on clear guidance from his Lord, who never doubted the truth even for the twinkling of an eye, was Ali ibn Abu Talib, Allah's peace be upon him, with whom the truth revolved wherever he revolved, accompanying him wherever he went. So congratulations to whoever follows and emulates him. In fact, the Messenger of Allah himself said, "You, O Ali, and your followers [Shi`as] are surely the victorious on the Day of Judgment." [Ref: 244]
Is He then Who guides to what is right more worthy of being followed, or he who does not guide unless he himself is guided? What is the matter with you? How do you judge? (Holy Qur'an, 10:35)
Surely Allah, the Great, has said the truth.
The Righteous Caliphs According to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah"
These, according to them, are the four caliphs who ascended the seat of caliphate following the demise of the Messenger of Allah. "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" advocate these caliphs' superiority over all other people with the exception of the Prophet in the same chronological order of their caliphate. This is what we hear even these days. We have, however, come to know from previous researches that Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib, peace be upon him, was not counted among them as one of the caliphs, much less a righteous one; rather, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal added his name at a much later time to the list. Prior to that, he used to be cursed from the pulpits in all Muslim lands and throughout the Umayyad Empire.
In order to shed more light on this subject, and so that the reader may feel comfortable about the truth regarding this regretful fact, his attention is invited to the following:
We have already said that Abdullah ibn Umar is regarded by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" as one of the most prominent faqihs, and Malik makes him his major authority upon whom he depends in his book Al-Muwatta'. He is also relied upon by both al-Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih written by each of them. All other transmitters of hadith, without any exception, rely on him.
This man was famous for his open hatred of the Commander of the Faithful Ali ibn Abu Talib. History tells us that he refused to swear the oath of allegiance to Ali, yet he rushed to swear his oath of allegiance to the cursed al-Hajjaj, the enemy of Allah and His Messenger. [Ref: 122]
Abdullah ibn Umar revealed what he was hiding in his chest and disclosed his best-kept secret when he said that he could not count even one single favor or merit or good quality of Ali that warranted placing him in the fourth place after Uthman ibn Affan.
We have already come to know that he favored only Abu Bakr and Umar; as for Ali, peace be upon him, he, in his assessment, was among the commoners, if not the very least important among them.
Let me provide you with another fact which narrators of hadith and historians have recorded, and which openly expresses the hateful and antagonistic nature of Ibn Umar towards Ali and all Imams from the pure Progeny of the Prophet: Abdullah ibn Umar has said the following while trying to explain the tradition of the Prophet in
Which he said, "The caliphs after me shall be twelve; all of them are from Quraysh":
This nation shall have twelve caliphs who are: Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, Umar al-Farooq, Uthman Thul Noorain, Mu`awiyah and his son as the kings of the holy lands (Mecca and Medina), al-Saffah, Salam, Mansour, Jabir, al-Mahdi, al-Ameen, Ameer al-Asab, who all are from Banu Ka`b ibn Luayy, and they are righteous and peerless. [Ref: 123]
So read this statement, dear reader, again and wonder about such faqih who is so highly respected by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" and notice how he distorts the facts and turns them upside down, making Mu`awiyah and his son Yazid as well as al-Saffah [a title meaning: the blood-shedder] the best of Allah's servants, further stating that they are peerless! Surely grudge and ignorance have blinded his eye sight just as envy and animosity have blinded his mind [Ref: 124] to the extent that he cannot see any merit or favor for the commander of the Faithful Ali over whom he prefers Mu`awiyah, the morally depraved man, and his atheist, criminal, and blood-thirsty son Yazid.
Abdullah ibn Umar is the son of his father. Whatever comes from its source surprises nobody, and every pot drips of its contents. His father used all possible means to exclude Ali, peace be upon him, from the caliphate, and to make him look insignificant in the eyes of the public. And here we see his [Umar ibn al-Khattab's] spiteful and hateful son, despite Ali's ascension to the caliphate after Uthman's murder and after having received the oath of allegiance from the Muhajirun and Ansar, refusing to swear the oath of allegiance to Ali and trying his best to put his light out and stir people against him in order to cause his downfall. He, therefore, kept making statements and fooling people into thinking that Ali, peace be upon him, had no merits,
and that he was like any other ordinary man.
Abdullah ibn Umar served the Umayyad dynasty and crowned both Mu`awiyah and his son Yazid with the crown of caliphate, telling lies and fabrications about the Prophet, recognizing the caliphate of al-Saffah and al-Mansour and all promiscuous rulers of Banu Umayyah, preferring them over the master of the Muslims and the wali of the believers according to the text of the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. Yet he did not recognize Ali's caliphate even when it actually took place! How strange!
Enmity of "Ahl al-Sunnah" Towards Ahl ul-Bayt a.s Reveals their Identity
Any researcher stands dumbfounded when he collides with the reality about "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" and comes to know that they were the enemies of the pure Progeny of the Prophet, following those who fought Ahl al-Bayt and cursed them and spared no means to murder them and obliterate their legacy. This is why you find "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" placing the label of "reliable" on all traditionists if they are Kharijites or Nasibi followers of Uthman. They charge and accuse all the traditionists who are loyal to Ahl al-Bayt of being "weak."
You do not find such matters recorded openly in their books. But when they try to challenge the authenticity of accurate traditions recounting the merits of Ali ibn Abu Talib, they label them as "weak," saying, "Among the chain of its narrators is so-and-so who is a Rafidi." [Ref: 126]
And they label as "sahih," authentic, false traditions, which were fabricated in order to raise the status of and glorify the other caliphs even if their narrators were Nasibis. Being a Nasibi, according to them, is indicative of one's zeal about the Sunnah.
Sunni Historian, Ibn Hajar, for example, says the following about Abdullah ibn Idris al-Azdi, a very well known Nasibi, "He was a man who followed the Sunnah and Jama`ah, a zealot with regard to the Sunnah, and a follower of Uthman." [Ref: 127]
About Abdullah ibn Awn al-Basri he says, "He is held as reliable, and he is a man of piety and zeal about the Sunnah and toughness against the people of innovations. Ibn Sa`d has said that Abdullah ibn Awn al-Basri was a follower of Uthman." [Ref: 128]
And about Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzjani, who was famous for hating Ali, peace be upon him, he says that his sect was Hareezi, i.e. a follower of Hareez ibn Uthman of Damascus, the sect known as Nasibism [Ref: 129] Sunni Historian Ibn Hayyan describes Ibrahim as being zealous about the Sunnah, a man who memorized hadith.
It is noteworthy that this same Nasibi whom they praise by saying that he is zealous about the Sunnah and that he memorized hadith used to take the opportunity of other traditionists gathering at his door [asking permission to enter] to send one of his slave-girls with a hen in her hand to tour the town then to go back to her master, Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzjani, to tell him that she could not find anyone to slaughter it for her; he would then cry out: "Subhan-Allah! There is none to slaughter a hen whereas Ali in broad day light slaughters twenty thousand Muslims!"
Through such cunning and conniving, the Nasibis, enemies of Ahl al-Bayt, try to dissuade people from following the truth and mislead them through such false accusations in order to fill the Muslims' hearts, especially those of traditionists [such as the ones who used to meet al-Jawzjani to learn hadith from him] with hatred and animosity towards Ali ibn Abu Talib, peace be upon him, and thus permit cursing, taunting, and condemning him.
You can find such phenomenon even in our time. Despite the claim of contemporary "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" that they love Ahl al-Bayt and seek Allah's Pleasure with our master Ali, karrama-Allahu wajhahu (Allah glorified his countenance), as they say, if you narrate one hadith containing one of the virtues of Ali, peace be upon him, they ridicule you, charge you with Shi`ism, with being an innovator, and with being "extremist."
When you, however, discuss the caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar, and other sahaba they feel very comfortable talking to you. This is exactly the doctrine of their "good predecessors." Historians have transmitted saying
that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to label as "weak" any traditionist who belittled Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman, while holding in high esteem Ibrahim al-Jawzjani, the afore-mentioned Nasibi, praising him a great deal. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal corresponded with him, recited his books from the pulpit, and used his works in support of his arguments.
If this is the case with regard to Ahmad ibn Hanbal who forced his contemporaries to recognize the caliphate of Ali, whom he ranked as their fourth, do not ask me about the others who did not admit even one single merit for Ali, or about those who cursed and condemned him from the pulpits during Fridays and Eids. Sunni Historian, Al-Dar Qutni, for example, says, "Ibn Qutaybah, spokesman of Ahl al-Sunnah, inclines to ascribing human characteristics (to Allah) and deviates from the line of the Prophet's `Itrat."
This proves that most "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" deviated from the path of the Progeny of the Messenger of Allah.
Al-Mutawakkil, whom traditionists called muhyi al-Sunnah, the person who revived the Sunnah, and whom Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to respect and hold in high regards and whose orders he endorsed in appointing judges, was one of the most notorious Nasibis who were antagonistic towards Ali and his Ahl al-Bayt, so much so that his grudge prompted him to desecrate the graves of both Ali and his son Husayn, peace be upon them. He used to forbid anyone from visiting their sites and would kill anyone named "Ali." In his dissertation, al-Khawarizmi quotes him saying that he used to generously reward with money only those who cursed the descendants of Abu Talib, peace be upon them, and support the sect of Nasibism. [Ref: 131]
Needless to say, Nasibism is one of the sects of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a;" therefore, the promoter of Nasibism, namely al-Mutawakkil, is the same one labelled as muhyi al-Sunnah, the person who revived the Sunnah; so, consider. infamous Sunni historian, Ibn Kathir, in his Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, tells us that when "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" heard al-A`mash narrating the tradition of the roasted bird, which contains a praise of Ali ibn Abu Talib (peace be upon him), they took him out of the mosque then washed the place where he used to sit. [Ref: 132]
They also opposed the burial of Imam Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, author of Al-Tafsir al-Kabir (the great exegesis) and the great historian, for no reason other than his admission of the authenticity of hadith al-Ghadeer in which the Prophet is quoted saying, "Whoever regards me as his/her mawla (master), this Ali is (henceforth) his/her master." He collected its sources from various avenues. Those sources were quite numerous, so they came to be referred to as mutawatir, consecutively reported. Sunni Historian, Ibn Kathir has said, "I have seen one of his books wherein he compiled the traditions relevant to the Ghadeer incident, and it was in two huge volumes, in addition to another book in which he compiles the incidents relevant to the tradition of the roasted bird." [Ref: 133]
Ibn Hajar, another renowned sunni historian, too, has discussed him in his book Lisan al-Mizan, saying, "He is the great Imam and the highly respected interpreter of the Qur'an; he is trustworthy, truthful, and there is a good deal of Shi`ism in him and support (for Ahl al-Bayt, as) which is not detrimental (to his reliability)" [Ref: 134]
When Imam al-Nasa'i, the great traditionist and one of the authors of Al-Sihah al-Sittah (the six books of traditions which the Sunnis regard as sahih, authentic), wrote a book dealing with the merits of the Commander of the Faithful Ali, he was asked about Mu`awiyah's "merits," whereupon he answered: "I do not know of any except that the Messenger of Allah said to him once: `May Allah never satisfy your stomach.'" He was, therefore, beaten on his genitals till he lost consciousness. His body was carried to some place to die of such beating.
Sunni Historian, Ibn Kathir tells us the following in his Tarikh where he describes the violent confrontations that took place in Baghdad in 363 A.H./954 A.D. between the Shi`as and "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" on the anniversary of Ashura:
"A group from "Ahl al-Sunnah" seated a woman on an animal to play the role of Ayesha and brought some of their men to play Talha and al-Zubayr. They expressed their objective thus: "We want to fight the followers of Ali." A large number of people were killed." [Ref: 135]
This is what goes on nowadays, too: "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" attack Shi`as on Ashura in order to prohibit them from participating in the commemorative procession, killing many innocent Muslims.
After having conducted such an expose, it becomes clear to us that the Nasibis who antagonized Ali, peace be upon him, and who fought Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, are the ones who labelled themselves "Ahl al-Sunnah," and we have already come to know what "Sunnah" they mean and to what "consensus" they refer.
It is self-evident that whoever antagonizes the Progeny of the Messenger of Allah is an enemy of their grandfather the Prophet, and whoever antagonizes the Messenger of Allah is an enemy of Allah. It is likewise self-evident that anyone who is an opponent of Allah, His Messenger and Ahl al-Bayt cannot be among the true servants of the Merciful One, nor can he be among the followers of the Sunnah except when such a "Sunnah" is meant to be the "sunnah" of the devil. As for the Sunnah of the Merciful One, it is loving Allah and His Messenger and Ahl al-Bayt, following them and following in their footsteps. The most Exalted One has said, "Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it except to love my near relatives" (Holy Qur'an, 42:23).
So how can one compare Mu`awiyah with Ali, or the "imams" of misguidance with the Imams of guidance?
This is a clear statement for people, and guidance, and admonition, to those who fear their Lord.
(Holy Qur'an, 3:138)
Sunni References to the above article are below in
numerical order:
(Important Note: No Shia hadith or book or personality was used in the discussion above)
[122] Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi is the one who is very well known for his promiscuity, apostasy, crimes, and total lack of respect for the faith. Al-Hakim has recorded on p. 556, Vol. 3, of his Al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Asakir has also recorded on p. 69, Vol. 4, of his book, the fact that al-Hajjaj used to say, "Ibn Mas`ud claims that he recited a Qur'an revealed from Allah, and Allah is nothing more than a filth of the Arabs." He also used to say, "Fear Allah as much as you want, for doing so is completely futile, and listen to and obey the commander of the faithful Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan for you will then be generously rewarded." Also Ibn Aqeel records on p. 81 of his book Al-Nasaih al-Kafiya saying that al-Hajjaj delivered a speech once in Kufa and referred to those who were visiting the grave site of the Prophet at Medina thus: "May they perish! They go around sticks and decaying cadaver; why don't they go round the mansion of the commander of the faithful Abd al-Malik? Don't they know that someone's successor is better than his messenger?”
[123] This is stated on p. 140 of al-Suyuti's book Tarikh al-Khualfa, p. 140. Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 6, p. 67, and also in the history books of Ibn Asakir and al-Dhahabi.
[124] Read it and do not forget the statement of the Prophet which al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded and which says: "Loving Ali ibn Abu Talib is a sign of iman (conviction), and hating him is a sign of hypocrisy," and the hypocrites during the time of the Prophet used to be identified by their hatred towards Ali .
[126] What they mean by "Rafidi" [literally: rejectionist] is someone who follows Ali and rejects the caliphate of those who preceded him in ruling over the Muslims.
[127] Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vol. 5, p. 145 and Vol. 1, p. 82.
[128] It is well known that the followers of Uthman are the Nasibis who accused Ali of being kafir, apostate, and they accused him of killing Uthman ibn Affan. They are headed by Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, Uthman's cousin; so, he is their chief and leader.
[129] The Nasibis are Ali's enemies and the enemies of his Ahl al-Bayt from among the Kharijites, the Qasitis, and the renegades who antagonized him and fought him. After his martyrdom, they took to cursing and condemning him.
[130] Al-Dhahabi, Lisan al-Mizan, Vol. 3, p. 357.
[131] Refer to p. 135 of al-Khawarizmi's Rasaail (Letters).
[132] [As an act of purification from najasa, uncleanness or filth.] This incident is narrated on p. 147, Vol. 11, of Ibn Kathir's book Al Bidaya wal Nihaya.
[133] Ibid.
[134] This is mentioned when Ibn Hajar, author of Lisan al-Mizan, discusses the biography of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari.
[135] Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya fil Fitan wal Malahim, Vol. 11, p. 275.
[218] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 3, p. 158, in a chapter dealing with children reaching the age of adolescence. It is also mentioned in a chapter on adolescence in the Book of Government of Muslim's Sahih.
[219] The tradition of the standard is mentioned by al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Dawud, and all other traditionists.
[220] Al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. 5, p. 40. Al-Suyuti,, Tarikh al-Khulafa, p. 104. Ibn Qutaybah, Tarikh. Ahmad, Musnad, Vol. 1, p. 75.
[221] This statement was made by Umar ibn al-Khattab at the Prophet's Mosque in Medina shortly before his death. __ Tr.
[222] Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Vol. 7, p. 586.
[223] Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 6, p. 23. Al-Hakim, Mustadrak, Vol. 2, p. 156. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 8, p. 144.
[224] This is recorded in Muslim's Sahih, in al-Bayhaqi's Sunan, and in Ibn Majah's Sunan.
[225] Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat, Vol. 3, p. 248.
[226] Al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 5, p. 31. Ibn Abd al-Birr, Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 2, p. 396. Usd al-Ghabah, Vol. 3, p. 289.
[227] Did Allah and His Messenger enjoin swearing the oath of allegiance to adulterers and criminals? Or did He enjoin swearing it to the righteous when He said, "Surely Allah is your Wali and His Messenger and those who believe who uphold the prayers and who pay the zakat even as they prostrate"?
[228] How we wish Ibn Umar had said the same to Talhah and al-Zubayr who reneged from their oath of allegiance to Ali and fought him, and how we wish "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" acted according to this tradition in classifying men! If violating the oath of allegiance is one of the greatest sins which follow apostasy, what is the fate of Talhah and al-Zubayr who did not only violate their oath of allegiance but also violated people's honor, killed innocent people and confiscated their wealth, and betrayed the promise?
[229] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 1, p. 166. Ahmad, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 96. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 8,
p. 159.
[230] Ibn Asakir, Tarikh, Vol. 4, p. 81.
[231] Ibn Qutaybah. Tarikh al-Khulafa, Vol. 2, p. 26.
[232] Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Vol. 9, p. 64.
[233] Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Vol. 9, p. 64. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 91.
[234] Ibn Sa`d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 4, p. 110. Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla, Vol. 4, p. 213.
[235] Ibn Sa`d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 4, p. 110.
[236] Ibn Hajar states this fact on p. 39 of his book Al-Fath al-Bari.
[237] Al-Suyuti quotes this statement in his book Kanz al-Ummal, and it is quoted in the history books of both Ibn Asakir and al-Dhahabi. To know the other references with the number of their pages and volumes, refer to the chapter in this book dealing with the twelve successors according to the Sunnis.
[238] Abu Dawud, Sunan, Vol. 1, p. 289. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 5, p. 25. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 29.
[239] Al-Bukhari, Sahih. Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 5, p. 21.
[240] This is recorded by al-Bukhari in his Sahih in a chapter dealing with the virtues of walking behind borne coffins in his Kitab al-Janaaiz (Book of Borne Coffins).
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Abdullah ibn Umar and hate towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) - Part 1
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
Popular Posts (Last 30 Days)
-
Question : There is a Sahih Hadith stating the names of ten (10) people who Prophet (SA) stated that they will be in Paradise. These nam...
-
Article Provided by : Br. Hesham Merchant The crowd left towards the house of Hazrat Ali (a.s.). The harbored the intention of burning dow...
-
Umar ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By G... -
مرحوم علامه مجلسی در كتاب شریف بحار الأنوار مینویسد كه عبد الله بن عمر بن الخطاب ، بعد از شهادت سید الشهداء علیه السلام به دیدار یز... -
Tabari: Narrated Aboo Hisham Al-Rafi from Aboo Bakr Ibn Ayyash from Hasim Ibn Kulayb from his father who said: " Uma... -
Muhammad Bin Saaib Al Kalbi narrates in his book (Al Salabah Fe Ma'rifat Al Sahabah) (3/212) ... Nufayl was working for Kalb Bin ...
-
Abdul Kareem Mushtaq - Hum Muta Kiyon Kerte Hain Here is an unbiased debate on 'Muta' from ARY Digital. The host is neutra...
