Umar banned Mutah, Prophet(s.a.w) did not!!!

Jawaz Nikah Muta'h aur Sahaba

Jawaz Nikah Muta'h Aur Sahaba

Did Imam Ali(a.s) named his sons due to his love for Umar!!!

The following article is extracted from http://rayatmohammed.blogspot.in/2007/08/imam-alis-sons.html

 Ali (عليه السلام) had 12 sons (including the unborn Mohsin (عليه السلام)). Two of the twelve were named Umar and Uthman. When you hear the name Umar today you usually immediately and automatically think of Umar Ibn al-Khattab. However, back at the time, this was not the case and the names such as Aisha, Umar and Uthman were very popular and very common Arab names. In fact, the brothers over at Answering-Ansar provided a list of the numerous companions who shared their names. So basically, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not name his sons after the two caliphs.

A suitable comparison would be if a staunch anti-George Bush father were to name his sons George and Richard. These two names are very popular indeed and no one would even think for a second he had named his sons that in honour of George Bush and Dick Cheney. If in 1400 years time the names George and Richard become associated with the current US President and vice-president, people would probably claim that this anti-US individual loved the Bush government, but we know from looking from an objective point of view, this is incorrect.

My Sunni friend once said in a discussion, “So why don’t you name your sons Yezid, Saddam and Adolf?” I replied to him, “Brother you are missing the point. The names Yezid, Saddam and Adolf are always associated with Yezid Ibn Muawiya, Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. They are the first people you think of when the names are mentioned. However, during Imam Ali’s (عليه السلام) time, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Uthman Ibn Affan would not spring to mind when their first names were mentioned. This is the crucial point.”

The Sunni propagandist may say is it not too big of a coincidence for Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to have named two of his sons Umar and Uthman without having the caliphs in mind. I reply by saying if an anti-USA father were to name his sons George and Richard would anyone start talking about coincidences? No. As we can see the argument is weak but I will entertain it for a second. If the Sunni propagandists say that it is unlikely Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his sons those names simply because the names were popular while there were many other popular Arab names, we respond to them by saying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never named any of his sons Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan etc all of which are other popular Arab names shared by the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام). Therefore, when you think about it carefully it is not appropriate to claim the coincidence is too big, as there were so many people opposed to Imam Ali (عليه السلام), many of them with popular Arab names. Remember to keep in mind Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had twelve sons in total.

As for the claim Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named all his sons after beloved ones (e.g. Jafar after Jafar Al-Tayyar (عليه السلام)) this is not always the case as indicated by the example of Aun Ibn Ali (رضي الله عنه).

In fact, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did indeed name his son Uthman in honour of someone;
“I name this child Uthman after my brother Uthman Ibn Ma’dhoon (رضي الله عنه)” 

Bihar Al-Anwar Volume 45 Page 38, Maqatil Al-Talibeyeen Page 55

I also want to keep in mind the likely possibility that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his son Umar as a tool of facilitating closeness and reconciliation between the bitterly divided and warring Muslims. A Shia man I know named his daughter Aisha to please his Sunni wife, and so it is absolutely probable Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his son Umar to bring together the various factions of Muslims who were deeply divided i.e. for the greater good. Personally speaking, I lean towards this idea.

In conclusion, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not name his sons Umar and Uthman out of love for the two caliphs, and his stance towards them is perfectly clear, as are the injustices they perpetrated.
NOTE:
It seems that a Sunni writer has attempted to refute this article. For a defense of this article read the reply given below:

This will Inshallah serve as rebuttal to a Sunni response to this article. For many years, the Sunnis have utilised the same argument regarding the naming of Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) sons, and this will hopefully be the time when their argument finally runs out of heat.

Note: Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had 12, not 18, sons out of 28 children.

The First Sunni Aspersion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7amil ar-Rayya (who we shall call Rayat) has conveniently forgotten that Ali also named one of his sons Abu Bakr. Ali named one of his sons Abu Bakr, two of his sons as Umar, and two more of his sons as Uthman. Rayat knows that Ali had four sons with those names, but he said it is two. This is deceit. We kindly ask Rayat to display more honesty when he furthers arguments; if he knows that four of them were named that, then there is no reason to state two and then base his entire article upon that false fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is nothing short of a lie. Imam Ali did not name two of his sons Umar, two of his sons Uthman, and one more son Abu Bakr. We would like to ask the Sunni on what basis do you want us to acknowledge Sunni references that claim Imam Ali had five sons with the names of the three caliphs. It is ironic he is accusing us of lying and deceit, whilst simultaneously his claim that Imam Ali had five sons with those names, and upon which he structures his article, is nothing more than a fish story.
Sheikh Mufid, in Irshad, documents the names of all of the Imam's 28 children in volume 1 Page 355. We shall summarise the names into a list of all the boys:

Hassan
Hussain
Muhsin (unborn child)
Mohammed, who had the kunya of Abul Qasim
Umar
Abbas
Jafar
Uthman (some narrations say Aun)
Abdullah
Mohammed al-Asghar, who had the kunya of Abu Bakr
Ubaydullah
Yahya

Where do we find "two Uthmans" and "two Umars"? There is only one Umar and one Uthman. So I will now sincerely urge the Sunni propagandists to refrain from posting dishonest claims and deceiving their audience.
As for Abu Bakr Ibn Ali, the name Mohammed was the one given to him by his father. Abu Bakr was simply His kunya, which is something like Abu Jafar, Abu Abdullah, Abu Hafs etc. So we again have to ask the Sunnis on what basis do you claim Imam Ali named his son Abu Bakr, or even gave him that kunya?! It is narrated that Mohammed al-Asghar only became known as Abu Bakr during the Ummayad periods, so what are the Sunni propagandists talking about?!
In fact even with regard to Uthman Ibn Ali, it is also thought he was called Aun Ibn Ali. However, we shall assume for the sake of this article his name was Uthman, not Aun.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps if the matter was simply about naming his sons Umar and Uthman, then one could somehow (possibly?) pretend it was a coincidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well then, there you go. The Sunni has just conceded the entire argument. Imam Ali did only name two of his many sons with names sharing the three caliphs', and so we would like to thank the Sunni for just shooting himself in the foot.

As for Uthman Ibn Ali, he was named in honour of the great companion Uthman Ibn Ma’dhoon. This is narrated as fact in Maqatil al-Talibiyeen, and later recorded by Allamah Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar and other references.

1) One may ask even though the name Uthman was shared by many people, including a dear friend, it was also the name of Uthman Ibn Affan. So why didn’t Imam Ali shun the name and instead call his son after another companion. We respond to this by saying Imam Ali wasn’t petty as to avoid naming his son a popular name after a companion, just because it was also held by a foe.
2) The Sunnis respond to our references by saying:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bihar al-Anwar, Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, and Munthee’ala Mahal are all garbage books. They are Shia books and as such they hold no weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps they are not a hujjah (proof) upon you, but it is a reliable source for the Shia, who the article was aimed at. It is the Sunnis who use their own sources in these debates when it comes to, for instance, Imam Ali supposedly naming five of his sons after the three caliphs, or Imam Ali and the other companions thinking the Prophet was cursed by the devil. If you are so sensitive to Shia websites using Shia sources, then you youself should stop using Sunni sources against us.
Interestingly, the book Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, penned by Abu Faraj al-Isfahani in the 3rd century hijri, is published and distributed in Egypt and so can even be considered a more “neutral” source.
So now we have dealt with the names Abu Bakr and Uthman, we only have Umar to play chicken with, and the rest of this article will deal with the arguments used to that respect (but I fear some of the Sunni arguments have become redundant because they were based on the fallacious claim Imam Ali named five sons after the three caliphs)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many dozens upon dozens of Hadiths exist in which Sahabah narrated and only said “Umar” instead of “Umar ibn al-Khattab”. When a Sahabi said “Umar”, there was thus no doubt that this was in reference to Umar. Let us share an example that the Shia propagandists love to bring up: the incident of the pen and paper. In those Hadiths, Ibn Abbas says “Umar” and does not say “Umar ibn al-Khattab”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It all comes down to the context. So for instance, when people used to call out the companion Uthman Ibn Hunayf’s name or any of the other Umars and Uthmans of the salaf, he never stopped to think who they were calling for. When we hear Abbas was martyred in Karbala, we all think of Abbas Ibn Ali, not Abbas Ibn Abdul Mutallib. Why? It is because of the context. So, by Imam Ali naming his son Umar, people did not necessarily begin to think of Umar Ibn al-Khattab, as the naming of a son is not like an incident where Umar slandered the Prophet, or a leadership issue, where the name Umar would not require further deliberation.
For instance, if I were to open a history book and find the name Franz Ferdinand, I would think of the royal whose assassination sparked off World War I, without needing to flick through the pages. However, if I saw a billboard advertising Franz Ferdinand, only a few would think of the archduke of Austria instead of the rock music band.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that the name Umar, for example, was not very common before Umar Ibn al-Khattab after which the proportions of individuals with that name doubled and tripled and increased.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is false. The name Umar, during that early period of Islam and after the Holy Prophet’s demise, was held by many people. Sure, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab currently holds a near-monopoly over that name, but back then this was not the case when it was a standard Arab name just like Khalid, Sufyan, Uthman or Ubaydullah.
Perhaps nobody would call their sons “Abu Bakr” before Abdullah Ibn Abu Quhafa became caliph, but then again Imam Ali didn’t even name his son Abu Bakr. Mohammed al-Asghar acquired that nickname just like the more famous Abdullah did.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that when people double names, then there is some significance to them; otherwise, there is no point in doing that
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That argument is redundant as Imam Ali only had one son called Umar, not two.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can one imagine Barack Obama naming his daughter Hillary if Hillary Clinton killed his other child?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama is not as magnanimous as Imam Ali, who would not avoid a common name simply because one holder of it happened to be a transgressor.

Response to “Lightning never strikes twice” argument

The original Sunni claim was that it would have been way too much of a coincidence for Imam Ali to have named five sons after the three caliphs, without having them in mind, especially when there was a plethora of other Arab names he could choose from. Firstly, it is only two sons and not five who shared names with the three caliphs. I feel quite frustrated having to keep mentioning this, but as the Sunni ‘rebuttal’ keeps repeating it, I have to. Secondly I already responded to this argument in my first article, but it seems it was not comprehended completely:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.rayatmohammed.blogspot.com says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…we respond to this argument by saying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never named any of his sons Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan etc all of which are other popular Arab names shared by the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni (I did not copy and paste his entire argument as he once again starts saying “Why then did Ali name two of his sons as Umar and two of his sons as Uthman? How “random” is that?”) says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is perhaps one of the most convoluted arguments we have ever seen…Rayat claims that the above names were all very popular but Ali did not choose them because they were the names of his enemies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not what I meant. I was simply saying that it cannot be said it was too huge to be a coincidence for Imam Ali to name two of his sons Umar and Uthman, while there were many other common Arab names shared by his enemies, such as Khalid or Sufyan.

The Second Sunni Aspersion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only this, but Husayn, the third Imam of the Shia, similarly named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman! The fact that Husayn named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman is mentioned in Shaykh Mufid’s book “Kitab al-Irshad” on page 372.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a lie. In Kitab al-Irshad Volume 2 Page 135, Imam Hussain’s sons are given as Ali Ibn al-Hussain (the fourth Imam), Ali Ibn al-Hussain (known as Ali al-Akbar, killed in Karbala), Abdullah Ibn al-Hussain (known as Ali al-Asghar, killed in Karbala) and Jafar Ibn Hussain (killed in Karbala).

For the Greater Good
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Three Caliphs and Ali initially had some friction but this was all resolved and the matter cleared. The Three Caliphs and Ali were brothers, and everyone knows that brothers get in arguments all the time! But at the end of the day, they love each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is that Fatima al-Zahra, the Prophet’s daughter, Imam Ali’s wife, and the doyenne of the women of the worlds, died angry with Abu Bakr and Umar. How can anyone claim their relationship was dandy and rosy? It is a sign of Sunni desperation for them to cling on to this argument regarding Imam Ali’s sons, and is indicative of their failure to look at the bigger picture
And Allah knows best.

عمر کا کنیزوں کو پردہ کرنے پر کوڑوں سے مارنا

ابن قدامہ نے کتاب المغنی ج 9 ص 105پر لکھا ہے کہ :

"عمر نے ایک کنیز کو دیکھا کہ مقنع پہنے ہوئے ہے عمر نے اسے کوڑے لگا اور کہا پردہ کر کے آزاد عورتوں سے اپنے کو شباہت دیتی ہو۔۔۔ ابوحفص سے روایت ہے کہ عمر نے اپنی خلافت کے زمانے میں کسی بھی کنیز کو مقنع کرنے نہیں دیا "

عجیب بات ہے کہ عمر ایک جائز شیء کو حرام سمجھتے تھے ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟

امام علی علیہ السلام کی چار ایسی فضیلت جو انکے غیر کو حاصل نہیں ہیں

حدثنا أحمد بن محمد قال: حدثنا أحمد بن الفضل قال: حدثنا محمد بن جرير قال: حدثنا أحمد بن عبد الله الدقاق قال حدثنا مفضل بن صالح عن سماك بن حرب عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس قال: لعلي أربع خصال ليست لأحدٍ غيره: هو أول عربي وعجمي صلى مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو الذي كان لواؤه معه في كل زحف، وهو الذي صبر معه يوم فر عنه غيره، وهو الذي غسله وأدخله قبره.

یعنی :" ابن عباس سے روایت ہے کہ : علی [ع] کی چار ایسی فضیلت جو انکے غیر کو حاصل نہیں ہیں :اولِ عرب و عجم ہیں جس نے رسول اکرم [ص] کے ساتھ نماز پڑھی ، ہر جہاد میں لواء و علم رسول اکرم [ص] آپکے ہاتھ میں ہونا، ہر وہ دن جس میں علی[ع] کے غیر نے فرار کیا علی[ع] نے آپ [ص] کے ساتھ استقامت دکھائی ، علی [ع] ہی ہیں جس نے جسم مبارک رسول اکرم [ص] کو غسل دیا اور دفنایا"

1. الإستيعاب في معرفة الأصحاب ص 335

المؤلف : ابن عبد البر

_______________________________

2. الوافي بالوفيات ج 6 ص 444

المؤلف : الصفدي

3.

ذخائر العقبى ص 86

____________________________________

4. الرياض النضرة في مناقب العشرة ص 245

المؤلف : المحب الطبري

5. المستدرك على الصحيحين ج 3 ص 120

المؤلف : محمد بن عبدالله أبو عبدالله الحاكم النيسابوري

الناشر : دار الكتب العلمية - بيروت

الطبعة الأولى ، 1411 - 1990

تحقيق : مصطفى عبد القادر عطا

حضرت عمر سے شیطان ڈرتا ہے؟

کتب ِاہلسنت میں یہ {جھوٹی} روایت آئی ہے جس میں سے ایک سنن ترمذی ہے ترمذی لکھتے ہیں:

جناب رسول اکرم [ص] کسی غزوہ کے لئے تشریف لیجانے کے بعد لوٹتے ہیں تو ایک سیاہ عورت رسول اکرم [ص]سے کہتی ہے میں نے نذر کی تھی کہ آپ اگر فاتح [بعض روایت میں سالم ہے یعنی صحیح و سالم ] لوٹ آئے تو میں آپ کے سامنے دف بجاونگی اور گانا  گاونگی { غناء کرونگی}

آپ نے {معاذ اللہ: مترجم}کہا اگر نذر کی ہے تو انجام دو ورنہ چھوڑ دو ۔ پس وہ عورت نے دف بجانا شروع کیا اتنے میں ابوبکر آتے ہیں [اور محفل میں شامل ہوجاتے ہیں] اور وہ خاتون اپنا کام جاری رکھتی ہے[معاذ اللہ :مترجم ] علی[ع] آتے ہیں اور وہ عورت اپنا کام جاری رکھتی ہے ۔

عثمان آتے ہیں اور وہ خاتون اپنا کام جاری رکھتی ہے ۔ لیکن جب عمر داخل ہوتے ہیں تو وہ عورت دف کو اپنے رانوں کے نیچے رکھ کر اس پر بیٹھ جاتی ہے تب رسول اکرم [ص]فرماتے ہیں {معاذاللہ مترجم }اے عمر تم سے شیطان ڈرتا ہے

متن

حدثنا الحسين بن حريث حدثنا علي بن الحسين بن واقد حدثني أبي حدثني عبد الله بن بريدة قال سمعت بريدة يقول :

خرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم في بعض مغازيه فلما انصرف جاءت جارية سوداء فقالت يا رسول الله إني كنت نذرت إن ردك الله صالحا أن أضرب بين يديك بالدف وأتغنى فقال لها رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إن كنت نذرت فاضربي وإلا فلا فجعلت تضرب فدخل أبو بكر وهي تضرب ثم دخل علي وهي تضرب ثم دخل عثمان وهي تضرب ثم دخل عمر فألقت الدف تحت استها ثم قعدت عليه فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إن الشيطان ليخاف منك يا عمر إني كنت جالسا وهي تضرب فدخل أبو بكر وهي تضرب ثم دخل علي وهي تضرب ثم دخل عثمان وهي تضرب فلما دخلت أنت يا عمر ألقت الدف

قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن صحيح غريب من حديث بريدة

وفي الباب عن عمر و سعد بن أبي وقاص و عائشة

قال الشيخ الألباني : صحيح

حوالہ

سنن الترمذي ج 5 ص 620

المؤلف : محمد بن عيسى أبو عيسى الترمذي السلمي

الناشر : دار إحياء التراث العربي - بيروت

تحقيق : أحمد محمد شاكر

شاید کوئی اعتراض کرے کہ رسول اکرم[ ص] کے سامنے صرف دف بجائی گئی ہے ناکہ غناء ہوا ہے

جواب :

اول :روایت میں نذر دو چیز کی گئی ہے دف اور گانا

دوم : ملا علی قاری جو اہل سنت کے مشہور عالم ہیں وہ اس حدیث کی شرح میں لکھتے ہیں:

وفي قولها واتغنى دليل على أن سماع صوت المرأة بالغناء مباح

اس عورت کے قول "واتغنى " اس بات کی دلیل ہے کہ عورت کی گانے کی آواز سننا جائز ہے

.........

ملا علی قاری مزید لکھتے ہیں

إن الشيطان ليخاف منك يا عمر يريد به تلك المرأة السوداء لأنها شيطان الإنس وتفعل فعل الشيطان

یہ فرمانا کہ " عمر تم سے شیطان ڈرتا ہے اس سے مراد حضرت کی سیاہ عورت مراد ہے اس لئے کہ یہ عورت شیطان انس ہے اور شیطان کا عمل انجام دے رہی ہے

--------------

مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح ج 17 ص 357

المؤلف : الملا على القاري

آن لائن کتب

http://sh.rewayat2.com/hadith5/Web/1934/023.htm

(17/357) صفحہ

تحفہ آخوذی

http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=56&ID=7159

نکات :

اول : کیا ناصبی حضرات کو پسند ہے کہ رسول اکرم ص ابوبکر ،عثمان ، علی [ع] کی توہین کی جائے اور عمر کی فضیلت بڑائی جائے؟

دوم : گناہ کی نذر قابل قبول ہے ؟

سوم : کیا نبی اکرم ص کو زیب دیتا ہے کہ وہ کسی نا محرم خاتون کے سامنے رہے اور وہ دف اور غناء کرے ؟

چہارم : شیطانی فعل عمر کو تو قابل قبول نہ لیکن رسول اکرم اور دیگر کبار اصحاب کے لئے کوئی مسئلہ نہ ہو؟

پنجم : ملا علی قاری کا ایک صحابیہ کو شیطان کہنا توہین اصحاب نہیں ہے ؟

ششم : ڈوب مرو؟

Did Imam Ali(a.s) give baya'h to Abu Bakr??If yes, when and how??

Imam Ali and his followers abstained from supporting and giving the bay’ah to Abu Bakr until after Fatima passed away. Some narrations place this date at three months after the Prophet died, while Sahih Bukhari places it as six months.

It is a lie to claim Imam Ali willingly gave bayaah the same day, or the day after, Saqifa. There is indeed a narration, narrated by the notorious liar Sayf Ibn Omar, which says Imam Ali was in such a rush to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr he forgot to put on his shirt as he ran out of the house. This is a fabrication, and all the authentic narrations say Imam Ali did not give bayah for several months, and only an ignoramus will claim otherwise. It is also deceitful to claim that the difference of opinion as to when Imam Ali pledged allegiance is simply a case of variation in narrations (e.g. the day of the week in which the Prophet died) as it is of paramount significance as to when Imam Ali gave bayah, as it throws the legitimacy of Saqifa into doubt.

Several Shia narrations say that Imam Ali did indeed give bayah, but it was given out of force, and therefore has no validity. This is not cowardice, because it is not like Imam Ali had a choice in the matter.

The e-Sunni propagandist will quote the following to “prove” Imam Ali gave bayah to Abu Bakr soon after the Prophet passed away:

Tabrasi narrates from (Imam) Muhammad Baqir that when Usamah had left for Jihad when the Messenger of Allah passed away, the news reached Usamah (and) he returned with his army to Medinah. He (Usamah) saw a great number of people surrounding Abu Bakr; on seeing this, he went to question Ali ibn Abi Talib and asked: “What is this?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “It is exactly what you are seeing!” Usamah asked: “Have you (also) given Baya’ah to him?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “Yes.”

(Al-Ihtejaj, p.50: Printed Mashad, Iraq)

The Sunni narration dealing with Imam Ali’s bayah is found in Sahih Bukhari, the most revered book of the Sunnis:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546

She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death). 'Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, "Come to us, but let nobody come with you," as he disliked that 'Umar should come, 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone " Abu Bakr said, "What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them' So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then 'Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), "We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle.”

Thereupon Abu Bakr's eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah's Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah's Apostle following, in disposing of it, but I will follow." On that 'Ali said to Abu Bakr, "I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon." So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of 'Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then 'Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr's right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. 'Ali added, "But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry." On that all the Muslims became happy and said, "You have done the right thing." The Muslims then became friendly with 'Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr).

1) There is no way for the e-Sunni to reconcile this authentic narration with the fabricated ones which state bayah was given after one day.

2) “he disliked that 'Umar should come, 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone "” – indicative of the harsh and distant attitude

3) Sunnis believe that during those six months, based on the “Imam of the time” hadith, Ali was committing a very big sin, and if he was to have died it would be the death of the jahil. Therefore there must have been a big reason why he abstained for six whole months.

4) Assuming Imam Ali did give bayah, this does not mean to say he considered Abu Bakr’s rule legitimate. Nay, he only paid allegiance for the greater good, and that was to reconcile the nation. His views remained the same, and are expressed most famously in Khutbatul Shaqshaqiyya, delivered during his reign as caliph.

Sahih Bukhari

Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.”
..........

“You did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle.” Thereupon Abu Bakr's eyes flowed with tears.

The above quotations are something you, my dear readers, have to pay close attention to. In the Bukhari hadith, Imam Ali says that he should have been consulted, and then Abu Bakr started crying, and the oath of allegiance was given. Abu Bakr’s tears when Ali gave bayah to him gave us the impression that he would not repeat his mistake of not consulting with the companions regarding Ali’s claim to leadership. However, this did not take place. He did not give the companions a list of names for them to choose a leader. Abu Bakr appointed Omar as his successor, and then proceeded to consultation. He did not consult with them to determine his successor. When Talha and Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf criticised Omar, Abu Bakr did not even think to reverse his decision. He simply retorted in defence of Omar. Why should we not say it as it is? Abu Bakr was indebted to Omar for what happened at Saqifa, and was paying his debt on his deathbed.

Why didn’t Imam Ali fight is a typical Sunni argument? Some Shia narrations indicate that if Imam Ali had 40 men he would have fought but his much smaller group of followers meant that if Imam Ali had fought for the leadership, the nascent and young Muslim state would have been ripped into shreds, and in all honesty, Islam probably wouldn’t exist today. Thus, I find it baffling why Sunnis keep bringing up this stupid argument.

Additionally, Imam Ali served as an advisor helping Omar and Uthman in matters of leadership and decisions (it seems that this was not the case with Abu Bakr and he did not want anything to do with Imam Ali. The reports which describe Imam Ali being vizier to Abu Bakr are of a tendentious nature, mostly narrated by the notorious liar Sayf Ibn Omar).

During Omar’s caliphate, Omar would ask Ali for advice and help. On many occasions Imam Ali saved Omar’s bacon to the point Omar would say, “If it was not for Ali, Omar would have perished.” Why did Imam Ali help Omar? And why did Imam Ali’s followers, such as Ibn Abbas, mingle with Omar. In a nutshell, if one wants to ensure the survival of the Muslim state in face of external threats, it is the wisest thing from one person to at least advise the ruler no matter how deviant he may be.
Advising a deviant ruler for the sake of greater good is a logical thing to do as well as morally credible in utilitarian lines.

After Abu Bakr’s election, Abu Sufyan, father of Muawiya, offered to help Imam Ali with promises of men and camels for war. Imam Ali refused. Why did he do so? Abu Sufyan’s intention was to instigate strife between the Muslims and Imam Ali, obviously, did not want this to happen.

He (Abu Sufyan) called out at the top of his voice: “Banu Hashim, Banu Abd Manaf! Are you content that the despicable father of a young camel, the son of a despicable man, (i.e. Abu Bakr), should have authority over you? No, by Allah, if you wish, let me provide horses and men who will be sufficient for it (i.e. to take the Caliphate).”

“Go back, Abu Sufyan,” shouted the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali), peace be on him. “By Allah, you do not seek Allah in what you are suggesting…”

(Al-Irshad, Sheikh Mufid, p.136)

This can also be found within Sunni texts:

He (Abu Sufyan) said (to Ali): “O Abu Hasan, stretch out your hand so that I may give you Baya’ah,” but Ali declined…(and) Ali rebuked him, saying: “By Allah, you do not intend anything but to stir up Fitnah…”

(Tarikh Tabari, Vol.1, p.199)

Nahjul Balagha, Letter 6

The Sunni propagandists often quote a letter Imam Ali wrote to Muawiya to prove that the caliph is to be decided by consultation of the Muhajirun and Ansar.

Verily, those who gave the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (consultation) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah.
If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.

(Nahjul Balagha; Letter to Muawiya)

Imam Ali is simply pointing out to Muawiya, who rejected the caliphate of Imam Ali yet accepted the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman, that if he is to acknowledge the legitimacy of their leadership on the basis they were elected by consultation, then he should also accept Imam Ali’s leadership since he was also elected by the Muhajirun and Ansar. It does not mean that Imam Ali considered consultation of the Muhajirin and Ansar the method to elect the leader.

A good analogy would be the US Presidency. George Bush, in 2000, garnered fewer votes than Al Gore, yet due to the US system was still elected President. Let’s say in 2008 Al Gore runs again, and this time gets fewer votes than his opponent, but still wins the election due to the US electoral voting system. Let’s pretend the Republican Party were to denounce the legitimacy of the election. Now, if Al Gore were to write a letter or give a speech to the Republicans explaining to them the US electoral system, and that George Bush was elected by it does not mean that Al Gore himself supports the system. It simply shows that he is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican Party in rejecting his presidency while accepting Bush’s presidency when they were elected by the same method!

We know this is what the Imam mean as he concludes with:

O Mu'awiya! I am sure that if you give up self-aggrandizement and self-interest, if you forsake the idea of being alive only to personal profits and pleasures, if you cease to be actuated solely by selfishness and if you ponder over the incident leading to the murder of Uthman, you will realize that I cannot at all be held responsible for the affair and I am the least concerned with the episode. But it is a different thing that you create all these false rumours and carry on this heinous propaganda to gain your ulterior motives. Well you may do whatever you like.

An Interesting Observation

An interesting observation – which many Sunni propagandists happen to be unaware of -

1) It is impossible the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr to be his successor because he placed him along with many other companions in Usama Ibn Zaid’s army.

(Bidaya wal Nahaya, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 6 p. 304)

2) How could the Prophet want Abu Bakr to be the caliph if he placed him in an army for a war that would last weeks, and one in which Abu Bakr could have been killed?

3) Additionally Omar, Abu Obeyda, Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf and other prominent companions were under the command of the 17 year old Usama Ibn Zaid.

4) Conspicuously, Imam Ali, the successor to the Prophet, was not included in the army.

5) The reasoning behind this could be that the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr and Umar to stay away, so that they would not usurp the caliphate.

6) However, the army did not depart until the issue of leadership was sorted, and in fact, Abu Bakr and Umar weren’t even present in the army that finally left to fight.

This is also found in Tabari Volume 3 Page 188 and Kamil Ibn Athir Volume 2 Page 120 as well as Tarikh al-Khamis Volume 2 Page 171. It is also recorded by the Sunni Scholar Abdul Aziz Al-Dehlavi.

It is inappropriate for an e-Sunni to use this to prove Imam Ali was not the Prophet’s rightful successor, as it is well-known Imam Ali had loyal supporters such as Salman whom he did not rebuke. We have already explained the reasons why Imam Ali did not fight.The Sunni propagandist is very sly in quoting the above narration, as it is referring to a forced allegiance. It is narrated that Ali and the rest of Banu Hashim and their supporters were forced to give allegiance to Abu Bakr shortly after the event at Saqifa.

Sunnis Do Not Believe the Prophet (ص) appointed a Successor!!

DISCLAIMER: Shias believe that the Prophet appointed Imam Ali as his successor, while Sunnis believe the Prophet did not appoint a successor.

Appointing a Successor

The appointing of a successor that will run the affairs of the nation after you die is perhaps the most important duty a leader will have to undertake towards the end of his life. When Alexander the Great was about to die, he was asked who was to be his successor. He replied, “The strongest.” These two words led to half a century of strife and civil war, with rival factions and warlords battling each other in order to grab hold of the reins of power. Thus, we see it is neither feasible nor realistic that the Holy Prophet passed away without appointing a successor to hold the Muslim nation together at that tough time. When the Prophet died thousands of Muslims apostatized and it was undeniably a very testing period in the history of Islam. The question thus poses itself, why did the Prophet not appoint the ruler that would run the Muslim state after him. This would have saved the Muslims from falling into various bloody conflicts about who will lead them.The importance of leaving a successor is emphasized by the following narrations:

Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”

“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)

We see that the Messenger of Allah’s apparent decision not to appoint a successor had led to a power struggle which threatened to rend Islam into rival factions. By appointing a successor, this could have been prevented yet our Sunni brothers are insisting selecting a ruler via Shura or consultation is the best way to go! In my opinion, selecting a ruler via consultation is a recipe for disaster with each party transfixed and determined in getting their man in power leading feuds, wars and bloodshed and this did indeed happened several times in Islam’s history.

A very important observation is that the Prophet, whenever he departed the city of Medina, appointed a leader in his absence who would run the city for the duration of the Prophet’s absence which could be many months. For example, when the Prophet went for the Battle of Tabuk, he appointed Imam Ali as leader, when he was away for the valedictory pilgrimage he appointed Abu Dujana etc. This begs the question as to why no consultation was employed to select them. Every time the Prophet went away for a few months he appointed a leader, yet he never appointed a leader when he was going to pass away?

A discussion ensued between Imam Ridha and a Sunni scholar:

Abul Hassan al-Ridha said to Ibn Rameen, “When the Prophet left Medina, did he leave a leader behind?” He said, “Yes, he did such as Ali.” Al-Ridha said, “The people of Medina did not have the right to choose the leader so that you are not left misguided.” Ibn Rameen said, “He feared for them strife and discord.” Al-Ridha replied, “If strife had occurred, the Prophet could have sorted it out when he returned.” Ibn Rameen said, “That is less preferable.” Al-Ridha said, “Did he appoint a leader to rule after his death?” Ibn Rameen said, “No.” Abul Hassan al-Ridha said, “But death is greater than travel, so how did he appoint a leader over the nation when he travelled but now when he died!?”

Some Sunnis have said that if the Messenger of Allah had appointed a successor, it would have been akin to installing a dictator to rule over the Muslims without consent and this would be considered tyranny. I beg to differ, as when the Messenger of Allah does something, it is considered a matter of religion and so there is no room for consultation. The Messenger appointing Imam Ali as his successor was due to divine commands, and so this is not considered to be tyranny. Is alcohol or pig being haram considered tyranny? Another important observation we make is that by appointing a successor, the Holy Prophet was simply doing what the previous Prophets and Messengers had done, and this is found in the Quran as we shall now see.

The Holy Quran

The Sunni propagandists often time say that the divine appointment of a leader over the people is a concept absent from the book of Allah. This is a lie:

And their prophet said to them: Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you. They said: How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than he, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth? He said: Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Amplegiving, All-Knowing. (The Holy Quran 2:247)

We see from the above holy verse, that Talut who was neither a Messenger, Prophet or Imam was appointed by Allah to be king over the people – “Surely Allah has chosen him”, “Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases”, “”Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you.”

A couple of verses that Sunnis frequently pose to us to prove leadership is determined by shura are “conduct their affairs by mutual consultation” (42:38) and “consult with them upon the conduct of affairs” (3:159). Indeed, the Shia do not disagree with the concept of consultation and in fact we see the Prophet employed it many times with his companions such as in the Battle of Khandaq it was Salman who had the idea to dig the trench etc. However, this does not mean that the Prophet’s successor was to be chosen by consultation. No one can claim the holy verse is applicable in every scenario. When a group of people approached the Prophet and told him that they would convert to Islam on the condition that they still be allowed to drink alcohol, the Prophet said no. There was no room for consultation or anything of the sort.

Sunni Narrative Praises Abu Bakr, Denigrates the Holy Prophet (ص)

The Sunni narrative of the events that transpired after the Holy Prophet’s demise which culminated in the election of Abu Bakr at the assembly hall (saqifa) of an Ansari tribe, portrays Abu Bakr and Omar as Batman and Robin style heroes who saved the day. The Ansar were about to elect one of their own as caliph, and this would have led to violent bloodshed, so Abu Bakr and Omar went over there and they saved the day, and prevented civil war.Indeed, if an Ansari had been elected there would have been bloodshed due to the reluctance of Quraysh to have the Ansar rule over them. The situation was certainly very tense, and a civil war could easily have been triggered.

(The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Medina at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah.

(Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)

The Sunni narrative says Abu Bakr and Omar saved the Muslim ummah. However, while Abu Bakr and Omar are praised for helping to prevent a civil war, the Sunnis are inadvertently criticizing the Holy Prophet. His supposed failure to appoint a successor almost ripped the Muslim ummah into shreds, and may have led to thousands of deaths in an all-out civil war. In other words, according to the Sunnis, Abu Bakr and Omar picked up the pieces.

It cannot be argued that the Prophet could not foresee this as trouble had been brewing between the Ansar and Muhajirs, and it is well-known that the new Meccan converts still had jahil tendencies. So this begs the question as to why the Prophet was supposedly willing to risk the lives of so many people and cause a split in the ummah by not appointing a successor?!

In spite of what some e-Sunnis have been saying on the internet, the Sunni belief is that the Holy Prophet did not appoint a successor, and in the words of Omar in the narration below “left the matter undecided”.

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 325:

It was said to 'Umar, "Will you appoint your successor?" Umar said, "If I appoint a Caliph (as my successor) it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Abu Bakr) did so, and if I leave the matter undecided, it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Allah's Apostle) did so."

Recently, some Sunni kids have been saying the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr to succeed him but fell short of making a formal declaration. They base this on the idea Abu Bakr supposedly led the prayer during the illness of the Messenger of Allah. However, even if we accept the story as true, this in no way says the Prophet wanted him as successor (a point to note is that if the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr as successor, does this not spoil the fun and nullify the purpose of Shura).

We see that towards the end of his life, according to Sunnis, the Prophet made similar gestures and said similar things to the other companions.

“Follow Umar after me, wherever he might be.”

(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.170-171)

“I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wants knowledge let him come through the gate.”

(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3)

It is important to mention that the Prophet asking Abu Bakr to lead the prayers is unverified and unauthenticated to us, and so is Abu Bakr actually doing so. There is also the possibility that Aisha was the one who said the Prophet asked Abu Bakr to lead the salat. This may offend the sensibilities of Sunni readers, but we ask them to refer to the tafsir of Surat al-Tahreem. In every Sunni tafsir, as well as in Sahih Bukhari, in a nutshell it is narrated that Aisha told the Prophet that he had the odor of maghafeer, when she knew this was not true. We shall write an article about this at a later date, but I would like my Sunni brothers to realize that claiming Aisha said something that was not true is not a deviation, because this is found in the Holy Quran and its commentary.

Who is the best man after the Messenger of Allah (ص)?

Imam Ali was the best of the companions of the Prophet, and this is the position held by the rightly guided Ahl al-Tashayyu’. To the Sunnis, Abu Bakr, followed by Omar, were superior to Imam Ali and all the other companions. To support this statement they provide many ahadith such as one were Imam Ali supposedly states he would cut off the head or flog anyone who said he was superior to Abu Bakr. The funny thing is I didn’t see Imam Ali displaying this passion when he abstained from giving bay’ah to Abu Bakr until Fatima passed away nor did I see him show so much love for Abu Bakr when his wife died angry with him due to Fadak, which Ali opposed Abu Bakr about. Additionally, is there any shar’ii basis for flogging someone who considers Ali superior to Abu Bakr? In that case, according to the Sunnis, Aisha should be flogged:

Jumayy’ Ibn Umayr narrated:
I entered with my mother asking Aisha about Ali and I heard her behind a screen saying, “You ask me about a man and by God I do not know a man more beloved to the Prophet than Ali and a woman more beloved to the Prophet than Fatima.” This hadith is authentic but [Bukhari and Muslim] do not report it.

(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3, #4731)

Abdullah Ibn Buraida narrates that his father said, “The most beloved of women to the Prophet was Fatima, and the most beloved of men was Ali.” This hadith is authentic but [Bukhari and Muslim] do not report it.

(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3, #4735)

On the same note, it was a widespread notion amongst the companions and the tabi’un that Ali was superior to Abu Bakr. In his commentary about Aban Ibn Taghlib, a companion of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, Sheikh al-Dhahabi writes in Mizan Al-Itidal fi Naqd Al-Rijal, “Aban Ibn Taghlib used to consider Ali superior to Abu Bakr and Omar…this Shiism without extremism was widespread amongst tabi’een and tabu tabi’een…if we were to discard them because of their bidah we would have to discard many of the Prophet’s hadiths which would be a bigger bidah.”

The above two authentic narrations completely nullify the Sunni claim that Abu Bakr and Aisha are the most beloved man and woman to the Prophet.Therefore, we notice that the divine appointment of rulers has a precedent in the Quran, and so it is out of line for the Sunnis to be demonizing it and labeling it as tyranny. Another interesting point we see is that the children of Israel did not even want Talut to be their king i.e. he did not have “consent of the governed” yet their opposition did not have any value – Talut was the best person for the job.Sir John Glubb says: “Mohammed was not dead an hour before the struggle for power threatened to rend Islam into rival factions.”