کنز مکتوم فی حل عقد ام کلثوم۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

Sharah e Kanzul Maktoom Fi Hal Aqad Ume Kulsoom

اسماء بنت ابو بکر کے متعہ کرنے کا اک ثبوت

Umar ke Aakhari Alfaaz ( Proof of Lineage of Umar ) - Sunni Reference

The matter of the breaking of Hazrate Fatemah’s (sa) ribs.

Question: Could you explain the matter of the breaking of Hazrate Fatemah’s (sa) ribs?

Answer:

I feel that anyone who looks into the recordings of the Islamic historians and also the narrations with regards to the bitter events that occurred following the demise of the Holy Prophet will not disagree on this matter. We will now look at what has been written on this matter:
1) The late Kulayni (2) narrates from an accepted narration from Imam Kadhim (as) in the chapter called ‘The birth of Hazrate Fatemeh (sa)’ the second narration states as such:“Surely Fatemah (sa) Seddigheh is a martyr.”
And the late Majlisi in Miraat Al-Uqool after mentioning this statement as being true and correct, in the explanation of Usool Kaafi wrote the following:
“Without doubt this news is a reason in itself that Hazrate Fatemah (sa) is a martyr in the path of the truth; and this news has been discovered time and time again and the cause of this is that after the usurpation of the caliphate and the seizing of the power through the event of Saghifeh, Gonfoz pushed the door of the house of Hazrate Fatemah (sa) with such force into the stomach of the great lady that her side was broken and caused her to lose the child she was carrying at the time that the Prophet had named Mohsen and then became ill and through which she died as a martyr.”[1]
Then the late Majlisi narrates from Shia and Sunni scholars who have supported this event. In particular one narration which is lengthy from Soleem ibn Ghais Helali, a part of which is as follows:
“Fatemeh (sa) is a martyr in the way of Allah and the cause for it is that following the usurpation of the caliphate and the happenings of Saghifeh, Gonfoz the slave of Omar hit Fatemeh (sa) and then pushed her with such force, and this crime resulted in the ribs of Fatemah (sa) being broken and due to the severity of her injuries it soon lead to her martyrdom.”[1]

2. More so mentionable than that narration is this long narration from the late Sadooq, from Ibn Abbas narrated from the Holy Prophet (saw), a part of which is as follows:
“... and when I see my Fatemah, I remember that violation and transgression that will take place against her after my demise, as though I can see the sad day when the enemies enter her home, disrespect her, usurp her rights and inheritance, and break her ribs and murder her child that has not yet been born! And she shouts out for assistance ‘Oh Mohammad!’ but no one comes to her aid or answers her helpless call! And she seeks protection from the violation and oppression while no one offers her refuge and no one assists her.” [2]
3. Amongst the endless narrations, there is the ‘Ziyarat’ of Hazrate Fatemah (sa) that the late Sayyed Ibn Tavoos in his book Iqbalul Aamaal has mentioned, a part of which is as follows:
Until you say:
“And send salutations upon Fatemah Batool, that same chaste lady of purity and and virtue; that same lady whose rights were usurped; and whose paternal inheritance was kept from her and whose ribs were broken by the oppressors’ aggression against her...” [3]
However, countless narrations also mention the setting alight of the door to Hazrate Fatemah’s (sa) house, her excellency being pressed with great force between the door and the wall of her house, and the miscarriage of her unborn child caused by the breaking of her ribs and injuries to her side.

[1] – Usool Kafi, Volume 5, Page 315
[2] – Sadooq, Mutawafi 381 AH, Amaali, Volume 24, Pages 99-100
[3] – Iqbal, Page 152.

And these narrations have been made by scholars of both the Shia and the Sunni sect. In this regard we can take a look at the book Talkhees-e-Shaafi by the late Sheikh At-Taaifa Abu Ja’far Toosi wherein it is written as such: The Shia and Scholars of the Shia are all of the same opinion regarding this sorrowful event that Hazrate Fatemah (sa) became the focus of the oppressor Omar and he hit the Prophet’s (saw) daughter with such force in her stomach that he caused the miscarriage of the unborn child that had been named Mohsen and consequently caused her martyrdom.
Yes, the narrations mention this bitter truth. The bringing of logs so that the house of Hazrate Fatemah (sa) could be set on fire while a group of people and lovers of the Ahlulbayt (as) had sought for protection there, and this is famous and well known amongst the followers of the path of the Ahlulbayt (as) - as they write:
“Of course we have brought this narration from the Sunni scholars in particular ‘Balaazari’ and there are numerous narrations from the Shia scholars too in which there is no conflict of opinion regarding them on this matter.”
Masoudi, the author of the famous book Morooj Al-Dhahab in another book of his called Ithbaat Al-Wasiyyah has written the following: So the supporters of the Caliph went towards the house of Amir Al-Mo’mineen (as) and attacked the house and set the door on fire and then forcefully brought the Hazrat out of his house and the leader of the women of heaven, Hazrate Fatemah (sa) was pressed brutally between the door and the wall causing her to miscarry her unborn child Mohsen. [4]

Summarizers Note: Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet asked Amir Al-Mo’mineen, “Why did Omar deduct a part of all his worker’s wages as tax but did not deduct anything from the wages of Gonfoz and paid him fully?” His Excellency looked around him and then while his eyes were filled with tears that fell he answered:
“The full payment to Gonfoz was because his appreciation of him and because of the violent lashes he had inflicted upon the body of Hazrate Fatemah (sa), that had been such that when the dear daughter of the Prophet of the Earth said farewell, the effect of those violent lashes were evident on her upper arms as though they were armbands.” [5]
The violation against the rights of the daughter of the Prophet Hazrate Fatemah Zahra (sa) which took place is an event that has been proven as it has been recorded in many authentic sources. The only ones to deny this are those who are ignorant or refusing the truth. The violation against the rights of the daughter of the Prophet Hazrate Fatemah Zahra (sa) which took place is an event that has been proven as it has been recorded in many authentic sources. The only ones to deny this are those who are ignorant or refusing the truth.
The violation and transgression of the rights of the daughter of the Prophet, Hazrate Fatemah Zahra (sa), from the attack on her house up to the usurpation of her property and the breaking of her ribs, and injuries to this great lady all in all were due to the fact that she sought justice, stood up against the oppressors, and defended the rights of the innocent Imam (as), and certain parts of her radiant speech refers to and brings this truth to light. Upon saying this, how can this jihad and great defence by the Great lady of Islam Hazrate Fatemeh (sa) be separate to the views of the heavenly vicegerency of Amir Al-Mo’mineen (as)?

[4] – Ithbaat Al-Wasiyyah, Page 122
[5] - The book of Soleem ibn Ghais, p134

If it is in relation to that - as supported by numerous sources - then courageous defence and tireless efforts, is a fact which separates and elevates the Shia above others.
Therefore, how can this not be linked to our beliefs and instead be regarded as just a sorrowful story in history?!
The truths surrounding this great catastrophe are so evident that even a person considering them with a bit of conscience and sense of humanity will not be able to reject this painful tragedy. The collection of narrations and the history regarding this painful tragedy has been proven by the greatest of Scholars.

Ali (AS) silence was for the sake of religion’s continuance and for maintaining unity

Question :   What point could one argue against anyone who refuses to accept that the praiseworthy silence of his excellency after his objection and campaigning was only for the sake of religion’s continuance and for maintaining unity within society?

Answer:
If one asks whether the sun is bright or not? And another replies, “Yes”, then they say, “What is the reason for this brightness?” And another replies with calmness and logic, “The sun’s light is what makes it bright.” Then the first person says, “I am not convinced that its brightness is due to light.” Can the person replying bring another reason that will answer this illogical and argumentative person?

As the followers of the path of the Ahlulbayt (as) believe, the great Prophet of Islam during the final days of his life, informed Amir Al-Mo’mineen (as) of the horrendous and sorrowful events that were to take place after his own demise and ordered him to have patience in the interests of God’s religion and the newly founded Islamic society and Amir Al-Mo’mineen’s actions were in line with this advice and that is all.
 

Summarizers Note: The following has been narrated from Amir Al-Mo’mineen which confirms this statement that as he addressed Omar with this warning:

“Oh he without roots or origin! If you have seen that I have behaved liberally with regards to the usurpation of our rights, it was for the reason that I feared, that people would detest religion because of your oppressive and appalling actions; not yourself! However it will not be the same regarding the resting place of my Fatemeh. By the God who possesses Ali’s life in his hands! If you or your violating friends try to exhume her, I will water this earth with your filthy blood.”[1]

1. Bihar Al-Anwar, Volume 43, Page 171

What did Amir Al-Mo’mineen Ali (as) do during the attack on Hazrate Fatemah (sa)?

Answer:

Before answering this question, I would like to first mention this important point that: As we are the followers of the path of the Holy Ahlulbayt (as) we have learnt to submit to their orders and follow their advice on matters even when perhaps we may not even be clear on the reasons behind their advice but on the trust that there is a reason and goodness in it which we have not yet understood.

It has been narrated from our Holy Ahlulbayt (as) that:

“Without a doubt following our path and actions will be difficult and full of hardships and only the highest angels, or chosen Prophet or worshipper whose heart has been enlightened by Allah (swt) can cope with the responsibility of this heavy duty.” [1]

On the topic of Amir Al-Mo’mineen (as) during this tragic and sorrowful episode, yes, it is true that Amir Al-Mo’mineen (as) was the leader of all the brave and was the best defender of the truth at that time, but the conditions then were such that in order to uphold religion and in order to defend his rights and those of his family, His Excellency would have had to resort to his sword, bravery and defiance and would this have been acceptable behaviour? Especially considering he had been forewarned by his brother, the Messenger of Allah (saw) and given the news of the bitter events that were to follow after the demise of the Prophet of Allah and the fact that he had been prepared and advised by the Messenger of Allah how best to deal with the situations that would arise. These same ill-mannered violators also knew about the forewarning and narrations, indicating to us the scale of their rebelliousness and treachery while carrying out the cruel and horrible attack on the house. Could Amir Al-Mo’mineen (as) in this situation have ignored the warnings and advice of the Prophet and instead turned to his sword in order to seek justice and counter their brutality?
It is clear that this would never be the case and we can see this by referring to various narrations in this regard. In particular this narration as mentioned by Soleem ibn Ghais in his book which states:
“And then the Prophet of Allah (saw) turned towards his daughter Hazrate Fatemeh Zahra (sa) and with great sorrow and said, “Dear Fatemeh! You will be the first from my family to join me. My daughter! You are the leader of women in heaven, but even so, you will witness great oppression and enmity after me, to the extent that you will be beaten and one of your ribs will be broken! May Allah curse your killer...” [2]
 

 [1] – Khisaal Sadooq, Page 290 – It should be mentioned here that some editions use the word “Amrana” instead of “hadithana” which is my opinion has no difference in meeting.
[2] - Book of Soleem ibn Ghais, Page 427
- Ehtijaaj Tabarsi, Volume 1, Page 111
- Al Ghaybah, Page 193

In continuation the narration states that then His Excellency turned towards Amir Al-Mo’mineen (as) and said: “But you oh Abul Hasan! After me the society and ummah (people) will plot against you and break their pledge of allegiance, in this situation if you have enough steadfast companions then rise up and seek justice otherwise refrain and protect your blood but know that martyrdom is on its way and that your end will be martyrdom in the way of Allah.”[3]
Several sources have mentioned the bitter attack on the house of Hazrate Fatemeh (sa) like so: Imam Ali (as) during the attack of the guards on his house got up and took Omar’s belt from him and threw him onto the ground such that his neck and nose were hurting.
His Excellency then decided to kill him because of his wicked and indecent actions but then he remembered the words of the Prophet of Allah and his advice, so he let Omar (la) free and yelled:
“Now son of Sahhaak! I swear by God who chose Mohammad (saw) to reveal His message, were it not for the written and wise will of God regarding this situation and the promise made to his Messenger, you know very well that you would not have the courage to enter my house in such an ill-mannered way...” [4]
 

Summarizers Note: To provide an example of this we have referred to this narration, A man visited Imam Hasan (as) and asked: Oh son of the Prophet! I am a shia and follower of your esteemed path! Our Imam replied the following indicating the signs of a true Shia:
”O worshipper of Allah! If you carry out the orders of Allah and keep away from that which has been prohibited for you and pay attention to the laws and behave in the correct manner, then that which you have said about being a shia is true. However, if you do not think and behave like this and your characteristics and actions do not follow our way then with this claim you are just adding to your sins because being a Shia and follower of us, the family of the Prophet, holds great status and you by saying these words without having the good actions and correct behaviour to match this claim will never reach that status so never say I am a Shia of the family of the Prophet, instead say I have great love and respect for you (Holy Ahlulbayt (as)) and I oppose your enemies and in this way you will strive for good and will have the correct thinking.” Majmoo’eh Warraam, p113 published by Haidari Foundation.
 

[3] - Book of Soleem ibn Ghais, Page 427
- Ehtijaaj Tabarsi, Volume 1, Page 111
- Al Ghaybah, Page 193
[4] - Bayt Al-Ahzan, Page 110
- Bihar Al-Anwar, volume 28, Page 266
- Tafsir Qumi, volume 2, Page159

What did Amir Al-Mo’mineen Ali (as) do regarding Fadak during his own period of Caliphate?? ?

Answer:
Some of the speeches of Amir Al-Mo’mineen in this regard have indicated that during his caliphate Fadak was returned to him and was in his hands as he says:

“Yes, from all that the sky casts its shadow upon, the only thing that was in our hands was Fadak which a group unjustly took and another group generously forgave them and liberally ignored the matter. Truthfully it is God who is the best judge...” [1]

By considering these words at face value, it may be believed that Fadak during this period of caliphate was returned to his excellency and was in his hands. But in our opinion this conclusion seems unlikely especially since what has been mentioned in the Nahjul Balagha was during the time of his own caliphate and written in the past tense and so this indicates what is being said is about the state of Fadak prior to that time.
In any case, those occurrences that have been noted in history cannot be a witness to how he dealt with the case of Fadak and it is not to be assumed from this that it was returned to its truthful owners – who were the heirs of Hazrate Fatemah (sa) - or that they were given time to reap benefit from it even that it was left in the same state that he found it.

[1] – Nahjul Balagha Letter 41

What is the story of Fadak?

Answer:
Narrations have reached us through both Shia and Sunni scholars about this issue indicating that following the revelation of the following verse from the holy Qur’an:
“So give the rights of your family, the poor, and the wayfarer...” [1]
The Prophet called his daughter and assigned the land of Fadak which was partly of the better pieces of land gained through the battle of Khaybar and partly from the Jews. He left the land to her and on the orders of Allah it became her personal property as it was gifted to her.
Following the demise of the Prophet the Caliph usurped this land and removed Hazrate Zahra’s (sa) administrator from the land. She defended her right and opposed this usurpation and oppression in the best manner and asked for it to be handed back but the Caliph refused her of her right and disregarded the proof that she presented. She explained her right to it through the laws of inheritance and with logical reasoning but the Caliph still refused to give Fadak back to her.
Summarisers Note: The main reason for Hazrate Zahra’s (sa) anger was because the right of leadership was taken away from Amir Al-Mo’mineen (as), which was then followed by the usurpation of the ownership of the land of Fadak from her which made her weak financially.
The reason for this was because she was the strongest opposition of the ruler at that time, and we know that after the meeting at Saghifeh and the revelation of the verse of Ghorba to the Prophet (saw), his daughter Hazrate Fatemah (sa) was denied her ownership of Fadak, then she demanded Fadak using the rules of inheritance, because not only is defending one’s rights against the unjust ruler in accordance with the religious rules but is also in accordance with ethical rules and is even compulsory. Similarly, it is compulsory for a tyrant to return the rights of others.
 

[1] Qur’an: (30:38) 

In this verse, Allah (swt) tells the Prophet (saw) to give the right of his next of kin to them, so we must see who his next of kin is and what their right is?
It is clear that the meaning of the next of kin in this kind of verse is referring in particular to: Ali (as), Fatemah (sa), Hassan (as) and Hussain (as); so on this note the clear message of the Holy Quran is this: Oh Prophet, the rights of these respectful figures who are your next of kin, should be given. It has also been mentioned regarding this matter that with the revelation of this verse the Prophet left Fadak to Fatemah (sa) so that she may make use of and benefit from it as she wishes.
 

As we have narrations from Imam Baqir (as) and Imam Sadiq (as) regarding this matter, the truth and reality relating to this issue is quite well known amongst the great Shia scholars.
 

In addition to the Shia scholars, plenty of Sunni historians have narrated regarding this issue in main sections of their work and have certified them as the truth, for example:
1. In Kanzul Ammaal and its summary which has been printed in the borders of ‘Musnad ibn Ahmad Hanbal’ under the topic of ‘Keeping relations with one’s blood relatives’ in the book titled Akhlaq, it has been narrated from Khadri that: with the revelation of the verse the Prophet told his wise daughter: “Dear Fatemah, Fadak from now on belongs to you.”
2. Hakem in his book History and Suyooti in Al-Dar al Manshoor have narrated that: following the revelation of the verse the Prophet called his daughter Hazrate Fatemah (sa) and gifted Fadak to her upon the orders of God. Al-Dar Al-Manshoor, vol 4, p177.
3. Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed in his commentary on Nahjul Balagha has mentioned that it has been narrated in several places that when the verse was revealed the Prophet called his daughter Hazrate Fatemah (sa) and gifted Fadak to her.

Vastness of FADAK

As Yagoot Hamavi mentions in Ma’jam Al-Baldaan, Fadak was a village on the land of Hejaz whose distance was as some believe 2-3 days travel from Madinah.
 

This village was close to Khaybar and still exists today and is well known to the people of Madinah although now regretfully given away.

In some narrations, the real coverage of this land was from Ta’aden and Samarkand on one side reaching Africa and Sayf Al-Bahr on the other side. This narration gives a clear indication to us that, that which was usurped from the Ahlulbayt (as) was neither an orchard nor a village but rather it is mentioned as the areas of governance crucial to leadership of knowledge, spirituality, manners and ruling over the Muslims and Islamic nation. According to these narrations, every land and every age should be treated the same as Fadak, and anyone who truthfully believes the previous narrations and wants to whole heartedly remove the oppression and unlawful governance from Fadak and return it to its rightful owners should search and return every unlawful land to its rightful owner fully as if it were Fadak, because only when it is fully returned will the unjust usurpation fail to exist.

Why Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) did NOT FIGHT to wrest back Caliphate from the Caliphs?

After the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), his Caliphate and Successorship was the right of Imam Ali (a.s.), who made several attempts to prove that Caliphate was his exclusive right and that others were mere pseudo-claimants and usurpers. However, after the martyrdom of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he found himself alone and could not gather the people towards the obedience of Caliphate entrusted to him by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). However, he expressed his annoyance concerning the misappropriation of his right on every possible opportunity. Then, be it in a gathering of people or amongst his close confidants, or even while expressing his protest in front of the Caliphs. At every place, he (a.s.) strongly emphasized the fact that the right to Caliphate was his and others did not have any right upon it. He also accentuated that it was an appointment by Allah delivered unto the people through the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Hence, he disapproved any other principle or law concerning the appointment of the Caliph of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

The finest example in support of this aim is his retiring himself to his own house. After the death of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he retired himself to his house and did not pledge his allegiance as a result of which his home was set ablaze. His wife, the only daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), was wounded and his unborn child, Janab-e- Mohsin (a.s.) was martyred while still in the womb of his mother. Thus, Ali (a.s.) made his right evident and completed his argument upon those who had turned away from the one appointed by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and designated by Allah for His Caliphate. Had he gone to the court on his own before their trial of strength and other similar forms of protest, the argument wouldn’t be complete.

Hence, in no way can it be said that he did not take any steps to establish the truth and obtain his right. However, another question that can be answered here as an explanation, that is, why did he not use force to get his right? 

There are certain reasons for this:

1) Fear of the Nation (ummah) turning apostates:

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) feared that if he insisted on the evident order concerning the Caliphate, the new converts to Islam would turn away from it. This was so because the hypocrites had reached to power after the death of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their might had increased. The hearts of the Muslims were weakening by the day. Tremendous commotion was created in the fundamentals of religion. After the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), the condition of Muslims closely resembled a goat searching for shelter in a freezing dark night after becoming wet in the rains, only to be surrounded from all sides by hungry wolves ready to tear it apart. Some of the Arab tribes had already turned apostates, while some were treading the path towards it.

2) Fear of dissension among the Muslim Ummah:

One of the reasons why Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) chose not to use his might was the fear of dissension and factionalism amongst the Muslim nation. The prevalent condition of the Muslims at that time was the best moment for the unbelievers and the hypocrites to reveal their old plots. Disputes arose amongst the Ansars (inhabitants of Medina) and the Muhajiroon (inhabitants of Makkah) and each one, for some or the other reason, desired the throne of Caliphate. (Or the moment) when Abu Sufyan requested for assistance and support of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), but he (a.s.) refused, asking him from when had he (Abu Sufiyan) become a supporter and helper of Islam?

3) For Islam’s survival:

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) desired the survival of Islam at any cost. Being concerned about Islam at that delicate moment, he found it imprudent to use force to seize the Caliphate. Had he taken up arms and revolted along with his few helpers, it would have led to the destruction of the Islamic System after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Mischief and destruction among the people would become rampant and all the sacrifices and devotion made till that time would be rendered futile. Hence, for the existence of Islam and the success of the common Muslims, he decided not to stand-up for his right and never revealed any intention for the same. And this last reason holds superiority over all the other reasons mentioned, due to which neither did Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) put up a show of strength nor did he cast out his sword to obtain that Caliphate, for which he was divinely appointed.

Did the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) make the nation responsible to select a successor?

It’s clear that Islam needed a guide to succeed the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)

Even the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was aware of its importance and significance.

But he did not appoint his successor. Why?

The only conclusion is that he delegated the decision to appoint the successor to his nation.

However even the Ahle Tasannun do not claim so.

Read all of their six authentic books of traditions (Sihah-e-sittah) and we do not find a single statement from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that appointing a successor is crucial for the guidance of the Muslims. That he (s.a.w.a.) understands its importance but is unable to appoint a successor and therefore he (s.a.w.a.) is delegating the responsibility to the Muslims.

At least he (s.a.w.a.) should have urged the Muslims to appoint the successor in his own lifetime!

The least he (s.a.w.a.) could have done was to list the criteria for his successor and the preferred mode of selection. This would have been ideal and saved lots of confusion and dissension among the Ummah!

Abu Bakr b. Abi Quhaafah took care to nominate his successor!

Umar b. Khattaab proved to be even more careful than the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in selecting his successor by defining clear rules for the engagement of the Consultative Council (Shura), along with the mention of each member and his positive and negative points.

However, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was not as careful and insightful in the matter of Caliphate although he knew that there should be a successor after him and that he (s.a.w.a.) was the last Prophet?!!

All the prophets (a.s.) preceding the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were careful to select a successor in their lifetime. This shows their attention to detail and their love for the nation’s guidance and reformation. However, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) does not show the same love and attention to the Muslims while he (s.a.w.a.) is the best of Allah’s creation!

Even Allah the Omniscient and Omnipotent didn’t bother to appoint a successor for the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) because He has not cared to name the successor in the Holy Quran!

Allah has also ordered the Muslims to ask “the people of remembrance if they do not know.”

He has categorically declared that the Holy Quran consists of clear verses as well as ambiguous ones. The latter require interpretation and none knows their interpretation except those who are firmly entrenched in knowledge.

Allah has mentioned all these points in no uncertain terms but has avoided naming the individual who will undertake these tasks!

Strangely, the Holy Quran, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their teachings have talked extensively about making a will so much so that if somebody dies without making a will dies a non-Muslim!! But they have themselves failed to act upon their own teachings, so how do they expect others to do so?

All these implications will arise if we assume that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) did not bother to name his successor.

Reference : http://www.seratonline.com 

 

Tarawih----- Obligation, Compulsion or Innovation ?????

The Tarawih prayers are considered as one of the most important prayers conducted in the month of Ramzan. These prayers are considered so important that even those who do not pray throughout the year make it a point no to miss them. These prayers are so important that those who donot attend them are considered to be lowly people who do not pay importance to religion.

The question over here is that are these prayers which are given so much importance really a part of Islam ?

Were such prayers offered during the life time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w).??? or were they added later on.

If I quote something from myself the patrons of tarawih would brand my words as the  words of a rafazi, the word of a kafir and the word of the one who is doomed to goto hell.

So without quoting anything from myself I take the help of the so called 'most authentic' book of the Ahlul Sunna, the Bukhari, I am sorry, the Sahi Bukhari. ??????

The 'Sahi Bukhari' ??? tells us: Volume 8, Book 73, Number 134

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Allah's Apostle made a small room (with a palm leaf mat). Allah's Apostle came out (of his house) and prayed in it. Some men came and joined him in his prayer. Then again the next  night they came for the prayer, but Allah's Apostle delayed and did not come out to them. 

So they raised their voices and knocked the door with small stones (to draw his attention). 

He came out to them in a state of ANGER, saying, "You are still insisting (on your deed, i.e. Tarawih prayer in the mosque) that I thought that this prayer (Tarawih) might become obligatory on you. So you people, offer this prayer at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is the one which he offers at home, except the compulsory (congregational) prayer." 

The above narration clearly states that:

1. The Holy Prophet (s) was offering prayers at his home.

2. When people insisted on joining him on the second day he became angry and prohibited them from joining him in prayers.

3.The best prayer of a person is the one which he offers at home, excep the compulsary, ie all sunnat and nawafil prayers should be offered at home.

I quote below another narration from the 'Saheeeeee Bukhari' ???? Volume 3, Book 32, Number 229

Narrated 'Urwa: 

That he was informed by 'Aisha, "Allah's Apostle went out in the middle of the night and prayed in the mosque and some men prayed behind him. In the morning, the people spoke about it and then a large number of them gathered and prayed behind him (on the second night). 

In the next morning the people again talked about it and on the third night the mosque was full with a large number of people. Allah's Apostle came out and the people prayed behind him. 

On the fourth night the Mosque was overwhelmed with people and could not accommodate them, but the Prophet came out (only) for the Morning Prayer. 

When the Morning Prayer was finished he recited Tashah-hud and (addressing the people) 

said, "Amma ba'du, your presence was not hidden from me but I was afraid lest the night prayer (Qiyam) should be enjoined on you and you might not be able to carry it on." 

So, Allah's Apostle died and the situation remained like that (i.e. people prayed individually)."

The above naration clearly states that:

1. The Holy Prophet (s) knew of the peoples presence in the Masjid, but diliberately did not come out for prayers because he feared that the people would make it a practice.

2.During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s) and after that the situation remained like that and people prayed at their homes and not in the masjid in congression.

Now, the Bukhari has been very kind to quote the origin of the tarawih prayers, infact I feel that he has quoted the below narration by mistake, had he known that this narration 

would blow off the lid from this great scam of tarawih he would have refrained from quoting it, but things happen as Allah (s.w.t.) the Almighty wishes. As we find the name of the Holy Prophet (s) in the books of the Christans and the Vedas of the Hindus, so we find the root of Tarawih Prayers and its beginning in the devils book itself.

The 'Galat' Bukhari states: Volume 3, Book 32, Number 227

Narrated Abu Huraira: 

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever prayed at night the whole month of Ramadan out of sincere  Faith and hoping for a reward from Allah, then all his previous sins will be forgiven." 

Ibn  Shihab (a sub-narrator) said, "Allah's Apostle died and the people continued observing  that (i.e. Nawafil offered individually, not in congregation), and it remained as it was 

during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and in the early days of 'Umar's Caliphate." 'Abdur  Rahman bin 'Abdul Qari said, "I went out in the company of 'Umar bin Al-Khattab one  night in Ramadan to the mosque and found the people praying in different groups. 

A man  praying alone or a man praying with a little group behind him. So, 'Umar said, 'in my opinion I would better collect these (people) under the leadership of one Qari (Reciter)  (i.e. let them pray in congregation!)'. So, he made up his mind to congregate them behind  Ubai bin Ka'b.

Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were  praying behind their reciter. On that, 'Umar remarked, 'what an excellent Bid'a (i.e. innovation in religion) this is; but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its  time is better than the one they are offering.' He meant the prayer in the last part of the  night(Tahajjut). (In those days) people used to pray in the early part of the night." 

Now analysing the above narration we come to know that:

1. The people used to pray individually in their homes, during the lifetime of the Holy  Prophet (s) and even after that.

2. Even during a part of Umar's rule people prayed individually.

3.It was Umar who collected people to pray in congression.

4. Offering Tahajjut prayers at home was better.

5. Umar him self accepts it as an innovation.

6. Though Umar started the tarawih prayers he himself did not join the jaamat.

An unbiased analysis of the above narrations would clearly lead us to the conclusion that  Tarawih prayers was never offered by the Holy Prophet (s), who even scolded the people  for trying such type of practices. It was never a practice during the time of the Holy  Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and even during the life time of the first caliph.  

Its an innovation by  Umar.

My Question:

1. If Tarawih prayes was so important then why did the Holy Prophet (s) not introduce it.

2. Do we find any ayat of the Holy Quran supporting this comedy of Tarawih.

3. Is their any narration of the Holy Prophet (s) wherein he had recommended or enjoined  people to offer tarawih prayers.

4.Is there any Sahaba or any Hafiz who claims to have led the Tarawih prayers in any of  the masjids at the time of the Holy Prophet (s).

5. Did the prominent Sahabs Umar and Abubakar lead the tarawih prayers in any of  the masjids.

6. Are their and narrations of the Holy Prophet (s) telling us about the benifits of the  tarawih prayers.

7. On my personal level I feel that people offer Tarawih prayers because of a practice and feel it as a burden rather than in obedience to the order of the Almighty.

The answer to all the above questions is a big No!!!!!!!!!

Thus the conclusion is that tarawih is neither an obligation or a compulsion but it is a pure  innovation  by non other than  ________________ (Post the word to come in the blank as 

your comment.)   !!!!!!!!!

Bai’at Ali bin Abi Thalib untuk khalifah

Tanya: Bukankah Ali bin Abi Thalib telah membai’at khalifah? Artinya kekhalifahan itu benar bagi Ali?
Jawab: Syiah berkeyakinan bahwa Ali bin Abi Thalib tidak membai’at siapapun. Karena ia mengaku bahwa dirinya-lah khalifah yang telah ditetapkan Tuhan. Namun ternyata kekhilafahan jatuh ke tangan orang lain, yang kemudian “kemaslahatan bersama” menuntutnya untuk menyertai mereka. Ia sendiri pernah berkata:
“Aku melihat bahwa jika aku bersikeras mengambil hakku (kekhalifahan), maka Islam yang ada sekarang ini pun juga akan musnah.”[1]
Ia tidak menemukan cara lain selain menyertai khalifah-khalifah yang ada dan membimbing mereka.
Bahkan ketika sebagian orang-orang Arab menolak untuk membayar zakat, dan akhirnya mereka dikecam, beliau pun juga tidak bisa melakukan apa-apa selain diam. Namun tidak selamanya seperti itu, pada saat-saat tertentu ia menguak kenyataan yang ada dan berseru mengingatkan masyarakat akan hak-haknya.
Menurut para perawi Ahlu Sunah, Ali bin Abi Thalib membai’at khalifah sepeninggal Fathimah Az-Zahra. Namun selama Fathimah Az-Zahra masih hidup, ia terus menerus kesal terhadap Abu Bakar dan tidak mau berbicara dengannya karena marah.[2]
Anggap saja Ali bin Abi Thalib memang betul telah membai’at khalifah sepeninggal istrinya. Namun seluruh ahli hadits bersepakat bahwa Fathimah Az-Zahra sampai akhir hayatnya tidak pernah membai’at bahkan berpaling dari mereka.
Ibnu Hajar dalam Syarah Shahih Bukhari menukilkan: “Fathimah Az-Zahra marah terhadap Abu Bakar dan selalu menjauhinya. Ia tetap dalam keadaan seperti itu hingga enam hari, baru setelah itu ia meninggal dunia. Ali menyolati jasad istrinya dan ia tidak memberitahukan hal itu kepada Abu Bakar.”[3]
Kini kami bertanya, bukankah Fatimah Az-Zahra juga diakui oleh Shahih Bukhari sebagai wanita terbaik di muka bumi? Lalu mengapa ia tidak membai’at Abu Bakar? Jika Abu Bakar berhak untuk menjadi khalifah, lalu mengapa putri nabi ini marah terhadapnya? Rasulullah Saw pernah bersabda:
“Barang siapa mati dan tidak membai’at serta mengakui khalifah/imam di jamannya, maka ia mati sebagai matinya orang di jaman jahiliah.”[4]
Lalu salah satu dari dua pertanyaan ini harus dijawab:
1. Putri nabi Muhammad Saw tidak membai’at Abu Bakar dan tidak mengakuinya. Apakah ia mati sebagai orang jahiliah?
2. Apakah orang yang mengaku khalifah itu sebenarnya bukan khalifah? Yakni ia tidak berhak untuk menjabat sebagai khalifah?
Kita tidak bisa menjawab “ya” untuk pertanyaan pertama. Karena putri Rasulullah Saw adalah orang yang telah disucikan oleh Allah Swt dari noda dan kesalahan; nabi pun berkata tentangnya: “Fathimah adalah penghulu wanita penghuni surga.”[5]
Beliau juga bersabda, “Wahai Fathimah, sesungguhnya Allah Swt marah karena amarahmu dan Ia ridha karena keridhaanmu.”[6]
Lalu jika demikian, maka Fathimah Az-Zahra adalah perempuan suci yang tidak mungkin ia mati sebagai orang jahiliah.
Kita simpulkan, Fathimah Az-Zahra tidak membai’at khalifah itu karena baginya pengaku khalifah itu bukan khalifah yang layak. Sampai akhir hayat ia dalam hatinya mengakui hanya seorang lah khalifah yang sah, yaitu suaminya, Ali bin Abi Thalib.
Menurut Bukhari (jika memang itu benar), Ali bin Abi Thalib membai’at khalifah setelah enam bulan. Lalu jika memang ia layak dibai’at kenapa harus tertunda sekian lama?
Sungguh aneh jika anda hanya mengandalkan sepenggal kisah sejarah bahwa “Ali membai’at khalifah”, itu saja, sedang anda melupakan segala kesedihan yang pernah menimpa Fathimah Az-Zahra selama hidupnya, sepeninggal nabi.
Dengan penjelasan ini dapat kami jelaskan bahwa bai’at Ali bin Abi Thalib setelah enam bulan tersebut tidaklah berarti apa-apa. Karena khalifah sama sekali tidak membutuhkan bai’at darinya; yakni ia (khalifah) telah duduk di tahta kekhalifahan dengan nyaman saat itu juga. Dan, Ali pun bukan orang yang bisa meninggalkan kewajiban hanya karena seorang istri menghalanginya.
Apapun yang dilakukan Ali bin Abi Thalib bersama khalifah masa itu hanya sebatas menyertai dan mengarahkan khalifah demi terjaganya Islam dari perpecahan dan kemusnahan. Bahkan perlu ditambahkan, bahwa bai’at Ali bin Abi Thalib berdasarkan paksaan dari pihak khalifah. Kenyataan tersebut dapat kita fahami dari sepucuk surat yang pernah ditulis oleh Mu’awiyah kepada Ali bin Abi Thalib.

---

[1] Nahjul Balaghah, surat ke-62.

[2] Shahih Bukhari, jld. 4, hlm. 42; jld. 5, hlm. 82; jld. 8, hlm. 30.

[3] Fathul Bari, kitab Al-Maghazi, bab Ghazwah Khaibar, jld. 7, hlm. 493, hadits 4240 dan juga kitab Al-Faraidh, jld. 12, hlm. 5, hadits 6726.

[4] Shahih Bukhari, jld. 6, hlm. 22, bab Man Farraqa Amr Al-Muslimin; Sunan Al-Baihaqi, jld. 8, hlm. 156.

[5] Ibid, jld. 4, hlm. 25, bab Manaqib Qarabah Rasulullah.

[6] Ibid, jld. 4, hlm. 210; Mustadrak Al-Hakim, jld. 3, hlm. 154.

Oleh Muhammad Thabari, dalam bukunya yang berjudul “Jawaban Pemuda Syiah atas Pertanyaan-Pertanyaan Wahabi”

Nama para khalifah pada anak-anak Ali?

Tanya: Mengapa Ali bin Abi Thalib memberi nama anak-anaknya dengan nama para khalifah?
Jawab: Kita mengetahui bahwa nama ketiga khalifah, yakni Abu Bakar, Umar dan Utsman, bukanlah nama spesial yang hanya khusus dimiliki mereka saja. Sesungguhnya nama-nama tersebut memang sudah ada dan sering digunakan di tengah-tengah masyarakat Arab baik setelah Islam maupun sebelumnya. Jadi pemberian nama tersebut didak memiliki arti apa-apa yang berkenaan dengan para khalifah. Anda dapat merujuk ke kitab-kitab Rijal seperti Al-Istii’aab tulisan Ibnu Abdul Barr dan Usd Al-Ghabah tulisan Ibnu Atsir untuk mencari tahu siapa saja sahabat nabi yang juga memiliki nama Abu Bakar, Umar dan Utsman.
Di sini kami ingin membawakan bukti kecil dari Usd Al-Ghabah, bahwa ada beberapa sahabat yang namanya juga Umar. Seperti: Umar Al-Aslami, Umar Al-Jam’i, Umar bin Al-Hakam, Umar bin Salim Al-Khaza’i, Umar bin Saraqah, Umar bin Sa’ad Al-Anmari, Umar bin Sa’ad As Salami, Umar bin Sufyan, Umar bin Abi Salamah, Umar bin Amir As Salami, Umar bin Abaidillah, Umar bin ‘Akramah, Umar bin ‘Amr bin Lahiq, Umar bin Malik bin Aqabah, Umar bin Malik Al-Anshari, Umar bin Mu’awiyah Al-Ghadhiri, Umar bin Yazid, Umar bin Al-Yamani.
Semua itu adalah nama-nama yang pernah disebutkan oleh Ibnu Atsir dalam kitabnya. Padahal itu baru sahabat saja, masih banyak lagi yang termasuk Tabi’in yang memiliki nama Umar juga. Oleh karena itu nama-nama tersebut adalah nama biasa di kalangan Arab dan sering dipakai oleh siapa saja; bukan nama spesial yang hanya dimiliki ketiga khalifah.
Dengan demikian, hanya karena nama yang sama kita tidak bisa mengingkari kezaliman-kezaliman yang pernah dilakukan terhadap Ahlul Bait sepanjang sejarah.
Perlu ditambahkan lagi, bahwa para Imam di saat-saat terdesak yang sekiranya kondisi itu menyulitkan pengikut-pengikutnya, mereka berhak melakukan tindakan-tindakan seperti memberi nama anak-anak mereka dengan nama para khalifah, menjalin ikatan dengan khalifah dengan cara menikahkan anak-anak mereka, atau dengan cara lainnya. Tentu tujuannya adalah untuk mencari aman dari tekanan pemerintah zalim saat itu. Lalu dengan demikian para khalifah tidak bisa sewena-wena lagi terhadap mereka, dan tak bisa menyalahgunakan kedudukannya untuk melakukan kezaliman kepada umat Syiah.

Oleh Muhammad Thabari, dalam bukunya yang berjudul “Jawaban Pemuda Syiah atas Pertanyaan-Pertanyaan Wahabi”

Mengapa Ali membai’at para khalifah?

Tanya: Ali sejak sebelumnya pasti tahu bahwa ia adalah khalifah Tuhan setelah Nabi. Lalu mengapa ia membai’at Abu Bakar, Umar dan Utsman? Jika ia tidak mempunyai kekuatan untuk melawan, maka dia bukan khalifah Tuhan. Jika punya, mengapa tidak menggunakan kekuatan itu? Bukankah itu penghianatan? Apa jawaban anda?
Jawab: Dalam sejarah tidak pernah tercatat bahwa Ali bin Abi Thalib membai’at Umar dan Utsman. Karena kekhilafahan Umar bin Khattab telah ditentukan oleh Abu Bakar. Orang-orang banyak yang menanyai Abu Bakar, “Mengapa engkau memilih seseorang yang berwatak keras untuk menjadi khalifah? Kelak ia akan menjadi semakin keras dengan begitu. Apa yang akan kau jawab di hadapan Tuhan nanti karena telah menjadikan orang sepertinya sebagai khalifah kami?”
Abu Bakar menjawab mereka, “Jawabanku untuk Tuhan kelak adalah: Aku telah memilih orang terbaik untuk menjadi khalifah.”[1]
Begitupula kekhilafahan Utsman bin Affan, kekhalifahannya juga atas usaha Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf. Dengan demikian apa arti bai’at Ali bin Abi Thalib? Sama sekali mereka tidak membutuhkan bai’atnya untuk menjadi khalifah.
Lalu bagaimana anda menyatakan bahwa Ali membai’at mereka?
Adapun mengenai pembai’atan Ali bin Abi Thalib untuk Abu Bakar, dapat dikatakan bahwa menurut Syiah itu bukanlah bai’at. Adapun dalam versi Ahlu Sunah, Ali bin Abi Thalib membai’at Abu Bakar setelah enam bulan dan sepeninggal istrinya, Fathimah Az-Zahra. Lalu dapat dipertanyakan mengapa Ali bin Abi Thalib mengulur waktu sedemikian lama untuk melakukan perbuatan yang benar (bai’at)? Anggap saja Ali bukan Washi Nabi. Siapapun Ali meski ia bukan Washi Nabi, tak dielakkan bahwa ia pun juga sahabat. Sedang jelas sahabat Nabi seperti apa kedudukannya tetaplah junjungan kita. Lalu mengapa sahabat Nabi ini tidak langsung membai’at Abu Bakar begitu bai’atnya diminta? Apa alasannya? Bahkan istrinya, mengapa ia tidak membai’at Abu Bakar sama sekali sampai akhir hayatnya? Bukankah orang yang meninggal dunia dalam keadaan belum membai’at (mengakui) Imam zamannya mati sebagai matinya orang jahil?[2]
Satu lagi, ungkapan penanya yang berbunyi: “Jika ia tidak punya kekuatan, maka ia bukan Khalifah.” Apakah ia mengira kekhilafahan adalah kedudukan yang dapat dicapai dengan pendapat masyarakat? Bagi kami kekhilafahan adalah kedudukan yang telah ditetapkan oleh Tuhan. Kekhilafahan di mata kami tidak membutuhkan pendapat masyarakat sama sekali. Bagi kami sama seperti kenabian. Apakah menurut anda jika seorang Nabi tidak memiliki kekuatan atau pengikut yang banyak maka ia bukan Nabi?

---

[1] Al-Kharaj, Abu Yusuf Baghdadi, hlm. 100.

[2] Shaih Muslim, jld. 6, hlm. 22; Sunan Baihaqi, jld. 8, hlm. 156.

Oleh Muhammad Thabari, dalam bukunya yang berjudul “Jawaban Pemuda Syiah atas Pertanyaan-Pertanyaan Wahabi”

Di masa kekhalifahan Ali justru umat Islam berikhtilaf

Tanya: Pada masa pemerintahan dua khalifah pertama, Islam mendapatkan kejayaan bermacam-macam seperti memenangkan negri-negri seberang. Islam tidak mengalami kejayaan lain yang lebih besar dari masa itu; apa lagi di masa pemerintahan Ali bin Abi Thalib yang kalian anggap sebagai Imam maksum, umat Islam malah berikhtilaf di dalam. Bukankah demikian?
Jawab: Jika anda menganggap keunggulan seorang pemimpin terletak pada luasnya kekuasan secara geografis, maka sungguh Abu Bakar dan Umar lebih mulia dari Nabi Muhammad Saw! Karena kekuatan yang dimiliki oleh Islam (di jaman nabi) saat itu lebih kecil dari masa-masa pemerintahan dua khalifah pertama.
Apakah anda tidak salah mengatakan tidak ada masa Islam yang lebih berjaya dari masa itu? Jika yang anda tekankan adalah luasnya daerah kekuasaan Islam, di masa pemerintahan Harun Ar-Rasyid, kekuasaan Islam lebih luas dari yang pernah ada sebelumnya. Kalau begitu Harun seharusnya lebih tinggi dari semua khalifah, bahkan dari Nabi!
Hal yang mungkin anda lupakan adalah, menyebarnya Islam dengan cepat bukanlah berkat pemerintahan dua khalifah itu (Abu Bakar dan Umar); namun karena memang ajaran Islam mengandung pesan-pesan mulia yang dapat diterima semua orang.
Syi’ar “laa ilaaha illallah” (tiada Tuhan selain Allah) menyerukan teriakan keadilan sosial yang begitu menarik perhatian semua orang. Selain itu memang juga ada budaya Jihad dan Kesyahidan yang begitu berpengaruh dalam hal ini.
Ikhtilaf umat Islam di masa pemerintahan Ali bin Abi Thalib justru buah yang dihasilkan oleh kekhalifahan sebelumnya, khususnya khalifah ketiga yang mana ia telah menyebarkan hasrat kecintaan pada harta benda. Ulah khalifah ketiga lah yang membuat umat Islam berpecah belah. Karena Ali memaksa umatnya untuk kembali ke masa kenabian Rasulullah Saw, kaum pecinta dunia jelas menentangnya lalu dengan bantuan harta yang telah mereka timbun sebelumnya mereka bangkit berperang melawan Ali. Ali pun berdasarkan Al-Qur’an dan perintah Nabi dengan teguh menghadapi, dan bahkan memerangi mereka.[1]
Oleh karenanya itu ikhtilaf yang ada tidak bisa dikaitkan kepada kekhalifahan Ali bin Abi Thalib; karena ikhtilaf tersebut muncul dikarenakan didikan khalifah sebelumnya yang membuat mereka enggan menerima pemerintahan Ilahi yang sebenarnya.

---

[1] Shahih Ibnu Hayyan, jld. 15, hlm. 258; Mustadrak Al-Hakim, jld. 3, hlm. 122; Musnad Ahmad bin Hambal, jld. 17, hlm. 360, hadits 11258.

Oleh Muhammad Thabari, dalam bukunya yang berjudul “Jawaban Pemuda Syiah atas Pertanyaan-Pertanyaan Wahabi”

Peristiwa Saqifah yang penuh keributan

Tanya: Yang jelas Ali hanya duduk di rumah… Pertamanya, Anshar menentang Abu Bakar dan bersikeras untuk membai’at Sa’ad bin ‘Ubadah namun akhirnya semuanya membai’at Abu Bakar. Bai’at mereka mungkin memiliki salah satu dari beberapa alasan ini:
1. Mereka dipaksa membai’at.
2. Akhirnya mereka sadar bahwa Abu Bakar layak untuk menjadi khalifah.
3. Mereka asal membai’at begitu saja, tanpa ada tujuan.
Karena yang pertama dan ketiga tidak mungkin, dan tidak ada kemungkinan keempat; jadi yang benar adalah yang kedua. Betul bukan?
Jawab: Padahal sebelumnya penanya pernah menyatakan bahwa semua sahabat telah membai’at Abu Bakar, namun di sini ia berkata bahwa Anshar tidak membai’atnya, namun akhirnya mereka pun membai’at Abu Bakar.
Sejarah mencatat bahwa dalam peristwia Saqifah, hanya pemimpin kaum Aus yang membai’at Abu Bakar; karena kaum Aus berkeyakinan bahwa kalau sampai orang-orang Khazraj memilih seorang pemimpin untuk mereka, mereka pasti akan membanggakan itu dan kaum Aus tidak akan mendapatkan apa-apa, oleh karenanya pemimpin Kaum Aus bangkit membai’at Abu Bakar.[1]
Kalau begini kenyataannya, bagaimana bisa dikatakan semua kaum Anshar membai’at Abu Bakar?
Sepertinya penanya mengira peristiwa Saqifah berjalan lancar dan dengan tanpa ada perdebatan dan percekcokan. Jika ia membaca sejarah Saqifah dengan benar, pasti ia akan fahami bagaimana kenyataannya.
Baiklah, di sini saya akan menggambarkan peristiwa Saqifah untuk para pembaca secara singkat:
Hanya ada tiga orang dari kaum Muhajirin saat itu, mereka adalah Abu Bakar, Umar dan Abi ‘Ubaidah Jarrah.
Thabari menulis: Kaum Muhajirin sedang bersiap untuk memandikan dan mengkafani jenazah Rasulullah Saw. Sedangkan kaum Anshar berkumpul di Saqifah membentuk satu kelompok. Mereka sengaja mengadakan suatu perundingan guna menentukan khalifah tanpa dihadiri kaum Muhajirin. Tiba-tiba datang dua orang penentang Sa’ad bin ‘Ubadah yang bernama Mu’an bin ‘Uday dan ‘Uwaiyam bin Sa’idah datang[2] dan berkata kepada Abu Bakar: “Bibit fitnah telah tertanam! Anshar berkumpul di Saqifah Bani Sa’idah untuk membai’at Sa’ad bin ‘Ubadah menjadi khalifah.” Abu Bakar tanpa memberitahukan orang-orang Muhajirin yang lainnya bergegas menuju Saqifah bersama Umar dan Abu Ubaidah. Dengan demikian mereka meninggalkan upacara pemandian dan pemakaman jenazah Nabi.
Mereka sampai di Saqifah sedang Sa’ad bin ‘Ubadah berpidato yang isinya:
“Wahai kaum Anshar, kalian telah memeluk Islam lebih dahulu. Oleh karena itu kalian memiliki keutamaan dibanding yang lainnya. Bangkitlah dan genggamlah tali kendali urusan ini.”
Abu Bakar berkata: “Tuhan telah mengutus Muhammad saw sebagai Nabi dan kaum Muhajirin lah yang telah mengimaninya terlebih dahulu.”
Lalu Abu Bakar menyinggung masalah pertikaian antara dua kabilah dalam Anshar, yakni Uais dan Khazraj; yang mana jika Uais berkuasa, pasti Khazraj tidak terima, begitu juga sebaliknya.
Ketika pembicaraan Abu Bakar telah usai, Habbab bin Mundzir, seorang sahabat dari Anshar bangkit dan berkata, “Hai Anshar, bangkitlah, rebutlah kekuasaan ini! Banyak penentang kalian yang hidup di bawah bayangan kalian, namun mereka sama sekali tidak akan berani menentang kalian.” Lalu ia menghadap ke arah Abu Bakar seraya berkata, “Sumpah demi Tuhan, tidak ada yang bisa menentang perkataanku kecuali aku akan menghantam hidungnya dengan pangkal pedang ini!”
Umar berkata kepadanya, “Semoga Tuhan membinasakanmu!”
Ia menjawab, “Engkau yang akan dibinasakan Tuhan!”
Akhirnya semua orang bangkit merampas pedangnya dan menenangkannya.
Tak lama kemudian Umar berpidato. Nada bicaranya begitu keras dalam menentang perkataan Habbab bin Mundzir. Ia berkata: “Arab tidak akan pernah tunduk di hadapan kalian dan mustahil menerima kalian sebagai khalifah. Sungguh Nabi dari pihak selain Anshar.”
Sejenak suasana menjadi sepi. Lalu berdirilah Basyir bin Sa’ad, dari kabilah Khazraj. Ia adalah sepupu Sa’ad bin ‘Ubadah yang begitu membencinya. Ia memecah keheningan dengan berteriak, “Nabi dari Quraisy, dan keluarga Nabi lebih layak untuk memimpin setelahnya.”
Abu Bakar menggunakan kesempatan ini lalu berkata, “Bai’atlah salah satu di antara Umar atau Abu Ubaidah.” Ucapannya itu sebenarnya tidak terlalu serius, hanya pembukaan agar kedua orang tersebut membawa Abu Bakar maju ke depan lalu keduanya membai’at Abu Bakar. Tanpa basa basi, Abu Bakar menjulurkan tangannya untuk dibai’at. Basyir bin Sa’ad pun juga senang dan membai’atnya.
Habbab bin Mundzir dari Anshar berkata, “Engkau adalah anak durhaka Khazraj yang penuh kedengkian!” Dengan demikian, pimpinan Aus yang sempat senang dengan pengunduran diri kaum Khazraj berbincang-bincang dengan anggota kabilah lalu berkata kepada mereka, “Jika Khazraj mencuri kekhilafahan ini, artinya mereka akan mendapatkan keutamaan yang spesial, jadi lebih baik kita membai’at Abu Bakar saja.”
Setelah para pembesar Aus membai’at Abu Bakar, mulailah percekcokan terjadi, dan Sa’ad bin ‘Ubadah yang sedang sakit hampir saja terbunuh.
Umar berteriak, “Bunuhlah Sa’ad! Semoga Tuhan membunuhnya. Ia adalah orang munafik dan penebar fitnah.” Anak Sa’ad yang bernama Qais bin Sa’ad marah atas kelancangan Umar dan menggenggam jenggotnya seraya berkata, “Kalau sampai ada satu helaipun rambut ayahku yang tercabut, aku tidak akan membiarkan ada satupun gigimu yang tersisa.”
Muhajirin yang hadir di Saqifah tidak merasa cukup hanya dengan bai’at itu saja. Mereka pergi keluar Saqifah dan mendatangi masjid. Secara bertahap mereka mengambil bai’at dari setiap orang. Namun mereka terhambat dengan keberadaan 18 orang dari Bani Hasyim di rumah Fathimah Azzahra as. Mereka tidak mau membai’at Abu Bakar, bagi mereka pemimpin yang sebenarnya adalah Ali as. Mereka memaksa 18 orang tersebut sedemikian rupa yang mana apa yang seharusnya tak terjadi akhirnya terjadi juga dan sejarah telah mencatatnya, saya tidak ingin menyinggungnya di sini.[3]
Dengan ulasan di atas, ada beberapa poin yang menjadi jelas:
1. Apa yang terjadi di Saqifah, semuanya berada di luar kemaslahatan Islam dan umatnya. Yang ada hanyalah pertikaian antar kelompok yang saling berebut kekuasaan. Anshar membanggakan pertolongannya terhadap Nabi saat berhijrah, Muhajirin membanggakan kebersamaan mereka dengan Nabi. Mereka saling membanggakan diri dan melupakan perintah Tuhan dan pesan Nabi-Nya.
2. Pada dasarnya, dari sekumpulan orang yang hadir di Saqifah, hanya ada empat orang yang membai’at Abu Bakar; dua orang dari Muhajirin, yakni Umar dan Abu ‘Ubaidah, dan dua orang lagi dari Anshar, yang bernama Basyir bin Sa’ad dari Khazraj dan Usaid bin Khadhir dari Uais. Selebihnya sama sekali tidak dijelaskan bagaimana pendapat mereka, karena mereka dianggap telah terwakili oleh pemimpin mereka.
3. Peristiwa Saqifah berlangsung dengan penuh pertikaian dan kekerasan yang tak patut.
Akhirnya bai’at pun terjadi dan Sa’ad bin ‘Ubadah pimpinan kaum Khazraj terbunuh di tengah gurun dan dikira jin adalah pembunuhnya, lalu dikenal dengan sebutan “orang yang dibunuh jin”.
Thabari menukil dari Umar bin Khattab mengenai Saqifah: “Sungguh peristiwa yang tak terorganisir dan tidak jelas, sama seperti yang sering terjadi di masa Jahiliah.”[4] Bahkan setelah itu Umar sendiri berkata dengan jelas, “Sungguh bai’at Abu Bakar adalah keputusan yang terburu-buru dan tak dilandasi oleh pemikiran. Semoga Tuhan menjauhkan kita dari keburukannya.”[5]

---

[1] Tarikh Thabari, jld. 2, hlm. 458.

[2] Ibid

[3] Silahkan merujuk Tarikh Thabari, jld. 2, peristiwa tahun 11 Hijriah, hlm. 456; Tarikh Ibnu Atsir, jld. 2, hlm. 137; ‘Aqdul Farid, jld. 2, hlm. 249; dan masih banyak lagi…

[4] Tarikh Thabari, jili d2, hlm. 459.

[5] Ibid, jld. 2, hlm. 446.

Oleh Muhammad Thabari, dalam bukunya yang berjudul “Jawaban Pemuda Syiah atas Pertanyaan-Pertanyaan Wahabi”

Hadits Asyrah Mubasyarah

Para perawi Ahlu Sunah, seperti Ahmad bin Hanbal dalam Musnadnya[1] dalam sebuah hadits dengan sanad yang sampai pada Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf bahwa Rasulullah saw bersabda:
“Abu Bakar berada di surga, begitu juga Umar, Ali, Utsman, Thalhah, Zubair, Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf, Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqash, Sa’id bin Zubair dan Abu Ubaidah Abil Jarrah di surga.”[2]
Yakni menurut hadits tersebut, sepuluh orang yang disebutkan di atas akan masuk surga.
Banyak sekali yang begitu membagakan hadits palsu ini, dan disebut dengan hadits Asyrah Mubasyarah (sepuluh orag yang mendapat berita gembira), lalu mengukir dan memajangnya di dinding-dinding Masjid Nabawi. Akhirnya hadits itu bagi masyarakat awam sudah menjadi hadits yang sangat terkenal.
Ada sebuah dialog antara seorang alim Syiah dengan orang Wahabi tentang hadits tersebut:
Alim: “Aku ingin bertanya sesuatu.”
Wahabi: “Tanyalah.”
Alim: “Bagaimana mungkin terjadi peperangan antara seseorang dari Ahlul Bait nabi dengan orang lain padahal mereka semua adalah orang yang benar dan penghuni surga? Bukannya Thalhah dan Zubair di bawah kepemimpinan Aisyah berperang melawan Ali bin Abi Thalib as dalam perang Jamal?
Padahal ada ayat Al Qur’an yang berbunyi:
“Barang siapa membunuh seorang mukmin dengan sengaja maka balasannya adalah neraka kekal.” (QS Al Haaqqah: 44)
Oleh karena itu, dalam peperangan di atas, sebagian dari mereka seharusnya berada di neraka, bukan di surga; dan mereka kalau bukan Ali bin Abi Thalib, ya pasti Thalhah dan Zubair. Jadi hadits Asyrah Mubasyarah adalah hadits palsu.”
Wahabi: “Semua orang yang kau sebutkan itu, mereka sama-sama berijtihad. Mereka berprilaku sesuai ijtihad mereka. Oleh karena itu, jika di antara mereka ada yang salah, kesalahan itu bakal dimaafkan.
Alim: “Tidak dibenarkan berijtihad di hadapan penjelasan nabi yang benar-benar jelas sekali. Bukannya seluruh Muslimin sepakat ada hadits nabi yang berbunyi: “Wahai Ali, yang memerangimu sama seperti memerangiku. Yang berdamai denganmu sama seperti berdamai denganku.” Beliau juga pernah berkata, “Waha Ali, orang yang mentaatimu maka telah mentaatiku. Yang membelot darimu sama dengan membelot dariku.”[3]
Jadi di antara mereka pasti ada yang benar, dan ia adalah Ali as. Maka hadits Asyarah Mubasyarah pasti hadits palsu. Karena tidak mungkin mereka semuanya benar dan masuk surga.[4]
Yang aneh adalah, Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf yang merupakan perawi hadits itu, termasuk dari sepuluh orang tersebut. Padahal ia adalah orang yang pernah menghunuskan pedang ke arah Ali bin Abi Thalib as seraya memintanya membai’at Utsman sepeninggal Umar.
Apakah tidak aneh seorang perawi menukilkan hadits tentang bahwa dirinya adalah penghuni surga?
Apakah Abu Bakar dan Umar termasuk penghuni surga padahal mereka yang membuat Fathimah Azzahra putri nabi sakit lalu mati tanpa menerima maaf mereka?
Apakah orang yang pernah menyeret Ali bin Abi Thalib untuk dipaksa memba’iat lalu diancam mati juga termasuk penghuni surga?
Apakah Thalhah dan Zubair yang tidak mematuhi khalifah zamannya, bahkan memeranginya, termasuk penduduk surga?

---

[1] Musnad Ahmad, jilid 1, halaman 193.

[2] Shahih Tirmdizi, jilid 13, halaman 182; Sunan Abi Dawud, jilid 2, halaman 264.

[3] Manaqib Ibnu Maghazili, halaman 50; Manaqib Khwarazmi, halaman 76.

[4] Kanzul Ummal, jilid 6, halaman 157; Al Imamah wa As Siyasah, halaman 73; Majma’uz Zawaid, jilid 7, halaman 235.

Keutamaan Ali bin Abi Thalib as atas Abu Bakar dan Umar

Pada suatu hari, Abu Hanifah sedang mengajar murid-muridnya di masjid Kufah.  Salah satu murid Imam Ja’far Shadiq as yang bernama Fadhal bin Hasan ada di situ bersama beberapa orang dari kawan-kawannya. Fadhal berkata kepada kawannya, “Aku tidak akan meninggalkan tempat ini sebelum aku ajak Abu Hanifah untuk mengikuti ajaran Imam Shadiq as.” Akhirnya mereka pun ikut duduk bersama murid-murid Abu Hanfah dan akhirnya terjadi dialog antara Abu Hanifah dengan murid-murid Imam Shadiq as itu:
Fadhal: “Hai Abu Hanifah, aku punya saudara yang lebih tua dariku, namun ia Syiah. Setiap kali aku membawakan bukti-bukti keutamaan Abu Bakar dan Umar atas Ali supaya ia mau menjadi Suni, ia selalu menolaknya. Sekarang aku ingin minta tolong kepadamu untuk kau sebutkan bukti-bukti keutamaan Abu Bakar dan Umar atas Ali lalu akan kusampaikan kepada saudaraku agar dia puas dengan dalil-dalilku.”
Abu Hanifah: “Tanyakan kepada saudaramu, bagaimana engkau mendahulukan Ali atas Abu Bakar dan Umar padahal: dalam peperangan-peperangan, Abu Bakar dan Umar selalu duduk di samping nabi, dan nabi selalu mengirim Ali untuk maju berperang. Ini adalah bukti bahwa nabi lebih mencintai nyawa Abu Bakar dan Umar.”
Fadhal: “Kebetulan aku telah menceritakan hal itu kepada saudaraku. Namun ia menjawab: Berdasarkan Al Qur’an, Ali lebih mulia dari selainnya karena selalu yang terdepan dalam medan perang. Allah swt berfirman:
“Allah memuliakan orang-orang yang berperang daripada orang-orang yang duduk dan melebihkan pahala yang banyak untuk mereka.” (An Nisa’: 97)
Abu Hanifah: “Tanyakan pada saudaramu bagaimana ia mendahulukan Ali padahal Abu Bakar dan Umar dikuburkan di samping kuburan nabi. Adapun kuburan Ali, ia dikuburkan sangat jauh dari nabi.”
Fadhal: “Aku juga pernah bilang begitu, namun ia berkata: Allah swt berfirman dalam kitab suci-Nya:
“Janganlah kalian memasuki rumah nabi kecuali kalian diberi ijin masuk.” (Al Ahzab: 53)
Nabi Muhammad saw dikuburkan di rumah miliknya sendiri. Jelas beliau sudah meninggal dan tidak pernah memberikan ijin Abu Bakar dan Umar untuk masuk ke rumahnya apa lagi dikuburkan di dalam rumahnya. Anak-anak dan keturunan/ahli waris beliau pun tidak mengijinkan mereka masuk.
Demikian kata saudaraku.”
Abu Hanifah: “Katakan kepada saudaramu bahwa saat Aisyah dan Hafshah meminta mahar dari nabi, sebagai gantinya mereka mendapatkan tanah dari beliau lalu mereka memberikannya kepada orang tua mereka (Abu Bakar dan Umar).”
Fadhal: “Itu pun pernah aku katakan, namun ia menjawab: Bukankah kamu pernah membaca ayat yang berbunyi:
“Wahai nabi, sesungguhnya kami menghalalkan istri-istrimu atasmu yang mana telah kau berikan maharnya kepada mereka.” (QS Al Ahzab: 49)
Artinya nabi sudah memberikan mahar kepada mereka saat beliau masih hidup.
Demikian katanya.”
Abu Hanifah: “Katakan pada saudaramu, Aisyah dan Hafshah adalah istri nabi, dan mereka mewarisi tanah dari nabi. Lalu mereka memberikan jatah tanah itu kepada ayah mereka agar dikuburkan di tanah itu.”
Fadhal: “Aku juga sudah mengatakan itu dan ia berkata:
Bukannya kalian, orang-orang Ahlu Sunah, berkeyakinan bahwa nabi tidak mewarisi apapun? Dan atas dasar keyakinan itu kalian merampas tanah Fadak yang diwariskan nabi kepada Fathimah Azzahra? Lalu kenapa kalian berkata Aisyah dan Hafshah mewarisi tanah dari nabi?
Anggap saja memang benar nabi meninggalkan warisan. Nabi pernah punya sembilan istri.[1] Jadi mereka semua berhak mendapatkan warisan, yang berupa seperdelapan dari tanah tersebut. Lalu jika seperdelapan tanah itu dibagi untuk sembilan orang, setiap orang mendapat satu jengkal tanah saja, bukan selebar tanah yang digunakan untuk kuburan Abu Bakar dan Umar!
Begitu jawab saudaraku.”
Abu Hanifah Hanifah akhirnya faham kalau penanya itu Syiah. Lalu ia berkata, “Keluarkan mereka karena mereka adalah rafidhi dan tidak ada saudara bagi mereka!”[2]

---

[1] Aisyah, Hafshah, Ummu Salamah, Ummu Habibah, Zainab, Maimunah, Shafiyah, Juwairiyah, Saudah.

[2] Khazain Naraqi, halaman 109; Ihtijaj Thabrasi, jilid 2, halaman 317.