Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
The Deceitful "Sunni" Belief of Misyar ! -Video
Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz (commonly known as "Bin Baz") has been described as the "figurehead of institutional Wahhabism", was one of the most prominent proponents of the Salafi ideology, and was the vice-president of the Islamic University of Madinah. In fact, in the 1990's, he was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia - the single most influential Salafi religious authority, appointed by the country's tyrannical "King". The country's Grand Mufti is also granted presidency of the Permanent Committee of Islamic Studies and Verdicts - whose members are drawn from the Council of Senior Scholars (Saudi Arabia's highest body of religious clerics). In a question and answer session, Bin Baz has been recorded here controversially revealing his Fatwa (verdict) permitting the innovated "Al-Zawaj Bi-Niyyat Al-Talaq" (literally: marriage with the intention of divorce), also known as Nikah Al-Misyar (marriage of the traveller). This marriage involves a man deceitfully marrying a woman, while intending to divorce her at a later date. The condition for this marriage to be lawful, however, is that the man MUST NOT reveal his intention, and the woman must be under the impression that their marriage is indefinite. If the man does reveal the marriage's expiration date to the woman, then this would fall under the Shia Muslim practice of Mutah (temporary marriage) - which, although allowed by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family), was banned by Umar bin Al-Khattab, and therefore is considered to be Haram (prohibited) by "Sunni" Muslims.
We find it truly ironic that Salafis are usually the first to attack Shia Islam for permitting Mutah (temporary marriage) - a marriage just like the usual permanent marriage (with a dowry given to the wife, etc.), but with both parties agreeing upon an end date. In our day and age, it is most commonly used amongst Muslims as a Halal (lawful) means of getting to know a potential spouse, before their permanent marriage.
The opposers of the Shia are very quick to attack the legislated union of Mutah (temporary marriage), yet permit Al-Zawaj Bi-Niyyat Al-Talaq (marriage with the intention of divorce), which is a clear innovation, and is obviously not based upon any Quranic verse, or Prophetic tradition. Not only this, but they also have several other questionable forms of marriage.
Such examples include Nikah Al-Misyar (marriage of the traveller), but another controversial example is known as Jihad Al-Nikah ("sexual Jihad"), which many Salafi scholars have also permitted. A quick internet search will reveal to you these forms of marriages permitted by "Sunni" religious authorities. Another such example is the consequence of Umar bin Al-Khattab's innovation of "triple Talaq (divorce) laws", known as Nikah Halala. It is essentially a sham-marriage, where a woman pays a man for sexual intercourse - which even prompted the BBC to report on it in a recent news article. These are just some examples, to name a few.
Yet they attack Shia Islam?
Friday, April 28, 2017
જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ની ઈસ્મતની અલ્લાહ દ્વારા ઝમાનત લેવામાં આવી છે, કહેવાતા ખલીફાઓ દ્વારા પડકાર.
જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ની ઈસ્મતની અલ્લાહ દ્વારા ઝમાનત લેવામાં આવી છે, કહેવાતા ખલીફાઓ દ્વારા પડકાર.
ખિલાફતને ગસબ કરી જનારાઓનાં સૌથી મોટા અને ન બક્ષી શકાય તેવા
ગુનાહોમાંથી એક ગુનોહ એ છે કે તેઓએ રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.)ના દુખ્તર જનાબે
ફાતેમા ઝહરા (સ.અ.)ની ઈસ્મત ઉપર આરોપ મુકયો છે. તેઓએ આપ (સ.અ.)ની ફદકની
મિલ્કત ઉપરનો અધિકાર ન તો ભેટ તરીકે અને ન તો વારસા તરીકે આપ્યો. આપ
(સ.અ.)નો દરજ્જો અને આપનો રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.) સાથેના સંબંધની કોઈ પરવા ન
કરી. તેથી પણ વધારે અલ્લાહની નઝરમાં આપ (સ.અ.)ની ફઝીલત અને કુરઆને એલાન
કરેલ આપ (સ.અ.)ની મન્ઝેલતનો પણ વિચાર ન કર્યો. આમ કરવાથી કહેવાતા ખલીફાઓએ
દુનિયા અને આખેરતમાં ફકત પોતાની બરબાદી હાસીલ કરવામાં સફળતા મેળવી છે.
કહેવાતા ખલીફાઓના બારામાં અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન અલી ઈબ્ને અબી તાલિબ (અ.સ.) એ
બતાવ્યું છે કે ફદકની બાબતે જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ની માંગણીનો ઈન્કાર કરી
તેઓ કેવી રીતે ઈસ્લામનાં દાયરાથી બહાર નીકળી ગયા છે.
તેઓએ ઈસ્લામીક શરીઅતના સામાન્ય ફેંસલો કરવામાં પણ પોતાને ગેરલાયક
ઠરાવ્યા. અહિંયા એ સવાલ થાય કે કેવી રીતે તેઓ ઈલાહી ખિલાફતની જગ્યા ઉપર
બેસવા આવ્યા. અલબત્ત, જનાબે ફાતેમા ઝહરા (સ.અ.) એ કહેવાતા ખલીફાઓને ખુલ્લા
પાડયા કે જેઓએ આ ખિલાફત તેમની જેવા દુન્યાવી લાલચુઓની મદદથી મેળવી હતી કે
જેઓને રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.)ની આલ પ્રત્યે તિવ્ર અદાવત અને નફરત હતી.
અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન અલી ઈબ્ને અબી તાલિબ (અ.સ.) તો ખલીફાઓ સાથે મુકાબલો:
એક લાંબી હદીસમાં ઈમામ સાદિક (અ.સ.) ફરમાવે છે:
.....બીજા દિવસે મુહાજેરીનો અને અન્સારોથી ઘેરાયેલ અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન અલી (અ.સ.) રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.)ની મસ્જીદમાં અબુબક્ર પાસે આવ્યા.
આપ (અ.સ.) એ માંગણી કરી: શા માટે તે જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ને તેમના પિતા
રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.)નો વારસો આપવાની મનાઈ કરી, કે જે આપ (સ.અ.વ.) એ આપની
ઝિંદગીમાં જ જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ને આપી દીધો હતો?
અબુબક્ર: ફદક જંગના માલમાંથી છે અને તે દરેક મુસલામાનો સાથે સંકળાયેલ
છે. તેથી, અગર જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.) ગવાહો લાવે કે આપ (સ.અ.)ને તે
રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.)એ તેમની વ્યકિતગત મિલ્કત તરીકે આપેલ છે, તો અમે તેમને
આપી દઈશું, નહિંતર તેના ઉપર તેમનો કોઈ અધિકાર નથી.
અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.): અય અબુબક્ર! તે મુસલમાનોમાં અમારી બાબતે અલ્લાહના હુકમની વિરુધ્ધ ફેંસલો કર્યો છે.
અબુબક્ર: એવું નથી.
અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.): અગર કોઈ મિલ્કત કોઈ મુસલમાનના કબજામાં હોય અને
હું દાવો કરું કે તે મારી મિલ્કત છે, તો પછી તું કોની પાસે ગવાહો માંગીશ?
અબુબક્ર: હું તમારી પાસે તમારા દાવાના ટેકામાં બે ગવાહો માંગીશ (કે તે મિલ્કત તમારી છે અને બીજા મુસલમાનની નથી).
પછી અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.) એ માંગણી કરી: તો પછી શા માટે તું જનાબે
ફાતેમા (સ.અ.) પાસે એ મિલ્કત બાબતે બે ગવાહો માંગો છો કે જે મિલ્કત
પહેલેથીજ આપ (સ.અ.)ના કબજામાં છે અને આ મિલ્કત રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.)ની
ઝિંદગીમાં પણ અને તેમની શહાદત પછી પણ છે. શા માટે તું મુસલમાનો પાસે તેમના
દાવા માટે ગવાહો નથી માંગતો જેવી રીતે તું મારી પાસે ગવાહ માંગો છો જ્યારે
હું મિલ્કતનો દાવો કરુ જ્યારે કે તે કોઈ બીજાના કબજામાં હોય.
આ સાંભળી અબુબક્ર કાંઈ જવાબ ન આપી શકયો અને ચૂપ થઈ ગયો.
પછી ઉમરે કહ્યું: અય અલી! આવી વાતો ન કરો કારણ કે અમારી પાસે તમારા
દાવાને રદ કરવાની ક્ષમતા નથી. અગર તમે આદીલ ગવાહો લાવશો તો અમે તમારો દાવો
કબુલ રાખીશું, નહિં તો ફદક તમામ મુસલમાનોની મિલ્કત છે અને તમને અને જનાબે
ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ને તેના ઉપર કોઈ અધિકાર નથી.
પછી અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.) એ ફરી વખત અબુબક્રને કહ્યું: શું તે કુરઆન વાંચ્યું છે?
અબુબક્રએ કહ્યું: હા.
અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.) એ ફરમાવ્યું: તો પછી મને બતાવ કે કુરઆનની આ આયત કોની શાનમાં નાઝિલ થઈ છે:
અય એહલેબૈત (રસૂલ સ.અ.વ.ના ઘરવાળાઓ!) સિવાય તેના કાંઈજ નથી કે અલ્લાહ
ચાહે છે કે તમારાથી દરેક પ્રકારની અપવિત્રતા દૂર રાખે અને તમને સંપૂર્ણ
રીતે પાક પવિત્ર રાખે જેવી રેતી પાક રાખવાનો હક છે.
(સુરએ અહઝાબ, આયત નં. 33)
આ આયત અમારી શાનમાં નાઝિલ થઈ છે કે બીજા કોઈ માટે?
અબુબક્રએ કબુલ કર્યું કે તે તમારી શાનમાં નાઝિલ થઈ છે.
અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.) એ ફરમાવ્યું: માની લે કે અમૂક લોકો ગવાહી આપે કે
(નઉઝોબિલ્લાહ) જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.) એ ગુનાહ અંજામ આપ્યો છે, તો આપ (સ.અ.)
માટે તું શું હુકમ આપીશ?
અબુબક્રએ કહ્યું: હું તેમને (નઉઝોબિલ્લાહ) અલ્લાહના હુકમ મુજબ સજા કરીશ જેવી રીતે હું અન્ય કોઈ ઔરતો માટે કરૂ.
અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.) એ ફરમાવ્યું: તો પછી આ બાબતમાં તું અલ્લાહની નઝરમાં કાફીરો માંહેનો છો.
અબુબક્ર: કેવી રીતે?
અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.): કારણ કે તે સુરએ અહઝાબ, આયત નં. 33 માં અલ્લાહ
દ્વારા જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ની પાકીઝગીની ગવાહીને જુઠલાવી અને લોકોની ગવાહી
ને કબુલ રાખી. આમ તે અલ્લાહ અને રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.)ના હુકમને જુઠલાવ્યો.
હઝરત રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.) એ અલ્લાહના હુકમ ‘અય રસુલ (સ.અ.વ.)! તમે તમારા
નજીકના સગાંવ્હાલાઓને તેમનો હક આપી દયો.’ (સુરએ રુમ-30, આયત નં. 38)થી ફદક
જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ને ભેટમાં આપ્યો અને રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.)ની હયાતમાં પણ
તે જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ના કબજામાં હતો. તે અલ્લાહના આ હુકમનો ઈન્કાર કર્યો
અને એવા રણવાસીની ગવાહી કબુલ કરી કે જે પોતાની એડી ઉપર પેસાબ કરે છે? તે
જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.) પાસેથી ફદકને છીનવી લીધું અને એવો દાવો કરો છો કે તે
તમામ મુસલમાનોના માલે ગનીમતમાંથી છે?!!
રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.) ફરમાવે છે કે ગવાહી દાવો કરનારે લાવી જોઈએ અને
પ્રતિવાદી એ કસમ ખાવી જોવે. તે જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.) પાસે ગવાહો માંગીને
રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.)ના શબ્દોનો ઈન્કાર કર્યો જ્યારે કે આપ (સ.અ.) પ્રતિવાદી
છે. હકીકતમાં આપ (સ.અ.) એ કસમ ખાવી જોવે અને મુસલમાનો પાસે ગવાહો માંગવા
જોઈએ જે જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.) ને પડકારવા ચાહે છે.
અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.)ની રદ ન થનારી દલીલો સાંભળી હાજર લોકો કહેવાતા
ખલીફાઓ સામે ગુસ્સે થયા અને તેઓ દરમ્યાન રાડ અને પડકાર પ્રગટયો અને અમૂકે
કહ્યું: અલ્લાહની કસમ! અલી સાચુ બોલે છે.
આ બનાવ પછી અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.) પોતાના ઘરે પાછા ફર્યા.
· બેહારુલ અન્વાર, ભાગ-29, પા. 130
· અલી ઈબ્ને ઈબ્રાહીમ અલ કુમ્મી (ર.અ.)ની સુરએ રુમ-30, આયત નં. 38 ની તફસીર
· અલ બુરહાન ફી તફસીર અલ કુરઆન, સુરએ રુમ-30, આયત નં. 38 ની તફસીર
ઉપર મુજબની અબુબક્રની ઉલટ તપાસમાં અમૂક રદ ન થનારી અને વિરોધ ન થનારો સારાંશ આ મુજબ છે:
1) કહેવાતા ખલીફાઓ અને તેમના અનુયાયીઓ પાસે ઈસ્લામી ફિકહનું સામાન્ય
ઈલ્મ પણ ન હતું અને તેઓ દાવો કરનાર અને પ્રતિવાદી દરમ્યાન એક સામાન્ય
મિલ્કતની બાબતને ઉકેલવા માટે પણ સક્ષમ ન હતા અને ગુંચવણમાં હતા. આટલી દલીલ
તે સાબિત કરવા પૂરતી છે કે તેઓનો સહાબી હોવાના આધારે ખિલાફતનો અધિકાર ખોટો
છે.
2) તેઓએ જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.) અને એહલેબૈત (અ.મુ.સ.)ના બીજા મઅસુમો માટે
નાઝિલ થયેલી કુરઆનની સુરએ અહઝાબની 33 મી આયતનો ઈન્કાર કર્યો છે અથવા તેઓએ
તે કબુલ રાખ્યું પરંતુ આ વિવાદમાં લાગુ કરવાનો ઈન્કાર કર્યો. યહુદીઓની જેમ
તેઓએ રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.)ને પોતાના ફરઝંદની જેમ ઓળખી લીધા અને તેમને
આવકારવા મદીના હિજરત પણ કરી પરંતુ જ્યારે આપ (સ.અ.વ.) મદીનામાં આવ્યો તો આપ
(સ.અ.વ.)નો ઈન્કાર કર્યો.
3) અગર ઈજમા મુસલમાનો માટે એટલું મહત્ત્વ ધરાવે છે તો પછી લોકોના ઈજમાથી
ફદક બાબતે અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.) કહેવાતા ખલીફો ઉપર ગાલીબ આવી ગયા હતા.
ઈજમાથી ફદક જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ની માલીકીનું છે.
4) અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન અલી ઈબ્ને અબી તાલિબ (અ.સ.)ની ફદક બાબતે દલીલની સામે
કહેવાતા ખલીફાઓ પાસે તલ્વાર અને ભાડુતી ગુંડાઓ સિવાય કંઈ ન હતું.
5) જ્યારે તેઓ અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન (અ.સ.)ની દલીલોનો જવાબ ન આપી શકયા અને
સુરએ અહઝાબ (33):33 મુજબ જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ના દરજ્જાને હજમ ન કરી શકયા
ત્યારે તેઓએ પાસે ફકત એક જ રસ્તો બાકી રહ્યો. તેઓએ જૂઠ ઘડી કાઢયું અને તેને
રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.) સાથે જોડી દીધું કે: ‘અમો નબીઓ કોઈનો વારસો લેતા નથી
અને ન તો કોઈને વારસો આપીએ છીએ.’ થોડાક હજાર દિરહમોમાં તેઓએ ત્રણેય બાબતો
જૂઠી બતાવી, અલ્લાહ (ત.વ.ત.)ને સૂરએ અહઝાબમાં, રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.)ને
વારસાની બાબતમાં અને જનાબે ફાતેમા (સ.અ.)ને ફદકના બાબતે. અગર આ જુઠ પછી પણ
કોઈ માટે શકય છે કે તે મુસલમાન બાકી રહે અને તેથી વધારે ખરાબ કે ખિલાફતનો
દાવો કરે અને ખોટું સમર્થન ઉભું કરે તો અલબત્ત, મુસલમાનો વિરોધીઓ અને
આતંકવાદીઓની અસરમાં છે જેને ઈસ્લામ સાથે કંઈ લેવા દેવા નથી.
બધા મુસલમાનો તબર્રા કરે છે, ન ફકત શીઆઓ
બધા મુસલમાનો તબર્રા કરે છે, ન ફકત શીઆઓ
પ્રસ્તાવના:
તબર્રાની બાબતે મુસલમાનોમાં બે મોટા મુખ્ય સમુહો છે. એક સમુહ તબર્રાની જડમુળમાંથી રદ કરે છે અને તેને વખોડે છે.
બીજો સમુહ તબર્રાની દીનના ભાગ તરીકે અમલ કરે છે અને બીજી ઈબાદતો જેમકે
નમાઝો, રોઝા, હજ, વિગેરેની જેમ તબર્રા ઉપર અમલ કરવામાં પોતાનો સમય અને
મહેનત નાખી તેના ઉપર અમલ કરવામાં કોશિશ કરે છે.
પહેલો સમુહ, યોગાનુયોગ જે બહુમતીમાં છે, માને છે કે તબર્રાની ઈસ્લામ
સાથે કંઈ લેવા દેવા નથી અને અગર તે ઈસ્લામનો ભાગ હોત તો મુસલમાનો, ખાસ
કરીને સહાબીઓ અને તાબેઈન (સહાબીઓની બીજી પેઢી) એ તેના ઉપર પહેલેથી અમલ
કર્યો હોત.
અમે અહીં એક વાતર્લિાપ વર્ણવીએ છીએ જે આ સમુહની તબર્રા બાબતે બધી ખોટી
માન્યતાને રદ કરે છે. તબર્રા માત્ર લઅનતનું નામ નથી, અલબત્ત્ા લઅનત તેનો એક
ભાગ છે. વધુ મહત્ત્વનું તબર્રા એટલે પોતાની જાતને કોઈનાથી દૂર કરવી. આવી
રીતે દરેક મુસલમાનો, ત્યાં સુધી કે સરદારો અને આગળ પડતા સહાબીઓએ તબર્રા ઉપર
અમલ કર્યો છે ચાહે તેઓ તેની અનુભૂતિ કરતા કે ન કરતા.
ઈમામ સાદિક (અ.સ.) સાબીત કરે છે કે તબર્રા દરેક મુસલમાનો અંજામ આપે છે:
આ વાર્તાલાપ મદીનામાં તે સમયે બન્યો જ્યારે મુસલમાન રાજા વલીદ, મરવાનની
નસ્લમાંથી (અલ્લાહની તે બન્ને ઉપર લઅનત થાય) શામમાં કત્લ થયો. મુતઝેલાહનો
એક સમુહ મઝહબના બીજા સરદારો સાથે વલીદનો જાનશીન ચુંટવાની પ્રક્રિયાની ચર્ચા
કરી રહ્યા હતા. આ સમુહમાં બીજા લોકો સાથે પ્રખ્યાત વ્યકિતઓનો પણ સમાવેશ
હતો જેમકે અમ્ર ઈબ્ને ઓબૈદ, વાસીલ ઈબ્ને અતા, હફસ ઈબ્ને સાલીમ.
ઈમામ સાદિક (અ.સ.) પણ હાજર હતા.
જ્યારે ચર્ચા હદ કરતા વધી ગઈ અને કોઈ સચોટ પરિણામ ન આવ્યું તો એ નક્કી
કરવામાં આવ્યું કે એક શખ્સ સમુહ તરફથી ઈમામ સાદિક (અ.સ.) સામે હવે પછીના
ખલીફાની નિમણુંક બાબતે પ્રતિનિધિત્વ કરશે. સમુહે અમ્ર ઈબ્ને ઓબૈદની
પ્રતિનિધિ તરીકે ચુંટણી કરી.
પોતાની દલીલો રજુ કર્યા બાદ અમ્ર ઈબ્ને ઓબૈદે મોહમ્મદ ઈબ્ને અબ્દિલ્લાહ
ઈબ્ને હસન (ઈબ્ને અલી ઈબ્ને અબી તાલિબ) નું નામ લાયક જાનશીન તરીકે આગળ
કર્યું.
ઈમામ સાદિક (અ.સ.): શું તમો બધા અમ્ર ઈબ્ને ઓબૈદ સાથે સહમત છો?
લોકોએ અમ્રની ચુંટણીને માન્ય રાખી.
ઈમામ (અ.સ.) એ અલ્લાહની હમ્દ કરી અને રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.) ઉપર રહમતની
દોઆ કરી અને ફરમાવ્યું: જ્યારે અલ્લાહની નાફરમાની કરવામાં આવે છે તો અમે
દુ:ખી થઈએ છીએ અને જ્યારે અલ્લાહની ઈતાઅત કરવામાં આવે છે અમે ખુશ થઈએ છીએ.
અય અમ્ર! મને જણાવો કે અગર આ ઉમ્મત કોઈપણ પ્રકારના ખુનામરકી વગર તેઓના
કાર્યો તમારી ગરદનમાં નાખી દે અને તેઓના કાર્યોનો અધિકાર તમને આપી દે અને
તમે જેણે ચાહો તેને હાકીમ બનાવવા અધિકૃત કરે, તો તમે કોને સરદાર અથવા હાકીમ
તરીકે નિયુકત કરશો?
અમ્ર ઈબ્ને ઓબૈદ: હું મુસલમાનોની શુરા (કમીટી)ની સ્થાપના કરીશ.
ઈમામ (અ.સ.): બધા મુસલમાનોની શુરા?
અમ્ર: હા.
ઈમામ (અ.સ.) : શું શુરામાં કાઝીઓ અને સમુદાયના શ્રેષ્ઠ લોકો હશે?
અમ્ર: હા.
ઈમામ (અ.સ.): કુરૈશ અને કુરૈશ સિવાયના? અરબો અને અરબો સિવાયના?
અમ્ર: હા.
ઈમામ (અ.સ.): મને જણાવો અય અમ્ર! શું તમે અબુબકર અને ઉમરથી તવલ્લા કરો છો કે તબર્રા?
અમ્ર: હું તેઓથી તવલ્લા કરું છું.
ઈમામ (અ.સ.): અય અમ્ર! અગર તમે અબુબકર અને ઉમરથી તબર્રા કરતા હોત તો જ
તમને પરવાનગી આપવામાં આવત કે તમે તે રીતે (જે રીત તમે બયાન કરી કે શુરાની
સ્થાનાથી) જાનશીનની નિમણુંક કરો. એ સ્પષ્ટ થાય કે તમે અબુબકર અને ઉમરના
વિરોધી છો અને તેઓથી તબર્રા કરો છો.
(ઈમામ અ.સ. અમ્ર ઈબ્ને ઓબૈદ તરફ ઈશારો કરીને ફરમાવે છે કે તમે તવલ્લાનો
દાવો કર્યો છે પરંતુ હકીકતમાં તમે ઉમરથી તબર્રા કરો છે, તમારી શુરાની
પસંદગી અને વ્યવસ્થા ઉમર કરતા ઘણીજ અલગ પ્રકારની છે.)
ઉમરે કોઈપણ જાતના અભિપ્રાય વગર અબુબકરની ખલીફા તરીકે નિયુકત કરી હતી અને તેની બયઅત કરી હતી.
પછી અબુબકરે પણ કોઈપણ પ્રકારના અભિપ્રાય વગર ખિલાફત ઉમરને સોંપી દીધી.
ઉમરે શુરાની સ્થાપના છ સભ્યો સાથે કરી અને તેમાં કોઈ અન્સાર (મદદગાર)નો
સમાવેશ ન કર્યો. આ છ સિવાય તેણે કુરૈશને પણ બાકાત રાખ્યા. અને શુરામાં તેણે
એવી શરતો રાખી કે જે ન તો તમે અથવા તમારા સાથીઓ તેનાથી રાજી છે.
અમ્ર: તેણે શું કર્યું હતું?
ઈમામ (અ.સ.): તેણે સોહૈબ (ઈબ્ને સીનાન ઈબ્ને માલીક)ને ત્રણ દિવસ સુધી
નમાઝ પડાવા હુકમ કર્યો અને ફકત આ જ છ સભ્યો એકબીજાનો અભિપ્રાય લેશે. આ છ
માં સાતમો અબ્દુલ્લાહ ઈબ્ને ઉમર સિવાયે બીજું કોઈ નહિ હોય પરંતુ તેના તરફથી
કોઈ મત લેવામાં નહિ આવે. તેના પછી ઉમરે મુહાજેરીન (હિજરતવાળાઓ) અને
અન્સારો માટે આ મુજબની એક વસીય્યત બનાવી: ત્રણ દિવસ પસાર થાય અને આ છ લોકો
એકબીજાના અભિપ્રાય લીધા પછી કોઈ એક સભ્યની બયઅત કરવા ઉપર સહમત ન થાય તો તે છ
લોકોના માથા ઉતારી લેજો. અગર ત્રણ દિવસ પહેલા તેઓમાંથી ચાર કોઈ વ્યકિત ઉપર
સહમત થાય અને બીજા બે તે ચારનો વિરોધ કરે તો વિરોધ કરનાર બે ના સર ઉતારી
લેજો.
અય અમ્ર! શું તમે અને તમારા સાથીઓ ઉમરના મત મુજબ મુસલમાનોમાં શુરાની સ્થાપનાથી સહમત છો?
તેઓએ કહ્યું: નહિ.
અલ કાફી, ભાગ-5, પા. 23
તેહઝીબ અલ એહકામ, ભાગ-6, પા. 148
વસાએલુશ્શીઆ, ભાગ-15, પા. 41
મીરઅતુલ ઓકુલ, ભાગ-18, પા. 348
અલ એહતેજાજ, ભાગ-2, પા. 362-363
ઉપરની ચર્ચાથી ઘણા બધા દિલચસ્પ મુદ્દાઓ જાહેર થાય છે જેમાંથી અમુકની અહિં ચર્ચા કરીએ છીએ:
1) તબર્રા અને તવલ્લાના અકીદાને મોટે ભાગે સરખો સમજવામાં નથી આવ્યો.
મુસલમાનો સામાન્ય રીતે તવલ્લા માટે મોહબ્બત અને તબર્રા માટે નફરતનો અર્થ
લેતા હોય છે. અબલત્ત્ આ પણ હકીકત છે પરંતુ વધુ યોગ્ય સંબંધ સાથે રહેવા અને
દૂર થવાના અર્થમાં છે. તબર્રાનો શાબ્દીક અર્થ છે ‘તબાઅદ’ એટલે કે દૂર થવું
અથવા છોડી દેવું (લેસાનુલ અરબ, ભાગ-1, પા. 356)
2) તબર્રા અથવા સહાબીઓથી દૂરી રાખવી તે મુસલામાનોમાં સામાન્ય હતું. ફકત
કોઈ તેઓને આના તરફ ઈશારો કરવાવાળું જોઈતું હતું. જેમકે ઈબ્રાહીમ (અ.સ.) એ
નાસ્તિકોને તેઓની મૂર્તિ તોડીને તેઓ પાસે કબુલ કરાવ્યું: પછી તેઓએ પોતાની
તરફ રુખ કર્યો અને કહ્યું: બેશક તમે પોતેજ અન્યાયી છો. (સુરએ અંબીયા-21, આ.
64)
3) પોતાની જાતને દૂર રાખીને વ્યકિત પોતાનો અણગમો જાહેર કરે છે. આ દૂરી
જેણે તબર્રા કહેવાય છે, તે યા તો કહેવાતા ખલીફાઓ, સહાબીઓ અને પત્નિઓના ખોટા
કાર્યો અથવા ખોટા ફેંસલાઓના કારણે છે. એક વ્યકિત આવી હસ્તીઓ સાથે
મોહબ્બતનો દાવો (તવલ્લા) કરી શકે છે પરંતુ હકીકતમાં તે તબર્રા કરી રહ્યો
છે, એ હકીકત જેની તરફ ઈમામ સાદિક (અ.સ.) એ અબુબકર અને ઉમરના ચાહનારાઓને
ઈશારો કર્યો.
4) ઉમરે પણ અબુબકરની જેમ સીધી નિમણુંકના બદલે શુરા બનાવીને અબુબકરથી
તબર્રા કર્યો. તેવીજ રીતે મોઆવીયા એ યઝીદને પોતાની ઝીંદગીમાં જ પોતાનો
જાનશીન બનાવીને અબુબકર અને ઉમર બન્નેથી તબર્રા કર્યો, એ હકીકત જે આએશાએ
મોઆવીયાને યાદ દેવરાવી હતી.
5) ઉમરે અગર જરુર જણાય તો શુરાના બધા સભ્યોને કત્લ કરવાનો હુકમ આપ્યો. એ
સમયે જ્યારે શીઆઓને સહાબીઓની ટીકા કરવાના બદલામાં વખોડવામાં આવે છે ત્યારે
મુસલમાનો ઉમરના સહાબીઓ પ્રત્યેના વલણ તરફ ધ્યાન ધરવું જોઈએ. તેણે
આકસ્મિકપણે સહાબીઓના ખૂનની પરવાનગી આપી જેમા રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.)ના ભાઈ અને
તેમના હકીકી જાનશીન અલી ઈબ્ને અબી તાલિબ (અ.સ.) પણ શામીલ હતા. મુસલમાનોને
કત્લ કરવા તે તેઓની ટીકા કરવા કરતા વધુ ખરાબ છે. શીઆઓની પહેલા ઉમરને
વખોડવાની જરુર છે.
6) મુસલમાનો ઘણી વખત ઉમરના શુરાનો બચાવ રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.)ની
ઝીંદગીમાંથી અમુક પ્રસંગો બતાવી કરવા ચાહતા હોય છે. પહેલી અને અગત્યની વાત,
રસુલુલ્લાહ (સ.અ.વ.) એ કાયદાની બાબતે અને નબી (સ.અ.વ.)ના જાનશીનની નિમણુંક
માટે કયારેય સલાહકાર પરિષદની રચના નથી કરી. બીજું, અગર આપણે દલીલ માટે એમ
માની પણ લઈએ કે ખિલાફત શુરાની બાબત હતી તો પછી શુરાના સભ્યોનો વિસ્તાર
વિશાળ હોવા જોઈએ જેમાં તમામ મુસલમાનોનો સમાવેશ થાય જે રસુલુલ્લાહ
(સ.અ.વ.)ની રવીશ હતી અને અમ્ર ઈબ્ને ઓબૈદ અને બધા મુસલમાનોએ પણ માન્ય રાખી
હતી. મુસલમાનોમાંથી અમુકને ચુંટી ઉમરે મુહાજેરીન, અન્સાર અને બીજા કબીલાના
લોકોને પ્રતિનિધિત્વ કરવાનો મૌકો ન આપ્યો અને આ રીતે તેણે રસુલુલ્લાહ
(સ.અ.વ.)થી તબર્રા કરી.
Why the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) allowed Umar and Abu Bakr and Wives near him ?
Courtesy : http://www.seratonline.com/27142/why-the-holy-prophet-s-a-w-a-allowed-the-shaikhain-and-wives-near-him/
2. Why different rule for Abu Talib (a.s.)?
3. Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was troubled by wives and companions but was shy of dismissing them
4. Allah permits Iblis to mingle with His Angels
5. Allah and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) mock the hypocrites by ‘accepting’ them
6. Even past prophets tolerated treacherous companions and wives e.g. Samiri and Safra bint Shoaib
7. Prophet Esa (a.s.) is betrayed by his select companion Yahuda
8. The faith of the Meccans post Conquest of Mecca – Muawiyah, Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh
9. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was tested through the oppressors
10. Treachery of wives and fickle nature of companions in the Holy Quran
11. Prophet (s.a.w.a.) dismisses Umar among others from his presence
12. How can Muslims forget Marwan?
The Islam of Abu Sufyan’s progeny and others who embraced faith after the conquest of Mecca is questionable according to all Muslims. In fact, those who accepted Islam after the Meccan conquest are scornfully referred to as ‘Tulaqa’ – liberated ones.
The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in his mercy enlisted them for some official tasks to inculcate a feeling of belongingness and fidelity to Islam. But they abused this position and someone like Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh who tampered with the Quranic text was ordered by divine command to be killed even if found clutching the curtain of the Kaaba.
We say – Didn’t the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) know like all other Muslims that the faith of the Meccan infidels like Abdullah Ibn Saad, Muawiyah and Abu Sufyan was always suspect? But still in his mercy and in keeping with the divine command to respect the apparent, he (s.a.w.a.) permitted them to attend his gatherings.
This was also how the Shaikhain and the wives made their way in the Prophet’s presence.
It is plain as sunlight that Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were displeased with both of them. The Shaikhain even with their penchant for disregarding the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were particularly aware of Marwan’s crime and sustained his exile.
However, Usman Ibn Affan, rolled out the red carpet for Marwan and others like Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh in clear violation of Allah‘s and the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) command.
Not only did he recall them, he appointed Marwan and Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Sarh, among others to prominent positions in government.
Our question to the Muslims enamored with the companionship of Shaikhain and wives is –
Do they consider Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh, Marwan, his father Hakam and the children of Marwan (Bani Marwan) and the one who recalled them – Usman Ibn Affan – worthy of companionship?
Even if the Shaikhain and wives are considered ‘respectable’ because of presence in the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) gatherings and even this is disputable as we have shown, what is the virtue of those evicted by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) from his gatherings and in fact from the city?
Clearly the Muslims of the time were acutely aware of the villainous nature of the Bani Umayyah (to which both Usman and Marwan belonged), which is why they did what they did when they finally ran out of patience with the two of them.
But yet Usman, Marwan and Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh continue to command unduly high respect within the Muslim majority. The Bani Marwan in fact went on to rule the Muslims for generations – an unthinkable proposition at the time of being banished by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
This only means one thing – Presence in the gatherings of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is not the real reason why Muslims respect the Shaikhain, wives and miscellaneous companions.
It is therefore surprising why we see such a big deal being made of companionship. The Muslims must coin another argument and come out with why they really believe these individuals command any form of respect in Islam.
The Muslim majority go all out to
defend the companions – particularly the Shaikhain (Abu Bakr and Umar)
and the wives from taints of treachery, hypocrisy and deceit.
Their primary argument in defense of the
Shaikhain and wives is the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) consent in admitting
them in his gatherings and his house. Had the Shaikhain and wives been
unworthy and treacherous, why did the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) allow them to
get close to him and the Muslims?
Reply
There are multiple aspects to this
rather basic defense of the Shaikhain and wives. Mere companionship is
hardly any reason to respect someone and appoint him as a ‘caliph’ or to
follow a wife in battle against the brother and ‘self of the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.)’ and his real caliph.
Nonetheless since companionship is the
first and last line of defense for the Muslim majority as regards the
wives and Shaikhain, we will answer why the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
allowed such individuals in his presence.
1. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was commanded to go by the apparent2. Why different rule for Abu Talib (a.s.)?
3. Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was troubled by wives and companions but was shy of dismissing them
4. Allah permits Iblis to mingle with His Angels
5. Allah and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) mock the hypocrites by ‘accepting’ them
6. Even past prophets tolerated treacherous companions and wives e.g. Samiri and Safra bint Shoaib
7. Prophet Esa (a.s.) is betrayed by his select companion Yahuda
8. The faith of the Meccans post Conquest of Mecca – Muawiyah, Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh
9. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was tested through the oppressors
10. Treachery of wives and fickle nature of companions in the Holy Quran
11. Prophet (s.a.w.a.) dismisses Umar among others from his presence
12. How can Muslims forget Marwan?
1. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was commanded to go by the apparent
The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was
commanded by Allah to accept the ‘Islam’ of the Muslims in its apparent
form with mere recitation of the dual testimony of Tauheed and
Prophethood. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was not ordered to delve on the
sincerity of faith or lack thereof or to evaluate the Muslims through
the prism of the unseen (Ilme Ghaib).
Merely by reciting the dual testimony
many hypocrites including hardcore enemies like Umayyah Ibn Khalaf were
able to accompany the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and mingle with the
Muslims. This is acknowledged by all Muslims.
Allah points this out in the Holy Quran:
وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُواْ عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لاَ تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَى عَذَابٍ عَظِيم
‘And from among those who are round
about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from
among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you
do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then shall
they be turned back to a grievous chastisement.’
- Surah Taubah (9): 101
According to this and many other verses,
just because the Shaikhain and wives were around the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) it does not automatically make them Muslims.
2. Why different rule for Abu Talib (a.s.)?
While the common Muslims are keen to
show companionship as proof of faith of the Shaikhain and wives, we must
ask them why they do not use the same yardstick for the faith of Abu
Talib (a.s.).
After all, who has invested more time and energy in the company of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) than Abu Talib (a.s.)?
But yet Abu Talib (a.s.) is a disbeliever but Shaikhain and wives are Muslims!
3. Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was troubled by wives and companions but was shy of dismissing them
The Holy Quran has highlighted on more
than one occasion how the behavior of companions and wives troubled him,
but the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) tolerated them.
‘…surely this gives the Prophet trouble, but he is shy of (dismissing) you…’
- Surah Ahzab (33): 53
This tolerant behavior was the hallmark of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) excellent ethics.
‘Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently…’
- Surah Ale Imran (3): 159
4. Allah permits Iblis to mingle with His Angels
Allah has also dealt with His Servants based on the apparent and not necessarily with the Knowledge of the Unseen.
Allah was aware of Iblis’s rebellious
nature but permitted him to join the ranks of angels based on years of
worship and devotion. When Iblis refrained from prostrating to Prophet
Adam (a.s.) his rebellious nature stood exposed and Allah evicted him
immediately from His Assemblies.
Likewise, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
also permitted the Shaikhain and the wives to mingle with the Muslims
despite their rebellious nature.
5. Allah and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) mock the hypocrites by ‘accepting’ them
Allah declares regarding the hypocrites:
For instance, Prophet Moosa (a.s.)
permitted Samiri to attend his gatherings based on his apparent faith.
The same Samiri single-handedly deviated the Bani Israel in the absence
of Prophet Moosa (a.s.).
اللَّهُ يَسْتَهْزِئُ بِهِمْ وَ يَمُدُّهُمْ فِي طُغْيانِهِمْ يَعْمَهُون
…Allah shall pay them back their
mockery, and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering
on (Surah Baqarah (2): 15)
Under this verse, Imam Moosa Kazim
(a.s.) informs: In this world, Allah’s manner of mocking them is that
they are being dealt with as per Islamic rules because of their outward
show of Islam with (false) hearing and obeying and agreeing. Therefore
the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) hints at this show of Islam, until
sincere believers understand what the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) means with this
hinting and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) orders to curse them (the hypocrites
who make a show of belief).
- Tafseer of Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) p 123 under Surah Baqarah (2): 15
- Tafseer al-Safi v 1 p 97 under Surah Baqarah (2): 15
- Tafseer al-Burhan v 1 p 144 under Surah Baqarah (2): 15
Clearly the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) only made
a show of accepting the hypocrite companions and wives, all this to
hint at their hypocrisy for the benefit of the sincere believers. In
fact Allah and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were only mocking them by
accepting them.
6. Even past prophets tolerated treacherous companions and wives e.g. Samiri and Safra bint Shoaib
It was the Sunnah (practice) of prophets
to treat the companions based on the apparent and accordingly permit
them in their assemblies.
For instance, Prophet Moosa (a.s.)
permitted Samiri to attend his gatherings based on his apparent faith.
The same Samiri single-handedly deviated the Bani Israel in the absence
of Prophet Moosa (a.s.).
Also, he (a.s.) remained married to
Safra bint Shoaib who went on to wage a battle with his chosen successor
– Prophet Yusha Ibn Noon (a.s.).
And we find that there is much in common between Bani Israel and the Muslims going by traditions like this one:
Salman (r.a.) said: And I have heard the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) say: My community will choose the tradition of
Bani Israel in exactly the same manner that one foot falls on the other
foot, one span equal to another span, one hand like the other, one
distance like the other distance, until they enter a hole then these
people will also enter that hole. Surely, Torah and the Quran were
written by one Angel, on one skin, and with one pen, and all examples
with tradition became equal.
- Kitab-o-Sulaim b. Qays al-Hilaali (r.a.) vol 2 pg 599
This is exactly what transpired in the
Muslim nation when deviation reared its head after the Prophet’s
(s.a.w.a.) demise, mainly due to the handiwork of a few ‘Muslim’ men and
women.
7. Prophet Esa (a.s.) is betrayed by his select companion Yahuda
Even Prophet Esa (a.s.) allowed in his
meetings suspect companions. One of these companions – Yahuda (Judas) –
got so close to Prophet Esa (a.s.) that he eventually betrayed him
(a.s.).
Therefore it is not surprising that the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) permitted the Shaikhain in his meetings, even at
the risk of betrayal.
8. The faith of the Meccans post Conquest of Mecca – Muawiyah, Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh
The Muslim majority acknowledge that post Conquest of Mecca in 8th Hijrah, the Meccan infidels accepted Islam under duress and in this way entered the Islamic fold with all their past crimes forgiven. This includes infidels like Muawiyah, Abu Sufyan, Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh (Usman’s foster brother).The Islam of Abu Sufyan’s progeny and others who embraced faith after the conquest of Mecca is questionable according to all Muslims. In fact, those who accepted Islam after the Meccan conquest are scornfully referred to as ‘Tulaqa’ – liberated ones.
The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in his mercy enlisted them for some official tasks to inculcate a feeling of belongingness and fidelity to Islam. But they abused this position and someone like Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh who tampered with the Quranic text was ordered by divine command to be killed even if found clutching the curtain of the Kaaba.
- Al-Istiaab v 2 p 378, Al-Isabah under alphabet العين))
We say – Didn’t the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) know like all other Muslims that the faith of the Meccan infidels like Abdullah Ibn Saad, Muawiyah and Abu Sufyan was always suspect? But still in his mercy and in keeping with the divine command to respect the apparent, he (s.a.w.a.) permitted them to attend his gatherings.
This was also how the Shaikhain and the wives made their way in the Prophet’s presence.
9. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was tested through the oppressors
The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) knew the killers
of his Ahle Bait (a.s.), observed them regularly, but allowed them in
his midst out of mercy and compassion as also a divine test that he
(s.a.w.a.) agreed to subject himself and his Ahle Bait (a.s.) to.
The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was already
informed by Allah about what his brother and caliph – Ali Ibn Abi Talib
(a.s.) and his sons would be made to undergo at the hands of the very
‘Muslims’ who were moving about freely. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) submitted
to the divine decree that the nation would not unite in love for Ali
Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and would oppress him and his sons.
That’s why he allowed the worst enemies
of Islam and his Ahle Bait (a.s.) to get close to him as he was
unwilling to shirk from the divine test even when the opportunity
presented itself.
Therefore it should not surprise anyone
how the Shaikhain and the wives were permitted by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
to move about freely. For the same reason, he (s.a.w.a.) even
overlooked his uncle Abbas knowing fully well that one day his children
(Bani Abbas) would torment the Ahle Bait (a.s.).
10. Treachery of wives and fickle nature of companions in the Holy Quran
Why do these Muslims act so surprised when they are informed of the true nature of the companions and wives?
Haven’t they reflected on the Holy Quran or are there locks on their hearts?
The wives are repeatedly ticked off as some of these verses indicate:
وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَى بَعْضِ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثًا فَلَمَّا نَبَّأَتْ بِهِ وَأَظْهَرَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ
‘And when the prophet secretly
communicated a piece of information to one of his wives — but when she
informed (others) of it, and Allah made him to know it…’
- Surah Tahreem (66): 3
يَا نِسَاء النَّبِيِّ مَن يَأْتِ مِنكُنَّ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُّبَيِّنَةٍ يُضَاعَفْ لَهَا الْعَذَابُ ضِعْفَيْنِ وَكَانَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرًا
O wives of the prophet! Whoever of you
commits an open indecency, the punishment shall be increased to her
doubly; and this is easy to Allah.
- Surah Ahzaab (33): 30
And there are plenty more verses condemning the wives – many in Surah Ahzab itself.
As regards the companions and their fickle nature, how many verses must we reproduce?
- Running away from the battles of Ohad and Hunain
- Abandoning the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the middle of the Friday sermon for trade and sport
- Distressing the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by threatening to marry his widows
- Raising the voice in the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence
These are but a few instances. There are
plenty more in just the Holy Quran and when we delve in the Sunnah,
then the list runs into volumes.
11. Prophet (s.a.w.a.) dismisses Umar among others from his presence
During his final sickness, the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) demanded pen and paper for the purpose of documenting
his will. This led to some companions opposing the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.)
clear instruction with Umar leading the dissidents. In fact Umar went
so far as to call the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) delirious in sickness (Allah
forbid).
- Sahih Bukhari Chapter on Knowledge vol 1 pg 22
- Musnad-e-Ahmad b. Hanbal, Research of Ahmad Muhammad Shakir, trad 2,996
- Tabaqaat of Ibn Saad vol 2 pg 244 – Beirut Edition
The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) shooed Umar and his gang away in disgust:
قَالَ: قُوْمُوْا عَنِّیْ و لاَ یَنْبَغِیْ عِنْدِی التَّنَازَعُ
Go away from me, it is not appropriate to argue in my presence.
- Sahih Bukhari Chapter on Knowledge vol 1 pg 22
- Taarikh Abil Fida vol 1 pg 15
Plainly the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was not
pleased with the behavior of certain companions. And while his merciful
nature tolerated much, he did occasionally dismiss them from his
gatherings in a bid to show how Allah and he felt about certain
companions and wives.
So the Muslims must reconsider the
question – why did the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) allow the Shaikhain and
wives in his gatherings – because clearly while he (s.a.w.a.) allowed
them, he (s.a.w.a.) also dismissed them.
This does not reflect well on the
Shaikhain and wives at all. It’s a bit like while the Shaikhain
participated in battles they were also quick to flee. This is no virtue,
in fact it’s a disgrace!
12. How can Muslims forget Marwan?
While the Muslims go on about companionship and how this is evidence that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was pleased with them, we would like to draw their attention to Marwan Ibn Hakam and his father Hakam Ibn Aas. They were both banished from Medina for their insolence.It is plain as sunlight that Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were displeased with both of them. The Shaikhain even with their penchant for disregarding the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were particularly aware of Marwan’s crime and sustained his exile.
However, Usman Ibn Affan, rolled out the red carpet for Marwan and others like Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh in clear violation of Allah‘s and the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) command.
Not only did he recall them, he appointed Marwan and Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Sarh, among others to prominent positions in government.
Our question to the Muslims enamored with the companionship of Shaikhain and wives is –
Do they consider Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh, Marwan, his father Hakam and the children of Marwan (Bani Marwan) and the one who recalled them – Usman Ibn Affan – worthy of companionship?
Even if the Shaikhain and wives are considered ‘respectable’ because of presence in the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) gatherings and even this is disputable as we have shown, what is the virtue of those evicted by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) from his gatherings and in fact from the city?
Clearly the Muslims of the time were acutely aware of the villainous nature of the Bani Umayyah (to which both Usman and Marwan belonged), which is why they did what they did when they finally ran out of patience with the two of them.
But yet Usman, Marwan and Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh continue to command unduly high respect within the Muslim majority. The Bani Marwan in fact went on to rule the Muslims for generations – an unthinkable proposition at the time of being banished by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
This only means one thing – Presence in the gatherings of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is not the real reason why Muslims respect the Shaikhain, wives and miscellaneous companions.
It is therefore surprising why we see such a big deal being made of companionship. The Muslims must coin another argument and come out with why they really believe these individuals command any form of respect in Islam.
Infallibility of Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) guaranteed by Allah the Almighty, challenged by the Abu Bakr and Umar
Among the biggest and possibly the most unforgivable blunders of the
usurpers of Caliphate was to cast aspersions on the infallibility
(ismat) of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.), the daughter of our Great Prophet
(s.a.w.a.). They managed to do this by summarily rejecting her right to
the property of Fadak, first as a gift and next even as inheritance. No
consideration was given to her status and her relationship with the
Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Worst, no thought was given to her position in
the eyes of Allah the Almighty and as espoused by the Majestic Quran.
In doing this, the pseudo-caliphs only succeeded in bringing about their
own destruction in this world and the Hereafter.
In a confrontation with the
pseudo-caliphs, Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) goes on to
show how their folly in rejecting the demands of Hazrat Fatima (s.a.)
with respect to Fadak, had taken all of them outside the pale of Islam.
They showed themselves unfit even to pass basic judgments related to
Islamic jurisprudence. This calls into question how they came to occupy
the divine seat of caliphate. Indeed Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) has
exposed the pseudo-caliphs who only got to caliphate with help from
others like them who bore intense animosity and hatred against the Holy
Prophet’s progeny (a.s.) combined with an overwhelming greed for the
world.
Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) confronts the caliphs
In a lengthy tradition Imam Sadiq (a.s.) narrates: …..the
next day, surrounded by the Muhaajireen (immigrants) and the Ansaar
(helpers), Ameerul Momineen Ali (a.s.) approached Abu Bakr in the Mosque
of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
He (a.s.) demanded – Why did you
forbid Fatima (s.a.) from claiming the inheritance she received from her
father, the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.), which he (s.a.w.a.) had handed
over to Fatima (s.a.) during his (s.a.w.a.) lifetime?
Abu Bakr: Fadak is from the spoils of
war and is associated with all Muslims. Thus, if Fatima brings witnesses
that the Prophet of Allah had given it to her as her (own personal)
property, we will give it to her, otherwise she has no claim over it.
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.): O Abu Bakr! You have judged against the orders of Allah regarding us among the Muslims.
Abu Bakr: It is not so.
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.): If a
property is in the possession of another Muslim and is under his control
and I was to claim that it is my property, from whom will you ask for
two witnesses?
Abu Bakr: I will demand two witnesses
from you to support your claim (that the property is yours and not the
property of the other Muslim).
Then Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) demanded: Then
why do you ask for two witnesses from Fatima (s.a.) regarding a
property that was already under her possession, and it was very much
under her possession during the lifetime of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and
even after his death? Why do you not ask the Muslims to produce two
witnesses on their claim in the same way that you ask me to produce
witnesses when I claim the property under the possession of someone
else?
Hearing this Abu Bakr could not offer any reply and remained silent.
Umar interjected: O Ali! Keep aside
these talks for we do not have the capability to refute your claims. If
you bring just witnesses, then we will accept your claim; if not, Fadak
is the property of all the Muslims and you and Fatima have no claim on
it.
Then Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) again addressed Abu Bakr: Have you read the Quran?
Abu Bakr replied in the positive.
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) continued: Then tell me in whose praise was this verse of the Quran revealed: ‘Verily
Allah intends to keep away from you (every kind) of uncleanliness, O
Ahle Bait, and purify you (with) a thorough purification.’(Surah Ahzab (33): Verse 33)
Is this verse revealed in our praise or for someone else?
Abu Bakr admits: It is revealed in your praise.
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.): Presume
that some people bear witness that (Allah forbid) Fatima (s.a.) has
committed a crime, what would your orders be with regards to her?
Abu Bakr replied: I shall punish her according to the laws of Allah (Allah forbid) as I would do any other woman.
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.): In that case you would be among the disbelievers in the sight of Allah!
Abu Bakr: Why is that so?
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.): For you
would have refuted the witness of Allah regarding the chastity of Fatima
(under Surah Ahzab (33):33) and accepted the witness of the people –
thus you have rejected the command of Allah and that of the Prophet of
Allah (s.a.w.a.)! The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) gifted Fadak to Fatima
(s.a.) under the direct command of Allah – ‘Then give to the near of kin his due’
(Surah Rum (30): Verse 38) and it remained under her possession in the
lifetime of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). You refute this command of Allah and
you accept the witness of a bedouin who urinates upon his heels? You
snatch Fadak away from Fatima (s.a.) and claim that it is from among the
spoils of war for all Muslims?!!
The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had said that proof is to be brought by the claimant while an oath is to be
taken by the defendant! You refute
the words of the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) (by demanding witnesses
from Fatima s.a. while she is a defendant while in reality she should be
put under oath and witnesses should be demanded from the Muslims who
wish to challenge Fatima s.a.)
On hearing (Ameerul Momineen’s a.s.
irrefutable arguments), the onlookers were furious at the pseudo-caliphs
and a hue and cry arose among them and some of them said: By Allah! Ali
speaks the truth.
After all of this transpired, Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) returned to his house.
- Behaar al-Anwaar vol. 29 p. 130
- Tafseer-o-Ali Ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi (r.a.) under Tafseer of Surah Rum (30): 38
- Al-Burhaan fi Tafseer al-Quran under Tafseer of Surah Rum (30): Verse 38
The above cross-examination of Abu Bakr highlights certain irrefutable and impugnable conclusions:
- The pseudo-caliphs and their supporters did not have basic knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and were unfit to solve a simple property matter between a claimant and a defendant, confusing one for the other. This is sufficient to expose their false claims and so-called right to caliphate on grounds of companionship.
- They rejected the Quranic verse of Surah Ahzab (33) revealed for Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) and other members of the infallible Ahle Bait (a.s.) or rather they admitted the verse was for Fatima (s.a.) but refused to apply it in this dispute. Like the Jews recognized the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as they did their own sons and even migrated to Madinah to welcome him, but when he (s.a.w.a.) actually appeared in Madinah, they rejected him (s.a.w.a.).
- If consensus (ijmaa) is so important for the Muslims, then by consensus of the onlookers, Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) had overcome the pseudo-caliphs in the matter of Fadak. By consensus, Fadak belongs to Fatima (s.a.).
- Except for the sword and a handful of hired hoodlums, the pseudo-caliphs had no answer to the incisive arguments of Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) in the matter of Fadak.
- When they failed to answer the arguments of Ameerul Momineen Ali a.s.) and could not belie the status of Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) in Surah Ahzab (33):33, they took the only option available to them. They coined a lie and attributed it to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) – ‘We Prophets do not inherit nor are we inherited!’ For a few thousand dirhams, they have shown all three entities to be liars – Allah the High in Surah Ahzab, the Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in matter of inheritance and Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) in matter of Fadak. If it is possible for someone to be a Muslim after this and worse, claim caliphate and cobble up fringe support, then indeed it is the lot of Islam and Muslims to be held in the sway of extremists and terrorists, who have nothing to do with Islam.
Abu Bakr’s and Umar's claim of consensus (ijmaa) on Fadak is pointless
The topic of Fadak and the bigger debate
on the inheritance of divine Prophets (a.s.) is among the key and
earliest distinguishing points between the Shias and others.
The majority claims that Hazrat Fatima
Zahra (s.a.) – the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) daughter – had no right to
Fadak because Allah’s Prophets (a.s.) do not leave behind inheritance.
To bolster their claim, they resort to the age-old formula of consensus (ijmaa)
– meaning that the so-called Muslim majority and companions supported
Abu Bakr in his claim that divine Prophets (a.s.) do not leave behind
inheritance. This supposed consensus against Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)
proves that Abu Bakr was right and Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) had no claim
over Fadak.
Reply
There are many aspects to this debate
and there are several ways to prove that Abu Bakr was mistaken like on
many other occasions in his life, a fact already been established by
scholars of both sects; thereby establishing Hazrat Fatima’s (s.a.)
indisputable claim to Fadak.
We adopt another approach to this debate
as suggested by a well-known Muslim scholar to prove that the argument
of consensus of Abu Bakr is nullified by a similar argument in Hazrat
Fatima’s (s.a.) favour.
Al-Jaahiz’s stand on the dispute over Fadak
Abu Usman al-Jaahiz, a well-known teacher and thinker of the Ahle Tasannun quotes Sayyid al-Murtaza Alam al-Hoda (r.a.):
The people (companions) presume that the
veracity of the so-called tradition of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
narrated by the two men, meaning Abu Bakr and Umar that – ‘We the
Prophets do not leave anything as inheritance’, can be established on
the basis that when this was attributed to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), the
Muslims did not refute it – rather they accepted it.
But I (Jaahiz) say to those men who
think likewise that if the veracity of this ‘tradition’ is proved
because the people accept it (thereby signifying consensus), then the
people did not even object against the claim and the protest of Ali
(a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.), and this should also be a proof of their (Ali
a.s. and Fatima’s s.a.) truthfulness.
No one objected to them, nor said that
they were lying, even though the dispute and discussion between Fatima
(s.a.) and Abu Bakr was prolonged.
Their enmity reached to an extent that Fatima (s.a.) willed that Abu Bakr should not even participate in her funeral prayers.
When Fatima (s.a.) approached Abu Bakr to claim her right, she demanded – When you die, who will inherit you?
Abu Bakr replied – My family and my children.
Fatima (s.a.) responded – How is it that we should not inherit from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), but your children inherit from you?
When Abu Bakr prevented Fatima (s.a.)
from claiming her father’s inheritance and started making excuses and
when Fatima (s.a.) witnessed his cruelty and saw her own helplessness
and loneliness, she rebuked Abu Bakr: By Allah! I will invoke Allah’s
curse on you.
Abu Bakr – By Allah! I will invoke Allah for your well-being.
Fatima (s.a.) – By Allah! I will never speak with you from now on
Abu Bakr – By Allah! I will never be away from you.
Therefore, if the ‘truthfulness’ of Abu
Bakr deprived Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) from her father’s inheritance can be
established on the grounds that the companions did not protest against
him, then it can be said that Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) was also truthful in
her claim (since no one protested against her either).
The least that was necessary for the
Muslims was that if Hazrat Fatima (s.a) was unaware (of the rule of
Islam), then they should have explained it to her, and if she had
forgotten, then they should have reminded her. If her talks were
baseless (we seek refuge in Allah!) or she was going astray or severing
relations, then they should have rectified her by protesting.
Thus, it can be concluded that if no one
protested against those two men, and no one even protested against
Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) – then the two parties are at par in opposing each
other and no one can argue on the basis of consensus in favour of Abu
Bakr (because Fatima (s.a.) can likewise claim consensus for her
stand!).
In this matter, we should refer to the
original rules of inheritance and ordinances of Allah (in the Holy
Quran) regarding the matter of inheritance, and this is the best mode to
follow.
- Al-Shafi v. 1 p. 233 of Sayyid al-Murtaza (r.a.)
- Bait al-Ahzan pp. 165-167
Clearly, even the earliest scholars of
the Ahle Tasannun were of the view that the consensus on Fadak was not a
strong argument in Abu Bakr’s favour. Given that consensus can be
claimed by both parties, the only way to break this deadlock is with the
Holy Quran’s ordinance on inheritance. Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)
herself has laid out plainly in the Sermon on Fadak that the Holy Quran
has categorically stated that fathers leave inheritance for their
children and even divine Prophets like Prophet Dawood (a.s.) and Prophet
Zakariyya (a.s.) left inheritance for their progenies.
Take lesson, O people of intellect!
Real reason why Abu Bakr refused to hand over Fadak to Fatima Zahra (s.a.)
Muslims in general claim that Fadak was
never a matter for debate and discussion since in their view – Prophets
neither inherit nor leave behind any inheritance, all their property and
wealth is for the common Muslims.
Although this is the widely touted position of the supporters of
companions and wives, we know that this was not the real reason for
denying Fadak to Aal Muhammad (a.s.).
The real reason was rather simple when you research history.
Abu Bakr willing to hand over Fadak
For all the lengthy discussions and debates on Fadak, it comes as no
surprise that the matter of Fadak was resolved in Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s
(s.a.) favour initially.
When Abu Bakr demanded that Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) advance
witnesses in support of her claim over it, she (s.a.) produced Umme
Ayman – the one guaranteed with Paradise by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) – and
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.).
Abu Bakr was satisfied with the witnesses and wrote a letter handing over Fadak to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.).
Umar walked in at the time and on seeing the document made enquiries
about it. Abu Bakr briefed him about the situation. Umar immediately
yanked the letter and tore it to pieces dismissing the witness of
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and Umme Ayman.
- Tafseer al-Qummi (r.a.) under Surah Rum (30): Verse 38
- Al-Ehtejaaj vol. 1 p. 90
- Bait al Ahzaan p. 144-145
Also refer regarding Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) right over Fadak from Quran:
- Shawaahed al-Tanzeel under under Surah Rum (30): Verse 38
- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah vol. 16 p. 220
Even if the skeptics dismiss this incident, there can be no denying
the strong arm tactics employed by Umar to control the government from
the backseat. And it’s not like we see this side of Umar only during the
reign of Abu Bakr. Umar was abrasive and obnoxious even in the presence
of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself.
Whether one considers the Hudaybiyyah truce or when the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) seemingly offered funeral prayers for the hypocrite or
regarding the prisoners of Badr or on numerous other occasions, we
regularly see Umar confronting the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as if he (Umar)
was the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was a companion. We
even see a ‘report’ in the books of Ahle Tasannun justifying Umar’s
behavior by claiming the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said that had there been a
prophet after him it would have been Umar (Allah forbid)!
So if Umar can use strong arm tactics and interfere in prophethood,
why should it surprise anyone if he does the same in caliphate?
Also there are many incidents in the books of the Ahle Tasannun that
show Umar reversed the decision of Abu Bakr quite brazenly and
impulsively.
Consider this incident –
Once a group of the ones inclined towards Islam (al-Mu’allafah Qulubuhum under Surah Tauba (9): Verse 60) came to Umar and showed him a document in which Abu Bakr had ordered for them to receive their rightful shares from the alms.
Umar refused it, tore Abu Bakr’s document into pieces, spat on it, and threw it at their faces.
Having been infuriated, they returned to Abu Bakr and asked – Which one of you is the caliph (ruler)? Is it he or you?’
Abu Bakr answered – He is, if he wants!
- Fazail al-Sahabah vol 1 p. 292 by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
- Tafsir al-Manaar vol. 10 p. 496 by Rasheed Riza – ideological founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
- Kanz al-Ummal vol. 3 p. 914 trad. 9,151, vol. 12 p. 546 trad. 35,738
- Tarikh al-Dimishq vol. 9 p. 196 trad. 797
- Al-Iktifa bima Tadammanahu min Maghazi Rasool Allah wa al-Thalathah al-Khulafa vol. 3 p. 90
There are many such incidents and the Muslims justify it and document
it among the virtues of Umar as Ahmed Ibn Hanbal has done in Fazail
al-Sahabah! The book of Al-Farooq by Shibli Nomani is replete with such
‘virtues’ including torching the house of Fatima Zahra (s.a.).
Therefore then, why should it surprise the Muslims that Umar compelled Abu Bakr to reverse his decision on Fadak.
Why can’t the Muslims just admit that Fadak belonged to Fatima Zahra
(s.a.) and dismiss Umar’s high handedness as just another proof of his
‘virtue' !
Fadak belonged to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) based on Islamic laws
The Shaikhain refused to grant Fadak to
Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) on one pretext or the other. They rejected
her own witness as also the witnesses of her infallible husband Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.) and even Umm Ayman – whose honesty was beyond reproach
having been assured Paradise by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
In the absence of witnesses or rather in the absence of ‘credible’ witnesses, Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) claim on Fadak was rejected.
In the absence of witnesses or rather in the absence of ‘credible’ witnesses, Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) claim on Fadak was rejected.
Over here we do not wish to delve on the infallible personalities
(a.s.) and their status near Allah and the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and
how the rulers made a blunder by ignoring this reality which was evident
even to a Muslim child.
We only wish to draw the attention of the reader to the
irregularities in the stand of the Shaikhain vis-à-vis Fadak, one of
which we have exposed over here.
Granting the claimant her right based on swearing
Even if Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) witnesses were found wanting, Fadak should have been granted to her based on a simple swearing.
It is strange that when other claims came before Abu Bakr, he allowed
them in favour of the claimant merely on the basis of the claim while
the claimant was neither asked to furnish any proof of claim, nor to
produce witnesses.
In this connection, Bukhari documents:
‘It is related from Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari that he said – The
Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had told me that when the spoils of war from
Bahrain would arrive, he would allow me such and such out of it, but
the spoils of war did not reach us until after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.)
demise (martyrdom). It arrived in the days of (the government) of Abu
Bakr, so I went to him and told him that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had
promised to give me such and such property out of the spoils of war from
Bahrain, whereupon he gave me all of what (was promised to me).’
- Sahih al-Bukhari vol 2, part 27, p 190
In the interpretation of this tradition, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani records:
‘This tradition leads us to the conclusion that the evidence of one
just companion can also be admitted as full evidence, even though it may
be in his own favour, because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any
witness or proof for his claim.’
Thus, if it was lawful to grant property to Jabir on the basis of a
good impression (of him and his Islam) without calling for witnesses or
any evidence, then what stopped the ruler from allowing Fatima Zahra’s
(s.a.) claim on the basis of a similar good impression?
Firstly, her known truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding
her sincere in her claim, in addition to the witnessing of Ali (a.s.)
and Umm Ayman in her favour.
Demand for two witnesses according to Quran
It is said that the claim could not be decided in Fatima Zahra’s
(s.a.) favour on the basis of these two witnesses because the Quran lays
down the principle of evidence thus –
‘Then call to witness two witnesses from among you men and if there
not be two men, then (take) a man and two women.’ Surah Baqarah (2):
282.
Reply
If this principle is universal and general, then it should be taken
into account for every occasion. However, as we see – from Jabir’s case –
it was not implemented consistently. One witness – that too of the
claimant himself – was deemed sufficient for ruling the case in his
favour. There was no need felt for another witness even though the Quran
stipulates two male witnesses or its equivalent.
Then why was the evidence of Ali (a.s.) and Umm Ayman not deemed
sufficient for Fatima Zahra (s.a.) in view of her moral greatness and
truthfulness? Her case was even stronger than Jabir’s case because Jabir
was both the claimant and the only witness in this case; while Fatima
Zahra (s.a.) had multiple witnesses.
As evident from Jabir’s case, the rulers obviously believed that the
Quranic verse (Surah Baqarah: 282) does not restrict them to two
witnesses and allows for other means of resolution. Therefore advancing
this verse in support of the Shaikhain’s decision on Fadak does not hold
water.
Shaheed al-Thalith’s (r.a.) view
In this regard, Shaheed al-Thalith Sayyid Nurullah al-Shustari (r.a.) has documented in Ehqaaq al-Haqq in the Chapter of Matain:
‘The view of the objector (Abu Bakr/Umar) that despite the evidence
of Umm Ayman the requirement of evidence remains incomplete is wrong on
the grounds that from certain traditions it is seen that it is lawful to
give a decision on the basis of one witness, and it does not
necessarily mean that the injunction of the Quran has been violated,
because this verse means that a decision can be given on the strength of
the evidence of two men or one men and two women, and that their
evidence is enough. It does not appear to say that if there is some
other ground besides evidence of witnesses, that would be unacceptable
and that verdict cannot be given on its basis, unless it is argued that
this is the only sense of the verse. But since the very sense is not a
final argument, this sense can be brushed aside, particularly because
the tradition (of Jabir for instance) clearly points to a contrary sense
and ignoring the sense does not necessarily mean violation of the
verse.
Secondly, the verse allows a choice between the evidence of two men
or of one man and two women. If by virtue of the tradition, a third
choice is added, namely that the verdict can be passed by means of
another evidence as well, then how does it necessitate that the Quranic
verse stands violated.’
- Bait al-Ahzan under Chapter of Establishing Witnesses for Fadak
Muttaqi al-Hindi’s view
In this connection, Muttaqi al-Hindi, the famous Ahle Tasannun scholar, records:
‘The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.), Abu Bakr and Umar used to decide cases on the strength of one witness and swearing by the Quran.
‘The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.), Abu Bakr and Umar used to decide cases on the strength of one witness and swearing by the Quran.
When decisions were passed historically on the strength of one
witness and swearing, then even if in Abu Bakr’s view the evidence
regarding Fadak was incomplete, he should have asked Fatima Zahra (s.a.)
to swear (on the Quran) and he could have passed judgement in her
favour.’
But here the very objective was to tarnish the truthfulness of Fatima
Zahra (s.a.) so that in the future the question of her testimony should
not arise.
Bait al-Ahzan under Chapter of Establishing Witnesses for Fadak
A most absurd defense of the Umar in the attack on Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house
Certain Sunni
scholars have dismissed reports of an attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s
(s.a.) house by offering vague and absurd reasons in defense of the
companions. Their primary objective is to portray the companions as
paragons of virtue and decency (Adalat-e-Sahabah) at all cost, even in
the face of irrefutable reports to the contrary.
We analyze over here the weak defense mounted by scholars like Ibn
Abil Hadid and Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi to clear the names of the
companions behind the attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.).
Ibn Abil Hadid asserts: As for the recording (by the Shias) of
the attack on the house of Fatima (s.a.) and gathering wood to burn it
down, then it’s on the authority of a sole narrator (Khabarun Wahidun)
and cannot be deemed reliable for the companions, rather it cannot be
deemed reliable for any Muslim who is considered just. (Sharh Nahjil Balaghah v 12 p 289)
Likewise Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi records: In my view the Shias
consider the companions lower than the soldiers of Prophet Sulaiman
(a.s.) who in the company of the prophet were attentive to basic details
like avoiding the ants in the path (Surah Naml (27): 18), but the Shias
consider the senior companions who accompanied the greatest Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) everywhere to be so ruthless as to harass the mourning
daughter, son-in-law and the orphan grandsons of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
and burn their house down… (Tohfah Ithna Ashariyyah)
Reply
First and foremost by making such a strong defense for the companions
Ibn Abil Hadid has put to rest all doubts of being a Shia. Some from
the Ahle Tasannun continue to claim he was a Shia despite loads of
comments of this nature where he has squarely defended the companions
and rejected categorical beliefs of the Shias and denied the excellence
of the Ahle Bait (a.s.).
Coming to his statement on the attack – we fail to understand how
someone who has compiled a 20 volume commentary on the Nahjul Balaghah
can give a clean chit to the companions and all ‘just’ Muslims, in clear
contravention of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.
When Allah hasn’t given a clean chit to the companions and wives and Muslims, who is Ibn Abil Hadid to do so?
The Holy Quran is replete with verses criticizing the companions for
one misdeed after another, some so serious that they take the companions
out of the realm of Islam.
For the sake of brevity we cite a few verses and historical incidents
to show that the companions were prone to making grievous errors. And
to absolve them of the attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house on
the so-called theory of justice and decency (adalat) is plain ignorance,
if not denial.
- Harassing the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
The Holy Quran has highlighted on more than one occasion how the
behavior of companions and wives troubled him (s.a.w.a.), which became a
cause of their eternal damnation.
إِنَّ ذَلِكُمْ كَانَ يُؤْذِي النَّبِيَّ
‘…surely this gives the Prophet trouble…’
- Surah Ahzab (33): 53
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا
‘Surely (as for) those who trouble Allah and His Apostle,
Allah has cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and He has
prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace.’
- Surah Ahzab (33): 57
The companions are accursed in the world and the hereafter for
troubling the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) but yet Ibn Abil Hadid and Shah Abdul
Aziz Dehalwi believe that they are just and could not have attacked
Fatima Zahra (s.a.) house!
- Threatening to marry his widows
The companions troubled the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in many other ways
like threatening to marry his widows. Whether or not they married the
wives is a different thing; just the intention speaks volumes of their
character and their indecent nature – a far cry from the decency that
Muslims attribute to them.
‘…and it does not behove you that you should give trouble to
the Apostle of Allah, nor that you should marry his wives after him
ever; surely this is grievous in the sight of Allah.’
- Surah Ahzab (33): 53
Why should it surprise anyone if such indecent companions burn the house of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) only daughter?
- Treachery of wives and their fathers
Treachery of the companions and wives was rampant as Holy Quran has repeatedly indicated.
وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَى بَعْضِ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثًا فَلَمَّا نَبَّأَتْ بِهِ وَأَظْهَرَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ
‘And when the prophet secretly communicated a piece of
information to one of his wives — but when she informed (others) of it,
and Allah made him to know it…’
- Surah Tahreem (66): 3
The Sunnah has identified the guilty wives behind this episode;
interested readers can refer to Sahih-e-Bukhari vol 6, book 60, hadith
435.
If such treachery is evident in the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) lifetime, it
is only natural to expect an even darker version after his martyrdom as
evidenced in the attack on Hazrat Fatima’s (s.a.) house.
- Treachery in Ohad and Hunain
It is categorically documented by the Holy Quran that the companions
behaved treacherously by turning their backs on Allah and His Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) in key confrontations like Ohad and Hunain, among others.
Whether or not they admit it, but abandoning the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
(with just Ali Ibn Abi Talib a.s. for company) in the midst of
bloodthirsty enemies amounts to an assassination attempt by indirect
means.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise if such companions turn
their backs on Allah and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by attacking the house
of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) in an attempt to assassinate the members.
- Raising the voice in Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence
Although a small offense according to the companions, raising the
voice in the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence was a heinous crime near
Allah. A crime that the companions committed regularly and for this they
were punished with nullification of all their deeds.
‘O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice
of the Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one
another, lest your deeds became null while you do not perceive.’
- Surah Hujarat (49): 2
When the companions couldn’t even converse with the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) with proper etiquette it is not surprising at all when they
are embroiled in bigger crimes like attacking the house of his daughter
(s.a.).
- Attacking Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) on multiple occasions
Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) was attacked on several occasions by the companions and tabe’een.
He was attacked immediately after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) martyrdom for allegiance to Abu Bakr.
The Muslims however deny this attack or in the least play it down.
Years later Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) was engaged by the companions
(Talha, Zubair, Marwan) and wives (Ayesha) in the Battle of Jamal. This
led to the killing of tens of thousands of Muslims.
Ali (a.s.) was challenged immediately afterwards by another companion
– Muawiyah in the battle of Siffeen which lasted over a year and
claimed even more lives than the Battle of Jamal.
When companions can attack Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) openly in
multiple battles with total disregard for his status, why should it
surprise anyone if he is attacked after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.)
martyrdom and if his house is raided and set aflame?
Does Ibn Abi Hadid have any sturdy defense for the ‘decency of
companions’ regarding the attacks in Jamal and Siffeen apart from the
forged apology which the companions supposedly tendered to Ali Ibn Abi
Talib (a.s.)?
- Attacking Imam Husain Ibn Ali (a.s.) in Karbala
Even if all attacks on Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and Ali Ibn Abi Talib
(a.s.) are justified or defended or overlooked how can the Muslim
majority defend the companions and tabe’een in the attack on Imam Husain
Ibn Ali (a.s.) in Karbala?
Where is the so-called ‘Adalat’ of companions and tabe’een in the most inhuman attack in the history of Islam or rather mankind?
Karbala is a reality and all Muslims are unanimous about it. For the
intelligent Muslim, Karbala is a good enough proof for all attacks prior
to it – be it in Jamal, Siffeen or the house of Fatima Zahra (s.a.)
regardless of whether the Muslim majority acknowledges them. If the
companions and tabe’een could attack Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala, then
they could likewise attack him in his house in Medina in 11th
AH after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) martyrdom. So denying the attack on
Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house is just illogical when there is plain
evidence of the aforementioned attacks later on.
Why Ibn Abil Hadid acknowledges the other attacks by the companions
and tabe’een and is particularly adamant on defending the attack on
Fatima Zahra (s.a.) is a mystery
Necessity of Tabarra against Ali ( A.S) whoever they may be !
One hears the strangest of objections
when it comes to Tabarra against the enemies of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.).
One group claims that we should avoid Tabarra because the enemies of
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) are revered by some sections of the Muslim
community. These Muslims are likely to get offended by Tabarra. So for
the sake of these Muslims and the broader demands of ‘Muslim Unity’, we
must avoid Tabarra against enemies of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and on the
contrary, we should respect them because they are revered by their
followers!
Reply
To the proponents of this suggestion, we have only question:
Are these Muslims willing to forgive and forget when it comes to their own opponents and enemies?
Why do they hunt down their own enemies, imprison them and even kill them?
Are they bigger than Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), whose enemies must be loved while their own enemies must be killed?
Let us turn to an incident involving
Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) which highlights the importance of Tabarra,
making it obligatory for all lovers of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.).
Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) on Tabarra
‘…then Imam Baqir (a.s.) told him: (O
servant of Allah), how excessive is the oppression of this nation
against Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and how little is their justice towards
him (a.s.)! They deprived him (Ali (a.s.)) of virtues (instead)
granting it to the companions, although Ali (a.s.) was the best of them.
Then, how can they keep Ali (a.s.) away from this position that they
have bestowed on others?
He (a.s.) was asked: How was that, O son of Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?
Imam Baqir (a.s.) said: You accept the mastership of the lovers of Abu Bakr b. Abi Quhaafa and do Tabarra against his enemies, whoever they may be.
Likewise, you accept the mastership of Umar b. Khattaab and do Tabarra against his enemies, whoever they may be.
Also, you accept the mastership of Usman b. Affaan and do Tabarra against his enemies, whoever they may be.
Until the matter reaches Ali b.
AbiTalib (a.s.) when they say – you have Wilayat of his friends but
don’t do Tabarra against his enemies, rather (you claim) we love them!
And how is it permitted for them to
claim thus when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has said regarding Ali
(a.s.) – ‘O Allah love him who loves Ali (a.s.) and take as an enemy who
takes Ali as an enemy and help him who helps him and abandon him who
abandons him.’
Then do you see them – they do not
take as enemy the enemy of Ali (a.s.), nor they abandon them (those who
have abandoned Ali a.s.)?
This is not justice!
Another (injustice) is that when the
virtues, with which Allah has distinguished Ali (a.s.) with the prayers
of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his nobility near Allah the Almighty, are
mentioned they deny it. But whatever is mentioned for the companions of
the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), they accept it. What is it that has made them
reject it for Ali (a.s.) and attribute it to the other companions of the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?
- Tafseer Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.), p. 562
- Al-Ehtejaaj, vol. 2, p. 330
- Behaar al-Anwaar, vol. 21 p. 239 narrating from Tafseer al-Ayyaashi under the verse of Surah Taubah (9): Verse 118
It is evident from this and many other
reports that Muslims do not have any way out but to do Tabarra against
the enemies of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), regardless of the status and
respect of the enemies. If these enemies include the companions and
wives and are revered by certain sections of Muslims so be it. Doesn’t
Allah order in the Holy Quran
‘It is not (fit) for the Prophet
and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the
polytheists, even though they should be near relatives, after it has
become clear to them that they are inmates of the flaming fire…. but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he declared himself to be clear of him…’ (Surah Taubah (9): Verses 113 and 114).
If even one’s nearest relatives are not
to be spared, where is the question of respecting the enemies of Ali b.
Abi Talib (a.s.) or as outrageously suggested to even love them?
After denying Fadak why were Abu Bakr and Umar buried in the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) house?
There are two facts that the Muslim majority accepts without much debate:
- The Shaikhain refused to grant Fadak to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) by dismissing the testimonies of her infallible husband Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and even Umm Ayman on the excuse that Prophets (s.a.w.a.) do not leave any inheritance.
- Abu Bakr and Umar are buried next to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by virtue of the property inherited by their daughters Ayesha and Hafsa.
Reply
The obvious contradiction between points a. and b. is plain even to a lay Muslim –
If Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) cannot inherit property from her father
(s.a.w.a.) then how can the Shaikhain inherit their burial place in the
Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) house?
An eye-opening debate on the subject nullifies the burial of the
Shaikhain and proves that the land on which they are buried is usurped
from the Muslims.
Abu Hanifa fails to defend the Shaikhain
One day, Fuzzaal Ibn Hasan Ibn Fuzzaal al-Kufi (refer Qamoos
al-Rijal, vol. 4 pg 313), a companion of Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.), was
walking through the streets of Kufa with his friend.
He saw Abu Hanifa surrounded by people who were posing religious questions.
Fuzzaal decided to approach Abu Hanifa with some questions of his
own, despite protests to the contrary by his friend, who warned him that
Abu Hanifa was an intelligent person. Fuzzaal poses as a ‘Sunni’ Muslim
with a Shia brother.
(We reproduce excerpts of the debate relevant to the discussion.)
Abu Hanifa: Tell your (Shia) brother that Ayesha and
Hafsa by virtue of being the wives of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) received
their chambers as inheritance and in turn offered their portion of
inheritance to their respective fathers for burial.
Fuzzaal: I told him the same thing but he shot back
saying – you Muslims believe that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) did not leave
behind any inheritance, which is why Fadak was not granted to Fatima
(s.a.) his only daughter at the time.
Even if we consider the chambers as inheritance, the fact remains
that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had nine wives at the time of his demise. So
every wife had equal right over that property and without the
permission of other wives Abu Bakr and Umar should not have been buried.
If we divide the inheritance equally among nine wives then each person
will be entitled to no more than a span and not a burial place like Abu
Bakr and Umar have taken for themselves.
After listening to this argument, Abu Hanifa resigned himself to
defeat and vented his frustration on Fuzzaal by ordering his companions:
Get him out of here he is a Shia.
- Al-Ehtejaaj, p 207
The Shaikhain very nonchalantly dismissed Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s
(s.a.) claim to Fadak by advancing a fake report on the Prophet’s
(s.a.w.a.) authority. Little did they realize that one day they would be
buried next to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) on property that was supposedly
inherited by their daughters.
If the daughter cannot inherit property, how can the wives claim
inheritance – that too in the case of a Prophet (s.a.w.a.) who
supposedly does not leave behind any inheritance.
Clearly the Shaikhain are a victim of their own contradictions and
every time a Muslim visits the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) shrine he asks
himself – what are the Shaikhain doing here in the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.)
house when the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) does not leave behind any inheritance?
As the tradition goes – One who digs a well for his brother, falls in it.
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Janabe Umme Kulthum ka Aqd Umar se Nahi Hua tha ---Urdu Book
Sihmi Masmum Fi Jawab Nikahi Ummi kulsoom URDU by LoverofAli on Scribd
Musannif ni Matam e Hussain ko Ahadees (Sunat e Rasool), Sonat e Ahlibait our Sonat e Sahaba se sabit kia hai. Our Mulve Israr our dosri tamam munafikeen ki mun hamisha hamihsa kileye band kar deye hain.
Popular Posts (Last 30 Days)
-
Question : There is a Sahih Hadith stating the names of ten (10) people who Prophet (SA) stated that they will be in Paradise. These nam...
-
Article Provided by : Br. Hesham Merchant The crowd left towards the house of Hazrat Ali (a.s.). The harbored the intention of burning dow...
-
Umar ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By G...
-
مرحوم علامه مجلسی در كتاب شریف بحار الأنوار مینویسد كه عبد الله بن عمر بن الخطاب ، بعد از شهادت سید الشهداء علیه السلام به دیدار یز...
-
Tabari: Narrated Aboo Hisham Al-Rafi from Aboo Bakr Ibn Ayyash from Hasim Ibn Kulayb from his father who said: " Uma...
-
Muhammad Bin Saaib Al Kalbi narrates in his book (Al Salabah Fe Ma'rifat Al Sahabah) (3/212) ... Nufayl was working for Kalb Bin ...
-
Abdul Kareem Mushtaq - Hum Muta Kiyon Kerte Hain Here is an unbiased debate on 'Muta' from ARY Digital. The host is neutra...