• Misyar Marriage

    is carried out via the normal contractual procedure, with the specificity that the husband and wife give up several rights by their own free will...

  • Taraveeh a Biad'ah

    Nawafil prayers are not allowed with Jama'at except salatul-istisqa' (the salat for praying to Allah to send rain)..

  • Umar attacks Fatima (s.)

    Umar ordered Qunfuz to bring a whip and strike Janabe Zahra (s.a.) with it.

  • The lineage of Umar

    And we summarize the lineage of Omar Bin Al Khattab as follows:

  • Before accepting Islam

    Umar who had not accepted Islam by that time would beat her mercilessly until he was tired. He would then say

Monday, September 17, 2018

Why Do Shias hate the Sahaba like Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr ?


We hate them for what they did. I mean their actions. They deserve to be hated for them. Allah(swt) created everyone equal and it is only the actions which gives one some merits over the other. As I had cleared the answer, you can believe me and stop here, or you can read further from my blog:



I request you to read Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Al Muslim. Every innovation that came to Islam was during the time of the 2nd caliph. He was the only one who always questioned the acts of the Holy Prophet to the extent that he doubted numerous times on the revelation. Secondly, Al tabari in his works mentions the incident of Saqifa how Umar ibn al Khattab came with his men along with Khalid ibn Walid on the house of Fatima a.s. and tried to burn the house. The events unfortunately led to the miscarriage of the unborn child of Fatima a.s. and later resulted in her own death because of that injury. Thirdly Umar was the one who did not allow the Holy Prophet to write his last will of advice to the muslims.
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise."
Then how does a fellow muslim who is aware of this, could possibly have a soft heart with such a person.


Wednesday, May 23, 2018

جب حضرت علی علیہ السّلام ( ظاھری طور پر ) خلیفہؑ بنے تو ۔۔۔۔

1 - شیعہؑ کا کلمہؑ اور اذان جاری کیوں نہیں کروائ ؟
2 - ( نماز ) تراویح کیوں ختم نہیں کروائ ؟
3 - مسجدیں بنوائیں ، امام باڑے کیوں نہیں بنواۓ ؟
4 - مُتعہ کو جاری کیوُں نہیں کیا ؟
5 - باغ فِدک کو بی بی فاطمہؑ ( سلام اللہ علیہا ) اور حسنین کریمین ( علیہم السّلام ) کو واپس کیوں نہیں کیا ؟

یہ کُل 5 سوال ھیں 

اور آئیۓ آج آپکو پتا چلے گا کہ ان سوالوں کا جواب کسی مولوی یا مجتہد نے نہیں بلکہ خود مولا علی علیہم السّلام نے دیۓ ھیں ۔
کیونکہ یہ تمام سوال نۓ نہیں ھیں ۔۔
1436 سال سے نسل اُمیّہ و مروان و بنوُ عباس یہی سوال کرتی آئ ھے ۔۔ !!

سرکا جناب باب العلم علیہم السّلام سے جب یہی سوال پوچھے گۓ تو آپ علیہ السّلام منبر کوفہؑ پر تشریف لے گۓ اور ایک بلیغ خطبہؑ ارشاد فرمایا ۔۔ اسکے اقتباس درج کر رھا ھوں ۔۔
.
( حوالہؑ : کتاب الاحتجاج ۔۔ جلد نمبر 1 )
( حولہؑ : کتاب نہج الاسرار ۔۔ جلد نمبر 1 )
( حوالہؑ : کتاب فضائل امیرالمومنین ابن عقده کوفی (333 )
( حوالہؑ : علل الشرائع شیخ صدوق ( 381 )
(حوالہؑ : کفایه الاثر خزاز قمی ( 400 )
( حوالہؑ : احتجاج طبرسی ( 548 )
( حوالہؑ : مناقب آل ابی طالب ابن شهر آشوب ( 588 )
( حوالہؑ : الروضه فی فضائل امیر المومنین شاذان ابن جبرئیل قمی (660)
۔
خطبہؑ بعنوان :
معاویہ سے جنگ کرنے اور ابوبکر و عمر سے جنگ نا کرنے کا سبب :

جنگ نہروان ( خوارجین سے جنگ ) سے فارغ ھونے کے بعد سرکار جناب امیر المُومنین علیہم السّلام ایک محفل میں کچھ ارشاد فرما رھے تھے کہ " اشعث " نے سوال کردیا ۔
جسکے جواب میں سرکار جناب امیرالمومنین علیہ السّلام نے فرمایا :
" اے اشعث ۔۔۔
توُ نے اپنی بات تو کہہ دی اب اسکا جواب بھی سُن اور اسکو یاد رکھ ۔۔
اور حُجّت کو اپنا شُعار بنا لے کہ ۔۔
میرا یہ اقتدار ( خلافت ظاھری ) چھ پیغمبروں
کی طرح ھے ۔۔
1 - نوُح علیہ السّلام
2 - لوُط علیہ السّلام
3 - ابراھیم علیہ السّلام
4 - مُوسیٰ علیہ السّلام
5 - ھاروُن علیہ السّلام
6 - مُحمّد صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

نوُح علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا انہوں نے کہا :

" فَدَعَا رَبَّهُ أَنِّي مَغْلُوبٌ فَانتَصِرْ " (سورۃ القمر ۔۔ آئیت نمبر 10)
ترجمہؑ :
اے میرے ربّ میں مغلوُب ھوگیا میری نصُرت فرما "
۔
اب اگر تمُ یہ کہو کہ اُنہوں نے بلا وجہ ایسا کہا تو تم نے کُفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ اُنکی اُمت نے اُنکے ساتھ حالات ایسے بنا دیۓ تھے تو پھر تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا وصی ( علی علیہ السّلام ) نوح سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا ۔
۔
لوُط علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا کہ اُنہوں نے کہا :

" لو أن لي بكم قوة أو آوي إلى ركن شديد " ( سورۃ ھوُد ۔۔ آئیت نمبر 80 )
ترجمہؑ :
" کاش تم سے بچنے کی مجھ میں قوّت ھوتی یا میں کسی زبردست پناہ میں جاکر بیٹھ جاتا "
۔
اب اگر تمُ یہ کہو کہ اُنہوں نے بلا کسی خوف کے یہ کہا تو تمُ نے کُفر کیا اور اگر تمُ یہ کہو کہ اُنکی قوم نے انکے ساتھ یہ حال کیا کہ وہ تنہا رہ گۓ تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا یہ وصی اُس سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا ۔
۔
ابراھیم علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا کہ اُنہوں نے کہا :

" وَأَعْتَزِلُکُمْ وَمَا تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ " ۔۔ سورۃ مریم ۔۔ آئیت نمبر 49 )
ترجمہؑ :
میں تم سے اور جن جن کو تم اللہ کے سوا پُکارتے ھو علیحدہ ھوتا ھوُں
۔
اب اگر تمُ کہو کہ ابراھیم علیہ السّلام بنا کسی وجہؑ کے اپنی قوم سے الگ ھوگۓ تو تم نے کفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ انکی قوم نے انکو ایسا مجبوُر کیا تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا وصی اس سے زیادہ مجبوُر ھے ۔
۔
موُسیٰ علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا کہ اُنہوں نے کہا :
" فَفَرَرْتُ مِنکُمْ لَمَّا خِفْتُکُم " ۔۔۔۔ ( سورۃ الشعراؑ ۔۔ آئیت نمبر 21 )
ترجمہؑ :
میں تم سے ڈرا تو میں خود ھی تمُ سے بھاگ گیا تھا
۔
اب اگر تمُ کہو کہ اُنہوں نے بلا کسی خوف کے قوم کو چھوڑا تو تمُ نے کُفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ واقعی قوم اُنکی جان کے درپے ھوگئ تھی اسلیۓ وہ وھاں سے چلے گۓ تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا وصی اُن سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا
۔
ھاروُن علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا کہ اُنہوں نے کہا :

" یابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِی وَکَادُواْ یَقْتُلُونَنِی " ( سورۃ الاعراف آئیت 151 )
ترجمہ :
" اے میرے ماں جاۓ ، تحقیق کہ قوم نے مجھے ( تیرے بعد ) ضعیف سمجھا اور قریب تھا کہ مجھے قتل کردیتے "
۔
اب اگر تم کہو کہ انہوں نے بلاوجہ ایسا کہا اور گئو سالہ کی پرستش سے بنا کسی وجہ کے نہیں روکا تو تم نے کُفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ اُن کو مجبوُر اور کمزور کردیا گیا تھا تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا وصی اس سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا ۔
۔
مُحمّد ﷺ کی تاسئ کی جب انہوں نے ھجرت کی :
اور جاتے ھوۓ مجھے اپنے بستر پر سُلا کر گۓ ۔۔
اب اگر تُم کہو کہ اُنہوں نے بلا کسی وجہ کے ھجرت کی تو تُم نے کُفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ اُنکو مجبوُر کردیا گیا تھا تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا یہ وصی اُن سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا ۔

کچھ اندازہ ھوُا ؟؟
کتنا مجبوُر کردیا گیا تھا میرا مولا علی علیہ السّلام ؟
کُچھ سمجھ میں آیا کہ کیوُں جو بدعتیں دین میں داخل ھوُئیں اُنکو بند نہیں کیا میرے مولا علی علیہ السّلام نے ؟؟
ان چھ انبیاؑ میں سے چار اولوالعزم پیغمبر ھیں ۔۔
جو جو وجوھات ان آیات میں ان سب کی اپنی اپنی قوم سے علیحدگی کی بنی وہ تمام وجوھات اکیلۓ میرے مولا علی علیہ السّلام کو روکے ھوۓ تھیں ۔۔
۔
اب ایک اور سرکار جناب امیر علیہ السّلام کا خطبہؑ سُنو ۔۔
اور یاد رکھنا ۔۔ کہ کیوں سرکار نے تلوار نہیں اُٹھائ اور بپہت کُچھ برداشت کیا ۔۔
چاھے وہ گلے میں رسّی ڈال کر حرامیوں کا میرے مولا کو کھینچنا ھو
چاھے وہ دروازے کو آگ لگانا ھو
چاھے وہ میری مخدومہؑ کونین سلام اللہ علیہا کا پہلوُ شکستہ کرنا ھو
چاھے وہ فدک کا حق غصب کرنا ھو
چاھے وہ خلافت کا حق چھیننا ھو
اس سب پر خاموشی کی سب سے بڑی وجہ ۔۔۔

حوالہؑ :
کتاب : استیعاب عبد البرجلد ا صفحہ۱۸۳طبع حیدر آباد
۔
حضرت علیؑ فرماتے ہیں کہ میں نے لوگوں سے یہ کہہ دیا تھا کہ دیکھو رسول اللہ کا انتقال ہو چکا ہے اور خلافت کے بارے میں مجھ سے کوئی نزاع نہ کرے کیوں کہ ہم ہی ا س کے وارث ہیں ۔لیکن قوم نے میرے کہنے کی پرواہ نہیں کی ۔
" خدا کی قسم اگر دین میں تفرقہ پڑ جانے اور عہد کفر کے پلٹ آنے کا اندیشہ نہ ہوتا تومیں ان کی ساری کاروائیاں پلٹ دیتا ۔"
۔
(2) حوالہؑ :
کتاب : معالم التنزیل صفحہ۴۱۲ ، صفحہ۴۱۴،
کتاب : احیاء العلوم جلد۴ صفحہ ۸۸ سیرت محمدیہ صفحہ۳۵۶
کتاب : تفسیر کبیر جلد۴ صفحہ۶۸۶
کتاب : تاریخ خمیس جلد۲ صفحہ ۱۱۳۹
کتاب : سیرت جلبیہ صفحہ۳۵۶
کتاب : شواہد النبوت اور فتح الباری
۔
" میں ہے کہ آنحضرت نے حضرت عائشہ سے فرمایا کہ ۔۔۔۔
" اے عائشہ ”لوَ لاَ حدَ ثَانِ قَومُک بالکَفرِ لَفَعلتُ “
ترجمہؑ
اگر تیری قوم تازی کفر سے مسلمان نہ ہوئی ہوتی تو میں اس کے ساتھ وہ کرتا جو کرنا چاہیے تھا۔
۔
اور اب مجھے یہ بتانے کی ضرورت تو ھے نہیں کہ " جنگ بدر سے خیبر و خندق تک " پورا عرب گواہ ھے کہ کس کی تلوار سینوں کو چیرتی رھی اور گردنوں کو کاٹتی رھی ؟؟
بڑے بڑے " بہادروں " کو پہاڑوں پر بکری کی طرح اچھلتے دیکھا ھے
بڑے بڑے " بہادروں " کو جو ھنٹر ھاتھ میں لیۓ گھوما کرتے تھے تاریخ نے کوئ ایک نام بھی محفوظ نہیں کیا جو انکے ھاتھوں قتل ھوا ھو کسی بھی جنگ میں ؟؟
( یہ چیلنج بھی ھے کہ دکھاؤ اگر کوئ نام مل جاۓ ؟ )
مکہّ و مدینہ کے بسنے والے نا تو عمرو بن عبدود کا مارے جانا بھولے تھے اور نا ھی خیبر کا دروازہ اکھاڑے جانا ۔۔
جنگ خندق میں عمرو بن عبدود نے جب گستاخی کی اور مولا علی علیہ السّلام کے چہرہ مبارک پر لعاب دھن پھینکا تو آپ علیہ السّلام اُس کی چھاتی سے نیچے اُتر آۓ جس پر وہ جو بہُت زیادہ " غصّیلہ " تھا وہ بے اختیار بولا بھی تھا ۔۔۔" یا رسول اللہ یہ دیکھیۓ علی علیہ السّلام نے کیا کیا ؟ اتنا اچھا موقع گنوا دیا ۔۔ اس پر تو قابوُ پالینا ھی بڑا کام تھا ۔۔ "
قتل عمرو بن عبدود کے بعد جب مولا علیہ السّلام سے پوچھا گیا تو آپ نے فرمایا ۔۔
اگر اس وقت میں اسے قتل کردیتا تو میرا ذاتی غصّہ شامل ھوجاتا
( جبکہ میں تو " یدّ اللہ " ھوں اسلیۓ لڑتا ھی صرف اللہ اور اسکے رسول اور اسکے دین کیلیۓ ھوں )
ھاں یہ ضرور پتا چل گیا تھا کہ " یہ محمّد وآل محمّد ﷺ اپنا حق چھن جانے پر نہیں بولتے لیکن اگر اسلام و دین پر کچھ بن جاۓ تو پھر یہ اُٹھ کھڑے ھوتے ھیں "
تو بس اُنہوں نے طے کرلیا کہ ۔۔۔
" کہ دین کی بنیادوں کو فی الحال چھیڑو نہیں اور ان کو چھوڑو نہیں "
چنانچہ جن " چڑی ماروں " کی ٹانگیں کانپتی تھیں مولا علی علیہ السّلام کو آتے دیکھ کر ۔۔
" انکی ھمّت اتنی بڑھ گئ کی گلے میں رسّی ڈال کر کھینچتے رھے "
۔
(3) حوالہؑ :
کتاب : تاریخ اعثم کوفی ۸۳ طبع بمبئی

" میں حضرت علیؑ کی وہ تقریر موجود ہے جو آپ نے خلافت عثمان کے موقع پر فرمائی ہے۔ ہم اس کا ترجمہ اعثم کوفی اردو طبع دہلی کے صفحہ۱۱۳ سے نقل کرتے ہیں۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
۔
" خدا ئے جلیل کی قسم ......
اگر محمد رسول اللہ ﷺ ہم سے عہد نہ لے لیتے اور ہم کو اس امر سے مطلع نہ کر چکے ہوتے جو ہونے والا تھا تو میں اپنا حق کبھی نہ چھوڑتا ۔ اوراپنا حق کسی شخص کو نہ لینے دیتا ۔ اپنے حق کے حاصل کرنے کے لیے اس قدر کوشش بلیغ کرتا کہ حصول مطلب سے پہلے معرض ہلاکت میں پڑنے کا بھی خیال نہ کرتا ۔ "
.
اب کچھ سمجھ میں آئ ؟؟
یہ وہ جواب ھیں جو مولا علی علیہ السّلام نے از خود ارشاد فرماۓ اور مجھے پورا یقین ھے کہ آپ میں سے اکثر نے یہ پڑھنا تو دور کی بات سُنے بھی نہیں ھونگے !!
اور اب باری ھے میرے تبصرے کی ۔۔۔
تو اب دل پر ھاتھ رکھو اور جواب سُنو ۔۔۔
ابوُ جہل کی جاھل اولادو ۔۔ !!
۔
پہلے اور دوسرے سوال کا جواب :

اسلیۓ بند دوبارہ شروع نہیں کروایا کہ " جو پروانے اپنی شمع رسالت ﷺ کا جنازہ چھوڑ کر تین دن واپس نہیں آۓ وہ کیا یہ بات مانتے ؟؟ جنہوں نے نبی ﷺ کا لحاظ نہیں کیا وہ علی علیہ السّلام کا کیا کرتے ؟؟
۔
تیسرا سوال :

پہلی بات تو یہ کہ اس وقت تک واقعہؑ کربلا ھوا ھی کب تھا جاھل ؟؟
دوسری بات یہ کہ پہلا امام بارگاہ " بیت الحزن " کے نام سے شمع رسالت کے پروانوں نے " رسول اللہ ﷺ کی بیٹی کو بنا کر دیا تھا جنت البقیع میں " ۔۔۔
کیونکہ اس وقت بھی تمہارے باپ دادا کو رسول اللہ ﷺ کی بیٹی کا رونا ۔۔۔ پسند نہیں تھا ۔۔
جہاں تک بات ھے رونے کی ۔۔۔
تو کیا بھول گۓ کہ رونے کیلۓ جگہ کی قید نہیں ھوتی ؟؟
" کسی کو غار میں رونا آگیا تھا ۔۔ یاد نہیں کیا ؟ "
۔
چوتھا سوال :

مُتعہ کو جاری تو تب کرتے جب اُنہوں نے وہ بند کیا ھو ؟
اُن کے پیروکار تو " کسی کی بہن کے مُتعہ کرنے کی خبر کے بعد بند کرنے کے فیصلے کو اور فیصلہ کرنے والے کو مانتے ھی نہیں "
اسلیۓ مولا علی علیہ السّلام کے پیروکاروں میں وہ بمطابق حکم قرآن و رسول ﷺ جاری تھا اور ھے ۔
۔
پانچواں سوال :

باغ فِدک ۔۔
کو اسلیۓ واپس نہیں لیا مولا علی علیہ السّلام نے کیونکہ اس کی وارث مخدومہؑ عالیہ سیّدہ فاطمہؑ سلام اللہ علیہا تب دنیا سے پردہ کرچُکی تھیں ۔۔
اور ظاھر ھے جب دعویدار ھی نا ھو تو کس طرح واپس لیتے ؟؟
۔
یہ تو تھے تمہارے سوالوں کے جواب ۔۔۔ اب میرے کچھ سوال ھیں تمہارے انہی سوالوں کے جواب میں ۔۔
اگر واقعی حق پر ھو تو دو اسکا جواب ۔۔
میں بھی تو دیکھوں کہ " شیعہ نے تو چیلنج کا جواب دے دیا "
اب شیعہ کے چیلنج کا جواب کون دے گا ۔۔۔ !!
۔
سوال نمبر ایک :

رسوُل اللہ ﷺ کے جنازے میں " بڑے ستارے " کیوں نہیں تھے ؟
۔
سوال نمبر دو :

" الصّلوٰۃ خیراً من النوم " رسول اللہ ﷺ کے دور میں جزو اذان نہیں تھا نا ھی خلیفہؑ اؤّل کے دور میں تو پھر اس کو اذان کا جزو بنانے کی بدعت کیوں کیگئ ؟؟
۔
سوال نمبر تین :

نماز تراویح نا عہد رسالت ﷺ میں پڑھی گئ اور نا ھی خلیفہ اوّل کے دور میں ۔۔ تو پھر یہ بدعت کیوں اپنائ گئ ؟؟
۔
سوال نمبر چار :

قرآن نے کہا " نبی کی بیبیو گھروں میں قرار پکڑو "
تو پھر نبی کی جو بی بی گھر سے باھر نکلی اور صرف باھر نہیں نکلی بلکہ لشکر کی سربراہ بھی بن کر میدان میں آئ اس کے بارے میں کیا کہتے ھو ؟؟
اور اگر وہ ٹھیک تھا تو پھر آج عورت کی حکمرانی پر فتوے کیوں لگاتے ھو ؟
۔
سوال نمبر پانچ :

مُتعہ ۔۔۔ کو قرآن کی آئیت اور رسوُل اللہ ﷺ کی حدیث نے حلال کیا تھا
خلیفہؑ اوّل کے دور میں بھی حلال ھی تھا
پھر قرآن و حدیث کیخلاف اسکو بند کرکے زناؑ سے بچنے کا راستہ بند کرنے کا اختیار کس نے دیا تھا بند کرنے والے کو ؟؟
کیونکہ اسکے علاوہ اور کوئ طریقہ ھے ھی نہیں ایک شادی شدہ مرد کیلیۓ جو گھر سے دور ھو کہ وہ حرام کاری سے بچ سکے ۔
۔
سوال نمبر چھ :

حضرت عمر بن عبدالعزیز ( رح ) نے باغ فِدک
" اولاد فاطمہؑ سلام اللہ علیہا " کو یہ کہہ کر واپس کر دیا تھا کہ ۔۔۔۔۔
" یہ تمہارا حق تھا اور پہلے اس معاملے میں فیصلہ کرنے والے سے اجتہادی غلطی ھوئ " ۔۔
اب یہ بتاؤ کہ ان دونوں میں سے کون صحیح تھا ؟؟
خلیفہؑ اوّل یا پھر عمر بن عبدالعزیز ؟؟؟
۔
اب مجھے دیکھنا ھے کہ ان سوالوں کے کیا جواب دیتے ھو ۔۔
منتظر ھوں
( حجّت تمام ھوئ ۔۔۔ الحمد للہ رمی

Monday, April 23, 2018

Real Face of Hazrat Umar|| Gustakh Kon? || Shia Kafir Kyun


Monday, March 26, 2018

Research on Sahih Al-Bukhari


Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Did Imam Ali name his sons after the first three Caliphs ??

Some Muslims create an impression that Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) was pleased with the companions particularly the Shaikhain and accepted their caliphate without any reservations and he was never under any duress or compulsion.
As proof they advance some tame arguments like Ali (a.s.) naming his sons after the caliphs shows his love and admiration for them.

Reply:

The names of some of the sons of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) coincided with the names of the previous caliphs. But only a very prejudiced and misinformed student of history would claim that this denotes affection of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) for the caliphs.
Our first question to these Muslims – is the name of the caliph the very first instance in the history of Islam of an infant being named such. For e.g. was Umar b. Khattab the first person to be named as Umar? If not they what leads these Muslims to believe that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) named his son after Umar. It is established historically that these names were such that they were already commonly used in Arab culture. If someone named his son with one of these names it is because these names were acceptable in the culture at that time. It is a fallacy to assume (leave alone assert) that someone was named after someone.
It is only when Islam and Shiasm spread to other lands and cultures over a period of time and the followers of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in these foreign lands heard the names of the caliphs in a negative light of being the usurpers of the right of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) that the names of these caliphs became culturally unacceptable in the Shia society. For them these names did not represent Arab culture but instead represented negative icons.
Several Imams (a.s.) also named their daughters after Ayesha. Does this mean that the Imams (a.s.) were pleased with her while the most biased and weakest of historical reports are unanimous that she waged a six-day battle against Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) leading to the death of thousands of Muslims in Islam’s first ever civil war in Jamal?
Obviously, the answer lies in the practice of the time when the Imams (a.s.) refrained from doing anything to expose themselves and their Shias to the wrath of the despotic rulers of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. For the same reason, Imams (a.s.) have also openly rebuked some of their chosen companions to spare them (companions) of the caliphs’ wrath. This rebuke cannot be taken as a sign that Imams (a.s.) were displeased with the companions just like naming the children after companions and wives cannot be taken as a sign that Imams (a.s.) were pleased with them.
That is also, why we find so many companions and their fathers with names like Umar (Mufazzal b. Umar), Ziyaad (Kumayl b. Ziyaad), Muawiyah (Muawiyah b. Wahhab).

Why don’t Shias follow their Imams in naming their children?

These Muslims taunt the Shias for ignoring the Sunnah (practice) of their Imams in naming their children. They demand that like their Imams, Shias must also name their children after the caliphs.
There is a manifold answer to this question.
1. As explained it is evident that names were given for reasons other than affection for companions and wives. It was clearly to ward off tyranny and oppression from the caliphs of the time. Since the Shias today do not witness the same tyranny and oppression from the kings and caliphs they do not name their children after the caliphs and companions. When the Shias do witness tyranny and oppression they name them after the caliphs. This is in fact preferable as commanded by the Imams (a.s.) since safeguarding one’s life is necessary when a situation does not call for jihad.
2. Shias prefer to name their children after an infallible rather than the son of an infallible unless the son was also an infallible. This is because intellect demands that we emulate the infallible right down to his name.
3. Shias believe as also affirmed by Sunni reports that the names of the infallibles were chosen by Allah Himself. According to Hadith-e-Lauh (Tradition of the Tablet) which is also recorded by Sunni scholars like Hammuee in Faraed al-Simtain (chapter 2 pg 137-139), Allah Himself chose the names of Imams and their titles. So if Allah chooses Jafar it does not mean Allah has chosen based on some Jafar who existed in history, unless He Himself specifies it. Likewise, when Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) selects the name Umar or Abu Bakr it does not mean that it is based on some historical figure unless Ali (a.s.) specifically mentions it as he has done in the case of Uthman b. Mazoon.
4. Rather than worry about why Shias don’t emulate their Imams in naming their children, Muslims should focus on why they don’t emulate the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and name their children Hasan and Husain, instead of naming them after the companions. There are widely reported Sunni traditions that Imam Hasan (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) were named by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself based on Allah’s command. Hasan and Husain are Arabic derivations of the words Shabar and Shubair respectively who were the sons of Hazrat Haroon (a.s.), who were also named by Allah.

Why don’t Shias name their children after Yazid

Some Muslims insist on the names argument and demand that if culturally acceptable names were given why don’t we find names like Yazeed, Muawiyah, Ziyad and Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab, etc.
Reply:
1. Among Arabs, we find that Yazeed was commonly used by Shias even after the incident of Karbala because for them it represented a culturally acceptable name and was not exclusively identified with the villain Yazeed who mercilessly martyred Imam Husain (a.s.) and his companions and imprisoned the members of the holy Ahlul Bait (a.s.).

From Shia books of Rijaal (brief biographies of narrators of traditions) like: Rijaal-e-Toosi, Rijaal-e-Barqi, Rijaal-e-Kashi, Mojam al-Rijaal al-Hadith of Ayatullah Sayed Abul Qasem al-Khui (r.a.), we find numerous examples of die-hard Shias and enemies of Bani Ummayah named Yazeed.[i]
2. Likewise, we have seen companions and their fathers named after Yazid, Muawiyah and Ziyaad like Mufazzal b. Umar and Muawiyah b. Wahab (both amongst the closest companions of the Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.)) and Kumayl b. Ziyaad among the closest companions of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.). Likewise Shias were named Hisham like Hisham b. Hakam (close companion of Imam Sadiq (a.s.)) and it is obvious that they were not named based on Hisham b. Abdul Malik – the one who poisoned Imam Ali b. Husain (a.s.) Zainul Abedeen. These are a few examples from the many in the books of Rijaal (narrators of traditions).
3. Shias are not interested in naming their children after Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab but these Muslims can do so.

Umar vs. Umar

1. Even if we assume that names were granted based on caliphs, it does not mean anything. Names do not determine one’s choices; ultimately a person’s actions determine whether he is affectionate or unaffectionate towards the caliphs. It is reported Umar b. Abdul Aziz was from Umar b. Khattab’s lineage and obviously named after him. But his actions do not indicate that he was happy with his ‘role model’ particularly on returning Fadak which Umar b. Khattab withheld from Fatima – the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) daughter. If indeed Umar II was named after Umar b. Khattab then he would have shown affection towards Umar by following his footsteps.
2. Likewise, if Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) named his son Usman after Usman b. Affan, then Usman b. Ali in Karbala should have refrained from fighting with Yazid since he was Usman b. Affan’s grandson. Or at the very least a general announcement should have been made before the Battle of Karbala that all those named after the caliphs should forcibly be evicted from the battle so as to not shed the blood of innocent!
Thus, it is established that just because the names of two people happen to be the same as they were from the same culture, it does not mean that one was named after another or his father loved the former.
Also, since the narrations of traditions were banned immediately after the martyrdom of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), it is very difficult to know today that for each son of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) whose name is common with some caliph, who actually he was named after. But some traditions do give us an indication (but not towards any caliph).

It is narrated from Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) that he said regarding the naming of his son, Uthman: I have named him after my brother Uthman bin Mazoon[ii].[who was an eminent companion of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.a.) and is buried in the graveyard of Baqi]
However, there are no traditions indicating that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) named his sons after the Shaikhain.
For other names, also possibilities exist that Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) has based them on some respectable companion (instead of the caliphs).

How Shias benefited from these names

The names of some of the sons of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) being common with those of some caliphs created an alibi for Shias later on to escape from difficult situations in the long and heart-rending history of oppression unleashed upon them by his (a.s.) opponents. Hence, we find instances when Shias were cornered by the enemies of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.). They would have surely been killed, but they escaped a sure death by praising these sons of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) which the enemies misunderstood to be the praise of the Caliphs. The Shias were thus able to practice ‘Taqiyyah’ (dissimulation) without resorting to any untrue statement. Over the years, it resulted in protection of the lives, wealth and progeny of many Shias.
According to the aforementioned details, now in this present age after the passage of fourteen centuries, we can conclude that names cannot be the criterion for relations between two sides. Other grounds should be searched to find the reason of enmity or friendship.

Did Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house have a door?

Introduction

1. Doors in the Holy Quran
2. Doors in the Sunnah
3. Door of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) 
4. Abu Bakr’s biggest regret
5. Reply to the report on Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)

Of all the doubts created by some so-called Muslims including those who accept the Ahle Bait’s (a.s.) virtues is that the house of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) did not have a door.
They claim houses in the early period of Islam did not have wooden doors; instead the residents fixed curtains or mats as doors. Some, in order to prove their claim, advance certain traditions like:
It is narrated by Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.): And we are Ahle Bait of Muhammad. Our houses neither have roofs nor doors…
They claim – since the house had no door, how is it possible for Fatima Zahra (s.a.) to be crushed between the door and the wall?

Doors in the Holy Quran

It is misleading to suggest that houses of the time did not have roofs and doors. The Holy Quran clearly states that houses have doors and they should be locked.

a) The following verse states that houses have doors:

وَلَيْسَ الْبِرُّ بِأَنْ تَأْتُوا الْبُيُوتَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهَا وَلَٰكِنَّ الْبِرَّ مَنِ اتَّقَىٰ وَأْتُوا الْبُيُوتَ مِنْ أَبْوَابِهَا
“…and it is not righteousness that you should enter the houses at their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard (against evil); and go into the houses by their doors.” (Surah Baqarah (2):189)


b) This verse states that doors have keys:

…مِنْ بُيُوتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ آبَائِكُمْ…أَوْ مَا مَلَكْتُمْ مَفَاتِحَهُ أَوْ صَدِيقِكُمْ ۚ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ تَأْكُلُوا جَمِيعًا أَوْ أَشْتَاتًا
“…from your houses, or your fathers’ houses… or what you possess the keys of, or your friends’ (houses). It is no sin in you that you eat together or separately.” (Surah Nur (24):61)
This implies doors were of wood/iron or a solid material which could be opened with a key. This rules out curtains or mats as these so-called Muslims claim.

Doors in the Sunnah

a. Houses of Muslims had doors

Traditions clearly like the one mentioned below, talk of unlocking the door with keys and this shows that houses and rooms of that period had doors:
Dukain b. Saeed Muzni: I went to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and requested him for food. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said to Umar: Go and give food to them. Umar took us to the room upstairs; then he removed the key from his waist band and opened the door.
• Sunan-e-Abi Dawood, vol. 2 p. 527 H. 5,240
The well-known Salafi of our era – Shaikh Naasiruddin al-Albani – in his Sahih wa Zaeef Sunan Abi Dawood, H. 5,238 has validated this tradition as authentic.
Likewise Muslim has recorded in his Sahih that houses had doors during the early period of Islam. For instance, in a report Abu Hamid says: The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) commanded us to place containers of water in a corner and latch the doors at night.
• Sahih-e-Muslim vol 3 p. 1,593, H. 2,010

b. Door of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) house

Ibn Kathir Dimishqi – Ibn Taymiyyah’s leading student, quoting from Hasan Basri, says regarding the door of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) house: Rooms of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) were constructed by fastening branches of juniper tree together with thick hair. It is mentioned in Tarikh Bukhari that the door of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was knocked with finger tips and nails and this proves that there was no ring for knocking.
• Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah vol. 3 p. 221
Knocking with finger tips indicates that doors were of a hard material and not mat as these Muslims claim.

c. Door of Ameerul Momineen’s (a.s.) house

Numerous reports by scholars of both sects have documented the famous incident – closing of doors into the mosque by divine command excepting the doors of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s).
If houses did not have proper doors that could be opened and closed, such a divine command would be meaningless, which cannot be expected from Allah, the All-Wise.
So those who reject the presence of a door are in effect accusing Allah of being Unwise (we seek refuge in Allah).
Also, there are other traditions that show that the house of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) had a door.
For instance, in the description of the marriage of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) with Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), it is mentioned: The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) summoned Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and recited the same rituals and supplications for Ali (a.s.) that he (s.a.w.a.) had recited for Fatima Zahra (s.a.)…after these supplications the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) rose and closed the door.
• Al-Musannaf vol. 5 p. 489 by Abu Bakr Abdul Razzaq b. Hamam Sanani (exp. 211 A.H.) – teacher of Bukhari and Muslim

d. Door of Ayesha’s house

Bukhari has written that the door of Ayesha’s house was made of wood of juniper or teak.
• Al-Adab al-Mufarrad, vol. 1 p. 272

Door of the Ahle Bait (a.s.)

There are  many reports that clearly state that the Ahle Bait’s (a.s.) house had a door.
We list two well-known instances over here.
a. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) halts at the Ahle Bait’s door
انس بن مالك: ان رسول‏ اللّه صلّى اللّه عليه و آله كان يمر بباب فاطمة إذا خرج إلى صلاة الفجر و يقول:الصلاة يا أهل بيتي انما يريد اللّه، الآية.
Anas b. Malik – the slave of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) relates – The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to pass by the door of Fatima (s.a.) at the time of the morning prayers and announce – Salutations (on you) O my Ahle Bait (a.s.) – Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.
  • Al-Ehtejaaj vol 2 pg 515
b. The poor, orphan and the captive halt at the door 
Regarding the 8th verse of Surah Insaan (76), there are reports that on three successive days, the needy one, the orphan and the captive halted at the door of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.).
ا إِذْ وَقَفَ عَلَى الْبَابِ مِسْكِينٌ‏ وَ قَالَ: السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ يَا أَهْلَ بَيْتِ مُحَمَّدٍ، مِسْكِينٌ مِنْ مَسَاكِينِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ أَطْعِمُونِي أَطْعَمْكُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ طَعَامِ الْجَنَّةوَقَفَ عَلَى الْبَابِ سَائِلٌ وَ قَالَ: السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ يَا أَهْلَ بَيْتِ مُحَمَّد
When the needy one halted at the door and said – Salutations on you O Ahle Bait of Muhammad, a needy one from the needy Muslims. Feed me, Allah will feed you from the food of Paradise. The beggar halted at the door and said – Salutations on you O Ahle Bait of Muhammad…
  • Zaad al-Maad pg 227 of Allamah Majlisi (r.a.)
Reports carrying the same gist have been documented in:
  • Noor al-Saqalain under exegesis of Surah Insaan
  • Taa’weel al-Ayah al-Zahirah fi Fadhail al-Itrah al-Tahirah by Ali Astarabadi
Note the reports very clearly identifying the door of the Ahle Bait’s (a.s.) house. If there was no door, the word (عَلَى الْبَابِ) – meaning ‘at the door’ would not have been mentioned.

Abu Bakr’s biggest regret

Authentic reports from the opponents have been recorded that when Abu Bakr was lying on his death bed, Abd al-Rahman Ibn Awf visited him. After inquiring about his well-being, Ibn Awf questioned the reason for the disconcertment writ large on the face of Abu Bakr. He replied, “I am distressed for nine reasons: Three things which I did I should not have done; three things which I did not do, I should have done and three things I did not ask the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), I should have asked.” Of these, the first thing which he mentioned was, “I should not have exposed the house of Fatima (s.a.) even if they had locked the door to wage a war against me.
(Kitaab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubaid al-Qasim Ibn Sallaam al-Khuzaaee exp. 224 A.H., p. 524, H. 351; Tarikh Tabari, vol. 2, p. 619, vol. 3, p. 430; Zahabi in Seyar Alaam al-Nubalaa, vol. 28, p. 17 in the biography of Abu Bakr and again Zahabi in Tarikh al-Islam, vol. 3, p. 118; Ibn Abdo Rabbeh Aandlusi in Eqd al-Fareed, vol. 1, p. 29 and p. 51; al-Tabaraani in al-Mojam al-Kabeer, vol. 1 p. 62; Zia al-Maqdesi in al-Ahaadees al-Mukhtaarah, H. No. 12 (beneath it, he writes that Haazaa hadisun hasanun an Abi Bakr); Ibn Abi al-Hadeed in Sharh Nahj, vol. 6, p. 51 and vol. 20, p. 24; Suyuti in Musnad-o-Fatemah (s.a.), p. 34 and numerous other references.)
So, you see, the culprit himself is confessing to the crime and the presence of the door but his cohorts are trying to exonerate him from the same! Unfortunately, today some of these cohorts are those who claim to be from the followers of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) and are even leading prayers of the Shias! May Allah save us from the evils of the last era!

Reply to the report on Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)

As for the tradition advanced as proof of houses lacking doors, readers should know it is a lengthy tradition, not related in any way to houses and doors. On the contrary, it is about the condition of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) and their simple lifestyle that did not allow them to wear lavish clothes and live in palatial houses like other wealthy Arabs. The tradition is actually about the virtues of Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) vis-à-vis other Muslims. These so-called Muslims have conveniently extracted a portion with malafide intention of denying the attack on the house of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)!
Let us first look at the tradition in context to understand this better. Being a lengthy tradition, we have extracted the portion relevant to our discussion.
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) says: “…the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was very sympathetic with the people. He (s.a.w.a.) fed them and pleased them just as soon as they approached Islam and were about to run away from it. He (s.a.w.a.) gave them clothing, carpets and beds even though we ourselves as the members of the household lived in homes without roofs and doors. The walls of our homes were made of date palm branches and leaves. We neither had any carpets nor any blankets. Several of us shared one dress and took turns to pray with it. We remained hungry around the clock. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) even gave away the one-fifth levy (khums) that was our divinely-ordained right to others and assisted the wealthy Arabs with it…”
Any unbiased reader will conclude that the tradition is actually related to the virtues of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) and their simple lifestyle that did not permit them to live lavishly.
But those with mischievous motives derive the meaning to suit their objectives which is to reject the virtues of Ahle Bait (a.s.).
Can one imagine a house for the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) without a door and ceiling allowing passersby to catch a glance at the inmates of the house? Will the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) permit such a thing for his daughter – the chief of all women of Paradise – whose hijab and modesty in this world and on the Day of Judgment is without any parallel? Also, if we have to accept such a house for Fatima Zahra (s.a.), then we have to accept the same for the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) houses, since the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is a greater model than the Ahle Bait (a.s.). Can the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his wives live in such houses?
It is obvious from the context of the tradition that the houses of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) lacked the structure and amenities of other Muslims. Their houses had doors and roofs and walls, however, they were the bare minimum for survival and not as well constructed as other companions. Just like their clothing was the bare minimum for prayers and other obligatory duties and not for ostentation.
Again, this tradition only ends up showing the virtues of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) vis-à-vis other companions, so bringing up this tradition has only backfired on those who attempt to reject the virtues of the Ahle Bait (a.s.).
For those with mischievous intentions there is no shortage of such conveniently extracted excerpts.

Popular Posts (Last 30 Days)

 
  • Recent Posts

  • Mobile Version

  • Followers