Fatima (s) was initially angry at Abu Bakr and Umar, she reconciled during her final days !!!????

Objection 1: If Fatima (s) was initially angry at Abu Bakr and Umar, she reconciled during her final days

Reply : It is natural that if Wahabis admit that Lady Fatima Zahra (s) had become angry and infuriated at Abu Bakr and Umar and she passed away in that same condition, the legality of origin and foundation of their Caliphate will come under question, as it proves that the only daughter of the Prophet, and the most superior lady of the two worlds, leader of ladies of Paradise had opposed their Caliphate and according to authentic and correct traditional reports, which have come in their own most authentic books, pleasure of Fatima is pleasure of the Prophet and her anger is anger of the Prophet, therefore, they have tried to conceal this fact and fabricated traditions saying:

Suppose we accept that Fatima (r) was infuriated at Abu Bakr and Umar for a period of time and she turned away from the two of then, but as Baihaqi and others have narrated, Abu Bakr and Umar during the final days of Lady Fatima (s) came to meet her and sought her pardon, because it is mentioned in traditional reports that:

When Fatima became indisposed, Abu Bakr came to her to seek her pardon and asked for permission to meet her. Ali (a) asked Fatima (s): Abu Bakr is asking permission to meet you. Fatima (s) said: Do you allow him to enter? Ali (a) replied: Yes. So Lady Fatima (s) accorded permission. Abu Bakr entered and sought the forgiveness of Fatima (s). Abu Bakr said: By God, I have not left home, life, property, wealth and relatives, except for the pleasure of God, Messenger and you, family of Prophet. It was at this time that Fatima (s) became reconciled to Abu Bakr.

( Reference : Al-Itiqad wal Hidaya Ilaa Sabeelar Rishad Alaa Madhhabus Salaf wa As-habul Hadith, Vol. 1, Pg. 354, Ahmad bin al-Husain Baihaqi (d. 458 A.H.), Edited: Ahmad Isamul Katib; Darul Afaqul Jadida – Beirut, First edition, 1401 A.H. )

Rational reply

A. Report is Mursal (with incomplete chain) and the narrator is inimical to Ahle Bayt (Nasibi)

In reply, we say:

Firstly: As mentioned in the first part of this book, Wahabis have raised doubts about the chain of narrators of Balazari and Tabari regarding martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s) and considered it unacceptable, because it was Mursal; but now they are themselves arguing through a Mursal and false report, because Shobi was a companion of companions (Tabii) and therefore, he could not have witnessed this incident himself.

Also: Perhaps the objection maker has resorted to the reply that we used in the report of Balazari and Tabari from their own principles of the science of narrators and we said Mursal traditions of companion of companions (Tabii) is proof for Ahle Sunnat and has turned the same reply against us; in reply, we say: Suppose the Mursal reports of Tabii is acceptable, even then we cannot accept the report of Shobi, because he was among the enemies of Amirul Momineen (a) a Nasibi person; that is why reports of such a person, and that too against Ahle Bayt (a) cannot be accepted. With regard to the enmity of Shobi to Amirul Momineen (a), Balazari and Abu Hamid Ghazzali have quoted from Shobi himself: 

I met Hajjaj with some people in the city of Basra. Some Qaris (reciters of Quran) of Medina from the descendants of emigrants and helpers, including Abu Salma bin Abdur Rahman bin Auf, were also present there. Hajjaj was in conversation with them, when he mentioned Ali Ibne Abi Talib and spoke ill of him, we also spoke ill of Ali (a) in order to please Hajjaj and to remain secure from his mischief…

( Reference: Ansabul Ashraf, Vol. 4, Pg. 315, Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir Balazari (d. 279 A.H.); Ihya Uloomiddin, Vol. 2, Pg. 346, Muhammad bin Muhammad Abu Hamid Ghazzali (d. 505 A.H.), Darul Marifah – Beirut. )

Can the reports of Nasibis and enemies of Amirul Momineen (a) be decisive proofs for us?

B. Displeasure of Fatima (s) with Abu Bakr in the most authentic Ahle Sunnat books :

The objection maker has no choice but to accept the original anger and displeasure of Fatima (s) with Abu Bakr, because this fact is even mentioned by Bukhari in his book. Is the report of Bukhari having precedence or the report of Baihaqi? And that also when the report of Baihaqi is from a Nasibi person and enemy of Amirul Momineen (a) and he has not witnessed the incident personally. Bukhari says in his Sahih:

Fatima (s), daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s) became angry and displeased with Abu Bakr and this anger continued till she passed away from the world ( Reference: Al Jamius Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1126, Chapter of the obligation of Khums, Tradition 2926, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Deebal Bagha, Dar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3^rd edition, 1407 A.H. - 1987 )

He has also mentioned in his book:

Fatima (s) became furious at Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she passed away.

( Ref: Al Jamius Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 4, Pg. 1549, Tradition 3998, Kitabul Maghazi, Chapter of the Battle of Khyber, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Deebal Bagha, Dar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3^rd edition, 1407 A.H. - 1987 )

In another place, he has mentioned the following report:

Fatima (s) turned away from Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she passed away.

(Ref : Al Jamius Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 6, Pg. 2474, Tradition 6346, Kitabul Faraid, Chapter of saying of the Prophet: We do not inherit, whatever we leave Sadaqah, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Deebal Bagha, Dar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3^rd edition, 1407 A.H. - 1987 ) 

It is mentioned in the report of Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari that when the two of them came to visit her, Fatima Zahra (s) did not accord permission to enter and they became helpless. They sought the mediation of Amirul Momineen (a) and when Amirul Momineen (a) mentioned this to Lady Zahra (s), she said:

Ali dear, this house belongs to you; you are authorized to permit anyone you like to enter.

Amirul Momineen (a), in order to exhaust proof and that the two of them should not put up excuse later on that we wanted to apologize to Fatima (s), but Ali did not allow, he allowed them to come in.

When the two of them sought forgiveness, Lady Fatima Zahra (s) did not forgive; on the contrary, she made them confess as follows: I adjure you in the name of Allah; have you two not heard the Messenger of Allah (s) say: Fatima’s pleasure is my pleasure and her displeasure is my displeasure; one who considers my daughter, Fatima dear and accords respect to her has considered me dear and accorded respect to me. And one who pleases her has pleased me. And one who makes Fatima angry has displeased me. Those two admitted having heard that. Yes, we heard this from the Messenger of Allah (s). Lady Fatima (s) said: Thus, I hold Allah and His angels as witness that you two have harassed me and made me infuriated. I will complain about you to my father when I meet him. [Lady Zahra (s) did not remain content with this and she further said]: By Allah, I will pray against you after every ritual prayer.

(Ref : Al-Imamah was Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 17, Chapter of How the allegiance of Ali (a) took place, Al-Dainawari, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim Ibne Qutaibah (d. 276 A.H.), Edited: Khalil Mansur, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut, 1418 A.H. – 1997 A.D. )

In these circumstances how can it be believed that Martyred Truthful Lady became reconciled to them? Is the report of Bukhari superior or the report of Baihaqi? And also when the report of Baihaqi is from a Nasibi person and one who is inimical to Amirul Momineen (a); and he had also not witnessed that event directly?

Moreover, it is also mentioned that: If Lady Fatima Zahra (s) had become reconciled to them, why did she make a will that she must be buried during the night and none of those who had oppressed her should be informed about her funeral and funeral prayers. Bukhari has narrated in his Sahih:

Lady Fatima (s) lived for six months after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (s) and when she passed away, her husband, Ali (a) buried her at night and did not inform Abu Bakr and recited her funeral prayers himself.

( Ref : Al Jamius Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 4, Pg. 1549, Tradition 3998, Kitabul Maghazi, Chapter of the Battle of Khyber, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Deebal Bagha, Dar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3^rd edition, 1407 A.H. - 1987)

Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari writes in Tawil Mukhtaliful Hadith:

Fatima demanded from Abu Bakr the inheritance of her father and when Abu Bakr refused, she swore that she would never speak to him again and she made a will that she should be buried at night so that Abu Bakr may not attend her funeral.

( Ref: Tawil Mukhtaliful Hadith, Vol. 1, Pg. 300, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim Ibne Qutaibah Al-Dainawari, (d. 276 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Zuhri al-Najjar, Darul Jeel, Beirut, 1393, 1972)

And Abdur Razzaq Sanani writes:

It is narrated from Hasan bin Muhammad that he said: Fatima, daughter of the Prophet was buried at night so that Abu Bakr may not pray her funeral prayers, because there was enmity between them.

( Ref : Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, Vol. 3, Pg. 521, tradition 6554, Abu Bakr Abdur Razzaq bin Hamam Sanani (d. 211), Darul Nashr Maktabul Islami, Beirut – 1403, Second edition, Edited: Habibur Rahman Azmi)

And he further continues:

A similar report is narrated from Hasan bin Muhammad with the difference that in it is mentioned that: Fatima made will to be buried at night.[3]

( Ref : Al-Musannaf, Vol. 3, Pg. 521, tradition 6555, Abu Bakr Abdur Razzaq bin Hamam Sanani (d. 211), Darul Nashr Maktabul Islami, Beirut – 1403, Second edition, Edited: Habibur Rahman Azmi )

In addition to what is mentioned above, we say: Repentance is only beneficial and useful when it is accompanied with regret from the depth of the heart of man and when he also makes amends of what has passed; in such a way that the one who is repenting should restore the rights of the opposite party, whether from the rights of Allah or rights of people.

Now, our question is: If, according to the claim of the objection maker, Abu Bakr was really regretful of his past actions, did he take any step to restore Fadak to Lady Fatima Zahra (s) to prove his sincere regrets?

Disrespecting Sunni Sahabah

Objection :

The major point of disagreement between Shia and Sunni is Respect of Sunni Sahaba.I call them Sunni sahaba because Shia don’t consider them Sahaba.But unfortunately this disagreement is becoming violent in many countries, resulting in the loss of innocent civilian lives.

Is disrespecting or criticizing the Sunni Sahaba part of shia religion? Can’t they forget the disagreements, if any, that they had with Ali?

    If the Shias started considering Sunni Sahaba as Just and decent, even if inferior to Aaal e Rasul, Shia and Sunni can live like brothers.

Reply : 

Shia don't 'insult' the Sahaba. They present facts, and offer academic discussions regarding their personalities. A few individuals make slanderous, insulting remarks. Just like a few Sunnis do. We don't punish Sunnis by death though, do we? Are Sunnis that uncomfortable with the truth, that they must kill anyone who questions the 'Sahaba'?

How can you compare disrespect of the Prophet of Allah (S A W A) to disrespect of the Sahaba? The Prophet (S A W A) was an infallible being, sent by Allah (S W T). The Sahaba are fallible men.

Even the Qur'an seriously disrespects the "Sunni Sahaba", you know, the ones who doubted the Prophet, ran from battles, etc..
What , if we were living at the time of Prophet. Would we have been perfect? A lot of us would behave the exact way as the sahaba did.

How can an individual who accused the Prophet (S A W A) of being 'crazy' on his deathbed be considered just? I suggest you look at all the acts committed by the first three in your own books. If you still consider them 'just', then you have an extremely warped sense of justice.

I have a couple of questions for you on the above.

1) How do you determine if the person who remained in the company of the Prophet died with Imaan? What is the yardstick to judge their imaan?
2) There are hadiths which talk of people who even though remained in the company of the prophet fought each other after his demise. Would they still qualify as Sahabas and if they do then which one of the group is to be followed?

A Shia definition of Sahaba is simple. In my view they are people who remained with the Prophet during the testing times and remained steadfast if alive post his death followed his orders and not introduced new bidah. They are the truthful sahaba.

I agree. They complain about us cursing tyrants, yet they disrespect the Quran (by following oxymoronic hadeeth) and the Prophet .

You mean cursing/abusing those particular names. Whereas the "Sunni" terrorists will martyr any one who even criticizes any of them, including Yazid and Muawiya, regardless of the fact that through history their own most valued books and scholars say far worse about them.

 If one who abuses the sahaba is an infidel, why did Caliph Abu Bakr, in the presence of sahaba and a gathering of Muslims, abuse the most exalted sahabi, Ali Bin Abi Talib? You praise the merits of Abu Bakr although you should condemn him

Excuse me! We do not report anything until we have made complete inquiries. Perhaps you should consult Sharhe Nahju'lBalagha, Volume IV, page 80, where it is recorded that Abu Bakr, taunting Ali from the pulpit of the mosque, said: "He (Ali) is a fox, the evidence of which is its tail. He creates disturbances, minimizes the importance of big disturbances, and incites people to make an uproar. He seeks help from the weak and accepts assistance from women. He is like Ummi't-Tahal (an adulteress in the days of ignorance, as explained by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid) with whom the men of his family were fond of committing adultery."

Now you may compare Abu Bakr's abuse of Ali with the criticism made by Shias against the sahaba. If abusing any of the sahaba amounts to infidelity, then Abu Bakr, his daughter, A'yesha, Mu'awiya and his followers should be labelled infidels. If it does not constitute infidelity, then you cannot call the Shias infidels on that score.

 CALIPH UMAR HELD THAT CURSING A MUSLIM IS NOT INFIDELITY

Moreover, according to the verdicts of your own great jurists and Caliphs, those who curse the Caliphs are not infidels.

Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad, Volume III, Ibn Sa'd Katib in his Kitab-e-Tabaqat, Qazi Ayaz in his Shifa, part IV of chapter 1, report that the governor of Caliph Umar, Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz, wrote from Kufa that a man had reviled and abused Umar Ibn Khattab, the second Caliph. The governor sought permission to execute the man. Umar Ibn Khattab replied that it was not permissible to take the life of a Muslim for abusing or cursing any Muslim excepting one who abuses the Prophet.

Abul Hasan Ashari Views
Some of your prominent ulema, like, Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari and his followers, believe that if a man has faith in his heart and yet displays infidelity (by practicing Judaism or Christianity, for example) or rises up to fight against the Prophet, or calls Allah or the Prophet evil names, even then he is not an infidel. Faith means belief in the heart and since no one can be aware of another's heart, it cannot be said whether the apparent infidelity was from the heart or not. The Ash'ari ulema have also discussed these issues in their books. Ibn Hazm Andalusi has written in detail about these points in his Kitabu'l-Fazl (Part IV, page 204, 206). In light of these facts what right have you to charge the Shias with infidelity?

MOST COMPANIONS ABUSED ONE ANOTHER BUT NOT REGARDED AS INFIDELS

In your authentic books, like Musnad of Ahmad Hanbal, Volume II, page 236; Sirat-e-Halabiyya, Volume II, page 107, Sahih Bukhari, Volume II, page 74, Sahih Muslim, Kitab-e-Jihad wa Asbabu'n-Nuzul Wahidi, page 118, there are many hadith indicating that most of the companions abused each other in the presence of the Holy Prophet. But the Prophet didn't call these men infidels. He admonished them. (The narrations about these quarrels and mutual enmity are recorded only in the books of the Sunnis, not in Shia books). In view of these remarks, I hope that you are satisfied that cursing or abusing any companion does not constitute infidelity. If we curse someone without any reason, we will be sinners, not infidels. And every sin is forgivable.

HOLY PROPHET OF ISLAM KNEW ALL GOOD AND BAD ACTIONS OF SAHABA

Second, you said that the Prophet respected and honored his companions. This is correct. In addition, all Muslims and men of learning agree that the Holy Prophet knew the good and bad actions of the people. He appreciated their good deeds. Accordingly, he esteemed Nushirwan's justice and Hatim Ta'i's munificence. If he respected someone, it was for his good deeds. But appreciation shown to one for doing a good deed, does not prove that his end will be fortunate. Perhaps he will commit evil deeds in the future. If he does, upbraiding him beforehand, is unjustified, even though it may be known that he will commit the sin in the future. Ali knew of the sin and damned end of Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi and repeatedly told him that he was his assassin. At one point he explicitly said: "I want him to live, but he is bent upon killing me, and this treacherous friend belongs to the clan of the Murad." This statement has been recorded by Ibn Hajar Makki towards the end of Part I of Sawa'iq, page 72. Yet Ali did not intend to punish him. Hence, the hadith which indicates that the merit of some particular action or statement is not necessarily influential for all time to come.

Q: ARE THE COMPANIONS INFALLIBLE ???

You claim too much if you insist that they were all just and free from faults since in the authentic books written by your own ulema they argue against it. They tell us that even some of the chief companions sometimes committed faults : Ignoring what they did during the days of ignorance (i.e. before the advent of Islam), they committed many sins after they had embraced Islam. It is enough to mention only one event by way of example.

Your own prominent ulema write in their authentic books that in the year of the conquest of Mecca (8 A.H.) some of the leading companions indulged in festive amusements and gaiety and secretly took wine.

Ibn Hajar writes in his Fathu'l-Bari, v.X, p.30, that Abu Talha Zaid Bin Sahl arranged a wine party at his house and invited ten people. All of them drank wine and Abu Bakr recited some couplets commemorating
some infidels who were killed in the battle of Badr.

 The names of the guests also been mentioned:
(1) Abu Bakr Bin Abi Qahafa,
(2) Umar Ibn Khattab,
(3)Abu Ubaida Garra,
(4) Ubai Bin Ka'b,
 (5) Sahl Bin Baiza,
(6) Abu AyyubAnsari,
(7) Abu Talha (the host),
(8) Abu Dajjana Samak Bin Kharsa,
(9)Abu Bakr Bin Shaghuls,
(10) Anas Bin Malik, who was 18 years old at that time and who served the wine. Baihaqi in his Sunan, v. VIII, p.29, has also narrated from Anas him self that he said that he was the youngest of them at that time and was serving the wine. (At this there was great commotion in the meeting.)

I am now constrained to explain facts according to the statements of your own ulema. Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari in Sahih (commenting on Ayat-e-Khamr, "verse concerning wine", in the chapter Ma'ida of the Qur'an); Muslim Ibn Hajar in his Sahih (Kitab-e-Ashraba Bab-eTahrimu'l-Khamr); Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, v.XXX, p.181 and 227; Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, v.XI, p.93; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in
his Durru'l-Mansur, v.II, p.321; Tabari in his Tafsir, v.VII, p.24; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Isaba, v.IV, p.22 and Fathu'l-Bari, v.X,p.30; Badru'd-din Hanafi in his Umdatu'l-Qari, V.X, p.84; Baihaqi in his Sunan, pp.286 and 290; and others have recorded these facts with detailed explanations.

What we gather from the commentary and history shows that even after the prohibitory verses some Muslims and companions continued taking forbidden wine.

Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari reports in Tafsir-e-Kabir, v.II, p.203, on the authority of Abil Qamus Zaid Bin Ali, who said that Allah had revealed three times the verses prohibiting the use of wine. In the first verse He says, "They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit." (2:219)

But the Muslims did not immediately give up wine. When two men, being intoxicated, offered their prayers and talked nonsense, another verse was revealed, saying: "O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say." (4:43)

Even after this, the drinking of wine continued, but people did not offer prayers while intoxicated. One day a man took wine (according to the report of Bazar, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Mardawiyya the man was Abu Bakr)
and composed an elegy for the pagans who were killed in the battle of Badr. When the Holy Prophet heard of this, he became angry. He went to the party and wanted to beat him. The man said, "I seek Allah's shelter
from Allah's and His Prophet's wrath. Allah be my witness, I will not take wine again." Then the following verse was revealed: "O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (divination by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful." (5:90)

Among the companions of the Holy Prophet there were good and bad men just as there are among other believers and Muslims. Those of them who tried to obey Allah and His Prophet reached an exalted rank. Those who followed their worldly aspirations were looked down upon by others. So those who fault the worldly companions do so with some reason.

The wicked actions of some of the sahaba which are recorded in the authentic books of your own ulema are also condemnable according to the evidence of the Holy Qur'an. The Shias condemn them on that basis. If there is a logical reply to this argument, we are ready to accept it.

Seriously, how many 12'er Shia does anyone know who openly cursed 1, 2, 3 and the two particular ummahat-al-momineen? Even on ShiaChat, a place other than real life, there is not a single post like that to be found where those are cursed by a Shia.

This whole disrespect to sahaba business is a dark, slippery and pointless venue that the Wahabi mullah has chosen to hole up in.

- What about their disrespect of Allah of whom they have absolutely no ma'rifah?

- What about their disrespect of Qur'anic commandments when they go against it in every way and form a fiqh and shariah that is against it?

- What about their disrespect and gross blasphemies against the holy Prophet when they lie about him?

- What about their disrespect to all things holy and otherwise that their own books target and slander?

- What about their disrespect of the sahaba even when they exhume their graves and burn them?

- What about their disrespect of the "Sunni sahaba" by their own books? Why don't they burn all the copies of those first?

- What about their disrespect to the ummah which they have ruined?

- What about their disrespect to this world that they destroy with their militancy?

Holding any opinion about a Sunni sahabi based on historical evidences found in even the Sunni books is not disrespect or reality nor will it change anything whether they are glorified or demonized. It is not worth fighting over yet the Wahabi mullah has cleverly managed to exploit the ignorance of the most ignorant among their followers to sow sedition. The present day "Sunni" need to understand that if possible.

The only way to achieve unity with (real) Sunni is for them to recognize the Ja'fari school of thought as, say, the 5th school of thought beside their own four "Sunni Muslim" schools; Hanbali, Shaafii, Maliki and Hanafi which are all no less mutually different than the Shia. It is only logical and rational. And this is the only way forward for anyone who wishes for unity.

For 14 centuries past the general Sunni and Shia populace has been carrying on with their lives while the governments have always been busy committing Shia genocide. But now even some of the Sunni populace, a.k.a terrorists have become the hands of their governments while the rest of the Sunni are quiet as is their tradition.

But any way, the reality is that the Sunni are extinct and only Wahabies are left so its too late now.

 If you want us to kiss your foreheads and tell you to keep killing away, then you need a reality check..Why should we when you people never even stand up against your governments whom are oppressing and slaughtering the Shias? Why should we when your government funds cockroaches to behead Shias?No more being nice, being nice is going to get us killed and backstabbed. I've never seen Sunnis rallying against the mistreatment of Shias in Iraq, the mistreatments in Bahrain, and Syria. Look at those Palestinians, how many of them have the Shias armed, and treated them even better than our brethren. Yet after all that, they go and join terrorist groups to kill  the Shias in Iraq and Syria. LOl its funny too, now they are allies with Zionist against the Shias. The same  people that once were dancing because the twin towers fell, are now allies with America....you see how you people cant be  trusted?

عمر کا جناب سیدہ[س] کو مارنے اور محسن کو شہید کرنے کا ابن ابی دارم کا اعتراف

نوٹ: یہ تحریر استاد قزوینی حفظہ اللہ کے ادارہ کی اس تحریر کا ترجمہ ہے

شبهه:

ابن أبي دارم اس روایت کے راویوں میں سے ایک ہیں جس کے بارے میں ذھبی نے کتاب«ميزان الاعتدال» میں رافضی کذاب لکھا ہے اگر چہ کہ اپنی پوری زندگی میں اعتقاد میں ثابت قدم تھے لیکن آخر ایام میں شیخین کے مثالب میں زیادہ بات کی ہے اور انھیں گالیاں دی ہیں اس بناء پر اس کی روایت ہمارے لئے حجت نہیں ہے

تحقیقی جواب :

اصل روايت:

شمس الدين ذهبى نےسير اعلام النبلاء اور ميزان الإعتدال اسی طرح حافظ ابن حجر عسقلانى نے لسان الميزان میں ،ابن أبي دارم سے نقل کرتے ہوئے لکھا ہے :

إنّ عمر رفس فاطمة حتّى أسقطت بمحسن.

عمر نے فاطمہ[س] کو ایسی لات ماری جس کے سبب محسن [ع]سقط ہو گئے.

الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، (متوفاي748هـ) ميزان الاعتدال في نقد الرجال، ج 1، ص 283، تحقيق: الشيخ علي محمد معوض والشيخ عادل أحمد عبدالموجود، ناشر: دار الكتب العلمية - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1995م؛

الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، (متوفاي748هـ)، سير أعلام النبلاء، ج 15، ص 578، تحقيق: شعيب الأرناؤوط، محمد نعيم العرقسوسي، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: التاسعة، 1413هـ؛

العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852 هـ) لسان الميزان، ج 1، ص 268، تحقيق: دائرة المعرف النظامية - الهند، ناشر: مؤسسة الأعلمي للمطبوعات - بيروت، الطبعة: الثالثة، 1406هـ – 1986م.

البتہ جیسا کہ شبھہ میں بیان ہوا ذھبی نے اور ابن حجر نے ابن ابی دارم کو رافضی کہتے ہوئے روایت کو رد کیا ہے اور کہتے ہیں:

احمد بن محمد بن السرى بن يحيى بن أبي دارم المحدث أبو بكر الكوفي الرافضي الكذاب... ثم في آخر أيامه كان أكثر ما يقرأ عليه المثالب حضرته ورجل يقرأ عليه ان عمر رفس فاطمة حتى أسقطت بمحسن.

تحقیق سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ کہ ابن ابی دارم کی وثاقت اور اعتبار اہل سنت کے نزدیک تھی اور انکی تضعیف کا سبب فقط اس جیسی روایت کا نقل کرنا ہے اس کے علاوہ کوئی نقص نہیں رکھتے ہیں اس لئے علماء اہل سنت کا اعتراف اس بات پر قائم ہے اسکی تمام زندگی عقائد اہلسنت پر گزری ہے اور علماء اہل سنت یہ عقیدہ رکھتے ہیں کہ ابن ابی دارم امام حافظ اور عالم اہلسنت ہیں لیکن بعض تاریخی حقائق کا نقل کرنا سبب بنا کہ اہلسنت کے قلم انکے خلاف لکھنے پر مجبور ہوئے اورانھیں تضعیف کا سامنا کرنا پڑا

شمس الدين ذهبى نے سير اعلام النبلاء، میں انھیں «امام و پيشوا، حافظ و عالم » کہا ہے:

ابن أبي دارم. الامام الحافظ الفاضل، أبو بكر أحمد بن محمد السري بن يحيى بن السري بن أبي دارم....

آگےلکھتے ہیں:

ابن أبي دارم حفظ اورمعرفت کی صفت سے آرستہ تھے لیکن شیعت کی طرف مائل تھے

كان موصوفا بالحفظ والمعرفة إلا أنه يترفض.

اور یہ بھی لکھا:

وقال محمد بن حماد الحافظ، كان مستقيم الامر عامة دهره.

الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، (متوفاي748هـ)، سير أعلام النبلاء، ج 15، ص 577 ـ 579، تحقيق: شعيب الأرناؤوط، محمد نعيم العرقسوسي، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: التاسعة، 1413هـ.

محمد بن حماد کہتے ہیں کہ :اپنی تمام زندگی میں مذھب اور عقیدہ پر ثابت قدم تھے.

اسی طرح وہ روایت جو رسول اکرم ص نقل کی جاتی ہے جس میں ابن ابی دارم روای ہیں

حدیث یہ ہے :

الحلال بين، والحرام بين، وبين ذلك مشتبهات لا يعلمها كثير من الناس. من ترك الشبهات استبرأ لدينه وعرضه، ومن وقع في الشبهات، وقع في الحرام كالراعي إلى جنب الحمى، يوشك أن يواقعه.

حلال وحرام کی حدیں واضح ہیں لیکن ان دونوں میں شباھات پائی جاتی ہیں جسے اکثر لوگ نہیں جانتے ہیں جس کسی نے مشتبہ کو چھوڑا اس نے اپنے دین اور آبرو کو بچایا اور جو شبھات میں گرفتار ہوا حرام کا مرتکب ہوگا جس طرح بیمار کا ہمنشین ۔

ذهبى ،اس روایت کو نقل کرنے کے بعد کہتے ہیں :

الحديث. متفق عليه.

یہ حديث متفق علیہ ہے .

الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، (متوفاي748هـ)، سير أعلام النبلاء، ج 15، ص 577، تحقيق: شعيب الأرناؤوط، محمد نعيم العرقسوسي، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: التاسعة، 1413هـ؛

لیکن ذھبی آگے لکھتے ہیں اور برے الفاظ استعمال کرتے ہیں

:

شيخ ضال معثر.

بڈھا ،گمراہ ، خطاکار!!!.

عجیب ہے کہ ایک شخص پوری زندگی ثابت قدم رہے اور امام ، حافظ اور فاضل لقب پا لے حافظہ قوی اور صاحب معرفت دینی بھی ہو اور اسکی روایت سب کے لئے قابل قبول ہو لیکن ساتھ میں وہ گمراہ اور خطاکار بھی ہو؟!

کیا امام حافظ فاضل صاحب حفظ و معرفت ،«شيخ ضال معثر» کے ساتھ جمع ہو سکتے ہیں؟

ہاں کیوں نہیں جمع ہو سکتے ہیں جب اپنے خلفاء کی عزت بچانے کے لئے بے جا دفاع کیا جائے تو ضرور ایسا بھی ہو سکتا ہے جسے ذھبی نے انجام دے کر بتا دیا ،اور یہ تاریخ میں ایسے عجوبہ وجود میں لا سکتے ہیں اور ایک ہی صفحہ میں دو مختلف بات کرسکتے ہیں

عن أم سلمه قالت سمعت رسول اﷲ صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم يقول من سب عليا فقد سبني (مسند احمد بن حنبل، 6 : 323) (للحاکم، 3 : 121)۔۔۔۔۔

..................................................................................................

اس بناء پر سوال ہے کہ

کیا َََرافضی ہونا راوی کو وثاقت سے گرا دیتا ہے ؟

کس عقلمند نے کہا ہے کسی کو رافضی ہونے کی بناء پر اس کی روایت کو رد کردو اور اسے باطل اعلان کرو ؟ اگر اس طرح ہونے لگا تو اہل سنت کو اپنی متعدد روایت سے جو صحاح کی روایت ہیں باطل کی مہر لگانی ہوگی اس لئے صحاح ستہ کے لکھنے والوں نے بہت سی روایت رافضی افراد سے نقل کی ہے جس میں سے بعض کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہیں

1. عبيد الله بن موسي:

ذهبى لکھتے ہیں:

قال ابن مندة كان أحمد بن حنبل يدل الناس على عبيد الله وكان معروفا بالرفض لم يدع أحدا اسمه معاوية يدخل داره.

ابن منده کہتے ہیں کہ : احمد بن حنبل لوگوں کو انکی طرف رجوع کرنے کا کہتے تھے ، رافضی ہونے میں مشہور تھے اپنے گھر میں ایسے کسی بھی شخص کو آنے نہیں دیتے تھے جس کا نام معاویہ ہو ۔

الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، (متوفاي748هـ)، سير أعلام النبلاء، ج 9، ص 556، تحقيق: شعيب الأرناؤوط، محمد نعيم العرقسوسي، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: التاسعة، 1413هـ.

آگے لکھتے ہیں

وحديثه في الكتب الستة.

انکی روایات صحاح ستہ میں موجود ہیں.

مزى نے تهذيب الکمال میں لکھا ہے کہ : تمام صحاح ستہ میں انکی روایت موجود ہے .

عُبَيد الله بن موسى بن أَبي المختار، واسمه باذام العبيسي، مولاهم أبو محمد الكوفي.

رَوَى عَن: إبراهيم بن إِسماعيل بن مجمع (ق)، وأسامة بن زيد الليثي (م)، واسرائيل بن يونس (خ م ت س)، وإسماعيل بن أَبي خالد (خ)....

المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج (متوفاي742هـ)، تهذيب الكمال، ج 19، ص 164، تحقيق د. بشار عواد معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1400هـ – 1980م.

حرف علامت جو عبارت میں یہ علامتی نشان ہے "خ" سے مراد بخاری ہے "م" سے مسلم "ق" سے ابن ماجہ قزوینی "ت" سے ترمذی اور "س "سے نسائی مراد ہیں

2. جعفر بن سليمان الضبعي:

اهل سنت کے علماء نے انھیں رافضی اور شیعیان غالی میں شمار کیا ہے خطیب بغدادی نے یزید بن رزیع سے نقل کیا ہے :

فان جعفر بن سليمان رافضي.

البغدادي، أحمد بن علي أبو بكر الخطيب (متوفاي463هـ)، تاريخ بغداد، ج 5، ص 164، ذيل ترجمه أحمد بن المقدام بن سليمان، رقم 2925، ناشر: دار الكتب العلمية - بيروت.

مزى نے لکھا : بخارى نے کتاب الأدب المفرد اور صحاح ستہ کے مولفین نے اس سے روایت نقل کی ہے:

روى له البخاري في "الأدب"والباقون.

المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج (متوفاي742هـ)، تهذيب الكمال، ج 5، ص 50، تحقيق د. بشار عواد معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1400هـ – 1980م.

3. عبد الملك بن أعين الكوفي:

انکی بھی روایات صحاح ستہ میں ہے مزی نے سفیان کے حوالے سے نقل کیا ہے کہ یہ رافضی ہیں:

عن سفيان: حدثنا عبد الملك بن أعين شيعي كان عندنا رافضي صاحب رأي.

آگے لکھتے ہیں:

حَدَّثَنَا سفيان، قال: هم ثلاثة إخوة: عبدالملك بن أعين، وزرارة بن أعين، وحمران بن أعين، روافض كلهم، أخبثهم قولا: عبدالملك

المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج (متوفاي742هـ)، تهذيب الكمال، ج 18، ص 283، تحقيق د. بشار عواد معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1400هـ – 1980م.

صحاح ستہ میں کافی ایسے راوی ہیں جو رافضیت سے متھم ہوئے ہیں اور انکی تعداد اتنی زیادہ ہے اہلسنت کے علماء کو یہ کہنے پر مجبور کردیا کہ اگر ہم راوی کو اس کے رافضی ہونے کی وجہ سے رد کردیں تو اہلسنت کی کتابیں برباد ہوجائینگی جیسا کہ خطیب بغدادی لکھتے ہیں

قال علي بن المديني: « لو تركت أهل البصرة لحال القدر، ولو تركت أهل الكوفة لذلك الرأي، يعني التشيع، خربت الكتب »

اگر ہم اہل بصرہ کو مذھب قدری ہونے کی وجہ سے چھوڑ دیں اور کوفیوں کو انکی رائےیعنی شیعہ ہونے کی وجہ سے چھوڑ دیں تو ہمارے کتابیں برباد ہوجائیں گی

خطیب ، علي بن مدينى کے جملے کی تشریح میں کہتے ہیں :

قوله: خربت الكتب، يعني لذهب الحديث.

كتاب نابود و خراب ہونے سے مراد احادیث ختم ہوجائیں گی ۔

البغدادي، أحمد بن علي أبو بكر الخطيب (متوفاي463هـ) الكفاية في علم الرواية، ج 1، ص 129، تحقيق: أبو عبدالله السورقي، إبراهيم حمدي المدني، ناشر: المكتبة العلمية - المدينة المنورة.

دوسری جگہ لکھتے ہیں:

وسئل عن الفضل بن محمد الشعراني، فقال: صدوق في الرواية إلا أنه كان من الغالين في التشيع، قيل له: فقد حدثت عنه في الصحيح، فقال: لأن كتاب أستاذي ملآن من حديث الشيعة يعني مسلم بن الحجاج ».

اس سےفضل بن محمد شعرانی کے بارے میں سوال ہوا ۔ انھوں نے کہا: فضل روایت میں صدوق ہیں لیکن وہ تشیع میں افراط کرتے تھے ان سے کہا گیا آپ نے فضل سے صحیح میں روایت نقل کی ہے ۔ انھوں نے کہا میرے استاد کی کتاب شیعہ افراد سے بھری ہوئی ہے یعنی صحیح مسلم

البغدادي، أحمد بن علي أبو بكر الخطيب (متوفاي463هـ) الكفاية في علم الرواية، ج 1، ص131، تحقيق: أبو عبدالله السورقي، إبراهيم حمدي المدني، ناشر: المكتبة العلمية - المدينة المنورة

...........................................................

آيا رافضیت میں افراط کرنا باعث تضیعف راوی ہے ؟

ممکن ہے کوئی اعتراض کرے کہ رافضی ہونا جرح کا سبب نہیں ہوتا ہے لیکن جرح ایسی صورت میں ہے جب کوئی رافضیت میں افراط کرے یعنی امام علی [ع] سے محبت کرے اور انھیں شیخین پر مقدم کرے اور سب شیخین کرے جیسا کہ ابن حجر عسقلانی نے بیان کیا :

والتشيع محبة على وتقديمه على الصحابة فمن قدمه على أبي بكر وعمر فهو غال في تشيعه ويطلق عليه رافضي وإلا فشيعي فإن انضاف إلى ذلك السب أو التصريح بالبغض فغال إلا في الرفض وإن اعتقد الرجعة إلى الدنيا فأشد في الغلو.

تشيع، علی [ع] سے محبت کرنے اور انھیں دوسرے تمام اصحاب پر مقدم جانے کو کہا جاتا ہے اور وہ ابوبکرو عمر پر بھی فوقیت دے تو اپنے تشیع میں افراطی ہے

اور اسے رافضی کہا جاتا ہے لیکن اگر فقط ان سے محبت کرتا ہو ایسا شخص شیعہ ہےاور اگر محبت کے علاوہ صحابہ کو برا بھلا کہتا ہے گالیاں دیتا ہے یا بھر بغض کا اظھار کرتا ہے شیعہ افراطی ہے اور اگر رجعت پر بھی یقین رکھتا ہے تو اس کا افراط شدید تر ہے .

العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852 هـ)، هدي الساري مقدمة فتح الباري شرح صحيح البخاري، ج 1، ص 459، ناشر: دار المعرفة - بيروت - 1379 -، تحقيق: محمد فؤاد عبد الباقي، محب الدين الخطيب.

محمد بن اسماعيل الأمير الصنعانى ، ابن حجر عسقلانى سے نقل کرتےہوئے کہتے ہیں :

التشيع محبة علي عليه السلام وتقديمه على الصحابة فمن قدمه على أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما فهو غال في التشيع ويطلق عليه رافضي وإلا فشيعي فإن انضاف إلى ذلك السب والتصريح بالبغض فغال في الرفض انتهى كلامه.

تشيع،‌ علی[ع] سےمحبت اور انھیں دوسرے اصحاب پر مقدم کرنے کا نام ہے اور اگر کوئی علی [ع] کو ابوبکر و عمر پر مقدم کرے وہ شیعہ افراطی ہے اور اسے رافضی کیا جاتا ہے اور اگر سب و لعن کا اضافہ کرے تو وہ رافضی افراطی ہے .

محمد بن اسماعيل الأمير الصنعانى بات کو آگے بڑاتے ہوئے لکھتے ہیں :

وأما الساب فسب المؤمن فسوق صحابيا كان أو غيره إلا أن سباب الصحابة أعظم جرما لسوء أدبه مع مصحوبه صلى الله عليه و سلم ولسابقتهم في الإسلام. وقد عدوا سب الصحابة من الكبائر كما يأتي عن الفريقين الزيدية ومن يخالف مذهبهم.

مومن کو سب کرنا فسق ہے اگرچہ صحابی ہی کیوں ہو لیکن صحابہ کو سب کرنا بڑا گناہ ہے اس لئے ان لوگوں کی بے ادبی کی ہے جو رسول ص کے ساتھ بیٹھنے والے تھے اور وہ اسلام و مسلمین میں دوسروں کی نسبت سبقت رکھتے ہیں اور سبِصحابہ کو کبائر میں شمار کیا ہے... »

الصنعاني، محمد بن إسماعيل الأمير الحسني (متوفاي1182هـ)، ثمرات النظر في علم الأثر، ج 1، ص 39 ـ 40، : تحقيق: رائد بن صبري بن أبي علفة، ناشر: دار العاصمة للنشر والتوزيع - الرياض - السعودية، الطبعة: الأولى، 1417هـ - 1996م.

لیکن صحاح ستہ کے راویوں پر نگاہ کرنے کے بعد معلوم ہوتا ہےاس کی سند میں ایسے افراد ہیں جو افراطی رافضی ہیں کہ اس بات کا اہل سنت کے علماء نے اعتراف کیا ہے مثال کے طور پر :

1. تَلِيد بن سليمان المحاربي، أبو سليمان

یہ رجال سنن ترمذی سے ہیں جو ابوبکر و عمر کو گالیاں دیا کرتے تھے

مزی انکے بارے میں لکھتے ہیں :

وقال أبو داود: رافضي خبيث، رجل سوء، يشتم أبا بكر وعمر.

ابو داود نے کہا: یہ رافضى ، خبیث ، برا انسان ہے ابو بکر اورعمر کو گالیاں دیا کرتا ہے

آگے لکھتے ہیں:

وَقَال [عَباس الدُّورِيُّ ] في موضع آخر: كذاب، كان يشتم عثمان، وكل من شتم عثمان، أو طلحة، أو أحدا من أصحاب رسول الله (ص)، دجال، لا يكتب عنه، وعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين.

عباس دوري، نے دوسری مقام پر انکے بارے میں کہا ہے کذاب ہیں عثمان کو گالیاں دیا کرتا تھا اور جو بھی عثمان یا طلحہ یا کسی بھی اصحاب کو گالی دے وہ دجال ہے اس سے حدیث نہیں لی جاتی ہے ، اللہ ، فرشتوں اور لوگوں کی لنعت ہو اس پر ،

المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج (متوفاي742هـ)، تهذيب الكمال، ج 4، ص 321، تحقيق د. بشار عواد معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1400هـ – 1980م.

ابن حجر عسقلانى لکھتے ہیں:

كذّاب كان يشتم عثمان....

جھوٹا اور عثمان کو گالیاں دیتا تھا.

یہ بھی لکھتے ہیں:

وقال ابن حبان: كان رافضيّاً يشتم الصحابة.

ابن حبان نے کہا ہے : وہ رافضی اور صحابہ کو گالیاں دینے والا تھا

العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852هـ) تهذيب التهذيب، ج 1، ص 447، ناشر: دار الفكر - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1404هـ – 1984م.

ان تمام باتوں کے با وجود اسی شخص کی ، بزرگ علماء اہلسنت توثیق کرتے ہیں اور ایسی روایات اس سے نقل کرتے ہیں جو اہلسنت کے فائدہ میں ہے ابن حجرنے انکے احوال میں لکھتا ہے :

عن أحمد كان مذهبه التشيع ولم نر به بأسا وقال أيضا كتبت عنه حديثا كثيراً عن أبي الجحاف.

احمد بن حنبل سے نقل ہے کہ وہ ایک شیعہ تھے انکے اندر کوئی عیب نہیں تھا [روایت کے اعتبار سے] اور یہ بھی کہا ہے میں نے اس سےبہت حدیثیں لکھی ہیں

وقال البخاري تكلم فيه يحيى بن معين ورماه وقال العجلي: لا بأس به كان يتشيع ويدلس.

بخارى کہتے ہیں:تلید کے بارے میں يحيى بن معين نے کلام کیا ہے اور انکی مذمت کی ہے لیکن عجلی نے کہا اس میں کوئی نقص نہیں ہے اظھار تشیع کرتا تھا اور نقل تغییر دیتے تھے

العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852هـ) تهذيب التهذيب، ج 1، ص 447، ناشر: دار الفكر - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1404هـ – 1984م.

مزى نےتهذيب الكمال میں لکھا ہے :

روى له التِّرْمِذِيّ: حديث أبي الجحاف عن عطية عَن أبي سَعِيد: قال النبي (ص): ما من نبي إلا وله وزيران... الحديث. وَقَال: حسن غريب.

المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج (متوفاي742هـ)، تهذيب الكمال، ج 4، ص 321، تحقيق د. بشار عواد معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1400هـ – 1980م.

البته واضح ہے کہ یہ روایت اہلسنت کے حق میں ہے اور تلید بن سلیمان نے فضائل خلیفہ اول اور دوم میں نقل کی ہے حسن کہی گئی ہے لیکن وہ روایات جو اہلسنت کے خلاف ہے اور شیخین سے پردہ اٹھاتی ہے تلید کے رافضی ہونے کی بناء پر ضعیف شمار ہونے لگتی ہے

.................................................................................

ان تمام باتوں کو چھوڑ دیں اہل سنت کے علماء جرح و تعدیل نے ایسے افراد کی بھی توثیق کی ہے جو امیر المومنین علی [ع] کو سب و شتم کیا کرتے تھے اب سوال کرتے ہیں جب سب و شتمِ صحابہ تضعیف کا باعث بنتا ہے تو نواصب، روات کی توثیق کیوں کی ہے ؟؟

آيا جو ابو بکر و عمر کی کو سب کرے وہ ضعیف ہے اور جو امیر المومنین علی [ع] کو سب کرے وہ ثقہ ہے ؟ یہ کیسی منافقت ہے ؟

ذیل میں چند نواصب کو بیان کرتے ہیں جن کی توثیق علماء اہل سنت نے کی ہے

1- حريز بن عثمان الحمصي:

یہ ملعون شخص 70 مرتبہ مولائے کائنات علی [ع] کو لعن کیا کرتا تھا مزی نے تهذيب الكمال میں ، ذهبى نے تاريخ الإسلام مین، ابن حجر نے تهذيب التهذيب میںاور بدر الدين عينى نے مغانى الأخبار میں لکھا ہے :

عن أحمد بن سليمان المروزي: حدثنا إسماعيل بن عياش، قال: عادلت حريز بن عثمان من مصر إلى مكة فجعل يسب عليا ويلعنه.

احمد بن سليمان مروزى نے اسماعيل بن عياش سے نقل کیا ہے کہ :میں مصر سے مکہ تک حریز بن عثمان کے ساتھ تھا اس دوران مسلسل علی [ع] کو سب و شتم اور لعن کرتا رہا

المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج (متوفاي742هـ)، تهذيب الكمال، ج 5، ص 576، تحقيق د. بشار عواد معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1400هـ – 1980م.

الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، (متوفاي748هـ)، تاريخ الإسلام ووفيات المشاهير والأعلام، ج 10، ص 123، تحقيق د. عمر عبد السلام تدمرى، ناشر: دار الكتاب العربي - لبنان/ بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1407هـ - 1987م.

العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852هـ) تهذيب التهذيب، ج 2، ص 209، ناشر: دار الفكر - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1404هـ – 1984م.

العيني، بدر الدين محمود بن أحمد (متوفاي855هـ)، مغانى الأخيار، ج 1، ص 187.

ابن حجر عسقلانى نے لکھا ہے :

وقال ابن حبان: كان يلعن عليّاً بالغداة سبعين مرة، وبالعشي سبعين مرة، فقيل له في ذلك، فقال: هو القاطع رؤوس آبائي وأجدادي.

ابن حبان کہتا ہے کہ : حریز علی[ع] کو صبح میں 70 بار اور شام میں 70 بار لعن کیا کرتا تھا میں اس سے علت معلوم کی تو اس نے کہا : علی[ع] نے میرے آباء و اجداد کے سر قلم کئے ہیں

العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852هـ) تهذيب التهذيب، ج 2، ص 209، ناشر: دار الفكر - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1404هـ – 1984م.

مزى نے تهذيب الكمال میں ، ابن حجر عسقلانى نے تهذيب التهذيب میں لکھا ہے :

وسألت أحمد بن حنبل عنه فقال ثقة ثقة وقال أيضا ليس بالشام أثبت من حريز... قال: وَقَال أبو داود: سمعت أحمد وذكر له حريز وأبو بكر بن أَبي مريم وصفوان، فقال: ليس فيهم مثل حريز، ليس أثبت منه، ولم يكن يرى القدر، قال: وسمعت أحمد مرة أخرى يقول: حريز ثقة، ثقة.

: میں نے اس کے بارے احمد بن حنبل سے سوال کیا : کہا: ثقہ ہے ثقہ ہے ۔اور کہا شام میں حریز سے زیادہ کوئی نقل میں مورد اطمئنان شخص نہیں ہے معاذ بن معاز کہتے ہیں کہ جب میں میں احمد بن حنبل کے پاس تھا تو حريز، ابوبكر بن مريم اور صفوان کا تذکرہ ہوا تو احمد سے سنا کہ ان میں حریز جیسا کوئی نہیں ہے اور اسکے علاوہ کوئی اور نقل میں معتبر ترین نہیں ہے میں نے ایک بار پھر احمد سے سنا ہے کہ : حریز ثقہ ہےثقہ ہے

العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852هـ) تهذيب التهذيب، ج 2، ص 209، ناشر: دار الفكر - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1404هـ – 1984م.

المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج (متوفاي742هـ)، تهذيب الكمال، ج 5، ص 572، تحقيق د. بشار عواد معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1400هـ – 1980م.

ابن حجر نےحریز کے ترجمه کے ابتداء میں لکھا:

[من رجال] البخارى والأربعة.

یہ بخاری کا اور چار صحاح کا راوی ہے [مسلم کے علاوہ].

و بدر الدين عينى نے لکھا:

روى له الجماعة سوى مسلم، وأبو جعفر الطحاوى. وفى التهذيب: روى له البخارى حديثين.

العيني، بدر الدين محمود بن أحمد (متوفاي855هـ)، مغانى الأخيار، ج 1، ص 187.

اگر سب و شتم ِ صحابہ تضعیف کا باعث بنتا ہے تو بخاری نے کیوں اس سے روایت نقل کی ہے؟ امام احمد بن حنبل کیوں اسکی توثیق کی ہے ؟

2. عمر بن سعد بن أبي وقاص، قاتل امام حسين (ع):

مزى نے تهذيب الكمال میں اور ابن حجر نے تهذيب التهذيب میں ، عمر بن سعد بن ابووقاص، جو کربلا میں یزیدیوں کا مشہور سپہ سالار تھا ،بارے میں لکھا ہے :

وَقَال أحمد بن عَبد الله العجلي: كان يروي عَن أبيه أحاديث، وروى الناس عنه. وهو الذي قتل الحسين، وهو تابعي ثقة.

عجلى نے کہا ہے : عمر بن سعد اپنے والد سے روایت نقل کرتا ہے اور دیگر افراد اس سے روایت نقل کرتے ہیں یہ وہی ہے جس نے حسین [علیہالسلام] کو قتل کیا ہے یہ ثقہ ہے اور تابعی ہے

المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج (متوفي742هـ)، تهذيب الكمال، ج 21، ص 357، تحقيق د. بشار عواد معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1400هـ – 1980م.

العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفي852هـ) تهذيب التهذيب، ج 7، ص 396، ناشر: دار الفكر - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1404هـ – 1984م.

عجیب بات ہے اہل سنت کے لئے وہ شخص ثقہ ہے جس نے بیدردی سے فرزند رسول اکرم ص کو قتل کیا ہے اور رسول اکرم ص کی بیٹیوں کو قیدی بنایا ہےاور انکے لئے ایسے افراد کی روایت حجت رکھتی ہو لیکن اگر کوئی علی [ع] سے محبت رکھتا ہو اور انھیں خلفاء ثلاثہ پر مقدم سمجھتا ہو یا کبھی انکی توہین کی ہو اس کی روایت ضعیف اور غیر قابل؛ قبول بن جاتی ہے؟

نتيجه:

روايت ابن أبي دارم، کسی بھی طرح کا نقص نہیں رکھتی ہے اور وہ تھمت جو اسے لگائی گئی ہے مثل رافضی یا رافضی افراطی روایت پر اثر انداز نہیں ہوتی ہے اس لئے ایسی تھمت بخاری ، مسلم اور دیگر صحاح کے راویوں کے لئے بھی لگائی گئی ہے

................................................................................................

Arabic Book on Biography of Umme Kulthum (A.S.) -ظلامة أم كلثوم

ظلامة أم كلثوم

Arabic Book on Myth of Marriage of Umme Kulthum (A.S.) with Umar-زواج أم كلثوم

زواج أم كلثوم

Umar’s Marriage to Umm Kulsoom binte Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) – Verdict of the Intellect

Some Muslims portray a harmonious relationship between Ameerul Momineen – Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and Fatima Zahra (s.a.) on the one hand and Umar b. Khattaab on the other hand. They grope at any excuse possible to show this non-existent harmony even to the extent of inventing a marriage between Umar b. Khattaab with one of Imam Ali b. Abi Taalib’s (a.s.) daughters – Janabe Umm Kulsoom.

Reply

1. Umar marries his granddaughter?!
2. Irreconcilable differences between Umar and the Ahle Bait of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
3. Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) in the footsteps of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
4. Shura
5. Janabe Umm Kulsoom in Karbala

Given that Bani Hashim were hardly on speaking terms with Bani Adi – Umar b. Khattaab’s tribe, marriage between two very important members of their respective tribes is inconceivable. This much is evident to any student of Islamic history without examining a single chain of narration on the topic.

Once we scrutinize historical documents, this becomes even more apparent.

As per universally accepted rules for the analysis of traditions both Shias and Sunnis agree that a tradition or report is acceptable only if it has a reliable chain of narrators and is rational or ties up with the Quran and accepted traditions.

Hence this alleged incident is rejected outright as it defies all forms of rationality and reasoning and neither do the reports stand up to scrutiny.

We have dealt with this subject in two parts. The first part presents arguments that reject the marriage on the grounds of irrationality and inconsistency with facts of history. In others the marriage between Umar and Umm Kulsoom bint Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) never happened because it was rationally impossible.

1. Umar marries his granddaughter?!

In 17 A.H. when this incident is supposed to have occurred, Umar b. Khattab was over fifty years old. And more importantly, Janabe Umm Kulsoom Bint Ali b. Abi Talib (s.a.) was his granddaughter – since the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had married Umar’s daughter – Hafsah and Umm Kulsoom was the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) granddaughter.

Does it make sense that a man should propose marriage to his own granddaughter?

Hafsa was the wife of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a,) and Janabe Umm Kulsoom was the granddaughter of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Hence Hafsah was the grandmother of Janabe Umm Kulsoom. If Umar were to marry Janabe Umm Kulsoom she would then be called the mother of Hafsah. Does this make any sense?

2. Irreconcilable differences between Umar and the Ahle Bait of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)

There were irreconcilable differences between Umar b. Khattaab and the Ahle Bait (a.s.) of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) due to which it is inconceivable for any formal association between the two parties let alone matrimony.

a. Umar abandoned the body of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to attend the caliphate proceedings at Saqifah making a mockery of companionship of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Janabe Umm Kulsoom (s.a.) and her father Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) who was the rightful successor are unlikely to associate with someone who did not even qualify to the basic tenet of companionship i.e. attending the funeral of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) which was attended by Jibraeel and other select angels of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

b. Umar fetched wood to burn the house of Janabe Fatima Zahra (s.a.) – Janabe Umm Kulsoom’s mother. A house whose residents included Umm Kulsoom herself, Umar’s future wife?!

• Al-Musannif by Ibne Abi Shaybah – teacher of Bukhaari, vol. 7, p. 232,
• Taarikh-e-Tabari, vol. 3 p. 202
• Addendum to Kaamil-e-Ibne Athir
• Ansaab al-Ashraaf, vol. 1 p. 586
• Al-Iqd al-Fareed, vol. 5, p. 13
• Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbaar al-Bashar, vol. 1, p. 156

After this it is anyone’s guess whether Umm Kulsoom would want to associate with a person who only 6 years earlier burnt her house with the explicit aiming of killing its residents.

3. Umar grievously injured Janabe Fatima Zahra (s.a.) leading to the death of her son ‘Mohsin’ immediately and her own death eventually. Mohsin was the brother of Janabe Umm Kulsoom and Janabe Fatima Zehra was her mother. It is should be clear from this incident alone why Janabe Umm Kulsoom would not even want to be in the same land as Umar let alone live in the same house with him.

• Sair-o-A’laam al-Nobala, vol. 14, p. 309,
• Al-Milal wa al-Nehal, vol. 1, p. 59

4. Fatima Zehra(s.a.) remained displeased with Umar after the incident of burning of the door and cursed him after every prayer and never communicated with him. One who displeases Fatima has displeased not just the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) but Allah Himself.

• Sahih-e-Bukhaari, vol. 4, book 53, trad325

When Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) have shown their displeasure with a person for displeasing Fatima – why would Janabe Umm Kulsoom choose to marry that person of all people?

5. Fatima Zehra(s.a.) had willed Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) not to allow Umar to attend her funeral.

• Sahih-e-Bukhaari, vol. 5 under the chapter of “The Battle of Khaibar”

How can Janabe Umm Kulsoom enter into matrimony with someone not deemed fit to attend her mother’s funeral? How can Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) give his daughter to his wife’s murderer, whose very existence evoked memories of the tragic circumstances of her death?

3. Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) in the footsteps of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)

There are numerous traditions to the effect that Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) lived his entire life in the footsteps of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

يَحْذُوحَذْوَالرَّسُولِ

He (Imam Ali b. Abi Talib) treads the footsteps of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
(Behaar al-Anwaar, vol. 99 p. 106)

This means that when the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has performed an action or abandoned it, Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) can be expected to follow the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) wholeheartedly.

So if the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) did not give his daughter Fatima to Umar despite his constant beseeching and imploring, how is it possible that Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) would give his and Fatima’s daughter to Umar?

When Allah and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) have decided a matter against an individual how can Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) choose otherwise?

4. Shura

While analyzing the Shura, the consultative council set up by Umar to select his successor, historians have dissected the role and relationship of each member and the chances of each for assuming the caliphate.

But none of them have made any observation to the effect that Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) being the father-in-law of Umar was a strong candidate for caliphate. Nor did Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) in his analysis of the situation in front of Abdullah b. Abbas made any such conclusion. On the contrary, he was most reluctant to participate in the Shura. He only participated to prove the contradiction in Umar’s stand who all along had maintained that both Prophethood and caliphate cannot be from Bani Hashim.

Also, the condition laid down by Umar to kill dissidents of the Shura’s verdict, means that Umar was satisfied with the killing of Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) – his own “father-in-law”, should he be among the dissidents. This is hardly an example of Arab affinity for relations.

5. Janabe Umm Kulsoom in Karbala

All historians are unanimous that Umm Kulsoom was present in Karbala.

Yet, no historian records any argument presented by Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala to avert the battle on the basis of Janabe Umm Kulsoom’s marriage with Umar and his own relationship as Umar’s brother-in-law. Among Arabs such an argument is sufficient to secure peace in the most impossible of situations. It’s a different matter that being the grandson of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) did not prove a strong enough relation to prevent them from shedding Imam Husain’s (a.s.) blood.

In fact, it would have been a blunder for Yazid’s army to wage battle against a side which had in it Umar’s wife and brother-in-law, as their enmity was with Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and his children but since these children were also related to Umar they should have averted battle at least on this count.

Nor do we see Janabe Umm Kulsoom and Janabe Zainab bint Ali (a.s.) present the marriage argument in Yazid’s court to secure release.

The reason why the marriage argument was never presented was because the marriage never happened.

Thus far, we have rejected the marriage of Janabe Umm Kulsoom with Umar b. Khattaab purely on the basis of rationality and history. We do not need to venture into any historical document after this. Nonetheless, we will complete our argument by refuting the spurious historical records of marriage advanced by some Muslims.

Reference : http://www.seratonline.com

Shia Imams and First three Caliphs

A letter from Imam Ali to Muawiya, the rebel governor of Syria, is found in Nehjul Blagha, which he wrote in reply to his earlier communication, and showed his disgust towards the first three caliphates.

“I do not owe any apology to the people for showing my disgust on the legality of the (first three caliphs).”

After the death of second caliph, when Abdur Rahman bin Auf, offered the seat of authority to him, conditional to the following of the Sunnah of Shaikhain (Abubakr and Umar), he rejected the offer without giving it a second thought. This incident also shows that he considered the first three caliphates as usurpers and completely illegal and they were aware of this situation. It is mentioned in Sahih Muslim that Umar Ibne Khattab, the second caliph admitted, while talking to Abdullah Ibne Abbas,
“You two not only consider me a liar, sinner, traitor and usurper but also have the same opinion about the one, who was better than me (Abubakr).”
Ibne Abbas kept quiet on this allegation, and his silence has put a stamp of confirmation on this allegation that they were really what they were thought to be. Readers can refer to our book ASBAT UL IMAMAT.

LOGICAL PROOF OF DEJECTION AND REPULSION
As truth lies with the progeny of the Prophet, therefore, their fellowship and compliance, which is authorized by the Qur‟an cannot be perfected, unless we show our disgust and repulsion to their enemies; very similar to the rejection and repugnance of those whom we have to deny before witnessing the unity of God and the Prophesy of Muhammad (SAWA). This declaration of allegiance i.e. Kalema of Tauhid is a key for ALI UN WALIULLAH and this conclusion is based on the true understanding of nature. Since Islam is a religion of nature and nature tells that truthful and a liar, erudite and an illiterate, hypocrite and a faithful, aggressor and the defender, cheat and a virtuous cannot become equal. It is an undivided verdict of the mind that one must feel sympathy with the innocent and repulsion against the antagonist, detestation of false Prophets and Imams is mandatory. No right minded person of any religion or land would disagree with this approach. Among the Muslims, the only true sect, Shias has this approach of love and hate for the pious and irreverent respectively, as an integral part of their doctrine. This ideology is in line with the pronouncements of the Quran and Hadith. It is mentioned in Sura Ale Imran,
“It is not right for the believers to take infidels as friends in place of the faithful.”

At another place in Sura Al Mumtahinna the same advice was issued,
“O the people of faith do not accept your enemies as your friends.”

It is mentioned about Abraham that when he knew that his uncle was an enemy of God, he immediately withdrew himself from him. Allah praises this act of Abraham. This is the true interpretation of TAWALLA AND TA’BURRA that cannot be denied by any fair minded person, but the agitating and provocative mullahs have presented this concept in such a repulsive way that it was described as being a mode of abusing the companions of the Prophet.

We the Shias, in accordance with the Quranic verdict, disapprove the use of harmful language even for the infidels and mushriks, then how can we make it permissible for those who declare themselves as Muslims? On the other hand LA’NAT and TA’BURRA are two different things that are permitted by the Quran. LA’NAT literally means separation from God‟s blessings and TA’BURRA stands for displeasure or annoyance with the enemies of God and His Messengers. No man can claim to have reached the position of faith as long as he does not prefer the person of the Prophet over every asset, including his family and wealth, other than God, which is in line with the declaration of the Qur‟an: The Prophet is above the souls of the believers, or as the Prophet has proclaimed for himself,
“No person can claim to be a man of faith, unless he prefers me over everything, including his family and friends.”

IN SHIA FAITH LOVE OF VIRTUOUS COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET IS PART OF THEIR FAITH.
How is it possible for a believer to claim Iman, while feeling ghastly about the virtuous friends of the Prophet? For some reasons, love for the companions of the Prophet is compulsory, because they are Momins and according to the Quran; all believers are brothers. The love of a believer is therefore, essential for another believer, and so it is a religious duty. Secondly, the companions of the Prophet have aided the Prophet; and respect for the associates of the adored is naturally obvious, so the companions of the Prophet are favoured by God, by virtue of their Jihad in His way. Again, companions are disciples of the Prophet and those who obey the Prophet are friends of God, in accordance with the Quranic assertions. It is therefore, important for the people to know that the respect for the companions of the Prophet is mandatory, and part and parcel of faith. Mohaqqiq Sheikh Bahai writes in his research paper,

“It is our conviction that the love of those companions of the Prophet is an integral part of our faith that remained steadfast in their fellowship and did not disobey his will and his legatees, after his death. This is our perception of the companions of the Prophet, and we the Shias, in submission to our Imams take it as a routine to seek God‟s favour for them."

Imam Zainul Aabedin (AS) in a supplication to God talks about the companions of the Prophet, “O, God do not forsake those companions of the Prophet, who treated Your Messenger with affection and love, and fought relentlessly in his support and came forward to accept his message. O! God enhance their standing among thy blessings.”

THERE WERE ALL TYPES OF PEOPLE AMONG PROPHET’S COMPANIONS
It is revealed through the history that among the companions of the Prophets there were all kinds of people, including hypocrites, murderers, unjust, just, faithful, unreliable and some double minded individuals. Shias are of the opinion that this grouping must not be viewed with a single lens and such a practice is malice towards intellect and civilised culture.

Some honest minded Sunni Scholars had to admit this reality with some hesitation, therefore Allama Taftani writes in Sharhul Maqasid,
“The battles and disputes that took place among the companions of the Prophet, which are witnessed and recorded by history prove that some of the companions of the Prophet had diverted from the path set by the Prophet of God, and their behaviour was approaching impudence and apostasy. The reasons behind such behaviour were personal jealousy and greed for the world. This was because every companion of the Prophet or anyone who happened to meet the Prophet was not a spotless person.”

It is the firm belief of Shias that the Prophet had appointed Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS) as his successor before his death, in accordance with the norms of God. This succession was initially announced at the time of DAWAT’E ZUL AASHEERA, a family gathering arranged to invite near relatives to the religion of Islam, and the traditions of such an appointment were observed in front of the whole family, and finally near the wells of Ghadeer, after the last pilgrimage in front of the majority of his nation. The Prophet has shown with his actions that his succession was a divine appointment and it could only come into place through the revelation; instead of collective people‟s decision. But alas, the old traditions prevailed and the real heirs of the Prophet were not allowed to assume their rightful place, and the reign of power was handed over to those who did not deserve it. Those who assumed power in the presence of Aa‟imma Tahereen (virtuous leaders), their action was illegal and unjust as viewed by Imam Ali (AS) and his progeny. This is declared by Imam Ali (AS) in many of his sermons and speeches. He says in the sermon of Shaq‟sha-qiyya,
“The first caliph wrapped the robes of caliphate around his body, with perfect understanding that I had the same affiliation to this office as the pivot holds for a rotating wheel. I am sitting at such a lofty position where springs of knowledge are oozing out from me and no high flier can reach my pinnacle.”

Hadith that "All my Companions are like Stars" is Fake

These facts also reveal that the Hadith, which is very much touted by our Sunni brothers, wherein the Prophet has supposedly said,
“My friends are like stars, you will be guided by following anyone of them” is a fake and counterfeit Hadith. Ibne Tamia has written in Minhajul Sunna: This Hadith is feeble; because the great masters have said so. Moulavi Abdul Hay‟ee has mentioned in Tuhfatul Akhyar, the opinion of several scholars who proved the deception of this Hadith. They say that Ibne Hazm has proved that this is an engineered work. Same is the opinion of Ibne Zahabi.
If after some reservation we accept this Hadith to be true, then we have to agree that Ali (AS), Fatima (AS), Hassan (AS) and Hussain (AS) are the addressees of this assertion, who are endowed by blood relations with the Prophet as well as his companionship. They were also virtuous in character and their love has been laid down by the Qur‟an for the rank and file of the Ummah.
Allama Taftazani has written to this extent, “We can only trust the virtuosity of those companions who had remained longer in the company of the Prophet and learned from his message, otherwise rest of the companions are no different from common folks, who are a mixture of good and bad.”
Under these circumstances Shia faith cannot treat all companions equally. The companions of the Prophet, who were steadfast in their belief, chose Ahlulbait as their guide after death of the messenger of God, and paid their religious dues by submitting themselves to their command. We consider the soil under the feet of such companions as a source of vision for our eyes. However, we feel it essential to disengage from those companions who did not fully comply with the assertions of the Prophet and moved away from Ahlulbait after his death.

A Brief Discussion on Fadak

This Ummah did not care about this magnificent lady, and her estate, which was allotted by the Prophet to her in accordance withthe Quranic decision, was confiscated by the state. She made a petition to the first caliph and he replied that the truth of her claim is not established (  Tafseer ’  e Kabir by Fakhruddin Razi). She provided further evidence in support of her claim by the statements of Imam Ali ( AS )and her two sons Hassan ( AS) and Hussain ( AS ) and Omme Aaiman. The evidence of her two sons Imam Hassan and Hussain was rejected on the grounds as them being juveniles, (Omme Aaiman) as a women and that of Imam Ali as the husband of Fatima. She then produced the written deed of occupation authorised by the Prophet, but it was rejected as well. At this juncture, Fatima invoked the Quranic argumentof receiving legacy of her father but the state, which relied earlier on the Slogan that the book of God is sufficient for them, pushed aside their earlier statements and invoked a fake Hadith at the spur of themoment, which stated,

“We the Prophets neither receive nor leave any legacy.”
  

At this moment Fatima was quoting Quranic verses. This showed that the state was in the hands of opportunists who used any available tactics to deny the rights of Aale Rasool by either refraining from the Qu'ran or engineering fake narrations in the name of the Prophet.Finally, Abubakr, as quoted by Bokhari refused to respect the claim of Fatima and confiscated her estate. It is stated that she died within threemonths of this decision and was secretly buried during the night and Abubakr and Umar were barred from participating in her funeral.

There are numerous reports in both Shia and the Sunni books that Fatima (AS), the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) is the leader of women of all times. It is mentioned in some Ahadith: Fatima(AS) is the leader of all women in the Paradise, or as stated in Arjahul  Matalib ; Fatima ( AS) is the leader of women of all times. Listening to this statement of the Prophet some companions asked about the status of Mary ( AS), the mother of Jesus ( AS). The Prophet replied that Mary ( AS) was the chosen women of her times, while Fatima ( AS) is the head of women of all times. Some adversaries of the family of the Prophet dragged some wives of the Prophet in this competition, which is a portrayal of their jealousy against Ahlulbait. They must understand that the station of respect that Fatima ( AS) holds with God is not available to many Prophets, not to speak of the wives of the messenger of God. The other statements like; Fatima‟s pleasure and anger is the anger of God and the Prophet respectively, is well documented in Sunni books and its authenticity cannot be challenged. Quranic verses such as Aa‟yate Tat‟heer and other remarks are permanent arguments of her chastity.