12. Sunni Answers to Shiapen’s article on Fadak and inheritance of Prophet(saw) – “Chapter Twelve”


This is our refutation of infamous Shiawebsite “Shiapen.com” which was formerly known as Answering-Ansar.org; the name of this website was changed because the lies and deception of it were exposed to such an extent that, they had to revise its stuff and come up with a new name. This article is a refutation to Shiapen’s article “Fadak: Chapter Twelve: Further injustices perpetrated against Sayyida Fatima (as)”.

 

Argument 1:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

First Injustice – The usurpation of Khums

The right of Banu Hashim to Khums has been proven from the Qur’an

Allah (swt) says:

Know that whatever of a thing you acquire, a fifth of it is for Allah, for the Messenger, for the near relative, and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer…
Al-Qur’an, Surah 8, Ayah 41, translated by Yusufali

[End Quote]

Answer:

There was difference of opinion related to the fifth of the fifth from the Khums between Ahlelbayt and some other prominent Sahaba, we will summarize it here in a few lines.

It is related to this verse:

{ And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer.(Quran 8: 41)

Four-fifth(4/5th ) of the spoils go for the fighters who take part in the conquest, whereas One-fifth(1/5th ) is to be divided among the five categories mentioned in the verse.

Many members from the household believed the one-fifth(1/5th ) should be divided into five equal parts between them, this way they get a big share, on the other hand Abu Bakr and `Umar and those who agreed with them said that it doesn’t need to be divided equally but that the ones who need it the most, deserve the biggest share.

However, Ali(ra) later followed the example of Abu Bakr and `Umar in this as stated authentically in Mustadrak al-Hakim from two chains:

حدثنا الشيخ أبو بكر بن إسحاق أنبأ يعقوب بن يوسف القزويني ثنا محمد بن سعيد بن سابق ثنا أبو جعفر الرازي عن مطرف عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى قال : سمعت عليا رضي الله عنه يقول : ولاني رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم خمس الخمس فوضعته مواضعه حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و أبي بكر و عمر رضي الله عنهما

[`Abdul-Rahman bin abi Layla said: I heard `Ali(ra) say: “The Prophet(saw) charged me with spending the Khums of the Khums, so I spend it the same way it was spent during the days of the messenger(saw) and Abu Bakr(ra) and `Umar(ra)”]

Chain: (1)

حدثنا الشيخ أبو بكر بن إسحاق أنبأ يعقوب بن يوسف القزويني ثنا محمد بن سعيد بن سابق ثنا أبو جعفر الرازي عن مطرف عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى قال : سمعت عليا رضي الله عنه يقول : ولاني رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم خمس الخمس فوضعته مواضعه حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و أبي بكر و عمر رضي الله عنهما

هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد و لم يخرجاه

تعليق الذهبي قي التلخيص : صحيح

Sheikh Abu Bakr bin Ishaq told us, Ya`qoub bin Yusuf al-Qazwini told us, Muhammad bin Sa`eed bin Sabiq told us, abu Ja`far al-Razi told us, from Mutraf, from `Abdul-Rahman bin abi Layla: (and he mentions it…)

Chain: (2)

حدثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب ثنا العباس بن محمد الدوري ثنا يحيى بن أبي بكير ثنا أبو جعفر الرازي عن مطرف عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى : قال : سمعت عليا رضي الله عنه يقول : ولاني رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم خمس الخمس فوضعته في مواضعه حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و أبو بكر و عمر رضي الله عنهما

هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد و لم يخرجاه

تعليق الذهبي قي التلخيص : على شرط البخاري ومسلم

Abu al-`Abbas Muhammad bin Ya`qoub told us, al-`Abbas bin Muhammad al-Dawri told us, Yahya bin abi Bukayr told us, abu Ja`far al-Razi told us, from Mutraf, from `Abdul-Rahman bin abi Layla: (and he mentions it…)

Also in the narration in al-Tahawi, that Muhammad ibn Ishaq heard many rumors so he went to ask the grandson of `Ali:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خُزَيْمَةَ قَالَ: ثنا يُوسُفُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، قَالَ: ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ، فَقُلْتُ: أَرَأَيْتُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ حَيْثُ وَلِيَ الْعِرَاقَ، وَمَا وَلِيَ مِنْ أُمُورِ النَّاسِ، كَيْفَ صَنَعَ فِي سَهْمِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى، قَالَ: ” سَلَكَ بِهِ، وَاللَّهِ، سَبِيلَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قُلْتُ: وَكَيْفَ؟ وَأَنْتُمْ تَقُولُونَ مَا تَقُولُونَ؟ قَالَ: إِنَّهُ، وَاللَّهِ، مَا كَانَ أَهْلُهُ يَصْدُرُونَ إِلا عَنْ رَأْيِهِ، قُلْتُ: فَمَا مَنَعَهُ؟ قَالَ: كَرِهَ، وَاللَّهِ، أَنْ يُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ خِلافُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ

[Muhammad ibn Ishaq said: I asked Abu Ja`far al-Baqir: “You see when `Ali ibn abi Talib ruled `Iraq and was placed in authority over the people? How did he spend the share of the near relatives?” He replied: “By Allah, he followed the path of Abu Bakr and `Umar.” I said: “How is this? When you say what you say?” He replied: “His family always followed his opinion.” I said: “What stopped him then?” He said: “By Allah, he detested when people claimed that he opposed Abu Bakr and `Umar.”]

Comment: This report shows that, there was just a difference of opinion over the issue of Khums, otherwise Ali(ra) wouldn’t have followed the view of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), if it was in anyway usurpation of Khums as alleged by Shiapen.

Allama Shibli Numani clarified this issue in a simple manner, stating:

“Now we should thoroughly check, what ruling is derived from Quran and what was the practise of Prophet(saw). From the verse of Quran, what is only proven is that, altogether five groups have a right over Khums. But it is not proven from it that, its compulsory to distribute each group separately. In Quran where it’s mentioned regarding Zakat, there too similar style is present. We read:

Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.(9:60)

In this verse eight groups have been declared to have a right over Zakat. Poor, Needy, those employed to administer the funds, those whose hearts have been recently reconciled to Truth, those in bondage, those in debt, Mujahideen and travellers; whichever of these groups is given Zakat, then the obligation of giving Zakat will be fulfilled. It is not mandatory that Zakat needs to be distributed in eight groups. Even when eight groups are present, then it will be verified that which group is more in need of Zakat, which of them is in dire need and which one of them is in no need…Similarly regarding Khums what Allah(swt) has said; what we understood is that Khums shouldn’t be given to those who were not mentioned in the verse, but it doesn’t mean that unnecessarily five equal shares should be made, and all five groups should be distributed equally.

“…As far as what is proven from authentic reports, Umar(ra) continued the right of Bani Hashim and Bani Mutallib. But He differed with them on two things, His view was that, it’s the right of Khalipha, to distribute more or less as per requirement and need. Contrary to this Abdullah bin Abbas and others held the claim that, complete fifth share was the right of “near of kin”, and no one had the right for any type of appropriation in it. Qazi Abu Yusuf in Kitab Al Khiraj, Nisai in his Sahih have copied the saying of Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

Umar bin Khattab offered to take money from Khums for the marriages of our widows and to pay the debt of debtors among us. But we didn’t agree except to give whole share in our hands, but Umar didn’t agree with it.(Kitab Al-Khiraj,page 11).

Even other reports are similar to this, except one report from Kalbi, that Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) stopped the right of “near of kin”. Kalbi is extremely weak, that is why his reports cannot be relied.

In the light of Quran and way and practise of Prophet(saw), it is clearly proven that whatever Umar(ra) did, was in accordance to Quran and Hadeeth. Imam Shafe’i and others cannot provide a proof that Prophet(saw) used to always give complete fifth share, this understanding and view cannot be proven from Quran. Now, regarding the right over Khums of “near of kin” which wasn’t a fixed(portion), then Umar(ra) never denied it.”

(Al-Farooq, by Shibli Numani part 2, page 360).

Anyways, this was merely a difference of opinion based on ijtihad, and it’s not objective to judge Umar(ra) only based on how, Ahlelbayt viewed the opinion of Umar, because the opinion of Umar(ra) was not to benefit his ownself, but other needy and poor people of the Ummah, still Umar(ra) wanted to fulfil the basic needs of Ahlelbayt from Khums, from the rest he wanted to help those who were more in need and more deserving. So if the decision of Umar(ra) is seen from an unbiased perspective then, only a bigot would accuse Umar(ra) and consider his decision as usurpation.

Infact, Ahlelbayt themself didn’t view the decision of Umar(ra) as injustice or usurpation, they knew it was a mere difference of opinion; unlike how the rafidah try to portray it, by completely blowing it out of proportion.

We read:

عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ , عَنْ أَبِيهِ , عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ، قَالَ : ” وَلِيَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ خَيْرُ خَلِيفَةِ اللَّهِ ، وَأَرْحَمَهُ بِنَا وَأَحْنَاهُ عَلَيْنَا “
Ja’afar bin Muhammad (al Sadiq), from his Father Muhammad bin Ali (al Baqir), from Abdullah ibn Ja’afar bin Abi Talib that he said: ” Abu Bakr al Siddeeq may Allah be pleased with him became our Caliph and he was the best of the Caliphs of Allah, he was most merciful and most caring towards us.
sources:
Fadael al Sahaba by al Darqutni.
al-Isabah by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani.
al-Mustadraq ‘ala al-Sahihayn by al Hakim.
Usool I’itiqad ahlulsunnah by al Lalikaee.
al-Radd ‘ala al Rafidah by al Maqdisi.
Hadith grading:
al-Hakim said SAHIH and al-Dhahhabi agreed with him, Ibn Hajar al Asqalani said the Hadith has a good chain of narrators.

عن جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه أن عبدالله بن جعفر قال : رحم الله أبابكر كان لنا والياً فنعم الوالي كان لنا ، مارأينا حاضنا قط كان خيراً منه

Ja’afar bin Muhammad from his Father from Abdullah ibn Ja’afar that he said: “May Allah have mercy on Abu bakr he ruled over us and he was the best of rulers, we never met one better than him…”(Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad, by al-Darqutni)
Grading: Hasan li-Ghayrihi.

– عن جعفر عن أبيه أنه سمع من عبدالله بن جعفر قال : ولينا أبوبكر الصديق ، فما ولينا أحد من الناس مثله . [ صحيح ]
Ja’afar from his father that he heard from Abdullah bin Ja’afar that he said: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq became our ruler and no one ruled us like he did. (Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad, by al-Darqutni)
Grading: Sahih.

Similarly, we read in Sharh Nahjul balagha by Ibn Abil hadeed al ghali shi’l
عن كثير النوال قال : قلت لابي جعفر محمد بن على عليه السلام : جعلني الله فداك ! أرأيت أبا بكر وعمر ، هل ظلماكم من حقكم شيئا – أو قال : ذهبا من حقكم بشئ ؟ فقال : لا ، والذى أنزل القرآن على عبده ليكون للعالمين نذيرا ، ما ظلمنا من حقنا مثقال حبه من خردل ، قلت : جعلت فداك أفأتولاهما ؟ قال : نعم ويحك ! تولهما في الدنيا والاخرة ، وما أصابك ففى عنقي ، ثم قال : فعل الله بالمغيرة وبنان ، فإنهما كذبا علينا أهل البيت
It has been narrated from katheer un nawwal that he said : I said to Abu Jafar : May Allah give me the honor to be sacrificed for you, did Abu Bakr and Umar oppressed you regarding your rights? or said : Did they spoilt any of your rights? He said: No, by the One who revealed the Holy Quran on his servant, they didn’t oppress us regarding our rights a bit. I said : May I be sacrificed on you, should I keep them close? He said, Yes, keep them close to yourself in this world and the hereafter, and if it creates any trouble for you, then it shall be on my throat. Then he said : May Allah give Mughaira and Banan what they deserve, as they lie on us Ahlel bayt.(Sharh Nahjul balagha, by Ibn Abil hadeed , Vol. 4, p. 113).

 

Argument 2:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr prohibited giving a portion of Khums to the orphans and needy from Banu Hashim

As proof we realy on Tafsir al-Kashaf, Volume 1 page 459:

وروي أن أبا بكر رضي الله عنه منع بني هاشم الخمس

“It has been narrated that Abu Bakr [ra] prohibited giving Banu Hashim Khums”.

Similarly we read in Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 2 page 11:

وروي عن أبي بكر رضي الله تعالى عنه أنه منع بني هاشم الخمس

“It has been narrated that Abu Bakr [ra] prohibited giving Banu Hashim Khums”.

This blanket prohibition on Khums has also been acknowledged by Shaykh of the Salafis Nasiruddin al-Albaani in his ‘Sahih Sunnan Abu Dawoud’ Volume 2 page 576 recorded the following ‘Sahih’ narration:

Jubayr ibn Mut’im narrated that he and Uthman ibn Affan went to the Messenger of Allah to complain about his method of distributing Khums, only between Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul Mutalib. I (Jubayr) said: “O Messenger of Allah, why do you give from the Khums to Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul Mutalib and you give us nothing while we are equal with them in being related to you?” The Messenger of Allah replied “Only the Banu Hashim and Banu AbdulMutalib are equal in relationship with me!”
Jubayr said: He never gave any share of the Khums to Banu Abd Shams and Banu Nawfil as he did to Banu Hashim and Banu AbdulMutalib. Abubakr used to distribute Khums in this manner too, except that he did not give the close relatives of the Messenger of Allah what the Messenger of Allah used to give to them. Umar and Uthman used to give him some of it however.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Here is the chain for this report:

حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ بْنِ مَيْسَرَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَخْبَرَنِي سَعِيدُ بْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَخْبَرَنِي جُبَيْرُ بْنُ مُطْعِمٍ

In Fathul Bari, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, when commenting on the hadith on khums stated:
وَزَادَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ فِي رِوَايَةِ يُونُسَ بِهَذَا الْإِسْنَادِ ” وَكَانَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ يَقْسِمُ الْخُمُسَ نَحْوَ قَسْمِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ يُعْطِي قُرْبَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، وَكَانَ عُمَرُ يُعْطِيهِمْ مِنْهُ وَعُثْمَانُ بَعْدَهُ ” وَهَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةُ بَيْنَ الذُّهْلِيِّ فِي ” جَمْعِ حَدِيثِ الزُّهْرِيِّ ” أَنَّهَا مُدْرَجَةٌ مِنْ كَلَامِ الزُّهْرِيِّ ، وَأَخْرَجَ ذَلِكَ مُفَصَّلًا مِنْ رِوَايَةِ اللَّيْثِ عَنْ يُونُسَ ، وَكَأَنَّ هَذَا هُوَ السِّرُّ فِي حَذْفِ الْبُخَارِيِّ هَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةَ مَعَ ذِكْرِهِ لِرِوَايَةِ يُونُسَ . وَرَوَى مُسْلِمٌ وَأَبُو دَاوُدَ وَالنَّسَائِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُمْ مِنْ طَرِيقِ اِبْنِ شِهَابٍ عَنْ يَزِيدَ عَنْ هُرْمُزٍ عَنْ اِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فِي سَهْمِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى قَالَ ” هُوَ لِقُرْبَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَسَمَهُ لَهُمْ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَقَدْ كَانَ عُمَرُ عَرَضَ عَلَيْنَا مِنْ ذَلِكَ شَيْئًا رَأَيْنَاهُ دُونَ حَقِّنَا ، فَرَدَدْنَاهُ ” وَلِلنَّسَائِيِّ مِنْ وَجْهٍ آخَرَ ” وَقَدْ كَانَ عُمَرُ دَعَانَا أَنْ يَنْكِحَ أَيِّمَنَا وَيَخْدُمَ عَائِلَنَا وَيَقْضِيَ عَنْ غَارِمِنَا فَأَبَيْنَا إِلَّا أَنْ يُسَلِّمَهُ لَنَا ، قَالَ فَتَرَكْنَاهُ ”
Abu Dawud added to the narration of Yunus in this chain: “And Abu Bakr used to divide the Khums as Rasul-Allah(saw) did but without giving the near relatives of Rasul-Allah (saw) from it. And `Umar used to give them and `Uthman after him.” Al-Dhuhli proved that this addition in “Jami` Hadith al-Zuhri” that is is Mudraj from the words of al-Zuhri, and he clarified this in detail through the narration of al-Layth from Yunus. It is as if this is the secret behind al-Bukhari’s deletion of this addition in Yunus’s narration. As for Muslim and abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i and others, from the way of ibn Shihab al-Zuhri from Yazid ibn Hurmuz from ibn `Abbas regarding the share of the near-relatives, he said: “It is for the relatives of Rasul-Allah (saw) he divided it for them, `Umar had presented to us an offer other than what we thought was ours so we rejected it.” and al-Nasa’i through a different way: “`Umar had told us that he would marry our bachelors and bestow upon our families servants and pay our debts, but we refused, we wanted him to hand it to us.”(Fath al-bari)

Thus the addition that, Abu Bakr did not give the khums to near relatives of Prophet(saw) is the idraj(interpolation) made by Zuhri, and this part is not reliable, that is why Imam Bukhari didn’t include this addition in his book, as he considered it unreliable.

Allama Shibli Numani states:

As far as what is proven from authentic reports, Umar(ra) continued the right of Bani Hashim and Bani Mutallib…Even other reports are similar to this, except one report from Kalbi, that Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) stopped the right of “near of kin”. Kalbi is extremely weak, that is why his reports cannot be relied. (Al-Farooq, by Shibli Numani part 2, page 360)

Contrary to the above idraaj(interpolation) of Zuhri, which is unreliable, we find the opposite, as stated authentically in Mustadrak al-Hakim from two chains:

حدثنا الشيخ أبو بكر بن إسحاق أنبأ يعقوب بن يوسف القزويني ثنا محمد بن سعيد بن سابق ثنا أبو جعفر الرازي عن مطرف عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى قال : سمعت عليا رضي الله عنه يقول : ولاني رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم خمس الخمس فوضعته مواضعه حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و أبي بكر و عمر رضي الله عنهما

[`Abdul-Rahman bin abi Layla said: I heard `Ali(ra) say: “The Prophet(saw) charged me with spending the Khums of the Khums, so I spend it the same way it was spent during the days of the messenger(saw) and Abu Bakr(ra) and `Umar(ra)”]

اجتمعت أنا والعباس وفاطمة وزيد بن حارثة عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسأل العباس رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله ! كبر سني ، ورق عظمي ، وركبتني مؤنة فإن رأيت أن تأمرني بكذا وكذا وسقا من طعام فافعل ، قال : ففعل ذلك ، ثم قالت فاطمة رضي الله عنها : يا رسول الله ! أنا منك بالمنزل الذي قد علمت ، فإن رأيت أن تأمر لي كما أمرت لعمك فافعل ، قال : ففعل ذلك ، ثم قال زيد بن حارثة : يا رسول الله ! كنت أعطيتني أرضا أعيش فيها ثم قبضتها مني ، فإن رأيت أن تردها علي فافعل ، قال : ففعل ذلك ، قلت : أنا يا رسول الله ! إن رأيت أن توليني حقنا من الخمس في كتاب الله فأقسمه حياتك كي لا ينازعنيه أحد بعدك فافعل ، قال : ففعل ذاك ، ثم إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم التفت إلى العباس فقال : يا أبا الفضل ! ألا تسألني الذي سأله ابن أخيك ، فقال : يا رسول الله ! انتهت مسألتي إلى الذي سألتك ، قال : فولانيه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقسمته حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم ولانيه أبو بكر رضي الله عنه فقسمته حياة أبي بكر رضي الله عنه ، ثم ولانيه عمر رضي الله عنه فقسمته حياة عمر رضي الله عنه حتى كان آخر سنة من سني عمر رضي الله عنه أتاه مال كثير فعزل حقنا ثم أرسل إلي فقال : هذا مالكم فخذه فاقسمه حيث كنت تقسمه ، فقلت : يا أمير المؤمنين ! بنا عنه العام غنى وبالمسلمين إليه حاجة فرده عليهم تلك السنة
‘Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) narrates: al-‘Abbas, Fatima, Zaid and myself have all gathered in the prophet’s(saw) house, al-‘Abbas asked the Prophet(saw): “O Prophet of Allah, I have become a man of old age and my bones and health have become weak, so if you can provide me with such and such and some food then do so.” He(saw) said: “I will.” then Fatima(ra) said: “O Prophet of Allah, you know of my relation to you, so if you see that you can provide me with the same things you provided your uncle then do so.” and he did what she said, then Zaid ibn Harithah asked: “O Prophet of Allah, in the past you had given me a piece of land where I could live and then you took it away from me, so if you see that you can return it then do so.” and he did, I (‘Ali) said: “Me O prophet of Allah, if you see fit to make me in charge of our right from the Khums which is in the book of Allah so that I may divide it in your life and no one would dispute it with me after you.” so he did, Then he(saw) turned towards al-‘Abbas and said: “O abu al-Fadl, will you not ask of me the same thing as your nephew?” and he replied: “No O prophet of Allah, my need is only what I have asked.” So the Prophet(saw) made me in charge of it and I divided it during his life and then Abu Bakr(ra) made me in charge of it during his days and I divided it during his life and after him ‘Umar(ra) made me in charge of it and I divided it, then in the last year of his rule he obtained a great amount of wealth and he saved us our share and sent after me and told me: “This is your money so take it and divide it the way you used to.” so I (‘Ali) replied to him and said: “O chief of believers! we do not need such an amount this year and the Muslims are in need of this money so offer it to them for this year.”(Musnad Ahmad, Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah, Sunan al-Beihaqi.
Grading: Hasan).

 

Argument 3:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Umar also prohibited giving Banu Hashim any Khums

As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. Sunan Abu Dawood, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah) Book 19, Number 2976:
  2. Sahih Muslim Bab Ghazwa thal Nisa ma al Rijjal Volume 2 page 104

We read in Sunan Abu Dawood:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
Yazid ibn Hurmuz said that when Najdah al-Haruri performed hajj during the rule of Ibn az-Zubayr, he sent someone to Ibn Abbas to ask him about the portion of the relatives (in the fifth). He asked: For whom do you think? Ibn Abbas replied: For the relatives of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) divided it among them. Umar presented it to us but we found it less than our right. We, therefore returned it to him and refused to accept it.

The comments of Allamah Shibli Numani are indeed worthy of note in this regard. He states in his classical work ‘al Farooq’ Volume 2 page 277:

“It is said of Omar that he did not at all hold the relatives of the Holy Prophet to be entitled to any share in the Fifth and never gave any member of the Prophet’s family any share in it. Of the founders of the schools of law, Imam Abu Hanifa too, did not believe that the near of kin had any right to the Fifth”.

After this, Numani fails in his passionate defence of his role model’s actions, although here is not the place to refute each and every point, what we are seeking to prove is that Umar blatantly changed the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) in this regards, for we have the admission of Numani in ‘al Farooq’ Volume 2 page 279:

“1. From among the near of kin, the Holy Prophet used to give shares only to the Hashemite and the Muttlabalites. Ta Bani Naufal and Bani ‘Abd Shams, though they were included in the ‘near of kin’ he never gave anything, though they demanded it”

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is a lie from Shiapen, Firstly, the hadeeth they quoted from Sunan Abu Dawood, itself exposes their argument that Umar(ra) prohibited giving Bani Hashim any Khums, since the hadeeth says, “Umar presented it to us…”, So if Umar(ra) had prohibited any Khums to Bani Hashim, then why did he present it to them? This shows that asusual Shiapen made a false accusation.

Secondly, Shiapen have misquoted Allamah Shibli Numani from his book ‘Al-Farooq’, because when we read the complete context, we will come to know that Shibli Numani refutes the views of those people(esp Shias), who claim that Umar(ra) prohibited giving any Khums to near relatives of Prophet(saw). Hence we would like to quote the complete context, what Shibli Numani says, inorder to expose the deception of Shiapen.

Allamah Shibli Numani wrote:

There is a verse in Quran:

And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer.(Quran 8: 41)

It is proven from the above verse [8:41] that relatives of Rasool Allah(saw) also have a share in the Khums. Ibn Abbas was of the same opinion. And although Hadhrat Ali didn’t give share to Banu Hashim(in the period of his khilafat), but he too held the opinion that Banu Hashim had right upon it (Kitabul-Khiraj by Qazi Abu Yousuf, page 11, on the authority of Muhammad bin Ishaq).

These were not only the opinions of Ibn Abbas and Hadhrat Ali, but there was a consensus of Ahle-Bayt on this. Among the Aima Mujhtahideen (the 4 Sunni imams), Imam Shafii was also of this opinion, and he has written this in his books with great stress.

Regarding Hadhrat Umar(ra) people have said, that he(ra) didn’t consider that relatives of Prophet(saw) also had some share in the Khums, that is why he never gave any share to Ahlul-Bayt from the Khums. Among the Aima Mujhtahideen, Imam Abu Hanifa also didn’t hold the opinion that, there is a share of relatives of Rasool Allah(saw) from the Khums. His opinion was that; as the share of Rasool Allah(saw) ended up after the death of Rasool Allah(saw), in the same way the share of his relatives also ended.”

Now we should thoroughly check, what ruling is derived from Quran and what was the practise of Prophet(saw). From the verse of Quran, what is only proven is that, altogether five groups have a right over Khums. But it is not proven from it that, its compulsory to distribute each group separately. In Quran where it’s mentioned regarding Zakat, there too similar style was used. We read:

Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.(9:60)

In this verse, eight groups have been declared to have a right over Zakat. Poor, Needy, those employed to administer the funds, those whose hearts have been recently reconciled to Truth, those in bondage, those in debt, Mujahideen and travellers; whichever of these groups is given Zakat, then the duty of giving Zakat will be fulfilled. It is not mandatory that Zakat needs to be distributed in eight groups. Even when eight groups are present, then it will be verified that which group is more in need of Zakat, which of them is in dire need and which one of them is in no need. Only Imam Shafa’i has argued that eight equal shares should be made, and all eight groups should be distributed those shares, whether they are in need or not; Similarly regarding Khums what Allah(swt) has said; what we understood is that Khums shouldn’t be given to those who were not mentioned in the verse, but it doesn’t mean that unnecessarily five equal shares should be made, and all five groups should be distributed equally.

Now let’s see what was the method of Prophet(saw)? What is proven from the ahadeeth and reports is that:

  1. From among the near of kin, the Holy Prophet used to give shares only to the Bani Hashim and the Bani Mutallib. However to Bani Naufal and Bani ‘Abd Shams, though they were included in the ‘near of kin’ he never gave them anything, even though they had demanded it”. Thus, Allama Ibn Qayyim has copied this incident in detail from books of Hadeeth in Zaal al-Ma’ad. (Zaal al-Ma’ad, vol2, page 161).
  2. The share He(saw) used to give Bani Hashim and Bani Mutallib, He didn’t used to give equal to all. Ibn Qayyim wrote in Zaad al-Ma’ad:

But He didn’t used to distribute equal between rich and poor. Neither did he used to distribute as per the rule of inheritance. But, as per requirement and need he used to give them. That means, He used to help in marrying, he used to pay the debt of those in debt, and used to give the poor according to their needs.(Zaad al-Ma’ad vol 3, page 162).

From these events, firstly it is proven that in the words “near of kin” there is no generalization, otherwise Prophet(saw) would have given share to Bani Naufal and Bani ‘Abd Shams, because even they were from ‘near of kin’ for Prophet(saw). Secondly, that all members from Bani Hashim and Bani Abdal Mutallib were not given equal share.

As far as what is proven from authentic reports, Hazrat Umar(ra) continued the right of Bani Hashim and Bani Mutallib. But He differed with them on two things; His view was that, it’s the right of Khalipha, to distribute more or less as per requirement and need. Contrary to this Abdullah bin Abbas and others held the claim that, complete fifth share was the right of “near of kin”, and no one had the right for any type of appropriation in it. Qazi Abu Yusuf in Kitab Al Khiraj, Nisai in his Sahih have copied the saying of Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

Umar bin Khattab offered to take money from Khums for the marriages of our widows and to pay the debt of debtors among us. But we didn’t agree except to give whole share in our hands, but Umar didn’t agree with it.(Kitab Al-Khiraj,page 11).

Even other reports are similar to this, except one report from Kalbi, that Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) stopped the right of “near of kin”. Kalbi is extremely weak, that is why his reports cannot be relied.

In the light of Quran and way and practise of Prophet(saw), it is clearly proven that whatever Umar(ra) did, was in accordance to Quran and Hadeeth. Imam Shafe’i and others cannot provide a proof that Prophet(saw) used to always give complete fifth share, this understanding and view cannot be proven from Quran. Now, regarding the right over Khums of “near of kin” which wasn’t a fixed(portion), then Umar(ra) never denied it.

–End–

(Al-Farooq, part 2, page 357; 358 ; 359 ; 360).

So we, found that Shiapen has misquoted Shibli Nomani, whereas infact he was refuting the Shia argument. And Umar(ra) did give Ahlelbayt Khums, unlike the false Shia claim that Umar(ra) prohibited giving any Khums to Ahlelbayt.

 

Argument 4:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The assault on the home of Sayyida Fatima (as)

Are there any authentic Sunni references that highlight Umar’s actions at the home of Sayyida Fatima (as)?

The answer is there are. We read in Musnaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shebah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition 37045:

“Narrated Muhammad bin Bashir from Ubaidllah bin Umar from Zaid bin Aslam that his father Aslam said: ‘When the homage (baya) went to Abu Bakr after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Zubair were entering into the house of Fatima to consult her and revise their issue, so when Umar came to know about that, he went to Fatima and said : ‘Oh daughter of Messenger of Allah, no one is dearest to us more than your father and no one dearest to us after your father than you, I swear by Allah, if these people gathered in your house then nothing will prevent me from giving order to burn the house and those who are inside.’

So when Umar left, they (Ali and Zubair) came , so she (Fatima) said to them: ‘Do you know that Umar came here and swear by Allah to burn the house if you gather here, I swear by God that he (Umar) will execute his oath, so please leave wisely and take a decision and don’t gather here again.’ So they left her and didn’t gather there till they give baya to Abu Bakr.”

[End Quote]

Answer:

Before we begin the response, we recommend the Sunnis, to whom Shias post this report to, ask those Shias, whether they accept this hadeeth or not? If they do then it means that incident of door didn’t occur and all those stories made by Shias are baseless and fabricated, and  if they say they don’t believe in this report, then make them realize that by asking Sunnis to believe in this hadeeth do they want us to believe that incident of door is a myth? Because if we believe in this hadeeth, then the outcome is that, the fictitious stories of burning door of sayyida Fatima(ra) are fabricated, since nothing as such occurred as per this report.

Firstly Shiapen have made an improper translation due to their evil motives, here is a proper translation, along with Arabic text:

محمد بنبشر نا عبيد الله بن عمر حدثنا زيد بن أسلم عن أبيه أسلم أنه حين بويع لأبي بكربعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم كان علي والزبير يدخلان على فاطمة بنت رسولالله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فيشاورونها ويرتجعون في أمرهم فلما بلغ ذلك عمر بنالخطاب خرج حتى دخل على فاطمة فقال يا بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلموالله ما من أحد أحب إلينا من أبيك وما من أحد أحب إلينا بعد أبيك منك وأيم اللهما ذاك بمانعي إن اجتمع هؤلاء النفر عندك إن أمرتهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت قال فلماخرج عمر جاؤوها فقالت تعلمون أن عمر قد جاءني وقد حلف بالله لئن عدتم ليحرقن عليكمالبيت وأيم الله ليمضين لما حلف عليه فانصرفوا راشدين فروا رأيكم ولا ترجعوا إليفانصرفوا عنها فلم يرجعوا إليها حتى بايعوا لأبي بكر

Zaid bin Aslam from his father that When Abu Bakr received the pledges of allegiance after Rasool-Allah(saw), ‘Ali and al-Zubair used to enter on Fatima and they would consult her and discuss the matter between themselves, when it reached ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab he went to Fatima and spoke to her, he said: “O daughter of the Prophet of God, by Allah we loved no one more than we loved your Father and after him we love no one more than you. Yet I swear by God that it won’t stop me from gathering these people and commanding them to burn the house down on them.” So when ‘Umar left they – Ali and Zubair – came so she told them: “Do you know that ‘Umar came to me and swore by Allah that if you returned he would burn the house on you? By Allah he would fulfill what he promised so be men of wisdom and leave and never come back (until you give Baya’ah).” So they never returned until they gave Abu Bakr the Baya’ah.

The main narrator(Aslam) didn’t witness the event:

Firstly, Ibn Ishaaq narrated this from Nafi’ who heard it from Ibn Omar that Omar bought Aslam after the death of the Prophet(saw) during the hajj. See Ma’rifat Al-Sahaba by Abu Nu’aim 1/255.

Hence, Aslam ibn Zayd was not a sahabi but a Tabi’i bought by Umar in year 11 AH when he came back from the Hajj. Also, see tahzib of ibn hajar : قال بن إسحاق بعث أبو بكر عمر سنة 11 فأقام للناس الحج وابتاع فيها أسلم مولاه

So we came to know that Aslam, mawla(servant) of Umar was not present during this so-called event. He came to madina during year 11 AH, most likely in Dhu al-hijjah which is the last month of Islamic calender. And Prophet(saw) died in year 11 AH during rabi’ al awwal which is third month in Islamic calendar. So Aslam was not present during the death of Prophet (saws) or bay’ah of Abu Bakr because he came only after Hajj of year 11 AH, that is, atleast nine months after the death of Prophet(saw), as Fatima(ra) died six months after the death of Prophet(saw).

Thus the main narrator Aslam, didn’t witness this event. He was not present at this so-called event because Umar(ra) bought him during Hajj 11H so he can’t narrate this so-called event from himself, Hence there is an irsal between him and this so-called event.

Now one may argue, that Aslam was one of the best people that narrated the seerah of Omar, due to his knowledge of Omar, but this would apply to incidents he witnessed, moreover due to the matn(text) being munkar(denounced), the above mentioned defects are considered sufficient to disregard the whole narration. What is munkar is the claim that Ali conspired against Abu Bakr and after a single threat he gave the bayah, needless to say, this is not the brave character of Ali we believe in.

Ahle Sunnah prefers to stick to what is established and more authentic and leave such a doubtful narration while on the other hand, the Rafidah love to do the opposite: To forget about all the authentic narrations that praise the Sahabah and to stick to any dubious story that possibly shows the best generation ever raised for mankind in supposedly wrong manner.

Points to note in this dubious report if supposed to be authentic for argument’s sake:

(i). Umar(ra) was very respectful with Fatima(ra) and He also mentioned to her that, she was most beloved to the people and him after her father. Umar said: {“O daughter of the Prophet of God, by Allah we loved no one more than we loved your Father and after him we love no one more than you”}.

(ii). Umar(ra) did not threaten Fatima(ra), but warned her about those gathering in her house.

(iii). Umar(ra) clearly excluded Fatima(ra) from the warning he made:

ما ذاك بمانعي إن إجتمع هؤلاء النفر عندك ، أن أمرتهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت

Umar(ra) said: it won’t stop me from gathering these people and commanding them to burn the house down on them.

(iv). Fatima(ra) understood from the words of Umar(ra), THAT SHE WAS EXCLUDED from the warning of Umar(ra) :

ليحرقن عليكمالبيت

Fatima(ra) said: he would burn the house on you both(dual pronoun).

This important sentence, actually shatters the topic under which Shiapen brought this report, because, Fatima(ra) is excluding herself from the alleged injustice perpetrated against her.

(v). Fatima (ra) was never harmed. Neither the house of Fatima(ra) was burned nor the ribs of Fatima(ra) were broken, as the fictitious stories of Rafidah state.

(vi). When Umar(ra) left Fatima’s(ra) house, both Fatima(ra) and her home were sound and intact. No harm was afflicted on either of them. Later when Ali(ra) arrived Fatima(ra) did not complain of Umar(ra) behaving in a disrespectful manner, because actually he was very respectful towards her, which is apparent from the report.

(vii). Ali(ra) and Zubair(ra) gave Abu Bakr (ra) bay`ah without any coercion.

Explanation for the text(Matn) of the dubious report quoted by Shiapen :

If Shiapen believes in this narration, then they have successfully destroyed the myth of the house burning and confirmed Ali’s direct Bay’ah to Abu Bakr.

If not, the whole narration becomes useless – for neither the Sunnis nor the Shia seem to believe in it, and as for Rafidah quoting it makes no sense whatsoever for the text goes against what they believe, like they believe, Umar(ra) burned the house of Fatimah(ra), She suffered a miscarriage, and similar typical fairy-tales. Shiapen wants to establish a Hujja(proof) on us from our books since we don’t believe in their books as they are filled with lies, yet how can this report be a Hujja on us if it is refuting the myth of burning-house-of-fatima-slapping-her etc?. By its very content, even if supposedly a Sunni would believe in this narration then this would still be contradicting the lies and exaggeration of the Rafidah.

If for sake of argument we consider it authentic, then it could be said that, Umar(ra) had to give that warning, due to the teachings of Prophet(saw), where we find that:

عَرْفَجَةَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ “‏ مَنْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ

Arfaja said: I heard the Messenger of Allah(saw) say: When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity.(Sahi Muslim , Book 20, Hadith 4567).

Secondly, if Shiapen argues that Umar(ra) wanted to burn the house of Fatima(ra) which is bad and evil, then we remind them of what Prophet(saw) said; we read that Allah’s Messenger(saw) said, “Allah says, “If My slave intends to do a bad deed then (O Angels) do not write it unless he does it; if he does it, then write it as it is, but if he refrains from doing it for My Sake, then write it as a good deed (in his account). (Sahih al-Bukhari #7501; similar report in Sahih al-Bukhari #6491). And as per the dubious report Umar(ra) didn’t commit that bad deed.

And what Umar(ra) (supposedly) said, was no different than what Ali(ra) said, when he was made the Caliph. Ali(ra) wrote in his letter to Muawiya(ra) stating:

إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى

Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their Imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).

The accusations that have been levelled against Umar(ra) by Rafidah, that he broke down the door of Ali(ra)’s house and approached Ali(ra) and Fatima(ra) in a disrespectful manner and due to this Fatima(ra) suffered a miscarriage is totally false and a shameless fabrication. In reality those who levelled this accusation are disgracing Ali(ra) and Fatima(ra) and also making a mockery of Islam. Was Ali(ra) so cowardly that he could not defend his house nor avenge his wife?! When Ali(ra) became Khalifah why did he not take revenge nor claim the blood money from the family of Umar(ra) for the child that he had lost?! The ones who narrate these types of narrations are infact the enemies of Islam. They portray the Sahabah(ra) in front of the non-muslims in such a fallacious manner that they were thirsty for governance, they had no legal system, the strong used to suppress the weak, to speak the truth was a crime, the oppressors were not punished, lies were spoken in order to please rulers, just as the hypocrites, Sahaba too had hatred in their hearts for their rulers. Can any believer accept such nonsense? Could the senior Sahabah behave in such a manner? Were such Sahabah not capable of demolishing great empires such as that of Qaisar and Kisra with scanty ammunitions and means? Will Allah(swt) assist such oppressors?.

 

Argument 5:

[Quote]

Another Shiawebsite RTS have countered with some arguments. One of those is a quote from Al-Isaba by Ibn Hajar:

Aslam slave of Umar, narrated ibn Munda through Abdul Mun’em ibn Bashir from Abdul Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam from his father from his grandfather that he travelled with the Messenger of Allah (saw) in two journeys. And it is famous that Umar bought Aslam after the death of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Such is narrated by ibn Ishaq and others, we will mention him again in the third part, if God wants.

Source: Al-Isaba. Vol. 1, Pg. # 130.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is not evidence, since even Ibn Hajar, who is quoting this, doubts the merits of this story. He says, “We will mention him again in the third chapter.” Ibn Hajar says in the opening of his book 1/6, “The third chapter is for those that have been mentioned in the previous books that have seen both the days of Jahiliyah and Islam, and that were not found in narrations that they have met the Prophet(saw) or seen him.” This suggests that Ibn Hajar strongly opposes the narration above, for he would have not mentioned him in this chapter if he saw it as authentic. The reason being is that this narration is by Abd Al-Mun’im bin Basheer, who was caught by Yahya bin Ma’een for fabricating narrations. See his biography in Rijal books like Mizan Al-I’itidal or Lisan Al-Mizan.

 

Argument 6:

Another argument provided by Shiawebsite RTS is the following:

[Quote]

Ibn Ishaq sought to testify that Umar bought Aslam during the Hajj campaign which took place in 11 A.H. However, the birth of ibn Ishaq was around 80 A.H and hence there was approximately a 70 year gap between both these personalities between when Aslam was bought and ibn Ishaq’s birth. So the question is, how did he become a witness to this? How does he constitute those years without being present? And what is his evidence to compensate for them 70 years? It is strange how the opponents find the Mursal hadeeth of Zayd ibn Aslam unacceptable when they have no problem in accepting statements made from ibn Ishaq when we see a massive gap between the lives of Aslam and ibn Ishaq. Do we not see double standards at play here?

[End Quote]

Answer:

There are no double standards since the narration is connected. Ibn Ishaaq narrated this from Nafi’ who heard it from Ibn Omar that Omar bought Aslam after the death of the Prophet(saw) during the hajj. See Ma’rifat Al-Sahaba by Abu Nu’aim 1/255.

 

Argument 7:

RTS Argued:

[Quote]

Now in the following narration we have Aslam narrating a hadeeth on the authority of the Prophet (saw), which clearly proves two things, either he was a companion of the Prophet (saw) or his Mursal (hurried) narrations as per the standards of both classical and modern scholars are deemed authentic.

Narrated Isma’eel from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father (Aslam) who said: “While the Messenger of Allah (saw) was proceeding at night during one of his journey’s and Umar bin Al-Khattab was travelling beside him. Umar asked him about something but Allah’s Apostle (saw) did not reply. He asked again, but he did not reply, and then he asked (for the third time) but he did not reply. On that, Umar bin Al-Khattab said to himself, “May ‘Umar’s mother lose her son!” I asked Allah’s Apostle (saw) three times but he did not reply.” Umar then said, “I made my camel run faster and went ahead of the people, and I was afraid that some Qur’anic Verses might be revealed about me. But before getting involved in any other matter. I heard somebody calling me. I said to myself, ‘I fear that some Qur’anic Verses have been revealed about me,’ and so I went to Allah’s Apostle (saw) and greeted him. He (Allah’s Apostle (saw) said, ‘Tonight a Surah has been revealed to me, and it is dearer to me than that on which the sun rises (i.e. the world).’ Then he recited: “Verily, We have given you a manifest victory (48.1).”

Source: Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Pg. # 1280, H. # 5012.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Imam Ibn Hajar comments on this hadeeth of Bukhari, stating:
قَوْله : ( عَنْ زَيْد بْن أَسْلَمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَسِيرُ فِي بَعْضِ أَسْفَارِهِ وَكَانَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ يَسِير مَعَهُ لَيْلًا ، فَسَأَلَهُ عُمَر عَنْ شَيْءٍ الْحَدِيث )
هَذَا صُورَته مُرْسَل ، وَلَكِنَّ بَقِيَّتَهُ تَدُلُّ عَلَى أَنَّهُ عَنْ عُمَرَ ، لِقَوْلِهِ فِي أَثْنَائِهِ ” قَالَ عُمَر : فَحَرَّكْت بَعِيرِي إِلَخْ ” وَقَدْ أَشْبَعْت الْقَوْلَ فِيهِ فِي الْمُقَدِّمَةِ ، وَقَدْ أَوْرَدَهُ الْإِسْمَاعِيلِيُّ مِنْ طَرِيقِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ بْن عَثْمَةَ عَنْ مَلَكٍ عَنْ زَيْد بْن أَسْلَمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ : ” سَمِعْت عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ ” فَذَكَرَهُ
Him saying: From Zaid bin Aslam from his father that the Messenger of Allah(saw) would walk during some of his travels, and Umar would would with him at night, so Umar asked him… the hadith.
Like this, it is disconnected, but there is proof that it is from Umar. He says in the middle of it: Umar said: I moved my camel, etc… And I discussed this in detail in the introduction.
Al-Isma’eeli also mentioned this from the path of Mohammad bin Khalid bin Athma from Malik from Zaid bin Aslam from his father(Aslam) that he said: I heard Umar. (Source: Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar Asqalani).

Ibn Hajar(rah) basically says that, it appears to be Mursal, but it appears that Aslam got this hadeeth from Umar(ra), and then he quotes Al-Isma’eeli, who had a Mustakhraj of Sahih Al-Bukhari, and in his book its the exact same chain, but it says Aslam heard it from Umar(ra).

Therefore, this report cannot be used as evidence by RTS to claim that Mursal reports of Aslam are authentic or that Aslam was a companion.

 

Argument 8:

A Shia used the following hadeeth to argue that Aslam saw Prophet(saw).

[Quote]

Narrated Aslam: Ibn `Umar asked me about some matters concerning `Umar. He said, “Since Allah’s Messenger(saw) died. I have never seen anybody more serious, hard working and generous than `Umar bin Al-Khattab (till the end of his life).” [Sahih al-Bukhari 3687]

[End Quote]

Answer:

The Shia who raised this argument is very poor in English Grammar. Because, Aslam is narrating the words of Ibn Umar(ra), which is apparent from the third person masculine singular pronoun{He said, “Since Allah’s Messenger(saw) died, I have never seen…}.

 

Argument 9:

RTS also stated:

[Quote]

Narrated Aboo Dawood Sulayman ibn Mo’bad from Abdul Razzaq from Mo’ammar from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father (Aslam the slave of Umar) who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said…” and he narrated like the other Hadeeth and did not mention in it from Umar.
Al-Albani: Saheeh (Authentic).
Source: Saheeh Sunan Al- Tirmidhi. Vol. 2, Pg. # 23, H. # 1319.

[End Quote]

Answer:

In Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Imam Al-Tirmidhi quotes an authentic narration with Aslam narrating from Umar(ra) from Prophet(saw). This is Tirmithi’s hadith in Arabic:
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ مُوسَى حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ قَالَ
قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كُلُوا الزَّيْتَ وَادَّهِنُوا بِهِ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ شَجَرَةٍ مُبَارَكَةٍ
قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ لَا نَعْرِفُهُ إِلَّا مِنْ حَدِيثِ عَبْدِ الرَّزَّاقِ عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ وَكَانَ عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ يَضْطَرِبُ فِي رِوَايَةِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ فَرُبَّمَا ذَكَرَ فِيهِ عَنْ عُمَرَ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَرُبَّمَا رَوَاهُ عَلَى الشَّكِّ فَقَالَ أَحْسَبُهُ عَنْ عُمَرَ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَرُبَّمَا قَالَ عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مُرْسَلًا حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ مَعْبَدٍ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ عَنْ مَعَمَرٍ عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَحْوَهُ وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ فِيهِ عَنْ عُمَرَ

He then says: “Abd Al-Razzaq makes mistakes in this narration”. He then quotes Abd Al-Razzaq’s other chain in which he drops the name of Umar(ra) and has it with Aslam from the Prophet(saw) only.

Al-Albani leaned towards the chain with the inclusion of Umar(ra), as the correct version, which is why he graded the report.

Therefore, even this argument of RTS falls flat and cannot be used as evidence to claim that Aslam directly heard from Prophet(saw). Moreover, even scholars of Jarh wa Tadeel, didn’t mention Aslam narrating from Prophet(saw) directly. We read:

Al-Razi:

Aslam slave of Umar ibn Al-Khattab Aboo Khalid Madini was among the captives of Yemen, he has heard Abu Bakr, Umar and from him narrated his son Zayd and Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad and Muslim ibn Jondab. I heard my father who said that he asked Aboo Zar’a about Aslam slave of Umar, he replied: “He was Madani and Trustworthy.” [Source: Jarh Wa Ta’deel. Vol. 2, Pg. # 306].

We see that scholars didn’t say that Aslam narrated from Prophet(saw), this destroys the conjecture of RTS.

Argument 10:

[Quote]

The third argument provided by Shiawebsite RTS is another that suggests the acceptability of mursal (disconnected) narrations. They argue:

As we have already discussed Aslam the slave of Umar, we will now analyse his son, Zayd ibn Aslam in regards to his Mursal (hurried) narrations. In the following hadeeth, Zayd bin Aslam has narrated a hadeeth which is mursal (broken) on the authority of the Prophet (saw) despite the fact he was not even born during the Prophet (saw) life, yet is still authenticated as Saheeh!

Narrated Qutayba from Abdullah ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, from his father Zayd ibn Aslam who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If someone slept and did not perform the prayer of Witr, he/she should do it when they wake up.”

Al-Albani: Saheeh (Authentic).

Al-Tirmidhi: This narration is more Authentic than the first one!

Source: Saheeh Sunan Al-Tirmidhi. Vol. 1, Pg. # 264, H. # 466.

[End Quote]

Answer:

RTS, who has very little experience with hadith sciences, is not aware of the meaning of the words of Al-Tirmithi. What Al-Tirmithi is trying to say is that “this narration is more correct” and he is not saying that its “authentic”. He said that a hadith of Abd Al-Rahman bin Zaid bin Aslam from his father from Ata’a from Abi Sa’eed is weaker than the narration of Abdullah bin Aslam from his father. He is implying that the narration should not be connected to Abu Sa’eed in the first place. Such matters are clear to those that are versed with hadith sciences and the science of `ilal(hidden defect).

More importantly, even if we accept this narration as authentic, we would have to accept that the house was not burned or the ribs of Fatima were broken, for the narration does not include that, but rather, includes that they all pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr in the end. RTS continue by quoting narrations that prohibit frightening Muslims. However, it does not equate to burning down the house of Fatima, nor do we believe that RTS are satisfied with only this argument.

 

Argument 11:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

It is worth noting the observation made in Qeraa fi kutub al-Aqaed, by Farhan Hassan al-Maliki, page 52

”However Ali’s party was smaller (in number) during the reign of Umar than the reign of Abu Bakr al-Sidiq due to his abandoning Ali on account of his breaking into Fatima’s home during Abu Bakr’s reign, and forcing some sahaba that were with Ali to give bayya to Abu Bakr, thus the memory of this dispute – that is proven via authentic chains – was deemed a painful memory which they did not like to recollect”

[End Quote]

Answer:

This Farhan Hassan al-Maliki, is a Munafiq(hypocrite) and most probably an undercover western agent. This claim is not out of thin-air but we have sound proofs to back this claim.

For example: This rafidi stooge Hasan Farhan al-Maliki made a call to deviant channel of Qadianis to congratulate them for setting up their channel, which aims to misguide people. {Click Here}. Indeed, even a common rafidi would not do that.

Moreover, though Farhan Hassan, has not openly declared being a Rafidi, yet his actions speak louder than any declaration, since the Rafidah are well known for hiding their belief using the tool of taqiyyah. Farhan Hassan al-Maliki openly criticizes companions of Prophet(saw), praises Khomeini, and And nowadays he is seen with his shia beloveds.

This man’s zandaqa(heresy) is apparent to anyone who is familiar with hadith sciences and then reads his books. He goes so out of his way to promote Shia views, that he would go against the agreed opinion of scholars in order to strengthen or weaken a narrator.

Esteemed Scholars of Ahlesunnah, have already issued their fatawas(verdicts) against al-Hasan ibn Farhan al-Maliki.

Hence the observation or view of undercover Rafidi agent of the west, is worthless in the sight of Ahlesunnah.

 

Argument 12:

Another Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

Allah’s Apostle (saw) said: “It is not lawful for a Muslim that he frightens a Muslim!

Narrated Muhammad ibn Sulayman Al-Anbari from ibn Nomair from Al-A’mash from Abdullah ibn Yasar from Abdur Rahman ibn Aboo Layla: The Companions of the Prophet (saw) told us that they were travelling with the Prophet (saw). A man of them slept, and one of them went to the rope which he had with him. He took it, by which he was frightened. The Prophet (saw) said: “It is not lawful for a Muslim that he frightens a Muslim!”

Al-Albani: Narration is Saheeh (Authentic).

Source: Saheeh Sunan Aboo Dawood. Pg. # 905, H. # 5004.

Umar intimidated the best of ladies of all the worlds, the chief of women of Paradise and the pure beloved daughter of the Messenger of Allah (saw) – He indeed was not a Muslim!

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, Umar(ra) clearly excluded Fatima(ra) from the warning he made:

ما ذاك بمانعي إن إجتمع هؤلاء النفر عندك ، أن أمرتهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت

Umar(ra) said: it won’t stop me from gathering these people and commanding them to burn the house down on them.

Fatima(ra) understood from the words of Umar(ra), THAT SHE WAS EXCLUDED from the warning of Umar(ra) :

ليحرقن عليكمالبيت

Fatima(ra) said: he would burn the house on you both(dual pronoun).

Secondly, if Shiapen argues that Umar(ra) wanted to burn the house of Fatima(ra) which is bad and evil, then we remind them of what Prophet(saw) said; we read that Allah’s Messenger(saw) said, “Allah says, “If My slave intends to do a bad deed then (O Angels) do not write it unless he does it; if he does it, then write it as it is, but if he refrains from doing it for My Sake, then write it as a good deed (in his account). (Sahih al-Bukhari #7501; similar report in Sahih al-Bukhari #6491). And as per the dubious report Umar(ra) didn’t commit that bad deed.

Thirdly, the hadeeth Shiapen used isn’t applicable in situations where it was for a corrective measure, for example, Prophet(saw) used similar words directing towards Muslims who were not attending the prayer in jama’ah.

Usamah bin Zaid said:”The Messenger of Allah(saw) said: ‘Let men desist from failing to attend the congregation(Jama’ah), otherwise I will burn their houses down.'” (Sunan Ibn Majah 795).

Note: Some people misunderstand this hadeeth to mean that Prophet(saw) wanted to punish them because of their hypocrisy, and not for missing the congregation, but this is incorrect because, Prophet(saw) never punished the hypocrites for their hypocrisy; to the contrary, he used to accept from them what they announced, and left what they concealed between them and Allah.

And what Umar(ra) (supposedly) said, was no different than what Ali(ra) said, when he was made the Caliph. Ali(ra) wrote in his letter to Muawiya(ra) stating:

إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى

Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their Imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).

Note: Shias might try arguing back that, Ali(ra) threatening or frightening those who didn’t give him allegiance, was because they became apostate or they were hypocrites, but these misconceptions have been refuted by Ali(ra) himself, as found in both Sunni and Shia ahadeeth; For example: Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:
٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق.
٢٩٨ – قرب الإسناد: بالاسناد قال: إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.
297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.
298 – Furat by his chain: Ali didn’t attribute anyone from those who fought with him to shirk or to hypocrisy, but he use to say: Our brothers which revolt against us.

فلقد كنا مع رسول الله صلى
الله عليه وآله وإن القتل ليدور على الآباء والابناء والاخوان والقرابات ،
فما نزداد على كل مصيبة وشدة إلا إيمانا ، ومضيا على الحق ، وتسليما
للامر ، وصبرا على مضض الجراح . ولكنا إنما أصبحنا نقاتل إخواننا
في الاسلام على ما دخل فيه من الزيغ والاعوجاج والشبهة والتأويل

Ali addressing his companions and his opponents said: We were with prophet(saw) , that time our fathers and sons were killed , our near ones and brothers were killed ,but after every problem and calamity our Eman used to increase. We used to stand firm on truth, We used to obey the commands, at times of difficulties we used to do sabr(patience). But now we are fighting our own muslim brothers.(Nahjul balagha tahqeeq subhi saleh, page 179)

Hence, Umar(ra) is far above the silly attacks of Shias with Kharijite mindset, and whatever ruling the ignorant takfiri rafidah are willing to imply on Umar(ra) would also imply on Ali(ra), thus it invalidates their un-academic attacks.

 

Argument 13:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

Let us begin with Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qutaybah (d. 276 Hijri) who in his famous book al Imama wa al Siyasa pages 18-28 states as follows:

Abu Bakr was after group of people who failed to give bayya and gathered with Ali, he sent Umar in their direction. He (Umar) called them to come out from the house of Ali, but they refused to come out. Thus (Umar) asked (his men) to bring wood, then he said: ‘I swear by He who controls the life of Umar, if you people do not come out of the house I shall set fire to it, and everyone inside shall perish. Some people said: ‘O Abu Hafs (Umar), Fatima is also in this house’. Umar replied, ‘I do not care’ Then the people came out from the house and gave bayya except Ali.
  Al-Imama Walsiyasa Page 12

[End Quote]

Answer:

The books al-Imāma wal-Siyāsa and Tārīkh al-Khulafā’ are spuriously attributed to Ibn Qutayba by the Shias. Al-imamah was Siyasah is a forged book that lacks proper isnad for its reports and is falsely attributed to Ibnu Qutaybah ad Danouri. There are many irrefutable and convincing proofs which clearly show that Sunni scholar Ibn Qutayba could have not authored it. Plus the book has some very gross and laughable historical mistakes which raises this serious question that whether the author of the book is a historian or not. For example the book mentions that Muslims first conquered al-Andalus/Spain during the time of the Abbasids, and it also confuses As-Saffah and his brother Abu Jaffar al Mansur to be the same person, whereas they were two different and separate Abbasid Caliphs such that as-Saffah was the first abbasid caliph, and latter on he was succeeded by his brother abul Jaffar al Mansur.

Al-Imāma wa al-Siyāsa was authored by the extremist Shī`ī author of the forged al-Ma`arif, and not the Sunnī scholar Ibn Qutayba (d. 276) and author of the real al-Ma`arif and other works such as Ta’wīl Mukhtalif al-Ĥadīth.

Al-Sayyid Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ālūsī (d. 1270) while refuting some fabrications said:

هو من مفتريات ابن قتيبة وابن أعثم الكوفي والسمساطي وكانوا مشهورين بالكذب والافتراء

It is from among the fabrications of Ibn Qutayba, Ibn A`tham al-Kūfī and al-Simsāţī, who were famous for lying and slandering.( Rūĥ al-Ma`ānī fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, volume 22, page 11)

Thus it’s clear that the Ibn Qutayba mentioned by al-Ālūsī in the quote above is the extremist Shī`ī author of al-Imāma wa al-Siyāsa and the forged al-Ma`arif, not the Sunnī scholar Ibn Qutayba. Further reading on the blunders in this book can be read here: Study on the Book of “Imamate and Politics(Al-Imāma wa al-Siyāsa)“.

 

Argument 14:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ibn Abd Rabbah in his book Iqd al Fareed, Volume 3 page 273 states:

الذين تخلفوا عن بيعة أبي بكر – في والعباس والزبير وسعد بن عُبادة. فأما عليّ والعباس والزبير، فقعدوا في بيت فاطمة حتى بَعث إليهم أبو بكر عمرَ ابن الخطاب ليُخرِجهم من بيت فاطمة، وقال له: إِن أبوا فقاتِلْهم. فأقبل بقَبس من نار على أن يُضرم عليهم الدار، فلقيته فاطمةُ، فقالت: يا بن الخطاب، أجئت لتُحرق دارنا؟ قال: نعم، أو تدخلوا فيما دخلتْ فيه الأمة.

Those who fell behind giving the bayya of Abu Bakr were Abbas, Zubayr and Sa’d bin Ubada, amongst whom Ali, Abbas and Zubayr were sitting in the house of Fatima. At that time Abu Bakr sent Umar ibn al-Khattab with the order ‘that you remove those gathered in the house of Fatima, and if they refuse to come out then fight them’. Umar brought fire to the house of Fatima, then Fatima met him and said: ‘O Ibn Khattab have you arrived in order to set my home on fire?’. He (Umar) replied: ‘Yes, unless if you people give bayya to Abu Bakr as others have done’.
 Al Iqd al Fareed, Volume 3 page 273

[End Quote]

Answer:

Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Furthermore, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. Thus this book contains literary pieces which don’t have a chain and its validity cannot be determined.

Hence the narration is disconnected since the author Ibn Abd Rabbih, died in the fourth century and did not witness these events. Therefore, we class this narration as weak and unreliable.

Moreover, Shiapen is extremely ignorant for bringing this narration as evidence, since the narration destroys the lies spread by Rafidah, because this report does not suggest that the house was burned. On the contrary, Shiapen left out the portion from this report, that Ali comes out of the house and pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr right then and there. So, the very narration that Shiapen quoted goes against their silly belief that the house was burned and that Fatima’s ribs were broken.

 

Argument 15:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Sunni historian Abul Fida in his discussion on the attack on the house of Fatima (as) recorded the event, in a very low key / cautious tone, but as a scholar of integrity and honesty he has refused to cover up history and has still acknowledged that the event did indeed take place and Umar threatened to burn Fatima (sa) alive:

ثم إن أبا بكر بعث عمر بن الخطاب إِلى علي ومن معه ليخرجهم من بيت فاطمة رضي الله عنها وقال : إِن أبوا عليك فقاتلهم .فأقبل عمر بشيء من نار على أن يضرم الدار فلقيته فاطمة رضي الله عنها وقالت : إِلى أين يا ابن الخطاب أجئت لتحرق دارنا قال : نعم أو تدخلوا فيما دخل فيه الأمة

Then Abu Bakr sent Umar bin Khattab to Ali and his companions with the objective that those ‘people gathered in the house of Fatima come out, and that if anyone objects to coming out then you should fight them’. Then Umar approached with fire in his hands to set the house ablaze. At this point Fatima approached and said: ‘ O son of Khattab, would do you dare?’ Do you wish to set my home on fire?’ Umar said: ‘Yes, unless if you give bayya to Abu Bakr and enter into that which the majority of the Ummah have agreed to.’
Tareekh Abul Fida [Arabic], page 235
Tareekh Abul Fida, Urdu translation by Maulana Karrem’ud Deen al Hanafi, pages 177-179

Al-Mukhtasar fi Akbar Al-Bashr. Pg. # 195.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is not supporting evidence but rather, this narration is the same as the previous one from Iqd al-Fareed of Ibn Abd Rabbih.

The author, Abul Fida Imad Al-Deen Isma’eel bin Ali says right after quoting the narration:

كذا نقله القاضي جمال الدين بن واصل، وأسنده إلى ابن عبد ربه المغربي
That is how Al-Qadhi Jamal Al-Deen bin Wasil quoted and attributed it to Ibn Abd Rabbih Al-Maghribi.

Hence even this report is rejected due to disconnection in the chain.

 

Argument 16:

Another Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

Al-Mada’ini from Musalimah ibn Muharib from Sulayman Al-Timi and from ibn Awn that Aboo Bakr requested Alee (a.s) to give allegiance (pledge), and Alee (a.s) did not answer the pledge, so Umar came with fire and Faatima (s.a) received them at the door, and Faatima (s.a) said : “O ibn Al-Khattab! Do you want to burn my door?” He said: “Yes and this is stronger in (terms of) following what your father came with (the religion of her father).” [Giving Ba’yah to Aboo Bakr is following what the Prophet (saw) has recommended], and Alee (a.s) came and gave his pledge and said: “I was planning not leaving my home until I compile the Holy Qur’aan.”

Source: Ansab Al-Ashraf. Vol. 2, Pg. # 268.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Supposedly, if we accept this narration, we find that the narration does not say that Fatima’s house was burned, nor were her ribs broken, but that Ali came out and pledged his allegiance.

Anyways, the fact is that, this narration is weak due to the anonymity of Maslama bin Muharib. RTS quoted Ibn Hibban’s inclusion of this narrator in his book Al-Thiqaat, but as it is known among people of knowledge, Ibn Hibban was infamous for including people that he does not know in this book. For example, in his book of trustworthy narrators, he himself said, “Suhail bin Amr, a shaikh that narrates from his father, and Hammam bin Yahya narrated from him. I do not know who he is nor do I know his father.”

Al-Albani said (Al-Rawd Al-Dani fil Fawa’id Al-Hadeethia, p. 18):
ولهذا نجد المحققين من المحدثين كالذهبي والعسقلاني وغيرهما لا يوثقون من تفرد بتوثيقه ابن حبان
“And that is why we find the muhaditheen like Al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar and others, not strengthening those that Ibn Hibban strengthens alone.”

Shaikh Muqbil was asked in Al-Muqtarah (p. 47):
السؤال: ابن حبان معروف أنه يوثق المجاهيل، فإن كان الراوي غير مجهول وقد روى عنه أكثر من واحد، وقال ابن حبان: هذا مستقيم الحديث أو قال هذا ثقة هل نتوقف في توثيقه أم نعتبره؟
الجواب: من أهل العلم كما في التنكيل بما في تأنيب الكوثري من الأباطيل من قال فيه: إنه يقبل. وهو إختيار المعلمي.
أما (ثقة) فالغالب أنه عرف هو نفسه بالتساهل، فيتوقف لأنه قد عرف هو بالتساهل في توثيق المجاهيل، فإذا وثق غير مجهول يقبل منه، أما المجهولون فقد عرف منه التساهل في هذا.
Question: Ibn Hibban is known for strengthening anonymous(majhool) narrators, so if the narrator wasn’t unknown, and has more than one student, and Ibn Hibban said: mustaqeemul hadith or thiqa, do we still not accept him or do we?
Answer: Some of the scholars, like Al-Mu’allami in Al-Tankeel accepted this. As for the term thiqa, in most cases, he is known for being lenient, so we stop, because he was lenient in strengthening unknown narrators. However, if he strengthened someone that is known, then we accept it.

Therefore, we find that, Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar, Al-Mu’allami, Al-Albani, and Shaikh Muqbil all hold the opinion that Ibn Hibban’s strengthening of unknown narrators is not acceptable.

Another weakness in the narration is disconnection, since Ibn Awn died in the year 150 AH and was not an eye witness of the events.

Shiawebsite RTS have anticipated this response above and have countered with an ironic quote from Ibn Hajar:

[Quote]

The Mursal of Tabi’ee, if he mentioned an occasion that he was not present in, it is called Mursal, even though it is possible that he has heard it actually from a companion that has experienced the occasion. But the thing is that if he has been present in its time, it is considered as if he actually has heard it or was present in it with the condition that he should be free of Tadlees, and Allah (swt) knows best.

Source: Fath Ul-Bari Fi Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari. Vol. 9, Pg. # 104 – 105.

[End Quote]

Answer:

It seems as though the “academics” that write for the RTS website do not even know what they are quoting. We have bolded and underlined the portion of the quote that is relevant. We find in his biography in Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb that Ibn Awn was born in the year 66 AH, which means that he could not have been present at the time, and thus, the quote provided by RTS is used as ammunition against them.

However, RTS have also quoted another opinion:

[Quote]

Mulla Alee Al-Qari:

I say: “Mursal of Al-Tabi’ee is Hujjah (proof) among the Jumhoor (majority) of scholars, let alone the Mursal of someone about whose companionship (to the Prophet (saw)) there is difference of opinion? (i.e. it is indeed Hujjah).”

Source: Mirqatul Al-Mafatih Sharh Mishkatul Masabih. Vol. 9, Pg. # 434.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Mullah Ali Al-Qari seems to be referring to the opinion of the Hanafis towards Mursal narrations. For this is indeed a popular opinion within the Hanafi school(which is basically fiqh school). On the other hand, we find that all the scholars of Hadith and the majority of the scholars of Fiqh of other Madhabs, hold the opinion that Mursal narrations are not to be accepted (with some exception in some very specific cases). These opinions can be found in the words of Imam Muslim, Al-Tirmithi, Al-Hakim, Al-Khateeb, Ibn Abd Al-Barr, Ibn Al-Salaah, Al-Nawawi, Al-Ala’ee, and others. See Al-Hadith Al-Mursal by Hussah Al-Sagheer 2/408-410.

Perhaps though, the most ironic thing about this very narration is that Ibn Awn, is not a tabi’ee, but was rather treated as one of the atba’a al-tabi’een/Taba Taba’ai. See Al-Thiqaat by Ibn Hibban(vol 3, pg 4). Therefore, the point that the narrations of the tabi’een are seen as authentic is irrelevant, since in the report the narrator Ibn Awn is of an even later level of narrators.

Most importantly, even if we went against our logic and accepted the argument, we find that the narration does not say that Fatima’s house was burned, nor were her ribs broken, but that Ali came out and pledged his allegiance.

 

Argument 17:

Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

Narrated Al-Nawfili in his book of history from ibn Ayyasha, from his father, from Hammad bin Salama, who said: Urwa ibn Al-Zubayr would excuse his brother when it would be mentioned that he entrapped Bani Hashim and gathered wood to burn them, saying: “Verily, by that he wanted to scare them, so that they would be obedient to him, just like how Banu Hashim were scared by gathering wood around them to burn them since they refused the pledge previously, and this report cannot be mentioned in this book and we have mentioned it in our book ‘Hada’iq Al-Adhaan.'”

Source: Muruj Al-Dhahab Wa Ma’adin Al-Jawahir. Vol. 3, Pg. # 69.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The book Muruj Al-Dhahab by Al-Masudi isn’t a trustworthy source in the sight of Ahlesunnah.

Esteemed Shia scholar al-Hilli in his “Khulasat” p 186 said:

علي بن الحسين بن علي المسعودي أبو الحسن الهذلي له كتب في الإمامة وغيرها منها كتاب في إثبات الوصية لعلي بن أبي طالب (ع) وهو صاحب كتاب مروج الذهب
“Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali al-Masoode Abul Hasan al-Khuzali. He has a book about imamate and others, from them book in the proof of wasiyat to Ali ibn Abe Taleb (a) and he’s author of book “Muruj az-zahab”.

Almost the same info gave Shia scholar ibn Dawud al-Hilli in his “Rijal” p 137:

علي بن الحسين بن علي : المسعودي أبو الحسن لم له كتاب ” إثبات الوصية لعلي ع وهو صاحب ” مروج الذهب

These quotes from esteemed Shia scholars are a proof that, Al-Masudi was a Shia historian.

Anyways, the narration is weak and rejected since Al-Mas’udi the author Muruj Al-Dhahab was not praised by any scholar of his time, which means he is anonymous. This applies to both Sunni and Shia schools of thought. RTS suggest that he was only weakened because he narrated some narrations that suggest that he was a Shi’ee. However, that’s the secondary issue, the first and foremost issue is that Al-Mas’udi is more of an anonymous(majhool) narrator, since we could not find scholars weakening him, nor praising him either.

Plus, it should be mentioned that the father of Ibn A’isha is an anonymous(majhool) narrator, which adds weight to the weakness of this report.

 

Argument 18:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Fourth Supporting Reference – Tareekh Tabari

The most renowned Sunni historian Ibn Jareer al Tabari also recorded this event. We read in al Tabari (English translation), Volume 9 page 187:

Ibn Humayd – Jarir – Mughirah – Ziyad b. Kulayb:Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: “By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire.” al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him.”
  History of al-Tabari, Volume 9 page 187

[End Quote]

Answer:

There are serious problems with the chain of this report.

(i). Narrator Muhammad ibn Humayd ar-Râzî: who appears in the isnâd as at-Tabarî’s direct source, has come under severe criticism from the muhaddithîn. Though, Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal and Yahya bin Maeen, entertained a good opinion of him, but those who followed them, came to know that this man was actually a shameless forger, hence they outrightly labelled him as an outright liar. And as per the basic rule of Jarh was tadeel, the clear and explained criticism(jarh) is preferred over praise(tadeel).

One of the strongest evidences against Muhammad bin Humayd, which is preferred over any praise given to him by some scholars is that:

Abu Hatim said: I came to know Mohammad bin Humayd later and he brought out the exact same chapter. I asked him: Who did you hear it from? He said: Ali bin Mujahid. He then read it and said hadathana Ali bin Mujahid. I was then confused and went with the young man that was with me to that shaykh(that originally) had the chapter, so we asked him about the book. He said: Mohammad bin Humayd borrowed it from me.(Tahteeb altahteeb vol 3, pg.548)

Comment: As we can see from the quote above abu hatim is basically accusing Muhammad bin Humayd of narrating something which he didn’t hear, that itself is enough to accuse him of lying.

One critic expresses his opinion as follows:

ما رايت احدا احذق بالكذب من رجلين: سليمان بن الشاذكوني، ومحمد بن حميد الرازي

Asadi said :“I have never seen a natural liar, except for two persons: Sulaymân ash-Shâdhakûnî and Muhammad ibn Humayd. He used to memorise all of his ahâdîth, and his hadîth used to grow longer every day.”(Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 25 p. 105)

Nasai said: He is not trustworthy (ليس بثقة)

Al Iraqi said: He is one of the liars (هو أحد الكذابين)

Juzjani said: He is not trustworthy (غير ثقة)

It was also said that: He mixes asnaad (chain of narrations) and matan (text) of narrations (دخلت على محمد بن حميد وهو يركب الأسانيد على المتون)

(ii). Narrator Ziyad ibn Kulaib Abu Muashar al-Kufi: He was thiqat, but he is from the atba’a al-tab’iee/taba tab’iee. In “Tahzib al-kamal” it is written that he died in 110 or 119 hijri. Prophet(saw) died in 11 hijri, which makes his narration disconnected, hence weak and rejected

Moreover, Shias have no ground to stand on, using this report, because it goes against Shia belief, since as per Shia belief, except three Sahaba, all of them became apostates after death of Prophet(saw). Had it been that Zubair(ra) stood with Ali(ra) and didn’t give allegiance to Abubakr(ra) then he would have been included in the list of those who didn’t apostate.

We read in Shia hadeeth:

حنان، عن أبيه، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) إلا ثلاثة فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الاسود وأبو ذر الغفاري و سلمان الفارسي

Abu Jafar(as) said : ‘People became apostates after the death of the Prophet(saw), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi.’ (Al-Kafi, Vol. 8, p. 245 , Majlisi in “Mirat al uqool, vol 26, pg. 213” said it’s hasan or muwathaq)

This Shia hadeeth doesn’t include the name of Zubair(ra), which implies that the report Shiapen is using, even goes against the Shia belief.

 

Argument 19:

Another Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Muhammad ibn Fulaih and Musa ibn Uqba ibn Shahab Al-Zuhri says: And the men from Al-Muhajireen were angry in the allegiance of Aboo Bakr and from them Alee ibn Abi Talib (a.s) and Zubayr, so they entered the house of Faatima (s.a), and with them were weapons, so Umar ibn Khattab with a group of Muslims, among them was Aseed son of Hatheer and Salma ibn Salama son of Waqsh, and they are from Bani Abdul Alash’hal and it is said from them is Thabet son of Qais son of Shamas son of Bani Al Khazraj – so one of them took the sword of Zubayr and striked the rock until it broke. And it is said that there were among them Abdul Rahman son of Awf and Muhammad son of Muslamah and Muhammad son of Muslama is the one that broke the sword of Zubayr and Allah is All-knowing. Musa ibn Uqba extracted this and it carried on the measure of its authenticity to reduce the fire of the Fitna and to put the sword in its sheath, not for the purpose of betraying Zubayr and turning away from the allegiance of Aboo Bakr.

Source: Al-Riyadh Al-Nudhira Fi Manaqib Ashra. Muhib Al-Tabari. Vol. 1, Pg # 167.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The narration is weak and unreliable because it comes from the path of Al-Zuhri who is from the tabi’een, which makes his narration disconnected. It is known fact that, the mursal reports of Zuhri are the weakest type of mursal reports.

أبو حاتم : حدثنا أحمد بن أبي شريح ، سمعت الشافعي ، يقول : إرسال الزهري ، ليس بشيء
Imam shafei said: The irsal of Zuhri is nothing(i.e useless)

يَحْيَى بْنِ مَعِينٍ ، قَالَ : ” مَرَاسِيلُ الْزُّهْرِيِّ لَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ
Yahya ibn Maeen said: Maraseel of Zuhri are nothing.(Kitab Al-Maraseel)

أخبرنا أبو محمد بن طاوس ، أنبأنا أبو الغنائم بن أبي عثمان ، أنبأنا أبو عمر بن مهدي ، أنبأنا محمد بن أحمد بن يعقوب ، ثنا جدي ، قال : وسمعت عليا ، يقول : مرسلات الزهري رديئة
Ali bin Madeeni said: Maraseel of Zuhri are nothing.(tareekh dimashq).

 

Argument 20:

Another Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

We were told by Muhammad ibn Ishaq bin Muhammad Al-Makhzumi Al-Maseebi, of Muhammad bin Faleeh bin Sulayman, of Musa bin Aqaba, of ibn Shihab Al-Zuhri, who said: “Men of the Muhajireen were angered at the paying of allegiance to Aboo Bakr. Among them being Alee bin Abi-Talib (a.s) and Zubayr bin Al-Awwam, so they entered the house of Faatima (s.a), the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (saw) with weapons. Then Umar came with a gang of Muslims, among them being Usayd, and Salama bin Salaama bin Waqsh, and they were from Bani-Abd Al-Ashal. And it is said that Thabit bin Qais bin Al-Shammas, the brother of Banil-Harith bin Al-Khazraj, was with them. Then one of them took the sword of Zubayr and hit it on a stone until he broke it.

Musa bin ‘Aqaba said: Sa’ad bin Ibraheem said: I was told by Ibraheem bin Abdul-Rahman bin Auf, that Abdul-Rahman was with Umar on that day, and that Muhammad bin Maslama broke the sword of Zubayr, and Allah (swt) knows best.”

Narration is Saheeh (Authentic). Narrators biographies have been mentioned above.

Source: Al-Sunnah. Pg. # 225, H. # 1220.

[End Quote]

Answer:

First part of the narration has the same problem of disconnection after Zuhri, refer previous response.

The second part is authentic up until Ibrahim bin Abd Al-Rahman bin Awf, who may have been too young to have seen the events of the narration, since it was said that he was an infant during the times of the Prophet (saw). Regardless, the continuation of the narration from his pass states that Ali and Al-Zubair both say that Abu Bakr is more deserving of the caliphate than they are. See Mustadrak Al-Hakim 4396. Which shatters the Shia arguments against Abubakr(ra).

 

Argument 21:

Another Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

Al-Hakim:

Muhammad ibn Salih ibn Hani has told that Fadil ibn Muhammad Bayhaqi has told Ibraheem ibn Mundir Al-Hazami has told us Muhammad ibn Fulaih from Musa bin Uqba in his Maghazi from Sa’d b. Ibraheem; My father narrated to me….

Source: Al-Mustadrak Ala Sahihain. Vol. 3, Pg. # 70, H. # 20 / 4422.

Ibn Kathir:

Source: Bidayah Wa’l-Nihayah. Vol. 8, Pg. # 92 – 93.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The narration of Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak: Same as previous.
The narration of Ibn Katheer in Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya: Same as previous.

Moreover, Shias have no ground to stand on, using this report, because it goes against Shia belief, since as per Shia belief, except three Sahaba, all of them became apostates after death of Prophet(saw). Had it been that Zubair(ra) stood with Ali(ra) and didn’t give allegiance to Abubakr(ra) then he would have been included in the list of those who didn’t apostate.

We read in Shia hadeeth:

حنان، عن أبيه، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) إلا ثلاثة فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الاسود وأبو ذر الغفاري و سلمان الفارسي

Abu Jafar(as) said : ‘People became apostates after the death of the Prophet(saw), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi.’ (Al-Kafi, Vol. 8, p. 245 , Majlisi in “Mirat al uqool, vol 26, pg. 213” said it’s hasan or muwathaq).

 

Argument 22:

Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

Aboo Bakr and Umar order Khalid to assassinate Alee (a.s):

Aboo Bakr Al-Khallal:

Narrated to me Muhammd ibn Alee from Al-Athram who said: I heard Aba Abdullah (i.e. Ahmad ibn Hanbal) when the hadeeth of Uqail from Al-Zuhri from Urwa from A’isha from the Prophet (saw) was mentioned to him about Alee (a.s) and Al-Abbas, and from Uqail from Al-Zuhri that Aba Bakr ordered Khalid about Alee (a.s), Aboo Abdullah said: “How?” When he understood it, he said: “I do not like to write down Hadeeth like this.”

Source: Al-Sunnah of Aboo Bakr Al-Khallal. Vol. 3, Pg. # 505

We see how Ahmad ibn Hanbal chooses to ignore the narrations regarding this incident, and how the truth is hidden on disagreements between the Sahaba.

This example, and what we have evidenced makes it crystal clear that in order to find out the truth from the books of the so-called ‘Ahl ul Sunnah,’ one must not accept blindly what is narrated but dig deeper and search very carefully to join all the pieces of the puzzle together.

[End Quote]

Answer:

It should be noted that the narration is disconnected, since we do not know who narrated this hadith from Uqail. This is clear from the chain.

Ahmad’s attitudes towards these fabrications are common in both the Sunni and Shia schools. Sunnis do have the freedom of choice as to whether to write fabrications. Shias too have turned a blind eye to narrations that they deemed as fabrications, which is why we barely see any narrations in praise of the companions of the Prophet(saw) in their books.

 

Argument 23:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The subsequent raid on the home of Sayyida Fatima (as)

The matter did just not end there. If that was not bad enough we also know that the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) was raided by the newly formed state. al-Hafiz Diya al-Din Muhammad ibn al-Wahid al-Maqdisi (d. 643 H) in his authority work al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarat, Volume 1 page 88 stated:

أخبرنا أبو الفخر أسعد بن سعيد بن محمود الأصبهاني قراءة ونحن نسمع بأصبهان قيل له أخبرتكم فاطمة بنت عبد الله الجوزدانية قراءة عليها وأنت تسمع أنا محمد بن عبدالله بن زيد أنا أبو القاسم سليمان بن أحمد الطبراني ثنا أبو الزنباع روح بن الفرج المصري ثنا سعيد بن عفير حدثني علوان بن داود البجلي عن حميد بن عبدالرحمن بن حميد بن عبدالرحمن بن عوف عن صالح بن كيسان عن حميد بن عبدالرحمن عن أبيه قال دخلت الأحاديث المختارة على أبي بكر رضي الله عنه أعوده في مرضه الذي توفي فيه فسلمت عليه وسألته كيف أصبحت فاستوى جالسا فقلت أصبحت بحمد الله بارئا فقال أما إني على ما ترى وجع وجعلتم لي شغلا مع وجعي جعلت لكم عهدا من بعدي واخترت لكم خيركم في نفسي فجلكم ورم لذاك أنفه رجاء أن يكون الأمر له ورأيت الدنيا قد أقبلت ولما تقبل وهي جائية وستنجدون بيوتكم ستور الحرير ونضائد الديباج وتألمون ضجائع الصوف الأذري كأن أحدكم على حسك السعدان ووالله لأن يقدم أحدكم فتضرب عنقه في غير حد خير له من أن يسبح في غمرة الدنيا ثم قال: أما إني لا آسي على شيء إلا على ثلاث فعلتهن وددت أني لم أفعلهن وثلاث لم أفعلهن وددت أني فعلتهن وثلاث وددت أني سألت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عنهن فأما الثلاث اللاتي وددت أني لم أفعلهن فوددت أني لم أكن كشفت بيت فاطمة أو تركته وأن أعلق على الحرب وددت أني يوم سقيفة بني ساعدة كنت قدفت الأمر في عنق أحد الرجلين أبو عبيدة أو عمر فكان أمير المؤمنين وكنت وزيرا ووددت أني حيث كنت وجهت خالد بن الوليد إلى أهل الردة أقمت بذي القصة فإن ظفر المسلمون ظفروا وإلا كنت ردءا ومددا وأما اللاتي وددت أني فعلتها .
Abubakr said: ‘I wish I never violated or abandoned the house of Fatima even if she had waged a war against me. I wish that on the day of Saqifah I had placed the affair (i.e. caliphate) on the neck of either Abu Ubaydah or Umar so that such would be the Commander of the believers while I remained his vizier’.
The margin writer of al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarat Abdulmalik bin Abdullah bin Duhaish has declared the tradition as ‘Hasan’.

Another Shia wesbite states:

Abu Bakr said: As for the three things that I wish I never did, that I wish I did not raid Fatima’s house and I left it…

He (the author) said: and this hadith is hasan (reliabe) from Abu Bakr. [Ref: Al-Ahadiith al-Mukhtaare, page 89 – 91]

[End Quote]

Answer:

The chain of this report has serious defect, and this report is a pure fabrication.

Magdisi narrated it from the way of Tabarani.

Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (#9030)said:

رواه الطبراني وفيه علوان بن داود البجلي وهو ضعيف
“Reported by Tabarani in the chain Ulwan ibn Dawud al-Balaji and he’s weak”.

Bukhari and Abu Said ibn Yunus said that Ulwan bin Dawud is munkar al-hadeeth. Uqayli noticed that Ulwan has ahadeeth that shouldn’t be relied on. (Mizanul itidal #5763).(Also See Lisan Al-Mizan 4/218). Sa’eed bin Ufair, his student, referred to him as a zaaqool (a thief).

As for the claim, that the author said chain is Hasan, then that is mistake from him, because the chain is serious problem with it, as we pointed out. Therefore, we should consider it as a mistake out of negligence from the author of that book. And mistakes from scholars do occur, they are not infallible. This principle is even held by Shia scholars for example, we read Grand Shia Āyat Allāh Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, who stated:

واعتقاد الكليني بصحة الرواية ليس من الحجج الشرعية إذ ليس هو معصوما عندنا
“The belief of al-Kulaynī about the correctness of traditions is not a legal proof because he is not an infallible according to us!” [Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama, of Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, volume 3, page 123]

Secondly, the fabricator of this report was deprived of common sense because if Abubakr(ra) was indeed guilty for what he supposedly did, then he would have corrected everything. He would have nominated Ali(ra) to be caliph after him OR atleast would have returned Fadak to children of Fatima(ra) and Abbas(ra). But nothing as such happened, though we know that on his death-bed Abubakr(ra) did several good acts, like returning the salary he took as Caliph, in the Muslims treasury, etc. Thus the report quoted by Shiapen is nothing but a Concoction.

 

Argument 24:

Another Shiawebsite RTS has anticipated that we would quote the opinions of scholars that have referred to Ulwan bin Dawud as munkar al-hadith and have responded with the following.

[Quote]

Al-Dhahabi:

“Not everyone who narrates munkar hadeeth is weak.”

Source: Mizan Al-I’tidal. Vol. 1, Pg. # 259.

[End Quote]

Answer:

We say in response that there is a difference between a hadith being referred to as munkar, as we find Al-Dhahabi doing above, and calling a narrator munkar al-hadith, as we see in the words of Al-Bukhari and Ibn Yunus.

Simply put, it is the difference between calling a meal “bad” as opposed to referring to the chef as ”bad”.

Al-Bukhari himself said, “Everyone I refer to as munkar al-hadith, then it is not permissible to narrate from him.”

Al-Shaikh Abd Al-Azeez Sadhan comments, “One of the harshest terms that Al-Bukhari uses in jarh and ta’deel is him saying about a narrator: Munkar al-hadith.”

Argument of another Shiawebsite:

RTS though provide another argument by presenting a chain without Ulwan.

[Quote]

Similar like this and longer than this has been (Narrated ibn Wahab – Al-Layth bin Sa’d – Saleh bin Kaysan – Hameed bin Abdul-Rahman bin Auf – Abdul Rahman bin Auf), and it is also reported by Ai’dh.

Source: Tarikh Al-Islam Wa Wafiyat Ul Mashaheer Wa Al-Alam. Vol. 3, Pg. # 117 – 118

RTS also comments:

It would seem inconceivable that Layth heard the narration from Alwan from Saleh ibn Kaysan and did not enquire about it on his pilgrimage to Hajj, since Saleh ibn Kaysan was a significant scholar of Hijaz like Al-Zuhri and others and since Layth heard from these scholars, he would have undoubtedly asked Saleh ibn Kaysan regarding this specific narration too, especially with Al-Dhahabi mentioning it. In conclusion, the existence of Alwan in some chains does not affect the reliability of this narration.

[End Quote]

Answer:

In response, we say that Al-Laith has narrated this hadith from Ulwan on at least three different occasions with the inclusion of the name of Ulwan (see next source). Therefore, it is not likely that he heard it directly from Salih bin Kaysan. This is also supported by the fact that Al-Uqaili 4/50 in his Dhua’afa’ and Al-Daraqutni in his Ilal 1/214, both stated that this is the hadith of Ulwan. In other words, they do not acknowledge it as the hadith of Al-Layth.

RTS in a last ditch effort, quote a narration from Ansab Al-Ashraf Vol. 10, Pg. # 346 – 347 from a chain which the narrator, Al-Haytham bin Adi, who was an infamous liar, in order to strengthen the previous report. It seems they are unaware of the fact that, a fabrication reported by one denounced narrator, will never be strengthened by another liar; On the contrary it can be said, these were such reports which were being spread by liars and denounced narrators only, which strengthens our view that this was a fabrication.

 

Argument 25:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ibn Tamiyah also admitted that Abu Bakr broke into Lady Fatima’s house:

وغاية ما يقال إنه كبس البيت لينظر هل فيه شيء من مال الله الذي يقسمه وأن يعطيه لمستحق

“He broke into the house to see if there was some thing of Allah’s money to distribute it or give it to those who deserved it”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 291

[End Quote]

Answer:

From the Arabic text Shiapen quoted, it can be seen that, they missed to translate وغاية ما يقال. This means ‘the most that can be said’, hence it signifies Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah is replying to the shia argument and this is not his opinion.

When we refer the complete context, we realized that, Shiapen have misquoted Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah, and this is the way of Shiapen to win arguments. Minhaj al-Sunna is still one of the most devastating refutations of them ever, so they have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb to try and pick at anything they can.

Here is the full quote:

فصل قال الرافضي الثامن قول أبي بكر في مرض موته ليتني كنت تركت بيت فاطمة لم أكبسه والرد عليه]
فَصْلٌ
قَالَ الرَّافِضِيُّ (2) : ” الثَّامِنُ: قَوْلُهُ فِي مَرَضِ مَوْتِهِ: لَيْتَنِي كُنْتُ تَرَكْتُ بَيْتَ (3) فَاطِمَةَ لَمْ أَكْبِسْهُ (4) ، وَلَيْتَنِي كُنْتُ فِي ظُلَّةِ بَنِي سَاعِدَةَ ضَرَبْتُ عَلَى يَدِ أَحَدِ (5) الرَّجُلَيْنِ، وَكَانَ هُوَ الْأَمِيرَ، وَكُنْتُ الْوَزِيرَ (6) ; وَهَذَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى إِقْدَامِهِ عَلَى بَيْتِ (7) فَاطِمَةَ عِنْدَ اجْتِمَاعِ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالزُّبَيْرِ وَغَيْرِهِمَا فِيهِ ” (8) .
وَالْجَوَابُ: أَنَّ الْقَدْحَ لَا يُقْبَلُ حَتَّى يَثْبُتَ اللَّفْظُ بِإِسْنَادٍ صَحِيحٍ، وَيَكُونَ
دَالًّا دَلَالَةً ظَاهِرَةً عَلَى الْقَدْحِ، فَإِذَا انْتَفَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا انْتَفَى الْقَدْحُ، فَكَيْفَ إِذَا انْتَفَى كُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا؟ ! وَنَحْنُ نَعْلَمُ يَقِينًا أَنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ لَمْ يَقْدَمْ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ وَالزُّبَيْرِ بِشَيْءٍ مِنَ الْأَذَى، بَلْ وَلَا عَلَى سَعْدِ بْنِ عُبَادَةَ الْمُتَخَلِّفِ عَنْ بَيْعَتِهِ أَوَّلًا وَآخِرًا.
وَغَايَةُ مَا يُقَالُ: إِنَّهُ كَبَسَ الْبَيْتَ لِيَنْظُرَ هَلْ فِيهِ شَيْءٌ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي يُقَسِّمُهُ، وَأَنْ يُعْطِيَهُ لِمُسْتَحِقِّهِ، ثُمَّ رَأَى أَنَّهُ لَوْ تَرَكَهُ لَهُمْ لَجَازَ ; فَإِنَّهُ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يُعْطِيَهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ الْفَيْءِ.
وَأَمَّا إِقْدَامُهُ عَلَيْهِمْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ بِأَذًى، فَهَذَا مَا وَقَعَ فِيهِ قَطُّ بِاتِّفَاقِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ وَالدِّينِ، وَإِنَّمَا يَنْقُلُ مِثْلَ (1) هَذَا جُهَّالُ الْكَذَّابِينَ، وَيُصَدِّقُهُ حَمْقَى (2) الْعَالَمِينَ، الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ: إِنَّ الصَّحَابَةَ هَدَمُوا بَيْتَ فَاطِمَةَ، وَضَرَبُوا بَطْنَهَا حَتَّى أَسْقَطَتْ.
وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ دَعْوَى مُخْتَلِقٍ، وَإِفْكٌ مُفْتَرًى، بِاتِّفَاقِ أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَلَا يَرُوجُ إِلَّا عَلَى مَنْ هُوَ مِنْ جِنْسِ الْأَنْعَامِ.
وَأَمَّا قَوْلُهُ: ” لَيْتَنِي كُنْتُ ضَرَبْتُ عَلَى يَدِ أَحَدِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ ” فَهَذَا لَمْ يَذْكُرْ لَهُ إِسْنَادًا، وَلَمْ يُبَيِّنْ صِحَّتَهُ، فَإِنْ كَانَ قَالَهُ فَهُوَ يَدُلُّ عَلَى زُهْدِهِ وَوَرَعِهِ وَخَوْفِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى

We will summarise as the translation may not clarify what Ibn Taymiyyah is trying to say.

Basically the Rafidhi scholar al-Hilli brought the following narration …..قَوْلُهُ فِي مَرَضِ مَوْتِهِ: لَيْتَنِي كُنْتُ تَرَكْتُ بَيْتَ (3) فَاطِمَةَ لَمْ أَكْبِسْهُ
(Abu Bakr said on his death bed, if only I left the house of Fatimah and barged in…) Now according to the narration Ali and Zubayr (rd) were also in the house.

Now Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah answers him that the narration is not authentic at all and no where is it established that Abu Bakr harmed anyone of them. So if we are to assume that what they are saying is authentic (which isn’t) then Abu Bakr broke into the house to see if there was some of Allah’s wealth to distribute it or give it to those who deserved it, but then he realised that if he had not entered, it would have been better. Because it is permissible to give them wealth of fai’ (booty). But then Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to explain again that the narration is not authentic and all those incidents the Shia narrate of Abu Bakr kicking the stomach of Fatimah etc.

It is quite clear that Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah rejected what was narrated, but only answered to those who think there is some truth in it. So it’s not his view.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s