Search the Community

Hey guys I am a teenager and I am doing some research to discover the truth, I am a shia and I hear all the time how fatimah was displeased with abu baker and she did not want him to attend her funeral. My question is who was at her funeral besides imam Ali (عليه السلام)? Were there only women or men and women and if you can give a source that would be amazing. Thanks

I have thought not on the basis of history, quran and hadith but on the basis of names of both persons that Abubakr comes before ALI. (AS) But how it can be possible? Look ABubakr " AB" comes first than AL in 'ALI" i can find the only reason that Abubakr may come before ALi. (AS) LOL

Salamun alaykum. Supposing that Holy Prophet (pbuh) did not appoint any one to be his successor, then why Abubakr is his legitimate successor? What is the criterion? Consensus of all people or consensus of the inhabitants of Medina or consensus of prominent figures or what? Just scholarly and friendly discussion. So respectful comments (from both Shias and Sunnis) are appreciated.

Assalam o Alaikum, KHILAFAT OR IMAMAT Mansoos minallah or by shoora (First century shias VS Today's shias) GHADIR E KHUM IS NOT ABOUT KHILAFAT Incident of Saqifa itself is a big evidence about the fact that Ghadir e Khum is not about khilafat. As all the ansar (Helpers) were gathered there and were thinking about who will be the caliph after Rasoolullah and they were also of the opinion that caliph should be from us (Ansar). Forget about Immigrants, even Helpers were unaware about any text (nass) or that Prophet had announced caliphate for Imam Ali at Ghadir. On the other hand we see that those ansar were both praised by Allah and His Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W). And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment. Surah Tauba verse 100. It is narrated on the authority of Anas that the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: The love of the Ansar is the sign of faith and hatred against them is the sign of dissemblance. Ref: Sahih Muslim 74 It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id Khudri that the Messenger of Allah observed: The person who believes in Allah and the Last Day never nurses a grudge against the Ansar. Sahih Muslim 77 Therefore, the companions did not understand from the Hadith of Ghadir or any other Hadith, the meaning of specific text or appointment to the Caliphate. Due to this, they chose the Shura way as a mode of choosing a leader. They then gave their oaths of allegiance to Abu Bakr as Khalifah after the Prophet (peace be upon him), which clearly shows that no clear meaning of Khilafah was deduced from the reported texts for Imam Ali or the non-existence of such text at that time. Shura (consultation) was the constitutional system that Imam Amir Muminin Ali bin Abi Talib abided by; and that he had no knowledge of vertical hereditary leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt, is his participation in the Shura process after the death of Caliph Umar bin Khattab, and his arguments before the members of the Shura on his virtues and his role in the service of Islam; so also the fact that he did not point to the issue of the text or his appointment as Khalifah after the Prophet. If the Hadith of Ghadir has any of this import, the Imam would have refered to it, and he would have won the day with what is greater and stronger than mentioning his virtues. BELIEF OF IMAM ALI CONCERNING KHILAFAT Imam Ali believed in the system of consultation and it’s being first and foremost the right of the Immigrants and the Helpers (Muhajirin and Ansar). Due to this he refused to accede to the call of rebels-after the murder of Caliph Uthman, who invited him to assume power, and he said to them “This is not of your powers, this is for the Muhajirin and Ansar, anyone they chose as a leader will be a leader”. When the Immigrants and the Helpers came to him and said, “Stretch your hand, we would give you our oath of allegiance”, he withdrew from them. They repeated as the first, and he also withdrew again, and they repeated that for the third time then he said “Leave me and look for another person and know that, if I responded to you, I will do with you what I know…. and if you leave me alone, I am just like one of you, I would be the most obedient and loyal to anyone you choose to conduct your affairs for me to be a vizier is better for you than to be a leader” He walked to Talhah and Zubair and put it across to them and said:” If anyone of you wishes , I will give him my oath of allegiance” They both said “ No … the people accept you more (than any other man). At the end he said to them “If you insist, my oath of allegiance “bayah” must not be secret, and it will not be taken till after the acceptance of the (general) Muslim populace, so I will go out to the Masjid (mosque) anyone who wishes to give his oath of allegiance to me let him do it”. Ref: Tabari, vol. 3 p. 450 Therefore, if the theory of a “text” and appointment is established and well- known to the Muslims, it would not be permissible for Imam (Ali) to reject the revolters, and then wait for the word of the Immigrants and Helpers (Muhajirin & Ansar), as it will also not be permissible for him to say “ to be a vizier is better for you than to be a leader”. It will also not be right for him to put the leadership (Khilafah) before Talhah and Al-Zubair, and he will not need to wait for the oath of allegiance from the general Muslims. The belief of Imam Ali in Shura (Consultation) as a constitution for the Muslims, became very clear in the process of the Caliphate of Imam Hassan when the Muslims came to him after the strike of Abdul Rahman bin Muljim on him, and requested him to appoint his son Hassan after him (as the leader), for he said “No, we did go to the Prophet of Allah and said,” Appoint (for us a leader), and he said” No, I fear that you will be divided on his affairs, as Harun, but if Allah finds any good in your hearts, he will choose for you’ They requested him to point to someone, but he did not . They then said to him,” If we lost you, we will not lose giving our oath of allegiance to Hassan. He said, “I do not command, nor prevent you, you can discern better”. Ref: Murtada: Al-Shafi, vol. 3 p. 295, Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwah, vol.1 p. 212 Imam Ali the leader of the faithful has given his will to Imam Hassan and his other children, but he never mention the issue of leadership and the Caliphate, His will was spiritual, ethical and personal. Ref: Mufid: Al-Irshad, p. 187 That will is as follows: “This is what Ali bin Abi Talib has willed. He willed (enjoined) that he bears witness that there is no god (deity) except Allah Alone, He has no partner with Him, and bears witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, He sent him with guidance and the religion of truth, that He makes it prevail over all religion, even though the pagans (polytheists) may detest (it). That “… Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds … with this am I commanded, and I am of the Muslims”. Then I enjoin you O Hassan and my entire children and family and to whomever my book reaches, that you should fear Allah, your Lord. “ So die not except as Muslims “And hold fast, all together by the Rope of which Allah (stretches out for you) and be not divided among yourselves.” I heard the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) saying “ keeping Straight (making peace in) the relations between you is better that too much fasting and prayer (in which the relations are severed), the guilt that wipes away religion is the severing of relations. There is no power except with Allah. Maintain your next of kin and make good your relations with them, so that accountability will be light on you. (Fear) Allah in the affairs of the orphans, you should not leave them without food (even for alternate days) they should not be neglected in your presence. (Fear) Allah, in the affairs of your neighbors, they are the will of the Messenger of Allah, for he kept on enjoining us (to do good to them) to the extent that we thought he would apportion to them a share of the inheritance. (Fear) Allah in the commandments of the Quran, so that no other people will act upon it before you. (Fear) Allah in the affairs of the House of your Lord, it should not be disserted as long as you live, for if it became disserted you will not be aware of each other. (Fear) Allah in the affairs of Ramadan, for fasting it is a shield for you from the fire. (Fear) Allah as regards Jihad for the sake of Allah with your hands, wealth and tongues. (Fear) Allah in the payment of Zakat for it extinguishes the anger of the Lord. (Fear) Allah in the covenant of your Prophet, he should not be wronged in your midst. (Fear) Allah in what your right hands possess (servants and maids). Beware not to fear any blame in implementing Allah’s commandments. It is enough for you (to remember) “ Speak good to people” as Allah has commanded you. Do not abandon ‘enjoining good and forbidding evil (Al-Amr bi al-Maruf Wa al-Nahy an al-Munkar)’, lest the worst of you be made rulers over you, and the best of you will pray, and their prayers will not be accepted. I advise you my children with maintaining your relations and generosity. I exhort you against cutting your relations, competing in amassing wealth and division. “Help you one another in virtue and piety; but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allah-Verily, Allah is severe in punishment.” May Allah protect you, members of the Household (of the Prophet (peace be upon him), May he preserve the (message) of your Prophet in you. I bid you farewell. My greetings of peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you”. Ref: (1) al-Kafi, volume 7, page 49, graded “SAHIH” by al-Majlisi in Mir’at al-`Uqoul 23/83 (2) Hafidh Abu Bakr bin Abi al-Dunya: Maqtal al-Imam Amir al-Muminin, pp. 41-42 (ed. Mustapha Murtada al-Qazwini, published- Markaz Al- Dirasat wa al- Buhuth al-Ilmiyya, Beirut.) IMAM HASSAN AND KHILAFAT If the Caliphate has been by means of a text (nass) from Allah, and appointment from the Prophet (peace be upon him), as the theory of Imamate is saying, it will not be permissible for Imam Hassan to stop down from power, in favor of anyone, under any circumstances. It will not be permissible for him after that to pay allegiance to Mu’awiyah, and to order his companions and followers to pay allegiance to him. But Imam Hassan did not do any of these things; he behaved in a way that reveals his sticking to the right of the Muslims in choosing their Khalifah through the principle of Shura. Ref: Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 44 p. 65 chapter on How to reconcile the History of Imam Hassan Mujtabah and the Great Trial (Fitnah), vol. 2, p. 183. IMAM HUSSAIN AND KHILAFAT Imam Hussain remained loyal to his oath of allegiance to Mu’awiyah till the last day of the latter, and he refused an offer from the Shiites of Kufah to revolt against Mu’awiyah after the death of Imam Hassan. He mentioned that there was a covenant between him and Mu’awiyah, which would not be breached. He did not call the people to himself till after the death of Mu’awiyah, who breached the agreement of reconciliation, and handed over power to his son, Yazid as the Khalifah after him, Imam Hussain refused to give his oath of allegiance to him, and insisted on going to Iraq, which led to his martyrdom at Karbala in the year 61 A.H. Ref: Mufid: Al-Irshad. P. 199 The concept of Imam according to Imam Hussain is not other than, (the leader who judges by the Book (Quran), who establishes justice, who practices the religion of truth, and who puts all his services for the sake of Allah). He was not presenting any new theory on the Infallible Imam appointed from Allah; He was not also demanding the Caliphate as a personal right for him, because of being the son of Imam Ali, or being appointed by Allah. Because of these, he did not think of transferring the Imamate to any of his children, he did not give a will to his only son who remained alive Ali Zayn al- Abidin”. He only enjoined his sister Zaynab or his daughter, Fatimahh, and his will was a ordinary one, related to his personal affairs, and did not at all talk on the topic of Imamate and Caliphate. Ref: Saduq Ali bin Babawaih: Al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah Min al-Hayrah, p. 198 Al-Saffar: Basair al-Darajat, p. 148 and 198 IMAM ALI ZAINUL ABIDIEEN AND KHILAFAT He refused to lead the Shiites, who were demanding revenge on the murder of his father Imam Hussain, who were getting ready for a revolt, nor did he claim the Imamate, or fight for it, as Sheikh Saduq has said, “he withdrew from the people and did not meet anyone, and on one meets him, except his closest companions. He devoted himself to the worship of Allah; only little knowledge has come from him. Ref: Saduq: Ikmal al-Din, p. 91 The Imams from Ahl al-Bayt (Household of the Prophet) believed in the right of the Muslim Ummah to choose their leaders. Just as they also believed in the necessity of exercising consultation (Shura), and in condemnation of coming to power by force. It is likely that we find in the Hadith that is reported by Saduq in (Uyun Akhar al-Rida) from Imam Rida from his father Kadhim, from his father, Ja'far Sadiq, from his father Muhammad Baqir from his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, where he says, “ Anyone who comes to you, with the intention of dividing the community, and snatching from the Ummah its right, and wants to become leader without consultation, kill him, Allah Almighty has permitted that’. Ref: Masudi: Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 2 p. 62 The best expression of the faith of the Imams of Ahl al-Bait in consultation (Shura) and their abiding by it. If they were calling people to follow and obey them, they were only doing that, because of their belief in being superior and more deserving of leadership (Khilafah) than the “Caliphs” who were not judging by the Quran, and were not establishing justice or truly practicing the religion. FIRST CENTURY SHIA AND KHILAFAT They believed: “Ali was the most deserving of men after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), due to his virtues’ and his pioneering (roles in Islam) and his knowledge. He was the best of all men after the prophet (peace be upon him) the bravest, the most generous, the most ascetic of them. But they legalized despite that, the leadership of Abu Bakr and Umar and considered them, as qualified for that honorable position. They mentioned that Ali submitted the affairs to them, accepted that and voluntarily gave his oath of allegiance to them, without being coerced into that, he left his right to them, so we also accept what the Muslims have accepted of him, and whom he gave his allegiance to. Anything other than this is not permissible for us, and nothing will suffice anyone of us other than this. So the leadership of Abu Bakr has becomes right and acceptance because of Ali’s acceptance of it.” Ref: Nukhbati: Firaq al-Shiah p. 21 Ashari: Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq. P. 18 Another sect of the Shiites meanwhile said “Ali is the best of men, due to his close relationship to the Messenger of Allah, and his pioneering roles and his knowledge. But it was legal for people to choose other than him as their leader, if the leader that will be chosen is qualified, whether he likes it or dislikes it. The leadership of a leader appointed on them, with their acceptance, is right, guidance and obedience of Allah Almighty. His obedience is a compulsory duty (imposed) by Allah.’ Another faction of them said;” The Imamate (leadership) of Ali was established at the time he called people (to accept him as Imam) and when he revealed his affair.” Ref: Nukhbati: Firaq al-Shiah p. 54 It has been said to Hassan bin Hassan bin Ali, who was the eldest of the Talibites in his time, and was the one to whom his father gave his will, and the custodian of the trust of his grandfather, “Didn’t the Messenger of Allah say, “Any one to whom I am master Ali is to him also a master”? He replied, “Yes, but by Allah, the Messenger of Allah did not mean Imamate and power, if he willed that he would have been explicit on it…” Ref: Ibn Asakir: Al-Tahdihib, vol. 4 p. 162 His son, Abdullah, used to say “We do not have in this affair, what others do not have, and the none of the household of the Prophet is Imam whose obedience is made compulsory by Allah’. He used to dispute the statement that the Imamate of Amir al- Muminin (Ali) was from Allah. Ref: Al- Saffar: Basair al-Darajat, p. 153 and 156. This means that the theory of a text (appointing the Imam) and the hereditary leadership among the members of the Prophets household only has no existence in the first generation Shiites. Thus, their view of the two great companions, Abu Bakr and Umar, was positive, as they did not consider them as usurpers of the caliphate, left by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as a matter to be resolved by consultation (Shura) among the Muslims. And that he did not appoint anyone specifically by means of a text or injunction. __________________________________________________________________________________ Allah SAYS IN THE QURAN… Say: “Have you any knowledge (Proof) that you can produce before us? Verily, you follow nothing but guess, and you do nothing but lie”. Surah Al-An’am: 148 “But they have no knowledge thereof. They follow but a guess, and verily, guess is no substitute for the Truth” Surah Al-Najm: 28. __________________________________________________________________________________ إِنَّ أَصْدَقَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَأَحْسَنَ الْهَدْىِ هَدْىُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَشَرَّ الأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلاَلَةٌ وَكُلَّ ضَلاَلَةٍ فِي النَّارِ

As-Salamu 'Alaikum, I was doing a research on khums in Sunni fiqh. At a point, I wanted to find out how and when Abu Bakr and 'Umar paid Imam 'Ali, Umm Abiha Fatimah, Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn, 'alaihim as-salam, their shares of khums, in line with the Qur'an: واعلموا أنما غنمتم من شيء فأن لله خمسه وللرسول ولذي القربى واليتامى والمساكين وابن السبيل إن كنتم آمنتم بالله وما أنزلنا على عبدنا يوم الفرقان يوم التقى الجمعان والله على كل شيء قدير And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives (of the Messenger, Muhammad (SAW)), (and also) the orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad SAW) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allah is Able to do all things. (Qur'an 8:41; Muhsin Khan transl.) Both Abu Bakr and 'Umar waged wars and captured war booties. 'Umar, in particular, was very successful in the war affairs. Therefore, they both had no excuse not to pay the aforementioned members of the pure Ahl al-Bayt their shares of khums. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate any reliable Sunni report which show that either Abu Bakr or 'Umar paid them their shares of khums. This is why I am requesting the help of especially Sunni brothers here, to help find the needed reports. Otherwise, non-payment of khums is a sign of disbelief. I wouldn't want to draw a quick conclusion, without getting helping hands into the search. I am sure the Sunni (or perhaps Shi'i) brothers here will be able to find the reports I need. Shukran.

Here is the three books authored by dear brother Toyib Olawuyi in dowloadable version (PDF). Just click on the titles. 1. Imam al-Mahdi: The Twelfth Khalifah in the Sahih Sunni Ahadith 2. Did Abu Bakr really lead the Salat? 3. Nikah Mut'ah: Zina or Sunnah? You can buy all these books via AMAZON. And these are their links: 1. Imam al-Mahdi: The Twelfth Khalifah in the Sahih Sunni Ahadith (AMAZON)2. Did Abu Bakr really lead the Salat? (AMAZON)3. Nikah Mut'ah: Zina or Sunnah? (AMAZON) And finally the UPDATED VERSİON of the book Aishah And The Yasiri Slanders (PDF).

WHY CELEBRATE EID E ZAHRA (SA) Al-Sayed ibn Tawoos writes in the book, 'Zawaa'id al-Fawaa'id' that Ibn Abi Alaa Al-Hamadani al-Waasiti and Yahya ibn Mohammad bin Huwaij Al-Baghdadi said: We were quarreling about ibn Al-Khattab (Omar) and we became uncertain about him, so we travelled to Ahmad bin Isaac al-Qummi (Imam Hassan Al-Askari's companion) in Qum. We knocked on his door, and a young Iraqi girl opened. We asked to see Ahmad bin Isaac, to which she replied, "He is busy with his festival (eid), for it is a day of celebration" I said, "Praise be to Allah! The Shia festivals are four; Al-Fitr, Al-Ad'ha, Al-Ghadeer and Jomaa". She said, "Ahmad bin Isaac narrates from his master Abul Hassan, Ali bin Mohammad Al-Askari, that this day is a day of Eid, and it is in fact the most blessed of Eids for Ahlul Bayt and their followers" We then told her to inform him of our presence and seek permission for us to enter. Ahmad bin Isaac came to greet us dressed in a loincloth and perfumed with musk. We criticized his action, to which he replied, "Don’t worry, for I have just done ritual ghusl for Day of Eid”. We said, “Is it a day of Eid?” He replied in the affirmative. It was the 9th of Rabi al-Awwal. He invited us in and when we were seated he said, “I went to visit my Master Abu al-Hassan in Samarra on the same day as this, 9th Rabi al-Awwal. He instructed all his servants to wear new clothes, and he was burning scented wood an incense pot. I said to him, “May our fathers and mothers be a sacrifice for you! O son of the Messenger of Allah! has a day of celebration been renewed for Ahlul Bayt today?” He said, “Is there a more sacred day for Ahlul bayt than this day, 9th Rabi Al-Awwal? My father narrated to me that, on this day Huthaifa bin Al-Yamani went to visit my grandfather, the Messenger of Allah (saw) . Huthaifa said, “I saw Ameerul Moumineen and his children eating with the Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) was looking at their faces, smiling and saying to Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain, ‘Eat! Eat! enjoy the blessings and felicities of this day!, for it is the day that Allah will destroy His enemy, and the enemy of your grandfather; It is the day Allah will accept the deeds of your followers and lovers; It is the day the Divine words of Allah will be realized, ‘See, yonder are their dwellings empty and in ruins because they did wrong’ (27:52) It is the day the pharaoh of Ahlul bayt will be annihilated, their oppressor and the usurper of their rights; It is the day Allah will proceed to what they have done of deeds, and He will render them as scattered floating dust’. I said, “O Messenger of Allah! Is there from amongst your nation and companions, he who will violate these sanctities?” The Prophet said, “Yes Huthaifa, A tyrant from amongst the hypocrites. He will rule over them in a swaggering dictatorial manner and use deceit amongst my Ummah. He will bar the people from following the path of Allah and distort His Book and change my Sunnah. He will usurp my children’s inheritance and appoint himself as an authority. He will have the audacity to attack his Imam after me and will seize the people’s wealth in a way not prescribed and will squander it disobediently. He will belie me and belie my brother and vizier. His will enviously appropriate my daughter’s rights. She will invoke God, and He will answer her prayers on a day like this”. Huthaifa said, “O Messenger of Allah, invoke Allah to destroy him in your life time” The Messenger of Allah said, “Huthaifa, I loathe challenging the decree of Allah, although I have asked Allah to give virtue to the day on which he perishes over all days, so that it becomes a practice observed by my loved ones and followers of my Ahlul bayt. Whereupon Allah, the Exalted, revealed to me saying, “O Mohammad! You and your Ahlul Bayt will be afflicted with worldly calamities and adversities, also the oppression of the hypocrites and usurpers from amongst My servants whom you counseled, only to be betrayed by them. You were sincere towards them, yet they deceived you; you showed them kindness and they drove you away.. I will, by My power and might, open 1000 doors of hellfire from the lowest pits of hell and cast therein those who usurp the rights of your brother Ali. I will make an example of that hypocrite on the Day of Judgment, and like the pharaohs of all the prophets and the enemies of the religion, I will gather them and their companions in the Hellfire and therein they will abide eternally. O Mohammad! Your vicegerent and companion will suffer much affliction from this pharaoh and usurper who will have the audacity to alter My words. He will associate with me a partner and avert people from My path. He will erect himself as the Golden Cow of your ummah and disbelieve in me. I have commanded My angels in the seven heavens, your Shia and adorers to celebrate the day I annihilated him on. And I have ordered My angels to praise Me and seek forgiveness for your Shia and adorers. O Mohammad! And I have asked the Honorable Scribes (Al-Kiraam Al-Kaatibeen) to lift the Pen on that day and not to write any of my creations errors in honor of you and your vicegerent. O Mohammad! I have made that day a day of eid for you and your Ahlul Bayt and their followers and Shia. I vow by My Glory and Magnificence that I will favor the one who celebrates that day with the rewards of the (angels) surrounding (the throne), and I will give him permission to intercede for close kin, and I will increase his wealth. And I will free, every year, on that day, thousands of your Shia, adorers and followers from the fires of hell and recompense their striving, forgive their sins and accept their deeds. Huthaifa said, “the Prophet then stood and entered the house of Um Salama, and I left with no doubts in my mind about the second (omar). And I saw him after the death of the Prophet facilitate evil, disbelieve and apostatize, embark on the seat of authority (caliphate), manipulate the Quran, burn the House of Revelation (Fatima’s), innovate in the sunnah, reject the testimony of Ameerul Moumineen, belie Fatima - the daughter of the Messenger, usurp Fadak from her, satisfy the Jews, Christians and Majoos, and annoyed the apple of the Moustafa’s eye – never ever satisfying her. He changed the traditions and lay the groundwork for the killing of Ameerul Moumineen. He manifested injustice, prohibited what Allah had made permissible and made permissible what Allah had prohibited, slapped the face of Al-Zakiyya (Fatima), and oppressively and offensively ascended the pulpit of the Prophet, slandered Ameerul moumineen and opposed and nullified his opinion”. Huthaifa said, “Allah answered the prayers of my master (Imam Ali) in relation to this hypocrite, and he was killed at the hands of (Abu Lulu) he who killed him, may Allah have mercy on his soul”. Huthaifa continues, “I visited Ameerul Moumineen to pass on my felicities when that munafiq was killed and he said, ‘O Huthaifa, do you remember that day when you visited the Messenger of Allah when his grandchildren and I were eating with him and he pointed out to you the excellence of this day’” I said, “Yes, dear brother of the Messenger of Allah” He then said, “By Allah! Today is that day – the day Allah satisfied the children of the Messenger, and I am aware of many names for this day” I asked, “O Prince of the Faithful, I would love to hear from you the names for this day – 9th rabi al-awwal” The Imam said, “It is the day of respite, the day of relief from distress and agony, it is a second Ghadir, it is the removal of burden, it is the day of favoritism and the lifting of the pen, the day of hady (gift) and aqiqa, the day of blessing, the day of vengeance. It is the Great Eid of Allah and the day supplications are answered, the day of great standing, the day of turning back, the day of provision, the day erected walls are demolished, the day of regret for the oppressors, the day of victory for the Shia, the day worries are expelled, the day of triumph, the day of submission the day of power, the day of pardon, the day of jubilance for the Shia, the day of reflection, the day of great charity, the second Fitr, the day of Allah’s path, the day of contentment, the day of Eid for Ahlul Bayt, the day of victory for Bani Israel, the day Allah accepted the deeds of the Shia, the day of providing sadaqah, the day of asking for an increase, the day the hypocrite is killed, the day of reckoning, the day of Ahlul Bayt’s cheerfulness, the day that is witnessed, the day the oppressor will bite his hands, the day misguidance will be demolished, the day of accomplishment, the day of witnessing, the day of pardon for the faithful, the day of (ALMUSTATAAB), the day the authority of the munafiq departs, the day of settlement, the day the faithful relaxes, the day of Mubahila, the day of boasting, the day of thankfulness, the day victory for the oppressed, the day of visitation, the day of love, the day innovations are exposed, the day of piety, the day of exhortation, the day of worship, the day of Islam…” Huthaifa said, “I got up and left Ameerul Moumineen, saying to myself, ‘If I do not succeed in achieving rewards for deeds other than those rewarded for this day, I would be satisfied” Mohammad bin Abi Al-alaa and Yahya bin jareeh said, “Each of us got up and kissed the forehead of Isaac and said, ‘Praised be the Lord for not taking our souls before honoring us with this blessed day – and we left his place and celebrated that day, and it is the Eid of the Shia” ( REF : Beharul Anwar v95 pg 351)

قال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يا أبا بكر تقرء كتاب الله؟ قال: نعم. قال: أخبرني عن قول الله عز وجل:" إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا " فيمن زلت فينا أم في غيرنا؟ قال: بل فيكم، قال: فلو أن شهودا شهدوا على فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله بفاحشة ما كنت صانعا بها؟ قال كنت أقيم عليها الحد، كما أقيمه على نساء المسلمين، قال: إذن كنت عند الله من الكافرين، قال: ولم قال: لأنك رددت شهادة الله لها بالطهارة، وقبلت شهادة الناس عليها، كما رددت حكم الله وحكم رسوله Imam Ali(as): O' Abu Bakr. Have you read the book of Allah(swt)? Abu Bakr(la): Yes. Imam Ali(as): The verse " God desires to keep only the uncleanness away from you O'People of the Family and purifies you a thorough purification" has been send down in our praise or in the praise of others? Abu Bakr(la): Yes, in Your praise. Imam Ali(as): If a witness, witnesses against Janabe Fatima(sa) regarding a bad thing, what will you do in that case? Abu Bakr(la): I will apply the Islamic Had on her(sa) just like its done for other muslim women. Imam Ali(as): In that case you will be among the Kaafir in the sight of Allah(swt). Abu Bakr(la): No. Imam Ali(as): Because in this case you rejected the declaration of Allah(swt) regarding the Purity of Janabe Fatima(sa) , accepting the declaration of the common people which is like rejecting the order of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and order of Messenger of Allah (saww). [source: Ihtijaaj-e-Tabarisi Vol 1 , Pg: 122-123] VISIT OPPRESSIONS UPON JANABE ZAHRA (SA) BLOGSPOT

A- Sunni brothers please quote the verse of Quran which states that the leader / imam / caliph (successor) after the prophet saww is chosen by the people (instead of Allah swt)? B- قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ Say, [O Muhammad], "If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (3:31) قُلْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ ۖ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْكَافِرِينَ Say, "Obey Allah and the Messenger." But if they turn away - then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers. (3:32) Since the prophet is a leader in the religion obeying him is mandatory for Muslims. Also following him is the only way to obey Allah’s command. كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولًا مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُوا تَعْلَمُونَ Just as We have sent among you a messenger from yourselves reciting to you Our verses and purifying you and teaching you the Book and wisdom and teaching you that which you did not know. (2:151) So the duties of the prophet (who is a leader and obeying him is mandatory) in the religion are outlined below: 1- Reciting the verses of Quran to the people (with their complete knowledge) 2- Purifying the people (since he is a purified one) 3- Teaching the knowledge of book (that contains all the knowledge) 4- Teaching the wisdom 5- Teaching the knowledge of unknown C- Since the prophet is the seal of prophet hood, no prophet can come after him. In order to meet these religious duties after the prophet were the leaders chosen by the people (3 caliphs) capable to lead the ummah? Response on the issue will be appreciated..

Objection 6: If rivalry existed, why Ali (a) named his sons Umar, Abu Bakr and Uthman? Pattern of Objection Shia claim that the first and second Caliphs attacked the house of Fatima ® whereas we know that Ali (a) named some of his issues after the Caliphs. This shows that the Caliphs are exonerated from these allegations. Does anyone name his children on his enemies? Logical reply A. Absence of restricting the name to a particular person Names are never related to any particular person. In the same way, names like Umar, Abu Bakr and Uthman were not limited to these persons and numerous other people were also named as such. That is why names like Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were common names and numerous persons during the time of the Prophet were known by these names. Thus, overlooking the replies that follow, it cannot be said that selection of these names was due to attachment and friendly relations between His Eminence and the Caliphs, because it is possible that His Eminence had attachment with other people having the same names. VISIT OPPRESSIONS UPON JANABE ZAHRA (SA) FOR MORE B. Naming as Abu Bakr Especially with regard to naming one of the sons of Amirul Momineen (a) on the name of Abu Bakr; if it was as some have claimed, Abu Bakr was an agnomen (Kunniyat) and not a name, His Eminence should have named his son after one of the real names of Abu Bakr: That is Abdul Kaaba, Ateeq, Abdullah or his other names (with attention to differences, which exist with regard to his names) and he would not chosen his Kunniyat. Another point is that: What attention to the fact that Abu Bakr is a Kunniyat and not a name, and Kunniyat is chosen by a person himself according to the circumstances of his life and it is not selected by the father of that person. From this aspect, if we say that Amirul Momineen (a) named one of his sons as Abu Bakr it would be a false and baseless statement. Finally: According to a report the real name of this son, whose Kunniyat was Abu Bakr, was Abdullah and he was martyred at Kerbala aged twenty-five years. Since his real name was Abdullah and from the aspect that he had a son named Bakr they referred to him as Abu Bakr. Abul Faraj Isfahani writes: Abdullah bin Ali was twenty-five years of age when he was martyred in Kerbala.[1] On the basis of this, the birth of Abdullah occurred during the early period of the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a) and the Imam during that period severely condemned the Caliphs preceding him. This is another proof of the absence of relation between these names with that, which is publicized by the objection makers. C. Naming as Umar With regard to naming of a son of Amirul Momineen (a) as Umar: 1- Firstly: One of the habits of Umar was that he used to change the names of people. Thus, according to historians, he changed the names of many people. Balazari has written in Ansabul Ashraf: Umar bin Khattab named the son of Ali after himself.[2] In the same way, Dhahabi has written in Seer Alaamun Nubla: A son was born to Ali (a) during the period of Umar bin Khattab and the latter named the child after his own name.[3] For further emphasis, I would present the example of three other persons, whose names were changed by Umar: A- Ibrahim bin Harith Abdur Rahman bin Harith was named by his father as Ibrahim, whose name Umar changed to Abdur Rahman.[4] B- Ajda Abi Masruq Umar bin Khattab changed the name of Ajda bin Malik to Abdur Rahman.[5] C- Thalaba bin Saad The name of Mualla was Thalaba; Umar changed it to Mualla.[6] 2- Supposing we don’t accept the previous statement as was also mentioned in the beginning, can it be said that this naming was due to the attachment of Amirul Momineen (a) to Umar bin Khattab and only his name was Umar? Ibne Hajar has mentioned in Isabah, ‘Chapter of those named as Umar’, twenty-one persons among companions of the Prophet who were named as Umar.[7] How and according to which evidence was this naming due to the attachment to Umar bin Khattab? [1] Maqatilut Talibiyyin, Vol. 1, Pg. 22, Abul Faraj Ali bin Husain Isfahani (d. 356). [2] Ansabul Ashraf, Vol. 1, Pg. 297, Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir Balazari (d. 279 A.H.). [3] Seer Aalamun Nubla, Vol. 4, Pg. 134, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi, Abu Abdullah, (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi. [4] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 5, Pg. 29, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992. [5] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 1, Pg. 186, No. 425, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992. [6] Al-Ansab, Vol. 1, Pg. 250, Abul Manzar Salma bin Muslim bin Ibrahim Sahari Autabi (d. 511 A.H.) [7] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 4, Pg. 587-597, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei (d. 854), Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 9 Objection 9 : How did the modesty of Ali (a) allow that Fatima should go behind the door? ExplanationAmong the objections that Wahabis have expressed is:How can it be believed that in spite of the fact that Ali (a) was present in the house, his wife Fatima should go to the door and such an accident should take place? Why Ali (a) himself or another person from those present in the house did not step forward to open the door? Can it be justified logically that Ali (a) should send Fatima to the door when strangers were present behind it? Logical reply A. The door was open and Fatima went to the open door in order to close it upon the persons who were besieging the house As opposed to today’s custom, when in towns usually the doors are kept closed all the time and only opened when someone knocks from outside, during those days, like it is customary in many villages even today that the doors usually remain open all day and only those who have sought permission can enter.On the same basis, it is concluded from some traditional reports that at the time of the occurrence of his incident the door was open and Lady Fatima Zahra (s) was near it; and on seeing the attackers heading for her house she went behind the door and closed it upon them. The Late Ayyashi, Shaykh Mufeed and others have written:The narrator states that Umar said: Get up, let us go to Ali. Abu Bakr, Uthman, Khalid bin Walid, Mughira bin Shoba, Abu Ubaidah Jarrah, Saalim the freed slave of Abu Huzaifah, Qunfadh and I stood up with them. When we came near the house, Fatima saw us and that is why she closed the door on our faces. Fatimawas certain that Umar will not enter without permission. Umar kicked and broke the door, which was made of date trunks. He and his companions entered the house and shouted ‘God is the greatest’ upon their success. They brought Ali (a) out of the house.[1] In the report of Sulaym, it is also mentioned:Umar came to the door of Ali and Fatima. Fatima was seated behind the door. Her head was tied and her body had turned frail and weak due to the loss of her father. Umar knocked at the door and said: Son of Abu Talib, open the door.Fatima said: Umar, what do you want from us? Leave us alone in the calamity that has befallen us. Umar said: Open the door, otherwise I would burn down the house. Fatima asked: Do you not fear the Almighty Allah that we are present in the house? Umar did not retreat and he called for fire and set the door afire.[2] FOR MORE ARTICLES VISIT HERE B. Expectation of Lady Zahra (s) that the besiegers would seek permission to enter the house On the other hand Lady Fatima Zahra (s) was sure that Umar and the people accompanying him would not enter the house without permission according to the commands of Quran and Islamic laws, because the commands of Quran on all Muslims are as such. يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتًا غَيْرَ بُيُوتِكُمْ حَتَّىٰ تَسْتَأْنِسُوا وَتُسَلِّمُوا عَلَىٰ أَهْلِهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ ﴿٢٧﴾ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا فِيهَا أَحَدًا فَلَا تَدْخُلُوهَا حَتَّىٰ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ قِيلَ لَكُمُ ارْجِعُوا فَارْجِعُوا ۖ هُوَ أَزْكَىٰ لَكُمْ ۚ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ عَلِيمٌ ﴿٢٨﴾“O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission and saluted their inmates; this is better for you, that you may be mindful. But if you do not find anyone therein, then do not enter them until permission is given to you; and if it is said to you: Go back, then go back; this is purer for you; and Allah is Cognizant of what you do.” (Surah Nur 24:27-28) In addition to the fact that the house of divine prophets is having special position, it is necessary to accord more respect to them, as the Holy Quran has advised this especially: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتَ النَّبِيِّ إِلَّا أَنْ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ“O you who believe! do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you…” (Surah Ahzab 33:53) Without any doubt, the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) is also considered as the house of the Prophet as clarified in numerous commentaries of Ahle Sunnat scholars. Famous Ahle Sunnat commentators, like Suyuti and others in the commentary of the 36th verse of Surah Nur[3] have narrated from the Messenger of Allah (s) that the house of Ali and Zahra (s) is considered to be the most excellent of the houses of the prophets.[4] In addition to this, it was expected that with attention to the status of Lady Zahra (s) and respect of the Holy Prophet (s) in the view of Muslims of the early period of Islam, the besiegers on seeing that lady would feel ashamed and not barge into the house and go away from there as some persons did on hearing the voice of Lady Zahra (s). Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari writes:Umar came to the house of Fatima with a group of people. Fatima, on hearing the voice of the crowd wailed in a loud voice: O Messenger of Allah (s)! After you what all we had to suffer at the hands of the sons of Khattab (Umar) and Abu Qahafa (Abu Bakr)?! Some people were moved by Fatima’s wailing and left the place weeping, but Umar remained there with other persons.[5] Therefore, this objection returns to the shamelessness of the attackers, who did not respect the sanctity of that house and its occupants and it does not in any way harm the character of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) and Amirul Momineen Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a). Polemical reply A. How the Prophet allowed his wives to open door for strangers? A glance at the practice of the Prophet (s) in this matter is the best rebuttal to the objection makers; because a number of instances are mentioned in books of Shia and Sunni that His Eminence permitted his wives to open the door for strangers. 1- Umme Salma and opening of the door for Ali (a):The Messenger of Allah (s) emerged from the chambers of Zainab binte Jahash and entered the room of Umme Salma since that day it was turn for him to stay at her place. Not much time passed that Ali (a) knocked at the door softly. The Messenger of Allah (s) woke up. Umme Salma did not reply. The Prophet said: Get up and open the door…[6] 2- Ayesha and opening of the door at the command of the Messenger of Allah (s):Amirul Momineen (a) says: I recited the Morning Prayers with the Messenger of Allah (s) and came out of the Masjid with him. His Eminence said: I am going to the house of Ayesha. I also came to Fatima and we all enjoyed the company of Hasan and Husain. After that I went to the house of Ayesha and knocked at the door. She asked: Who’s there? I replied: Ali. She said: The Prophet is asleep. I returned to my house and (after sometime) again came to her place and knocked. She asked: Who’s there? I replied: Ali. She said: The Prophet is busy. I could not remain patient anymore and I knocked the third time. Ayesha asked: Who’s there? I replied: Ali. I heard the voice of the Messenger of Allah (s) saying: Ayesha, open the door. Ayesha opened the door and I entered…[7] B. Why the Prophet allowed Umar and Ayesha to sit at the same table? According to reports having correct chain of narrators, which Wahabis have mentioned in most of their books, the Messenger of Allah (s) allowed Umar bin Khattab to sit with Ayesha on the same dinner table and they have even narrated that when they were eating from the same plate, the hand of Ayesha touched against Umar’s.Ibne Abi Shaybah in Musannaf, Bukhari in Adabul Mufarrad, Ibne Abi Hatim, Ibne Kathir and others have mentioned in their commentaries that:The Messenger of Allah (s) was having his dinner with Ayesha when Umar entered. His Eminence invited him to join them. Umar came forward and his hand was in the dish when it touched Ayesha’s hand. Umar said: Oh, if the Prophet had observed Hijab for his wives from me, no eye would have seen them.[8] [1] Tafsir Ayyashi, Vol. 2, Pg. 67, Abi Nadhar, Muhammad bin Masud bin Ayyash Salmi Samarqandi, alias Ayyashi (d. 323 A.H.); Researched, edited and referenced by Sayyid Hashim Rasooli Hamallati, Maktaba Ilmiya Islamiya, Tehran.Al-Ikhtisaas, Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Noman, Ibne Muallim Abi Abdullah Akbari Baghdadi Shaykh Mufeed (d. 413 A.H.), Edited: Ali Akbar Ghaffari, Sayyid Mahmud Zarandi, Darul Mufeed Lit Taba wan Nashar wa Tauzih, Beirut, Second Edition, 1414 - 1993.Biharul Anwar, Vol. 28, Pg. 227, Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1111 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Baqir Bahbudi, Mausasul Wafa – Beirut – Lebanon, Second corrected edition, 1403 – 1983 A.D.[2] Kitab Sulaym bin Qays Hilali, Pg. 864, Sulaym bin Qays Hilali (d. 80 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Baqir Ansari, Intisharat Hadi - Qom, First edition, 1405 A.H.[3] فِي بُيُوتٍ أَذِنَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تُرْفَعَ وَيُذْكَرَ فِيهَا اسْمُهُ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ فِيهَا بِالْغُدُوِّ وَالْآصَالِ ﴿٣٦﴾“In houses which Allah has permitted to be exalted and that His name may be remembered in them; there glorify Him therein in the mornings and the evenings.”[4] Ibne Marduya has narrated from Ansar bin Malik and Buraidah that he said: The Messenger of Allah (s) recited this verse: “In houses which Allah has permitted to be exalted and that His name may be remembered in them; there glorify Him therein in the mornings and the evenings.” A man stood up and asked: Which house is this, O Messenger of Allah (s)? He replied: Houses of the prophets. Abu Bakr stood up and asked: O Messenger of Allah (s), is the house of Ali and Fatima from these houses. He replied: Yes, and more excellent than them.Ad-Durrul Manthur, Vol. 6, Pg. 203, Abdur Rahman bin Kamaal Jalaluddin Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut – 1993.Al-Kashf wal Bayan (Tafsir Thalabi), Vol. 7, Pg. 107, Abu Ishaq Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim Thalabi Nishapuri (d. 427 A.H. – 1035 A.D.), Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 1422 A.H. – 2002 A.D. First edition, Edited: Al-Imam Abu Muhammad bin Ashur, Reference and research: Ustad Nazir Saadi.Al-Jawahirul Ahsan fee Tafseeru Quran (Tafsir Thaalabi), Vol. 7, Pg. 107, Abdur Rahman bin Muhammad bin Makhluf Thaalabi (d. 875), Mausasal Aalami Lil Matbuat, Beirut.Ruhul Maani fee Tafsirul Quranil Azeem wa Saba Mathani, Vol. 18, Pg. 74, Allamah Abul Fadhl Shahabuddin Sayyid Mahmud Alusi Baghdadi, (d. 1270 A.H.), Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut.[5] Al-Imamah was Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 16, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari (d.276 A.H.), Edited: Khalil al-Mansur, Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, 1418 A.H. – 1997 A.D. Edited: Shiri, Vol. 1, Pg. 38, Edited: Zaini, Vol. 1, Pg. 24[6] Tarikh Medina Damishq wa Zikr Fadhlaha wa Tasmiya man Halha minal Amail, Vol. 42, Pg. 470, Abul Qasim Ali bin Hasan Ibne Hibtullah bin Abdullah Shafei, (d. 571 A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut, 1995, Edited: Mohibbuddin Abi Saeed Umar bin Ghrama Umari;At-Tadween fee Akhbari Qazween, Vol. 1, Pg. 89, Abdul Karim bin Muhammad Raafi-i Qazwini (d. 623 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut, Edited: Azizullah Attari, 1987 A.H.[7] Al-Ihtijaj, Vol. 1, Pg. 292 & 293, Abu Mansur Ahmad bin Ali bin Abu Talib Tabarsi (d. 548 A.H.), Edited with notes: Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Khorasan, Darun Noman Lit Taba-a wan Nashr – Najaf Ashraf, 1386 A.H. 1966 A.D.[8] Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Pg. 531, Abul Fadhl Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Asqalani Shafei (d. 852 A.H.), Darul Marifa, Beirut – 1379, Edited: Muhibuddin Khatib.The above report is also mentioned in reliable Ahle Sunnat sources.

Ali didnt know/understand that he was appointed by the Prophet s.a.w at Ghadeer khum as the successor, but the Shias do. May be the Shias are smarter than Ali :P Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 74, Hadith 282: Narrated by Ibn Abbas: `Ali bin Abi Talib came out of the house of the Prophet () during his fatal ailment. The people asked (`Ali), "O Abu Hasan! How is the health of Allah's Messenger () this morning?" `Ali said, "This morning he is better, with the grace of Allah." Al-`Abbas held `Ali by the hand and said, "Don't you see him (about to die)? By Allah, within three days you will be the slave of the stick (i.e., under the command of another ruler). By Allah, I think that Allah's Messenger () will die from his present ailment, for I know the signs of death on the faces of the offspring of `Abdul Muttalib. So let us go to Allah's Messenger () to ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If the authority is given to us, we will know it, and if it is given to somebody else we will request him to recommend us to him. " `Ali said, "By Allah! If we ask Allah's Messenger () for the rulership and he refuses, then the people will never give it to us. Besides, I will never ask Allah's Messenger for it." With regards to the hadith prophesying the coming of the 12 Caliphs from the Quraish, it is a PROOF that the 12 Imams of the shias are not what the Prophet meant in his Prophecy because only 2 of the 12 imams became Caliphs, and one of them Al Hassan r.a. gave the Caliphate to Muawiyah r.a. So I think that the Shias here are not reading history properly.

I am proud to share the dowloadable PDF form of this great research. Read and spread. And don't forget brother Toyib in your duas. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2 'Ali: The Best of the Sahabah Explicit Testimonies of Sahih Sunni Ahadith Authored by Toyib Olawuyi Edition: 1 This book is an in-depth academic critique, and a thoroughly investigative refutation, of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's Minhaj al-Sunnah on the specific question of Abu Bakr's alleged superiority over Amir al-Muminin 'Ali b. Abi Talib. The shaykh has adopted a two-pronged approach in his Minhaj. He presents arguments and proofs to support Abu Bakr's superiority and discredits all arguments and proofs in favour of 'Ali's superiority. Toyib Olawuyi has however placed all the primary submissions, evidences and denials of Ibn Taymiyyah under the microscope and punctured every single one of them severely using the Book of Allah, the sahih ahadith of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah, and their strictest rijal verification methods. Full transparency, accuracy and accountability are strictly observed throughout our book, and we hope it will ease the way for every soul seeking to find out the real truth. BUY FROM AMAZON

Objection 5: If Fatima (s) was attacked why Ali (a) did not defend her? Explanation Among the most important doubts, which Wahabis propagate to instigate the feelings of people with an aim to deny attack on the house of revelation is that if such an attack ever took place, why Amirul Momineen (a) did not defend his wife? Was he not the victorious lion of Allah and the most valiant person of his time? Ali, who was the victorious lion of Allah and who possessed the enemy-routing sword and a hand with which he raised the gate of Fort Khyber, how even after having so much strength he saw his spouse being beaten up in his presence, but did not display any reaction? And… Rational replyThroughout history, Shia scholars have given various replies to this objection, which we shall briefly state in few points as follows: A. Amirul Momineen (a) defendedAmirul Momineen (a), in the first stage and when his house took the shape of confrontation, displayed severe reaction and confronted the attackers, including Umar. He seized his collar, threw him down and fisted his neck and face; but since the Imam was commanded patience, he refrained from continuing the dispute and according to the command of the Messenger of Allah (s), he observed patience.Amirul Momineen (a) in fact, wanted Umar and his other companions to understand that if he had not been ordered to observe patience and if the order of the Almighty Allah had been to the contrary, no one would have dared to attack the house of Fatima (s) and give way to their imagination; but the Imam, like always, was obedient to the command of the Almighty Allah.Sulaym bin Qays Hilali, a sincere companion of Amirul Momineen (a), has written regarding this:Umar asked for fire and ignited it at the door of the house and the door broke. He opened it and entered. Lady Zahra (s) came to him and screamed: O father, O Messenger of Allah (s)! Umar raised the sword while it was in its cover and hit at the side of Fatima. Fatima called out again: O father! Umar raised the whip and hit at the side of Fatima. She called out again: O Messenger of Allah (s)! See how Abu Bakr and Umar are behaving with your survivors! Ali (a) stood up all of a sudden and seized the collar of Umar and pulled him down so hard that he fell down. Then he fisted him at his nose and neck and wanted to eliminate him, but he remembered the statement of the Prophet and the bequest he had made to him and he stood up and said: O son of Sahhak, by the one who sent Muhammad as a Prophet, if divine will and covenant of the Prophet had not been there on my neck, you would have known that you would not have been able to enter my house.[1]In the same way, Alusi, the well known Wahabi commentator, quoting Shia sources has narrated this report:Umar became infuriated and burnt down the door of the house of Ali (a) and entered the house. Fatima (s) came to Umar and screamed: O my father, O Messenger of Allah (s)! Umar raised the sword while it was in its cover and hit at the side of Fatima. Then Umar raised the whip and hit at the side of Fatima.Fatima called out again: O father! Seeing this, Ali (a) suddenly arose and seized Umar’s collar, jerked it hard and threw him down and hit at his nose and neck.[2] CLICK HERE FOR MORE ARTICLES B. Ali (a) surrendered only due to the bequest of the Holy Prophet (s)Throughout his life, Amirul Momineen (a) was obedient to the commands of the Almighty Allah and only divine orders made him react; and prejudice, anger and selfish motives never made him act in response.His Eminence was commanded by the Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) to observe patience and forbearance before great calamities and it was according to this command that he was not supposed to take up arms.The Late Raziuddin Musawi in his book, Khasaisul Aaimma has written:Imam Kazim (a) says that he asked his father, Imam Sadiq (a): What happened after the Messenger of Allah (s) swooned? My father replied: Ladies entered and started wailing. Muhajireen and Ansar gathered and expressed sorrow and grief. Ali (a) said: Suddenly they called me; I entered and threw myself on the body of the Messenger of Allah (s). He said: My brother, these people would abandon me and become engrossed in their worldly activities, but all this should not prevent you from attending to me. Your simile in my Ummah is like the simile of Kaaba that the Almighty Allah has made it a sign so that they may come to it from far off places…when I am no more and when you have concluded what I have willed you to do and you have placed my body in my grave, sit at home and compile the Quran as I have ordered, on the basis of obligatory acts, laws and sequence of revelation. I advise you to observe patience in what befalls you and Fatima at the hands of these people. Make patience your habit till you meet me.[3]Yes, at one time the command of the Almighty Allah was that enemies should not get sleep due to the fear of his Zulfiqar and at another time the command was that this same Zulfiqar should remain in its case so that the foundations of Islam remain safe and the enemies of Islam should despair of destroying it. C. Shortage of strength and power to stage an uprisingOn a number of occasions, Amirul Momineen (a) has considered lack of sufficient power as one of the reasons for his not having staged an uprising. The Imam has clarified in the third sermon of Nahjul Balagha:Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience, although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance…[4]Imam (a) says in sermon 217:I looked around, but found no one to shield me, protect me or help me, except the members of my family. I refrained from flinging them into death and therefore, closed my eyes despite the dust, kept swallowing saliva despite (the suffocation of) grief and endured pangs of anger, although it was more bitter than colocynth and more grievous than the bite of knives.[5]On another occasion the Imam pointed to thirty sheep that were grazing and said:By Allah, if I had as many supporters, I would have definitely staged an uprising.[6]Or another occasion, it is mentioned that when 360 persons pledged allegiance to the Imam, he said: Meet me tomorrow at such and such place with your heads shaved, but except for five: Abu Zar, Huzaifah, Miqdad, Ammar and Salman, no one appeared.[7]Perhaps some might judge this wrongly and say: Amirul Momineen (a), who was the conqueror of the Battle of Badr, Uhad, Khyber, Hunain and Khandaq etc. Why he did not stage an uprising all alone? Why did he not display his feats again?We reply: There is no basis to say that Amirul Momineen (a) should act in contravention of practice of the Holy Prophet (s) and the divine prophets. It is mentioned in a report that Amirul Momineen (a) said:The Prophet advised me that if I don’t get supporters, I should restrain myself and secure my blood and that of my family members and followers.[8] D. Avoiding division among Muslims and destruction of IslamAmong the reasonings based on statements and explanations of the Imam (a) it was to avoid division in the ranks of Muslims and destruction of Islam. In some reports of Amirul Momineen (a), it is mentioned that:By Allah, if I had not feared divisions in the ranks of Muslims, their reverting to infidelity and destruction of religion, I would have definitely confronted my opponent in a way they had never seen.[9]The same point is mentioned by Ibne Abde Barr, a prominent Ahle Sunnat scholar in his book of Istiab under the biography of Rufaa bin Rafe, quoting from Amirul Momineen (a).[10] E. Possibility of martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s) and her sons if Amirul Momineen (a) had confrontedSecurity of women and children are among the natural and common matters in all human beings; but it is clear that if one comes to know that the aim of the enemy in confronting his ladies is only to instigate him to react so that his most important aim is fulfilled, he would keep himself under control and never do anything, which will allow the enemy to achieve his aim.The aim of the attackers on the house of revelation was that Amirul Momineen (a) should be provoked to react and through this they may prove that a person like him is prepared to use the sword to remove a large number of people for getting worldly rulership.And also if Amirul Momineen (a) had reacted and had been defeated by them, it was possible that Lady Fatima Zahra (s) and the sons would have been killed in this confrontation and the progeny of Imamate would have been cut off. Then enemies would have publicized that Ali (a) sacrificed his wife and children in pursuit of worldly rule and it was in fact the reason of their killing; as they said regarding Ammar Yasir, the loyal companion of Amirul Momineen (a). F. Amirul Momineen (a) chose the best optionCircumstances dictated that Amirul Momineen (a) should either defend the foundation of Islam and give up his right or that a small group should attack him and he should repel them by sword and in exchange the enemies of Islam and hypocrites may take advantage of the opportunity to destroy the foundation of Islam, but through this sacrifice, Imam Ali (a) secured the religion of Islam forever and rendered the enemies of Islam hopeless.Imam Ali (a) has said in the third sermon of Nahjul Balagha:Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience, although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance…[11] CONTINUED IN PART 2...... [1] Kitab Sulaym bin Qays Hilali, Pg. 568, Sulaym bin Qays Hilali (d. 80 A.H.), Intisharat Hadi - Qom, First edition, 1405 A.H.[2] Ruhul Maani fee Tafsirul Quranil Azeem wa Saba Mathani, Vol. 3, Pg. 124, Allamah Abul Fadhl Shahabuddin Sayyid Mahmud Alusi Baghdadi (d. 1270 A.H.), Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut.[3] Khasaisul Aaimma (a), Pg. 73, Abul Hasan Muhammad bin Husain bin Musa Musawi Baghdadi, Sharif Razi (d. 406 A.H.), Edited and compiled by Dr. Muhammad Hadi Amini, Majmaul Bahuth Islamiya Astana Rizvia Muqaddisa, Mashad – Iran, 1406 A.H.Biharul Anwar, Vol. 22, Pg. 484, Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1111 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Baqir Bahbudi, Mausasul Wafa – Beirut – Lebanon, Second corrected edition, 1403 – 1983 A.D.[4] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali (a), Sermon 3, Vol. 1, Pg. 31[5] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali (a), Sermon 217, Vol. 1, Pg. 31[6] The narrator says: The Imam came out of the Masjid and came to a walled compound in which there were thirty sheep. He said: By Allah, if I had as many supporters, who had been well wishers for Allah and His Messenger, I would have indeed removed the son of the fly snapper from his throne.Al-Kafi, Shaykh Kulaini, Vol. 8, Pg. 32[7] At dusk 360 persons pledged allegiance of death to Amirul Momineen (a) (that they would support him till the end of their lives) Imam (a) said to them: Come besides Ahjaar Zayt (a place on the outskirts of Medina) tomorrow morning (and mentioned shaving of the heads as a sign of loyalty). Amirul Momineen (a) himself got himself tonsured, but the following day, except for Abu Zar, Miqdad, Huzaifah bin Yaman, Ammar bin Yasir and Salman, no one appeared. Ali (a) raised his hands to the sky and said: O Allah, these people have humiliated me as Bani Israel insulted Harun…Al-Kafi, Shaykh Kulaini, Vol. 8, Pg. 33[8] Mustadrakul Wasail, Mirza Noori, Vol. 11, Pg. 75 – Misbahul Balagha(Mustadrak Nahjul Balagha), Mir Jahani, Vol. 3, Pg. 6 – Kitab Sulaym bin Qays, Edited: Muhammad Baqir Ansari, Pg, 304 – Al-Mohtazar, Hasan bin Sulaiman Hilli, Pg. 111- Hilyatul Abrar, Sayyid Hashim Bahraini, Vol. 2, Pg. 64 – Jami Ahadithus Shia, Sayyid Burujardi, Vol. 13, Pg. 41 – Al-Ghaibat, Shaykh Tusi, Pg. 193 – Al-Ihtijaj, Shaykh Tabarsi, Vol. 1, Pg. 280.[9] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 184, Abu Hamid Izuddin bin Hibatullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abil Hadid Madaini (d. 655 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut / Lebanon 1418 A.H. – 1998 A.D. First edition, Edited: Muhammad Abdul Karim Namri.[10] Al-Istiab fee Marifatul Ashab, Vol. 2, Pg. 497, Yusuf bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abde Barr (d. 463), Darul Jeel, Beirut, 1412, First edition, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi.[11] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali (a), Sermon 3, Vol. 1, Pg. 31

The most bitter enemies of the Holy Prophet became the rulers of Muslim Ummah within 30 years of his death. Hadhrath Umar played an instrumental role at the Saqifa and Hadhrath Abu Bakr recognized and rewarded him for this by appointing him as his successor. If we are to accept the argument that the Prophet (saaws) left no successor then what right did Hadhrath Abu Bakr appoint a successor? He should have likewise left the issue to the Ummah to decide, as the Prophet (saaws) did (according to the Ahlul’ Sunnah belief). During his reign Hadhrath Umar the post as Governor of Syria was successively given to the 2 sons of Abu Sufyan, Yazid and then Mu’awiya. What was the aim behind these appointments? These two men were not from among the Muhajireen or the Ansar, they were not from amongst those who had pledged allegiance at Hudaibiya, and on the contrary they embraced Islam following the conquest of Makka. http://umar-ibn-khattab.blogspot.in/ Al Alwani writes that during his reign Hadhrath Abu Bakr decided: “That everyone should receive an equal share from the public treasury. ‘Umar asked him: “How can you consider one who entered Islam with misgivings to be equal to one who left his home and wealth behind, and migrated and migrated to be with the Prophet? Abu Bakr however insisted that: “They all entered Islam for the sake of Allah, and their reward is with Him; this world is nothing”. When however ‘Umar became khalifa, he differentiated between people and paid the “stipend” according to how early each person had entered Islam, whether they had migrated, and how much they had suffered for the sake of Allah”. Usul al Fiqh al Islami – Source methodology in Islamic Jurisprudence, by Taha Jabir Al Alwani, page 19, translated by Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo publisher Zain International, UK, second edition. If Hadhrath ‘Umar had taken such a staunch line when distributing money amongst the faithful, salaries being rewarded on account of when an adherent embraced Islam and their subsequent service to the faith, why did he adopt a completely different approach when it came to granting positions of power? If those who had embraced Islam later and had no service to Islam, received less money than the early converts, why were these same individuals more entitled to receive administrative control / ‘physical power’ over an entire region? Why was preference given to them over prominent Sahaba who had accompanied the Prophet (saaws) very early on in his mission? Why appoint them when they had provided no service to Islam in the past? The position of Governor of Syria passed from Yazid ibn Abu Sufyan to Mu’awiya ibn Abu Sufyan, following his death, this was direct lineal succession – the sons of Abu Sufyan were able to inherit the land of Syria. Is it not unusual that the Banu Ummaya could inherit land, but the family of the Prophet (saaws) was not allowed to inherit anything? This was a carefully thought out strategy. Hadhrath Umar had once told Hadhrath Abdullah Ibne Abbas that the Muslims felt that Imamate and Prophethood should not exist in one household(1). This is in fact one of the most consistently proposed arguments given by the scholars of Ahl’ul Sunna to account for the attitude of Hadhrath Umar with regard to Imam Ali. He sought to ensure that this would not happen by providing positions to those who would never tolerate the Ahlul’bayt taking the reigns of government. Hadhrath Umar knew that in the past the Ummaya clan had been banished to Syria by the tribal elders and hence the tribe had considerable influence in that region. By capitalizing on that historical fact and giving the powerful governorship of Syria to the Banu Ummaya clan he gave this ambitious clan, noted for its resentment of its displacement as the kingpins of Makka, a new power base that would very rapidly translate into a springboard to take the khilafat itself, Syria had the most powerful Arab army in the region than as it does today, and the Banu Ummaya would shortly incorporate Egypt into its dominion also. 1. The History of Al-Tabari,Volume 14 page 137 -138, English translation, by G. Rex Smith This scheme paved the way for Hadhrath Uthman to become the next khalifa, once in power his position was strengthened by the presence of Mu’awiya in Syria. This would probably result in checkmate for Imam Ali, who was hated vehemently by the Banu Ummaya since he and his clan, the Holy Prophet’s clan of Banu Hashim, had slaughtered so many of their closest kin. A perfect example of this is the reaction of ‘Abu Sufyan when Hadhrath Uthman was made the khalifa, Ibn al-Hadid records: “He went to Uhud and kicked at the grave of Hamzah (the uncle of the Prophet) and said: “O Abu Ya’la! See that the kingdom which you fought against has at last come to us”. Sharh Nahjul-balaghah, by Ibn al Hadid,Volume 16, page 136 second edition, Egypt Syria was an agriculturally rich land; it generated a high amount of income. Hadhrath Umar knew that there was a long standing hatred by the Banu Ummaya towards the Banu Hashim, they would never tolerate a member of the Ahlul’bayt becoming khalifa in the long run and that this would cause inevitable rivalry….this happened on the plains of Sifeen. Mu’awiya in fact justified his hostility pointing to the fact that he was merely adhering to a policy of opposition that had been created by the earlier khalifa’s. This is what he wrote in reply to a critical letter by Muhammad bin Abu Bakr: “We and your father during the lifetime of the Prophet, used to consider the right of Ibn Abi Talib binding upon us, and his excellence was well above ours. Despite this when Allah chose for the Prophet what he had in store for him, He took him to Himself. Then your father and his Faruq were the first to snatch it and oppose him, they both worked together on this. If it was injustice, then your father founded it and we are his partners. We followed his guidance and imitated his action”. Waq’at Sifeen by Minqari p118-120 (Cairo edition 1962); Ansab al Ashraf by Baladhuri Volume 2 page 393-397 (Beirut edition 1974); Masudi Muruj ud Dhuhab Vol 3 page 197 – 201 (Beirut 1969 edition) Hadhrath Uthman became Khalifa at the age of 74, again the question arises why was he preferred to younger more able Sahaba? This was part of Hadhrath Umar’s thinking to vest absolute power to the Banu Ummayya clan. This was secured via the coming to power of Hadhrath Uthman. Hadhrath Uthman appointed the enemy of the Prophet (saaws) his cousin Abdullah bin Sarh to quote Ameer Ali: “the satrapy of Egypt. This Abdullah was at one time a Secretary to the Prophet, and when the Master dictated his revelation he used to change the words and ‘deneutralise’ their meanings”. The Spirit of Islam, by Syed Ameer Ali, p 294 The Ahl’ul Sunnah scholars have also recorded: When Makka was conquered the Holy Prophet ordered he be killed but Uthman interceded on his behalf, he asked for his protection and the Prophet (SAWS) granted it. Sad bin Abi Waqqas narrates that when Makka was taken, Uthman begged three times for Sharh’s allegiance to be accepted, the Prophet did not accept it until the third time. The Holy Prophet then turned to his companions and said “Was there not among you a good person who when he saw that I kept back my hand for allegiance should have killed him?”. Murtad ki Saza, by Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi, p 15-16 Karachi 1954 edition. You can also find this incident in Sirah, by Ibn Hisham, Volume 2 page 409 He appointed Waleed as Governor of Kufa. Walid was a transgressor according to the word of Allah (swt). Once when ordered by the Prophet (saaws) to collate Zakat from a tribe, he lied alleging they had refused to hand over their due, this lead to the descent of this verse: “Oh you who believe, if a transgressor comes to you with news try to verify it..” (49:6-7). See Tafseer of Surah Hujuraat by Bilal Philips, commentary of the above verse Most significantly Hadhrath Uthman appointed Marwan, who to quote Baladhuri: “He embraced Islam following the conquest of Makka, but continued to insult the Prophet, as a result Hakim and his sons were banished from Madina, this ruling was upheld by Umar and Abu Bakr. When Hadhrath Uthman came to power he chose to ignore the Prophet (saaws)’s order, he called back Marwan and Hakim, and made Marwan his Assistant and Chief Officer of the Court”. Ansab al ashraf, by al Baladhuri, Vol 5 p 17 It was this same Marwan who then shaped the long-term policy for the Banu Ummaya. So in these three key posts Hadhrath Uthman appointed three men, one who the Prophet (saaws) wanted executed, a transgressor and a man who was banished by the Prophet (saaws). Even the revered Sunni scholar Sayyid Qutb Shaheed was unable to mask his discontent over these facts, he writes: “the khalifa – in his old age, and his state brought about by advanced age – did not possess control of his affair to the expense of Marwan. It is difficult to accuse the spirit of Islam in the person of Islam, but it is likewise difficult to pardon him for the error of the unfortunate occurrence of his taking the khilafa whilst he was a weakened old man, who was surrounded by evil courtiers from Banu Umayyah”. Al-Adaalat ul-Ijtimaa’iyyah by Sayyid Qutb Shaheed p.189, 5th edition When prominent pious Sahaba were still living why was priority given to such men? The answer is that the objective was to have a Caliphate that would permanently belong to the Banu Ummaya. A clan whose supremacy had been effectively extinguished with the coming to power of Islam, now had the reigns of power, nothing no one, especially their sworn enemies the Banu Hashim were going to stand in their way or humiliate them again. Absolute favouritism was given to the Banu Ummayya they were rewarded with power and financial clout a means to eliminate any likelihood of Banu Hashim attaining the Khilafath. Hadhrath Uthman gave a fifth of the spoils of the first expedition of Africa to his foster brother Abdullah Ibn Abu Sarh. Marwan purchased a fifth of the second expedition of Africa; then the Caliph gave him the whole amount(1). Fadak land belonging to the Prophet (saaws) that Hadhrath Abu Bakr had confiscated and made a part of the State was awarded to Marwan(2). He gave his cousin Harith a gift of camels that had been collected as part of alms tax and brought to Madina(3). Is it not curious that land that Hadhrath Abu Bakr stated belonged to the State which Ahlul’bayt could not claim was ‘given’ to Marwan? Hadhrath Uthman gave Harith the Zakat of Qud-ah that amounted to 300,000 dirhams(4) and Abdul Rahman bin Auf had 3 million dirhams(5). 1. Tarikh, Ibn al Athir, Volume 3 page 49 publishers, Dar ul Kitan al Lubnani, 1973 2. al Ma’arif by Ibn Qutayba, page 190 edited by Tharwat ‘Ukasha, Cairo edition 1960 3. Ansab al ashraf, by Baladhuri, Vol 5 p 28, edited by S.D.F. Goitein, Jerusalem 1936 4. At Fitnah thul Kubra, by Taha Hussain, Volume 1 page 193 published by dar al Ma’arif, Egypt 1953 5. At Fitnah thul Kubra, by Taha Hussain, Volume 3 page 126 published by dar al Ma’arif, Egypt 1953 It may alternatively be viewed that Hadhrath Umar, realizing the greed of the Banu Ummaya, stalled a civil war by handing it over to them in all but name and thus preserved the integrity of the Muslim state for a while longer before the Banu Ummaya would tear it apart. This also excluded Imam Ali. It can be argued why did Hadhrath Umar not give the khilafat to his son Abdullah bin Umar? Hadhrath Umar had too much vision for this. Realizing the powerful threat of the Bani Umaayya should his son have become khalifa his end would have been at the hands of the powerful Banu Umaayya, who were power hungry. In fact he made his own son Abdullah bin Umar have the deciding ballot should the council set up after his death end in deadlock, thus favouring the Banu Umaayya represented by Hadhrath Uthman. Abdullah bin Umar became a close ally of the Banu Umaayya and a bitter enemy of Imam Ali’s sons, in particular Imam Hussain (as) whose genocide with the majority of the remaining members of the family of the holy Prophet he would sanction. Either rational upshot of this plan makes it self-evident that for historical purposes the khilafat of Hadhrath Umar can be viewed as an interim period to effect a transition of power back to the old overlords of pagan Makka – the Banu Umaayya, the tribe of Abu Sufyan. The unfolding events of history testify that this scheme materialized as harsh reality. It explains the bitter irony, noted by Sunni and Shi’i Muslims alike, of how it came to be that the most bitter enemies of the Holy Prophet came to the rule of the Muslim Ummah within 30 years of his death. It explains how the terrible wars of Jamal and Sifeen, the first Muslim civil wars after the earliest period came to be. It also explains the later genocide of the family of the Holy Prophet (saaws) and persecution of the Shi’i Imams. In here lie further origins of Muslim disunity.

Prophet Zakariyya(a.s.) prayed for a son in his old age in the following words: قَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي وَهَنَ الْعَظْمُ مِنِّي وَاشْتَعَلَ الرَّأْسُ شَيْبًا وَلَمْ أَكُنْ بِدُعَائِكَ رَبِّ شَقِيًّا . وَإِنِّي خِفْتُ الْمَوَالِيَ مِنْ وَرَائِي وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَتِي عَاقِرًا فَهَبْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا. يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ ۖ وَاجْعَلْهُ رَبِّ رَضِيًّاHe said: My Lord! surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with hoariness, and, my Lord! I have never been unsuccessful in my prayer to Thee:And surely I fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased. (Surah Maryam (19): Verse4-6) Visit Oppressionsupojanabezahra.blogspot.com When the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.a.) passed away and Abu Bakr was made caliph to rule over the Muslim community he dispossessed the Holy Prophet’s daughter Fatimah(s.a.) of the agricultural land or estate known as Fadak which had been gifted to her by the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.a.) during his life time and given in her possession. When Janabe Fatimah(s.a.) asked Abu Bakr to restore her estate as it had been gifted to her by the Holy Prophet along with possession, he demanded evidence and refused to accept the evidence of witnesses produced by Janabe Fatimah(s.a.). Then she claimed the estate as the sole heir to her father, the Holy Prophet. This request was rejected by Abu Bakr saying that he had heard the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.a.) say that “We the messengers of Allah neither inherit nor leave inheritance.”The above verses prove that the statement of Abu Bakr should be treated as an instantaneous excuse, he thought of, to deprive Janabe Fatimah(s.a.) from the lawful inheritance, her father left for her, otherwise the words of Allah become vague and meaningless. In reply she(s.a.) quoted these verses to prove that he had reported a false tradition because when the Quran has used the word “warith” the Holy Prophet could not say that which the caliph reported. The mention of these verses by her means that the word “warith” refers to all that which a messenger of Allah leaves as inheritance. Aqa Mahdi Puya says:These verses prove that the prophets of Allah inherit and leave inheritance. To interpret “Warith” as reference to knowledge and wisdom only is a deviation from the real, direct and plain meaning of this word, without any external or internal evidence. If inheritance of personal belongings is excluded, the repetition of the verb becomes meaningless because Prophet Zakariyya(a.s.) himself was a descendant of ale Yaqub, who inherited the prophethood and wisdom of his ancestors, and his son would do the same if Allah so willed as He chooses whomsoever He wills as His messenger (Surah An-am: 124), therefore when Prophet Zakariyya(a.s.) said: “inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub“, he is referring to his belongings and the belongings of the posterity of Yaqoub separately. The first verb refers to the inheritance of his property which Prophet Zakariyya(a.s.) thought would be appropriated by his relatives if he remained childless; and the second verb refers to the prophethood, he wanted for HazratYahya(a.s.)No doubt the prophets of Allah did not give any importance to the material possessions and laid emphasis on the knowledge and wisdom, but it does not mean that they did not possess property or did not leave what they had as inheritance to their next to kin. The tradition quoted to deprive Janabe Fatimah(s.a.) of her lawful inheritance was tampered with by the narrator for political reasons. He omitted a clause indicating that they leave knowledge as inheritance, and added a clause, which is not correct from the grammatical point of view, unless it is an objective clause subordinate to the principal clause “We the group of prophets”, and the word be read as “sadaqtan”, the second object to the verb “taraknahu “, but he read the clause as co-ordinative and conjunctive, and read “sadaqtan” as the predicate to the word “ma”, which according to the recitation means “whatever”, whereas according to the correct recitation “ma ” means “that which”.(adapted from The Holy Qur’an, Pooya/M.A. Ali Engl. Commentary)

Abu Bakr refuted witnesses that were produced and their testimonies were refused on different grounds We read in Futuh al Buldan, page 35: Malik bin Jawuna narrates from his father that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: ‘Rasulullah (s) bestowed Fadak to me, so return it.’ Ali testified in her favour, Abu Bakr asked for another witness, and Umm Ayman testified in support of Fatima. Upon this, Abu Bakr said: ‘O daughter of Rasulullah (s), such testimony is unacceptable unless you have two males or one male and two females, upon hearing this Fatima left.’ We also read: Jafar bin Muhammad said that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: ‘Return Fadak to me as it was given to me by Rasulullah (s)’. Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. Umm Ayman and Rabah the Servant of Rasulullah (s) testified in support of her claim. He said that such testimonies were unacceptable unless presented by one man and two women. We also read: Umm Hani states that Fatima daughter of Rasulullah (s) appeared before the Court of Abu Bakr and asked: ‘When you die who shall inherit you?’ He replied: ‘My family and descendants’. Fatima said: ‘What is your stance when you seize the inheritance of the Prophet (s) and do not give it to us?’ He said: ‘Oh daughter of Allah’s messenger, I did not seize your father’s gold and silver and this or that.’ Fatima then said: ‘Give us our share of Khayber, Fadak is our exclusive property’. He [Abu Bakr] replied: ‘Oh daughter of Rasulullah (s), I heard the Prophet (s) say that (Fadak) is a pillar that Allah (swt) has provided for me as a source of earnings during my life time, verily when I die, distribute this amongst the Muslims!.’ We read in Wafa al Wafa, Volume 3 page 999 Bab Sadaqat un Nabi: “Fadak was that land that Hadhrat Fatima claimed Rasulullah (s) had given to me. Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. ‘Ali and Umm Ayman testified. The Khaleefa replied ‘Only the testimony of a man and two women are acceptable”.

Who is Truthful ??Umar & Abu Bakr OR Janabe Fatima(as) The two Caliphs were the cause of displeasure to the only daughter of Holy Prophet(s.a.w).They snatched her only source of livelihood and rejected her plea for her property of Fadak. Janabe Fatima was angry with them till she met her death!! Here is a brief account of the dispute between Abu Bakr and Janabe Fatima(as) regarding Fadak Note : Readers should read without any bias and prejudice and should bear in mind that all the references in this post are from authentic Sunni sources. This article is a reply to those people(e.g. Dr. Tahir Qadri, Irfan Shah, Moulana Ishaaq etc etc) who defend Abu Bakr and Umar and support their views with baseless arguments.It is a reply to all those videos and articles on internet regarding dispute of Fadak. Fadak was a green fertile village near Medina in the Hijaz region, and it also had a fortress called ash-Shumrukh. (Mu’jam al-Buldan, Vol. 4, p. 238; Mu’jam Masta’jam, al-Bakri, Vol. 3, p. 1015; Al-Rawd al-Mi’tar, al-Himyari, p. 437; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 4, p. 1280). FADAK AND HAZRAT ZAHRA (SA) : CLICK HEREFadak belonged to the Jews. In the year 7 A.H., its ownership went from the Jews to the Prophet (..) under the terms of a peace settlement. The reason for this settlement was that after the fall of Khaybar, the Jews realized the real power of the Muslims, their martial aspirations were lowered. Noting that the Prophet (..) had spared the lives of some Jews who sought his protection, the Jews also sent a message of peace to the Prophet (..) and expressed their desire that Fadak should be taken from them so that their area should not be turned into a battlefield. Consequently, the Prophet (..) accepted their request and granted them amnesty. This land became his personal property wherein no one else had any right or claim, nor could there be any interest because the Muslims had a share only in those properties which they acquired as booty after jihad, whereas property acquired without jihad is called fay’ and only the Prophet (..) was entitled to it. No other person has a share in it. Thus, Allah says the following: “And whatever Allah bestows on His Messenger from them, you did not stir any horse or a camel towards it, but Allah grants authority to whomsoever of His Messengers He pleases; and Allah over all things is all-Powerful” (Holy Quran, 59: 6). No one has ever disputed the fact that Fadak was secured without battle. It was, therefore, the Prophet’s personal property to which no one else was entitled. The Historians write:. “Fadak was personal to the Prophet (..) as the Muslims did not use their horses or camels to acquire it” (Tarikh, al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 1582-583, 1589; Al-Kamil, Ibn al-Athir, Vol. 2, pp. 224-225; As-Sira, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 3, p. 368; Tarikh, Ibn Khaldun, Vol. 2, part 2, p. 40; Tarikh al-Khamis, ad-Diyar-Bakri, Vol. 2, p. 58; Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 50). The historian and geographical scholar, Ahmed ibn Yahya al- Baladhiri (d. 279/892), writes the following: “Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet (..) as the Muslims had not used their horses nor camels for its acquisition” (Fath al-Buldan, Vol. 1, p. 33). Umar ibn al-Khattab had himself regarded Fadak as the unshared property of the Holy Prophet (..) when he declared the following: “The property of Banu an-Nadir was among that which Allah bestowed on His Messenger. Against them [its original Jewish owners], neither horses nor camels were stirred. It belonged to the Messenger of Allah specifically” (Sahih, al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 46; Vol. 7, p. 82; Vol. 9, pp. 121-122 Sahih, Muslim, Vol. 5, p. 151; Al-Sunan, Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, pp. 139-141; Al- Sunan, al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 132; Al-Musnad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 25, 48, 60, 208; Al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhayqi, Vol. 6, pp. 296- 299). It is also proven, in the accepted way, that the Prophet (..) had in his lifetime given this land (Fadak) to Fatima (..) as a gift. It is narrated through al-Bazzar, Abu Ya`li, Ibn Abu Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh and others from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri and through Ibn Mardawayh from Abdullah ibn Abbas that when the verse: “And give to the near of kin his due...” (Holy Quran, 17: 26) was revealed, the Holy Prophet (..) called Fatima (..) and gave her Fadak as a gift” (Al-Durr al-Manthur, al-Sayyuti, vol, 4, p. 177; Majma’ al-Zawa’id, al-Haythami, vol, 7, p. 46; Kanz al-Ummal, al- Muttaqi al-Hindi, Vol. 3, p. 439; Ruh al-Ma’ani, al-Alusi, Vol. 15, p. 62). When Abu Bakr assumed power then, in view of reaping some benefits for his government, he turned Fatima (..) out of Fadak and took it from her possession. Thus, the historians write: “Certainly, Abu Bakr snatched Fadak from Fatima (..) (Sharh Nahjul-Balagha, Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, p. 219; Wafa’ul-Wafa’, as-Samhudi, Vol. 3, p. 1000; Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, Ibn Hajar, p. 32). Fatima (..) raised her objection against such an injustice. Protesting to Abu Bakr, she said, “You have taken over the possession of Fadak although the Prophet (..) had given it to me as a gift during his lifetime.” To this, Abu Bakr asked her to produce a witness for the gift. Consequently, Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) and Umm Ayman testified in her favor. Umm Ayman was the freed bondmaid and the dry nurse of the Holy Prophet (..). She was the mother of Usamah ibn Zayd ibn al- Harithah. The Holy Prophet (..) used to say, “Umm Ayman is my mother after my own mother” [Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 4, p. 63; al-Tabari, Vol. 3, p. 3460; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, p. 1793; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 567.]The Holy Prophet (..) testified that she is among the people of Paradise (Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 8, p. 192; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, p. 432). But this testimony was held inadmissible by Abu Bakr, and Fatima’s claim was rejected as being based on a false statement. About this, al-Baladhiri writes the following: “Fatima (..) said to Abu Bakr, ‘The Messenger of Allah had appropriated Fadak to me. Therefore, give it to me.’ He asked her for a witness other than Umm Ayman, saying, ‘O daughter of the Prophet (..)! You know that testimony is not admissible except by two men or one man and two women.” After these facts, there remains no possibility of denying that Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet (..) and that he had completed its gifting to her by handing over possession in his own lifetime. But Abu Bakr took over its possession and dislodged her from it. In this regard, he rejected the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman on the ground that the requirement of testimony was not completed when only one man and one woman testify. Besides them, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (..), too, testified in support for Fatima (..), but their testimony, too, was rejected on the ground that the testimony of the offspring and “minors” was not acceptable in favor of their parents. Then Rabah, slave of the Holy Prophet (..), was also produced as a witness in support for the claim of Fatima (..), bringing the number of witnesses to five. But the testimony of the virtuous Rabah, too, was rejected (Fath al-Buldan, al- Baladhiri, Vol. 1, p. 35; Tarikh, al-Ya`qubi, Vol. 3, p. 195; Muruj al- Dhahab, al-Mas`udi, Vol. 3, p. 237; Al-Awa’il, Abu Hilal al-Askari, p. 209; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 3, pp. 999, 1000-1001; Mu’jam al-Buldan, Yaqut al-Hamawi, Vol. 4, p. 239; Sharh, Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, pp. 216, 219-220, 274; Al-Muhalla, Ibn Hazm, Vol. 6, p. 507; Al-Sira al- Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 361; At-Tafsir, al-Fakhr ar-Radi, Vol. 29, p. 284). At this stage, the question arises that when Fatima’s possession of Fadak is admitted, as Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) also clarifies in this letter by saying, “We had Fadak in our possession,” what was the meaning of asking Fatima (..) to produce testimony in support for her claim since the onus of proof does not lie on the person with the claim of ownership? The onus of proof lies on the person filing a counter claim, an objection, because possession itself constitutes a proof. As such, it was Abu Bakr who was required to produce a proof to the lawfulness of his own taking the contested land from its owner. In the case, if he is unable to do so, Fatima’s possession will mean an testimony of her lawful ownership. As such, it will be wrong to ask her to produce some more proof or testimony on her own. It is strange that when other claims of this nature came before Abu Bakr, he arbitrated them in favor of the claimant merely on the basis of the claim: The claimant is neither asked to provide proof of his claim nor to produce witnesses. Why did Abu Bakr apply a different standard in the case of “Sayyidatu Nisaa’ al-‘Aalameen”? Did he hold the daughter of the Prophet (..) as a liar? Or did he have other political objectives in mind when he treated her with such injustice? In this regard, the traditionists write the following: “It is related from Jabir ibn `Abdillah al- Ansari that he said that the Messenger of Allah (..) had said that when the booty from Bahrain arrived, he would allow him such-and-such of it, but the booty did not arrive till the Prophet’s death. When it arrived during the days of Abu Bakr, he went to the latter to claim it. Abu Bakr made the announcement that whoever had a claim against the Messenger of Allah or against whomsoever he had made a promise should come for his claim. So, I went to him and told him that the Prophet (..) had promised to give me such-and- such property out of the booty from Bahrain whereupon he gave me all of that” (Sahih, al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, pp. 119, 209, 236; Vol. 4, p. 110; Vol. 5, p. 218; Sahih, Muslim, Vol. 7, pp. 75-76; Al-Jami’ al-Sahih, al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 5, p. 129; Al-Musnad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 3, pp. 307-308; Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, pp.88-89). In the annotations of this tradition, Shihabud-Din Ahmed ibn Ali (Ibn Hajar) al-Asqalani ash-Shafi’i (773/1372-852/1449) and Badrud-Din Mahmud ibn Ahmed al-Ayni al-Hanafi (762/1361-855/1451) have written the following: “This tradition leads to the conclusion that the testimony of one equitable companion can be admitted as full testimony [equal to two or more] even though it may be in his own personal favor because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any [other] witness to prove his claim. (Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 380; Umdatul-Qari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 12, p. 121). If it is lawful to grant property to Jabir on the basis of good impression about him without calling for witness or testimony anyone at all, then what stopped allowing Fatima’s claim on the basis of similar good impressions? Or was Abu Bakr ’s impression of the Head of the Women of Mankind not good at all? If good impression could exist in the case of Jabir to such an extent that he would not benefit by speaking a lie, then why should there not be the good belief about Fatima (..) that she would not attribute a false saying to the Prophet (..) just for a piece of land? Firstly, her admitted truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding her truthful in her claim. Moreover, the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman in her favor was also available besides other evidences. It has been said that the claim could not be decided in favor of Fatima (..) on the basis of these two witnesses because the Holy Quran lays down the principle of testimony that: “... .then call to witness two witnesses from among your men and if there not be two men, then a man and two men” (Holy Quran, 2: 282). If this principle is universal and general, then it should be taken into regard on every occasion, not selectively. But on some occasions, it is found not to have been followed at all. For example, when an Arab had a dispute with the Prophet (..) about a camel, Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al- Ansari gave testimony in favor of the Prophet (..), and this one single witness was deemed to be equal to two because there was no doubt in the honesty and truthfulness of this individual in whose favor the testimony was led. It was for this reason that the Holy Prophet (..) granted him the title of “Dhul-Shahadatayn” (i.e. one whose testimony is equivalent to that of two) (al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 24; Vol. 6, p. 146; Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p. 308; al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 302; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 5, pp. 188, 189, 216; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 2, p. 448; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 2, p. 114; Al-Isaba, Vol. 1, pp. 425-426; Al-Musannaf, as-Sanani, Vol. 8, pp. 366-368). Consequently, neither was the generality of the verse about testimony affected by this action, nor was it deemed to be against the cannons of testimony. So, if here, in view of the Prophet’s truthfulness, one testimony in his favor was deemed to be equal to two, then could not the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman be regarded sufficient Fatima (..) in view of her moral greatness and truthfulness? Besides, this verse does not show that there can be no other way of establishing a claim other than these two methods. In this regard, judge Nurullah al-Mar’ashi at-Tustari (956/1549-1019/1610) has written the following in Ihqaq-al-Haqq, chapter on al-Mata’in: “The view of the contention that Umm Ayman’s testimony remained incomplete is wrong on the grounds that from certain traditions, it is seen that it is lawful to give a decision on the basis of one single witness, and it does not necessarily mean that the injunction of the Holy Quran has been violated because this verse means that a decision can be given on the strength of the testimony of two men or one man and two women and that their testimony is enough. From this, it does not appear that if there are some other grounds besides the testimony of witnesses that are unacceptable and that verdict cannot be given on its basis, unless it is argued that this is the only meaning for this verse. But since every meaning is not a final argument, this notion can be brushed aside, particularly because the tradition clearly points to a contrary notion and ignoring the notion does not necessarily mean violating the verse. Secondly, the verse allows a choice between the testimony of two men or that of one man and two women. If, by virtue of the tradition, a third choice is added, namely that a verdict can be passed by means of other testimony as well, then how does it necessitate that the Quranic verse should stand violated?!” In any case, from this reply, it is clear that a claimant is not obligated to produce the testimony of two men or that of one man and two women in support for the claim. This is so because if there is one witness and the claimant swears an oath, he can then be taken to have legitimacy in his claim and a decision can be given in his favor. In this regard, it has been narrated by more than twelve companions of the Holy Prophet (..) that the Messenger of Allah (..) used to decide cases on the strength of one single witness and the taking of an oath. It has been explained by some companions of the Prophet (..) and by some scholars of jurisprudence that this decision is specially related to rights, property and transactions, and this decision was practiced by the three caliphs: Abu Bakr, `Umar and Othman (Muslim, Vol. 5, p. 128; Abu Daw..d, Vol. 3, pp. 308-309; al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, pp. 627-629; Ibn Majah, Vol. 2, p. 793; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 248, 315, 323; Vol. 3, p. 305; Vol. 5, p. 285; Malik ibn Anas, Al-Muwatta’, Vol. 2, pp. 721-725; al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 10, pp. 167- 176; Al-Sunan, al-Dar Qutni, Vol. 4, pp. 212-215; Majma’az-Zawa’id, Vol. 4, p. 202; Kanz al-`Ummal, Vol. 7, p. 13). When decisions were issued based on the strength of one witness and one oath, then even if in Abu Bakr’s view the requirement of testimony was incomplete, he should have asked her to swear an oath then give a decision in her favor. But here the very objective was to tarnish the image of truthfulness of Fatima (..) so that in the future the question of her testimony should not arise. However, when Fatima’s claim was rejected in this manner and Fadak was not accepted as the Prophet’s gift to her, she claimed it on the basis of inheritance saying: “If you do not agree that the Prophet (..) had gifted it to me, you cannot at least deny that Fadak and the revenues of Khaybar as well as the lands around Medina were the Prophet’s personal properties and I am his only heir.” Yet she was deprived of her inheritance on the basis of a tradition related by Abu Bakr himself that the Holy Prophet (..) said, “We, prophets, have no successors, and whatever we leave behind constitutes charity” (al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 96; Vol. 5, pp. 25-26, 115, 117; Vol. 8, p. 185; Muslim, Vol. 5, pp. 153-155; al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 4, pp. 157-158; Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, pp. 142-143; al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 132; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 4, 6, 9, 10; al-Bayhaqi, Vol. 6, p. 300; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, pp. 86-87; al-Tabari, Vol. 1, p. 1825; Tarikh al-Khamis, Vol. 2, pp. 173-174). Besides Abu Bakr, nobody else had any knowledge of this statement which was presented to the public as a tradition of the Prophet (..), nor had anyone from among the companions heard it at all. Who is the truthful one, Fatima (..) or Abu Bakr? Thus, Jalalu’d-Din `Abd ar- Rahman ibn Abu Bakr al-Sayyuti ash-Shafi’i (849/1445-911/1505) and Shihabud-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad (Ibn Hajar) al-Haytami ash-Shafi’i (909/1504-974/1567) have written the following: “After the death of the Prophet (..), there was a difference of opinion about inheritance and no one had any information in this matter. Then, Abu Bakr said that he had heard the Messenger of Allah saying, ‘We, prophets, leave no successors, and whatever we leave behind constitutes charity’” (Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p.73; Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, p. 19). The mind refuses to believe that the Prophet (..) should not tell those individuals who could be deemed as his successors that they would not inherit and inform a third party that did not have even the most remote kinship to him, that there would be no heir/successor to him. Is not Abu Bakr considered as a “successor” of the Prophet (..) by many people?! Is there no contradiction here?! Then this story was made public only when the issue of Fadak was raised in the court of Abu Bakr who himself constituted the contesting party! In such circumstances, how can his presenting in his own support a tradition which no one else at all had ever heard be deemed permissible? If it is argued that this tradition should be relied upon in view of the greatness of the status of Abu Bakr, then why can Fatima’s claim to the said gift not be relied upon because of her honesty and truthfulness, more so when the testimony of Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) and that of Umm Ayman, as well as of others as well, was also in her favor? If necessity was felt to call more witnesses in her case, then testimony can also be called for regarding this alleged unheard-of “tradition”, particularly since this “tradition” contradicted the general instructions of the Holy Quran relevant to the issue of succession and inheritance. How can a tradition which is weak in the manner of its relating and altered and the authenticity of which is questioned on the basis of facts to the contrary be deemed to specify a generality of the Quranic injunction on inheritance/succession because the question of the inheritance of the prophets is clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran. In this regard, Allah says the following: “... And Solomon inherited David” (Holy Quran, 27: 16). So, prophets do leave heirs/successors... At another place, the following is stated by prophet Zakariyya: “... Grant me from Yourself an heir who shall inherit me and inherit the family of Jacob” (Holy Quran, 19: 5-6). So, prophets do leave heirs/successors... In these verses, succession refers to inheriting estates, etc. To take it in its figurative meaning of succession in prophetic knowledge would not only be absurd but also against established facts because knowledge and Prophethood are not objects of succession, nor do they possess the quality of transmission through inheritance, for in that case, all the descendants of the prophets would have been prophets. There is no sense in making a distinction that the progeny of some prophets may inherit Prophethood while others should remain deprived of it. It is strange that the theory of transmission of Prophethood through inheritance is propagated by those who have always laid the objection against the Shias that they regard the Imamate and the caliphate as an objective of inheritance and confined to one family only. Would not Prophethood become an objective of inheritance by taking succession in this verse to mean succession to the Prophethood? If, in Abu Bakr’s view, by virtue of this tradition, there could be no successor of the Prophet (..), then where was this tradition when a document had been written admitting Fatima’s claim for succession? Thus, Nurud-Din Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Halabi ash-Shafi’i (975/1567- 1044/1635) quotes Shamsu’d-Din Yusuf (Sibt ibn al-Jawzi) al-Hanafi (581/1185-654/1256) narrating the following: “Abu Bakr was on the pulpit when Fatima (..) came to him and said, ‘O Abu Bakr! The Holy Quran should allow your daughter to inherit you, yet I am not to inherit my father!’ Abu Bakr started weeping and descended from the pulpit. Then he wrote her a statement about Fadak. At that time, Umar arrived and inquired what the written sheet was all about. Abu Bakr replied, ‘It is a document which I have written for Fatima (..) about the inheritance from her father.’ Umar said, ‘What will you spend on the Muslims while the Arabs are waging war against you, as you see?’ Then Umar took the document and tore it to pieces” (Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, pp. 361- 362). Every sensible person who takes note of this behavior can easily reach the conclusion that this tradition is concocted and wrong. It was fabricated only to secure possession of Fadak and other inheritances. Consequently, Fatima (..) refused to accept it and expressed her anger in this way: She made a will about Abu Bakr and `Umar that the two should not participate in her funeral prayers. Aisha narrated the following: “Fatima (..), the daughter of the Holy Prophet (..), sent for Abu Bakr (after he became caliph following the death of the Holy Prophet (..) claiming from him her inheritance left for her by the Messenger of Allah from what Allah had bestowed (specifically) upon him in Medina and Fadak and what was left from the fifth (khums) of the income from Khaybar. Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima (..). Then, Fatima (..) became angry with Abu Bakr and forsook him and did not talk to him till the end of her life. When she died, her husband, Ali ibn Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about herdeath and performed the funeral prayers for her personally” (al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 177; Vol. 8, p. 185; Muslim, Vol. 5, pp. 153-155; al-Bayhaqi, Vol. 4, p. 29; Vol. 6, pp. 300-301; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, p. 86; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, p. 9; al-Tabari, Vol. 1, p. 1825; Ibn Kathir, Tarikh, Vol. 5, pp. 285-286; Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 6, p. 46 and Wafa’ al- Wafa’,Vol. 3, p. 995). In this regard, Umm Ja`far, the daughter of Muhammad ibn Ja`far, narrated the following about the request of Fatima (..), who was nearing her death, to Asma’ daughter of `Umays: “When I die, I want you and Ali to wash me and do not allow anyone to go into my house.” When she died, Aisha came to enter, but Asma’ said to her, “Do not enter.” Aisha complained to Abu Bakr (her father) saying, “This Khath’amiyya (woman from the tribe of Kath’am) intervenes between us and the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (..).” Abu Bakr came out, stood at the door and said, “O Asma’! What makes you prevent the wives of the Prophet (..) from entering to see the daughter of the Messenger of Allah?” Asma’ replied, “She had herself ordered me not to allow anyone to enter.” Abu Bakr said, “Do what she has ordered you” (Hilyat al- Awliya’, Vol. 2, p. 43; Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 3, p. 396; Vol. 4, p. 334;Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 1, p. 405; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, pp. 1897-1898; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 524; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, pp. 378-379).Fatima (..) had also made a request to Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) that she must be buried at night, that no one should come to her, that Abu Bakr and Umar should not be notified about her death and burial, and that Abu Bakr should not be allowed to perform the funeral prayer for her. When she died, Ali washed and buried her in the dark of the night without notifying Abu Bakr and Umar. So, these two were not aware of her burial. Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi (130/747-207/823) said the following: “It has been proven to us that Ali (..) performed her funeral prayers and buried her at night accompanied by al-Abbas (ibn Abdul- Muttalib) and (his son) al-Fadl and did not notify anyone.” It was for this reason that the burial place of Fatima (..) is hidden and is unknown, none alive is sure about it (Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 3, pp. 162-163; Al-Musannaf, Vol. 4, p. 141; Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 1, pp. 402, 405; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, p. 1898; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, pp. 524-525; Al- Isaba, Vol. 4, pp. 379-380; al-Tabari, Vol. 3, pp. 2435-2436; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 8, pp. 19-20; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 3, pp. 901-902, 904, 905; Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, pp. 279-281). To attribute this displeasure of Fatima (..) to sentiments and thereby to lower its importance does not prompt a correct sentiment: If this displeasure had been the result of sentiments, Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) would have stopped her from this out-of-place displeasure, but there is no historical record showing that Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) took this displeasure to be as such. Besides, how could her displeasure be the result of personal feelings or sentiments since her pleasure or displeasure always agree with Allah’s will? The Prophet’s following saying is a proof of this: “O Fatima (..)! Surely Allah is angered when you are angered and is pleased when you are pleased” (Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 3, p. 153; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 522; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, p. 366; Tahthib al- Tahthib, Vol. 12, p. 441; Al-Khasa’is al-Kubra, Vol. 2, p. 265; Kanz al- Ummal, Vol. 13, p. 96; Vol. 16, p. 280; Majma’ al-Zawa’id, Vol. 9, p. 203). Dear Muslims, it is a matter of Shame that we dont know the exact grave of our Prophet(sa.w.) beloved daughter Janabe Fatima(a.s). Why she was not buried beside her father? All these things pinches us and it indicate that there was something seriously wrong between Ahlul Bayt and so called great sahabas(i.e. Umar and Abu Bakr)

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 6 Objection 6: If Fatima (s) was attacked, why Bani Hashim did not defend her ExplanationWahabis, in order to deny the attack on the house of revelation, have raised objections like the one mentioned above: The Holy Prophet (s) was able to train thousands of loyal persons and those devoted to Islam; that they should be present on the path of Allah and defend it; and his Ahle Bayt (a) laid down their lives for its sake. In case we accept the attack on the house of Fatima ®, which the enemies of Islam consider to be true, the question arises that why Bani Hashim witnessed the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s) being slapped, burning down of the door of the house, killing of the six month old Mohsin…but not once did they utter the least protest? All of them were sincere and loyal Muslims, who had ties of relationship with the Prophet and also had communal ties with him; what happened that they kept absolutely quiet and did not raise any objection? Rational replyWith attention to many similarities, which exist between the previous doubt and the present one, many replies can also be common, but despite that we will mention some instances.Firstly, the above statement is having more emotional and provoking words than reasoning and logical proofs, because reports have been recorded in Ahle Sunnat books with correct and proved chains of narrators and we mentioned them in the first part of this book, thus confirming attack on the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) and Amirul Momineen (a) and removing all kinds of doubts in this matter.Moreover, with reference to authentic Ahle Sunnat and Wahabi texts, it can be easily concluded that even if the people of Medina had wanted to defend, they did not have any power to take any such steps due to the circumstances that arose there. TO READ MORE ARTICLES ON HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) CLICK HERE Role of Bani Aslam tribe in opposing Bani Hashim and strengthening of Abu Bakr’s regimeWhile Amirul Momineen (a) was busy with the last rites of the Messenger of Allah (s), Quraish and its leaders: Abu Bakr and Umar usurped his right and through the greed of characters like Abu Sufyan managed to win the loyalties of some people of Quraish. By this description it becomes clear that other tribes did not have the strength to confront Quraish.Abu Bakr and Umar had gathered in Medina numerous nomad tribes who had embraced Islam at the point of the sword and attracted the attention of new Muslims to their personal gains, as Amirul Momineen (a) in all the battles was the pivot of victory of Islam and they harbored deep animosity with him and the hypocrites took advantage of this same malice.Thus, taking advantage of the divisions in this group and also the nomadic desert tribes of the outskirts of Medina surrounded the house of Amirul Momineen (a) and wanted to reduce it to ashes.Tabari in his Tarikh, Mawardi Shafei in Hawiul Kabir and Abdul Wahab Nuwairi inNihayatul Arab say:The Aslam tribe had crowded Medina in such a way that lanes and by-lanes were overflowing with them so that allegiance of Abu Bakr may take place. Later, Umar used to say: When I saw the Aslam tribe, I became sure of victory.[1] Reason of absence of defense of Bani Hashim and Ansar according to the view of Amirul Momineen (a)Amirul Momineen (a) has mentioned the absence of defense by the companions (except Bani Hashim, companions and Ansar) in some of his sermons:O my Allah! I beseech Thee to take revenge on the Quraish and those who are assisting them, for they have cut asunder my kinship and overturned my cup and have joined together to contest a right to which I was entitled more than anyone else. They said to me: “If you get your right, it will be just, but if you are denied the right, that too will be just. Endure it with sadness or kill yourself in grief.” I looked around, but found no one to shield me, protect me or help me except the members of my family. I refrained from flinging them into death and therefore, closed my eyes despite the dust, kept swallowing saliva despite (the suffocation of) grief and endured pangs of anger, although it was more bitter than colocynth and more grievous than the bite of knives.[2]Ibne Abil Hadid says in Sharh Nahjul Balagha:Amirul Momineen (a), after the incident of Saqifah expressed anguish and demanded his right; he sought help and protested; because they did not come to him and pay allegiance to him. He said facing the tomb of the Messenger of Allah (s):ابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِي وَكَادُوا يَقْتُلُونَنِي“Son of my mother! surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me…” (Surah Araaf 7:150)[3] There are numerous other instances as well, but we have not quoted them all here for the sake of brevity. Polemical reply according to Wahabi sourcesOn the basis of sources acceptable to Wahabis, Bani Hashim and other Ansar, by not defending Lady Fatima (s), have in fact obeyed the directions of the Messenger of Allah (s), because Wahabis in order to prove the legality of the Caliphate of the Caliphs have narrated in their books that the Messenger of Allah (s) ordered his companions that they should, at all cost, obey the Caliphs after him; even if they do not enforce the practice of the Messenger of Allah (s), seize and usurp the property of people and instead of guiding the people, encourage them to follow the path of deviation.Muslim Nishapuri has, in the report of Huzaifah bin Yaman, mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (s) said:There will be leaders, who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.[4] On the basis of this, because of their sources, Wahabis are compelled to accept that the absence of defense of Bani Hashim and other companions was in accordance to the command of the Messenger of Allah (s) and the common good of the Islamic society. [1] Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 244, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari (d. 310 A.H.), Darul Kutub al-Ilmiyya – Beirut.Al-Hawi al-Kabir, Vol. 14, Pg. 99, Ali bin Muhammad bin Habib Mawardi Basri Shafei (d. 450 A.H.), Edited: Shaykh Ali Muhammad Maooz – Shaykh Adil Ahmad Abdul Majud, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut – Lebanon, First edition, 1419 A.H. and 1999 A.D.Nihayatul Arab fee Funoonal Adab, Vol. 19, Pg. 21, Shahabuddin Ahmad bin Abdul Wahab Nuwairi (d. 733 A.H.), Edited: Mufeed Qamhiya and Co., Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut – Lebanon, First edition, 1424 A.H. and 2004 A.D.[2] Nahjul Balagha, Muhammad Abduh, Vol. 2, Pg. 202, Sermon 217, - Al-Imamah was Siyasah, Ibne Qutaibah, Vol. 1, Pg. 134 – Majmaul Amthal, Ahmad bin Muhammad Maidani Nishapuri (d. 528), Vol. 2, Pg. 282 – Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadid, Vol. 6, Pg. 95 & Vol. 11, Pg. 109.[3] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 11, Pg. 65, Abu Hamid Izzuddin bin Hibatullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad Ibne Abil Hadid Madaini Mutazali (d. 655 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Abdul Karim Namri, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut / Lebanon, First Edition, 1418 A.H. – 1998 A.D.[4] Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, Pg. 1486, Tr. 1847, Kitabul Imarah, Chapter of ‘Instruction to stick to the main body of Muslims in the time of trials and warning against those inviting people to disbelief’, Muslim bin Hajjaj Abul Hasan Qashiri Nishapuri (d. 261 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Fawad al-Baqi, Darul Ahyaul Turathul Arabi, Beirut.

Objection 5: If Fatima (s) was attacked why Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not defend her? CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ...... Polemical replies to the doubt A. Why Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not put up defense?One who has raised the above doubt and said: Why Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not stage an uprising? Or how his modesty permitted him to watch such a treatment being meted out to his wife; should reply to the same objection regarding Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã:The wife of Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was a disbeliever, the community of Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was sinful; the disbelievers forced themselves into the house of Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and saw handsome youths there. They expressed their satantic desires with regard to those youths. Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said: Fear Allah; if you refrain from this vile deed, I will marry my daughters to you.Now, a number of questions arise at this point, which the doubt raisers should reply:Why Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was not ashamed of the evil behavior of his disbelieving community, why he did not take to arms and attack them? On the contrary, he suggested to them that he was ready to give his daughters in marriage to them. Can – God forbid – Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã be blamed from shamelessness?Pay attention to the translation of the verse of Quran in this regard: وَلَمَّا جَاءتْ رُسُلُنَا لُوطًا سِيءَ بِهِمْ وَضَاقَ بِهِمْ ذَرْعًا وَقَالَ هَـذَا يَوْمٌ عَصِيبٌ {77} وَجَاءهُ قَوْمُهُ يُهْرَعُونَ إِلَيْهِ وَمِن قَبْلُ كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ السَّيِّئَاتِ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ هَـؤُلاء بَنَاتِي هُنَّ أَطْهَرُ لَكُمْ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ…“And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved for them, and he lacked strength to protect them, and said: This is a hard day. And his people came to him, (as if) rushed on towards him, and already they did evil deeds. He said: O my people! these are my daughters- they are purer for you, so guard against (the punishment of) Allah…” (Surah Hud 77-78) TO READ MORE ARTICLES ON HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) CLICK HERE B. Why the Holy Prophet (s) did not confront during the thirteen years of his stay in Mecca?If not staging an uprising by Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã is an occasion for some questions, why with regard to not staging an uprising by the Holy Prophet (s) inMecca for thirteen years is not having any objection?Did the Messenger of Allah (s) not witness tortures and unlimited oppressions on Muslims in Mecca? Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, by this same argument did not show any reaction that the Messenger of Allah (s) at the time of killing of Sumayyah, mother of Ammar Yasir at the hands of the idolaters and his confrontation with them did not show any reaction.Ibne Hajar Asqalani has written in Isabah:Sumayyah binte Khabbat…mother of Ammar Yasir is the seventh to embrace Islam. Abu Jahl harassed her and stabbed her in the lower abdomen with a spear till she achieved martyrdom. She was the first female martyr in Islam and since she had embraced Islam and did not give it up, the family of Bani Mughira tortured and harassed her till she was martyred. The Messenger of Allah (s) witnessed the scene of torture of Ammar and his parents in Mecca and said: O family of Yasir, be patient, as Paradise is promised to you.[1]Since the Messenger of Allah (s) was seeing that idolaters like Abu Jahl were harassing Muslim ladies, he did not display any reaction to it and also ordered them to be absolute patient in all this.Was the Messenger of Allah (s) not the most modest and valiant person of the world? Thus, why he did not defend the Muslim ladies? Why he did not take up the sword to strike off the head of Abu Jahl?Whatever replies the Wahabis give with regard to the absence of staging uprising by the Holy Prophet (s), we will give the same reply to the topic of Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã not staging an uprising. C. Why Umar did not defend his wife?Umme Jamil was well known for her wantonness and was the target of accusations by one and all; and that Mughira bin Shoba had committed fornication with her was a well known historical fact.Among the instances about which the Wahabi objection makers should reply is that:On the basis of Wahabis claims, Umme Kulthum, daughter of Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was the wife of Umar. If we believe that this was nothing more than fiction, and the fact is something else; and that except casting numerous doubts on its fabricators it will achieve nothing; that if Allah wills we would also reply to the continuation of this objection – but in case we accept the supposition, the same objection is applicable to why Umar did not defend his wife, Umme Kulthum, which the Wahabis should reply?The matter was that Mughira bin Shoba committed fornication with Umme Jamil and three persons testified as eye-witnesses and if the fourth testimony had been obtained, Mughira would have become eligible for penalty of fornication. During the journey of Hajj, Umar asked Mughira about Umme Jamil, who at that time was his partner in fornication: Are you familiar with her? Mughira with all impudence compared Umme Jamil to Umme Kulthum. And said: Yes, she is Umme Kulthum, your wife. In fact Mughira was extremely insulting to the wife of Umar in this reply and he made allegation of fornication on Umme Kulthum. However Umar did not display any shame at this and he did not show any reaction and defense.Ibne Khallikan in Wafayatul Ayan and Abul Faraj Isfahani in Aghani have written that:During Hajj, Umme Jamil (about whom three persons testified that Mughira has committed fornication with her and because the testimony of the fourth person could not be obtained, she was saved from the penalty of fornication) was in the company of Umar and Mughira was also present in Mecca at that time. Umar asked Mughira: Do you know who this woman is? Mughira replied: Yes, this is Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Ali. Umar said: Are you pretending to be ignorant? By Allah, I think that Abu Bakra didn’t lie about you and whenever I see you, I fear that a stone will drop on my head from the sky.[2]It was when Mughira bin Shoba was an old friend and an official of Umar and was under his control at that time, but despite that Umar did not argue with him at all.Now, with numerous contradictions, which exist on this occasion, whatever justification Wahabis offer, we will give the same reply to the absence of defense of Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã for his wife. D. Why Uthman did not defend his wife?Wahabis should also reply to this subject:When the companions of the Messenger of Allah (s) attacked the house of Uthman and cut off the fingers of his wife, Uthman did not defend his wife.Whatever justification Wahabis offer here, we will give the same reply to this matter.Tabari has written in his history:Sawdan bin Humran came forward to attack Uthman, Naila binte Farafisa (Uthman’s wife) threw herself upon him. Sawdan took the sword and cut off her fingers and then hit at the teeth of Uthman’s wife and said: What a great bodyguard he is having! Then he hit Uthman and killed him.[3]Ibne Athir has mentioned the same point in his Al-Kamil fit Tarikh[4] and Ibne Kathir Damishqi Wahabi in Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya.[5]Why Uthman did not defend his wife when he was a man, having modesty and he should have defended his wife? Thus, why did he not show any reaction when he witnessed companions of the Messenger of Allah (s) insulting his wife and confronting her? E. If Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not defend, he also did not participate in the battles of CaliphsAmirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was the most valiant person of his time, there is no doubt that he was so brave and daring that his name deprived Arab stalwarts of their sleep; so much so that Umar bin Khattab said:By Allah, if the sword of Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã had not been there, the foundation of Islam would not have become stable.[6]So much so that when all the unfaithful companions of the Messenger of Allah (s) during the Battle of Uhad and Hunain deserted the Prophet and fled from the battlefield, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã circled the Messenger of Allah (s) like a moth going around the flame, and he defended him, but why Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not participate in any of the battles of the Caliphs?One, who during the time of the Messenger of Allah (s) had actively participated in all the battles of Muslims against infidels, Jews…and was at the forefront bearing the standard of Islam before all the stalwarts and crushed one enemy warrior after another, why he was not present in any of the battles during the time of Caliphs?Had he lost his valor, or he did not regard fighting at the side of the Caliphs as Jihad? Or the Caliphs opposed the practice of the Messenger of Allah (s) did not choose to take his help? F. Supposing Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not defend, does it imply that he was in favor of oppression?With attention to the references and sources of the first part of the book in proving oppression and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s) and also rational and polemical replies, which were given to reply to this objection, and supposing we accept that Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not defend his wife, does this statement imply that he overlooked oppression of others and was satisfied with it? [1] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 7, Pg. 712, no. 11342, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992.[2] Wafayatul Ayan wa Anba Abnaul Zaman, Vol. 6, Pg. 366, Abul Abbas Shamsuddin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr Ibne Khallikan (d. 681 A.H.), Edited: Ahsan Abbas, Darul Thaqafa – Lebanon.Al-Aghani, Vol. 16, Pg. 109, Abul Faraj Isfahani (d. 356 A.H.), Darul Fikr at-Taba-a wan Nashr, Lebanon, Edited: Ali Mahna and Samir Jabir.[3] Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 676, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari (d. 310), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut.[4] Al-Kamil fit Tarikh, Vol. 3, Pg. 68, Izzuddin bin Athir Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad Jazari (d. 630 A.H.), Edited: Abdullah Qadi, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut, second edition, 1415 A.H.[5] Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 7, Pg. 188, Ismail bin Umar bin Kathir Abul Fida Qarashi Damishqi (d. 774 A.H.), Maktabul Marif – Beirut.[6] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 51, Egypt Ibne Abil Hadid Madaini Mutazali Abu Hamid Izzuddin bin Hibatullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad (d. 655 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Abdul Karim Namri, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut / Lebanon, First Edition, 1418 A.H. – 1998 A.D.

CONTINUED FROM PART 1........ Objection 4: Report of ‘Fatima is a part of me’ was regarding proposal of Ali (a) to the daughter of Abu Jahl D. Miswar bin Makhrama is the sole witness of this incident It is interesting that among all those companions only this six year old child heard the Prophet and quoted him. It is not clear why the rest of the companions of the Prophet while being present in the Majid did not hear this story and did not narrate it? E. Refuting this fiction through the verses of QuranIn addition to the very difficult problems that are mentioned above, when this tradition is posed before the criterion of the Holy Quran, it is found wanting in that case also. It becomes clear that it is in no way compatible to the teachings of Quran; because Quran has clearly issued permission for men to practice polygamy and it has declared: فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ“…then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four.” (Surah Nisa 4:3) And we see that the Messenger of Allah (s) has followed this practice; also in fact he was the practical demonstration of this divine command, whereas the topic of the report of Miswar bin Makhrama is that the Messenger of Allah (s) has considered it unlawful for Ali (a), his son-in-law to choose a second wife.Can the Messenger of Allah (s) make something, which the Almighty Allah has allowed, to be unlawful?Also, there are many other fundamental doubts, like:1. Juwairiya had not accepted Islam till that time.2. Juwairiya considered her father, a prophet.3. Juwairiya was inimical to Amirul Momineen (a) as he had eliminated her father.For the sake of brevity, we abstain from going into details.Now, with reference to the deep malice of Juwairiya to the killer of her father and other points, which are mentioned about her, can it be imagined that she would have liked to become the wife of the killer of her father or that Amirul Momineen (a) would have liked to propose to a woman like Juwairiya? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ARTICLES Polemical reply: Why Uthman married the daughter of the Prophet and daughter of the enemy of God at the same time?Even if we overlook all the points mentioned above, which were rational rebuttals of Wahabis, and state the polemical reply as well, it should be said:In the report of Bukhari, regarding the proposal of Amirul Momineen (a), it is mentioned that:The Messenger of Allah (s) says: I do not make a legal thing illegal, nor do I make an illegal thing legal, but by Allah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle and the daughter of the enemy of Allah, (i.e. Abu Jahl) can never get together (as the wives of one man).[1]This is in the condition that the fabricator has forgotten that by fabricating this fiction, before insulting Amirul Momineen (a) he has put Uthman bin Affan, the third Caliph of Ahle Sunnat under question, because he had after marrying the daughters of the Prophet (suppose we accept that they were daughters of Prophet), not once, but a number of times married daughters of the enemies of Allah at the same time.If it was really unlawful to marry daughters of the Prophet and daughters of enemies of Allah, how Uthman bin Affan committed this act a number of times? Did the fabricators of this fiction fulfill the conditions of this fiction? Since Ramla binte Shaybah is one of the wives of Uthman whom he married in Mecca and she was of those who moved to Medina with Uthman. Ibne Abde Barr has written concerning this:Ramla, daughter of Shaybah was of those who moved to Medina with their husband, Uthman.[2]And Shaybah, father of Uthman’s wife was an enemy of the Prophet of Islam (s); he was killed during the Battle of Badr, as Ibne Hajar has written concerning this:Ramla, daughter of Shaybah…her father was killed during the Battle of Badr while he was an idolater.[3]On the other hand, Ramla, at the time of migration to Medina, was the wife of Uthman as Ibne Hajar has mentioned further:Abu Umar has mentioned her account and said: She was an emigrant lady who migrated to Medina with her husband, Uthman.[4]And she was the wife of Uthman till his assassination as Shaibani has written in this regard:Uthman was assassinated while Ramla, daughter of Shaybah, was his wife.[5]If in fact marrying the Prophet’s daughter and daughter of Allah’s enemy had been prohibited, why the Holy Prophet (s) did not prohibit this act? And according to the claims of Ahle Sunnat, the Holy Prophet (s) married his two daughters, one after another, to Uthman?Wahabis would be compelled to either accept that the story of proposing to Abu Jahl’s daughter is basically false or accept that Prophet’s daughters were not married to Uthman or accept that Uthman committed a sinful act and in fact marriage of Prophet’s daughters to Uthman was unlawful and the marriage of Uthman to them was unlawful.In addition to the above doubts, this fiction more than that it should insult the status of Amirul Momineen (a) is insulting to the position of the Messenger of Allah (s), because as mentioned before, polygamy is lawful for all Muslim men subject to special conditions, and they can have four permanent wives at a time, but according to this fiction, the Messenger of Allah (s), in spite of the fact that the Almighty Allah considers him to be the supreme model of good morals, should be so partial to come to the Masjid dragging his cloak on the ground and say with absolute partiality: If Ali wants to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter, he should divorce my daughter!As a result of this, with reference to that which is mentioned so far, it has become very clear that the proposal of Amirul Momineen (a) to Abu Jahl’s daughter is a fiction, which Bani Umayyah have fabricated to make the Caliphs share in crimes; that by fabricating these fictions, they wanted to imply that if Umar and Abu Bakr distressed Fatima Zahra (s), Amirul Momineen (a) has also committed this act. [1] Al-Jami as-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1132, Tr. no. 2443, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Dibul Bagha, Daar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3rdedition, 1407 – 1987.[2] Al-Istiab fee Marifatul Ashab, Vol. 4, Pg. 1846, Yusuf bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abde Barr (d. 463), Darul Jeel, Beirut, 1412, First edition, Edited: Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi.[3] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 7, Pg. 654, no. 11186, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992.[4] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 7, Pg. 654, no. 11186, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992.[5] Al-Kamil fit Tarikh, Abul Hasan Ali bin Abil Karam Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Shaibani (d. 630 A.H.), Vol. 3, Pg. 75, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut – 1415 A.H. Second edition, Edited: Abdullah Qadi.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 4 PART 1 Objection 4: Report of ‘Fatima is a part of me’ was regarding proposal of Ali (a) to the daughter of Abu Jahl In one of their objections, the Wahabis have mentioned: We have numerous authentic traditional reports, which mention the proposal of Ali ® to Juwairiya, Abu Jahl’s daughter, which say that when Fatima ® was yet alive, Ali ® sent a proposal to Abu Jahl’s daughter. When Fatimacame to know about this, she was extremely distraught and the Holy Prophet (s) also, after coming to know about it, came to the Masjid and said: “Fatimais a part of me; one, who has hurt her, has in fact hurt me.” In spite of these traditional reports, why do the Shia try to use this report as condemnation of Abu Bakr and Umar, whereas the Prophet was himself infuriated and displeased with his son-in-law – Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a) – may Allah honor his countenance – and he mentioned the captioned tradition? Rational reply : The true source of the fiction of the marriage proposal of Amirul Momineen (a) to Abu Jahl’s daughter, Juwairiya, is the traditional report, which Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari has mentioned in a number of places in his Sahih. First, we would quote the original version and then analyze it: That when they (caravan of Ahle Bayt) reached Medina after returning from (captivity in Shaam with) Yazid bin Muawiyah after the martyrdom of Husain bin Ali (may Allah bestow His Mercy upon him), Al-Miswar bin Makhrama met him and asked, “Do you have any need you may order me to satisfy?” Ali said, “No.” Al-Miswar asked, “Will you give me the sword of Allah’s Apostle for I am afraid that people may take it from you by force? By Allah, if you give it to me, they will never be able to take it till I die. [till Makhrama said in the due course] When Ali bin Abi Talib asked for the hand of Abi Jahl’s daughter to be his wife besidesFatima, I heard Allah’s Apostle on his pulpit delivering a sermon in this connection before the people, and I had then attained puberty. Allah’s Apostle said: Fatima is from me, and I am afraid she will be subjected to trials in her religion (because of jealousy). The Prophet then mentioned one of his sons-in-law from the tribe of Abu Shams, and praised him as a good son-in-law, saying: Whatever he said was the truth, and he promised me and fulfilled his promise. I do not make a legal thing illegal, nor do I make an illegal thing legal, but by Allah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle and the daughter of the enemy of Allah, (i.e. Abu Jahl) can never get together (as the wives of one man).”[1] Bukhari has written, on another occasion in his book: Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama: Ali asked for the hand of Abu Jahl’s daughter. Fatima heard of this and went to Allah’s Apostle saying, “Your people think that you do not become angry for the sake of your daughters as Ali is now going to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter. “On that Allah’s Apostle got up and after his recitation of Tashahud. I heard him saying, “Then after! I married one of my daughters to Abul Aas bin Rabi (the husband of Zainab, the daughter of Prophet) before Islam and he proved truthful in whatever he said to me. No doubt, Fatimais a part of me; I hate to see her being troubled. By Allah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle and the daughter of Allah’s enemy cannot be wives of one man.” So Ali gave up that engagement.[2] Although other traditional reports also exist in this regard in Ahle Sunnat books of traditions, but since Bukhari is considered to be the most important traditional book of Ahle Sunnat, we have analyzed the reports of this book. Without any doubt, if the suggestions of these reports are clarified the implication of the rest of them would also become clear. FOR MORE ARTICLES CLICK HERE A. Viewpoint of Ahle Bayt (a) regarding this fiction Before the analysis of Bukhari, it is appropriate to state the viewpoint of Ahle Bayt (a) regarding this fiction. Shaykh Saduq ® has, in his Amali, narrated from Imam Sadiq (a) a detailed report concerning this: Al-Qama says: I asked Imam Sadiq (a): O son of the Messenger of Allah (s), people (Ahle Sunnat) accuse us (Shia) of committing vile acts; in such a way that it has made us extremely distressed. Imam (a) said: O Al-Qama, man cannot invite the attention of people and bridle their tongues. How can you remain safe from that from which the prophets, messengers and successors had not remained safe? Did they not accuse Yusuf of having intention to commit fornication? Did they not say about Ayyub (a) that he was involved in those calamities due to his sins? Did they not say about Prophet Dawood (a) that he pursued the bird till he glanced at the wife of Uriya for a moment and became infatuated with her; and in order to achieve his aim, he sent the husband of that woman to the battlefront and placed him before the Ark of Covenant till he was killed and after that he married her?... Did they not accuse the Messenger of Allah (s) of being partial to his cousin, Ali (a) and that he spoke under the influence of his selfish desires…and they have said more than this regarding his successors…Did they not allege that the chief of successors, Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a) wanted to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter while having Fatima as a wife? And that the Prophet in the presence of Muslims ascended the pulpit and complained about him saying: O people, Ali wants to bring the daughter of the enemy of God upon the head of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah. Know that Fatima is a part of me; one, who has hurt her, has in fact hurt me and one who has pleased her has in fact pleased me and whoever has infuriated her has in fact made me furious….[3] B. Miswar bin Makhrama was inimical to Ahle Bayt (a) All these the reports, which Ahle Sunnat have recorded, especially in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, are on the authority of a person named Miswar bin Makhrama, a devotee of Abdullah bin Zubair. He was a member of Ibne Zubair’s army. During Yazid’s attack on Holy Mecca, he shot rocks from catapults on Yazid’s army; he was killed along with a number of people. Abdullah bin Zubair was among the enemies of Ahle Bayt (a). So much so that he omitted the recitation of Salawat[4], because the Ahle Bayt (a) of the Prophet were also included in it. Balazari writes in Ansabul Ashraf: Among the vile acts of Abdullah Ibne Zubair was not mentioning the name of the Messenger of Allah (s) in his sermons. When he was asked about this, he said: Some relatives of the Messenger of Allah (s) were evil human beings; they become arrogant, pleased and conceited by hearing his name.[5] In order to prove the enmity of Miswar bin Makhrama to Ahle Bayt (a) it is sufficient to say that Khawarij had very good relations with them and they considered him as one of their own. Dhahabi has written in the biography of Miswar bin Makhrama: Khawarij have adopted him and they consider him as one of their own.[6] In the same way, he was a supporter of Muawiyah to such an extent that whenever he heard the name of Muawiyah, he used to invoke blessing on him (recite Durood). Dhahabi has written about this in Seer Aalamun Nubla: I never saw Miswar hearing the name of Muawiyah without invoking divine blessings for him.[7] In spite of all this, is it all right to accept the reports of this character about Ahle Bayt (a)? It is interesting that according to Bukhari, Miswar bin Makhrama has mentioned this in the presence of Imam Sajjad (a) when he had just returned from Shaam and was shattered by the martyrdom of his father and brothers. At a time when Imam Zainul Abideen (a) was in need of condolence and comforting, would any sane person, except an enemy of Ahle Bayt (a) would permit himself to utter these statements and break the heart of the Holy Imam (a)? C. The sole reporter of this tradition, Miswar bin Makhrama reached puberty at the age of six It is very interesting and remarkable to look at the condition of Ahle Sunnat narrators on the basis of what their own scholars of science of narrators have said. Miswar bin Makhrama was born in 2 A.H. in Mecca and in 8 A.H. he migrated toMedina. On the other hand they have narrated that the incident of proposing to the daughter of Abu Jahl occurred in 8 A.H.; that was when Miswar bin Makhrama was not more than six years of age. Ibne Hajar Asqalani has written in Al-Isabah: Miswar was born two years after migration (Hijrat) and he entered Medina after the conquest of Mecca during the month of Zilhajj in 8 A.H. and he was not more than six years old.[8] In the same way, there are two other points in the report of Miswar, which if examined carefully will fully expose the falsity of this fiction and they are as follows: A. In the report of Bukhari. it is mentioned that Miswar says: I heard about this incident when I had reached puberty.[9] Now, our question is: When the age of puberty is around fifteen years, how is it possible for a six year old boy to reach puberty? Ibne Hajar Asqalani noted this basic difficulty, but as per his usual habit has overlooked it and justified it in the following way that: It is possible that ‘reaching puberty’ is in the literal sense; that is mental maturity. He has written concerning this in Tahdhibut Tahdhib: There is doubt in the chain of narrators and sources of this quotation, because there is no difference of opinion regarding the fact that Miswar was born after migration (Hijrat) and the incident of proposing to the daughter of Abu Jahl occurred after six or seven years after the birth of Miswar, thus, how he could have reached sexual maturity; although it is possible that ‘reaching puberty’ is in the literal sense, that is becoming mentally matured.[10] In reply it should be said: Firstly: This justification is against rules of Arabic grammar and general parlance and no sane person would accept this explanation; Secondly: Supposing that ‘reaching puberty’ in the literal sense means reaching mental puberty, even then this justification is not applicable to Miswar bin Makhrama, because according to the report of Sahih Muslim, when he was present in Medina, he was absolutely ignorant of the fundamentals of religion, so much so that he did not conceal his privates from people and even the Messenger of Allah (s); and came out without clothes. From this aspect how is it possible to accept that he reached mental maturity at the age of six? Miswar says: I was carrying a heavy stone and my lower garment was loose, and it, therefore, slipped off (so soon) that I could not place the stone (on the ground) and carry to its proper place. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Return to your cloth (lower garment), take it (and tie it around your waist) and do not walk naked.[11] CONTINUED IN PART 2 ...... [1] Al-Jami as-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1132, Tr. no. 2443, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Dibul Bagha, Daar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3rdedition, 1407 – 1987. [2] Al-Jami as-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1364, Tr. no. 3523, Kitab Fadailus Sahaba, Chapter 16: Chapter of sons-in-law of the Holy Prophet (s), including Abul Aas bin Rabi, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Dibul Bagha, Daar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3rd edition, 1407 – 1987. [3] Al-Amali, Pg. 165, Abu Ja’far Muslim bin Ali bin Husain Saduq (d. 381 A.H.), Edited and published: Qism Darasatul Islamiya – Mausasil Batha, Markaz Taba-at wan Nashar fee Mausasil Batha, First edition, 1417 A.H. [4] O God, please bless Muhammad and the progeny of Muhammad (Allaahumma S’alli A’laa Muh’ammadinw wa Aaali Muh’ammad) [5] Ansabul Ashraf, Vol. 2, Pg. 418, Al-Balazari, Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir (d. 279 A.H.). [6] Seer Aalamun Nubla, Vol. 3, Pg. 391, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman al-Dhahabi, (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi. [7] Seer Aalamun Nubla, Vol. 3, Pg. 392, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman al-Dhahabi, Abu Abdullah, (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi. [8] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 6, Pg. 119, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei (d. 852 A.H.), Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992. [9] “I heard Allah’s Apostle on his pulpit delivering a sermon in this connection before the people, and I had then attained my age of puberty.” [10] Tahdhibut Tahdhib, Vol. 10, Pg. 137, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fadhl Asqalani Shafei (d. 852 A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut, 1404 – 1984 A.D., First edition. [11] Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Pg. 268, Tr. no. 341, Kitabul Haid, Baab Itniya Bihifzil Awra, Muslim bin Hajjaj Abul Husain Qashiri Nishapuri (d. 261 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Fawad Abdul Baqi, Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut.

Objection 3: Arab modesty does not permit oppression on Fatima (s) With reference to the fact that basically Arab civilization more than any other community and nation, is more prominent as being chivalrous to women and is especially sensitive to their condition, how can it be accepted that Umar bin Khattab beat up a woman, and that also Lady Fatima Zahra (s), the beloved daughter of the Prophet and people having Arab chivalry did not display any reaction?! Rational reply : A. Burying alive of female children in the view of pre-Islamic Arabs Can those who consider Arab chivalry to be an obstacle in attack on the house of revelation provide a convincing reply for the following verses of Quran and tell us where Arab chivalry was at the time of burying alive of female infants? The Holy Quran has mentioned in the following way the defect of pre-Islamic Arabs in burying alive of female infants: وَإِذَا الْمَوْؤُودَةُ سُئِلَتْ {8} بِأَيِّ ذَنبٍ قُتِلَتْ {9} “And when the female infant buried alive is asked. For what sin she was killed.” (Surah Takwir 81:8-9) Ibne Kathir Damishqi Wahabi has written in the interpretation of the above verse: Sometimes the people of pre-Islamic age, due to fear of poverty and livelihood killed their children…’Maudah’ is a female infant who is buried alive and it was the practice of pre-Islamic Arabs that in comparison to a son, a daughter was considered unlucky.[1] TO READ MORE ARTICLES CLICK HERE B. Beating up and plundering the garments of ladies in Kerbala Those who think that it was their manliness and chivalry, which prevented them from beating daughters and women, should see how during the bloody events of 61 A.H. in the incident of martyrdom of Imam Husain (a) at Kerbala, the daughters of the Messenger of Allah (s) were beaten up in the most merciless manner. Where was their chivalry gone? Shaykh Saduq ® writes, quoting from Fatima, daughter of Imam Husain (a): Fatima, daughter of Imam Husain (a) says: Plunderers surrounded our tents and I was a very young girl at that time and was wearing a gold anklet. A man snatched it away and began to cry. I said: O enemy of Allah, why do you cry? He replied: Why should I not cry when I am looting the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s)? I said: Why don’t you leave me alone? He replied: I fear that someone else would plunder your gold. She says: He looted everything present in our tents and even took away the chador (scarf) from our heads.[2] C. Torture and killing of Sumayyah If Arab chivalry had really been an obstacle in beating up of women, why Sumayyah, the mother was Ammar Yasir was not only beaten up, on the contrary, she was tortured so much that she achieved martyrdom? Ibne Hajar Asqalani has written in Al-Isabah: Sumayyah binte Khabbat…mother of Ammar Yasir was the seventh person to embrace Islam. Abu Jahl harassed her and stabbed her in the lower abdomen with a spear till she was martyred. She was the first female martyr in Islam and since she had embraced Islam and did not give it up, the family of Bani Mughira tortured and harassed her till she was martyred.[3] D. Enmity to ladies On researching the life history of Umar bin Khattab, we discover that he did not, in any period of his life, put up good behavior to ladies, whether before embracing Islam or after it; and whether during his rule. Please note the following examples: 1. Beating up the sister Some senior Ahle Sunnat scholars, including Shamsuddin Dhahabi in Tarikhul Islam and also Muhammad bin Saad in Tabaqatul Kubra and others have narrated that: After Umar bin Khattab came to know that his sister and her husband have accepted Islam, he came to her house and beat up the husband. His sister intervened to save her husband. Umar fisted her in the face in such a way that it bled and got smeared in blood.[4] 2. Beating up Muslim women Senior Ahle Sunnat scholars have mentioned the brutality and harassment of Umar on slave maids who had converted to Islam: Abu Bakr had purchased a slave girl from Banu Muammal from the family of Adi bin Kaab, who had converted to Islam and whom Umar had beaten up so that she may recant her Islam and stop being a Muslim (since Umar was yet a polytheist). He beat her up till he was exhausted. He said: If you wonder why I stopped beating you, it is because I am exhausted, so please forgive me for that. The slave girl said: Know that the Almighty Allah would deal with you in the same manner.[5] 3. Beating up the mourning ladies in the presence of the Holy Prophet (s) Evidences exist that Umar bin Khattab, in the presence of the Holy Prophet (s), scolded Muslim ladies and beat them up on trivial pretexts. Ahmad bin Hanbal has written in his Musnad: Zainab, the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s) passed away. The Prophet said: May the Almighty Allah join Zainab to Uthman bin Mazun, our righteous ancestor. Ladies began to weep on hearing this. Umar came with his customary whip and began to beat up the ladies in the very presence of the Holy Prophet (s) infuriating the Prophet of mercy. The Prophet took away the whip from Umar and said: Hold it! What have you got to do with these women? Let them weep. Then he said to them: You may continue to weep, but refrain from making satanic statements (sinful wails making allegations against the Almighty)…[6] One who beats up Muslim women in such a blatant manner in the presence of the Holy Prophet (s), would he refrain from beating ladies during his own rule, and when the likes of Khalid bin Walid, Mughira bin Shoba, Qunfadh Adwi etc…are on his side? Most probably the family members of the Holy Prophet (s) were among the ladies mourning for Zainab. One, who can raise objections to the ladies of the family of the Holy Prophet (s) in the very presence of the Prophet himself, what all would he not do when the Messenger of Allah (s) has passed away and when he is in power and on the seat of Caliphate; would he not act in such a blatant way? Continued in part 2 ....... [1] Tafsir Quranil Azeem, Vol. 2, Pg. 181, & Vol. 4, Pg. 478, Ismail bin Umar bin Kathir Abul Fida Qarshi Damishqi (d. 774), Darul Fikr – Beirut – 1401 A.H. [2] Al-Amali, Pg. 229, Abu Ja’far Muslim bin Ali bin Husain Saduq (d. 381 A.H.), Edited and published: Qism Darasatul Islamiya – Mausasil Batha, Markaz Taba-at wan Nashar fee Mausasil Batha, First edition, 1417 A.H. [3] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 7, Pg. 712, no. 11342, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992. [4] Ansabul Ashraf, Vol. 3, Pg. 386, Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir Balazari (d. 279 A.H.). Al-Ahadithul Mukhtara, Vol. 7, Pg. 141, Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Abdul Wahid bin Ahmad Muqaddasi Hanbali (d. 643), Edited: Abdul Malik bin Abdullah bin Dahish, Maktaba Nahzatul Haditha, Mecca Mukarrama – First edition, 1410 A.H. Tarikhul Islam wa Wafayatul Mashahir wal Aaalaam, Vol. 1, Pg. 174, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi (d. 748 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Umar Abdus Salam Tadmiri, Darul Kitabul Arabi, Lebanon, Beirut, 1407 A.H. – 1987 A.D. First edition Al-Matalibul Aaliya ba Zawaidul Masanid al-Thamaniya, Vol. 17, Pg. 259, Ibne Hajar Asqalani Shafei (d. 852 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Saad bin Nasir bin Abdul Aziz Shustari, Darul Asima/Darul Ghayth – Saudia, First edition, 1419 A.H. Ibne Kathir Damishqi has also narrated as follows: Fatima binte Khattab came forward to defend her husband. Umar hit her in such a way that her head was fractured. Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 3, Pg. 80, Ismail bin Umar bin Kathir Abul Fida Qarashi Damishqi (d. 774 A.H.), Maktabul Marif – Beirut. [5] Seerat Nabawiyyah, Vol. 2, Pg. 161, Abdul Malik bin Hisham bin Ayyub Abu Muhammad Himyari Mafiri (d. 213 A.H.), Edited: Taha Abdul Rauf Saad, Darul Jeel, First edition, 1411 A.H. Fadailus Sahaba, Vol. 1, Pg. 120, Ahmad bin Hanbal Abu Abdullah Shaibani (d. 241 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Wasiullah Muhammad Abbas, Mausasatur Risala – Beirut, First edition, 1403 A.H. – 1983 A.D. [6] Musnad Ahmad Hanbal, Vol. 1, Pg. 237, Ahmad bin Hanbal Abu Abdullah Shaibani (d. 241 A.H.), Mausasatur Qurtuba – Egypt. Mustadrak Alas Sahihain, Vol. 3, Pg. 210, Muhammad bin Abdullah Abu Abdullah Hakim Nishapuri (d. 405 A.H.), Edited: Mustafa Abdul Qadir Ata, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut, First edition, 1411 A.H. – 1990 A.D. Neelal Autar min Ahadith Sayyidul Akhyar Sharh Muttaqiul Akhbar, Vol. 4, Pg. 149, Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad Shaukani (d. 1255 A.H.), Darul Jeel, Beirut – 1973; Tohfatul Ahuzi Basharh Jamiul Tirmidhi, Vol. 4, Pg. 75, Muhammad Abdur Rahman bin Abdur Rahim Abul Alaa Mabar Kafoori (d. 1353 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya –Beirut.