Jump to content
DigitalUmmah

sheikh Khorasani: Dig up abu bakr and umar

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam, Ya Ali (as) Madad, Lanat upon the enemies of the Ahlulbayt (as)

Aliun Wali Allah Wajib

BAR MUQASSIRREEN LANAT

for those who do not know who he is, Sheikh Vahid Khorasani is widely regarded as the highest ranking most knowledgeable Marja Taqlid in all of Iran. 

yesterday, he gave a statement saying that they took Fadak saying that Prophets (pbut) do not leave inheritance. hence they are buried in the house of the Prophet (S) believing that it is ammi jaan aishas inheritance. so they are buried on usurped land. so it is a duty of every muslim to dig up the graves of abu bakr and umar

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

أَللّٰهُمَّ الْعَنْ أَوَّلَ ظَالِمٍ ظَلَمَ حَقَّ مُحَمَّدٍ وَآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ وَآخِرَ تَابِعٍ لَهُ عَلىٰ ذٰلِكَ. أَللّٰهُمَّ الْعَنِ الْعِصَابَةَ الَّتِي جَاهَدَتِ الْـحُسَيْنَ وَشَايَعَتْ وَبَايَعَتْ وَتَابَعَتْ عَلىٰ قَتْلِهِ، أَللّٰهُمَّ الْعَنْهُمْ جَمِيعاً

أَللّٰهُمَّ خُصَّ أَنْتَ أَوَّلَ ظالِمٍ بِاللَّعْنِ مِنِّي، وَابْدَأْ بِهِ أَوَّلاً، ثُمَّ الْعَنِ الثَّانِيَ وَالثَّالِثَ وَالرَّابِعَ. أَللّٰهُمَّ الْعَنْ يَزِيدَ خَامِساً، وَالْعَنْ عُبَيْدَ اللّٰه ِبْنَ زِيادٍ وَابْنَ مَرْجَانَةَ وَعُمَرَ بْنَ سَعْدٍ وَشِـمْراً وَآلَ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ وَآلَ زِيَادٍ وَآلَ مَرْوَانَ إِلىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Thoughts?

This is a general ruling by many of the Maraj'ai that if a person is buried on usurped land, they must be removed (and as he says in his video, even an Imam would have to be removed if he was buried on usurped land). He's not saying go and do this to the graves of Abu Bakr & Umar. He's saying if your view is that the Prophet didn't leave behind inheritance, then the conclusion of that view would be that it is the responsibility of all Muslims to remove them and moved elsewhere, because they are then on usurped land. He says it clearly: een mabna, een ham ma'na (this premise = this meaning/consequence). The Shi'as don't have that premise or view to begin with, so its irrelevant for us, as we don't believe it is usurped land.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

What are the different Shia views on this issue?

that abu bakr was lying; of course prophets (pbut) leave inheritance. it says in the quran itself that Sulaiman (as) inherited from Dawud (as)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I reserve more respect for scholars, I must say this Khorasani gentleman is a dimwit.  The Prophet (saw), through an authentic narration we find, said that a Prophet (asws) is buried where he dies.  When the Prophet (saw) left this world, Abu Talhah [ra] lifted the bed on which the Prophet (saw) died, dug underneath and cut the ground to make the tomb.

This has nothing to do with inheriting, or usurping, land. 

On a side-note, I would request this gentleman to - instead of inciting flames of hatred causing our youth to run rampant - dig up the graves of Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] himself.  He may not be able to dig up their graves but I can assure you that they will dig his grave instantly (and the grave of any and all fools who even dare think to act upon his nonsensical prescription).

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

that abu bakr was lying; of course prophets (pbut) leave inheritance. it says in the quran itself that Sulaiman (as) inherited from Dawud (as)

Question: what Sulaiman (as) inherited from Dawood (as) was an amanah from Allah [swt] given originally to Talut (as) when Bani Israel started mocking him [Talut a.s.] for being a king without a worldly kingdom (as we understand a kingdom to be....palaces, riches, etc).  And in case you did not know, Talut (as) was not Dawood's (as) father.  Will you now say that Dawood (as) "inherited" it from Talut (as)?

You like hashtags a lot.  Here is one for you: #ReadQur'an

PS - I won't even trouble your logic and reasoning, or lack thereof, by reminding you that Dawood (as) had many children, not just Sulaiman (as).

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, onereligion said:

Though I reserve more respect for scholars, I must say this Khorasani gentleman is a dimwit. 

You have lied, and clearly you don't have good manners when it comes to the language you use.

Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Waheed Khorasani is a man that has studied in the Hawza for many years, and he is emulated by many Shias in the world. With his long years of experience, I believe he knows very well what he is saying, better than you in fact. 

So I believe you should repent for the backbiting you have done, and read the simple rules of the Shiachat forum, which says that you are not allowed to disrespect any religious authorities on this website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

wait, what? we believe abu bakr and umar have the right to be buried there? 

If one keeps polemics aside and tries to approach it methodologically, they will realize that their hands are tied and there isn't a lot of evidence that they are buried on usurped land as far as current apparent laws of Fiqh are concerned.

We can say that there are at the very least two possible scenarios. One is that the Prophet and subsequently the caliphs are buried in the room of 'Ayesha. This can be corroborated by the fact that both of them informed/asked 'Ayesha to let them be buried besides the Prophet (s) and Sunni narrations imply this. At that point, seeking her permission to be buried there makes sense since it is her room. This seems to be a relatively common Sunni view.

The other view, which is the view of most Shi'as and the view of many Sunnis is that he was most probably not buried in the room of 'Ayesha, rather his own room. This would imply that all the wives (alongside some other family members) had a share in it if it was left as inheritance. That being said, either all or most of the wives or other family members were satisfied with the two caliphs being buried there. We have no evidence in history that shows that any of the wives voiced their disapproval with either of the two caliphs being buried on land that apparently they all had a share in. We have nothing reliable that tells us that Imam Ali (s) deemed their burial to be on usurped land (unlike his and the later Imams' statements telling us about the usurpation of the caliphate and many other wrong deeds they did). This also doesn't seem to have been a major point in Shi'a-Sunni polemics (although it clearly did exist, but it definitely wasn't the most important or strongest argument).

There isn't much we can say based on Shi'i books because we don't have anything reliable on this topic. If you go by the Sunni history records, and go with with the version that they were all buried in 'Ayesha's room, you will have to predicate all other events on that version of the story. For example they have narrations showing how 'Ayesha got a wall built in her room after 'Umar was buried, so that she wouldn't have to cover herself up (apparently she began wearing the veil in her room when 'Umar was buried). 

On the other hand, we have reliable enough evidence to show though, that the Prophet (s) was not buried in 'Ayesha's room. But nevertheless, it is usually in polemical articles where Shi'as seem to be hell-bent on trying to prove that they are buried on usurped land - which they don't realize cause tons of other implications, brings the role and silence of the Imams and the understanding of their Shi'as under question etc. If they are buried on usurped land, those who buried and allowed them to be buried there need to be condemned, not those who are actually buried. It doesn't seem like anyone back then thought it was on usurped land.

There are more details and other points that I haven't bothered to mention, like the whole issue of transfer of property ownership, could it have been gifted land to the wives, if Abu Bakr as a caliph allowed the wives to keep the rooms as a fief, were the wives only in the houses due to right to dwell or did they have ownership of it etc. See Sharh of Nahj al-Balagha by Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Volume 17, Page 214-219. 

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, emceemo40 said:

You have lied, and clearly you don't have good manners when it comes to the language you use.

Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Waheed Khorasani is a man that has studied in the Hawza for many years, and he is emulated by many Shias in the world. With his long years of experience, I believe he knows very well what he is saying, better than you in fact. 

So I believe you should repent for the backbiting you have done, and read the simple rules of the Shiachat forum, which says that you are not allowed to disrespect any religious authorities on this website.

- I have lied?  How so?  Find me one more comment (of mine) where I have disrespected any scholar, Shia or Sunni.

- "Grand Ayatollah Sheikh" whoever he may be is not as noble as the dust on the left shoe of the Prophet (saw).  The Prophet (saw) narrated that a prophet (asws) is buried where he dies.  Is the "Grand Ayatollah Sheikh" a proof against the Prophet (saw)?

- I believe this gentleman should ask for forgiveness for speaking hastily, without knowledge and uttering things that add fuel to the sectarian fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2017 at 11:46 AM, DigitalUmmah said:

did Sulaiman (as) inherit the kingdom from Dawud (as)? 

yes or no are perfectly valid answers. 

Typical (il)logical response!  Answer a question with a question and then add a straitjacketing phrase at the end of it.  Too much Peshawar Nights for you so allow me to re-introduce you to a few Islamic concepts.

1.  The kingdom went from Talut (as) to Dawood (as) and then to Sulaiman (as).  If we must maintain consistency (since it was the same kingdom, therefore, we should) it must be inheritance - to stay in line with your argument - all throughout. 

When the kingdom was  transferred to Sulaiman (as), you claim that it was inheritance (parent to child).  However, no one taught you, or you are quick to throw dust in everyone's eyes, that the kingdom began with Talut (as) and it was transferred to Dawood (as) before it even got to Sulaiman (as).  If we apply inheritance to the second transfer (from Dawood to Sulaiman, peace be upon them), then we must also claim inheritance for the first transfer (from Talut to Dawood, peace be upon them).  When we do that, we disturb the balance, the consistency, because Talut (as) and Dawood (as) were not blood relatives, let alone sharing a parent-child relationship.  Therefore, the kingdom was transferred from Talut (as) [with whom it was an amanah] to Dawood (as) and then to Sulaiman (as).

2.  Dawood (as) had many children, many sons.  If this was inheritance, you are accusing a great prophet (as) of injustice for giving his kingdom to one of his sons, leaving the rest of his children with little or nothing to share between them.  Sort of the same accusation (of injustice) that you unknowingly level against the Prophet (saw) by claiming that he (saw) gave Fadak to Fatima (ra), leaving the remainder of his children with next to nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

This is from today's lesson of Ayatullah Wahid Khorasani:

http://wahidkhorasani.com/فارسی/اخبار/محتوا/359_تذکر صریح معظم له به کسانی که سخنان ایشان را تحریف کرده اند

There is a video as well - if I find the link I'll share it. He sends la'nat on those who mis-interpreted his words on purpose and gave the wrong impression. He said (my super quick translation): 

That which is said in these lessons is for scholars, not for ignorant people. Altering the content results in the curse of Allah. May Allah curse those who alter (do tahrif) of words from their original meanings, and attribute to us that which we did not say.

We did not say that removing them two (Abu Bakr and Umar) from their graves is obligatory, rather this is the result of the words of Abu Bakr himself who said: Prophet do not leave behind inheritance, and what we leave back is Sadaqah. 

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2017 at 6:20 PM, onereligion said:

Though I reserve more respect for scholars, I must say this Khorasani gentleman is a dimwit.  The Prophet (saw), through an authentic narration we find, said that a Prophet (asws) is buried where he dies.  When the Prophet (saw) left this world, Abu Talhah [ra] lifted the bed on which the Prophet (saw) died, dug underneath and cut the ground to make the tomb.

This has nothing to do with inheriting, or usurping, land. 

On a side-note, I would request this gentleman to - instead of inciting flames of hatred causing our youth to run rampant - dig up the graves of Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] himself.  He may not be able to dig up their graves but I can assure you that they will dig his grave instantly (and the grave of any and all fools who even dare think to act upon his nonsensical prescription).

Looks like we have to send this one to the shame corner for a little while

60s-spiderman-shame-corner-sit-133449376

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Laanah on the deniers and haters of Aal(asws) e Mohammad(saww).

Please do your part too Ghani @Ruqaya101 @Salsabeel

@Ralvi @AStruggler @ali_fatheroforphans @Ashvazdanghe @starlight @Sirius_Bright @Laayla @shia farm girl @Islandsandmirrors @Husayni @Lion of Shia @3wliya_maryam @Darth Vader @IbnSina 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Asghar Ali Karbalai said:

Big Laanah on the deniers and haters of Aal(asws) e Mohammad(saww).

Please do your part too Ghani @Ruqaya101 @Salsabeel

@Ralvi @AStruggler @ali_fatheroforphans @Ashvazdanghe @starlight @Sirius_Bright @Laayla @shia farm girl @Islandsandmirrors @Husayni @Lion of Shia @3wliya_maryam @Darth Vader @IbnSina 

Beshumaar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Ayesha gave another Jamal-like performance

 The incident of Ayesha’s attack on Imam Hasan’s (a.s.) bier is well-documented. We mention an excerpt:

Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) narrates – Imam Husain (a.s.) performed the funeral prayer of Imam Hasan (a.s.) and then the body was taken to the Mosque of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

When (the procession) paused at the grave of Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.), news reached Ayesha and she was informed – They have brought Hasan’s (a.s.) body to be buried with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

She then came out quickly on a saddled mule. She was the first woman in the Muslim community to ride on the saddle.

She stood and demanded – Take your son away from my house. No one will be buried in my house and be allowed to violate the privacy of Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.).

Imam Husain (a.s.) said to her – A long time ago you and your father had disregarded the privacy of Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.). You brought to his house those whose nearness he did not love. Allah will hold you responsible for this O Ayesha. My brother commanded me to place him near his grandfather the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) so he can renew his covenant with him.

You, O Ayesha, should know that my brother is the most knowledgeable person with regards Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.). He is the more knowledgeable in interpreting the Book of Allah than to violate the privacy of Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.).

Allah says – O you who believe! Do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you…(Surah Ahzab (33):53) but you have admitted into the house of Allah’s Messenger men without his permission.

Allah, the Almighty, has said – O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet… (Surah Hujaraat (49): 2).

By my life the proximity of your father and Farooq amounted to harassment of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.). The two of them did not maintain the respect of Allah’s Messenger (s.a..w.a.) as He had commanded them through the words of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.). Whatever Allah has made unlawful for a believer in death He has also made unlawful for him in his life. I swear by Allah – O Ayesha, if the burial that you dislike taking place near his father – the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) – would have been permissible (even if forcefully) in our view and from Allah’s side, you would have learned that it would have taken place despite your opposition.

Then Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyyah spoke – O Ayesha, one day you ride a mule and the other day you rode a camel. You have no control over yourself. And you do not own the earth out of animosity against Bani Hashim

Ayesha faced him and said – O Ibn Hanafiyyah, these are the sons of Fatima (s.a.) who speak. Why are you speaking (for them)?

Imam Husain (a.s.) addressed her – To what extent do you want to distance Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) from the sons of Fatima (a.s.)? I swear by Allah that he has three Fatima in his lineage from the mother’s side. 1. Fatima Bint Imran Ibn A’iz Ibn Amr Ibn Makhzum 2. Fatima Binte Asad Ibn Hashim 3. Fatima Bint Za’idah Ibn Al-Asam Ibn Rawaha Ibn Hijr Ibn Ad Muis Ibn Amir.

Ayesha said – Move your son and take him away. You are a quarrelsome people.

Imam Husain (a.s.) went to the grave of his mother (s.a.) and then took the body of Imam Hasan (a.s.) out (of the Prophet’s s.a.w.a. shrine) and buried him in Baqi.

  • Al-Kafi vol. 1 p. 302-303

Ahle Tasannun document the incident

The incident is well-documented in the books of the Ahle Tasannun and is by no means a Shiite innovation. In any case as we have seen, when a woman can come out for a full-fledged battle in violation of all Islamic laws and etiquette, then anything lesser than that should not invite any objection or astonishment.

Ayesha’s obstruction of Imam Hasan’s (a.s.) funeral and spewing venom against the sons of Fatima (s.a.) is well-documented in –

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Abbas said to Marwan: "Go and end the sedition, which they bring Hassan to his farewell of his grandfather, and he knows better to keeps respect the grave of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and don't allow the use of the shovel and the Pickaxe & entering his house without his permission    , and they are not not like as others in the favor of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him),  and if they were willing, you and your people were not the power to forbidden to do so. And then he went to Aisha and said:

تَجَمّلتِ تَبَغّلتِ وَلو عِشتَ تفیلتِ

لک التُسعُ مِن الثُّمنِ وفی الکلِّ تصرّفت.

That is, in the day of the war in Basra(Jamal war), you got to the camel, and today you are on the Mule, although God and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah) have commanded you not to be out of the house and if you stay alive, you are likely to mount the elephant. And you receive from the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon you), one of nine from one of eight, that is, one of  seventy-two  a fragment from two fragment, that he had  eight other wife, and you, violated all, and called the  home as your house .Return if, if not, Imam Hasan (as), said to Imam Hussein (as), never ever drops blood in amount of  blood of the horn of Cupping in this event, you would see that this gathering, what did you are proud from them, what will came to you?Afterwards, Imam Hassan (pbuh) gave his farewell greetings. According to the letter, they buried him beside of Fatimah Binat Asad Alih al-Salam in Baqih

حدیقة الشیعة: ج2، ص660

Hadiqat al Shia ; v2 ; p660

https://hawzah.net/fa/Article/View/26410

http://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa26904

in conclusion if she had only right in one of seventy two of inheritance it wasn't enough land to bury a grown man in it so burying two is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×