Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Answering the alleged innovation of Umar(Ra)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Answering the alleged innovations of Umar(ra)

Question:

Shias claim that after the death of Holy Prophet (pbuh) especially during the rule of Hazrat Umar (ra), several changes were made in the ordinance of the State and religion.

Hazrat Umar (ra) introduced some new laws in the Islamic Shariah and these laws have become part of Islamic culture and tradition and are still followed by people of this time. How far is this true?

Also Was it Hazrat Umar (ra) who introduced the utterance of divorce three times and the phrase "prayer is better than sleep" in the adhan of Fajr (morning)?

Answer:

The claim that the caliph Umar (ra) innovated novel practices in the religion results from sheer misunderstanding of the nature of the directives taken by the caliph and misinterpretation of some facts reported in the hadith literature. His attitude to the religious matters as depicted in the hadith literature in general takes one to believe that he was rather strict in even carelessly ascribing anything to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). He would not accept any individual report ascribed to the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself against the acknowledged practices and clear directives of the Shari`ah. It would not be fair to accuse a personality who takes due care in religious matters of these unjust charges.

The basic mistake in this regard takes place when people mix up the administrative directives and interpretation or implication of the texts by the caliph with religious doctrines. If the posterity took his administrative decisions to be part of the religion it would mean their lack of understanding not a misdemeanor on the part of the caliph.

The most striking example of misunderstanding in this regard is his decision in consequences of pronouncing triple talaaq at a time. The Islamic Shari`ah has given clear directive regarding the permanent separation of a married couple. However, the Holy Qur'an has left the matter of dealing with the matter of breaching the clear directive regarding divorce and the consequences of such boldness. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) would decide such matters keeping in consideration the intent of the offender after properly investigating the matter. He is reported to have decided either to take the triple talaaq as single divorce or in some other cases, deprive the offender of his right to reunite with his spouse. Absence of any regular legislation leaves the Islamic state with the right to pass a legislation keeping the general cases before it. This is what happened during the rule of the second caliph[1]. This administrative decision he took keeping in view the gross disregard of the expressed Qur'anic directive for base motives by the subjects. Exercising this right on the state level can in no way be considered an addition to the religious directives.

As regards the matter of insertion of the words 'come to the prayer' in Azaan is concerned the claim is also unfounded. The reason being that the words of Azaan is part of the Sunnah of the prayer instituted by the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The practice has been in currency since the day the Holy Prophet (pbuh) instituted it as the Sunnah. The authenticity of the practice does not hinge upon individual reports rather it depends on the generation-to-generation transmission of the words uttered in the call in all the five prayers. It is also clear from various reports that any addition that is deemed appropriate with reference to the circumstance can also be made in the words of this call for prayer. Also there is a legion of narratives, which clearly mention that the practice has been in vogue during the Holy Prophet's (pbuh) time. Let us study the report that is forwarded to prove the notion that Hazrat Umar (ra) inserted the words in the call to prayer.

Malik narrated that it was reported to him that the Mo`azzan approached Umar (ra) to call him to prayer. When he found Umar (ra) asleep he said: 'Prayer is better than sleep'. Umar (ra) commanded him to place the saying in the call for the Morning Prayer.

As is obvious the narrator does not mention the source and the report is not traced back to the caliph Umar (ra). Moreover, the text of the report is in clear contradiction with many authentic reports. As I have already mentioned that a host of narratives recorded in other books of the hadith mention that it was the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself who had commanded his companions to add the sentence in the call for Morning Prayer. These reports which are mostly reported by more reliable and uninterrupted chains of reporters include Sahih of Ibn e Khuzaymah 385, 386; Sahih of Ibn e Habbaan 1682; Sunan of Abu Daud 500, 501, 504; Sunan Nisai 633, 647, 707; Sunan Ibn e Majah 716; Sunan Nisai al Kubra 1597, 1611; Sunan Bahaqi Al Kubraa 1617, 1824, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1835, 1731, 1834, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1840, 1845, and many others in Musnad Ahmad and other books.

Even if we study the wording of the narrative disregarding the lack of reliability and obvious lack of correspondence with other reliable sources and the reported practice of the entire Ummah the report does no way exclusively prove that Umar (ra) meant to add this in the call of Faj'r prayer. Many scholars have interpreted it to mean that the Mo`azzn should place the sentence in the call of Morning Prayer and should not say calling someone to prayer personally in other circumstances. This interpretation tends to prove the sagacity and typical extraordinary care the caliph would adopt in these matters. Certainly he intended to avoid introduction of a formal method to call someone individually to prayer.

The foregoing explanation would effectively prove that the narrative does in no way prove that the caliph Umar (ra) introduced the saying in the Azaan for Morning Prayer.

1.For detail refer to: Pronouncement of Triple Talaaq at the Same Time, which may be accessed at: http://www.understanding-islam.com/related...uestion&qid=620.

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaams

Shah Jee, you really amaze me, you Sunni get so desperate that now you guys even wanna re-write facts to protect Umar Jee. Well Shah Jee, lets start with the Salat addition, you can defend all you want but Umar's admission is far more relevant that the defence of your Mullah's, Umar’s confession that الصلواۃ خیر من النوم is an innovation:

We read in Kanz al Ummal Kanz al Ummal volume 4, page 270, Dhikr e Adhan.:

Umar bin Hifaz narrates that Sa’ad was the first person to recite الصلواۃ خیر من النوم in Adhan. Umar had termed that phrase an innovation.

…someone enquired Tawoos about it, he replied: “This verse did not exist in Adhan during the days of the Holy Prophet (s). During the reign of Abu Bakr, Bilal had heard a Moazzin recite this phrase, therefore he too included it in the Adhan. After the death of Abu Bakr Umar had said that they should stop Bilal from practicing that innovation but later on Umar forgot it, hence it is still practiced.”

Note: In Saheeh Muslim the Adhan that is quoted on the basis of Umar’s narration does not include the words الصلواۃ خیر من النوم, the same is the case with another Adhan narration in Saheeh Muslim as narrated by Abi Mahzoora.

Of the long list that you provided of Sunni sources attruibuted to Rasulullah (s) lets just stick to the Saha Sittah. Can you please quote the traditions with the complete Isnad from Sunan Abu Dawood?

Can you also cite the chain from Muwatta Imam Malik?

That way we can see how your scholars have graded the narrators.

Jazakallah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

from Sahih Muslim on the bidah talaq (innovation of UMAR!):

Chapter 2 : PRONOUNCEMENT OF THREE DIVORCES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book 9, Number 3491:

Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) reported that the (pronouncement) of three divorces during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and that of Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of Umar (Allah be pleased with him) (was treated) as one.But Umar b. Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) said: Verily the people have begun to hasten in the matter in which they are required to observe respite.So if we had imposed this upon them, and he imposed it upon them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book 9, Number 3492:

Abu Sahba' said toIbn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them): Do you know that three (divorces) were treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), and that of Abu Bakr, and during three (years) of the caliphate of Umar (Allah be pleased with him)?Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) said: Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book 9, Number 3493:

Abu al-Sahba' said to Ibn 'Abbas: Enlighten us with your information whether the three divorces (pronounced at one and the same time) were not treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr.He said: It was in fact so, but when during the caliphate of 'Umar (Allah be pleased with him) people began to pronounce divorce frequently, he allowed them to do so (to treat pronouncements of three divorces in a single breath as one).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bismillah

Salam Alaikum

Our Ahle Sunnah brothers are unfortunately innovating in Sharia in order to save Hadhrat Umar from this blame.

Let's see once again closely the innovation of Hadhrat Umar.

Talaq given during menses doesn't take place

Sahih Muslim, Book 009, Number 3473:

Ibn 'Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported that he divorced his wife

while she was menstruating during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace

be upon him). 'Umar b. Khattib (Allah be pleased with him) asked Allah's

Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, whereupon

Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Command him ('Abdullah b.

'Umar) to take her back (and keep her) and pronounce divorce when she is

purified and she again enters the period of menstruation and she is again

purified (after passing the period of menses), and then if he so desires he may

keep her and if he desires divorce her (finally) before touching her (without

having an intercourse with her), for that is the period of waiting ('ldda)

which God, the Exalted and Glorious, has commanded for the divorce of women.

Comments:

Contrary to Ibn Umar, Allah's Rasool (saw) didn't count the Talaqs given in

state of Menses.

Rasool Allah became ENRAGED upon hearing Talaq during Menses

Book 009, Number 3478:

Abdullah b. 'Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported: I divorced my wife

while she was in the state of menses. 'Umar (Allah be pleased with him) made

mention of it to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he was

enraged and he said: Command him to take her

back .......

Comments:

Allah's Rasool (saw) became extremely angry upon hearing this.

Hadhrat Umar and playing with book of Allah

Sunnan Abu Dawud, Chapter of "Bab ul Thilasa al-Majmua wa ma fihi min

al-taghleez 1705, hadith 3433, page 468

It is narrated by Mehmood bin Labeed:

Some one told Rasool Allah (saw) that someone gave

three divorces to his wife at the same time (in same company). After hearing

this neswes, Rasool Allah (saw) stood up with anger and he said: "The people

have started playing with Book of Allah, while I am among them." Upon this

another man stood up and asked Rasool Allah (saw), "May I go and kill him?".

Same Hadith has been recorded into Sunnan Nisai too

Mahmûd ibn Labîd said,

The Messenger of Allâh, peace and blessings of

Allâh be on him, was informed about a man who divorced his wife, divorcing

(her) three times together, so he stood up in displeasure and said:

"Is the Book of Allâh being sported with while I am in

your midst? "

(Nisai. 27:6.)

Final Hadith that contrary to innovation of Hadhrat Umar, Talaq doesn't take place during Menses

And finally one more clear Hadith from Rasool Allah (saw) [as compared to

personal opinion of Ibn Umar] that Talaq given during Menses doesn't occur.

Sunnan Abu Dawud:

Book 12, Number 2191:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

Abdu Yazid, the father of Rukanah and his brothers, divorced Umm Rukanah and

married a woman of the tribe of Muzaynah. She went to the Prophet

(peace_be_upon_him) and said: He is of no use to me except that he is as useful

to me as a hair; and she took a hair from her head. So separate me from him.

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) became furious. He called on Rukanah and his

brothers. He then said to those who were sitting beside him. Do you see

so-and-so who resembles Abdu Yazid in respect of so-and-so; and so-and-so who

resembles him in respect of so-and-so? They replied: Yes.

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to Abdu Yazid: Divorce her. Then he did

so. He said: Take your wife, the mother of Rukanah and his brothers, back in

marriage. He said: I have divorced her by three

pronouncements, Apostle of Allah. He said: I know: take her back. He then

recited the verse: "O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at their

appointed periods."

Comments:

1) So, according to Book of Allah (swt) and according to words of Rasool Allah

(saw), Talaq given during the state of menses doesn't occur.

2) Our Ahle Sunnah brothers leave the words of Allah's Book and Rasool (saw) and

instead take the words of a companion. Isn't it Sahaba Worship?

3) Talaq is in itself a very bad action. But my humble opinion is what Hadhrat

Umar introduced, it was worst to the power of worst (i.e. so called Talaqe

Badi'i)

Now look at the following tradition which again shows that till the time of

Hadhrat Umar, people were not allowed to

pronounce three divorces in a single breath

Abu al-Sahba' said to Ibn 'Abbas: Enlighten us with your information

whether the three divorces (pronounced at one and the same time) were not

treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)

and Abu Bakr. He said: It was in fact so, but when during the caliphate of 'Umar

(Allah be pleased with him) people began to pronounce divorce frequently, he

allowed them to do so (to treat pronouncements of three divorces in a single

breath as one).

Sahih Muslim, Book 009, Number 3493

This is showing it in itself that earlier people were not Allowed to do so,

and this was changed firstly only by Hahdrat Umar.

Hope it helps.

Was Salam.

(PS: I have read the article by brother Moiz Amjad, and he is saying this without proof that 3 times Talaq at one instance occurs i.e. there is no such proof from Quran (infact it is contrary to Quran).

Secondly he gave reference to only 2 books:

1) Al Mughani by Ibn Quddamah

2) Mudawwanah al-Kubraa

Now there is "Ikhtilaaf" in Sunni Ahadith. More authentic Ahadith are saying that such Talaq doesn't occur (as mentioned above).

Secondly, such action is directly against Quran and in words of Rasool Allah (saw) "PLAYING WITH BOOK OF Allah"

Thirdly, Umar totally prohibited the Quranic way of giving divorce, and announced that he will "Force" people to separate (which is equal to playing with book of Allah)

Was Salam.

Edited by zainabia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

the inovations of u**r are admitted by the haq char yar website. i dont usually visit that site but i saw this there once. it may have been posted here before. these wahabis are so foolish that they are admitting umar did bida:

[URL not allowed]statichtml/files/10412932223858.shtml

He introduced few beautiful things in the way of Fiqah, that are;

1. Set a tradition by adding of two sentences of "Assaltu-Khairum-Minnan-Naum" (Salah/Namaz is better than

sleep) in the Fajr Azaan (procedure to call Muslims for the Salah/Namaz). Since 1,400 years passed, except Shia's, Muslims apart from different Fiqah, recite the Azaan-e-Fajr set according to this rule.

2. Made a rule to offer 4 "Takbeers" in "Namaz-e-Janazah" (Salah/Namaz, without bending and resting on heads for a dead person), when he saw that many use to offer it by various number of Takbeers; i.e. some doing 4, some 6, some 3 etc. Since 1,400 years passed, except Shia's, Muslims apart from different Fiqah, act upon this rule.

3. Made a rule that every Muslim will offer 20 prayers of "Tarawieh" in the month of Ramazan, in the night for the next Fast. Since 1,400 years passed, except Shia's, Muslims following Fiqah of 4 Imams, follow this rule by their own Fiqah. Its interesting to note that except Fiqah-e-Hanfi, rest Fqah-e-Maliki, Fiqah-e-Hanbali and Fiqah-e-Shafiei follow this rule with the number of Tarawieh, more than 20. The Hanafi's are following this rule since it was implemented.

4. Made a rule that if any Muslim gives 3 Talaq's to his wife at once, these Talaq's will be executed then and there and she will be considered to be cut-away at once from his relationship. Since 1,400 years passed, except Shia's, Muslims of various Fiqah are following this rule from its implementation. These all traditions and additions were set in the presence of all Companions (r.a) and answer was being asked from them, either they agree or not with the decision of Hazrat Umar Farooq (r.a)?. History states that there was no one that neglected this suggestion and even argued with Ameer-ul-Momineen, Hazrat Umar Farooq (r.a) for the implementation of these acts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam

I found that Agha Malang found a narration from Kanzul Ummal, which was:

Umar bin Hifaz narrates that Sa’ad was the first person to recite الصلواۃ خیر من النوم in Adhan. Umar had termed that phrase an innovation.

…someone enquired Tawoos about it, he replied: “This verse did not exist in Adhan during the days of the Holy Prophet (s). During the reign of Abu Bakr, Bilal had heard a Moazzin recite this phrase, therefore he too included it in the Adhan. After the death of Abu Bakr Umar had said that they should stop Bilal from practicing that innovation but later on Umar forgot it, hence it is still practiced.”

Putting aside the question of whether or not this is correct according to Sunni standards, are the Shias in this thread so naive to really believe that this is true according to their own criteria ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Hussain 100,

I know that you guys are rewriting history to protect your second king - and that the authenticity defence is always advanced so perhaps you could quote the chains from Muwatta and Abu Daud so we cann assess them.

Dear Agha Malang

These are one of the most cheap allegations that i have ever heard fromm a Shia.

What evidence do you have that we have re-written history to protect Hazrat Umar(Ra) ?

Iam sorry to say that Shias accuse Hazrat Umar(Ra) for introducing innovations in Islam whereas they dont look into their own traditions and practices like Matam, building Shrines of the Scholars and Imams, which are in clear contradiction with Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet(pbuh).

Before referring to Bukhari and Muslim , please first let me elaborate on the very thoughtful response that one of my brother provided as I think this might be beneficial for other readers and for further referencing:

In consulting the sources of history about a personality, one may choose two approaches:

Deciding that the person is good or bad and then looking into the sources to extract appropriate evidences to support the opinion.

Looking at the sources to find as much information as possible about a person before even beginning to rule any judgments about him/her.

In the first approach one limits oneself in looking at only certain versions of certain records from certain sources without testing the reliability of the records and without considering the context and the situation in which the incident might have happened.

In the second approach one tries to look at a reasonable number of the relevant versions of a reasonable number of the relevant records in a reasonable number of sources. This will then be followed by carefully testing the reliability of the records and consideration of the context and situation in which the incident might have happened.

The first approach falls in the category of prejudice; the second approach falls in the category of research.

By the 'Prejudice Approach' it is possible to criticize any personality and in fact anything (from God almighty - as being criticized by atheists - and the Prophet of Islam - as being criticised by some none-Muslims - to the companions of the Prophet - as being criticised by some of our Shia brothers). I can guarantee that no personality (whether Ali or Umar) can be immune from criticism when it is based on the 'Prejudice Approach'.

I am extremely sorry that I have to say that unfortunately when it comes to some of the great companions of the Prophet, some of our ignorant and extremist Shia- Muslim brothers/sisters take the first approach in looking at these personalities.

I think my brothers reply to you was aimed to provide you with a view that was relevant to the second approach (research) rather than the first approach (prejudice).

Please let me look at the points that my brother made while considering the Shia perspective:

I can summarise his points in three sections:

"People mix up the administrative directives and interpretation or implication of the texts by the caliph with religious doctrines."

(This point was made by brother Hashmi originally about the issue of three divorces at one time, however I want to look at it from a wider view).

The head of the state has unavoidable duties. In fulfilling these duties many times he will need to use his authority to interpret or adapt some of the rules of Shariat in new circumstances.

To give you an example from Shia context: The late Imam Khomeini, one of the most influential leaders of the Shia of our time says in one of his speeches that governance is the most important of all divine ordinances and it takes precedence over secondary divine ordinances. Not only does the Islamic state permissibly enforce a large number of laws not mentioned specifically in the sources of the Shari'ah, such as the prohibition of narcotics and the levying of customs dues; it can also suspend the performance of a fundamental religious duty, the hajj, when this is necessitated by the higher interest of the Muslims. (Sahifa-yi Nur, XX, pp. 170-71).

In one of his other speeches he says that the Walye Faqih (i.e. religious leader) even has the authority to suspend the primary divine ordinances like obligatory prayers if he finds that this is necessitated by the higher interest of Muslims. (Unfortunately I do not have the exact reference for this part but it is well known by all Iranian Shia brothers who used to follow the developments at the time).

Not the same but relevant to the above, are some practices of Shia brothers that are approved by Shia scholars. Adding a statement about Ali in Azan and Iqama, considering mourning and beating oneself as a religious practice, doing the five prayers in three times rather than five separate times, celebrating the birthday of Shia Imams as a religious duty, allowing people to make golden shrines for some of the scholars who pass away and seeking cure and intercession from them are some of the well established practices of Shia brothers that are added to the Shariat. In the more recent times we can see more newly arrived practices like sending greetings to the Prophet three times after hearing the name of Imam Khomeini, organising congregational (Jama'at) Itikaf, reading a certain prayer in groups on Thursday nights, organising and performing political rallies during Hajj and shouting slogans in Friday prayers in support of the political statements of the Friday Imam, etc.

Please note that here I do not intend to criticise any of the above or to argue if these practices are allowable in Islam or not. All I am saying is that it is strange to see that a Shia brother, with such background, is criticising one of the great companions of the Prophet for (supposedly) adding a sentence to the Azan or for interpreting a Shariat rule.

It is also clear from various reports that any addition that is deemed appropriate with reference to the circumstance can also be made in the words of this call for prayer.

Here I would like to express my understanding that Azan is different from (say) a Surah of the Qur'an. While no changes can be brought about in the words of any Surah of the Qur'an, Azan is only part of the preparation for prayer in which people are advised that the prayer time has approached and they are called to join congregational prayer. Azan is only a tool to facilitate doing the prayer. When you consult the collections of Hadith you find many records that suggest that Azan was in fact the product of mutual thought of companions themselves, approved by the Prophet. If you look at books of Bukhari (No. 569), Muslim (No. 568), Sunan Termezi (No. 174) you will find that Muslims wanted to have a device for announcing the prayer time, but one that was different from what Christians and Jews used to have. In many of the ahadith, including those I have referred to above, it is the companions themselves that come up with the idea of a human being calling for prayer. Ironically in the above-referred ahadith in Bukhari and Muslim it is said that the suggestion came from Umar and the Prophet approved it. My conclusion is that while in no way can one make any changes to the words of any Surah of the Qur'an, it does not seem as forbidden to add a sentence to Azan for the matter of necessity or appropriateness by the authority of the head of state. Perhaps this is why we see that our Shia brothers add a variety of versions of the statement about Ali in their Azan (for instance some simply say "I bear witness that Ali is the Wali of Allah", while others say "I bear witness that Ali and his infallible sons are Wali of Allah").

Also there is a legion of narratives, which clearly mention that the practice has been in vogue during the Holy Prophet's (pbuh) time.

This is a very important part of the brother Hashmi's response to you. It will be only a prejudice approach that can make us focusing on certain ahadith and ignoring other ahadith. The same approach can be done with Shia sources. Do you know that the sentence of "Prayer is better than sleeping" is also approved in some of the Shia ahadith:

Al-Tahzib by Al-Toosi, Vol. 2, No. 14: "Imam Jafar says: ... Al-Taswib (i.e. the statement of 'Al-Salat Khayron Min Al-Nawm') in Iqama is part of the Sunnat.

Al-Tahzib by Al-Toosi, Vol. 2, No. 15: "Imam Baqir (ra) says: My father (i.e. Ali Ibn Alhusayn (ra) used to say 'Al-Salat Khayron Min Al-Nawm,' in his Azan at home...'

Wasa'el Al-Shia, No. 6998: "Imam Jafar (ra) says: When you are in morning prayer say 'Al-Salat Khayron Min Al-Nawm' after 'Hayye Ala Khayr Al-Amal'[1] in Azan but don't say it in Iqama.

According to the Shia scholar, Majlesi in his book Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 81 P. 150 certain Shia scholars of old times had allowed saying the sentence in the morning prayers. These are Ibn Al-Junayd and Al-Ju'fi.

I do appreciate that the majority of the ahadith in Shia collections and almost all their scholars do not allow this sentence in Azan or Iqama. However I wanted to establish the fact that by the prejudice approach, almost for anything, some evidences can be found.

I hope by the above elaboration on brother Hashmi's reply you can now appreciate that firstly it is not easy to conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that the sentence was added by Umar. Secondly that even if for the sake of discussion we agree that the sentence was added by Umar, there are no rooms for criticising him about it, in particular by our Shia brothers. This is the result of a "research approach" to the issue rather than a "prejudice approach."

You asked about the content of Azan in the books of Bukhari and Muslim:

In the book of Bukhari (as far as I have seen) there are no mentions of the content of Azan. In the book of Muslim (as far as I have seen) there are only two places where the content of Azan is mentioned:

Hadith number 572: The narrator says that the Prophet has taught him how to say Azan. The sentences of Azan are then mentioned and the statement about prayer being better than sleeping is not included.

Hadith number 578: Here the narrator asks what should we say after hearing the sentences of Azan and the Prophet explains what is to be said after each sentence. The statement about prayer being better than sleeping is not mentioned.

Please note that the statement of the concern is only specific to the morning prayer. In other words, Azan by default is without this statement unless it is said for the morning prayer. (This is like someone asks you how many Rak'at of prayer should I read at noon and you say four, without mentioning that on Fridays it will be replaced with two Rak'at if going to Friday prayer). It is therefore difficult to conclude from the above two ahadith that the sentence should not be said for the morning prayer as it is clear from the above that the default version of Azan is under question. I am not aware of any scholars who conclude merely from the above two ahadith that the sentence was not originally part of the Azan of the morning prayer.

Shia accuses Umar for the supposedly innovation of adding a sentence to Azan (Assalat Khayron Min Annaom). Do we have any Hadith from the Prophet saying that do not say this sentence in Azan?

Shia accuses mainstream Muslims of holding hands in prayer and for pointing with finger in Tashahhod. Do we have any hadith from the Prophet prohibitting the above two?

The point is Shia accuses the mainstream Muslims for the above based on their assumption that these are innovation (of course they are not but this is irrelevant to the subject).

On the same basis I accuse Shia for ceremonial mourning, because ceremonies of mourning and chest beating is a clear Innovation which is alien to Islam.

This is while none of the above three acts are haram per se, while we have plenty of Ahadith that criticises even natural mourning, let alone ceremonial ones. I gave you a number of evidences about this in my previous reply from Shia sources, like Husayn prohibitting Zainab in Karbala to do mourning and also that Fatwa in Resala.

Religion is not a theatre scene in which what ever we wish could be performed. We are only allowed to do what we are told. Adding any new piece to the religion as a categorical part of religion is innovation and according to both shia and sunni every innovation is in fire.

Brother Agha Malang ,if you are honest to yourself and want to search for the truth regarding the Companions of the Prophet(pbuh) with open mind, then i would recommand you to take 2nd approach ,otherwise keep sticking to your prejudice and secterian appraoch which will hold you responsible on the day of Judgment.

Regards,

Edited by Syed Fahad1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Matam, building Shrines of the Scholars and Imams, which are in clear contradiction with Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet().

Matam and Shrines were not and are not included into religion unlike Umar's innovations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Shah Jee,

These type of posts form as a counter to you guys who have an inordinate obsession with the terms Bidah and Shirk. Yoy yourself state there is no edict from Rasul (s) prohibiting adding to the Fajr Adhan - then why do you Deobandis and Wahabies have issue when we say Aliyun Walyullah in our Kalima and Adhan and deem that as proof that the Shi'a are Kaafirs.

Shah Jee we prejudice is formed when someone holds an unfounded view of someone - with Khaleefa Jee's 1,2 and 3 there acts reflect there natures. If you recall we never really concluded Fadak did we? That is one reason why I reject Khaleefa Jee for her denied our mother's rights, by coining a Hadeeth, one that contradicted the Qur'an. Now Shah Jee you can worship that Ansar.Org all you like, but if you objectively look into the this episode you will learn Khaleefa Jee's true nature, thats why our mother left the earth hating him.

wasalaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Dear Mr.Agha Malang

We called you prejudice because you including many extremist Shias take the 1st approach(which i mentioned in my last post)when it comes to the Companions of the Prophet(pbuh).

This is your misconception, we never label our Shia brothers and sisters as Kafirs ,their are some ignorant Muslims who label Shias as Kafirs because either they dont have correct knowledge , or they do it in ignorance.

Now after presenting such a long argument , still you want to stick to your outdated and secterian approach towards Hazrat Umar(ra),now you are raising the issue of Fadak.

Following are the accusations that you raise against Hazrat Umar(Ra);

1. He burned the door of Hazrat Fatimah(Ra)'s house and caused her miscarriage and her death.

2. He deprived her of Fadak which she inherited from her father(Prophet).

3. He deprived Hazrat Ali(Ra) of Caliphate which was his right.

I dont understand, after such tragedies which fell on the family of Prophet(pbuh) after his demise,how could a person like Hazrat Ali(Ra) whose Caliber is well known among both Shias and Sunnis could tolerate these kinds of injustice towards his wife, not only this but he also named some of his sons as Umar and Abu Bakr, would a person ever give the names of the killers of his wife to his sons?

It shows that these claims are baseless if one keeps in view the Caliber of Ali(Ra).

Imam Khomeini stated that Hazrat Umar(Ra) and Abu Bakr(Ra) tempered with the commands of Allah and commited violation against the Qur'an refer:[Khomeini, Kashf al-Asrar, pp. 107, 108.]

Dear Agha Malang , i want to ask you that did Ali(Ra), Fatimah and al-Abbas have greater concern over a piece of land(Fadak) than over the religion of Allaah and the leadership of the Muslim ummah? Did they litigate with the two shaikhs respecting their inheritance and neglecting litigating over distortion of the religion of Allaah at the hands of the two Sheikhs and tampering with His Book? Did they recover their courage when it came to claiming their own rights and lose it when it came to claiming the rights of Allaah?

I hope it helps

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Hussain 100,

I know that you guys are rewriting history to protect your second king - and that the authenticity defence is always advanced so perhaps you could quote the chains from Muwatta and Abu Daud so we cann assess them.

Dear Agha Malang

These are one of the most cheap allegations that i have ever heard fromm a Shia.

What evidence do you have that we have re-written history to protect Hazrat Umar(Ra) ?

Iam sorry to say that Shias accuse Hazrat Umar(Ra) for introducing innovations in Islam whereas they dont look into their own traditions and practices like Matam, building Shrines of the Scholars and Imams, which are in clear contradiction with Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet(pbuh).

Dear brother, please bring your Proofs before making allegations. And insha Allah we will also show you some more innovations of Hadhrat Umar in this regard and prove you that Deobandies and Salafies have left Rasool Allah (saw) and follow only Umar Ibn Al-Khattab.

And regarding history, when we opened "Killers of Uthman", you never dared to come in front and answer the role of Hadhrat Aisha and others in history.

Before referring to Bukhari and Muslim , please first let me elaborate on the very thoughtful response that one of my brother provided as I think this might be beneficial for other readers and for further referencing:

In consulting the sources of history about a personality, one may choose two approaches:

Deciding that the person is good or bad and then looking into the sources to extract appropriate evidences to support the opinion.

Looking at the sources to find as much information as possible about a person before even beginning to rule any judgments about him/her.

In the first approach one limits oneself in looking at only certain versions of certain records from certain sources without testing the reliability of the records and without considering the context and the situation in which the incident might have happened.

In the second approach one tries to look at a reasonable number of the relevant versions of a reasonable number of the relevant records in a reasonable number of sources. This will then be followed by carefully testing the reliability of the records and consideration of the context and situation in which the incident might have happened.

You are forgetting the 3rd Approach. i.e. becoming so much blind in love of Sahaba that every their every Evil Wrong Doing is declared the part of Shariah. In fact Sahaba are praised for their wrong doings and sins and when some one criticize these wrong doings, then that person becomes kafir or sinner for our Ahle Sunnah brothers.

I am extremely sorry that I have to say that unfortunately when it comes to some of the great companions of the Prophet, some of our ignorant and extremist Shia- Muslim brothers/sisters take the first approach in looking at these personalities.

I am afraid when it comes to Ajmaeen Sahaba, then Ajmaeen Ahle Sunnah become Sahaba worshippers and forget the Justice and follow only and only this 3rd appraoch.

I think my brothers reply to you was aimed to provide you with a view that was relevant to the second approach (research) rather than the first approach (prejudice).

Please let me look at the points that my brother made while considering the Shia perspective:

I can summarise his points in three sections:

"People mix up the administrative directives and interpretation or implication of the texts by the caliph with religious doctrines."

(This point was made by brother Hashmi originally about the issue of three divorces at one time, however I want to look at it from a wider view).

The head of the state has unavoidable duties. In fulfilling these duties many times he will need to use his authority to interpret or adapt some of the rules of Shariat in new circumstances.

To give you an example from Shia context: The late Imam Khomeini, one of the most influential leaders of the Shia of our time says in one of his speeches that governance is the most important of all divine ordinances and it takes precedence over secondary divine ordinances. Not only does the Islamic state permissibly enforce a large number of laws not mentioned specifically in the sources of the Shari'ah, such as the prohibition of narcotics and the levying of customs dues; it can also suspend the performance of a fundamental religious duty, the hajj, when this is necessitated by the higher interest of the Muslims. (Sahifa-yi Nur, XX, pp. 170-71).

In one of his other speeches he says that the Walye Faqih (i.e. religious leader) even has the authority to suspend the primary divine ordinances like obligatory prayers if he finds that this is necessitated by the higher interest of Muslims. (Unfortunately I do not have the exact reference for this part but it is well known by all Iranian Shia brothers who used to follow the developments at the time).

Misinterpretating the Fatwas of Agha Khomeini

*********************************************

On one side we have Extremist Akhbaries who don't let any chance go to condemn Agha Khomeini, and on the other hand we have these Sunni brothers who want to take refuge from this evil innovation of Umar Ibn Khattab behind this Fatwa of Agha Khomeini.

State Affairs VS Personal Affairs

**************************************

AQL is a gift of Allah (swt). Please read whole chapter of Al-Kafi on the importance of AQL.

When Agha Khomeini gave this statement, he also made it very much clear that according to Islamic Laws, State has the right to interfere in the following cases:

1) Prohibiting the weapons in civilian hands

*********************************************

Sharia has not clearly given any order in this regard if State can allow it's civilians to have weapons or not. So, in absence of any such clear and direct law, State has the right to do what it seems better for the citizens.

So, it's a affair of STATE (not private affair), and Ijtehaad can be done according to the modern situation if modern weapons of mass destruction are save in hands of private public or not.

2) Prohibiting the Drugs.

*************************

It is the very basic rule of Sharia that antoxication of every kind is Haram. So State has the right to apply this basic rule over the present modern Drugs which never existed in times of Rasool Allah (saw).

So handling with such kind of Drugs and it's smugglers come into the affairs of State (i.e. not a private affair).

And Sharia has no direct and clear ruling over modern Drugs, but another basic rule gave this right to State to prohibit it on the bases of that basic Rule.

3) Prohibiting from Hajj

************************

Again it is Fardh upon every Muslim to go for Hajj, but there is no such Law in Sharia which tells what to do when one's life is endangered by doing this. This Sharia has left to State to decide what to do in this case i.e. State is not banning from Hajj, but telling people which time is suitable for this and which time not.

Like Saudi police killed hundreds of innocent iranian pilgrims, and it is the duty of Islamic State to protect it's citizens against the killing of evil States.

Again it's a State affair to protect it's people from Zulm of tyrannts.

Agha Khomeni was not abondoning/Changes the clear and direct laws of Sharia, but only telling what rights Allah (swt) has given to State in such situations.

**********************************

Now let's see the Lame Excuses from the Defenders of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, but don't forget to use your Aql (the beautiful gift of Allah)

1) Ask your Aql if abondoning the laws of Allah by Umar Ibn Khattab are same as what Agha Khomeini stated?

Did Allah (swt) reveal these clear Laws so that any body abondon them and start playing with them whenever he wills?

Just remember how Rasool Allah (saw) protected these laws of Sharia when some people tried to bring some changes in it

- He became enraged

- He told it is playing with Book of Allah.

- He further told a Talaq given in State of Iddah has not occured and one has to take his wife back.

(please read all these traditions in my earlier mail above).

2) The matter of Talaqs is not a State Affair, but a private affair (in every country Divorce and marraige like things come under personal Law).

Interesting, for the State laws Rasool Allah (saw) many times used his right as administrator. But it is a challange to defenders to Umar Ibn Khattab to show even a Single incident when Rasool Allah (saw) ever changed the Sharia laws for personal affairs.

3) Allah revealed the laws of Talaq with His complete Wisdom. Does your Aql suggest that Umar Ibn Khattab was correct to abondon this law and snatch the right from pair to rethink their relations and make a peace agreement?

How do you feel when one person is saying 3 times Talaq in the state of anger?

How many families break up for such foolish abonding of Wisdom of Allah (swt)?

When western Media todays say that Islam has make woman a toy in hands of man, then who is wrong? Is western media wrong, or Allah wrong (naudobillah) ,or real culprit is Umar Ibn Khattab.

4) And how about Umar Ibn Khattab's abondoning the Law of "Taking Witness" at the time of Talaq?

You are accusing www.answering-ansar.org for prejudice, but it would have been better for your approach of Sahaba worshipping if you had read this part too:

Sorry, my computer has been attacked by a severe virus and it is getting shut down every 5-10 minutes. At moment I am unable to copy and paste from www.answering-ansar.org site.

Please refer to that section of article, which is concerned about strange cases of Talaq (without witness) in Pakistan. i.e. in night husbands say 3 times Talaq in anger. And in morning (when they come out of anger) they come to take respective wives back.

Even women cries that they are divorced and if they are send back and x-husbands sleep with them, then it will be a Zina, but they are send back due to lac of witness of their Talaq.

I personally asked this question to some Sunni Ulama whenever I got a chance. All of them are replying differently (actually many of them getting extremely angry and start abusing me instead of answering).

================

Hope it is enough to understand why the 3rd approach of Sahaba worshipping is played in this case.

Was Salam.

Edited by zainabia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Matam, building Shrines of the Scholars and Imams, which are in clear contradiction with Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet().

Matam and Shrines were not and are not included into religion unlike Umar's innovations.

also, an innovation is when the Prophet speak against something but we still do it, or if he practiced something and we do it differently. The prophets never spoke against buildind Maqams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 13 years later...
  • Advanced Member

The phrase Assalatu Khairum Minan Naum (Prayer is better than sleeping) was not part of the azan (calling for prayer) during the time of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and it has been included in Azan later (1). Furthermore, Imam ash-Shafi‘i says in his Kitab al-Umm as such:

"أكره في الأذان الصلوة خير من النوم لأن أبا محذورة لم يذكره."

It is not pleasing for me to say "Assalatu Khairum Minan Naum" in the Azan of the prayer, because Aba Mahzureh has not brought this phrase in his hadith.(2)

In fact it was Umar Ibn Khattab who ordered to include the phrase, "prayer is better than sleep" (Assalatu Khairum Minan Naum) in the Azan at Fajr.(3)

There are other documents to prove the fact that "Assalatu Khairum Minan Naum" was later added to the Azan. I just mention two of them:

اِن المؤذن جاء الي عمربن الخطاب يؤذنه لصلاة الصبح فوجده نائماً فقال: الصلاة خير من النوم فأمره أن يجعلها في نداء الصبح.

The azan reciter went to Umar Ibn Al-Khattab informing him the Fajr prayer time, He found Umar Ibn Al-Khattab asleep, so he shouted "Assalatu Khairum Minan Naum". Umar, ordered to include it in the azan.

الصلاة خير من النوم، ولا نقول بهذا ايضا لأنه لم يأت عن رسول اللّه - صلي اللَّه عليه و سلّم .

We don't admit "Assalatu Khairum Minan Naum", and also we don't say that because this is not from the Prophet (PBUH).

Finally, Assalatu Khairum Minan Naumis used only for the Fajr prayer because it was included by Umar Ibn Al-Khattab in the Azan at Fajr.


References:

1- Kanz al-Ummal by Ali ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, “kitab as-salah,” vol. 4, p. 270.

2- Quoted from Dalilo-Sidgh by Mohammad Hassan Mozaffar, Vol. 3.

3- Al-Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Vol. III, p. 408; Sahih Muslim, Vol. III, p. 183; al-Halabi, Al-Sirah, Vol. II, p. 105; Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, p.23.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...