Second view continued

Third View
April 22, 2016
Second View
April 22, 2016

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

First Point

According to Shia principles, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not a believer. He was a kafir, a munafiq and an enemy of the Ahlul Bayt. This is such an open fact which needs no chain of narration, proof or witness. Nonetheless, a few narrations will be quoted here for the benefit of the readers.

 
 

Narration 1

Mulla Baqir Majlisi in Zad al Ma’ad relates from Hudhayfah ibn Yaman radiya Llahu ‘anhu who states:

 

When I heard the virtues of the day of ‘Umar’s assassination from the tongue of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, I had full conviction on his kufr.

 

The exact text reads verbatim:

 

حذیفہ گفت پس بر خاستم و برخاست حضرت رسول خدا و بخانۂ ام سلمہ رفت و من برگشتم و صاحب یقیں بودم در کفر عمر تا آنکہ بعد از وفات حضرت رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم دیدم کہ اوچہ فتنہا برانگیخت و کفر اصلی خودرا ظاہر کرد و از دین برگشت و دامان بے حیائی و وقاحت براۓ غصب امامت و خلافت برزد و قرآن را تحریف کرد و آتش در خانہ وحی و رسالت زد و برعتہا در دین خدا پیدا کرد و ملت پیغمبر صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم را تغیر داد و سنت آنحضرت را بدل کرد و نصاری و مجوس را از خود راضی کرد و نور دیدۂ مصطفی را بخثم آورد و تدبیر کشتن امیر المومنین کرد و جور و ستم در میانۂ مردم علانیہ کرد و ہرچہ خدا حلال کردہ بود حرام کرد و ہرچہ حرام کردہ بود حلال کرد الی اخر ہذیانات المجلسی

Hudhayfah narrates, “Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and myself got up. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam went to Umm Salamah’s house and I returned. I was convinced of ‘Umar’s kufr right until the time after Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise when I saw ‘Umar causing great fitnah. He exposed his inner kufr and freed himself from Islam. He displayed wickedness by usurping Imamah and khilafah and interpolating the Qur’an. He set alight Sayyidah Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha house. He created innovations in din, changed the method of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam government, distorted his sunnah and supported the Christians and fire-worshippers. He angered Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, planned to assassinate Amir al Mu’minin Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, displayed open oppression and tyranny before the masses, permitted what Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbade and forbade what Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala permitted.”

 

Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu clear-cut kufr (Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid!) is apparent from this narration. It is also established that he exposed his inner kufr, turned renegade, interpolated the Qur’an and appeased the Christians and fire-worshippers. Hence, the claim made by some mujtahidin that he was not out of the fold of Islam is false.

 
Back to top  

Narration 2

Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes in Risalah Raj’iyyah that Imam Mahdi answered a questioner as follows:

 

Abu Bakr and ‘Umar outwardly recited the kalimah and embraced Islam out of greed for the world. When they observed that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not give them any leadership, they intended to kill Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

 

This is the text verbatim:

 

ایشاں (یعنی ابو بکر و عمر رضی اللہ عنہما) از روئ گفتۂ یہود بہ ظاہر کلمتین گفتند از برائ اینکہ شاید ولایتی و حکومتے حضرت ایشاں بد ہد و در باطن کافر بودند چوں در آخر مایوس شدند با منافقاں بر بالای عقبہ رفتند و دہن ہای خودرا بستند کہ کسی ایشاں را نشاسد و دبہا اند اختند کہ شتران حضرت رارم و ہند و حضرت را ہلاک کںد پس خدا جبرئیل را فرستاد و پیغمبر خودرا از شر ایشاں حفظ کرد

Both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar outwardly recited the kalimah due to the Jews’ prophecy so that they may be given leadership and authority, whereas they were internally kafir. When they grew despondent, they climbed the peak of ‘aqabah with the hypocrites and tied cloths over their faces so that no one may recognise them. When they reached the top, they through ropes, etc. on the roadway in order to intercept Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam camels and thus assassinate Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent Jibril ‘alayh al Salam and protected Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from their evil.

 

It is clear from the Shia Imam Mahdi’s statement that Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma planned to kill Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in his very lifetime due to despondency. Who can be a greater kafir than the person who is prepared to kill the Rasul of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala? When this crime is established on the tongue of the supposed Imam Mahdi, then who can reject his statement?

 
Back to top  

Narration 3

Mulla Baqir Majlisi has narrated a narration from al Kafi in Bihar al Anwar which states emphatically that the one who rejects the Imamah of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a kafir, who ought to be killed. I will quote this narration from Istiqsa’ al Afham:

 

بيان قوله عليه السلام من ان يريدوا عن الاسلام اى عن ظاهره و التكلم بالشهادتين فابقاءهم على ظاهر الاسلام كان صلاحا للامة ليكون لهم و لاولادهم طريق الى قبول الحق و الى الدخول فى الايمان فى كرور الازمان و هذا لا ينافى ما مر و سياتى ان الناس ارتدوا الا ثلثة لان المراد فيها ارتدادهم عن الدين واقعا و هذا محمول على بقاءهم على صورة الاسلام و ظاهره و ان كانوا فى اكثر الاحكام الواقعية فى حكم الكفار و خص هذا بمن لم يسمع النص على امير المؤمنين عليه السلام و لم يبغضه و لم يعاده فان من فعل شيئا من ذلك فقد انكر قول النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم ظاهرا ايضا و لم يبق له شىء من احكام الاسلام و وجب قتله

Imam Abu Jafar (al Baqir) said, “Amir radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not claim Imamah out of fear that it should not happen that the Sahabah do not accept it, abandon Islam and turn renegade. Turning renegade meaning that they outwardly abandon Islam and reject the kalimah shahadah. Hence, it was better for the ummah to leave them on their outward Islam so that this might be a means for them or their children to accept the truth and enter into iman in the upcoming years. This is not contrary to what has passed and what will come further on that all the people turned renegade except three since the meaning there refers to their turning renegade in reality and this refers to their remaining on the outward and apparent form of Islam although they are in the sphere of the kuffar in majority of laws. Those who did not hear the emphatic command of Amir al Mu’minin rahimahu Llah and did not harbour hatred and enmity for him are excluded from this. Whoever has perpetrated any of the above has also openly rejected Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement. None of the laws of Islam apply to him and it is necessary that he be killed.

 

The author of Istiqsa’ al Afham himself says after quoting this narration:

 

اگر غرض از نقل ایں عبارت محض اثبات ایں معنی است کہ صاحب بحار ثلاثۃ و اتباع ایشاں را کافر و مرتد می داند پس البتہ ایں معنی بسر و چشم مقبولست اصلا جای استنکاف و انکار نیست

Quoting this text here is only to prove that the author of Bihar al Anwar has labelled the three Sahabah and their followers as disbelievers and hypocrites. This is accepted wholeheartedly by us. There is absolutely no scope for rejection or disapproval.

 

Thus, the author of Bihar al Anwar and the author of Istiqsa’ al Afham have acknowledged that the three khulafa’ are kafir, which disproves their outward Islam as well. Now there remains no scope for a middle path between kufr and iman which they call Islam. When their kufr has been established, Allah forbid, then it means that Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha married a kafir. So how can Sayyid Murtada’s statement in Shafi and Tanzih al Ambiya’ be correct that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was outwardly a Muslim and followed the entire shari’ah, hence there was no religious problem in marrying him. Furthermore, the statement of the author of Nuzhah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah has also been debunked who in answer to Tuhfah said, “no Shia has said that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu gave his daughter to a kafir. Rather he gave his daughter to an innovator, a munafiq and one who outwardly professes Islam. It is forbidden to marry a mushrik, not an innovator and munafiq.” This is because their alleged Imam, according to Bihar al Anwar’s narration, has emphatically declared the three khulafa’ to be kafir and worthy of assassination.

The Shia scholars are startling. They adapt to the situation like chameleons. They fabricate ahadith according to the need. At times, they label Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu as a kafir and rejecter of Islam and believe that he ought to be killed, while at other times they say he outwardly expressed Islam and followed all the commands of shari’ah.

Now that the first point, i.e. Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu kufr — Allah forbid — is established in accordance to Shia narrations, considered reliable by them, I will now prove that it is not permissible for a believing woman to marry a nasibi (according to the Shia) although he may express Islam outwardly; so that those who deem those narrations as false, and do not belief in his outward kufr and apply Islamic rulings to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, may understand that this nikah is not permissible according to their own principles.

 

Second Point

Back to top  

The Impermissibility of Marrying a Nasibi

روى الكلينى عن الفضيل بن يسار قال سالت ابا عبد الله عن نكاح الناصب فقال لا و الله ما يحل قال فضيل ثم سالته مرة اخرى فقلت جعلت فداك ما تقول فى نكاحهم قال و المرأة العارفة قال ان العارفة لا توضع الا عند عارف

Al Kulayni has narrated from Fudayl ibn Yasar who said, “I asked Abu ‘Abdullah (al Sadiq) rahimahu Llah regarding the nikah of a Nasibi. He answered, ‘by Allah! It is never permissible!’ I then asked him on another occasion, ‘may I be sacrificed for you, what do you say regarding their nikah?’ He asked, ‘is the woman a believer?’ I replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘a believing woman can only be married to a believing man.’””

 

It is clear from this narration that according to the Imam’s verdict a believing woman cannot get married except to a believing man. So either you call Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu a believer or remove Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha from the scope of iman (Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid!) In short, there are only two situations according to the Imam. There is no third option. In reality, Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu perfect iman is being established through this statement of the Imam owing to the fact that had he not been such then Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have never allowed Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha to marry him — in any situation — even if he was compelled and coerced. Was Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not aware of this verse?

 

اَلْخَبِیْثٰتُ لِلْخَبِیْثِیْنَ وَ الْخَبِیْثُوْنَ لِلْخَبِیْثٰتِۚ وَ الطَّیِّبٰتُ لِلطَّیِّبِیْنَ وَ الطَّیِّبُوْنَ لِلطَّیِّبٰتِۚ

Evil women are for evil men, and evil men are for evil women. And pure women are for pure men, and pure men are for pure women.[1]

 

Did Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu reject the hadith of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah who said, “a believing woman can only be married to a believing man?” When this verse and statement of the Imam is present, how could Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu oppose it? Now that we have established the fact that this nikah did not take place out of force or duress, there is no need to discuss this vile immoral statement which the Shia scholars have attributed to their Imam, namely:

 

ان ذلك فرج غصبناه

This was a woman who was forcefully taken from us.

 

However, it is inappropriate to avoid this discussion so that the readers might take a lesson.

It should not be concealed that the Shia Muhaddithin narrate that ‘someone’ asked Imam al Sadiq rahimahu Llah regarding this nikah and that is when he commented, “This was a woman who was forcefully taken from us,” the author of Tuhfah writes in this regard:

 

سبحان اللہ چہ کلمۂ ایست کہ از زبان ایشاں برمی آید نزدیک است کہ آسماں فرو افتدوز میں بشگافد اول در حق آں سیدہ پاک بضعۃ الرسول فلذہ کبد البتول چہ فحش و سوء ادب ست و کدام خصلت خبیثہ را بد امن پاک آں طاہرہ مطہرہ می بندند دیگر در حق حضرت امیر و حضرت حسنین ڈہ قدر بے حفاظتی ابے ناموسی ثابت می کںد و در حق حضرت صادق کہ ایں کلمہ بر آنجناب تہمت می نمایند چہ قدر بے حمیتی و بے غیرتی اعتقاد دارند ایں لفظ را اول بزرگاں بر نمی آرند علی الخصوص ذکر ایں عضو مستور الاسم و المسمی از ار قارب بلکہ بزرگان خود امریست کہ ار اذل و او باش نیز احتراز واجب می داںد

What a vile and immoral statement they bring on their tongues! It is close for the sky to fall and the earth to split. Firstly, it is immorality and disrespect to Sayyidah Umm Kulthum — the beloved daughter of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. What a vile way to slander that pure being! Secondly, they establish the lack of self-honour and insecurity of Sayyidina ‘Ali and Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum. They slander Sayyidina Jafar al Sadiq of saying such filthy words. They lack self-honour. Respectable and noble people do not utter such vulgar words. Especially the word Farj (private part) which is never ever uttered by such people. Leave alone pious and noble people, even ignoble and lowly people avoid using such words.

 

‘Allamah Kashmiri has answered this in Nuzhah in a few ways:

 

مردودست بچند وجہ اول آنکہ بر تقدیر تسلیم صحت روایت و محفوظ بودن آں آنچہ افادہ فرمودہ تسویل و تحویل بیش نیست

This is rejected and not worthy of acceptance due to few reasons. Firstly, if the authenticity of this narration is accepted and it was preserved as is then it is nothing more than a satanic plot and scheme.

 

It is learnt from this text of ‘Allamah Kashmiri that the authenticity of this narration is not accepted by him. Whereas to say, “if it is accepted …” is deceiving the masses for this reason that this hadith is established according to Shia principles in a few ways. Firstly, this narration appears with the same words from Imam al Sadiq rahimahu Llah in al Kulayni’s al Kafi, which the Shia regard as the most authentic book. Secondly, Qadi Nur Allah Shostari has quoted this hadith in many places of Masa’ib al Nawasib. It is recorded at a few places in discussion five under the discussion of Sayyidina ‘Umar al Faruq and Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and at no place does he deny it. Thus, the Persian translation of it, as it appears in Izalat al Ghayn is as follows:

 

و اما خامسا بواسطہ آنکہ قول امام صادق علیہ السلام کہ ایں اول فرجے ست کہ غصب کردہ شدہ از ما مستلزم وقوع زنا نیست

Fifthly, Imam al Sadiq’s statement, “this was a woman who was forcefully taken from us,” does not necessitate fornication.

 

He quotes the words of the author of al Istighathah under this discussion, the Persian translation of which is:

 

خبر دادہ اند مارا جماعتے از مشائخ ثقات ما از ایشاں جعفر بن محمد بن ملک کوفی ست از احمد بن فضل از محمد بن ابی عمیر از عبد اللہ بن سنان گفت سوال کردم جعفر بن محمد صادق علیہ السلام از تزویج عمر از ام کلثوم پس گفت ایں اول فرجے ست کہ غصب کردہ شد از ما

We say that a group of our reliable Masha’ikh have informed us, amongst whom is Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Malik al Kufi who heard from — Ahmed ibn Fadl who heard from — Muhammad ibn ‘Umair who heard from — ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan who said that he asked Imam Jafar about Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah. Imam Jafar answered:

ان ذلك فرج غصبناه

This was a woman who was forcefully taken from us.

 

Qadi writes thereafter:

 

مشاکل روایتے ست کہ از صادق علیہ السلام کردہ اند کہ گفتہ کہ ایں اول فرجے ست کہ از ما غصب کردہ اند

This is the most difficult narration of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah which people have narrated, i.e. this was a woman who was forcefully taken from us.

 

Furthermore, Qadi states when mentioning Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to be patient and tolerant, the Persian translation of which is:

 

چوں عمر خواستگاری ام کلثوم نمود علی متفکر شدہ و گفت اگر مانع شوم اور قصد قتل من خواہد کرد و اگر قصد قتل من کند و ممانعت کنم اورا از نفس خود بیروں روم از طاعت رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم پس تسلیم ابنۃ دریں حال اصلح بود از قتل او و بیروں رفتن از وصیت رسول خدا پس تفویض نمود امر اورا بخدا و دانستہ بود کہ آنچہ عمر غصب کردہ ز اموال مسلماناں و ارتکاب کردہ از انکار حق او و قعود بجای رسول خدا او تغیر احکام الہی و تبدیل فرائض خدا چنانچہ گزشت اعظم است نزد حق تعالی و اقطع و اشنع ست از اغتصاب ایں فرج پس تسلیم کرد و صبر نمود

When ‘Umar proposed for Umm Kulthum, ‘Ali was concerned and thought, “if I prevent him, he will kill me. And if he intends to kill me and I prevent him to save my life, I will not fulfil the bequest of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. So better than him killing me and disobeying Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest is to give my daughter.” Therefore, he did this and handed over this affair to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. He knew fully well that ‘Umar usurped Muslims’ wealth, rejected the truth, sat at Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam place, changed divine commandments and changed the rulings of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. All these were far worse in the sight of Allah than usurpation of a womb. Thus, ‘Ali bore it patiently.

 

These words are proven from many other sources. Thus, ‘Allamah Kashmiri saying, “if the authenticity of this narration is accepted,” is only deceitful which is the salient feature of all the early Shia scholars. If these words were not spoken by the Imam and were not mentioned in their books, he ought to have rejected them and if they were mentioned then he should accept them. What is the meaning of saying, “if the authenticity of this narration is accepted?”

The gist of the above is that there is absolutely no doubt in this narration’s authenticity. I will now present the interpretations of the Shia scholars regarding this word. ‘Allamah Kashmiri states in Nuzhah:

 

مراد ازیں کلام آنست کہ ایں نکاح اول نکاحیست کہ از خاندان عالیہ بغیر طیب خاطر اولیاء بطریق اجبار و اکراہ بنا بر مصلحت وقت واقع شدہ و سپ وقوع آں باجبار و اکراہ تعبیر ازاں بغصب فرمودہ اند و دریں معنی ہیچ گونہ شناعتی نیست م مع وضوح المرام لا عبرۃ بالالفاظ عقد نکاحیکہ بغیر طیب خاطر باشد اصلا مستلزم زنا نیست

The meaning of this statement is that this was the first nikah in a reputable family which took place without the consent of the representatives, under duress and for some temporary benefit. This coercion and oppression has been referred to with the word “forcefully taken”. There is nothing unpleasant in taking this meaning. After the meaning has been explained, the words are not considered. And the nikah that is contracted without consent and happiness cannot be labelled fornication.

 

The gist of this interpretation is that “forcefully taken” means non-happiness and the meaning of the Imam’s statement is that this is the first nikah which took place in the chaste Ahlul Bayt family without the wali’s consent under force and duress. And “forcefully taken” does not necessitate fornication. However, this interpretation is entirely incorrect since if this was meant by the Imam, he should have used the correct and appropriate words and should not have spoken such immoral words, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid. Saying “forcefully taken” and meaning non-happiness without any reason is turning away from the original meaning of the word. Moreover, the nikah which is incorrect necessitates fornication. And from the perspective of reliable Shia books like Ghunyah, Tabsirah, Kanz al ‘Irfan, Ghayat al Maram, etc., it is clear that it is impermissible for a believing woman to marry a Nasibi. So when an ordinary believing woman cannot marry a normal Nasibi then how can it ever be permissible for the leader of the believing women — the daughter of the leader of the creation — to marry a kafir and munafiq?

It is appropriate for ‘Allamah Kashmiri to make the statement, “there is nothing unpleasant in taking this meaning,” undoubtedly, it is not far-fetched for the followers of the Jew — ‘Abdullah ibn Saba — who in the guise of love for the Ahlul Bayt wished to destroy the principles of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam shari’ah, change the fundamentals of Islam and surpass the Nawasib and Khawarij in their greed to get worldly benefits — that Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam granddaughter, Sayyidah Fatimah’s daughter, Sayyidina Hassan and Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhum sister, is taken forcefully to the house of the leader of the renegades and munafiqin. The usurper then proceeds to do with her as he desires and neither the lion of Allah, nor Hassan nor the martyr of Karbala radiya Llahu ‘anhum do anything about it and just look on. On the other hand, we with weak iman lose our senses when hearing of such a catastrophe and our hearts call out frantically for help. How can we ever possess love like the Shia who state that the Imam said, “this was a woman who was forcefully taken from us,” and then still say that, “there is nothing unpleasant in taking this meaning”? They hear such vulgar and immoral words and sing about it, yet think that they are steadfast in their claim of iman. They do not think such words unbefitting for the Imams’ status and do not consider the damage it causes to their high reputation.

 

‘Allamah Kashmiri then says:

ہر گاہ جابرے شخصے را در طلاق دادن زوجہ اش اجبار نماید در عرف می گویند غصبت زوجتہ باوصف آں اگر جابر عقد نکاح بآں زن بکند نزد امام اعظم ابو حنیفہ کوفی زنا متحقق نمی شود و آں جابر زانی نیست

When an oppressor forces someone to divorce his wife, it is said that his wife was forcefully taken. Thereafter, if the oppressor marries that woman, then this will not be regarded as fornication according to Imam A’zam Abu Hanifah al Kufi rahimahu Llah and the oppressor will not be called a fornicator.

 

I cannot understand how ‘Allamah Kashmiri thought that this text is in any way an answer to Tuhfah because Shah’s objection was according to Shia principles not Hanafi principles. Thus, he was required to answer according to his principles. What benefit is there by citing Imam Abu Hanifah’s principle? When they wish to follow Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah in fiqhi rulings and find no other exit from their predicament then they practice upon Hanafi fiqh wholeheartedly. However, it is of no benefit to them to practice on a fiqhi rulings and abandon its principles and beliefs, instead just utter one statement (i.e. recite the kalimah) and become one with the Hanafis and attest to the virtue of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu so that no fight remains and the nikah incident does not have to be analysed. Simply recite:

 

وَ الطَّیِّبٰتُ لِلطَّیِّبِیْنَ

Pure women and for pure men.

 

However, when according to Shia principles, it is impermissible for a Nasibi to marry a believing woman, so what benefit is there for them in Abu Hanifah’s rahimahu Llah statement? In fact, if Shia narrations are studied, the evil of this action becomes manifest. It is referred to by the words, “this was a woman who was forcefully taken from us.” Sheikh al Saduq in Ma’ani al Akhbar has labelled Sayyidah ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu —Allah forbid, quoting kufr is not kufr — as illegitimate and the isnad goes up to the Imam:

 

حدثنا على بن احمد بن موسى رضى الله عنه قال حدثنا محمد بن ابى عبد الله الكوفى عن موسى بن عمران النخعى عن عمه الحسين بن يزيد النوفلى عن على بن ابى حمزة عن ابى بصير قال سالته عما روى عن النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم قال ان ولد الزنا شر الثلثة قال عليه السلام عنى به الاوسط انه شر ممن تقدمه و ممن تلاه

Abu Basir relates, “I asked the Imam rahimahu Llah the meaning of the hadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘an illegitimate is the worst of the three.’ The Imam replied, ‘it refers to ‘Umar who was worse than the one before him (i.e. Abu Bakr) and the one after him (i.e. ‘Uthman).”

 

When the followers of such a filthy creed slander the Imams and claim that the Imams had labelled Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu as illegitimate then it is just befitting for them to say that Sayyidah Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha daughter had married such a man which the Imam refers to with the words, “this was a woman who was forcefully taken from us,” thus making them worthy of their faces being blackened in both worlds.

Nevertheless, we are prepared to accept that according to Shia principles, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu cannot be labelled a kafir and he is accepted to be one who outwardly portrays Islam and follows the entire shari’ah and that according to them it is permissible for a Nasibi to marry a believing woman. However, the Shia will not deny Sayyidah ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu hypocrisy and innovation and will never accept him as a sincere believer and an ardent follower of the sunnah. If they do accept that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not a munafiq and innovator, and was a true believer and ardent follower of the sunnah then what a beautiful agreement. If they do not accept this, then all of their interpretations for Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah are useless and worthless since it is far worse to marry a munafiq than to marry a kafir. The author of Nuzhah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah has acknowledged this in the following words:

 

قال الفاضل الناصب چہارم آنکہ گویند کہ حضرات بنات و اخوات خود بکفرۂ فجرہ بزنی می دادند مثل حضرت سکینہ کہ در نکاح مصعب بن زبیر بود و علی ہذا القیاس دیگر قریبان خودرا در نکاح کفرہ و نواصب در آوردند چنانچہ در کتاب الہیات بہ تفصیل شروع ست اقوال و بہ نستعین اگر مراد از کافر دو قول را گویند حضرات بنات و اخوات خودرا بکفرۂ فجرہ میدادند مشرک است ایں قول کذب محض ست چہ ہیچک از امامیہ قائل بایں قول نیست و اگر مراد ازاں مبتدع است بہ بدعتی کہ منجر بہ کفر صاحبش نہ شود کہ اورا کافر تناول گویند یا منافق کہ مظہر اسلام و مسمسک بہ سائر شریعت مسلم و محذوری ندارد بہ فحوای و لا تنکحوا المشرکین حتی یومنوا الایۃ ممنوع و محرم انکاح با مشرک ست و بر حرمت مطلق انکاح مبتدع کداۓو تزویج با منافق دلیلے قائم نیست و قیاس یکے بردیگرے مع الفارق چہ منافق اگر چہ حرمتش در حقیقت عظیم ترست و فسادش در شریعت شدیدتر و بہ فحوای ان المنافقین فی الدرک الاسفل در عقبی بعقوبت الیم گرفتار ست لیکن حکمت الہیہ داعی و مقتضی آں شد کہ احکام منافقین و مشرکین در دار دنیا از ہم ممتاز باشد و ازینجاست کہ مشرکین را بہ فحوای فاقتلوا المشرکین حیث وجدتموہم معاقب و ماخوذ گردانیدہ منافقین را ازیں ورطۂ نجات بخشیدہ

Fadil Nasib has stated, “The Imams gave their daughters and sisters to transgressors and kuffar, e.g. Sakinah was married to Mus’ab ibn Zubair etc., and allowed their other relatives to be married to kuffar and Nawasib, the details of which appear in Ilahiyyat.” The answer I give to this is that if the word kafir means one who professes to another faith, then the Imams gave their daughters and sisters to transgressors and kuffar, and such a person who is mushrik; this statement is incorrect because no Shia accepts this view. And if kafir refers to such a person who is an innovator, whose innovation has not made him kafir, then such a person is called a kafir on account of his receptivity (to such ideas) or a munafiq who outwardly follows Islam and the laws of the shari’ah and this is not forbidden. It is only forbidden to marry the mushrikin. There is no proof that the nikah to a munafiq or an innovator is haram. To analogise one on the other is a corrupt analogy. Although a munafiq is extremely evil and his corruption is devastating in the shari’ah and he will be afflicted with a painful punishment in the hereafter, nonetheless, divine wisdom has allocated different laws for the mushrikin and the munafiqin. The divine command regarding the mushrikin is, “kill them wherever you find them,” whereas the munafiqin have been spared from this.

 

We thank ‘Allamah Kashmiri from our hearts and express our gratitude for writing this. He has written the very thing we intended to write. He underwent the toil we were ought to undergo and he has answered on our behalf by stating:

 

چہ منافق اگر چہ حرمتش در حقیقت عظیم ترست و فسادش در شریعت شدیدتر

Although a munafiq is extremely evil and his corruption is devastating in the shari’ah.

 

However, what puzzles us is what benefit is there for him by this text in answering the objection raised by the author of Tuhfah? His objection is upon the fact that according to the Shia, the Imams had given their daughters in marriage to kuffar. ‘Allamah Kashmiri answers this by saying that they did not give their daughters to kuffar but rather to munafiqin. We counter this by saying that there is no logical reason for the prohibition of a kafir marrying a believing woman except that it is detested in the shari’ah. And this detestation is equally found in marrying a munafiq, but even to a greater extent, which Kashmiri acknowledged. Now the sound minded should determine whether the objection of Tuhfah’s author has strengthened or has been answered by this ‘reply’. With regards to the laws in the shari’ah pertaining to munafiqin are not as stern as those pertaining to the kuffar; the answer to this is that since the munafiq calls himself a Muslim externally and the laws of the shari’ah are based on what is apparent, hence he is saved from being killed etc. The reason for this is that knowledge of the unseen — the condition of the heart — is only known to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Thus, the shari’ah considered their external Islam and did not command their killing. However, according to Shia principles, the noble Imams have knowledge of the past and future, hidden things are apparent to them and they know the conditions of the hearts of man. Hence, it is mandatory upon them to steer clear from the munafiqin, disgrace them, harbour enmity for them and not to go even near to them, to the extent that if they seek to assist in religious affairs then too they should not accept their assistance and should not make them partners in these affairs. If they die, they should not perform their Salat al Janazah and they should not seek forgiveness for them. Accordingly, Qur’anic verses were revealed to behave sternly with those hypocrites whose hypocrisy was apparent to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala informed Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam of and stringent laws were revealed regarding them. In fact, just as the command to wage jihad against the kuffar was issued, the command to wage jihad against the munafiqin was issued, as stated by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala:

 

یٰاَیُّهَا النَّبِیُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَ الْمُنٰفِقِیْنَ وَ اغْلُظْ عَلَیْهِمْؕ وَ مَاْوٰىهُمْ جَهَنَّمُؕ وَ بِئْسَ الْمَصِیْرُ

O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.[2]

 

The ruling applicable to the kuffar also applies to those munafiqin whose hypocrisy was known to the extent that waging jihad against them and being harsh to them has been commanded. Then what difference remains between marrying such munafiqin and marrying the kuffar? There is no other option for the Shia; they either stop labelling Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu as a munafiq or consider this nikah forbidden. They have no third option.

Although the Shia scholars have pulled wool over the eyes of the masses and ignorant and hoodwinked them by their trick that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu externally professed Islam hence the nikah was valid, but all their deceit will become manifest and all their plots will be revealed after a small assessment, i.e. we will ask a question and you should give the ruling; answer yes or no to our question.

What does Mujtahid Qiblah say regarding these two rulings?

  1. A munafiq – who changed the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, distorted the sunnah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, usurped the right of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, physically abused her to such an extent that she aborted her innocent foetus, deprived her of her right, believed her to be a liar, did not hear her claim of inheritance, usurped the right of Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu, oppressed and harassed him — now wishes to marry a believing woman, is this permissible or not?
  2. What is the ruling regarding a believer — who Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala gave unique valour and nobility, whose hands have the power and strength to destroy a fort, who has the courage to battle thousand warriors — but gives his believing daughter in marriage to a munafiq, renegade, usurper, and traitor, due to his verbal threats, is he sinful or not?
 

If Mujtahid Qiblah makes a hue and cry of answering these questions and does not want to give a straight forward answer, then we will ask one plain and simple question. What do the scholars of din and jurists of the sound shari’ah rule regarding the following: Is a believing woman’s nikah to a Nasibi Sunni permissible or not? Whatever answer is given to this question is sufficient to wrap up this entire discussion. Then there is no need for any interpretation or explanation. The outcome of this entire discussion rests on one or two rulings. O Shia! Kindly write the verdict and end this discussion.

 

ادا سے دیکہ لو جاتا رہے گلہ دل کا بس اک نگاہ پہ ٹہرا ہے فیصلہ دل کا

The heart’s condition is evaluated from the external mannerism

The heart’s verdict rests only on one gaze

 

‘Allamah Kashmiri then writes in answer to Tuhfah:

 

استبعاد ذکر فرج مستور الاسم و المسمی برزبان اکابر در کمال استعجاب ست و در واقع ژاژ خائی ست کہ ہیچ خر نہ نماید چہ در کلام الہی کہ چند جا ذکر ایں عضو مستور الاسم و المسمی جاری شدہ و حضرت عائشہ صدیقہ در مجالس و محافل نام عضو مخصوص حضرت سرور عالم علیہ السلام کہ مستور الاسم ستبرزباں می بردند الخ

Shah’s statement that the word “private part” being uttered by the Imam is far-fetched is absolute drivel which no donkey will even utter since this organ has been mentioned at many places in the Qur’an and Sayyidah Aisha Siddiqah has spoken about this organ before Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in many gatherings.

 

‘Allamah Kashmiri is trying to say that for Shah to state that the word “Farj (private part)” coming out of the Imam’s mouth is contrary to his pedestal of piety is surprising since this word has been mentioned in the Qur’an and Sayyidah Aisha Siddiqah radiya Llahu ‘anha has also mentioned it; so if the Imam says it then what is the problem?

The answer to this is that this is ‘Allamah’s ignorance. The verses and ahadith mention this organ when explaining rulings of the shari’ah or praising the believers, not at a contentious juncture. And there is a need to mention such words when explaining laws. So there is a specific reason to say such a word. Yes, if Shah had to criticise those Shia ahadith and narrations which mention that organ in order to explain laws then Kashmiri’s response will be befitting. Whereas there are thousands of Shia ahadith where the noble Imams have mentioned this organ but Shah has not objected to any of them. The reason for objecting at this one place is that even the low class people have this much self-honour and shame that if someone were to kidnap their wife or daughter, then they will not use such a word and say that their wife’s or daughter’s private part has been forcefully taken. So how is it possible for the Imam to utter such a word? In fact, if this nikah took place under coercion and duress, then it was appropriate for the Imam to answer the questioner by saying, “this nikah took place due to necessity, and since ‘Umar outwardly professed Islam and followed the shari’ah, this nikah was permissible.” He should not have said such loathsome words which can be misunderstood in a thousand ways — and understood totally different by those with understanding. This cannot be explained away by this word appearing in the Qur’an or Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha mentioning it due to some shar’i ruling.

 
 

NEXT⇒Third View


[1]  Surah al Nur: 26

[2]  Surah al Tahrim: 9

Back to top