Second View

Second view continued
April 22, 2016
Ninth Testimony – First view
April 22, 2016

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Second View

 

When the senior Shia scholars realised that to deny this narration is akin to throwing sand upon the sun, they focused their efforts on interpreting it and destroying the virtue it holds by some other means. Notwithstanding their tireless efforts and abundant interpretations, it only added salt to the wound instead of healing it and intensified its detriment to the Shia creed. If only they had just denied it, called their Muhaddithin and scholars liars and never attested to its authenticity, it would have been better. The reason is that such ridiculous interpretations have been given to this nikah, that it fills the reader with a deep loathing for Shi’ism, and ignites the innate sense of honour that every Muslim possesses in his heart. The irony is that the more interpretations made, the more the unscrupulousness of their principles and beliefs became manifest.

 

مریض عشق پر رحمت خدا کی مرض بڑہتا گیا جوں جوں دوا کی

May the mercy of Allah be upon the sick man infatuated with love

His sickness increased the more he took medication

 

The most astonishing thing is that despite their hearts having full conviction that these interpretations are useless and ludicrous, and will expose the corruptness of their creed and lead people to loathe their religion; they — the ‘learned’ and ‘noble’ — persisted upon it and the so-called ‘men of purity’ and ijtihad’ furthered their pursuits in this direction. We are utterly astounded by the statements and writings of their learned scholars. What veil has covered their intelligence? Who snatched their shame and dignity? They feel no shame in blurting out such profanity and do not feel even the slightest inkling in attributing such wicked and appalling statements to the noble Imams. They destroyed the teachings of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and ruined the entire religion of Islam. They already labelled the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as hypocrites and disbelievers. Only the Ahlul Bayt were spared, for whom they claim extreme love and to acknowledge their virtues. But they have now also shattered this. They changed their virtues into vices by attributing such vile and wicked words to them. After perpetrating all of this, they still claim to be true believers. I do not know what colour and shape their iman and love will take:

 

دل بردی و دیں و جان شیریں ویں طرفہ کہ باز در کمینے

He snatched away the heart, din and precious life

The irony of it is he still remains in ambush

 

I will now reproduce the statement made by the Shia after attesting to the occurrence of the nikah, which they have (falsely) attributed to the noble Imams (who are indeed pure from such statements). The statement made was that Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not take place with the approval and consent of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Rather, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu coerced Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in to doing so. He threatened him in every way possible, and pressured him until the situation almost reached bloodshed. It was then that Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu — the uncle of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — forced the hand of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and contracted this nikah, out of fear for turmoil and bloodshed. The vice of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is thus proven from this incident. I will reproduce a few narrations of the Shia scholars which mention this.

 

First Narration

Sayyid Murtada states in Tanzih al Ambiya’:

 

I have given a detailed answer to ‘Umar’s nikah to Umm Kulthum (which the Ahlus Sunnah list among his virtues) in Kitab al Shafi. I have mentioned there that he (Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu) did not gladly accept the nikah of his daughter with ‘Umar until it reached a level of dispute, intimidation, and coercion. When Amir ‘Ali saw that the religion was in jeopardy and the rope of Taqiyyah was being snatched from his hands, and Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu also pleaded with him; then only did Amir accept this nikah against his desires and choice. We have already explained earlier that it is not forbidden in shari’ah to marry a girl — when forced to — to someone who it is not permissible to marry when was has freewill, especially a person like ‘Umar who expressed Islam outwardly and followed all the commandments of shari’ah.

 

Second Narration

Mujtahid says in Mawa’iz Hussainiyyah as recorded in Izalat al Ghayn:

 

کہ تزویج ام کلثوم باختیار حضرت امیر واقع نشد الی قولہ بالفرض اگر باختیار ہم باشد عقل ایں را قبیح نمی داند کہ نکاح با مخالفین جائز باشد بلکہ عقل تجویز میکند کہ حضرت حق عالی مباح سازد براۓ ما نکاح کردن را با کفار چہ قباحت نکاح با کفار عقلے نیست مثل قباحت ظلم و قتل و امثال آں و چہ گونہ عقلے باشد و حالانکہ معلوم ست کہ پیغمبر خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم دختر خود را با کفار تزویج کردہ دہرگاہ حقیقت حال چنیں باشد پس چہ قباحت ست درینکہ جناب امیر علیہ السلام تزویج نمایند دختر خود را باکسیکہ بہ ظاہر مسلمان باشد

Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha marriage was not contracted with Sayyidina Amir’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu consent. And if for argument’s sake we accept that it did take place with his consent, then too the intellect does not consider it evil and inappropriate since to marry the enemy is not impermissible but in fact logically permissible since Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has permitted us to marry non-believers because there is no evil in marrying them like oppression and killing. And how can there be any evil when Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself married his daughter to a kafir. When this has taken place, then what evil can there be in Amir radiya Llahu ‘anhu marrying his daughter (Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha) to a person who was outwardly a Muslim?

 

Third Narration

Qadi Nur Allah Shostari writes in Masa’ib al Nawasib:

 

و صاحب استغاثہ گفتہ کہ قائاے از اہل خلافت گفتہ کہ علت چیست در تزویج امیر المومنین علیہ السلام ابنۃ خودرا بعمر بن الخطاب و مامی گوئیم کہ خبر دادہ اند ما را جماعتے از مشائخ ثقات از ایشاں جعفر بن محمد بن مالک کوفی ست از احمد بن فضل از محمد بن ابی عمیر از عبد اللہ بن سناس گفت سوال کردم جعفر بن محمد صادق را علیہ السلام از تزویج عمر از ام کلثوم پس گفت ایں اول فرجے ست کہ غصب کردہ شد از ما و ایں خبر مشاکل آن خبریست کہ روایت کردہ اند آں را مشائخ مادر تزویج عمر از ام کلثوم و آں ایں ست کہ در خبر ست کہ عمر عباس را نزد علی فرستاد و سوال کرد کہ تزویج کند ام کلثوم باؤ پس آنحضرت امتناع کرد و چوں عباس باز گشت و خبر امتناع علی علیہ السلام بہ عمر رسانید پس عمر گفت اے عباس باز آمد بسوی علی و آنحضرت در مقام امتناع افتاد پس خبر داد عباس عمر را و گفت اے عباس حاضر شوروز جمعہ در مسجد و قریب بہ منبر باش و بشنو آنچہ مذکور خواہد شد پس خواہی دانست کہ من قادرم بر قتل او اگر ارادہ کنم پس حاضر شد عباس در مسجد چوں عمر از خطبہ فارع شد گفت ای مردم د رینجا مردی از اصحاب رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کہ زنا کردہ و او محصن است مطلع شدہ برآں امیر المومنین تنہا شمادریں یاب چہ می گوئید پس مردم از ہر جانب گفتند کہ ہر گاہ امیر المومنین اطلاع یافتہ شدہ چہ حاجت ست کہ مطلع شود برآں غیر او باید کہ امضا کند حکم خدا را در و چوں از مسجد باز آمد بعباس گفت بر و نزد علی و معلوم او کن آنچہ شیندی پس اگر و اللہ نکند من میکنم پس عباس نزد علی رفت و آنچہ شنیدہ بود بسمع آنجضرت رسانید علی فرمود من می دانم کہ ایں نزد او آسان ست و من نیستم کہ بکنم آنچہ او التماس می کند پس عباس گفت اگر نمی کنی من میکنم و قسم می دہر ترا کہ مخالف قول و فعل ما ںمائی پس عباس نزد عمر رفت و گفت کہ میکند آنڈہ ارادہ کردۂ پس جمع کرد عمر مردم را و گفت ابن عباس رضی اللہ عنہما عم ابی طالب ست و او امر ابنتہ خود ام کلثوم را بادراجع کردہ و امر کردہ اورا کہ تزویج کند از برای من پس تزویج منود عباس رضی اللہ عنہ و بعد از اندک مدتے نزد عمر فرستاد و اصحاب حدیث ایں روایت را قبول نکردہ لیکن خلافے نیست کہ میان ایشاں درینکہ عباس تزویج نمودہ ام کلثوم رضی اللہ عنہا را بعمر بعد از طول مطالعہ و مدافعہ پس می گوئیم کسے را کہ انکار کردہ ایں حکایت را از فعل عمر آنکہ تزویج عباس ام کلثوم رضی اللہ عنہما رانبود مگر از جہت چیزے کہ روایت کردہ انداز مشائخ ما چنانچہ حکایت کردیم و ایں مشاکل روایتی ست کہ از صادق علیہ السلام کردہ اند کہ گفتہ کہ ایں اول فرجے ست کہ از ما غصب کردہ اند

The author of Istighathah states that an enemy asked the reason why Sayyidina Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu married his daughter to ‘Umar. 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 women who was forcefully taken from us.

 

This incident is similar to the incident our Masha’ikh have narrated concerning Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah to ‘Umar. The narration goes as follows that ‘Umar sent ‘Abbas to ‘Ali to request him to marry Umm Kulthum to him. Amir radiya Llahu ‘anhu flatly refused. When Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu brought this news to ‘Umar, he said, “If ‘Ali does not marry his daughter to me, I will kill him.” Upon hearing this, ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu went to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who kept on refusing until ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu told ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “If you do not marry her off then I will. And I take an oath that you will not act contrary to what I do and say.” Saying this, ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu came to ‘Umar and said, “Your nikah with Umm Kulthum is confirmed. ‘Umar gathered the people and announced, “This is ‘Abbas — ‘Ali’s uncle — ‘Ali has given him authority over his daughter Umm Kulthum and given consent to him to perform my nikah with her.” Thus, Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu contracted the nikah and sent her to ‘Umar’s house after some time.

 

After reproducing this narration, Qadi states in the same book:

 

The masters of hadith do not accept this narration. However, there is no difference among them that Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu did marry Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha to ‘Umar after a lot of quarrel and argument. I state that whoever rejects this incident, the meaning of it is that Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not marry Sayyidah Umm Kulthum to ‘Umar. However, [we accept it] due to our Masha’ikh narrating it and it being in conformity to the narration regarding Imam al Sadiq rahimahu Llah who stated:

 

ان ذلك فرج غصبناه

This was a women who was forcefully taken from us.

 

The gist is that it is learnt from these narrations that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not marry his daughter with his consent but in fact Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu married her forcefully. However, this view is false due to a number of proofs.

 
 

Proof 1

If we accept that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not contract the nikah himself but gave the authority to Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu who contracted the nikah, there remains no doubt in the validity of the nikah itself. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha father and Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu is her grandfather (granduncle). So if the father did not contract the nikah but the grandfather did with the father’s permission, then too our objective is attained.

 
Back to top  

Proof 2

Was Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu worthy of marrying Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha or not? Had he not been worthy, then Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu — who is the uncle of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — would be guilty of giving Sayyidah Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha daughter — the granddaughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — to such a person in marriage who is unworthy and bereft of iman, and any form of abstinence and taqwa (as the Shia assume). The same allegation against Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu — according to Shia principles — will then also be directed at Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 
Back to top  

Proof 3

Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu being the wakil[1] of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the matter of nikah is established from these narrations as well. Furthermore, the agent’s action is the client’s action according to shari’ah and custom. So the action of Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu should be understood as Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu action. So although Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu contracted the nikah, but since he is Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu agent and deputy, it should be understood that this nikah took place with Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu permission. And if Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not give permission to Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu and did not make him his deputy, then it was not permissible for Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu to assume this responsibility without permission. This is a severe accusation against Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu and he will be regarded as his accomplice in this usurpation. Then the nikah being contracted without permission of the wali is apparent which is contrary to shari’ah and custom. The effects of this are well known to the intelligent.

May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala grant the Shia a touch of understanding and soundness of intellect, as well as a pinch of shame and honour. They should ponder over the effects of their statements and its negatives. O Allah! They claim to be friends of the Ahlul Bayt, they chant their virtues and greatness, yet attribute such evil to them and criticise them under the guise of love. For Allah’s sake, at least open the eyes of fairness so that you may reflect upon the accusations levelled against the Imams. O Shia, come out of negligence and listen to the evils they mention about the pure Ahlul Bayt.

 

نعوذ بالله من هفواتهم و من سوء عقيدتهم اللهم احفظنا من شرور انفسهم و من سيئات اعمالهم

We seek protection in Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala from their drivel and their corrupt beliefs. O Allah! Protect us from their evil and their wicked actions.

 
Back to top  

Proof 4

If we accept that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was unhappy with the nikah but later permitted it after Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu explanation, and this permission was not out of pleasure but due to coercion, then too the same allegation is levelled against Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu which they are trying to avoid by making up this entire story. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu thus forcefully accepted the proposal after Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu explanation in order to save his life and accepted to sacrifice his honour to save his life. (May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid!) If he was not afraid of his life, then it was not necessary to accede to Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu proposal in a matter where one’s honour is being violated and the image of the Ahlul Bayt is being tainted. It was rather necessary for him to persist on his refusal and to reject Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu proposal notwithstanding his insistence and explanations and state clearly, “O uncle! What has happened to your honour that you make such an intercession and taint the image of the Ahlul Bayt forever? ‘Umar is a kafir, hypocrite, renegade, usurper and treacherous. How can I ever give my daughter — from the womb of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, who Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarded as his own children and whose sons and daughters Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam took as his own — to a kafir and hypocrite thus causing pain to the soul of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha?”

Thereafter, if Sayyidina ‘Umar al Faruq radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not like it and persisted, it was binding on Allah’s lion to show his bravery, unsheathe Dhu al Fiqar, display the beauty of the sword which descended from the ‘Arsh and split the usurpers into two with one strike as is they were pieces of fruit. The sword which cut Sayyidina Jibril’s ‘alayh al Salam wing and severed Jafar — the Jinn — in two was for which day? The bravery and chivalry which was shown at Badr and Hunayn in front of the kuffar and the power and strength which was displayed at Khaybar was reserved for which day?

For Allah’s sake, someone should ask this sect, who are enemies to their intellect, as to what greater dishonour and humiliation can there be to Allah’s lion than his pure chaste daughter being given to a kafir and fasiq, while the leader of the awliya’, the spearhead of the pure, the forerunner of the ascetics, the overpowering lion of Allah, the Imam of the east and west, Amir al Mu’minin Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib — slayer of the kuffar, conqueror of Khaybar, destroyer of the enemies with one glance, defeater of a thousand Jinn with two strikes, whose being is the sign of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala power and whose presence is the example of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala greatness and significance, whose name caused the non-Arab kuffar to shiver, whose appearance caused the Arab warriors to tremor, Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam brother, the renowned husband of al Batul, the respected father of Sayyidina Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma — sits back and does nothing?

فروزندہ شمع دین رسول وصی نبی جفت پاک بتول
نمائندۂ کفر از دیں جدا فشاںدۂ جاں براہ خدا
برآرندہ باب خیبر ز جای درآرندہ عمر مرحب زپای
دماںدہ گل زنار خلیل علیہ السلام رہاںدہ موسی علیہ السلام از رود نیل
کشایندہ با بہاۓ فتوح بساحل رساںدہ فلک نوح
بفرمان او آسمان و زمیں ہوا خواہ او جبرئیل امیں
قوی دست قدرت زبازوی او نہ کس جز نبی ہم ترازوئ او

Nabi’s wasi and Batul’s (Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha) husband

The glowing brilliance of the din of Rasul

The one who sacrifices his life in Allah’s path

The one who separated din from kufr

The one who dropped ‘Umar Marhab

The one who uprooted the door of Khaybar

The one who saved Musa ‘alayh al Salam from the river Nile

The one who made the fire of Khalil ‘alayh al Salam a garden

The one who brought Nuh’s ‘alayh al Salam ship to the shore

Jibril Amin is his well wisher

The earth and sky are obedient to him

No one equals him besides Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

The hand of power got strength from his shoulders.[2]

 

Can a person with such bravery and awe, with such glory and greatness be afraid of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and instead show no resistance and accept humiliation? Will such a man ever sacrifice his daughter — the apple of his eye? Shame on such a belief and disgrace on such slander.

 

گر مسلمنی ہمین ست کہ جافظ دارد وای گر از پس امروز بود فردائی

If what Hafiz has is Islam

Then shame if tomorrow comes after today

 
Back to top  

Proof 5

After studying the books considered reliable by the Shia, it becomes apparent that Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not possess the potential to be the agent or deputy of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu since he was disgraced in the eyes of the latter. Although this statement of ours will be bitter to the Shia and will be surprising to the ignorant, it is not our fault. We and our (Sunni) scholars do not say such things, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid, but it is the Shia scholars who state this. Accordingly, ‘Allamah al Tabarsi — a renowned Shia scholar — narrates from Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in al Ihtijaj:

 

ذهب من كنت اعتضد بهم على دين الله من اهل بيتى و بقيت بين حضر قريبتى العهد بجاهلية عقيل و عباس

Those people of my family upon whose strength I had reliance in the din of Allah have left and only two ignoble and humiliated persons remain now, who lived close to the era of ignorance, viz. ‘Aqil and ‘Abbas.[3]

 

Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarded him to be ignoble, disgraced and ignorant; so why would he make him his representative, listen to him and obey him in such an important matter? Maybe this is the reason why the Shia have put the burden of the nikah on Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu shoulders, since he was ignoble according to Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu statement. It is for this reason they utter such disgraceful words. However, it is surprising that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu listened to the words of such an ignoble and practiced accordingly. No Shia should think that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu only labelled him base and humiliated. In fact, if their ‘reliable’ books are studied, it will be learnt that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu cursed his and Rasulullah’ salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam uncle and — Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid, narrating words of kufr is not kufr — he also called him illegitimate. If anyone has doubt, he should study Rowdat al Kafi of al Kulayni and Hayat al Qulub.

Molana ‘Ali Bakhsh Khan has recorded this in one of his articles. I will quote it from there for those interested:

 

Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes in Hayat al Qulub:

ابو جعفر طوسی بسند معتبر روایت کردہ از امام صادق کہ فضیلہ مادر عباس کنیز مادر زبیر و ابو طالب و عبد اللہ ابناۓ عبد المطلب بود عبد المطلب باو مقاربت کردہ کہ عباس ازاں بہم رسید زبیر با عبد المطلب دعوی کرد و پر خاش بر آمد کہ ایں کنیز از مادر ما بما میراث رسیدہ است توبے رخصت او باو مقاربت کردی و ایں فرزند کہ بہم رسید یعنی عباس بندہ ماست پس عبد المطلب اکابر قریش را بہ شفاعت نزد وی فرستاد کہ تا آنکہ زبیر راضی شد کہ دست از عباس بر دار و بشرطیکہ نامہ نوشتہ شود کہ عباس و فرزند انش در مجلسی کہ ماو فرزندان مانشستہ باشند نہ نشیند و در ہیچ امری باما شریک نشود و حصہ نبرد پش بایں مضمون نامہ نوشتہ شد و اکابر قریش مہر کردند و ایں نامہ نزد ائمہ علیہم السلام بود

 

Abu Jafar al Tusi has related with a reliable chain with reference to Imam Jafar al Sadiq that he stated that ‘Abbas’s mother, Fadilah, was originally the female slave of the mother of Zubair (Safiyyah), Abu Talib and ‘Abdullah — the sons of ‘Abdul Muttalib. ‘Abdul Muttalib had relations with her and thus ‘Abbas was born. Zubair told his grandfather, ‘Abdul Muttalib, in a harsh tone, “this is our mother’s slave girl who we inherited from her. You had relations with her without our permission. Therefore, her son — ‘Abbas — is our slave. ‘Abdul Muttalib brought the honourable men from Quraysh into the picture (and they discussed it) until Zubair was pleased with this agreement that he withdrew his claim on condition that an agreement is signed that ‘Abbas and his son will not sit in whichever gathering he (Zubair) and his son are present and they will not be partners with them or interfere in any of their matters and they will not claim any portion whatsoever. At the end, ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote a document which was signed by the Quraysh nobles and this agreement was with the Imams.

 

It is clearly apparent from this narration that Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the child of a slave girl and illegitimate (Allah forbid!) and a signed document stating him being the child of a slave girl was in the possession of the Imams. Perhaps it is for this reason that Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu humiliated Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu by forcefully marrying his daughter to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

When it is established through Shia sources that Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu was illegitimate (and he is free from this!) then certainly him being the enemy of the Ahlul Bayt is also established, since it is proven from scores of ahadith and statements that an illegitimate person’s actions are not accepted and none of them can befriend the Ahlul Bayt. I will verify this from Bihar al Anwar, ‘Ilal al Shara’i’, Ihtijaj al Tabarsi[4] and the writings of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari, Allah willing. Nonetheless, this fact is so common that the believers special class and general masses are aware of it and it is on their children’s tongues, as their poet says:

کہ دست غیر گرفتہ است پای مادراو محبت شہ مرداں مجوز بے پدرے

Do not seek ‘Ali’s friendship with a man with no father,

Whose mother caught hold of someone else’s hand.

 

No one among the mu’minin should be in deception that this is the only narration regarding Sayyidah ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In fact, there are numerous ahadith and narrations regarding him. Accordingly, Mulla Baqir Majlisi states in Hayat al Qulub with a reliable chain:

 

کہ حضرت امام زین العابدین فرمود کہ در حق عبد اللہ بن عباس و پدرش ایں ایۃ نازل شد من کان فی ہذہ اعمی فہو فی الاخرۃ اعمی

Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin mentioned that this verse was revealed regarding ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas and his father ‘Abbas:

 

وَمَنْ کَانَ فِیْ هٰذِهٖٓ اَعْمٰی فَهُوَ فِی الْاٰخِرَةِ اَعْمٰی

And whoever is blind in this [life] will be blind in the Hereafter.[5]

 

It is clear from this text of their books that both father and son are blind in this world and the hereafter. In fact, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala testifies to this fact. We seek Allah’s forgiveness! I seek Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forgiveness! Shi’ism is a confusing religion. No one has been spared from its arrow of criticism. They have labelled the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as kafir and munafiq from before, and only the Ahlul Bayt were left but they too were not spared from criticism and reproach. O Allah! Is Shi’ism a religion or heresy — whose founder neither cares about Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Ahlul Bayt, does not he refrain from criticising the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and does not even spare the close relatives from reproach. They label every person who comes in front of them. They declare exemption from whoever is named. They have clearly labelled some as disbelievers and subtly indicated that some others are hypocrites. They have branded some as transgressors under the guise of Taqiyyah, while others they have called illegitimate and blind. What a religion! What a creed! No one has been saved from their criticism and condemnation. Can we complain about such a modest sect for censuring the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum?

If a believer presents the countless virtues and excellences of Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu to counter this narration in an effort to apply ointment to the wound, he should abandon such an impossible effort and observe the judgement passed by Mulla Baqir Majlisi in Hayat al Qulub who says:

 

بد انکہ در باب احوال عباس و مدح و ذم او احادیث متعارض است و اکثر علماء بخوبی او میل نمودہ اند و آنچہ از احادیث ظاہر میشود آنست کہ او در مرتبہ کمال ایمان نہ بودہ است

It should be known that there are contradictory ahadith regarding praises and reproach for ‘Abbas and majority of the scholars prefer his good. Nevertheless, what is apparent from the ahadith is that he did not possess a perfect level of iman.

 

Majlisi has sorted out the matter and passed the verdict that he had imperfect iman. Probably the reason for his deficient iman is primarily deemed to be the fact that he married Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 
Back to top  

Proof 6

Although the Shia have attested to Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu external Islam and his abiding to the complete shari’ah for the permissibility of the nikah, the hole dug by their seniors regarding Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu lack of iman cannot be closed so simply — notwithstanding their tireless efforts — without entirely abandoning the Shia creed and attesting to Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu virtue; without doing so they cannot establish the permissibility of this marriage according to Shia beliefs.

 

و لا يصلح العطار ما افسده الدهر

The perfume seller cannot rectify the one whom time has destroyed.

 

Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was bereft of iman and Islam and he was a munafiq and murtad according to Shia beliefs, Allah forbid. He was the enemy of the Ahlul Bayt and the leader of the nawasib, according to them and it is not permissible for a nasibi to marry a Muslim woman. How then could Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu nikah — who was the worst kafir, munafiq and enemy of the Ahlul Bayt –— ever have been permissible with Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha — who enjoys greater honour, piety and nobility than the entire universe? I will prove these two points from Shia books, viz. that they believe Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not a believer and that the nikah of a nasibi to a believer is impermissible.

 
 

NEXT⇒ Second view continued


[1]  Agent, proxy

[2]Hamlah Haydariyyah vol. 1 pg. 5 line 3

[3]Al Ihtijaj of al Tabarsi vol. 1 pg. 450

[4]  The name of the author is Ahmed ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He lived in Tabarstan. He is one of the renowned early Shia scholars. His book al Ihtijaj is well known and famous among them. He has been mentioned in ‘Amal al ‘Amil that he was a scholar, muhaddith and is reliable. His book al Ihtijaj is a masterpiece and has many benefits. (Rowdat al Jannat vol. 1. Pg. 65) — Sheikh Muhammad Firasat

[5]  Surah Bani Isra’il: 72

Back to top