The attitude of the Shia towards the three rightly guided Khalifas’
The position of the Ahlul Bayt regarding ‘Uthman
October 4, 2017The valour of ‘Ali
October 4, 2017BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The attitude of the Shia towards the three rightly guided Khalifas’
While the Shia might claim partisanship to the Ahlul Bayt the reality is that they oppose the beliefs and practices of the Ahlul Bayt at every juncture, resorting to cursing Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and considering them disbelievers—a meritorious act according to them—in complete defiance of the teachings of the Ahlul Bayt. Their books are filled with such blasphemy against the sincere and devout Sahabah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Mulla Muhammad Kazim writes:
From Abu Hamzah al Thumali (who falsely attributes to ‘Ali Zayn al ‘Abidin): “He who curses al Jabt (Abu Bakr) and al Taghut (‘Umar) once, Allah writes for him seven million rewards, discards one million sins of his, and raises his status seven million times. He who curses them at night, Allah grants him the exact same reward.”
Abu Hamzah al Thumali stated, “I entered upon Abu Jafar Muhammad al Baqir and said to him, ‘O my master there is a tradition that I have heard from your father?’ He then asked me to repeat it.
Thereafter he asked, ‘O al Thumali should I increase it for you?’
I replied, ‘Most certainly my master.’
He said, ‘He who has cursed them during the day, for him on that day no sin will be written until night falls, and he who curses them at night, then on that night no sin will be written for him until daybreak.’
Abu Jafar then (later) passed away.
I then went to al Sadiq and said, ‘I have heard a tradition from your father and grandfather.’
He replied, ‘Say it, O Abu Hamzah!’
I repeated the tradition, after which he remarked, ‘It is true, O Abu Hamzah!’
Then he added, ‘And he will be elevated one million times in status.’
He concluded, ‘And Allah is All Encompassing and Generous.’”[1]
They also make it a point to teach this practice to others:
We, the Banu Hashim, command our seniors and juniors to curse, insult, and disassociate ourselves from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.[2]
There is not a form of blasphemy except that they have used it against them. Al ‘Ayyashi transmits in his Tafsir, in Surah al Bara’, from Abu Hamzah, that he asked the Imam who are the enemies of Allah?
He replied, “The four idols.”
I then asked, “Who are they?”
He replied, “Abu Fasil, Ramu’, Na’thal, Muawiyah, and those who follow them; and he who opposes them has indeed opposed the enemies of Allah.[3]
He then transmits from al Jazari, explaining who are intended by these names:
They nicknamed Abu Bakr with Abu Fasil due to the words Bakr and Fasil having a similar meaning. Bakr refers to a young camel while Fasil refers to a baby camel at the time when it separates from its mother. Others suggest that it was on account of him having a herd of female camels that he was nicknamed Abu Fasil. Some linguists state that Abu Bakr ibn Quhafah was born three years before the Year of the Elephant and his name was ‘Abd al ‘Uzza—a name of an idol—prior to Islam and his agnomen was Abu Fasil. Later when he accepted Islam his name was changed to ‘Abdullah and his agnomen became Abu Bakr.
As for the word Ramu’ it is ‘Umar spelt backwards. It is mentioned in a tradition that the first person to reject the testimony of the slaves will be Ramu’, and the first person to exceed the obligations will be Ramu’.
Na’thal was the name of a person who had a long beard. Al Jawhari writes, “When they would insult ‘Uthman they would liken him to that person.”[4]
Do they not have any shame, using the “idols” to refer to these special and select individuals?
One would not have been blamed for thinking that narrations such as these would be rejected, especially when the Imam praised them both so highly:
Muhammad al Baqir—the fifth Imam—was asked, “Did they [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] usurp your rights in any way?”
He replied, “By Allah, the One Who sent down the Qur’an upon His Servant that he may be a warner to the world, they did not oppress us even to the extent of the weight of a mustard seed.”[5]
Also consider that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu wed his daughter, Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha, to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself wed two of his daughters to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Would they wed their daughters to disbelievers? Why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the rest of the Ahlul Bayt praise them? Why did ‘Ali and his sons radiya Llahu ‘anhum defend and safeguard ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and as a matter of fact one of them got injured doing so? Is there any answer?
If ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a disbeliever why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not prevent his nephew and son-in-law from wedding his daughter to Aban, the son of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Why was Sukaynah, the daughter of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, not prevented from being wed to ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu grandson? Furthermore why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu name his son ‘Uthman?
Al ‘Ayyashi in his hatred towards the rightly guided Khalifas’, writes:
After the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had passed away and what had been decreed occurred. ‘Umar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr which was before the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was even buried. When ‘Ali saw the people pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr, fearing that the people might be overcome by trials and tribulations, he secluded himself for the compilation of the Qur’an.
Abu Bakr sent for ‘Ali to come and pledge allegiance, but he replied, “I will not leave this place until I have completed the compilation of the Qur’an.”
Abu Bakr sent for him the second time, and he replied in the same manner. On the third occasion Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent his cousin Qunfudh. Fatimah stood up and came between him and ‘Ali. Qunfudh then hit her and returned without ‘Ali. Abu Bakr feared that ‘Ali might gather the people, thus he commanded that wood should be gathered and placed around his house. ‘Umar went with the fire intending to set his house alight with ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, and Hussain (still in it). When ‘Ali saw that, he came out from the house and pledged allegiance unwillingly.[6]
[1] Ajma’ al Fada’ih, by Mulla al Kazim Diya al Salihin pg. 513.
[2] Rijal al Kashshi, pg. 180.
[3] Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, vol. 2 pg. 116; Bihar al Anwar, vol. 7 pg. 37.
[4] Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, vol. 2 pg. 116.
[5] Sharh Nahj al Balaghah by ibn Abi al Hadid.
[6] Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, vol. 2 pg. 307- 308; al Bihar, vol. 8 pg. 47.
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The attitude of the Shia towards the three rightly guided Khalifas’
While the Shia might claim partisanship to the Ahlul Bayt the reality is that they oppose the beliefs and practices of the Ahlul Bayt at every juncture, resorting to cursing Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and considering them disbelievers—a meritorious act according to them—in complete defiance of the teachings of the Ahlul Bayt. Their books are filled with such blasphemy against the sincere and devout Sahabah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Mulla Muhammad Kazim writes:
From Abu Hamzah al Thumali (who falsely attributes to ‘Ali Zayn al ‘Abidin): “He who curses al Jabt (Abu Bakr) and al Taghut (‘Umar) once, Allah writes for him seven million rewards, discards one million sins of his, and raises his status seven million times. He who curses them at night, Allah grants him the exact same reward.”
Abu Hamzah al Thumali stated, “I entered upon Abu Jafar Muhammad al Baqir and said to him, ‘O my master there is a tradition that I have heard from your father?’ He then asked me to repeat it.
Thereafter he asked, ‘O al Thumali should I increase it for you?’
I replied, ‘Most certainly my master.’
He said, ‘He who has cursed them during the day, for him on that day no sin will be written until night falls, and he who curses them at night, then on that night no sin will be written for him until daybreak.’
Abu Jafar then (later) passed away.
I then went to al Sadiq and said, ‘I have heard a tradition from your father and grandfather.’
He replied, ‘Say it, O Abu Hamzah!’
I repeated the tradition, after which he remarked, ‘It is true, O Abu Hamzah!’
Then he added, ‘And he will be elevated one million times in status.’
He concluded, ‘And Allah is All Encompassing and Generous.’”[1]
They also make it a point to teach this practice to others:
We, the Banu Hashim, command our seniors and juniors to curse, insult, and disassociate ourselves from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.[2]
There is not a form of blasphemy except that they have used it against them. Al ‘Ayyashi transmits in his Tafsir, in Surah al Bara’, from Abu Hamzah, that he asked the Imam who are the enemies of Allah?
He replied, “The four idols.”
I then asked, “Who are they?”
He replied, “Abu Fasil, Ramu’, Na’thal, Muawiyah, and those who follow them; and he who opposes them has indeed opposed the enemies of Allah.[3]
He then transmits from al Jazari, explaining who are intended by these names:
They nicknamed Abu Bakr with Abu Fasil due to the words Bakr and Fasil having a similar meaning. Bakr refers to a young camel while Fasil refers to a baby camel at the time when it separates from its mother. Others suggest that it was on account of him having a herd of female camels that he was nicknamed Abu Fasil. Some linguists state that Abu Bakr ibn Quhafah was born three years before the Year of the Elephant and his name was ‘Abd al ‘Uzza—a name of an idol—prior to Islam and his agnomen was Abu Fasil. Later when he accepted Islam his name was changed to ‘Abdullah and his agnomen became Abu Bakr.
As for the word Ramu’ it is ‘Umar spelt backwards. It is mentioned in a tradition that the first person to reject the testimony of the slaves will be Ramu’, and the first person to exceed the obligations will be Ramu’.
Na’thal was the name of a person who had a long beard. Al Jawhari writes, “When they would insult ‘Uthman they would liken him to that person.”[4]
Do they not have any shame, using the “idols” to refer to these special and select individuals?
One would not have been blamed for thinking that narrations such as these would be rejected, especially when the Imam praised them both so highly:
Muhammad al Baqir—the fifth Imam—was asked, “Did they [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] usurp your rights in any way?”
He replied, “By Allah, the One Who sent down the Qur’an upon His Servant that he may be a warner to the world, they did not oppress us even to the extent of the weight of a mustard seed.”[5]
Also consider that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu wed his daughter, Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha, to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself wed two of his daughters to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Would they wed their daughters to disbelievers? Why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the rest of the Ahlul Bayt praise them? Why did ‘Ali and his sons radiya Llahu ‘anhum defend and safeguard ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and as a matter of fact one of them got injured doing so? Is there any answer?
If ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a disbeliever why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not prevent his nephew and son-in-law from wedding his daughter to Aban, the son of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Why was Sukaynah, the daughter of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, not prevented from being wed to ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu grandson? Furthermore why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu name his son ‘Uthman?
Al ‘Ayyashi in his hatred towards the rightly guided Khalifas’, writes:
After the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had passed away and what had been decreed occurred. ‘Umar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr which was before the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was even buried. When ‘Ali saw the people pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr, fearing that the people might be overcome by trials and tribulations, he secluded himself for the compilation of the Qur’an.
Abu Bakr sent for ‘Ali to come and pledge allegiance, but he replied, “I will not leave this place until I have completed the compilation of the Qur’an.”
Abu Bakr sent for him the second time, and he replied in the same manner. On the third occasion Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent his cousin Qunfudh. Fatimah stood up and came between him and ‘Ali. Qunfudh then hit her and returned without ‘Ali. Abu Bakr feared that ‘Ali might gather the people, thus he commanded that wood should be gathered and placed around his house. ‘Umar went with the fire intending to set his house alight with ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, and Hussain (still in it). When ‘Ali saw that, he came out from the house and pledged allegiance unwillingly.[6]
[1] Ajma’ al Fada’ih, by Mulla al Kazim Diya al Salihin pg. 513.
[2] Rijal al Kashshi, pg. 180.
[3] Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, vol. 2 pg. 116; Bihar al Anwar, vol. 7 pg. 37.
[4] Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, vol. 2 pg. 116.
[5] Sharh Nahj al Balaghah by ibn Abi al Hadid.
[6] Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, vol. 2 pg. 307- 308; al Bihar, vol. 8 pg. 47.