Third View

Fourth View
April 22, 2016
Second view continued
April 22, 2016

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Third View

 

Some Shia scholars realised that to deny this nikah is to falsify their ahadith books; to reject the narration, “this was a woman who was forcefully taken from us,” which al Kulayni has narrated in al Kafi from Imam al Sadiq rahimahu Llah is to reject the Imam and to accept it without any interpretation and explanation is to forego intelligence, iman and honour. Thus, they decided to explain the meaning differently and turn away from the literal meaning to the metaphorical meaning. But when they saw that this is of no benefit they opted for other nonsensical interpretations like patience, bequest, Taqiyyah, etc. I will mention each interpretation in detail.

 

Interpretation 1: Patience

 

Some Shia scholars state that the condition Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was faced by the majority of the Prophets and awsiya’ who observed patience owing to which their rank was raised by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam faced a similar situation. When the angels came to him in the form of human beings, Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam had a doubt and he presented his daughters in front of them saying:

 

قَالَ یٰقَوْمِ هٰؤُلَآءِ بَنَاتِیْ هُنَّ اَطْهَرُ لَكُمْ

He said, “O my people, these are my daughters; they are purer for you.”[1]

 

قَالَ هٰؤُلَآءِ بَنٰتِیْٓ اِنْ كُنْتُمْ فٰعِلِیْنَ

[Lut] said, “These are my daughters – if you would be doers.”[2]

 

So when Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam presented his daughters and spoke this shameless sentence that if you wish to do anything then my daughters are present which appears in this verse of the Qur’an, then the Nawasib’s objection against Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu giving his daughter to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is baseless. The answer the Nawasib will give on behalf of Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam is our answer on behalf of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Qadi Nur Allah Shostari has written this in Masa’ib al Nawasib and other Shia scholars have written this in their respective books. They also give the example of Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam and Sayyidah Asiyah radiya Llahu ‘anha — the wife of Firoun. I will reproduce all of them and then answer them. I will quote everything the Shia have written regarding Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu patience from the book Saif Sarim, which was printed after Mujtahid’s approval in 1267 A.H by Jafariyyah Publishers, i.e. Ithna ‘Ashariyyah Publishers. The author has written the crux of all his mujtahidin and scholars statements. The Muslims should study this attentively and give an applause to the shame and modesty of this poor author and his mujtahidin and scholars, and congratulate them. These are his words quoted verbatim.

 

It is now clear like the sun at noon that the nikah of this young innocent girl to a man who outwardly professed Islam and believed in the word of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was not consummated. It was only the object of a frail aged man to display his force, cause distress and harm to and shame Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and to demonstrate his authority and might over the one [i.e. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu] who conquers every conqueror. Although in reality having sexual relations with the pure innocent girl which is the object of marriage did not take place as acknowledged by the aged man and it was certainly impossible due to her young age and this was known to Amir al Mu’minin externally and internally owing to knowledge of the hidden. The nikah of one who outwardly professes Islam and acknowledges the Rasul’s risalah and commands – without considering the Imam – is not forbidden in the shari’ah. However, in consideration of the external, in the eyes of the elite and general masses, how could one — who is the son-in-law and cousin of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the very being of Rasul, conqueror of Khaybar, ultimate vanquisher and addressed as, “there is no youngster except ‘Ali, there is no sword except Dhu al Fiqar,” the leader of the Arabs and non-Arabs Amir al Mu’minin – the title which the nawasib like Siddiq, Faruq and Siddiqah give testimony to – display his weakness and feebleness in front of the people to the extent that he hands over his innocent daughter to a frail aged man. No disobedient nafs of any man will ever bear such shame notwithstanding the shar’i permission except the Prophets and Awsiya’ – may greeting and blessing be upon them – who possess such patience and happiness [with the decree of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala] which was given by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. They have such remarkable patience and tolerance due to this bestowed strength and miracle that no other man possesses such courage and ability. They have overpowered the nafs which is the highest stage and the peak of perfection of being the conqueror of every conqueror.

 

O Muslims! Where are you? What sleep are you in? Wake up! Come to your senses. Wake up and cry and wail over the intelligence and shame of the ignorant lad — author of Saif Sarim — and his immature mujtahidin and scholars. Recite eulogies over their iman and intellect. Lament over their deplorable condition. Look at how they have lost their intelligence and shame. They display a defect as a perfection, and under the guise of love for the Ahlul Bayt they such profanities regarding them that causes the body to shake and the heart to tremble. They consider the lack of honour as bravery and shamelessness as patience. O friends! What friends of the Ahlul Bayt are these? They speak such drivel regarding those high ranking personalities regarding whom the verse of Tathir was revealed and on whose purity and chastity purity took an oath. Brothers! Do you call it patience when a munafiq kidnaps your daughter and marries her unlawfully under duress and the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam just sit and look on, keep silent and do not utter a word, and observe patience and tolerance despite their divinely given strength and miracles? I take an oath in Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and ask your intelligence and shame — without being prejudiced and without giving preference to your religion — what the Shia have called patience, is it patience in reality or is it something else? According to my understanding, they have named the lack of self-honour and the lack of shame to be patience and tolerance and they have humiliated the Ahlul Bayt under the guise of love (Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid!) What garbage do the Shia write!? Let someone who is matchless in bravery and strength and unparalleled in affluence go to the most ignoble man’s house and steal his daughter and then see whether the ignoble man will sit quietly or sacrifice his life and honour. It is incomprehensible how the Shia have deemed the honour, bravery and courage of Amir al Mu’minin — the bastion of din, owner of Dhu al Fiqar and the forefather of the noble Imams — to be unequal to even the most ignoble man. They label shamelessness as patience and tolerance. The irony of it all is that they continue attributing such shameless things to him and levelling allegations against him, yet they call him the conqueror of every conqueror, the object of every seeker, the leader of the pious, slayer of the kuffar and transgressors, spearhead of the devout, addressed as, “there is no youngster except ‘Ali and there is no sword except Dhu al Fiqar.” They have no shame from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and do not consider Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The reality is that the Shia have corrupted iman and din and have destroyed the shari’ah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to the extent that even Shaitan is ashamed. Even Shaitan never imagined the things they plot.

I will give a brief answer to the incident of Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam and mention the commentary of the verse. It should not be hidden that the verse’s meaning is not as the Shia have thought, i.e. that Sayyidina Lut ‘alayh al Salam presented his daughters without performing nikah to them so that they may commit fornication with them. The meaning is that he presented his daughters to them so that they may marry them. And in that time marrying a kafir was permissible. So there was no shar’i abomination in this. Therefore, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala added the following words on behalf of Nab Lut ‘alayh al Salam.

 

هُنَّ اَطْهَرُ لَكُمْ

They are purer for you.

 

There can be no purity without nikah.

 

If any Shia rejects this due to the fact that the word nikah does not appear in the verse, we will respond by telling him to study the commentaries. And he should not study Sunni commentaries; he should rely on his own commentaries. Accordingly, Amin al Din al Tabarsi has written under the commentary of this verse in Majma’ al Bayan — considered to be a reliable commentary by the Shia, which has been printed by Dar al Saltanat in Tehran, Iran:

 

قَالَ یٰقَوْمِ هٰؤُلَآءِ بَنَاتِیْ هُنَّ اَطْهَرُ لَكُمْ و كان يجوز فى شرعه تزويج المؤمنة من الكافر

He said, “O my people, these are my daughters; they are purer for you.” It was permissible for a believing woman to be married to a kafir in his shari’ah.

 

If any intelligent Shia objects by saying that although the meaning of the words of this verse is nikah, however the other verse clearly speaks about the act.

 

قَالَ هٰؤُلَآءِ بَنٰتِیْٓ اِنْ كُنْتُمْ فٰعِلِیْنَ

[Lut] said, “these are my daughters — if you would be doers [of lawful marriage].”[3]

 

We will rely upon their commentaries in this instance as well and quote the commentary they give. Al Tabarsi states in Majma’ al Bayan:

 

قوله اِنْ كُنْتُمْ فٰعِلِیْنَ كناية عن النكاح اى ان كنتم متزوجين

His statement, “if you would be doers,” refers to nikah, i.e. if you are going to marry.

 

Since the Shia will not be satisfied with one commentary, they should listen to another commentary. The renowned Shia al Kashani states in the commentary of this verse in Khulasat al Manhaj:

 

گفت لوط اے گروہ من اینہاں دختران من اند ایشاں را بخواہید کہ ایشاں پاکیزہ اند شمار او تزویج دختران بشرط ایماں بودہ یا در شریعت او تزویج مومنات بکفار جائز بود

Lut ‘alayh al Salam said, “O my people! These are my daughters. Take them, for they are purer for you.” Marriage to his daughters was on condition that they accept iman or it was permissible for a believing woman to marry a kafir in his shari’ah.

 

So the incident of Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam has no resemblance to Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah. There is a big difference between the two. In Sayyidina Lut’s ‘alayh al Salam shari’ah, it was permissible for a believing woman to marry a kafir and his statement was not for fornication but for nikah. On the other hand, in the shari’ah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam marrying a kafir was forbidden later on and according to Shia principles it is also forbidden to marry an enemy of the Ahlul Bayt or a Nasibi. Besides, Nabi Lut’s ‘alayh al Salam daughters were not usurped and their honour and chastity was not affected in the least whereas here the situation is the complete opposite, i.e. Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu married her forcefully which is impermissible, took Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha to his house and kept her there for a few years and had children with her — both are poles apart.

O Shia! Until when are you going to fabricate things? What interpretations are you going to give? Whatever you make up will be nothing but falsehood. The more interpretations you forge, the more allegations you will level against the Ahlul Bayt. Study this entire discussion and tell us whether what we are saying is true or false. Stop bragging about love for the Ahlul Bayt and openly declare your enmity for them. Study each belief and ruling of yours and decide with soundness if it exposes love or enmity for the Ahlul Bayt. Had they had love for the Ahlul Bayt, would they have spoken such immoral words about such pure souls and narrated such shameful things about them? I seek Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forgiveness.

 
بر خرقۂ تو ایں ہمہ داغ شراب چیست جامی چہ لاف میز نی از پاک دامنی

O goblet! What chastity are you bragging about?

What are all these wine marks on your clothes?

 

Sayyidina Lut’s ‘alayh al Salam incident has been appropriately answered. I will now mention something regarding Nabi Ibrahim’s ‘alayh al Salam story.

Some Shia have said that a tyrant king kidnapped Nabi Ibrahim’s wife, Sayyidah Sarah ‘alayha al Salam, and he did not do anything besides observe patience and supplicate. The author of Saif Sarim explains this in the following words, quoted verbatim:

 

Besides this, I will quote something briefly from Tafsir ‘Azizi out of necessity. You may study the above mentioned book for more details written by your guide, ‘Aziz. Sarah, the wife of Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam, was extremely beautiful. Due to the oppression and tyranny of the wretched, she and her husband Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam set out into the desert. They reached Egypt. The king there was a fierce tyrant whose practice it was that whenever a beautiful woman passed by, he would kill her husband, jail her brother and abduct her. A similar thing happened to him that the foot soldiers of the tyrant king came to him and asked him how the woman was related to him. Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam said that she was his sister. The meaning in his heart was that she is my sister in religion and one of the descendants of Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam. The sound minded can understand the concept of Taqiyyah and the salient practice of the Prophets at a time of constraint and necessity. The awsiya’ follow in the footsteps of the Prophets and the mu’minin follow in theirs. If Nasih had any passive power, he should have thought and been ashamed at what his guide ‘Aziz has written. Nonetheless, the foot soldiers of the king left Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam and forcefully took Sayyidah Sarah ‘alayha al Salam. When Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam saw this, he engaged himself in salah and supplication. When Sayyidah Sarah ‘alayha al Salam reached that wretched, he fell in love with her and wanted to commit evil with her. Sayyidah Sarah ‘alayha al Salam supplicated and the effect of it was that his hands became paralysed and he was distressed. Sayyidah Sarah ‘alayha al Salam supplicated and he was cured, but still his intentions were evil. She supplicated again and the same happened. When it happened for the third time, he set her free and gave her Sayyidah Hajar ‘alayha al Salam as a gift.

 

We congratulate the author for mentioning this incident at this juncture and say bravo to please him. He has mentioned such an incident which is an asset to us and a proof against him. His intelligence and understanding is startling. What benefit did he see for himself in this incident? The gist of the above story is that the men of the tyrant king took Sayyidah Sarah ‘alayha al Salam — the wife of Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam. When the wretched intended evil, Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam and Sayyidah Sarah ‘alayha al Salam supplicated due to which his hands became paralysed, thus safeguarding her honour. In fact, such a miracle was displayed owing to which he gifted her a slave girl, Sayyidah Hajar ‘alayha al Salam. Now match this story with Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha one and see whether they are the same or not? Had the same happened with Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha, i.e. when Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu took her home, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu supplicated to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala paralysed ‘Umar’s hand to protect her honour and frighten him, and as a result of witnessing this miracle, he sent Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha untouched to Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu house and sent a slave girl as a gift as well pleading for forgiveness. Had this happened, then definitely Nabi Ibrahim and Sayyidah Sarah’s ‘alayha al Salam story would have matched theirs whereas on the contrary Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu “forcefully” married Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha, kept her in his house for eight to ten years, and had a son and a daughter with her, and she remained with him until his last breath till he passed away. She only then later married the son of Sayyidina Jafar al Tayyar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. It is surprising that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala displayed miracles to protect Sayyidah Sarah’s ‘alayha al Salam honour by paralysing the tyrant king’s hand but when a munafiq renegade abducts Sayyidah Umm Kulthum bint Fatimah bint Rasulillah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then neither the majesty, dignity and wrath of Allah is displayed nor is a miracle shown — neither is his hand paralysed nor is the granddaughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam protected in any way. What else can be said then that the Shia god was afraid of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and did not protest out of fear or that he exercised patience and tolerance like the Wasi of his Rasul? Normal people grow restless in such situations and are prepared to sacrifice their lives, but due to the elevated position of the Imam and Wasi, they observe patience in such situations. We seek Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protection from their drivel and evil beliefs.

There remains a doubt about this incident which ought to be removed. It is clear from historic narrations that when the tyrant king abducted Nabi Ibrahim’s ‘alayh al Salam wife then he supplicated to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, who displayed a miracle by paralysing his hand whereas Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not supplicate after Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha was taken which would have been accepted by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala Who would have shown a miracle.

Undoubtedly it is true that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not supplicate and when he remained silent on the abduction of his daughter, then what should Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala do? Why should he descend His wrath without someone asking and supplicating? Nonetheless, what prevented Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu from supplicating? Why did he remain silent? Why did he not lift his hands in supplication in the darkness of the night behind closed doors? If he did not confront him out of fear for his life, then this was out of necessity due to which he remained silent. But what fear was there at night behind closed doors due to which he did not supplicate? Maybe he knew that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu used to patrol at night and keep an eye on the people and if he overheard his supplication, he might harm him and then the same thing would have happened which he tried to prevent by remaining silent, i.e. he could be killed. This fear could be understandable had it been necessary to scream when supplicating whereas it is not necessary to make an audible supplication. In fact, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala hears the supplication of the hearts just as He hears the screaming of the tongue. So he could have supplicated in his heart, not with his tongue and the object would have been fulfilled. So we accept that the reason Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not protest was out of fear for his life. And we assumed that he did not supplicate loudly out of fear that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu might overhear. But there seems to be no logical reason for not making supplicating from the heart. If only a Shia could tell us and remove our fear.

If an intelligent person asks, “what is the need to supplicate after the nikah is contracted? Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not an adulterer or transgressor. So there was no need for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to worry about marrying his daughter to him.” Our view is exactly the same. But what to do with the narration, “this was a woman who was forcefully taken from us,” with which tears will you wash all those thousands of pages which have been blackened by making useless interpretations of this nikah? If the reality is that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was pleased with Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and vice versa and both had confidence on each other’s iman and sincerity hence the nikah took place, then the entire dispute is over. But then the falsehood of Shi’ism will become apparent like the sun at noon. If the Shia accept what we explained as the truth, they will have no option but to abandon their religion. For this reason their scholars presented various types of interpretations which were uncalled for, and overlooked the reality. Some said he was afraid of losing his life while others said it was due to his patience and forbearance. Some presented the incident of Sayyidina Lut ‘alayh al Salam as substantiation while others used the story of Nabi Ibrahim’s ‘alayh al Salam wife. And others claimed that a female Jinn took the form of Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha. Nonetheless, narrating all of these stories and presenting all of these different explanations and interpretations, in fact understanding this nikah to be like a carcass which becomes permissible for consumption due to necessity; what is all this for? It is simple; to make sure that it is not established that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was worthy of marrying Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu gave her willingly to him in marriage. What interpretations were made and what allegations were levelled against the noble Ahlul Bayt just to reject Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu virtue! Whether it involved disgracing the Ahlul Bayt, saying that their chaste daughters were abducted, accusing the awliya’ to be shameless — everything was tolerated and accepted, but they did not and will never ever acknowledge the virtue of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 

Interpretation 2: Bequest

 

I have answered the interpretation of patience and tolerance. I will now mention the second interpretation and refute it.

When the Shia realised that the patience interpretation was incorrect and that to present this reason in such a sensitive situation without any pressing need was improper, they substantiated it through another channel and created the pressing need for it, i.e. the bequest of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequeathed his wasi and the first Imam to adopt nothing but patience and to endure the oppression and tyranny of the cruel khulafa’. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed him of every incident that was to occur and bequeathed him to bear it patiently. So it was not possible for his wasi to act contrary to his command and abandon patience. This has been mentioned by Qadi Nur Allah Shostari in his Masa’ib al Nawasib, the translation of which appears in Izalat al Ghayn. I will produce it verbatim:

 

و بعضے از جہاں ایشاں گفتہ اند کہ چہ گنجائش دارد کہ علی تسلیم نکاح کند ابنۃ خودرا برینکہ شما وصف کردید و ما میگوئیم کہ ایں سخن جہل ست بہ وجود تدبیر و بیاں ایں آنست کہ چوں رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم وصیت کرد علی را بانچہ محتاج بود در وقت وفات و معلوم او گردانید جمیع آنچہ جاری خواہد شد از امر مستولین واحدا بعد واحد پس علی گفت مرا بچہ امر میکنی آنحضرت فرمود صبر کن تا مردم رجوع کںد بسوئ توازروی طوع پس آں ہنگام قتال کن با ناکثین و قاسطین و مارقین و با احدی از ثلاثہ منازعت مکن تاخودرا بدست خود در تہلکہ نیند ازی و مردم از نفاق بشقاق بر کردند پس علی علیہ السلام حافظ وصیت رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم بود بواسطۂ حفظ دین تا مردم بہ جاہلیت برنہ گردند و چوں عمر رضی اللہ عنہ خوستگاری ام کلثوم رضی اللہ عنہا نمود علی متفکر شد و گفت اگر مانع شوم او قصد قتل من خواہد من کند و ممانعت کنم اورا از نفس خود بیروں روم از اطاعت رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم و مخالفت وصیت او میکنم و داخل میشود در دین آچہ مذکور میکرد ازاں 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 کرد از 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 چنانچہ رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم امر نمودہ بود

 

Some ignoramuses object that when the situation was this bad as you say, then what right did Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu have to allow his daughter’s nikah. The answer to this is that this is pure ignorance. The reality is that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequeathed to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu important matters and at the time of his death informed him of every single thing that will transpire after him. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked, “what do you command me?” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam answered, “observe patience until the time that people come to you to obey and follow you. Then you should wage war against the oppressors who broke the pledge and the group that abandoned din. Do not argue or fight with any of the three khulafa’, otherwise you will be destroyed. Steer clear from the people’s hypocrisy and differences.” Thus Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was in reality strictly following Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest in order to safeguard din so that ignorance and kufr does not rear its ugly head once again. When ‘Umar sent a proposal for Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha, Sayyidina ‘Ali pondered deeply and thought, “if I prevent him, he will kill me. If he intends killing me and I stop him to save my life, I will disobey Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and practice contrary to his bequest and this will result in deficiency in din.” He thought it better to give his daughter and handed the matter to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala notwithstanding that he was fully aware that ‘Umar usurped the Muslims’ wealth, refused to give them their dues, sat at Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam place and interpolated divine commands. These things were far worse and evil in Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sight than the usurpation of one private part. Therefore, he gave his daughter and adopted patience as per the command of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

 

The gist of the above is that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequeathed Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not to do or say anything in the era of the three khulafa’. No matter what oppression they commit, do not act. Let them usurp what they want and do not say a word. It is for this reason that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not make any noise regarding the vital matter, i.e. imamah and khilafah, and remained absolutely silent. The evils that spread due to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu being khalifah are manifest. Thus, usurping the khilafah, misusing the Muslims’ wealth, removing Amir al Mu’minin from his place and sitting in the place of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were more detestable and repugnant in the eyes of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala than forcefully abducting Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha. When Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu adopted patience — as was the directive of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — in such a despicable and repugnant matter, i.e. the usurpation of the khilafah, then what is wrong if he adopted patience at the abduction of his daughter?

While writing this intricate subject, Qadi Nur Allah Shostari displays the level of his shame and modesty in Masa’ib al Nawasib by saying that Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu claim for khilafah and his sitting on Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam place is far worse than forcefully abducting a thousand women in the sight of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, forget one. The translation of his text appears thus in Izalat al Ghayn:

 

و آنچہ دعوی کرد از براۓ خود از امامت از روی ظلم و جور و تعدی و خلاف بر خدا و رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم و دفع امامے کہ نصب کردہ اورا خدا و رسول خدا و استیلاء اوبر امور مسلماناں پس حکم بہ خلاف خدا و رسول اعظم ست نزد حق تعالی از اغتصاب ہزار فرج از زنان مومناں چہ جاۓ فرج واحد

Through oppression and tyranny ‘Umar claimed khilafah and Imamah, disobeyed Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam command, removed the Imam appointed by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul and unlawfully took control of the affairs of the Muslims. Disobeying the command of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is far worse in the sight of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala than usurping the private parts of a thousand believing women, leave alone one private part.

 

O shameful Mu’minin and O pure Shia! Look at the intricacy of this complex text of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari and ponder over his words. What filth he writes regarding the pure Imams and chaste daughters and with what immoral words he refers to Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah. Glory be to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala! Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is pure! Professing love for the queen of the women Sayyidah Fatimah Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha on one hand and slandering her chaste daughter on the other hand. He used such immoral and disrespectful words that the earth almost split and a lightning bolt almost fell from the sky. Such filthy words regarding such pure souls. He does not think that Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha is the daughter of that innocent woman whose face no one saw and whose chastity and purity is proverbial. When she will pass on the Day of Qiyamah, a caller will call out:

 

غضوا ابصاركم

Lower your gazes.

 

The chaste pure innocent daughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is passing. No one’s gaze will fall on her. The woman whose mother’s chastity enjoys such a lofty status in the eyes of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala; the Shia blurt out such disgraceful and humiliating words regarding her. They use such filthy words for such a personality which will not be spoken about a normal person.

The bequest excuse is not worthy of acceptance, neither logically or transmitted. Logically, since Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was sent for the guidance of mankind. It was his responsibility to protect people from misguidance and to make others — especially his successors — take up the responsibility of protecting people from the same. So how can the intellect accept that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam told Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “even if the three khulafa’ usurp the khilafah, snatch away your right, misuse the people’s wealth, change the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, adulterate my sunnah and take away your daughters, then too do not raise any objection, remain silent and bear all of this oppression and tyranny.” Who can ever dream that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said this? Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid! What greater slander can there be against Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam than this?

The excuse that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said this so that people do not abandon the external form of Islam and do not openly get involved in kufr and shirk also defies intellect. If hundreds of thousands of people who remained in Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam company, saw the development of Islam from the very beginning to the end, whole heartedly sacrificed their lives in jihad, saw thousands of miracles with their own eyes, regarding whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed verses in their praise. If all these people, except a handful, are such munafiqin and have so weak iman that they will abandon external Islam, expose their internal kufr and become polytheists if Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu were to combat the three khulafaʼ — notwithstanding that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is on the truth and is only fighting the three khulafa’ in order to protect the lives and wealth of the Muslims from their oppressive hands, to safeguard the din from interpolation and alteration and to save people from going astray — and then still too no Muslim assists him, leave alone not assisting him, they abandon him for this mistake, and even abandon the external form of Islam and choose idol worship instead; then what benefit is iman and Islam going to give to such a group? In fact, remaining Muslims or turning kuffar is equal. So what was the need for Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest and Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu firm patience because the thing he feared was already present, i.e. people abandoning iman and Islam. Think a little that if Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu challenged the khulafa’ and sought assistance from the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum because the oppressive khulafa’ usurped his khilafah, misused the wealth of the Muslims, changed the sunnah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and abducted the granddaughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then instead of assisting him, the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum reject the kalimah and deny towhid and risalah then what is the use of considering their Islam? What is the difference if such internal kuffar remain Muslims outwardly or become idol worshippers? How can such oppression and tyranny be tolerated, destruction to Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala din be allowed and abduction of daughters be overlooked just in consideration of their outward Islam? What was the advantage of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest to his wasi to adopt patience and tolerance?

O Shia! Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah is not a simple issue that you can say, “this was a woman who was forcefully taken from us,” and forget about it or get rid of it by ridiculous and ludicrous statements. Judge with justice! If someone’s servant or employee benefits from his master for just a few days and after his master’s demise someone usurps his master’s wealth or takes the honour of his daughter or just has the intention to do so, then if the servant or employee is loyal he will be prepared to sacrifice his life and will never allow any blemish to his master’s honour as long as he is breathing. So was there not even one out of the four hundred thousand Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who could assist Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and protect the honour of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family? Okay, leave the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and deem them as renegades and hypocrites if you wish, was there no one from the Banu Hashim who could protect the honour of his daughter and safeguard her from a munafiq’s tyranny? Most probably the Shia will say that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made the bequest that no matter how much oppression someone does even if he abducts your daughters and snatches their honour then too do not protest. We will respond then, why was this bequest forgotten at the Battle of Sham and Siffin and why was the blood of thousands spilled? Then maybe they will say that the bequest was that nothing should be done in the era of the three khulafa’, but you should fight Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The answer to this is that they are nothing but chameleons. Whatever comes to their mind, they fabricate a narration and show their poetic skills. There must be a reason for the bequest. If the reason is that no bloodshed takes place, then thousands were killed in the fight against Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If the reason is that none will assist Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and he might be killed unjustly, then the reality dawned in the Battle of Siffin. Thousands of Muhajirin and Ansar and the Ahl al Hil wa l-’aqd assisted Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and thousands were martyred. Are you trying to say that those who assisted him later on would not have assisted earlier and they would not have fought the three khulafa’ like how they fought Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu? It is clear like daylight that this bequest tale is fabricated and is a grave slander against Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If you are in doubt, we will prove it through narrated text.

No one should be under the misconception that there are only rational proofs to ascertain the falsehood of this bequest. In fact, if we carefully study the ahadith in Shia books, the untruth of it becomes apparent. The crux of the bequest is that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu ought to adopt patience in the era of the three khulafa’ and should not complain about their oppression and tyranny. So if he adopted patience throughout their eras and did not confront them or speak harshly or abruptly to them, then we might also believe that there is some truth to this bequest. But if it is established that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu displayed his wrath and dignity, confronted the three khulafa’ and spoke harshly to them, warned them and even intended to kill them, then how can we accept that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made the bequest? Had he bequeathed, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have definitely abided and would not have complained. On the contrary, he confronts them on petty issues and is prepared to fight them, forgetting the prophetic bequest, but then adopts patience in important matters like the usurpation of his daughter Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha. This is unfathomable for our restricted minds. Only the Shia can understand this complexity.

 
 

Narration 1

 

There appears a narration in Kashf al Ghummah from Muhammad ibn Khalid which goes as follows. Once Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu while delivering the khutbah said, “if I wish to turn you away from religious knowledge, unquestionable beliefs and the laws of the shari’ah and command you to abandon it and follow the principles of the era of ignorance; will you obey me or not?” No one answered. After posing the question thrice, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “if we see this condition of yours and find you astray from the din of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, we will find another representative. If you repent, we will accept your repentance. And if you do not repent, we will cut off your neck.” Hearing this Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu exclaimed, “all praise belongs to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala that we still have men in our din that if I go astray, they will bring me back to the straight path.”

Now when Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu answers Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu so harshly and exclaims that he is prepared to kill him, then had Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu really went astray from din and changed the laws of the shari’ah then Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have fulfilled his pledge and killed him. So how can such a man allow his daughter to be forcefully taken by Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and do absolutely nothing about it? The actual verbatim translation of the hadith is:

 

روایت ست از محمد بن خالد الضبی کہ روزے عمر بن خطاب در اثناء خطبہ از حاضران سوال کردہ کہ اگر من خواہم کہ شمارا از معلومات دینیہ و معتقدات یقینیہ و احکام شرعیہ محمدیہ صرف نمایم و گویم کہ از معتقدات بر گردید و رجوع نمائید بقواعد کہ در زمان جاہلیت بود شما بامن چہ خواہید کرد آیا تابع در آں خواہید شد یا مخالف من مردماں ہمہ خاموش شدند و ہیچ کس جواب نگفت عمر دیگر بارا ہمیں سخن را اعادہ کرد از ہیچ کس جوابی نشنید پس دیگر بار ہمیں مقالہ اعادہ کرد شاہ ولایت فرمود کہ ہر گاہ از تو ایں حالت مشاہدہ گرد و وترا از دین مصطفی منحرف یا بم نائب دیگر طلب کنیم و اگر توبہ کنی بوبۂ ترا قبول کنیم و اگر نکنی ترا گردن زنیم عمر چوں ایں سخن از شاہ اولیا شنید گفت کہ در دین ما مرد ماں ہستند کہ اگر منحرف شویم مارا بطریق مستقیم مقیم و ثابت دارند

 

Muhammad ibn Khalid al Dabbi narrates that during the khutbah one day, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked those present, “if I wish to turn you away from religious knowledge, unquestionable beliefs and the laws of the shari’ah and command you to abandon it and follow the beliefs of the era of ignorance; what will you do to me? Will you obey me or disobey?” Everyone was silent. No one answered. Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked for the second time but received no response so he repeated it again. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu stated, “when we will see this condition of yours and find you astray from the din of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, we will search for another representative. If you repent, we will accept your repentance and if not, we will cut off your neck.” Hearing this statement of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu exclaimed, “our din still has men that if I go astray, they will bring me back to the straight path.”

 
Back to top  

Narration 2

 

Mulla Baqir Majlisi has narrated a lengthy narration in Hayat al Qulub, the crux of which is that Sayyidina ‘Umar al Faruq radiya Llahu ‘anhu has such awe and fear in his heart for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he would tremble just at his sight. After narrating a very lengthy narration, he explains this issue in the following words:

 

علی بن ابراہیم از ابو واثلہ روایت کردہ است کہ گفت روزے با عمر بن خطاب براہے می رفتم ناگاہ اضطرابی در راہ یافتم و صدائ از سینہ او شنیدہ شد ماںد کسی کہ از ترس مدہوش شود گفتم چہ میشود ترا ای عمر گفت مگر نہ بینی شیر بیشہ شجاعت را او معدن کرم و فتوت را و کشندہ طاغیاں و باغیاں و زیبندہ شمشیر را عملدار صاحب تدبیر را چوں نظر کردم علی بن ابی طالب را دیدم الی قولہ تا ایں ساعت ترس اورا از دل من بدر نرفتہ است و ہرگاہ کہ اورا می بینم چنیں ہر اساں میشوم

 

‘Ali ibn Ibrahim narrated from Abu Wathilah, “One day I was walking with Sayyidina ‘Umar ibn Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu. While walking, he grew extremely agitated and disturbed and such a sound emanated from his chest like someone going crazy out of fear. I asked, ‘O ‘Umar, what is wrong?’ He replied, ‘do you not see the fierce lion, possessor of all virtue, subjugator of the rebellious and disobedient, the shimmering sword, the great planner?’ When I looked around, I saw Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu. ‘His fear and awe has not left my heart until now … Whenever I see him, I am struck with awe and become restless.’”

 

What stronger hadith do you want to prove that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu would be struck with awe and would tremble just at the sight of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and it would take him a long while to recover and come back to his senses? So when this is his condition by just looking at Sayyidah ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he loses his senses then how can it ever be fathomable that he forcefully married his daughter? Maybe the Shia will say that his awe disappeared at that time or the tables were turned.

 
Back to top  

Narration 3

 

Sayed Dildar ‘Ali writes in ‘Imad al Islam that it is recorded in Shia books that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala commanded His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to close all the doors leading to Masjid besides his and Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu. After a few days, Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu requested Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to ask Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala for his door to be opened. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “it is impossible.” Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked, “supplicate for a gutter at least.” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam remained silent. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala accepted his second request. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself climbed up and fitted a gutter on the roof as per Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu wish. This gutter remained three years in the khilafah of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. One day, water from that gutter was falling and happened to fall on Sayyidina ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu clothes who gave an order that it be removed. Accordingly, it was removed. Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu then proclaimed in anger, “if anyone fits it again, I will cut his neck off.” Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu notwithstanding his severe sickness with the help of his sons came to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu with a plea. He said, “I had two eyes. One has gone, i.e. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. And the other still remains, i.e. Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu. I could never imagine that such a calamity could befall me while you are still alive. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “go to your home and rest peacefully, see what I will do.”

 

ثم نادى يا قنبر على بذى الفقار فتقلده هم خرج الى المسجد و الناس حوله و قال يا قيبر اصعد و رد الميزاب الى مكانه فصعد قنبر و رده الى موضعه و قال على و حق صاحب هذا القبر و المنبر لئن قلعه قالع لاضربن عنقه و عنق الامر له بذلك و لاصلبنها فى الشمس حتى ينفذوا فبلغ ذلك عمر بن الخطاب فنهض و دخل المسجد و نظر الى الميزاب و هو فى موضعه فقال لا يغضب احد بالحسن فيما فعله و تكفر عنه عن اليمين فلما كان من الغداة مضى على بن ابى طالب الى عمه العباس فقال له كيف اصبحت يا عم قال بالفضل النعم ما ومت لى يابن اخى فقال له يا عم طب نفسك و قر عينا فوالله لو خاضمنى اهل الارض فى الميزاب لخصمتهم ثم لقتلتهم بحول الله و قوته لا ينالك ضيم و لا غم فقام العباس فقبل بين عينيه و قال يابن اخى ما خاب من انت ناصره فكان هذا فعل عمر بالعباس عم رسول الله و قد قال فى غير موطن وصية منه فى عمه ان عمى العباس بقية الاباء و الاجداد فاحفظونى فيه كل فى كنفى و انا فى كنف عمى العباس فمن اذاه فقد اذانى و من عاداه فقد عادانى فسلمه سلمى و حربه حربى و قد اذاه عمر فى ثلث مواطن ظاهرة غير خفية منها قصة الميزاب و لولا خوفه من على عليه السلام لم يتركه على حاله

 

He then called out, “O Qambar! Bring me Dhu al Fiqar.” He then girded it and left for the Masjid with people surrounding him. He ordered, “O Qambar, climb and fit the gutter at its place.” Accordingly, Qambar climbed and fitted it at its place. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu then declared, “by the right of the inmate of this grave and the owner of this pulpit, if anyone removes it, I will smite his neck and the one who ordered him to do it and then I will crucify them in the sun until they rot. The news reached Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu who got up and entered the Masjid. He saw that the gutter was at its place and thus exclaimed, “no one should anger Abu al Hassan in what he did.” He then paid the expiation of his oath. The next day, Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu went to his uncle Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu and asked him, “how are you doing, o uncle?” He replied, “enjoy the greatest of pleasures as long as you live, o my nephew.” Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “O uncle, may your heart be at rest and may your eyes be cooled. By Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, if the entire earth had to combat me with regards to the gutter, I would have fought them and then killed them. By the strength and power of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, no sorrow or grief will afflict you.” Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu stood up and kissed him on his forehead saying, “O my nephew, whoever you help will never be unsuccessful.” This is what ‘Umar did to Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu — the uncle of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has mentioned Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu in many of his bequests. He said, “indeed my uncle ‘Abbas is the remnant of my forefathers so consider me when dealing with him. Everyone is at my assistance and I am at my uncle ‘Abbas’s assistance. The one who harms him has indeed harmed me. The one who harbours hatred for him in fact harbours hatred for me. I give amnesty to whom he gives amnesty and I wage war against who he wages war against.” ‘Umar openly harmed him at three occasions. One of them is the gutter incident. Had it not been his fear for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he would not have spared him.

 

Mujtahid writes this narration under the allegations against Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and says, “if ‘Umar did not fear ‘Ali, he would never allowed the gutter to be replaced in its place.” Anyways, when Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is infuriated by such a trivial thing, i.e. the gutter, that he asks Qambar for Dhu al Fiqar, comes to the Masjid and makes Qambar fit the gutter in front of him — notwithstanding that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu only ruled for three years and his khilafah was still in its youth — he did not fear him and was prepared to kill him. In fact he intended to fight the entire world if they opposed him. Then how can the intellect accept that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequeathed him to be patient. If Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam really made this bequest, then why did he forget about it in the gutter incident and why did he emerge with Dhu al Fiqar? If Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not fear him, then why did he keep quiet and why did he not remove the gutter he replaced?

The Shia are confused. Sometimes they make Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu into such a brave lion and narrate incidents of his fury and anger on the most trivial things and how he is prepared to fight in minor situations while at other times they make his so scared and weak that he adopts patience in very important situations. Is it that according to the Shia, the abduction of Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha was more insignificant than Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu gutter that he bears patiently the former but is infuriated at the latter? If only Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu kept silent about the gutter and displayed his wrath and dignity in Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha case by taking Dhu al Fiqar from Qambar and emerging with the sole intent to slay Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This wrath and anger would be appropriate.

I do not know whether the Shia narrate the nikah incident before or after the gutter one. If the nikah was prior to the gutter incident, then it is very unlikely that Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu would come to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu for help with his gutter since he was well aware that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu gave his daughter to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu out of fear for him and said nothing. So why would Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu seek his assistance in the gutter issue? If Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu kept silent and adopted patience in his daughter’s case, then what will he say in this trivial matter? And if the nikah took place after the gutter incident, then when Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu went to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to explain to him to give his daughter to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu otherwise he will cause harm to him; then if Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu forgot about the gutter incident, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu should have reminded him, “O uncle! Do you not remember what I did regarding your gutter and how I threatened ‘Umar? So why should I be afraid of him in this important matter.” He then should have asked Qambar to bring the sword and he should have gone to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and threatened him like how he did in the gutter incident. If he did so, then what courage would Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu have to say a word?

The Shia should have a good look at these narrations and should forget about the bequest and patience story because this story has been debunked to such an extent that no one has a chance to speak a word.

 

Interpretation 3: Taqiyyah

 

Although whatever was mentioned above regarding patience has properly debunked this aspect as well, I nevertheless wish to discuss this word separately.

Some Shia scholars says that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was commanded to observe Taqiyyah, hence he was excused and forced. He fulfilled the divine command by contracting the nikah and fulfilling the divine command brings reward. The author of Nuzhah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah has written this theme in the following words in answer to Tuhfah:

 

قائلین بہ تقیہ می گویند کہ شارع فعلے را کہ بطریق تقیہ واقع شود مقام مامور بہ قرار دادہ پس در ینجا آور دن آں امتثال امر الہی ست و ایں معنی مقتضی اجرست

Some say on behalf of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he practiced Taqiyyah. Whatever is done with Taqiyyah has been commanded by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Therefore, marrying Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha out of Taqiyyah was fulfilling the command of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala which is rewarding.

 

Similarly, Sayed Murtada who is titled “‘Ilm al Huda” and Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli have also mentioned that what Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did was nothing more than Taqiyyah. This text of Nuzhah’s author is the exact translation of what appears under objection four in Masa’ib al Nawasib. The crux of these narrations is that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu performed the nikah out of Taqiyyah and since he was commanded to practice Taqiyyah, he is deserving of reward. However, the Taqiyyah interpretation is debunked due to many reasons.

 
Back to top  

Reason 1

Taqiyyah is an allegation of the Shia against the noble Imams. No Imam ever practiced Taqiyyah nor was he instructed to do so. I will prove this in the Taqiyyah discussion, Allah willing.

 
Back to top  

Reason 2

There are two reasons for practicing Taqiyyah, viz. either fear for one’s life or fear for one’s honour. His honour is lost by performing this nikah. Hence, there can be no fear for this which may necessitate Taqiyyah. Furthermore, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not commanded to practice Taqiyyah out of fear for his life. The Shia scholars have accepted this as ‘Allamah Kantori writes in Taqlib al Maka’id:

 

شیعیان ہر گر نمی گویند کہ حضرت امیر المومنین بہ سپ خوف ہلاکت جان خود ترک قتل و قتال ابو بکر کردہ بود بلکہ می گویند کہ حضرت امیر المومنین ہیچک از فرائض و واجبات را ترک نہ کردہ و تقیہ بجہت خوف ہلاکت جان خود نبود بلکہ بجہت خوف ہتک عرض و ناموس بود

 

The Shia have never ever said that Sayyidina Amir al Mu’minin did not fight and challenge Abu Bakr out of fear for his life. The Shia declare that he did not abandon any fard or wajib. His Taqiyyah was not out of fear for losing his life but to protect his honour and reputation.

 
Back to top  

Reason 3

If we accept that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu feared for his life, the Shia will not accept this since there are plenty Shia narrations which prove that Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma on many occasions tried to kill Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu but were unsuccessful due to the latter’s bravery. Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes in Haqq al Yaqin[4],[5]:

 

After Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu rebuked and scolded Abu Bakr and ‘Umar regarding Fadak and confronted them, Abu Bakr called ‘Umar and said, “you saw what ‘Ali did today. If he does this again, all our work will be ruined.” Hearing this ‘Umar said, “my advice is that he be killed.” Khalid ibn al Walid was selected for this task and the time for Fajr Salah was fixed for his assassination. Accordingly, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu came to the Masjid for Fajr Salah and stood behind Abu Bakr to perform salah out of Taqiyyah, while Khalid tied his sword and stood next to him. However, when Abu Bakr sat to recite tashahhud, he felt embarrassed and feared turmoil and recalled the sternness, influence and bravery of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and was struck with such fear that he could not complete the salah. He continued repeating tashahhud but could not make salam out of fear. Finally, he told Khalid, “do not carry out what I told you to.” After the salah, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked Khalid, “what did Abu Bakr command you to do.” He replied, “he ordered me to kill you and had he not prevented me, I would have certainly killed you.” Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu went into a rage, grabbed Khalid and dropped him on to the ground. ‘Umar began screaming and the people gathered around, so Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu left Khalid and caught hold of ‘Umar’s collar reprimanding, “had it not been for Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest and divine fate, you would have seen who is weak; me or you.” It appears in one narration that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu picked up Khalid with one finger and throttled him so hard that he almost died. Khalid defecated, his legs trembled and he did not say a word. Whoever came close to help him, the lion of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala gave him such a stern look that he returned out of fear. Finally, Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu came and saved Khalid by taking an oath.

 

O Shia! Look at this narration and admire the bravery and chivalry of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wasi. Then have a look at Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah. Now think, had the nikah taken place forcefully against the will of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then it is impossible that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu or anyone else had the ability to frighten Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and take his daughter while Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu says nothing out of fear. If Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu warned him and threatened to kill him, then why did Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu keep quiet? Why did he not pick Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu up with one finger and drop him on the ground and if anyone came to assist, why did he not look at him angrily? If we accept Mulla Baqir Majlisi’s narration, then all of this does not seem to make any sense to us. How could Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu be so scared and incapable in the incident of Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah that he remains silent and allows his innocent daughter to be taken away?

If you still do not have full conviction, I will bring another narration to prove the bravery of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes in Haqq al Yaqin:

 

بعد از غصب فدک حضرت امیر المومنین بہ ابو بکر نامہ نوشت جر نہایت شدت و حدت و تہدید و وعید بسیار درآں درج نمود چوں ابو بکر نامہ را خواند بسیار تر سید و خواست کہ فدک را و خلافت را ہر دو رد کند

After Abu Bakr usurped Fadak, Sayyidina Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote him an extremely harsh letter wherein he sternly threatened and warned him. Abu Bakr was overcome with fear after reading the letter to the extent that he intended to surrender Fadak and the khilafah.

 

This also is clear proof that just by one harsh letter of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is so frightened that he is prepared to give up Fadak and the khilafah. So what stopped Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha case from writing to Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu reminding him of his bravery and chivalry and frightening him by mentioning the harshness and sternness he displayed previously? There is no Shia narration stating that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote a letter or threatened Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Even if he only did this, then too it would have been sufficient. However, Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu silence in such a sensitive situation that does not make sense and the reason of practicing Taqiyyah in such a crucial matter is unfathomable. Probably there is a mystery from the mysteries of Imamah here which we cannot possibly grasp. No one can understand the mysteries of Imamah besides a close angel, a deputed Nabi and a perfect believer. Mulla Baqir Majlisi has stated this in Haqq al Yaqin:

 

غائب احوال و خفا یای اسرار ایشاں را خلق نمید اند و تاب شنیدن آنہا ندارد مگر ملک مقربے یا پیغمبر مرسلے یا مومن کاملے کہ حق تعالی دل اورا امتحان کردہ باشد و بنور ایمان منور گردانیدہ باشد

The creation do not know about the secrets and mysteries of the Imams and do not have the capacity to even hear them besides a close angel, a deputed Nabi or a perfect believer whose heart Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has tested and lit up with the light of iman.

 

At this juncture, a hadith of Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah comes to mind which al Kulayni has related through a reliable isnad concerning the ten signs of an Imam. He writes that the ninth sign is that the excretion of the Imam smells like musk and that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has appointed the earth to swallow it.[6]

Shame on the Shia that when it comes to the Imam’s excretion then they believe that the earth swallows it and it does not have a stench but in fact releases a musk scent but when it comes to the heart of the Imam then they say that someone usurped her. O Shia! Why does the earth swallow the Imam’s excretion and why did Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala put the scent of musk in it? For this reason that excretion is impure. If it stays on the ground, insects will spread, stench will spread and people will have an aversion to it. And since it has a connection with the Imam — although it is a far connection. Hence, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala commanded the earth to swallow the excretion to show the Imam’s virtue. So why is Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha — a part of the queen of all women and a part of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu — so cheap in Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sight that He did not protect her and safeguard her from the clutches of a usurper? Did she not have any connection with Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and with Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha? Was the honour of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not blemished by her honour being taken? Was the reputation of the Imams not tainted by her being abducted?

Brothers! Ponder deeply!. Reflect! Have some shame! Do not be prejudiced! Your only option is to acknowledge that Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was worthy of marriage, otherwise how are you going to answer this allegation?

 
 

NEXT⇒ Fourth View


[1]  Surah Hud: 78

[2]  Surah al Hijr: 71

[3]  Surah al Hijr: 71

[4]  The original text will appear in the Taqiyyah discussion

[5]  Qutb al Din Rawindi has narrated a similar narration in al Khara’ij wa al Jara’ih pg. 123 – Mumbai print

[6]Usul Kafi pg. 246; al Shafi tarjamah Kafi vol. 2 pg. 394

Back to top