Ali رضي الله عنه و أرضاه would have whipped the Shias of today



Download 2.18 Mb.
Page26/26
Date conversion15.02.2016
Size2.18 Mb.
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26

if you would read the great History by Jarir Tabari, one of your eminent ulema, who wrote: “The Holy Prophet saw Abu Sufyan riding a donkey. Mu’awiya was pulling it from the front, and his son, Yazid, was pushing it from behind. The Prophet said, ‘Curse be upon the rider, the puller, and the pusher.’

We would reply:

As it was noticed by shaykh Abu Ubayda ad-Dimashki (hafizahullah) ibn Jarir at-Tabari mentioned this incident in his book without any chain.

Shia argue that in Musnad of imam Bazzar this hadith is present with chain.

We would reply:

There is no name mentioned in hadith which narrated by al-Bazzar, and nothing but a sick shia understanding and belief could force us to believe that it was said about those three.

Here full hadith from imam al-Bazzar:

3839 – حدثنا السكن بن سعيد ، قال : نا عبد الصمد ، قال : نا أبي ، وحدثنا حماد بن سلمة ، عن سعيد بن جمهان ، عن سفينة ، رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان جالسا فمر رجل على بعير وبين يديه قائد وخلفه سائق ، فقال : ” لعن الله القائد والسائق والراكب ” .

Wa Allahu Alam.

Ibn Masood and two last surahs of Quran

November 1, 2009 at 8:16 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 



 

 

 



 

i

 



2 Votes

quantcast
Mawdudi in his commentary said:

Question whether Mu’awwidhatayn are, or are not, Quranic

The above discussion is enough to help one understand fully the theme and content of the two Surahs, but since three points in the books of Hadith and commentary concerning these Surahs have been discussed, which are likely to create doubts in the minds, it is necessary to clear them also here.

First, whether it is absolutely established that these two Surahs are the Qur’anic Surahs, or whether there is some doubt in this regard. This question arose because in the traditions related from an illustrious Companion like Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud, it has been said that he did not regard these two Surahs as the Surahs of the Qur’an and had eliminated these from his copy of the Mushaf. Imam Ahmad, Bazzar, Tabarani, Ibn Marduyah, Abu Ya’la, Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal, Humaydi, Abu Nu’aim, Ibn Hibban and other traditionists have related this from Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud with different chains of transmitters and mostly on sound authority. According to these traditions, he not only eliminated these Surahs from the Mushaf but it has also been reported that he used to say: “Do not mix up with the Qur’an that which is not of the Qur’an. These two Surahs are not included in the Quran. This was only a command enjoined on the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) for seeking God’s refuge.” In some traditions there is also the addition that he did not recite these Surahs in the Prayer.

On the basis of these traditions the opponents of Islam had an opportunity to raise doubts about the Qur’an, saying that this Book, God forbid, is not free from corruption. For when, according to a Companion of the rank of Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud, these two Surahs are an annexation to the Qur’an, many other additions and subtractions also might have been made in it. To rid the Qur’an of this blame Qadi Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani, Qadi Iyad and others took the stand that Ibn Mas’ud was not in fact a denier of the Mu’awwidhatayn being Qur’anic but only refused to write them in the Mushaf. For, according to him, only that which the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) had allowed, should be written in the Mushaf, and Ibn Mas’ud did not receive the information that the Holy Prophet had allowed this. But this stand is not correct, for according to sound evidence, it is confirmed that Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) had denied that these were Surahs of the Qur’an. Some other scholars, for instance, Imam Nawawi, Imam Ibn Hazm and Imam Fakhr-ud-din Razi, regard this as a pure lie and falsehood that Ibn Mas’ud had asserted any such thing. ………

Now, the question is: How can the blame that attaches to the Qur’an because of these traditions of Ibn Mas’ud correctly refuted? This question has several answers which we shall give below in sequence:

1.Hafiz Bazzar after relating these traditions of Ibn Mas’ud in his Musnad, has written that he is solitary and isolated in his this opinion; no one from among the Companions has supported this view.


2. The copies of the Qur’an which the third Caliph, Hadrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), had got compiled by the consensus of the Companions and which he had sent from the Islamic Caliphate officially to the centers of the world of Islam contained both these Surahs.
3.The Mushaf which, since the sacred time of the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) till today, has the seal of consensus of the entire world of Islam, contains both these Surahs. The solitary opinion of only Abdullah bin Mas’ud, in spite of his high rank, has no weight against this great consensus.
4. It is confirmed by sound and reliable ahadith from the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) that he not only recited these Surahs in the Prayer himself but instructed others also to recite them, and taught them to the people as the Surahs of the Qur’an. Consider, for instance, the following ahadith:

We have cited on the authority of Muslim, Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Nasai the tradition of Hadrat Uqbah bin Amir that the Holy Prophet told him about Surah Al-Falaq and Surah An- Nas, saying that those verses had been revealed to him that night. A tradition in Nasai from Uqbah bin Amir is to the effect that the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) recited both these Surahs in the Morning Prayer. Imam Ahmad on sound authority has related in his Musnad the tradition from a Companion that the Holy Prophet said to him, “When you perform the Prayer, recite both these Surahs in it.”

In Musnad Ahmad, Abu Daud and Nasai this tradition of Uqbah bin Amir has been related: “The Holy Prophet said to him: Should I not teach you two such Surahs as are among the best Surahs that the people recite? He said: Do teach me, O Messenger of Allah. Thereupon the Holy Prophet taught him the Mu’awwidhatayn. Then the Prayer began and the Holy Prophet recited the same two Surahs in it also, and when after the Prayer the Holy Prophet passed by him, he said to him, ‘O Uqbah, how did you like it?’ Then he instructed him to the effect: When you go to bed, and when you get up from bed, recite these Surahs.”

In Musnad Ahmad, Abu Da’ud, Tirmidhi and Nasa’i there is a tradition from Uqbah bin Amir, saying that the Holy Prophet exhorted him to recite the Mu’awwidhat (i.e. Qul Huwa Allahu ahad and the Mu’awwidhatayn) after every Prayer.

Nasai, Ibn Marduyah and Hakim have related this tradition also from Uqbah bin Amir: “Once the Holy Prophet was riding on a conveyance and I was walking along with him with my hand placed on his sacred foot. I said: Kindly teach me Surah Hud or Surah Yusuf. He replied: In the sight of Allah there is nothing more beneficial for the servant than Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq.”

A tradition from Abdullah bin Abid al-Juhani has been related by Nasai, Baihaqi and Ibn Sad, saying that the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) said to him: “Ibn Abid, should I not tell you what are the best things out of the means by which the seekers of refuge have sought refuge with Allah? I submitted: Do teach me, O Messenger of Allah. He replied: Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbil- falaq and Qul a-udhu bi Rabbin-nas – both these Surahs.”

Ibn Marduyah had related from Hadrat Umm Salamah: “The Surahs best liked by Allah are: Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbin-nas.”

Here, the question arises: what caused Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud the misunderstanding that these two are not Surahs of the Qur’an? We get the answer to it when we combine two traditions: first, that Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud asserted that this was only a command which the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam)was given to teach him the method of seeking refuge with Allah; second, the tradition which Imam Bukhari has related in his Sahih, Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, Hafiz Abu Bakr al- Humaidi in his Musnad, Abu Nu’aim in his Al-Mustakhraj and Nasai in his Sunan, with different chains of transmitters, on the authority of Zirr bin Hubaish, with a slight variation in wording from Hadrat Ubayy bin Kab, who held a distinguished place among the Companions on the basis of his knowledge of the Qur’an. Zirr bin Hubaish states: “I said to Hadrat Ubayy: Your brother, Abdullah bin Mas’ud, says these things. What do you say about this view? He replied: I had questioned the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) about this. He said to me: I was told to say ‘qul’, so I said ‘qul’. Therefore, we too say the same as the Holy Prophet said.”

In the tradition related by Imam Ahmad, Hadrat Ubayy’s words are to the effect: “I bear witness that the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) told me that Gabriel (peace be on him) had told him to say: Qul a’udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq; therefore, he recited likewise, and Gabriel asked him to say: Qul a’udhu bi- Rabbin-nas; therefore he too said likewise. Hence, we too say as the Holy Prophet said.” A little consideration of these two traditions will show that the word qul (say) in the two Surahs caused Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud the misunderstanding that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) had been commanded to say: A’udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and A’udhu bi-Rabbin-nas. But he did not feel any need to question the Holy Prophet about it. In the mind of Hadrat Ubbay bin Kab also a question arose about his and he put it before the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet replied: “Since Gabriel (peace be on him) had said qul, so I too say qul.” Let us put it like this. If somebody is commanded and asked: “Say, I seek refuge”, he will not carry out the command, saying: “Say, I seek refuge”, but he will drop the work “say” and say: “I seek refuge.” On the contrary, if the messenger of a superior officer conveys to somebody the message in these words: “Say, I seek refuge”, and this command is given to him not only for his own person but to be conveyed to others, he will convey the words of the message verbatim to the people, and will not have the permission to drop anything from the text of the message. Thus, the fact that these two Surahs begin with the word qul is a clear proof that it is Divine Word, which the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) was bound to convey verbatim. It was not merely a command given to him for his person. Besides these two Surahs, there are 330 other verses in the Qur’an which begin with the word qul (say). The presence of qul in all these is a proof that it is Divine Word. which was obligatory for the Holy Prophet to convey verbatim; otherwise if qul everywhere had meant a command, the Holy Prophet would have dropped it and said only that which he was commanded to say, and it would not have been recorded in the Qur’an, but, on the contrary, he would have remained content with saying only what he was commanded to say.

Here, if one considers this, one can understand fully well how unreasonable it is to regard the Companions as infallible and to make the clamor that a Companion has been defamed as soon as one hears a saying or doing of his being described as wrong. Here, one can clearly see what a blunder happened to be committed by an illustrious Companion like Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud about two Surahs of the Qur’an. If such an error could be committed by an eminent Companion like him, others also might commit an error. We can examine it in the scientific way, and describe it as wrong if a thing said or done by a Companion is proved to be wrong. But wicked indeed would be the person who went beyond describing a wrong act as wrong and started reproving and finding fault with the Companions of the Holy Prophet of Allah (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam). Concerning the Mu’awwidhatayn the commentators and traditionists have described the opinion of Ibn Mas’ud as wrong, but no one has dared to say that by denying these two Surahs of the Qur’an, he had, God forbid, become a disbeliever.(end of quote).

Did Khaalid ibn al-Waleed kill Maalik ibn Nuwayrah so that he could marry his wife?

October 18, 2009 at 10:02 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 

 



 

 

 



i

 

1 Votes



quantcast
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:


The noble Sahaabi Khaalid ibn al-Waleed was the Sword of Allaah that was unsheathed against the mushrikeen, and the leader of the mujaahideen, (known as) al-Qurashi al-Makhzoomi al-Makki. He became Muslim in 7 AH after the conquest of Khaybar, or it was said that it happened before that. He died in 21 AH, and is known for many virtues. Among the most important reports about his virtues are the following:

1-

It was narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him):



That the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) announced the death of Zayd, Ja’far and Ibn Rawaahah to the people before the news came to them and he said: “Zayd took the banner and was killed, then Ja’far took (it) and was killed, then Ibn Rawaahah took (it) and was killed,” and his eyes were streaming with tears, “then one of the swords of Allaah took the banner, until Allaah granted them victory.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4262).

2-

It was narrated that ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:



The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not regard any of his companions as equal to me and Khaalid ibn al-Waleed from the day we became Muslim.”

Narrated by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (3/515) and by Abu Ya’la in al-Musnad (13/274). Al-Haythami said in Majma’ al-Zawaa’id (9/350): its men are thiqaat.

Secondly:

This noble Sahaabi has been exposed to slander and misrepresentation by some of the Orientalists who accepted all reports without researching or analyzing them, which were fabricated by some groups of Shi’ah out of hatred towards this Sahaabi who excelled in fighting the kuffaar and protecting the Muslim state during the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Among these slanders is the famous story about Khaalid killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah and marrying his wife Layla bint Sinaan.

Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was known by the kunyah Abu Hanzalah; he was a poet and knight, one of the knights of Banu Yarboo’, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) employed him to collect the zakaah of his people.

The historical reports agree to some extent that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed by some of the troops of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed, and that after that Khaalid married his wife Layla bint Sinaan.

As for the reason why Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed, and the circumstances surrounding this incident, the reports vary, but most of the earlier historians who recorded this incident, such as al-Waaqidi, Ibn Ishaaq, Wuthaymah, Sayf ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Sa’d, Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat and others, state that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah refused to pay zakaah and withheld the zakaah camels, and he prevented his people from paying it, which led Khaalid to kill him, without paying any attention to his claim that he was Muslim and prayed regularly.

Ibn Salaam said in Tabaqaat Fuhool al-Shu’ara’ (172):

The point on which there is consensus is that Khaalid debated with him and that Maalik agreed to pray but refused to pay zakaah. End quote.

Al-Waaqidi said in al-Riddah (107-108):

Then Khaalid ordered that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah should be brought forward so that his neck might be struck, and Maalik said: Are you going to kill me when I am a Muslim who prays facing the qiblah? Khaalid said to him: If you were a Muslim you would not have withheld the zakaah and you would not have told your people to withhold it. End quote.

This was also narrated by many of the later historians such as al-Tabari, Ibn al-Atheer, Ibn Katheer, al-Dhahabi and others.

Some reports speak of the relationship between Maalik ibn Nuwayrah and the woman Sajjaah who claimed to be a prophet, and they also mention some bad statments spoken by Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, from which it may be understood that he had apostatized from the religion of Islam, as was mentioned by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (6/322). He said:

It was said that Khaalid summoned Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, and warned him against following Sajjaah and withholding zakaah. He said: Do you not know that it is the partner of prayer? Maalik said: Your companion used to say that. He said: Is he our companion and not yours? O Diraar, strike his neck. So I struck his neck. End quote.

So why did some of the Sahaabah criticize Khaalid for killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, as was done by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and his son ‘Abd-Allaah, and Abu Qataadah al-Ansaari?

The reason for that may be found in some reports, as it seems that the attitude of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah about zakaah was ambiguous at first, and did not clearly deny that it was obligatory, and he did not pay it, so these Sahaabah were not certain about his view on the issue. But Khaalid ibn al-Waleed accused him and killed him. Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was outwardly a Muslim and prayed, Khaalid should not have been hasty and should have investigated his case further, and see whether Maalik ibn Nuwayrah would change his mind about zakaah. So some of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) denounced him for that.

It says in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) (6/322):

Khaalid sent the troops to al-Battaah, calling the people to Islam, and the leaders of Banu Tameem came to him, hearing and obeying, and they paid the zakaah, except for Maalik ibn Nuwayrah. It is as if he was not certain what to do and he was holding back. The troops came to him and took him and his companions prisoner, but the soldiers disagreed about what to do with them. Abu Qataadah al-Haarith ibn Rib’i al-Ansaari bore witness that they prayed, but others said that they did not give the adhaan or pray. End quote.

Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was one of the leaders and nobles of his people, and his stance was not clear at the beginning, his brother Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah complained to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) about what Khaalid had done, and he rebuked Khaalid and said that he had erred by rushing to kill Maalik ibn Nuwayrah before referring the matter to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and the senior Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them).

Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat (1/17) narrated:

‘Ali ibn Muhammad narrated to us from Abu Dhi’b from al-Zuhri from Saalim that his father said: Abu Qataadah came to Abu Bakr and told him that Maalik and his companions had been killed, and he was very upset by that. Abu Bakr wrote to Khaalid telling him to come to him. Abu Bakr said: The worst that Khaalid could have done is making the wrong decision. Abu Bakr reinstated Khaalid and paid the diyah for Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, and he returned the prisoners and the wealth. End quote.

Ibn Hajar said in al-Isaabah (5/755):

His brother Mutammim came to Abu Bakr and eulogized his brother and urged him to pay the diyah and return the prisoners, so Abu Bakr set the prisoners free. Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkaar said that Abu Bakr ordered Khaalid to divorce the wife of Maalik, and ‘Umar rebuked Khaalid sternly about the case of Maalik, but Abu Bakr pardoned him. End quote.

This is the most that can be said about the story of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah. Either he was correct in killing him for withholding zakaah and denying that it was obligatory after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or he made a mistake and Khaalid rushed to kill him when he should have examined the matter and established proof. Whatever the case, this is not a slander against Khaalid (may Allaah be pleased with him).

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Minhaaj al-Sunnah (5/518):

It is not known whether the blood of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was protected by sharee’ah, and we have no proof of that. The most that can be said about the story of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah is that his blood was protected and that Khaalid killed him as the result of a misjudgement. This does not mean that it would be permissible to kill Khaalid (in retaliation), just as when Usaamah ibn Zayd killed the man who said Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him: “O Usaamah, did you kill him after he said Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah? O Usaamah, did you kill him after he said Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah? O Usaamah, did you kill him after he said Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah?” He denounced him for killing him, but he did not order that he be killed in retaliation or require him to pay diyah or offer any expiation.

Muhammad ibn Jareer al-Tabari and others narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that this verse – “and say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islam): ‘You are not a believer’” [al-Nisa’ 4:94] – was revealed concerning Mardaas, a man from Ghatafaan. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent an army to his people, whose leader was Ghaalib al-Laythi, and his companions fled but he did not flee, and he said, I am a believer.  The cavalry came to him and he greeted them with salaam, but they killed him and took his sheep. Then Allaah revealed this verse and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered that his wealth be returned to his people and that the diyah for him be paid to them, and he forbade the believers to do such things. Similarly, Khaalid ibn al-Waleed killed Banu Judhaymah as the result of misjudgement, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) raised his hands and said: “O Allaah, I disavow before You what Khaalid has done.” But despite that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not execute him because he had acted on the basis of a misjudgement. As the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not execute him even though he had killed more than one of the Muslims of Banu Judhaymah on the basis of a misjudgement, so it was more appropriate that Abu Bakr did not execute him for killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah.

As for the accusation that Khaalid ibn al-Waleed (may Allaah be pleased with him) killed Maalik ibn Nuwayrah so that he could marry his wife because he desired his wife, it seems that this is an early accusation that Maalik himself and some of his followers also made, but they had no clear evidence for that. Rather it seems that he said that in order to conceal the real reason why he was killed, which was withholding zakaah. This is indicated by the discussion between Khaalid and Maalik that was narrated by al-Waaqidi.

Al-Waaqidi said in Kitaab al-Riddah (107-108):

Maalik ibn Nuwayrah turned to his wife and looked at her, then he said: O Khaalid, for this will you kill me?

Khaalid said: No, rather for the sake of Allaah I will kill you, because of your recanting the religion of Allaah and your withholding the zakaah camels, and your telling your people to withhold the zakaah of their wealth that is due from them. Then Khaalid issued orders that he brought forward and his neck be struck.

It was said that Khaalid ibn al-Waleed married the wife of Maalik and consummated the marriage with her, and the scholars are agreed on that. End quote.

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said in al-Isaabah (5/755):

Thaabit ibn Qaasim narrated in al-Dalaa’il that Khaalid saw the wife of Maalik – who was very beautiful – and after that Maalik said to his wife: You have killed me! Meaning: I will be killed because of you.

He said this as speculation, and it so happened that he was killed, but he was not killed because of the woman as he thought. End quote.

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said in al-Sawaa’iq al-Muhriqah (1/91):

The correct view is that Khaalid did not deserve to be executed because Maalik apostatized and returned his people’s zakaah to them when he heard of the death of the Messenger of Allaah, as the apostates did, and Maalik’s brother admitted that to ‘Umar.

With regard to his marrying his wife, perhaps it was because her ‘iddah ended by her giving birth immediately after he died, or it may be that she was detained in his home after the end of her ‘iddah according to Jaahili custom. Whatever the case, Khaalid was too pious a man for anyone to think that he would do such a shameful deed that was not done by even the least of the believers, so how about the Sword of Allaah that was unsheathed against His enemies? What Abu Bakr did was right, not what ‘Umar suggested to him. That is supported by the fact that when ‘Umar was appointed caliph, he did not prosecute Khaalid or rebuke him, and he never mentioned this matter to him, so it is known that he realized that what Abu Bakr did was right, and he recanted his objection. Otherwise he would not have ignored the issue when he had the power and authority to deal with it, because he feared Allaah and would not compromise with regard to His sacred limits. End quote.

Dr. ‘Ali al-Sallaabi said in his book Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (219):

To sum up, there are those who accused Khaalid of marrying Umm Tameem immediately after she fell into his hands, because he could not be patient in the face of her beauty and his desire for her, in which case his marriage to her – Allaah forbid – would have been an act of immorality. This is a recently fabricated view that is of no worth, because the classical sources make no reference to it. Rather it is contrary to the clear texts. Al-Maawirdi said in al-Ahkaam al-Sultaaniyyah (47) that what made Khaalid kill Maalik was his withholding the zakaah, which made it permissible to shed his blood. Thus the marriage contract between him and Umm Tameem was invalidated, and the ruling on the wives of apostates, if they live in dar al-harb, is that they are to be taken prisoner, not killed, as was indicated by al-Sarkhasi in al-Mabsoot (10/111). When Umm Tameem was taken prisoner, Khaalid chose her for himself, and when she became permissible for him he consummated the marriage with her as is stated in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah.

Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir commented on this issue by saying: Khaalid took her and had intercourse with her as a concubine because she was a prisoner, and there is no ‘iddah in the case of a prisoner, but it is completely haraam for her master to approach her if she is pregnant, before she gives birth, or if she is not pregnant, before she has had one menstrual period. Then he may have intercourse with her and that is something that is permitted according to sharee’ah and no one criticized that except his enemies who were opposed to him and saw their opportunity in that action, so they took their chance and started claiming that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was a Muslim, and that Khaalid had killed him because of his wife. As for what they said about him marrying his wife on the night that he was killed, this is something that is not proven. If it were proven, there may be a way to explain it which would mean that Khaalid could not be stoned to death. The fuqaha’ differ concerning the ‘iddah of a woman whose husband has died – is it required in the case of a kaafir husband? There are two views. They also differed as to whether a dhimmi woman is obliged to observe the ‘iddah following the death of her husband. There are two views that are well known among the Muslims, unlike the ‘iddah following divorce. The reason for that is intercourse; it is essential that it be established that the womb is empty. As for the ‘iddah following the death of the husband, it is required as soon as the marriage contract is drawn up. If he dies before consummating the marriage with her, should she observe ‘iddah following the death of a kaafir husband or not? There is a difference of opinion concerning that. The same applies if he did consummate the marriage with her and she had one menstrual period following the consummation.

This applies if he was originally a kaafir. As for the apostate, if he is killed or he dies in his apostasy, then according to the view of al-Shaafa’i, Ahmad, Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad, she does not have to observe the ‘iddah of a woman whose husband has died, rather she should observe the ‘iddah of irrevocable divorce, because the marriage became invalid when the husband apostatized. This separation is not a divorce (talaaq) according to al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad, but it is a divorce (talaaq) according to Maalik and Abu Haneefah, hence they did not oblige her to observe the ‘iddah of one whose husband has died, rather she should observe the ‘iddah of irrevocable divorce. If he did not consummate the marriage with her then she does not have to observe ‘iddah, just as she does not have to observe the ‘iddah following divorce (talaaq) in that case.

It is known that Khaalid killed Maalik ibn Nuwayrah because he thought that he was an apostate. If he had not consummated the marriage with his wife, then she did not have to observe ‘iddah according to most of the scholars, and if he had consummated the marriage, then she had to wait for one menstrual cycle to establish that the womb was empty, not a full ‘iddah, according to one scholarly opinion; according to the other opinion, she had to wait for three cycles. If he was a kaafir then his wife did not have to observe the ‘iddah following death of the husband according to one scholarly opinion, and if it was required to establish that the womb was empty by waiting for one cycle, then she may have already menstruated. Some of the fuqaha’ regard one cycle as sufficient to establish that the womb is empty, so if she was at the end of her menses, that could have been taken as evidence that her womb was empty.

To sum up, we do not know whether this matter happened in a way that leaves no room for ijtihaad, and making accusations in such a manner is the speech of one who is speaking without knowledge, which is something that is forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger. End quote.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

The Shi’ah claim that the Sahaabah did not attend the funeral of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) refuted

October 18, 2009 at 9:58 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 

 



 

 

 



i

 

1 Votes



quantcast
Praise be to Allaah.

One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607).

None of the groups that claim to belong to the ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is known to tell lies more than the Shi’ah. This is something that has been well known about them from ancient times. The imams referred to that in their books hundreds of years ago, and they still have this hateful charcateristic.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The scholars are agreed, on the basis of reports and chains of narrators, that the Raafidah (the Shi’ah) are the most mendacious of groups and that the lies among them are ancient. Hence the imams defined them as being distinguished by the fact that they are liars.

Imam Maalik was asked about the Raafidah and he said: Do not talk to them and do not narrate from them, because they tell lies.

Imam al-Shaafa’i said: I have never seen anyone who bears false witness more than the Raafidis.

Yazeed ibn Haroon said: You can narrate from any man of innovation (bid’ah), provided that he is not active in calling others to his innovation, except al-Raafidah, because they are liars.

Shareek al-Qaadi said: Acquire knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidah, for they fabricate hadeeth and take that as their religion.

This Shareek is Shareek ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Qaadi, the qaadi of Kufah, one of the peers of al-Thawri and Abu Haneefah. He is one of the Shi’ah who said with his own tongue: I am one of the Shi’ah, and this was his testimony concerning them.

These reports are proven; they were narrated by Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra by him and others. End quote from Minhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (1/26-27).

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died on 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal 11 AH, after the sun had passed its zenith, and he was buried on the Tuesday night, after all the people of Madeenah had offered the funeral prayer for him, as Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: Some people came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left; then others came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left, until all the people had come in. Narrated by al-Tirmidhi in al-Shamaa’il (p. 338) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in his review.

None of these Sahaabah who offered the funeral prayer for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and were in Madeenah on that day should be thought of as having done anything but attend the funeral of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is something so obvious as to need no proof or evidence. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was dearer to them than their spouses, fathers, mothers and children; he was even dearer to them than their own selves, as Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: No person was dearer to them than the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2754) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

But some people’s hearts are filled with hate and resentment against Islam and its people, so they fabricate lies against them and slander them falsely, although they (the Sahaabah) are the best of people after the Prophets and Messengers of Allaah, according to the testimony of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said: “The best of people are my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2652) and Muslim (2532).

The one who slanders, denigrates and reviles them is in fact slandering the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), for they are his companions, students and supporters, and they are the dearest of people to him.

There are reports which show that they attended his funeral, and the matter is too clear to need any evidence, as stated above.

It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The day that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered Madeenah was the brightest of all, and the day on which he died was the darkest of all, and as soon as we had finished burying the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), we felt that our hearts had changed.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (3618) and classed as saheeh by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (5/239).

Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said, when the people came back from burying her father (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): O Anas, how could you bear to cover the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with earth? Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4462).

So where did these people get this fabrication?

But it is no wonder that they denied something that is well known and that no Muslim should be unaware of, and they denied that the Qur’aan is preserved, and they claimed that it was distorted and that something was taken away from it, and they impugned the honour of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and they reviled his Companions in the worst manner, even though their virtue is mentioned in the Holy Qur’aan and the mutawaatir ahaadeeth from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), on which the ummah is unanimously agreed. It is no wonder that those who denied these things would come up with a fabrication like this. “And Allaah encompasses them from behind! (i.e. all their deeds are within His Knowledge, and He will requite them for their deeds)” [al-Burooj 85:20]; “And those who do wrong will come to know by what overturning they will be overturned” [al-Shu’ara’ 26:227].

We ask Allaah to support His religion and cause His Word to prevail, and to defeat falsehood and its people.

May Allaah send blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Altering Athan by Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, Allegation refuted

October 18, 2009 at 8:50 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 



 

 

 



 

i

 



2 Votes

quantcast
All praise be to Allah, and may His peace and blessings be on the greatest messenger, Muhammad. This is another lie against the best companions of the best Messenger of Allah (may Allah be pleased with them all). That book may be referring to some rumors that circulate between them, which is in part based on a report in the Muwatta’ of Imam Malik, in which it is said,
” وَحَدَّثَنِي عن مَالِكٍ أَنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ أَنَّ الْمُؤَذِّنَ جاء إلى عُمَرَ بن الْخَطَّابِ يُؤْذِنُهُ لِصَلاَةِ الصُّبْحِ فَوَجَدَهُ نَائِمًا فقال الصَّلاَةُ خَيْرٌ مِنَ النَّوْمِ فَأَمَرَهُ عُمَرُ أَنْ يَجْعَلَهَا في نِدَاءِ الصُّبْحِ”
“And Malik told me that he was told that the Mu’adhen came to ‘Omar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) to alert him to the prayer of subh (morning) and found him asleep, so he said, “Prayer is better than sleep” so ‘Omar ordered him to make it in the call to the subh (morning) prayer.” (Muwatta’ Malik, Dar Ihya’ at-Turaath al-‘Arabi, Egypt, 1/72). This report is not authentic for Malik does not say who told him ‘Omar did that. Al-Qurtubi said,
” وأما قول مالك في الموطأ أنه بلغه أن المؤذن جاء إلى عمر بن الخطاب يؤذنه بصلاة الصبح فوجده نائما فقال الصلاة خير من النوم فأمره عمر أن يجعلها في نداء الصبح فلا أعلم أن هذا روى عن عمر من جهة يحتج بها وتعلم صحتها.”
“And as for Malik’s statement …., I do not know that this was ever reported from ‘Omar through a chain that is credible and known to be authentic.” (Tafseer al-Qurtubi, Dar ash-Sha’b, Cairo, 6/228). There are reports to this effect by Ibn Abi Shaibah and ad-Daraqutni and they are not authentic, for they have unknown narrators. The reason why Ahl-us-Sunnah were keen to record everything, including that which was reported through weak chains is to preserve all reports for the examination of all generations, and for the record. If the report was true, which it is not, then ‘Omar meant that the Mu’adhen should only use this phrase in his adhaan, not at the door of the khaleefah, out of fear that some would start to make this a habit and repeat parts of the adhaan at the door of the khaleefah. (See Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 6/228 for more clarification and that was the explanation of the commentators on the Muwatta’ such as al-Bajey and others). This part of adhaan was from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and it was both in Maccah and al-Madeenah, and called by both Bilal and Abi Mahdhoorah. Abu Dawood authentically reported from the grandson of Abi Mahdhoorah from his father from Abi Mahdhoorah that he said,
“قال قلت يا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عَلِّمْنِي سُنَّةَ الْأَذَانِ قال فَمَسَحَ مُقَدَّمَ رَأْسِي وقال تَقُولُ الله أَكْبَرُ الله أَكْبَرُ الله أَكْبَرُ الله أَكْبَرُ تَرْفَعُ بها صَوْتَكَ ثُمَّ تَقُولُ أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إلا الله أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إلا الله أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رسول اللَّهِ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رسول اللَّهِ تَخْفِضُ بها صَوْتَكَ ثُمَّ تَرْفَعُ صَوْتَكَ بِالشَّهَادَةِ أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إلا الله أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إلا الله أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رسول اللَّهِ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رسول اللَّهِ حَيَّ على الصَّلَاةِ حَيَّ على الصَّلَاةِ حَيَّ على الْفَلَاحِ حَيَّ على الْفَلَاحِ فَإِنْ كان صَلَاةُ الصُّبْحِ قُلْتَ الصَّلَاةُ خَيْرٌ من النَّوْمِ الصَّلَاةُ خَيْرٌ من النَّوْمِ الله أَكْبَرُ الله أَكْبَرُ لَا إِلَهَ إلا الله.”
“I said, O messenger of Allah, teach me the sunnah (proper method) of adhaan, so he (peace and blessings be upon him) wiped on my forelock and forehead and said, say…and when it is the prayer of as-Subh (morning), say, as-salaatu khairun mina an-nawm (prayer is better than sleep)…” (Abu Dawood, dar al-Fikr, Beirut, Chapter of the Description of Adhaan, 1/136). Ibn Majah reported authentically from Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyeb from Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him),
“أَنَّهُ أتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يُؤْذِنُهُ بِصَلَاةِ الْفَجْرِ فَقِيلَ هو نَائِمٌ فقال الصَّلَاةُ خَيْرٌ من النَّوْمِ الصَّلَاةُ خَيْرٌ من النَّوْمِ فَأُقِرَّتْ في تَأْذِينِ الْفَجْرِ فَثَبَتَ الْأَمْرُ على ذلك”
“that he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to alert him to the prayer of fajr (morning) and it was said that he (peace and blessings be upon him) is asleep. He (Bilal) said, “prayer is better than sleep” and then it was made part of the adhaan for fajr, and was there ever since.” (Sunna Ibn Majah, dar al-Fikr, Beirut, Chapter of the Beginning of Adhaan, 1/72). This part of adhaan was known during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and was Bilal’s adhaan. Suwaid ibn Ghaflah sent to his mu’adhen saying, “When you reach “hayy ala al-falaah”, then say “as-salaatu khairun mina an-nawm”, for this was the adhaan of Bilal. Bilal did not make adhaan after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), nor did ‘Omar hear his adhaan except once, when they opened Jerusalem. (See Tafseer al-Qurtubi, Dar ash-Sha’b, Cairo, 6/228). It is without any doubt that ‘Omar did not add this part to the adhaan, and if one of the rightly guided khaleefahs recommended anything, it is in conformity with the sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), for he said, ” فَعَلَيْكُمْ بِسُنَّتِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ” “Follow my sunnah and that of the rightly guided righteous khaleefahs after me” (Sunan Ibn Majah, dar al-Fikr, Beirut, chapter of following the sunnah of the rightly guided righteous khaleefahs, 1/15, Mustadrak al-Hakim & Sunan al-Baihaqi) This does not mean they would add to the religion, nor would it mean they were infallible, but rather their methodology is a guided one.
‘Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) was of the most diligent followers of the sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). He said, speaking to the Blackstone, “والله لقد عَلِمْتُ أَنَّكَ حَجَرٌ وَلَوْلَا أَنِّي رأيت رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُقَبِّلُكَ ما قَبَّلْتُكَ” “By Allah, I know that you are a stone, and had it not been that I saw the messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) kiss you I would have not kissed you.” (Agreed upon, and the quoted wording is from Muslim, Book of Hajj, Chapter of Kissing the Blackstone). The enemies of ‘Omar are so intrigued in assassinating his character and personality because of his stature that is undeniable by any possessor of sound intellect. It is he who – by the grace of Allah – defeated the evil empires of the Romans and Persians, and it was he who rescued their subjects in ash-Sham, Egypt, Iraq, parts of Turkey, Libya and Persia itself from the oppression of their rulers and systems to the justice of Islam. His virtues, justice, tolerance and brilliance are acknowledged by those of his adversaries amongst the European historians who have some degree of sensibility, fairness and impartiality. The authors of the Columbia History of the World said the following, “Umar’s organizational abilities also contributed greatly to the Arabs’ success. He regularized the legal position of the millions of non-Muslim subjects in his domain and set up an efficient administrative system for the empire. Muhammad established the precedent of “tolerance” for the “People of the Book,” the Jewish and Christian communities in the northern Hijaz. ‘Umar left these communities undistributed except for the payment of an annual tribute in the form of poll tax (jizya); indeed, he extended the principle of toleration to cover not only all Christians and Jews in the empire, but also the Zoroastrians of Persia. Non-Muslims groups formed their own self-administered communities, lived under their own civil codes, and were governed by their own religious leaders.” (The Columbia History of the World, Harper & Brown 1972, 1st Ed., pp. 264). He was counted as one of the 100 most influential figures in the History of mankind by Michael Hart, who said, “After Muhammad himself, he [‘Omar] was the principal figure in the spread of Islam…some expansion was bound to occur, but not to the enormous extent that it did under ‘Umar’s brilliant leadership.” (The 100, by Michael Hart, Citadel Press, NY, 1992, pp. 261-265). We say, it was the grace of Allah and his help and support of ‘Omar that helped him do all of this, for he received no training in leadership or administration to rank above figures like Julius Caesar according to a westerner. Here is a piece of poetry about ‘Omar al-Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him), which records in poetic verses the story of the ally of Chosroes who was surprised when he saw ‘Omar, the “king” who defeated the greatest two empires of the time sleeping under a tree, without guards, and covered by a piece of worn out cloth,
قد راع صاحب كسرى أن رأى عُمراً *** بين الرّعية عُطـلاً وهو راعيهـا
وعهـده بِملـوك الفُـرس أن لـها *** سُوراً من الجند والأحراس يَحميها
رآه مُستغرقـاً في نـومـه فـرأى *** فـيه الجلالـة في أسْـمى معانيها
فوق الثرى تحت ظلّ الدّوح مُشتمِلاً *** بِبُردة كـاد طـول العهد يُبليهـا
فَـهـان في عينـه مـا كـان يُكبِره *** من الأكاسِـر والدنيا بأيـديهـا
وقال قولَـة حـقّ أصبحت مَـثلاً *** وأصبح الجيل بعـد الجيل يَرويهـا
أمِنتَ لَمّـا أقمـتَ العـدل بينهم *** فَنمتَ نـوم قـرير العين هانيهـا
It shocked the partner of Chosroes to have seen ‘Omar between the public as one of them, when he is their leader. His experience with the kings of Persia was to have fences of soldiers and guards for their protection. He saw him in deep sleep, and saw in him majesty in its greatest expression. On the soil, underneath a tree, covered by a piece of cloth, which is worn out by the passage of time. So, he despised what he used to think was majestic about the kings of Persia, who had all the world under their control. And he then said a statement of truth that became a dictum and generations narrate it one after another. You have become secure when you established justice between them, and thus, slept with contentment and comfort. There is no wonder that ‘Omar was who he was! Is not it Allah’s best of creation and greatest of Messengers who said about him,
“أُرِيتُ في الْمَنَامِ أَنِّي أَنْزِعُ بِدَلْوِ بَكْرَةٍ على قَلِيبٍ فَجَاءَ أبو بَكْرٍ فَنَزَعَ ذَنُوبًا أو ذَنُوبَيْنِ نَزْعًا ضَعِيفًا وَاللَّهُ يَغْفِرُ له ثُمَّ جاء عُمَرُ بن الْخَطَّابِ فَاسْتَحَالَتْ غَرْبًا فلم أَرَ عَبْقَرِيًّا يَفْرِي فَرِيَّهُ حتى رَوِيَ الناس وَضَرَبُوا بِعَطَنٍ قال بن جُبَيْرٍ الْعَبْقَرِيُّ عِتَاقُ الزَّرَابِيِّ وقال يحيى الزَّرَابِيُّ الطَّنَافِسُ لها خَمْلٌ رَقِيقٌ مَبْثُوثَةٌ كَثِيرَةٌ”
“While I was sleeping, I saw myself standing at a well, on it there was a bucket. I drew water from the well as much as Allah wished. Then Ibn Abi Quhafa (i.e. Abu Bakr) took the bucket from me and brought out one or two buckets (of water) and there was weakness in his drawing the water. May Allah forgive his weakness for him. Then the bucket turned into a very big one and Ibn Al-Khattab took it over and I had never seen such a mighty person amongst the people as him in performing such hard work, till the people drank to their satisfaction and watered their camels that knelt down there.” (al-Bukhari, M. Khan’s translation, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 16). The hadeeth addresses the accomplishments of ‘Omar, but when it comes to his ranking, Abu Bakr is greater than him and second to none of the ummah other than Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The accomplishments of ‘Omar were a result of Allah’s support to him, not mere intelligence, for he was a tribesman, who did not grow up in royal courts, nor did he receive training in war tactics, particularly when it comes to fighting with the worlds two greatest superpowers at the time. In summary, it was because of his piety and Allah’s grace on him, and why not when it is he who scares the Shaytaan away, as the Prophet said in the following hadeeth,
“إِيهًا يا بن الْخَطَّابِ وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بيده ما لَقِيَكَ الشَّيْطَانُ سَالِكًا فَجًّا قَطُّ إلا سَلَكَ فَجًّا غير فَجِّكَ.”
“”O Ibn Al-Khattab! By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Never does Satan find you going on a way, but he takes another way other than yours.” (al-Bukhari, M. Khan’s translation, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 32) The companions were very united under his leadership and they knew there was no one on earth better than him after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). And here is what ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had to say about him,
“عن بن أبي مُلَيْكَةَ أَنَّهُ سمع بن عَبَّاسٍ يقول وُضِعَ عُمَرُ على سَرِيرِهِ فَتَكَنَّفَهُ الناس يَدْعُونَ وَيُصَلُّونَ قبل أَنْ يُرْفَعَ وأنا فِيهِمْ فلم يَرُعْنِي إلا رَجُلٌ آخِذٌ مَنْكِبِي فإذا عَلِيُّ بن أبي طَالِبٍ فَتَرَحَّمَ على عُمَرَ وقال ما خَلَّفْتَ أَحَدًا أَحَبَّ إلي أَنْ ألقي اللَّهَ بِمِثْلِ عَمَلِهِ مِنْكَ وأيم اللَّهِ إن كنت لَأَظُنُّ أَنْ يَجْعَلَكَ الله مع صَاحِبَيْكَ وَحَسِبْتُ إني كنت كَثِيرًا أَسْمَعُ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول ذَهَبْتُ أنا وأبو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَدَخَلْتُ أنا وأبو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَخَرَجْتُ أنا وأبو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ.”
“Ibn ‘Abbas said, While I was standing amongst the people who were invoking Allah for Umar bin Al-Khattab who was lying (dead) on his bed, a man behind me rested his elbows on my shoulder, I turned back to see that the speaker was Ali bin Abi Talib and he said, “(O `Umar!) May Allah bestow His Mercy on you. I always hoped that Allah will keep you with your two companions, for I often heard Allah`s Apostle saying, “I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went (somewhere). I, Abu Bakr and `Umar came in. I, Abu Bakr and `Umar set out.` So I hoped that Allah will keep you with both of them.” ( al-Bukhari, M. Khan’s translation, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 26) Dear brother, let us learn the history of the greatest students and disciples of the greatest teacher and messenger, and if anyone attempted to discredit them, then let me remind you of the statement of Imam Abi Zur’ah (may Allah bestow mercy on him),
“إذا رأيت الرجل ينتقص أحداً من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاعلم أنه زنديق، وذلك أن الرسول حق والقرآن حق وما جاء به حق وإنما أدى إلينا ذلك كله الصحابة وهؤلاء يريدون أن يجرحوا شهودنا ليبطلوا الكتاب والسنة، والجرح بهم أولى وهم زنادقة”
“When you see a man put down one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), know that he is zindeeq (heretic). That is because the Messenger is true and the Quran is true and what he (the Messenger) brought forth to us is true and all of this was conveyed to us by the companions. Those people want to discredit our witnesses to invalidate the Quran and Sunnah and they are the most worthy of dispraise, and they are zanadiqah (heretics).”
I would recommend for you to establish yourself in the true knowledge of Islam, and then you may read for others after being well grounded in the knowledge of the sunnah and mainstream Islam. Then, you will have answers ready for any suspicion that gets out in your way. Otherwise, such suspicions and distortions can devour your faith. O Allah, send your peace and blessings on Muhammad, his family and companions. Allah knows best.

Answered by
Sheikh Hatem Mohammad Al-Haj Aly
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page