حضرت ابوبکر (رض) کا پچاس لوگوں کے بعد اسلام لانا
Friday, April 27, 2012Posted by
abdullah
0 Comments
سنی طالب علم کا اپنے استاد سے کئے گئے سوالات
حضرت ابوبکر (رض) کا پچاس لوگوں کے بعد اسلام لانا
سوال ۱: کیا یہ صحیح کہا جاتا ہے کہ حضرت ابوبکر(رض) پچاس لوگوں یہاں
تک کہ حضرت عمر(رض) کے بھی بعد اسلام لائے جیسا کہ حضرت سعد بن ابی
وقاص(رض) سے نقل کیاگیا ہے.لہذا یہ کہنا جھوٹ ہو گا کہ وہ سب سے پہلے اسلام
لائے : ﴿﴿محمد بن سعد ، قلت لأبی : أکان أبوبکر أوّل اسلاما ؟ فقال : لا ولقد أسلم قبلہ أکثر من خمسین ﴾﴾
تاریخ طبری ج ۱: ص 4 + فتح الباری شرح صحیح بخاری۷: ۹۲، عسقلانی کہتے ہیں : فقد کان حینئذ جماعۃ من أسلم لکنّھم کانوایخفونہ من أقاربھم .
۔خالد بن سعید کا حضرت ابوبکر (رض) سے پہلے اسلام لانا
سوال ۲:کیا
یہ درست نہیں ہے کہ خالد بن سعید بن عاص حضرت ابو بکر سے پہلے اسلام لا
چکے تھے اور محمد بن ابو بکر اور دسیوں مؤرخین کے بقول جو شخص سب سے پہلے
اسلام لایا وہ حضرت علی(رض) تھے ؟ جیسا کہ حضرت معاویہ کے نام ایک نامے میں
اس حقیقت کا اعتراف کیاہے .اگر یہ سب حقیقت رکھتا ہے جیسا کہ ہمارے مؤرخین
نے کہا ہے تو پھر کیا وجہ ہے کہ ہم اس قدر اصرار کرتے ہیں کہ سب سے پہلے
اسلام لانے والے حضرت ابو بکر (رض)ہیں ؟
کیا اس جھوٹی سازش کا مقصد خلیفہ اوّل کی شان بڑھانا ہے یا یہ کہ خلیفہ چہارم کی شان گھٹانا ہے ؟
۱۔ خط محمد بن ابوبکر (رض) : ﴿﴿فکان أوّل من أجاب وأناب وآمن و صدّق ووافق فأسلم وسلّم أخوہ وابن عمّہ علیّ وھوالسّابق المبرز فی کلّ خیر ، أوّل النّاس اسلاما ﴾﴾ ۔شرح نہج البلاغہ ،ابن ابی الحدید ۳: ۸۸۱
۲۔ابو الیقظان : ﴿﴿انّ خالد بن سعید بن العاص أسلم قبل أبی بکر الصدّیق﴾حوالہ :المستدرک علی الصحیحین ۳: ۸۷۲
کیا اس جھوٹی سازش کا مقصد خلیفہ اوّل کی شان بڑھانا ہے یا یہ کہ خلیفہ چہارم کی شان گھٹانا ہے ؟
۱۔ خط محمد بن ابوبکر (رض) : ﴿﴿فکان أوّل من أجاب وأناب وآمن و صدّق ووافق فأسلم وسلّم أخوہ وابن عمّہ علیّ وھوالسّابق المبرز فی کلّ خیر ، أوّل النّاس اسلاما ﴾﴾ ۔شرح نہج البلاغہ ،ابن ابی الحدید ۳: ۸۸۱
۲۔ابو الیقظان : ﴿﴿انّ خالد بن سعید بن العاص أسلم قبل أبی بکر الصدّیق﴾حوالہ :المستدرک علی الصحیحین ۳: ۸۷۲
۳۔ سعد بن ابی وقاص :ابو بکر سے پہلے پچاس سے زیادہ لوگ اسلام لا چکے تھے . تاریخ طبری۱: ۰۴۵
۴۔ امام زہری: حضرت عمر (رض) تقریبا چالیس لوگوں کے بعد اسلام لائے .تاریخ الاسلام﴿ السّیرۃ النبویّۃ ﴾ : ۰۸۱؛ طبقات ابن سعد ۳: ۹۶۲؛ صفۃ الصفوۃ ۱: ۴۷۲
۴۔ امام زہری: حضرت عمر (رض) تقریبا چالیس لوگوں کے بعد اسلام لائے .تاریخ الاسلام﴿ السّیرۃ النبویّۃ ﴾ : ۰۸۱؛ طبقات ابن سعد ۳: ۹۶۲؛ صفۃ الصفوۃ ۱: ۴۷۲
ابو قحافہ حضرت رسول اکرم صلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ کو گالیاں دیا کرتے تھے
Posted by
abdullah
کتب اہلسنت خصوصا تفاسیر اہلسنت میں آیا ہے کہ: خلیفہ اول کے والدماجد ابو قحافہ حضرت رسول اکرم صلی اللہ علیہ {و آلہ} کو گالیاں دیا کرتے تھے
أن أبا قحافة سب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فصكه ابو بكر الصديق صكة شديدة سقط منها
حوالہ :زاد المسير في علم التفسير ج 8 ص 198
المؤلف : عبد الرحمن بن علي بن محمد الجوزي
الناشر : المكتب الإسلامي - بيروت
آن لائن کتاب
8/198صفحہ
Is Abubakr the Rightly Guided Caliph..??
Tuesday, March 27, 2012Posted by
abdullah
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Without hurting your feelings I would Like to post a question for all of us to ponder without any prejudice.
Allah (s.w.t.) sent Islam which was explained to us by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.).
Without hurting your feelings I would Like to post a question for all of us to ponder without any prejudice.
Allah (s.w.t.) sent Islam which was explained to us by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.).
Now the Holy Prophet taught us how to pray and he himself used to pray properly and on time.He taught us how to fast and he also used to fast.He taught us how to do Haj, Pay Zakat, and other acts of religion, and he also used to do the aforesaid acts.
Now Allah (s.w.t.) tells in the Quran that a person should make his will before dying. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) also told us to make a will, then is it possible that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) who himself told us to make a will himself would not do so.
Did the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) not make a will and appoint a successor so that there is no confusion about Islam after him.?????
Now there can be two answers to this.
1. He made a will and appointed a successor
2. He did not make a will and did not appoint a successor.
Before we move ahead lets peep in to history and study what happened after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). and how Abubakar was appointed as the first caliph.
After the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) people assembled at a place called Saqifa e Bani Saadat. and there they elected abubakar as the first caliph. Thus abubakar was elected as the first caliph on the whims and fancy of a few people. The details of this is available in various sunni books.
Now coming back to our first answer.
1. The Holy Prophet made a will and did appoint a caliph.
Now if the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had already appointed a caliph then the people did not have any right to appoint abubakar as the caliph via elections. Abubakr is the elected representative of the people as we elect via general elections he is not the representative of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w). Obeying and following him in now way is incumbent on the people and his khilafat is in now was justifiable as the successor ship of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) as he was appointed by the people and not the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). Now if the Holy Prophet had already appointed a caliph then electing some one is going against the orders Allah (s.w.w.) and the order of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), and is usurping the rights of the rightfully appointed caliph. Thus the khilafat of Abubakar is wrong and against the orders of Allah (s.w.w.) and the orders of the Holy Prophet (s..w.w.)
Now discussing the second answer.
2. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w) did not make a will and did not appoint a successor.
The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) never went against the commands of Allah (s.w.w.) and never disobeyed him. His not appointing a successor means that Allah (s.w.w.) did not want to appoint one. Did Allah (s.w.t.) commit a mistake by not appointing a successor to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and the people rectified it by appointing abubakar. The Holy Prophet not selecting anybody to succeed him means that Allah (s.w.t.) did not want the affairs of the religion to go into the hands of anybody. Thus electing abubakar once against means going against the commands of Allah (s.w.t.). Here also the khilafat of abubakar is against the orders of Allah (s.w.t.) and the orders of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.).
Thus the khilafat of abubakar is wrong and unislamic. When goes the khilafat of abubakar then automatically goes down the khilafat of umar and usman.
I do not want to hurt your feelings and would like to ponder over what I have said without prejudice. I would welcome any comments and arguments and would infact be very happy if some one guides me to the right path if I am wrong.
Any body needing further references to what happened at Saqifa can visit the following link
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/saqifa/en/index.php
Allahhafiz.
Now Allah (s.w.t.) tells in the Quran that a person should make his will before dying. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) also told us to make a will, then is it possible that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) who himself told us to make a will himself would not do so.
Did the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) not make a will and appoint a successor so that there is no confusion about Islam after him.?????
Now there can be two answers to this.
1. He made a will and appointed a successor
2. He did not make a will and did not appoint a successor.
Before we move ahead lets peep in to history and study what happened after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). and how Abubakar was appointed as the first caliph.
After the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) people assembled at a place called Saqifa e Bani Saadat. and there they elected abubakar as the first caliph. Thus abubakar was elected as the first caliph on the whims and fancy of a few people. The details of this is available in various sunni books.
Now coming back to our first answer.
1. The Holy Prophet made a will and did appoint a caliph.
Now if the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had already appointed a caliph then the people did not have any right to appoint abubakar as the caliph via elections. Abubakr is the elected representative of the people as we elect via general elections he is not the representative of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w). Obeying and following him in now way is incumbent on the people and his khilafat is in now was justifiable as the successor ship of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) as he was appointed by the people and not the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). Now if the Holy Prophet had already appointed a caliph then electing some one is going against the orders Allah (s.w.w.) and the order of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), and is usurping the rights of the rightfully appointed caliph. Thus the khilafat of Abubakar is wrong and against the orders of Allah (s.w.w.) and the orders of the Holy Prophet (s..w.w.)
Now discussing the second answer.
2. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w) did not make a will and did not appoint a successor.
The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) never went against the commands of Allah (s.w.w.) and never disobeyed him. His not appointing a successor means that Allah (s.w.w.) did not want to appoint one. Did Allah (s.w.t.) commit a mistake by not appointing a successor to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and the people rectified it by appointing abubakar. The Holy Prophet not selecting anybody to succeed him means that Allah (s.w.t.) did not want the affairs of the religion to go into the hands of anybody. Thus electing abubakar once against means going against the commands of Allah (s.w.t.). Here also the khilafat of abubakar is against the orders of Allah (s.w.t.) and the orders of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.).
Thus the khilafat of abubakar is wrong and unislamic. When goes the khilafat of abubakar then automatically goes down the khilafat of umar and usman.
I do not want to hurt your feelings and would like to ponder over what I have said without prejudice. I would welcome any comments and arguments and would infact be very happy if some one guides me to the right path if I am wrong.
Any body needing further references to what happened at Saqifa can visit the following link
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/saqifa/en/index.php
Allahhafiz.
Labels:
English
Abu Bakr as Leader in Prayers (s)
Friday, March 16, 2012Posted by
abdullah
The Sunni historians claim that when Muhammad Mustafa was unable to attend the public prayers because of his illness, he ordered Abu Bakr to lead the congregational prayers, and they put this forward as "proof" that he wanted him (Abu Bakr) to become his successor.There are various versions of this story extant. According to one, Bilal came to ask the Prophet if he would lead the prayer, and he said: "No, tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer."
There is a second version in which at prayer time, the Prophet asked a certain Abdullah bin Zama'a where was Abu Bakr. Ibn Zama'a went out to call Abu Bakr but could not find him. But he found Umar, and asked him to lead the prayer. But when Umar called the takbir (Allah-o-Akbar), the Prophet heard him, and said: "No! No! Allah and the believers forbid that. Tell Abu Bakr to do so."
As per the third story, the Prophet asked those around him if the time for prayer had come. They said that it had, whereupon he asked them to tell Abu Bakr to lead the congregation. But his wife, Ayesha, said that her father was a very tenderhearted man, and if he saw his (the Prophet's) place in the mosque empty, he (Abu Bakr) would cry, and no one would be able to hear his voice. But he (the Prophet) insisted that Abu Bakr act as the prayer-leader.
There are some other stories also like these in the history books and the substance of them all is that Abu Bakr led the congregation in prayer(s) during the last days of the Prophet on this earth.
Muhammad ibn Ishaq
Ibn Shihab said, Abdullah b. Abu Bakr b. Abdur Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hisham told me from his father from Abdullah b. Zama'a b. al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib b. Asad that when the Apostle was seriously ill and I with a number of Muslims was with him, Bilal called him to prayer, and he told us to ordersomeone to preside at prayer. So I went out and there was Umar with the people, but Abu Bakr was not there. I told Umar to get up and lead the prayers, so he did so, and when he shouted Allah Akbar, the Apostle heard his voice, for he had a powerful voice, and he asked where Abu Bakr was, saying twice over, "God and the Muslims forbid that." So I was sent to Abu Bakr and he came after Umar had finished that prayer and presided. Umar asked me what on earth I had done, saying, "When you told me to lead the prayer, I thought that the Apostle had given you orders to that effect; but for that I would not have done so." I replied that he had not ordered me to do so, but when I could not find Abu Bakr I thought that he (Umar) was most worthy of those present to lead the prayer. (The Life of the Messenger of God)
Foregoing is the earliest extant account of the story that Abu Bakr led the prayers. Its narrator was Abdullah b. Zama'a. He himself says that the Apostle ordered him to ask someonewhich means anyone, to lead the prayer, and he did not specifically mention Abu Bakr. Even later, when the Apostle forbade Umar to lead the prayer, he did not order Abu Bakr to take his place. He merely asked where was Abu Bakr.
Abdullah b. Zama'a thought that Umar was "most worthy" to lead the prayer but the Apostle of God did not agree with him.
There is a second version in which at prayer time, the Prophet asked a certain Abdullah bin Zama'a where was Abu Bakr. Ibn Zama'a went out to call Abu Bakr but could not find him. But he found Umar, and asked him to lead the prayer. But when Umar called the takbir (Allah-o-Akbar), the Prophet heard him, and said: "No! No! Allah and the believers forbid that. Tell Abu Bakr to do so."
As per the third story, the Prophet asked those around him if the time for prayer had come. They said that it had, whereupon he asked them to tell Abu Bakr to lead the congregation. But his wife, Ayesha, said that her father was a very tenderhearted man, and if he saw his (the Prophet's) place in the mosque empty, he (Abu Bakr) would cry, and no one would be able to hear his voice. But he (the Prophet) insisted that Abu Bakr act as the prayer-leader.
There are some other stories also like these in the history books and the substance of them all is that Abu Bakr led the congregation in prayer(s) during the last days of the Prophet on this earth.
Muhammad ibn Ishaq
Ibn Shihab said, Abdullah b. Abu Bakr b. Abdur Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hisham told me from his father from Abdullah b. Zama'a b. al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib b. Asad that when the Apostle was seriously ill and I with a number of Muslims was with him, Bilal called him to prayer, and he told us to ordersomeone to preside at prayer. So I went out and there was Umar with the people, but Abu Bakr was not there. I told Umar to get up and lead the prayers, so he did so, and when he shouted Allah Akbar, the Apostle heard his voice, for he had a powerful voice, and he asked where Abu Bakr was, saying twice over, "God and the Muslims forbid that." So I was sent to Abu Bakr and he came after Umar had finished that prayer and presided. Umar asked me what on earth I had done, saying, "When you told me to lead the prayer, I thought that the Apostle had given you orders to that effect; but for that I would not have done so." I replied that he had not ordered me to do so, but when I could not find Abu Bakr I thought that he (Umar) was most worthy of those present to lead the prayer. (The Life of the Messenger of God)
Foregoing is the earliest extant account of the story that Abu Bakr led the prayers. Its narrator was Abdullah b. Zama'a. He himself says that the Apostle ordered him to ask someonewhich means anyone, to lead the prayer, and he did not specifically mention Abu Bakr. Even later, when the Apostle forbade Umar to lead the prayer, he did not order Abu Bakr to take his place. He merely asked where was Abu Bakr.
Abdullah b. Zama'a thought that Umar was "most worthy" to lead the prayer but the Apostle of God did not agree with him.
Sir William Muir
It is related that on one occasion Abu Bakr happened not to be present when the summons to prayer was sounded by Bilal, and that Umar having received, as he erroneously believed, the command of Mohammed to officiate in his room, stood up in the mosque, and in his powerful voice commenced the Takbir, "Great is the Lord!" preparatory to the service. Mohammed overhearing this from his apartment, called out with energy, "No! No! No! The Lord and the whole body of believers forbid it! None but Abu Bakr! Let no one lead the prayer but only he."(The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877)
As stated above, according to the Sunni historians, the purpose of the Apostle in ordering Abu Bakr to lead the prayers was to "promote" the latter as his successor.
It is entirely possible that Abu Bakr led the Muslims in prayer in the lifetime of the Apostle himself. What, however, is not clear is if he did so at the orders of the Apostle, or, at least with his tacit approval. The claim that Abu Bakr led the prayers at the orders of the Prophet is open to question because he was a subaltern in Usama's army, and the Apostle had ordered him to leave Medina and to report to his Commanding Officer at Jorf which, apparently, he never did.
Even if it is assumed that the Apostle ordered Abu Bakr to act as an Imam (prayer-leader), it is still not clear how it became an "endorsement" of his candidacy for succession. After all, Abu Bakr himself, Umar bin al-Khattab, and Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, all three had served under Amr bin Aas in the campaign of Dhat es-Salasil, and had offered their prayers behind him for many weeks. Amr bin Aas had made it plain to all three of them that he was their boss not only in the army but also as a leader in religious services.
As already noted, the Sunni Muslims assert that the Prophet chose Abu Bakr to lead the public prayers just before his death because he wanted the latter to be his khalifa.
Ibn Hajar Makki, a Sunni historian, says in his book, Tatheer al-Janan (page 40):
"Abu Bakr led Muslims in prayer (at the orders of the Apostle). It is, therefore, the consensus of all scholars that his khilafat was by the fiat of the Apostle."
But the same Sunnis also hold the view that leading other Muslims in prayer does not confer any merit upon the leader himself, and that it is not necessary for a man to be "qualified" to act as an Imam (prayer-leader). In this connection, they quote the following "tradition" of the Prophet of Islam on the authority of Abu Hurayra:
Abu Hurayra reports that the Apostle of God said that:
"Prayer is a mandatory duty for you, and you can offer it behind any Muslim even if he is a fasiq (even if he commits major sins)."
According to this "tradition" a fasiq (sinner) is just as well qualified to be an Imam (prayer-leader) as a saint; in the matter of acting as Imam, the sinner and the saint enjoy parity!
John Alden Williams
And hearing and obeying the Imams and the Commanders of the believers (is necessary) - whoever received the Caliphate, whether he is pious or profligate, whether the people agreed on him and were pleased with him or whether he attacked them with the sword until he became Caliph and was called "Commander of the Believers." Going on a holy war (Jihad) is efficacious with a pious or with a dissolute commander until the day of Resurrection; one does not abandon him. Division of the spoils of war and applying the punishments prescribed by the Law is for the Imams. It is not for anyone to criticize them or contend with them. Handing over the alms-money to them (for distribution) is permissible and efficacious; whoever pays them has fulfilled his obligation whether (the Imam) was pious or dissolute. The collective prayer behind the Imam and those he delegates is valid and complete; both prostrations. Whoever repeats them is an innovator, abandoning the tradition and opposed to the Sunna. There is no virtue in his Friday prayer at all, if he does not believe in praying with the Imams, whoever they are, good or bad; the Sunna is to pray two prostrations with them and consider the matter finished. On that let there be no doubt in your bosom. (Some Essential Hanbali Doctrines from a Credal Statement in Themes of Islamic Civilization, p. 31, 1971).
According to the Hanbali verdict quoted above, anyone and everyone can lead the Muslims in prayer. Abu Hurayra and Abu Sufyan are as much qualified to become prayer-leaders as Abu Bakr.
This opinion was formulated by the later generations of the Muslims. One man who didn't share it with them, was Muhammad Mustafa, the Interpreter of God's Last Message to mankind. He considered Umar bin al-Khattab "unqualified" to lead the Muslims in prayer, and forbade him to do so.
The Shia Muslims discount as spurious the "tradition" which Abu Hurayra has attributed to the Prophet of Islam that it is lawful to offer prayer behind anyone, even a fasiq. They say that an Imam (a prayer-leader) must be:
A Muslim
A male
An adult
Sane
Just ('Adil)
Knowledgeable
A man of good reputation, i.e., one known to possess good character.
The story that Abu Bakr led Muslims in prayer in the lifetime of the Prophet, is either true or it is false. If it is true, then it means that he carried out a duty which according to Abu Hurayra and the Sunni jurists and scholars, anyone and everyone else was qualified to perform, and it did not make him "special" in any way; if it is false, then it means that he did not lead any prayer-meeting at all when the Prophet was still alive.
But if this report is true, then it also means that any prayer offered behind Umar bin al-Khattab, is void. The Prophet said that God Himself didn't want Umar to act as prayer-leader. Umar's insistence upon leading the Muslims in prayer, before or after the death of the Prophet, could not possibly make those prayers less unacceptable to God!
Did Imam Ali (A) Accept the Leadership of Abu Bakr?
Sunday, February 12, 2012Posted by
Abu Talha
Q: Many Sunni scholars says that Hazrat Ali a.s had accepted the Caliphat of Abu Bakir ofter six months. It is also mentioned in authentic books of Sunni sources?
A: Things mentioned in Sunni sources are not evidence on us unless their authenticity is proven sepشrately by the verification process which we use for our Hadeeths. Therefore, things such as this which is mentioned in Sahih Muslim or other books is not to be taken as fact but as one historical account which can be true or false depending on the people of the Hadeeth and also the other evidences available.
The key fact to take note of here is that the Imam did not approve of or accept Abu Bakr as a Leader. If he had accepted him as a leader, he would have done so right away, why resist and wait for six months? The very fact that Imam waited shows the lack of approval/acceptance. Now assuming that this historical account is true, which is only an assumption, it does not mean anything. The historical account says that the Imam “baya'” which is an act signifying “paying allegiance”, that does not mean that he approved of the position for the man because his resistance was already known.
The Imam said: “At every stage I kept myself aloof from that struggle of supremacy and power-politics till I found the heretics had openly taken to heresy and schism and were trying to undermine and ruin the religion preached by our Holy Prophet (s). I felt afraid that, even after seeing and recognizing the evil, if I did not stand up to help Islam and the Muslims it would be a worse calamity to me than my losing [political] authority and power over you, which was only a transient and short-lived affair. Therefore, when I stood up amidst the sweeping surge of innovations and schism the dark clouds of heresy dispersed, falsehood and schism were crushed and the religion was saved.” (Peak of Eloquence, Letter 162)
We see that some of the great people in Sunni school have given allegiance to bad governess for other reasons (such as the companions of the Prophet who paid allegiance to Yazeed to stay alive). It is not a sign of approval, acceptance nor that the person is worthy of the position he has taken.
In the same speech mentioned above the Imam says his disapproval and disbelief in the actions of the people: “When the Holy Prophet (s) passed away, the Muslims started a tug-of-war for the caliphate. I swear by Allah that at that juncture it could not even be imagined that the Arabs would snatch the seat of the caliphate from the family and descendants of the Holy Prophet (s) and that they would be swearing the oath of allegiance for the caliphate to a different person.”
Labels:
English
Who is Abu Bakr’s mother? And is it true that she used to eat flies?
Posted by
Abu Talha
His eminence Sheikh al-Habib mentions in detail in his book titled ‘Obscenity the other side of Aisha’ that there are two main incidents where the Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali (peace be upon him), laid bare the fact that Salma bint Sakhr, who is Abu Bakr’s mother, used to take flies as food, as did her husband Abu Quhafa, Uthman bin Amir, (May the wrath of God be upon them all).
• The first incident was narrated by Sulaym Bin Qays (May God be pleased with him). When Abu Bakr and Umar Ibn al-Khattab conspired with a group of hypocrites tried to force the Commander of the faithful (peace be upon him) and his companions to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, Abu Dharr (May God be pleased with him) said to Umar:
“O Umar, are you taunting me about the love of the progeny of Muhammad and the respect of their rights? May God curse - and He has - those people who held enmity towards them, accused them, took away their rights, and made people ride over their necks and reversed the community to their previous beliefs.”
Umar said mockingly: “Amen! May God curse those who have taken away their rights. By God, they (i.e. the progeny of Muhammad) do not have any rights in this, and all people including them are equal in this.” Imam Ali (peace be upon him) then said to Umar: “O son of Sahhak! If we do not have any right in this, then is it yours and the son of a woman’s who eats flies? (Sulaym Bin Qays al-Hilali, p. 161 and al-Ihtijaj by al-Tabarsi, vol. I, p. 112).
• The second incident is where Imam Ali (peace be upon him) delivered his sermon, known as al-Taalutiyah [1], in the radiant city of Madinah after people had pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr (May God’s wrath be upon him). Abu'l-Haytham ibn Tayyihan narrated: “Then he (i.e. Imam Ali peace be upon him) left the mosque and passed through a grazing land where around thirty sheep were there. He pointed at the sheep and said: By God, if I had men of this number of sheep, sincere and true to God and His messenger, then I would have overthrown the power of the son of the woman who eats flies” (al-Kafi, vol. 8, p. 33).
It might be worth mentioning that history reveals two more aspects of her life that are far more repulsive and contemptible. The first aspect is; Salma bint Sakhr was a “woman of flags”, meaning that she was a whore who would hoist a flag on the top of her house that serves as a distinguishable mark to invite in those who would like to have access to her. Muhammad Tahir al-Qummi al-Shirazi reported: “And his (i.e. Abu Bakr) mother is Salma, a woman of flags in Mecca” (Kitab al-Arba’een by Muhammad Tahir al-Qummi al-Shirazi, p. 532).
Whereas the second aspect shockingly reveals that Abu Bakr’s mother, Salma bin Sakhr, was married to her paternal uncle! As Abu Quhafa’s full name is: Uthman bin Amir bin Amr bin Ka’b bin Sa’d bin Taym bin Mura and his wife’s full name is: Salma bint Sakhr bin Amir bin Amr bin Ka’b bin Sa’d bin Taym bin Mura!! This shows that Salma was Abu Quhafa’s niece or in other words his brother’s daughter. (This has been reported by numerous scholars [2]).
In addition, Jarir al-Tabari has frankly reported this shameful fact about Abu Quhafa and Salma’s marriage in his book al-Mustarshid as he said in regard to Abu Bakr: “his father is Uthman bin Amir, and his mother is Ummul-Khair bint Sakhr, and Uthman was married to his niece”. (al-Mustarshid by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, p. 326).
[1] The sermon derives its name from Imam Ali’s statement addressed to Abu Bakr, Umar and their supporters: “By God, if I had the number of companions that Talut had or supporters the Prophet had in the battle of Badr, and they were inimical to you, then I would have struck you with sword until you return back to the truth…. The separation among you would have suited you best and most befitting to you. O God, judge between us with truth and You are the best of judges.”
[2] Such as: (1) al-Mu’jam al-Kabir by al-Tabarani, vol. I, p. 2, (2) Ma’rifat al-Sahabah by Abu Na’im, vol. 24, p. 151, (3) al-Kuna Wal al-Qab by Ibn Mindah, vol. I, p. 87 and numerous others.
18th Sha'bban 1432
The Office of Sheikh al-Habib in London
• The first incident was narrated by Sulaym Bin Qays (May God be pleased with him). When Abu Bakr and Umar Ibn al-Khattab conspired with a group of hypocrites tried to force the Commander of the faithful (peace be upon him) and his companions to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, Abu Dharr (May God be pleased with him) said to Umar:
“O Umar, are you taunting me about the love of the progeny of Muhammad and the respect of their rights? May God curse - and He has - those people who held enmity towards them, accused them, took away their rights, and made people ride over their necks and reversed the community to their previous beliefs.”
Umar said mockingly: “Amen! May God curse those who have taken away their rights. By God, they (i.e. the progeny of Muhammad) do not have any rights in this, and all people including them are equal in this.” Imam Ali (peace be upon him) then said to Umar: “O son of Sahhak! If we do not have any right in this, then is it yours and the son of a woman’s who eats flies? (Sulaym Bin Qays al-Hilali, p. 161 and al-Ihtijaj by al-Tabarsi, vol. I, p. 112).
• The second incident is where Imam Ali (peace be upon him) delivered his sermon, known as al-Taalutiyah [1], in the radiant city of Madinah after people had pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr (May God’s wrath be upon him). Abu'l-Haytham ibn Tayyihan narrated: “Then he (i.e. Imam Ali peace be upon him) left the mosque and passed through a grazing land where around thirty sheep were there. He pointed at the sheep and said: By God, if I had men of this number of sheep, sincere and true to God and His messenger, then I would have overthrown the power of the son of the woman who eats flies” (al-Kafi, vol. 8, p. 33).
It might be worth mentioning that history reveals two more aspects of her life that are far more repulsive and contemptible. The first aspect is; Salma bint Sakhr was a “woman of flags”, meaning that she was a whore who would hoist a flag on the top of her house that serves as a distinguishable mark to invite in those who would like to have access to her. Muhammad Tahir al-Qummi al-Shirazi reported: “And his (i.e. Abu Bakr) mother is Salma, a woman of flags in Mecca” (Kitab al-Arba’een by Muhammad Tahir al-Qummi al-Shirazi, p. 532).
Whereas the second aspect shockingly reveals that Abu Bakr’s mother, Salma bin Sakhr, was married to her paternal uncle! As Abu Quhafa’s full name is: Uthman bin Amir bin Amr bin Ka’b bin Sa’d bin Taym bin Mura and his wife’s full name is: Salma bint Sakhr bin Amir bin Amr bin Ka’b bin Sa’d bin Taym bin Mura!! This shows that Salma was Abu Quhafa’s niece or in other words his brother’s daughter. (This has been reported by numerous scholars [2]).
In addition, Jarir al-Tabari has frankly reported this shameful fact about Abu Quhafa and Salma’s marriage in his book al-Mustarshid as he said in regard to Abu Bakr: “his father is Uthman bin Amir, and his mother is Ummul-Khair bint Sakhr, and Uthman was married to his niece”. (al-Mustarshid by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, p. 326).
[1] The sermon derives its name from Imam Ali’s statement addressed to Abu Bakr, Umar and their supporters: “By God, if I had the number of companions that Talut had or supporters the Prophet had in the battle of Badr, and they were inimical to you, then I would have struck you with sword until you return back to the truth…. The separation among you would have suited you best and most befitting to you. O God, judge between us with truth and You are the best of judges.”
[2] Such as: (1) al-Mu’jam al-Kabir by al-Tabarani, vol. I, p. 2, (2) Ma’rifat al-Sahabah by Abu Na’im, vol. 24, p. 151, (3) al-Kuna Wal al-Qab by Ibn Mindah, vol. I, p. 87 and numerous others.
18th Sha'bban 1432
The Office of Sheikh al-Habib in London
Labels:
English
Part 8 : The True Face of Abu-bakr - Sahib Sahabis cowards, No inner peace for A...
Sunday, February 20, 2011Posted by
Najib
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)