Tuesday, 14 April 2015

When Allah the All-Knowing closed the door on Abu Bakr

For some Muslims, guidance means to spread lies, misinformation and creating differences within the community. One of their attempts is aimed at transferring virtues from one individual to another based on some fabricated reports and traditions. One such virtue relates to closing the doors of the Mosque of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) for all companions save one.
It is surprising to find Muslims groping for answers to the identity of the companion, when the matter is already settled in favour of the chosen companion – Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) as the only one along with the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) whose door was allowed to be opened into Masjid al-Nabawi (s.a.w.a.).

Argument of the skeptics

First let us examine the tradition introduced by these Muslims to support their claim regarding Abu Bakr.
Zaid b. Arqam states – Allah’s Apostle (s.a.w.a.) addressed the people saying – Allah has given option to a slave to choose this world or what is with Him. The slave has chosen what is with Allah.
Abu Bakr wept and we were astonished at his weeping caused by what the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) mentioned as to a slave (of Allah) who had been offered a choice, (we learned later on) that Allah’s Apostle (s.a.w.a.) himself was the person who was given the choice, and that Abu Bakr knew best of all of us.
Allah’s Apostle (s.a.w.a.) added – The person who has favoured me most of all both with his company and wealth is Abu Bakr. If I were to take a Khalil (friend) other than my Lord, I would have taken Abu Bakr as such, but (what relates us) is the Islamic brotherhood and friendliness. All the gates of the Mosque should be closed except the gate of Abu Bakr.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, Book 57, No. 6)


The only response we can give to such sham reports is by advancing authentic reports that clearly disprove this virtue for Abu Bakr and reposit it in favour of its true owner – Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.).
To make the matter more conclusive we begin by relating the traditions that Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (exp. 852 A.H.) has documented in his Sharh of Sahih-e-Bukhari – Fath al-Baari fi Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari.
Ibn Hajar has rejected the tradition in Sahih-e-Bukhari favouring Abu Bakr and has advanced some traditions by way of example to prove this was for Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.).
Ibn Hajar records the following traditions favouring Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.):

Abu Bakr’s biggest blunder in life?

It has been established in the preceding pages beyond a shadow of doubt that the caliph’s cohorts initially laid siege to Hazrat Faatemah’s (s.a.) house to intimidate the inmates and when that did not have the desired effect, they attacked the house by setting it aflame. In this way, the hooligans violated the sanctity of the house and that of its inmates about whom the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had made innumerable recommendations, some of which have been outlined in the initial chapters. The attack and ensuing violation are established facts and none can raise any doubts whatsoever.
Even Ibne Taiymiyyah did not find anything objectionable as far as the veracity of the chain of incidents is concerned.
If there are still some people who doubt the attacks then they are worse than Ibne Taymiyyah who at least accepts their occurrence. And if some of the deniers include Shiahs, then it is a matter of regret how they can consider themselves as lovers of Ahle Bait (s.a.w.a.) while denying the wrongdoing of the Ahle Bait’s oppressors, a fact accepted by the Shiahs of the oppressors (i.e. Sunnis and Wahhabis)!
The attack was considered with such alacrity and ferocity that it makes one wonder what they were expecting to find over there. Were they expecting to find some wealth or property of Allah that had been embezzled by the inmates through recovery of which they sought proximity of Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?![1]
Indeed, it was clear very soon to the oppressors the extent of their wrongdoing. That is why it is narrated that when Abu Bakr’s death was imminent, he confessed:
‘I do not feel remorse over any worldly affair save three actions which I regret performing. Likewise, I feel remorse over three actions which I abandoned while it would have been better if I had performed them. I wish I had sought the answers from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) for three questions…’
This narration is very important although we will only elaborate on the portion that is relevant in this discussion.
وددت انی لم اکشف بیت فاطمہ عن شئی و ان کانوا قد غلقوہ علی الحرب وددت انی کنت سالت رسول اللہ لمن ھٰذا الامر فلا ینازعہ احد
“I wish I had not forced Faatemah to open her house, even if it had been locked for battle.
I wish I had asked the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) about the identity of his successor so I would not oppose him on any matter.”
Although apparently remorseful, do these words of the caliph ring with sincerity?
If indeed he was remorseful and honest then why did he claim ignorance of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) successor while he was present in Ghadeer?
Was he not among the first ones to congratulate the successor of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?
Was he not aware of the numerous incidents related to the successorship of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?
Abu Bakr’s confession can be traced in Taarikhe Tabari.
In addition to this, one can refer to Iqd al-Fareed of Ibn Abde Rabbeh, Al-Amwaal of the great memoriser of the Quran and traditionalist Imam Abu Abeed Qaasim Ibn Salaam, Muruj al-Zahab of Mas’oodi, Al-Imaamah wa al-Siyaasah of Ibne Qutaybah al-Dainoori.[2]
Also notable is that these references have survived despite attempts to distort historical incidents and narrations, as noted earlier. For instance, on referring to Al-Amwaal one finds that instead of ‘I wish I had not forced ….’ it is recorded as ‘I wish I had not done such and such thing.’
It is clear that this is the handiwork of the distortionists. Over here, they deleted reference to a specific event and replaced it with a general reference.
We reiterate a point we have been making consistently in the book – how does one expect to find an accurate representation of the entire chain of events in the face of such distortion?
It is unfortunate that the defrauders of truth have tricked people with lies and a large number of Muslims have fallen prey to them.

Monday, 29 December 2014

Abubakr is Kafir in the sight of Allah

Imam Ali(as): O' Abu Bakr. Have you read the book of Allah(swt)?               

Abu Bakr(la): Yes.

Imam Ali(as): The verse " God desires to keep only the uncleanness away from you O'People of the Family and purifies you a thorough purification"  has been send down in our praise or in the praise of others?

Abu Bakr(la): Yes, in Your praise.

Imam Ali(as): If a witness, witnesses against Janabe Fatima(sa) regarding a bad thing, what will you do in that case?

Abu Bakr(la): I will apply the Islamic Had on her(sa) just like its done for other muslim women.

Imam Ali(as): In that case you will be among the Kaafir in the sight of Allah(swt).

Abu Bakr(la): No.

Imam Ali(as): Because in this case you rejected the declaration of Allah(swt) regarding the Purity of Janabe Fatima(sa) , accepting the declaration of the common people which is like rejecting the order of Allah (swt) and order of Messenger of Allah (saww).

Wednesday, 24 December 2014

Abubakr and his daughter murdered the Holy Prophet (sa)

Ali b. Ibrahim (ar) says (regarding the saying of Allah, “O Prophet! Why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you..- Surah Tahreem (66): Verse 1)

The reason for its revelation was that the Holy Prophet (sawa) when he was in the house of some of his wives and that Maariyah Qibtiyyah  (ra) used to be there  with him serving him. One day while he was there in the house of Hafsah and Hafsah went out for some need, then the Holy Prophet (sawa) had food with Maariyah (ra). When Hafsah (la) learnt of this, she became angry and came to the Holy Prophet (sawa) complaining - “O Messenger of Allah! This (you did) and that too on the day appointed for me and in my very house and on my very bed!”

The Holy Prophet (sawa) felt embarrassed. He (sawa) said, “Keep this to yourself. I have made Maariyah prohibited for myself and I will never partake food with her again. I am going to tell you a secret. If you disclose this secret, upon you will be the curse of Allah and the angels and all the people. She asked. “What is it?” He (sawa), “Surely Abu Bakr will be the caliph after me and after him will be your father.” She asked, “Who informed you of this?” He (sawa) replied, “Allah has informed me.”
Then Hafsah informed Ayesha about it who then informed Abu Bakr about it. Abu Bakr went to Umar and told him, “Surely Ayesha has informed me that Hafsah told her something, but I do not trust Ayesha’s words. So can you ask Hafsah about it.”
Then Umar went to Hafsah and asked her - “What is it that Ayesha is narrating from you?” She denied it and said “I have not informed Ayesha of any such thing.” Umar told her, “If this (news) is true, then confirm it for me so that we may proceed (in this matter)”. She said, 
“Yes, the Holy Prophet (sawa) did say so”.

Then the four of them agreed to poison the Holy Prophet (sawa). Then Hazrat Jibraeel (as) descended with this chapter (of Tahreem) – “O Prophet! Why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you..upto the verse - expiation of your oaths”meaning certainly Allah has made it permissible for you that you do away with your oath.

Sunday, 14 December 2014

Abubakr and Umar (la) did Gheebat

It is narrated in Tafseer e Durrul Mansur  under verse 12 of sure Hujarat (49) that :

وأخرج الضياء المقدسي في المختارة عن أنس قال‏:‏ كانت العرب يخدم بعضها بعضا في الأسفار وكان مع أبي بكر وعمر رجل يخدمها فناما فاستيقظا ولم يهيء لهما طعاما فقالا إن هذا لنؤوم فأيقظاه، فقالا‏:‏ ائت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقل له‏:‏ إن أبا بكر وعمر يقرئانك السلام ويستأذناك، فقال‏:‏ إنهما ائتدما فجاءاه، فقالا يا رسول الله‏:‏ بأي شيء ائتدمنا‏؟‏ قال‏:‏ بلحم أخيكما، والذي نفسي بيده إني لأرى لحمه بين ثناياكما، فقالا‏:‏ استغفر لنا يا رسول الله‏.‏ قال‏:‏ مراه فليسغفر لكما‏.

Dia ul moqadasi writes in (al-ahadeeth) al-mukhtara that anas narrates that arab would serve each other in journeys. Once there was a man with abu bakar and umar who would serve them. Once they slept, and woke up. But he had not prepared food for them. They said: he sleeps a lot. So they woke him up. And said: go to prophet asws and tell them that abu bakar and umar are paying greetings to you and seek permission from you. So Prophet asws said: they have taken their food. So they came to Prophet asws and said: with what did we take our food? So he asws said: I am seeing meat of your brother with you (exactly it would translate as: I am seeing meat of that man in your teeth………..


Saturday, 6 December 2014

Fazilat of Abu Bakr in cave crushed by Sheikh Al-Mufid r.a

Al-Karajaki has reported that once Sheikh Mufid saw a dream, and then dictated it to his companions  and disciples. He said: I dreamt that as I was passing through a street, I saw a large crowd gathered around someone.
On enquiry, I was told that they had surrounded Umar b. al-Khattab, the second Caliph. I pushed myself forward, and when I came near him, I said: "O Sheikh, do you allow me to ask a question?" He said: "Ask." So I said: "Would you explain me how is the excellence of your friend Abu Bakr established by the Ayah in which Allah says: 'the second of the two, when they were in the cave'. Your friends are making too much out of it."
He said: "This Ayah proves Abu Bakr's excellence in six ways:
Allah mentions the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then mentions Abu Bakr with him, as his second of the two;
Allah mentions them as being together at one place; which is a sign of mutual affinity;
Allah adds further quality of being the Prophet's "SAHIB", the Companion;
Allah relates how kind and caring the Prophet was towards Abu Bakr when he told him, "Don't grieve";
Where the Prophet assured Abu Bakr that "Allah is with us" meaning that He will help both of them simultaneously;
Allah revealed that He will send down AS-SAKINAH (serenity) upon Abu Bakr because as far as the Prophet was concerned, AS SAKINAH never parted from him
These are six proofs of Abu Bakr's excellence from the mentioned Ayah."
Sheikh Mufid says: "I told him that he had indeed made a good effort to make his point, and had left no room for any other person to be a better advocate for his friend. But I was going to demolish the arguments, making it like ashes blown away by the fast wind."
Sheikh said:
"When you say that Allah has mentioned the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, and then mentioned Abu Bakr as his second, I do not see anything extraordinary in that. For if you ponder over it, you will find that Allah was only revealing the number of persons present in the cave. They were two; there could have been a Mo'min and a Kafir and they would still be two."
"And when you talk of they being together at one place, it is again as simple as the first case. If there was one place only, it could have been occupied by a Mo'min and a disbeliever also. The Mosque of the Prophet is definitely a better place than the cave, and yet it was a gathering place for the believers and the hypocrites. The Ark of Prophet Noah carried the Prophet Noah, together with Satan and the animals. So being together at one place is no virtue."
"And when you talk about the added quality of being 'SAHIB', the companion, this indeed is a weaker point than the first two, because a believer and a disbeliever can both be in the company of each other. Allah, Most High, used the word 'SAHIB' in the following Ayah: 'His "Sahib" (companion) said to him while he was conversing with him: Have you disbelieved in the One Who created you from soil and then from a small quantity of sperm, then fashioned you harmoniously as a man?' (al-Kahf, 18:37).
Further, we find in Arabic literature that the word "SAHIB" is used for the accompanying donkey, and also for the sword. So, if the term can be used between a Momin and a Kafir, between a man and his animal, and between a living and an inanimate object, then what is so special in it about your friend?"
"And the words 'Don't grieve' were not meant for any solace;. Because it was a statement forbidding an act. In Arabic, we have 'donts' and 'dos' as imperative verbs. Now, the grief expressed by Abu Bakr was either an act of obedience or disobedience. If it was obedience, the Prophet would not have forbidden it, therefore it is proved that it was an act of sin and disobedience."
"As for the assurance that 'Allah is with us', the pronoun 'us' was used by the Prophet for himself The use of plural pronoun for oneself is a sign of ones elevated status. Allah says:
'Indeed, We are the One who has revealed the Quran, and We will most surely preserve it.' (Al-Hijr, 15:9).
And again:
'We are the One who gives life and ordains death, and We are the inheritor'(al-Hijr, 15:23).
And the Shias have their own version, which does not seem far-fetched. They say that Abu Bakr told the Prophet that his grief was for Ali b. Abi Talib (who was left behind in Makkah), and the Prophet replied: 'Do not grieve, surely, Allah is with us' meaning; with me and my brother, Ali b. Abi Talib."
"Your claim that As-Sakinah (serenity) was sent down to Abu Bakr is indeed outrageous. Because the verse clearly states that the serenity came unto him who was helped with the unseen army.
The Ayah says:
'... Then Allah sent down on him His serenity and strengthened him with unseen forces' (al-Tawbah, 9:40).
So if As-Sakinah had descended upon Abu Bakr, he would have received the support of the unseen army. In fact, it would have been better if you had not attributed this to Abu Bakr. For according to Quran, this serenity was sent down on the Prophet twice:
'Then Allah sent down His serenity upon His messenger and the believers, and sent down forces which you did not see ...'. (al Tawbah, 9:26).
'Then Allah sent down His serenity upon His Messenger and the believers, and adhered them to the word of piety' (al-Fath, 48: 26).
In both places, the believers shared the serenity with the Prophet, but in this event of the cave, serenity was sent down to the Prophet alone, excluding Abu Bakr. This may be a pointer to the fact that Abu Bakr was not among the believers!"
Sheikh Mufid says that Umar made no reply to my arguments, and as people around him scattered, he woke up from his sleep.

Monday, 21 July 2014


It is clear why Shaikhain were not forgiven by Fatima Zahra (a.s.). They lacked remorse and were only apologizing because tension in Medina had eased by then and their seat of power was secure. Everyone had submitted to them and they did not expect opposition from any front. There was the unfinished business of pacifying the Bani Hashim, who were very angry and withdrew in a shell after the attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house and the usurping of Fadak, among other injustices. Perhaps, they would protest at a later stage. The apology of the Shaikhain was more for public display than anything else. It is like a government trying to appease a particular group to prevent future opposition from that group. There is no sincerity or remorse in such an apology.
Allah lays down the ground rule for sincere forgiveness in the Quranic verse:
And those who when they commit an indecency or do injustice to their souls remember Allah and ask forgiveness for their faults– and who forgives the faults but Allah, and (who) do not knowingly persist in what they have done.’ [Surah Taubah (9): Verse 135]
The Holy Quran clearly says after apologizing, the transgressors – ‘do not knowingly persist in what they have done’. So if Shaikhain were truly sorry for their behavior with Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.), in the least they should have returned Fadak, since that was a critical issue over which Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was told that she was a liar (Allah forbid) and the Shaikhain were demanding witnesses!
By refusing to part with Fadak, what were the Shaikhain hoping to achieve by apologizing? The apology was hollow and meaningless and the message it gives Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) is – we are sorry we disputed with you on Fadak, but Fadak will still remain with us.  Can one still say Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was wrong in rejecting such an ‘apology’ where the transgressors ‘knowingly persist in what they have done’?

Allah the Merciful states in the Holy Quran:
Ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them; even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them; this is because they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle, and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.’ (Surah Taubah (9): Verse 80)
Here, Allah the High asserts He will reject the intercession of his own Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a.) because the sinners under question did not truly believe in Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
Since Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) satisfaction and anger is linked to Allah’s satisfaction and anger, her refusal to accept the apology of the Shaikhain can only mean that they too did not deserve forgiveness like the transgressors of Surah Taubah (9): Verse 80.
May Allah the High curse those who questioned the integrity of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)!

Friday, 23 May 2014

Abu Bakr and team fooled Muslims

Did Abu Bakr have the consensus (ijmaa’) of Muslims? Usamah b. Zaid’s argument


Usamah b. Zaid’s army

The best argument that the opponents can advance against the Shias to validate claims of Abu Bakr’s caliphate is consensus (ijmaa’). They claim that Abu Bakr by virtue of consensus was most suited for caliphate. In other words, the Muslims of the time, including the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) leading companions, selected Abu Bakr as the caliph and hence he deserves the position more than other companions like Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.).


The argument of consensus is the biggest falsehood propagated to justify shifting caliphate from Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.), the rightful heir of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), to Abu Bakr, the usurper.
The incident regarding Usamah b. Zaid’s army is one of the many proofs that destroy Abu Bakr’s claim to caliphate based on consensus of the companions.
It should be remembered that Usamah b. Zaid was appointed the commander of an army by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and was ordered to proceed towards Syria to crush the aggression of the enemy. The Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had declared that anyone who did not pay heed to the command of Usamah was a hypocrite. Thus, at the time of the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the proceedings of Saqifah, Usamah was away from Medina at a place called Jurf (near Medina), proceeding towards Syria (following the command of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)).
On usurping the caliphate, Abu Bakr wrote a letter to Usamah.
The contents of the letter were as follows – ‘From Abu Bakr, the caliph of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of Allah to Usamah b. Zaid. Now then! The Muslims have taken refuge in me and have chosen me for the leadership of caliphate and made me their chief after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of Allah….Thus, when my letter reaches you, you may come to me and like other Muslims, swear allegiance to me. You may even permit Umar b. Khattab to be free from under your leadership and stay with me here for I need him. Thereafter, you may proceed towards the frontline as directed by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).’
When the letter reached Usamah, he read it and replied: ‘From Usamah Ibn Zaid, the freed slave of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of Allah, to Abu Bakr b. Abi Qahafah. Now then! Your letter has reached me, but it is completely incongruous from the beginning till the end.’
‘First you claim to be the caliph of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and then say that the Muslims gathered around you and chose you as their leader? If it was such, then they would have pledged allegiance at your hands in the Prophet’s Mosque and not at Saqifah Bani Saaedah.’ (Meaning if Abu Bakr was the caliph of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) why was he in need of the approval and selection of the Muslims? And even then, why would they approve of his choice in Saqifah, instead of Masjid al-Nabawi?)
‘Furthermore you request me to excuse Umar b. Khattab from the army for the reason that you need him! Know that he has already stayed away on his own without my permission and it is not lawful for me to excuse anyone for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself had deputed them for this battle under my command. In this matter there is no difference between you and Umar, that both of you have stayed behind, and violation of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)’s command after his demise is similar to disobeying him during his lifetime.’
‘You very well know that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had ordered you and Umar to proceed towards this expedition under my command while the opinion and command of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) regarding you is better and preferable to your own opinions regarding yourselves. Your position was not hidden from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) who made me your commander and not you my commander. Thus opposing the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is hypocrisy and deceit…’
• Uyoon al-Balaaghah fi Uns al-Hadhir wa Naqlah al-Musaafir of Shaikh Abbas al-Qummi (r.a.)
This incident shows that Abu Bakr was not selected with the consensus of Muslims. Rather, he was imposed by a handful of conspiring ones upon the Muslim ummah. The majority of Muslims were deceived into paying him allegiance with the argument of consensus.
The majority of Muslims were not even present in Medina (forget Saqifah) at the time of Abu Bakr’s selection. Based on the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) standing instructions, they were on an expedition to Syria under Usamah b. Zaid’s leadership. Yet this large group of Muslims, who were not present in Medina and had not given allegiance to Abu Bakr, were being ordered to pay fealty following the footsteps of the minority of Muslims!
Consensus is when the minority accepts the decision of the majority. In case of Abu Bakr’s caliphate, consensus has been redefined as the majority submitting to the minority.
Take lesson, O people of vision!


Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Why Abubakr Denied Fadak - The Real Motive

The famous Sunni scholar Ibn Abil-Hadid Mu’tazali has said about his discourse with a fellow Sunni scholar concerning the truthfulness of the Prophet’s daughter: 

“I asked Ali Ibn Fareqi, a distinguished teacher of Madrassat-al-Gharbiyya of Baghdad: "Was Fatema truthful in making the claim ?" (regarding her patrimony of the orchard of Fadak, which the Caliph had seized on the pretext that Prophets do not leave inheritance – despite the explicit words of the Qur’an that Solomon inherited David)

He answered: "Yes!"

I said: "Did Abu Bakr know that she was a truthful lady?"

Again he answered: "Yes."

I then asked: "Then why did the Caliph not give back to her that which she was entitled to?"

At that moment the teacher smiled and said with great dignity: 

"If he had accepted her word on that day and had returned Fadak to her on account of her being a truthful lady and without asking for any witnesses, she could very well use this position for the benefit of her husband on the following day by saying, “my husband, Ali is entitled to the caliphate.” And then the Caliph would have been obliged to surrender the caliphate to Ali on account of his having acknowledged her to be a truthful lady. However, in order to obviate any such claim or dispute he deprived her of her undisputed right!"

Reference : Sharh-i Nahjul Balaghah by Ibn Abil Hadid, page 284.