THE INCIDENT AT HAZRAT FATIMA (S) HOUSE INVOLVING ABUBAKR - VIDEO

The incident  of  burning the door of the house of Hazrat Fatima (s)  from  authentic sunni sources

Abubakr considered adultery to be destined by Allah

أخرج اللالكائي في السنة عن ابن عمر قال جاء رجل إلى أبي بكر فقال: أرأيت الزنا بقدر؟ قال نعم قال: فإن الله قدره علي ثم يعذبني قال نعم يا ابن اللخناء أما والله لو كان عندي إنسان أمرت أن يجأ أنفك.

 

 From Ibne Umar: A person came to Abu Bakr and asked him, do you consider Zina (adultery/fornication) to be destined? He said yes, the man asked Allah has destined it and then will punish me for it? He said yes oh son of uncircumcised woman , by Allah if there were anybody with me I would order him to cut off your nose.

 ( Ref : tarikh al khulafa by Suyuti pg 77 & Muntakhabul kanz ul ummal pg 90 of Muttaqi e  hindi )

 

Abu Bakr’s Approval of Rape

Rape is a barbaric crime and is considered so across the world. But one problem that is seen all over is the low rate of conviction for this crime. Just as there is huge hue and cry against the crime itself, there is equal protest against the lack of punishment to those who perform this inhuman crime. But this is not new!

History has seen such incidents when this heinous crime was committed and not only went unpunished; rather, it had the explicit nod and approval of the illegitimate ruling Caliph of the Muslims.

It was the first rape after the death of Holy Prophet (a.s.) and during the so-called caliphate of Abu Bakr (curse be upon him).

Malik Ibn Nuwayrah was a Muslim, a follower of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and an ardent lover of Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.). He had an extremely beautiful wife, Layla bint al-Minhal. When Maalik refused to pay taxes to Abu Bakr as he did not recognize him as the rightful caliph, Khaalid b. Waleed (curse be upon him), under the instructions of Abu Bakr (curse be upon him) and in his animal lust to court her, killed Maalik and on the same night married his wife forcefully and raped her.

He did not even let the waiting period (Iddah), which is 4 months and 10 days, expire. Evidently, his act was tantamount to adultery because marriage during the period of Iddah is not permissible. Also, it was clear-cut case of rape because it did not have the obvious consent of Maalik’s wife, who was forced into this relationship.

The illegitimately elected Abu Bakr (curse be upon him) neither charged the accursed Khaalid (curse be upon him) of adultery nor did he punish him, although being the Caliph of the Muslims and taking action on such a crime was obligatory on Abu Bakr (curse be upon him).

[Reference: Taareekh-e-Tabari: vol 2, pg 502]

No wonder that rape has become such a common crime thanks to the negligence of rulers like Abu Bakr (curse be upon him).

Worse, today followers of Abu Bakr (curse be upon him) and Khaalid (curse be upon him), like the heretical Al-Arifi of Saudi Arabia are giving sanctions to the armed gangs (whom they try to glorify as Mujahideen) from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries fighting in Syria to rape Syrian girls from age 14 onwards to satisfy their lust!

No wonder Muslims have fallen to such pits when such ignoramuses move around in the garb of clerics and claiming to be the followers of companions (Salafis)!! 

Abu Bakar plots to kill Imam Ali (a.s.)

When Fadak was forcefully usurped from Fatemah Zahra (s.a.) by the first oppressor Abu Bakr, the infallible daughter of Holy Prophet (s.a.) ordered that curtains should be put up inside the mosque.

Following which, Janabe Zahra (s.a.) entered the mosque and gave an articulate and coherent sermon. First, she (a.s.) averred the Oneness of Allah the Almighty then she spoke about Islam and its laws after which she (s.a.) started to converse on the issue of Fadak.

She (s.a.) said: “Every one is fully aware that Fadak was gifted to me by my respected father (s.a.w.a.) and it was under my possession. Therefore, on what premises has the government confiscated it?”

After her speech, Abu Bakr retorted, “We want you prove to us by producing witnesses that what you claim [that Fadak was gifted to you by The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)]”

Ironically, in the light of Islamic laws, it is Abu Bakr who should have put forward evidence for claiming Fadak from Fatemah Zahra (s.a.). Religious rules clearly state that a thing which is already in possession of a Muslim is in itself an irrefutable evidence that the thing belongs to him/her.

On this basis, Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab should have brought forward evidence for filching Fadak from Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Who is Truthful ??Umar & Abu Bakr OR Janabe Fatima(as)

The two Caliphs were the cause of displeasure to the only daughter of Holy Prophet(s.a.w).They snatched her only source of livelihood and rejected her plea for her property of Fadak.

Janabe Fatima was angry with them till she met her death!!

Here is a brief account of the dispute between Abu Bakr and Janabe Fatima(as) regarding Fadak

Note : Readers should read without any bias and prejudice and should bear in mind that all the references in this post are from authentic Sunni sources.

This article is a reply to those people(e.g. Dr. Tahir Qadri, Irfan Shah, Moulana Ishaaq etc etc) who defend Abu Bakr and Umar and support their views with baseless arguments.It is a reply to all those videos and articles on internet regarding dispute of Fadak.

Fadak was a green fertile village near Medina in the Hijaz region, and it also had a fortress called ash-Shumrukh.

(Mu’jam al-Buldan, Vol. 4, p. 238; Mu’jam Masta’jam, al-Bakri, Vol. 3, p. 1015; Al-Rawd al-Mi’tar, al-Himyari, p. 437; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 4, p. 1280). 

Fadak belonged to the Jews. In the year 7 A.H., its ownership went from the Jews to the Prophet (..) under the terms of a peace settlement. The reason for this settlement was that after the fall of Khaybar, the Jews realized the real power of the Muslims, their martial aspirations were lowered. Noting that the Prophet (..) had spared the lives of some Jews who sought his protection, the Jews also sent a message of peace to the Prophet (..) and expressed their desire that Fadak should be taken from them so that their area should not be turned into a battlefield. Consequently, the Prophet (..) accepted their request and granted them amnesty. This land became his personal property wherein no one else had any right or claim, nor could there be any interest because the Muslims had a share only in those properties which they acquired as booty after jihad, whereas property acquired without jihad is called fay’ and only the Prophet (..) was entitled to it. No other person has a share in it. Thus, Allah says the following: “And whatever Allah bestows on His Messenger from them, you did not stir any horse or a camel towards it, but Allah grants authority to whomsoever of His Messengers He pleases; and Allah over all things is all-Powerful” (Holy Quran, 59: 6). 
No one has ever disputed the fact that Fadak was secured without battle. It was, therefore, the Prophet’s personal property to which no one else was entitled. The Historians write:. 
“Fadak was personal to the Prophet (..) as the Muslims did not use their horses or camels to acquire it” 

(Tarikh, al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 1582-583, 1589; Al-Kamil, Ibn al-Athir, Vol. 2, pp. 224-225; As-Sira, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 3, p. 368; Tarikh, Ibn Khaldun, Vol. 2, part 2, p. 40; Tarikh al-Khamis, ad-Diyar-Bakri, Vol. 2, p. 58; Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 50).

ABUBAKR IN THE VIEW OF AHLE SUNNAH - PART 2

Continued from part 1 ....

 7-ابوبکر نزدیک بود هلاک شود:

((حدثنا یسره بن صفوان بن جمیل اللخمی حدثنا نافع بن عمر عن ابن ابی ملیکه قال: کاد الخیران ان یهلکا ابابکر و عمر رضی الله عنهما رفعا اصواتهما عند النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم . . . فانزل الله یا ایها الذین آمنوا لا ترفعوا . . . ))

ترجمه: (( نافع ابن عمرو از ابن ابی ملیکه نقل می کند که گفت: دومرد نیکوکار ( ابوبکر وعمر ) نزدیک بود هلاک شوند چرا که ابوبکر و عمر در حضور پیامبر با یکدیگرسر و صدا و نزاع کردند . . . خدا این آیه را نازل فرمود:

Abubakr was near destruction :

Nafe bin Amro narrates from Ibn Abi Maleeke that he said : two good doers (Abubakr and Umar were near that they would be destroyed  since they both were fighting with each other in a loud voice ……and Allah revealed this verse  :

(( یا ایها الذین آمنوا لا ترفعوا اصواتکم فوق صوت النبی و لا تجهروا له بالقول کجهر

بعضکم . . . )) سوره حجرات آیه 2.

$pkš‰r'¯»tƒ tûïÏ%©!$# (#qãZtB#uä Ÿw (#þqãèsùös? öNä3s?ºuqô¹r& s-öqsù ÏNöq|¹ ÄcÓÉ<¨Y9$# Ÿwur (#rãygøgrB ¼çms9 ÉAöqs)ø9$$Î/ ̍ôgyfx. öNà6ÅÒ÷èt/ CÙ÷èt7Ï9 br& xÝt7øtrB öNä3è=»yJôãr& óOçFRr&ur Ÿw tbrâßêô±s? ÇËÈ  

2. O ye who believe! raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to Him In talk, As ye may speak aloud to one another, Lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not.

بخاری ج 6 ص 46 و ج 8 ص 145. دار الفکر بیروت

Bukhari v 6 pg 46 and v 8 pg 145 printed darul fikr , Beirut

 8-ابوبکر احادیث پیامبر را به آتش می کشد ولی کتاب های یهودیان و مسیحیان را نه:

Abubakr threw the traditions of the Holy Prophrt (saws) in fire while he retained the books of the Jews and the Christains

 الف:ابوبکر و عمر دستور سوزاندن کتاب های حدیث نبوی را دادند ولی دستور سوزاندن کتاب های اهل کتاب را ندادند و از این نوع کتاب ها، کتاب هایی بود که مسلمانان در جنگ یرموک به آن دست یافته بودند که دو جبهه پر از کتاب های اسرائیلیات بود.1-الاسرائیلیات و اثر هافی کتب التفسیر ص 91 و 92 و 111 و 146 و 147 و 153 و 207.2-البدایه و النهایه ج 1 ص 24.3-تذکره الحفاظ ج 3 ص 42.4-تفسیر القرآن العظیم ج 3 ص 102. 

A: Abubakr and Umar ordered the burining of the books of traditions of the Holy Prophet (saws) but did not order the burning of the books of the ahle kitab and in this manner the books were there that in the battle of Yarmuk the muslims were holdingthe min their hands and the front two rows were full of the books of the Israelis

1.   Al israiliyaat wa asarha fi kutube tafseer pg 91, 92, 111,146,147,153and 207

2.   Al Bidaya wan Nihaya v 1 pg 24

3.   Tazkeratul hefaz v3 pg 42

4.   Tafseerul Quran al Azeem v3 pg 102

ABUBAKR IN THE VIEW OF AHLE SUNNAH - PART 1

The first caliph in the traditions of Ahle sunnah

 1-دوران کودکی ابوبکر:

The era of childhood of Abubakr

ابوقحافه پدر ابوبکر و پسرانش، از بردگان عبدالله بن جدعان و از تبار حبشی بودند و هنگامی که ابوبکر از بردگی آزاد شد نام او را عتیق گذاشتند.1-الطبقات ج 3 ص 170.

Abuqahafah , father of Abubakr and his sons were the slaves of Abdullah bin Jud’aan and from Ethopian ancestory and when Abubakr became free from slavery his name was Ateeq ( Tebaqat  v 3 pg 170)

عبد الله بن جدعان صاحب بزرگترین کانون جهت تولید اطفال و کودکان ( موسسه زنا ) بود. او مالک دهها کنیزی بود که آنان را به مردان عرضه می کرد که از آنان حامله می شدند سپس کودکان را به پدران یا به بیگانگان می فروخت.

Abdullah bin Jud ‘aan was the superior head of the production center of infants and children ie . the institution of adultery . He possessed many slave girls which he offered to men so that they become pregnant from them and then he sold the children to the fathers or other men.

1-مختصر تاریخ دمشق ابن منظور ج 5 ص 254.2-المعارف ابن قتیبه ص 576.3-مروج الذهب مسعودی ج 2 ص 282.

1.   Mukhtasar tatikh damishq of ibne Manzoor v 5 pg 254

2.   Al Ma’arif of Ibne Qutaibah  pg 576

3.   Murooj uz Zahab v 2 pg 282

Abu Bakar & Umar were not present in the Funeral of the Holy Prophet (as)

Abu bakr and Umar were not present in the Funeral of the Holy prophet (as).This is also proved from a Authentic books of ahlul sunna with a Sahih Isnaad

U can see the scan pages with a urdu translation.

Is Abu Bakr the rightly guided Caliph???

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.).

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

THE FAMILY TREE OF ABUBAKR WITH REFERENCE

The father of Aboo Bakar was known as "Uthman Aboo Quhafa". The mother of Aboo Bakar  was Salma bint Sakhr . The brother of Uthman was known as "Sakhr" both brothers were sons of Aamer, Aamer is the son of Amr, Amr is the son of Kahb, Kahb is the son of Sa'd, Sa'd is the son of Tim, Tim is the son of Mura. Uthmaan the father of Bakar married  "Salama bint Sakhr bin Amir bin Amr bin Ka’b bin Sa’d bin Taym bin Mura!!" 


Note: This shows that Salama was Abu Quhafa’s niece or in other words his brother’s daughter and from that Abubakr was born!

Reference 

Al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer by Al-Tabarani Vol 1, Pg. 51 - 52, Person # 1