Fatima and `Umar Shi`i forgery
GF Haddad
It is authentically related in Sahih al-Bukhari that after the death of the
Prophet (saws) the Ansar, at first, gathered among themselves and demanded
the caliphate until they rallied over to Abu Bakr's reminder that the
Prophet (saws) restricted Imara to the Quraysh, while `Ali, al-Zubair ibn
al-`Awwam and others took to the house of Fatimah until, later, they also
gave their pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr.
Apart from these authentic facts, certain unscrupulous elements have spun
yarns of coercion and violence which they shamelessly attribute to Sunni
historians and of which the Companions of the Prophet (saws) and his
authentic Sunna are entirely innocent.
Among those forgeries:
> They demanded confirmation of the oath, but Ali and al-Zubair stayed
> away. Al-Zubair drew his sword (from the scabbard), saying, "I will
> not put it back until the oath of allegiance is rendered to Ali."
When
> this news reached Abu Bakr and Umar, the latter said, "Hit him with a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> stone and seize the sword." It is stated that Umar rushed (to the
door
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the House of Fatimah) and brought them forcibly while telling them
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that they must give their oath of allegiance willingly or
unwillingly.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v9, pp 188-189
Al-Tabari's text actually translates: "`Umar said: Take his sword and hit
the rocks with it. Then `Umar went to the house and brought the two of them
[al-Zubayr and `Ali], saying to them: 'Willy-nilly!' Then they pledged their
oath of allegiance." This text is evidently a forged report as `Ali took
months to pledge his oath of allegiance, as reported in Sahih al-Bukhari and
elsewhere.
Another forgery:
> When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said:
> "By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sunni References:
> - History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1118-1120
> - History of Ibn Athir, v2, p325
> - al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p975
> - Tarikh al-Kulafa, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p20
> - al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20
The above report is neither in al-Tabari nor in Ibn al-Athir, while
al-Isti`ab only states that `Umar threatened: "I shall do this and that
unless you come out.". As for Ibn Qutayba's supposed works, Tarikh
al-Khulafa' and al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, these are spurious attributions which
Ibn Qutayba never authored.
Another forgery:
> Abu Bakr said on the authority of an authentic report that, after the
> demise of the holy Prophet when the people had paid fealty to him, Ali and
> Zubair used to go to Fatimah al-Zahra, daughter of the Prophet, for
> consultation. When this fact was known to Umar, he went to Fatimah and
> said:
>
> "O' daughter of the Prophet! I didn't love anyone as much as I
> loved your father, nor anyone after him is more loving to me as
> you are. But I swear by Allah that if these people assemble
> here with you, then this love of mine would not prevent me from
> setting your house on fire."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sunni references:
> - History of Tabari, in the events of the year 11 AH
> - al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, beginning of the book,
> and pp 19-20
> - Izalatul Khilafa, by Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, v2, p362
> - Iqd al-Farid by Ibn Abd Rabbah al-Malik, v2, chapter of Saqifah
This is not in al-Tabari's Tarikh; neither al-Imama wal-Siyasa nor Tarikh
al-Kulafa are works of Ibn Qutayba but forgeries; al-`Aqd al-Farid is a work
of literary history; as for Shah Waliyyullah he is a very late source
entirely irrelevant in this regard.
> Also it is reported that:
>
> Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): "I know
> that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this
> will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in
> your house, I will burn the door in front of you."
>
> Sunni reference: Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140
The above is a lie. The actual report in Kanz al-`Ummal (#14138) states:
<<From Aslam: When Abu Bakr received the pledges of allegiance after the
Messenger of Allah (saws), `Ali and al-Zubayr used to enter the presence of
Fatima the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (saws) and consult with her
and hesitate in their
allegiance. When news of this reached `Umar ibn al-Khattab, he came out
until he entered Fatima's presence and said: "Daughter of the Messenger of
Allah, none in all creation was more dearly beloved to me than your father,
and none is more beloved to us after him than you. However, by Allah, this
shall not prevent me, if that group gathers in your house, to order that
their door be set afire!" When `Umar went out, they came and she said: "Do
you know that `Umar came to me and swore by Allah that if you were to come
back, he shall surely burn the door with you inside! By Allah, he shall
certainly fulfill what he swore, so go away in peace, flee from your
opinion, and do not come back to see me." They left her and did not return
to see her until they pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr.>>
Al-Muttaqi indicated his source in the Kanz with the siglum "sh" which is a
reference to Ibn Abi Shayba's Musannaf, where the text can be found (1989
al-Hut ed. 7:432 #37045) with the following chain: Muhammad ibn Bishr from
`Ubayd Allah ibn `Umar from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father Aslam the mawla
of `Umar. This is an extremely strong chain, all of its narrators were
retained in al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Another misrepresentation:
> Abu Bakr said (on his death bed): "I wish I had not searched for
> Fatimah's house, and had not sent men to harass her, though it would
> have caused a war if her house would have continued to be used as a
> shelter."
>
> Sunni references:
> - History of Ya'qubi, v2, pp 115-116
> - Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586
The actual translation of the above text from Ya`qubi's History is: "I wish
I had not searched for Fatimah's house and caused men to enter it, though it
would have caused fitna, etc." while al-Tabari in his Tarikh 2:353 only has:
"I wish I had not searched for Fatimah's house, though it would have caused
fitna, etc." None of the texts carries the words "and had not sent men to
harass her".
There is no record of other than `Umar entering the house to speak to tell
Fatima to stop allowing those who withheld their bay`a to meet there.
Another forgery:
> The historian named the following people who attacked the house of Fatimah
> to disperse people who sheltered there:
>
> - Umar Ibn al-Khattab
> - Khalid Ibn Walid
> - Abdurrahman Ibn Ouf
> - Thabit Ibn Shammas
> - Ziad Ibn Labid
> - Muhammad Ibn Maslamah
> - Salamah Ibn Salem Ibn Waqash
> - Salamah Ibn Aslam
> - Usaid Ibn Hozair
> - Zaid Ibn Thabit
None of the sources cited any of the above names except that of
`Umar.
Other shameless forgeries depict `Umar as asking for wood at Fatima's door,
or actually bringing a burning torch there, etc. None of this is true. The
Prophet (saws) said that `Umar was a bolt against fitna and this is exactly
what `Umar was at that time, after which, the fitna was subdued and all
lived to thank him for it.
Whatever Shi`is, Wahhabis, orientalists, and modernists report, needs to be
routinely double-checked. The above four groups have various fundamental
weaknesses in knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunna but they have one point in
common in their method: they are insecure with the truth and are perpetually
trying to improve it.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
rjaff...@yahoo.com
GF Haddad wrote:
> The above is a lie. The actual report in Kanz al-`Ummal (#14138) states:
> <<From Aslam: When Abu Bakr received the pledges of allegiance after the
> Messenger of Allah (saws), `Ali and al-Zubayr used to enter the presence of
> Fatima the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (saws) and consult with her
> and hesitate in their
> allegiance. When news of this reached `Umar ibn al-Khattab, he came out
> until he entered Fatima's presence and said: "Daughter of the Messenger of
> Allah, none in all creation was more dearly beloved to me than your father,
> and none is more beloved to us after him than you. However, by Allah, this
> shall not prevent me, if that group gathers in your house, to order that
> their door be set afire!" When `Umar went out, they came and she said: "Do
> you know that `Umar came to me and swore by Allah that if you were to come
> back, he shall surely burn the door with you inside! By Allah, he shall
> certainly fulfill what he swore, so go away in peace, flee from your
> opinion, and do not come back to see me." They left her and did not return
> to see her until they pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr.>>
>
> Al-Muttaqi indicated his source in the Kanz with the siglum "sh" which is a
> reference to Ibn Abi Shayba's Musannaf, where the text can be found (1989
> al-Hut ed. 7:432 #37045) with the following chain: Muhammad ibn Bishr from
> `Ubayd Allah ibn `Umar from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father Aslam the mawla
> of `Umar. This is an extremely strong chain, all of its narrators were
> retained in al-Bukhari and Muslim.
ok you acknowledge that the above tradition is sound so what is your
point?
also you alledge that Ibn Qutayba did not author Tarikh al-Khulafa' and
al-Imama wa al-Siyasa so what is your proof for that? If I remember
correctly you said some months ago that you never even heard of Ibn
Qutayba
nor Ibn `Abd Rabbih. Your criticism of Ibn `Abd Rabbih's al-`Aqd
al-Farid is that it is a work of literary history. So what? Is it not
one of the earliest histories written by a sunni scholar?
as far as the rest of your comments, it looks like you took the article
from
http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/
I will forward your comments to the DILP group and let you know what
they say.
Nonetheless I humbly suggest that you calm down your tone a little.
The Shi'ah believe that a lot of Bukhari itself is forgeries and lies
but it is not necessary for me to yell it out everywhere. Besides all
the above sources are your own sunnis sources.
As far as your claim that Ibn Qutaybah didn't author al-Imama wa
al-Siyasa, well I would like to see some proof for that. If you are
able, and to avoid being partial, it would be good if you also list
those scholars who acknowledge that it is Ibn Qutaybah's work. My copy
was published in Eygpt by a sunni publishing house:
(Cairo: Dar al-Ma`rifah
li-Taba`ah wa al-Nashr, Ed.
Dr. Taha Muhammad
al-Zayni, n.d. ) )
so how do you explain that?
Here is some info on Ibn Qutaybah and Ibn `Abd Rabbih taken from the
Ghadeer site:
http://al-islam.org/sources/toc.asp?personĸ421
http://al-islam.org/sources/toc.asp?personĸ179
--
The Messenger Of Allah Said (sawa)
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
Two
Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan TaDilluu Ba'di
Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hattaa
Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
References:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with
reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of
Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic
(Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and
Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5,
pp 182,189,350,366,419
see http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia
The Prophet also said (sawa):
Behold! My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah, whoever embarked in it
was saved, and whoever turned away from it was drowned.
Inna Mathala Ahli Baytee Feekum Mathalu Safeenati NuH man rakibaha najaa
Wa Man Takhallafa 'Anhaa halak
sample of Arabic text taken from http://www.muhaddith.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/safinah.jpg
References:
AlĸHakim records this tradition of the Prophet (S) in his Mustadrak, ii,
343, iii, 150:
Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat alĸ'awliya', iv, 306;
alĸKhatib in Ta'rikh Baghdad, xii, 19;
alĸSuyuti in alĸDurr alĸmanthur (al-Matba`at alĸMaymaniyyah,
Egypt,1314),
under verse 2:58 also in his Jami' al Sagheer.
alĸMuttaqi in Kanz alĸ`ummal, i, 250, vi, 216;
alĸHaythami in Majma` alĸzawa'id, ix, 167, 168;
alĸMuHibb alĸTabari in Dhakha'ir alĸ`uqba, 20; alĸManawi in Kunuz
alĸHaqa'iq, 132.
Yanabi Muwaddah, Qundoozi Hanafi, p 30, 370
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 184, 234
see http://al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/index.HTM
Omar Mirza
The point is to acknowledge and recognise the TRUTH, rather than basing
one's
views on WEAK REPORTS. The forged reports all add details that we can't
trust,
and these details affect our judgement of what was going on.
Dr. Haddad gave an adequate explanation for Umar's(ra) actions, as reported
in
the *authentic* hadith, in his post.
There was a disagreement in ijtihad between the sahaba, but this did not
affect Ali's(ra)respect for the other sahaba, since he went on to call two
of
his sons Abu Bakr and Umar, and he married his daughter and the daughter of
Fatima (Allah be pleased with them all)to the second khalifa.
>also you alledge that Ibn Qutayba did not author Tarikh al-Khulafa' and
>al-Imama wa al-Siyasa so what is your proof for that? If I remember
>correctly you said some months ago that you never even heard of Ibn
>Qutayba
>nor Ibn `Abd Rabbih.
And your proof for this insinuation is....?
Your criticism of Ibn `Abd Rabbih's al-`Aqd
>al-Farid is that it is a work of literary history. So what? Is it not
>one of the earliest histories written by a sunni scholar?
Probably his point is that it is not a work that is meant to pick only those
chains with sound isnad. A work of LITERARY history is not concerned with
distinguishing between the truth and Shi'i forgeries for example. So it
can't
be trusted, since forgeries appeared early on, within the half-century
following Uthman's(ra) death.
>Nonetheless I humbly suggest that you calm down your tone a little.
And I humbly suggest that you stop overreacting.
>The Shi'ah believe that a lot of Bukhari itself is forgeries and lies
>but it is not necessary for me to yell it out everywhere.
Shi'is don't yell it out everywhere right now, because it would interfere
with
their AGENDA of CONVERTING SUNNIS hahahahaha :)
Besides all
>the above sources are your own sunnis sources.
Irrelevant.
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
rjaff...@yahoo.com
> Shi'is don't yell it out everywhere right now, because it would interfere
> with
> their AGENDA of CONVERTING SUNNIS hahahahaha :)
salaam,
we don't have to call it lies. all we have to do is show how illogical
some of the things in Bukhari are and it is enough. I have already
raised such objections on this group like:
1.God is time
2.God uncovers his shin on the day of Judgment.
3.A rock runs away with Musa's cloths
4.Musa chases a rock while naked.
5.Musa slaps the eye of an angel out.
6.God puts his foot in hell.
7.God comes in different forms on the day of Judgment.
8.Unconditional obedience to Tyrants.
9.Fatimah's anger being equal to the Prophet's anger and then Fatimah
dying while angry at Abu Bakr yet the sunnis consider Abu Bakr the most
pious etc.
and so on. There is a list of 40 such hadeeth at:
http://geocities.com/aly2k1/abuhurayrah.htm
So our method is to avoid calling anyone a liar and forger etc. We show
you the proof, encourage you to use your own intellect and decide for
yourself.
As far as an agenda of converting sunnis i think you are just being
paranoid. We are only defending ourselves and if that results in some
sunnis agreeing with us and accepting our point of view well it
happens. I don't believe in converting anyone. Changing schools is a
personal choice.
A sincere person does not hesitate in accepting the truth even if it
clashes with what one wants to believe. It is the difference between
faith and disbelief.
salaam,
Ridwaan