Monthly Archives: December 2011

Answering-Ansar trapped in its own logic [Saqifa Incident]

Answering-Ansar says

there are two crucial hadith attributed to the Holy Prophet (saaws) that would have been invaluable had they been advanced during the debate at Saqifa:

  1. If the Iman of the Ummah were on one side and Abu Bakr’s on the other side, Abu Bakr would have weighed heavier. What greater claim to superiority can there be than that Muslim with the greatest Iman greater than the Ummah put together.
  2. If there had to be a Prophet after me it would have been Umar – Again Hadhrath Umar is given the rank of a Prophet (saaws) could anyone in the Ummah had been superior to a ‘would be Prophet’.

What better opportunity could there have been than this one, by advancing these two hadith, would the matter not have been resolved forthwith? Who could supersede men who have such hadith in their favor? Unfortunately no such hadith were advanced at the Saqifa, if these hadith are indeed true do you not think that they would have been placed before the Ansar, rather than spurious claims of superiority based along tribal loyalties?

I agree with Answering-Ansar, if these two ahadith were explicit proofs that Abu Bakr was the first caliph or Umar was the second caliph, they would have been put forth at the incident of saqifa.

But the question is, what does Answering-Ansar says about the hadith

“Of whomsoever I am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla (master).”

Was it put forth at saqifa by anyone? While Answering-Ansar itself says that the Prophet said this just before his departure from the world.

It was on the day of Ghadhir, shortly before his own departure from this world, that the Holy Prophet drew on the words denoting his own authority as the Khalifa of Allah mentioned above in Sura Al Ahzab, verse 6, in the form of asking the believers “Do I have more right over the believers than they have over themselves?, and when the people cried “Yes O Messenger of Allah” he transferred that authority to Ali (as), with the words

“Of whomsoever I am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla (master).”

So the whole people, from Muhajireen as well as Ansar, forgot this explicit proof of imamate in such a short period? Of course that is not possible, although what is obvious and according to the logic of Answering-Ansar is that it is NOT the proof of Imamate of Ali as the Shiites would like it to be. Neither was it considered to be such an explicit proof, or else someone would have reminded the people of this hadith at saqifa.

The biggest reference to Ali  (of which Answering-Ansar didn’t give any reference) according to AA itself is

At two points the name Ali was mentioned by the Ansar. At one point as mentioned one Ansar admitted that none could debate about authority if Ali asked for it. We would ask the readers to carefully ponder over the words here. A man from the Ansar amidst the debate acknowledges that if Ali (as) was to enter the debate all pledge their allegiance to him. Why would he say such a thing, unless the khilafat was Ali (as)’s exclusive right? Later when the oaths were being rendered in the building some Ansar said they would only give it to Hadhrath Ali, clearly in their view he had a right in the matter.

But absolutely no mentioning of the hadith

“Of whomsoever I am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla (master).”

So we understand from this that the people at that time didn’t consider this hadith to be the proof of Imamate of Ali, a simple and logical thing that Shias don’t realize not because this is something illogical, but because it is easier for them to put a barrier between their thinking and logic instead of accepting the simple truth.

Mourning and excuses of Answering-Ansar

Answering-Ansar  while trying to defend the barbarous acts of self flagellation consulted Bible also. But it couldn’t stop deceptions even while trying to prove mourning from Bible.

Answering-Ansar in trying to prove mourning from Bible tried to take evidence from Luke 23:48

Let’s read Luke 23:48

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

But the next verse shows that these people were the Shias of Kufa

And like the ahlelbayt of Imam Hussain, the companions of Jesus didn’t beat themselves.

Luke 23:49

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

We read in Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Luke 23:48

And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

And all the people that came together to that sight,…. To see the execution of Jesus; and some of them might be his inveterate enemies, and came to insult him, and did insult him; many of these, though not every individual of them:

beholding the things which were done; the eclipse, earthquake, &c.

smote their breasts; as conscious of guilt, and as fearing some dreadful judgment would fall upon them, and their nation, for this sin of crucifying Christ. The Persic version reads, “they went back, and kneeled down, and prostrated themselves to the ground”; as being in the utmost astonishment, confusion, fear, and dread:

and returned; to the city, and to their own houses, where they might more seriously, and with the greater composure of mind, reflect on these things.

Luke 23:49

And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

And all his acquaintance,…. That were related to him in a natural, or in a spiritual sense, or both, as his own mother, and beloved disciple John, who were both present, John 19:26 or those that were known unto him, and familiar with him, who attended on his ministry, and often conversed, and were intimately acquainted with him:

and the women that followed him from Galilee; among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Joses, and Salome the mother of Zebedee’s children:

stood afar off; from the cross:

beholding these things; with wonder, as well as looking upon their dear suffering Lord, with aching hearts, and flowing eyes.

Now the question is, does the Answering-Ansar wants us to follow those who came to watch the execution of Jesus and beated themselves after his supposed execution or the friends of Jesus who wept but didn’t join them in self beating?

We should make it clear that we don’t believe in the crucifixion theory, but we just wanted to show the deceptive ways of Answering-Ansar.

Afterwards Answering-Ansar says:

If there is absence of explicit permission then there is absence of prohibition also

Answering-Ansar finally accepts that there is absence of explicit permission of mourning. But as far as its claim that there is absence of prohibition, we disagree, because there are clear sayings of the Prophet (s) and the Imams of ahlelbayt in both Shia and Sunni books which prohibits from self flagellation and wailing etc.

For example,

Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 187
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Burda that Abu Musa fell unconscious and his wife Umm Abdullah came there and wailed loudly. When he felt relief he said: Don’t you know? -and narrated to her: Verily the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I have no concern with one who shaved her hair, lamented loudly and tore (her clothes in grief).

Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 721
Narrated ‘Abdullah (bin Mas’ud):
The Prophet said, “Who-ever slaps his face or tears the bosom of his dress, or calls the calls of the Period of Ignorance, is not from us.”

Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 58 :: Hadith 189
Narrated Sufyan:
‘Ubaidullah said: “I heard Ibn ‘Abbas saying, “Following are some traits of the people of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (i) to defame the ancestry of other families, (ii) and to wail over the dead.” ‘Ubaidullah forgot the third trait. Sufyan said, “They say it (i.e. the third trait) was to believe that rain was caused by the influence of stars (i.e. if a special star appears it will rain).”

And similar ahadith are present in Shia books

It has been narrated from Jabir ibn Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah held the hand of Abdur Rahman bin Awf and led him to his son Ibrahim. The Prophet took him in his lap and wept. Abdur Rahman said : Do you also weep (O Messenger of Allah)?. Haven’t you forbidden from weeping? The Prophet (s) said : No , but I have forbidden you from wailing over dead, and from two foolish voices,  tone of amusement and musical instruments of shaitan and the voice at calamity, clawing (scratching) of face, tearing of clothes and clang of shaitan.

Mustadrak al wasail, by Mirza Nuri, Vol. 2, p. 458

Maskan al fuad , by Shahid Thani p. 93

This tradition is also present in Sunan Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, p. 328 (Tirmidhi and Albani grades Hasan)  and  Musnad abd ibn humayd, Vol. 3, p. 127

Imam Ja’far Sadiq (as) has said that patience and hardships, both comes to the believer, hence on the appearance of hardships, he exhibit patience and  adversities and impatience comes to kafir hence on the appearance of adversities, he exhibits signs of Jaza’
Al-Kafi, Volume 3 page 223 (Majlisi grades Hasan kal sahih, see Mirat ul Uqul 14/183)

So we see that there is explicit prohibition of self flagellation.

Afterwards, Answering-Ansar says:

It is quite clear that holding mourning of Imam Husayn (as) by means of Matam (chest beating) or Zanjeer (blood letting) is to give physical expression of sympathy for Imam Husayn (as). It expresses nothing but love and loyalty for the Ahl’ul bayt (as).

Love through zanjeer zani (shedding blood by beating yourself with chains like an insane)? Islam is free of such nonsense.