Monthly Archives: January 2012

Two cases of clear mistranslations and deceptions

Answering-Ansar says:

We read in Muslim, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:

Narrated ‘A’isha:
The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to (bashr) fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Comment

Now in the Holy Qur’an Surah Baqarah, verse 222, we read:

“They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean”.

This verse clearly prohibits intercourse whilst one’s wife is menstruating. The word that the translator Mr Muhsin Khan has translated as “fondle” is mubasharath – and this actually means ‘to have sexual intercourse’. The term had been used by Allah (swt) in the Qur’an re Ramadhan – wherein Allah (swt) had stated that the previous injunction prohibiting intercourse during the night was abrogated:

“It is made lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives on the night of the fasts. They are garments for you and you are the same for them. Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you and forgave you. So now have sexual relations with them and seek that which Allah has ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread (light) of dawn appears to you distinct from the black thread (darkness of night), then complete your fast till the nightfall. And do not have sexual relations with them (your wives) while you are in Itikaf in the mosques. These are the limits (set) by Allah, so approach them not. Thus does Allah make clear His signs to mankind that they may become Al Mut’ahqun (the pious)” (2:187).

The Qur’an has clearly used this term as meaning intercourse so if we are to accept this hadith as Sahih then it means that Ayesha claimed Rasulullah (s) had sex with her whilst she was menstruating. By deeming such hadith as Sahih these Nasibi have alleged that Rasulullah (s) violated a Qur’anic injunction (astaghfirullah).

The image had such a lasting effect on the Sahaba Jabir, that Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Kashaf al Ghimma page 65, narrates Jabir’s words, from the mouth of Ayesha:

“During my menses, Rasulullah (s) would ‘Bashr’ [have intercourse] with me. He would order me to tie a knot in a large cloth, after I did this he would embrace my chest”

Is there any greater immorality than having sex with one’s wife during her menses? Allah (swt) has condemned such an act and the Ahl as-Sunnah have proudly claimed that Rasulullah (s) had done just that.

 

We already mentioned in our earlier article that Kashaful Ghummah is a Shia book, not a book of Ahle Sunnah as claimed by Answering Ansar. [Click Here] Secondly, there is a difference between fondling and intercause. In the translation of Sahih Muslim, bashr has been translated as fondling, but Answering-Ansar claims that actually it means intercause (and hence rejecting that it could be translated as fondling). Even the words in the hadith “During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to (bashr) fondle me.” are enough to show that here it doesn’t mean intercause.

We read in al-Kafi

علي بن إبراهيم، عن ابيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن جميل، عن زرارة، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: ليس في القبلة ولا مس الفرج ولا المباشرة وضوء

Imam Baqir (a.s) said : There is no ablution in case of kissing or touching vagina or doing mubashara.

al-Kafi, Vol. 3, p. 37 (Hasan according to Majlisi- Mirat ul Ukul Vol. 13, p. 118)

Of course, no Shia will say that mubashara here means sexual intercause. You would have to agree that mubashara here can mean fondling and not sexual intercause as Answering-Ansar would like us to believe. So this is clear mistransation of Answering-Ansar.

You can imagine the result of the ‘hard work’ of answering-ansar on Christian forums as well.

A Christian while trying to refute the Ahle Sunnah says:

Such cases are just too many where the non Muslims try to use the Shia websites and their full of ignorance literature to bash Islam. The fact is that the ignorant Shias can only misguide others.

And there is yet another clear case of mistranslation.

 

The subsiquent burial of Uthman by the Sahabah in a Jewish toilet also proves that they did not deem him to be a martyr

Abu Sulaiman as part of his usual dishonesty, sought to convince his Sunni readers that this reference is non existent:

Ansar.org states
Al-Tijani’s claim that the Companions did not allow his corpse to be buried in Muslim cemeteries, and so he was buried in Hashsh Kawkab, which is a Jewish piece of land, his claim only shows his complete ignorance and lack of knowledge. Hashsh Kawkab is not a Jewish land. Hashsh means garden [in Arabic] and Uthman bought the land from an Ansari man named Kawkab! [Tahtheeb Al-Asma wa Al-Lughat by Al-Nawawi, vol. 1, p. 323 and Al-Ma’alim Al-Atheerah fi Al-Sunnah wa Al-Seerah by Muhamed Hasan Sharab p. 101] And when Uthman passed away, he was buried in his own garden, which he bought by his own money! Is there something wrong in that?

Embarrasing as it is, the fact is Uthman was indeed buried in such a place. Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari records in his Tarikh, Volume 3 page 438:

حش كوكب كانت اليهود تدفن فيه موتاهم

“The Jews used to bury their dead in Hush Kawkab”

Now, the Imams of Ahle Sunnah have recorded the following fact in their respective books:

حتى أتوا به حش كوكب فلما دلوه في قبره صاحت عائشة بنت عثمان…قال مالك وكان عثمان قبل ذلك يمر بحش كوكب فيقول ليدفن هاهنا رجل صالح

Till they carried him to ‘Hush Kawkab’ and when they put him in his grave, Aisha bint Uthman started to cry….Malik said: Uthman used to pass by ‘Hush Kawkab’ and would say: ‘Here, a pious man will be buried’.
1. Majma al-Zawaed, by Haythami, Volume 9 page 95
2. Al-Muj’am al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 1 page 79

Imam Abi Bakar Al-Haythami said: ‘The narrators are reliable’. Ibn Abdul Barr records in Al-Istiab, Volume 3 page 1048:

ودفن ليلا بموضع يقال له حش كوكب

He was buried at night at a place called ‘Hush Kawkab’

We should also point out that the ‘Hash Kaukab’ was not a Jewish graveyard but a (Jewish) toilet, it is quite possible that the Sunni clergy later on manipulated historical facts and wrote Hush Kawkab as a Jewish graveyard in their attempt to cover up the fact that it was actually a toilet where their beloved caliph was buried by the Sahabah. In order to make this fact more clear, allow us to cite the comments of Shafiyee scholar Abu Bakar bin Muhammad al-Bakri al-Damyati (d. 1310 H) from his book Eayanat al-Talbin, Volume 2 page 284:

والحش – بضم الحاء وفتحها- محل قضاء الحاجة ويسمى بيت الخلاء

‘Hush’ is a place where they answer the call of nature, it is also called toilet.

Imam Nawawi records in his authority work Al-Majmo’a, Volume 3 page 154:

أن الحش بفتح الحاء وضمها هو الخلاء

‘Hush’ is a toilet

Some pathetic Nawasib may bring an excuse that ‘Hush’ means ‘garden’ as stated by al-Haythami. Although the above cited meanings from two esteemed Sunni scholars shall suffice for the Nawasib, but for the arguments sake we should also point out that unlike today, in those days toilets were not built separately with some amenities rather they were linked to the gardens and this view is also supported if we check the meaning of the word ‘Hush’ in Arabic dictionaries such as al-Sehah by al-Jawhari, Volume 3 page 1002:

لأنهم كانوا يقضون حوائجهم في البساتين

“Because they used to answer the call of nature in the gardens.”

Taj al-Aroos by al-Zubaidi, Volume 9 page 90:

لأنهم كانوا يقضون حوائجهم ، أي يذهبون عند قضاء الحاجة في البساتين

“Because they used to go to gardens in order to answer the call of nature”

 

Let’ s  start the last book cited by Answering-Ansar. We read:

وحش كوكب وحش طلحة : موضعان بالمدينة ظاهر ضبطهما أنهما بالضم والصواب أنهما بالفتح كما ضبطه الصاغاني وأبو عبيد البكري أما حش كوكب فإنه بستان بظاهر المدينة خارج البقيع اشتراه سيدنا عثمان رضي الله تعالى عنه وزاده في البقيع وبه دفن

Hush Kawkab and Hush Talha, two places in Madina. As far as Hush Kawkab is concerned , it is a garden outside Baqi which was bought by Sayyidana Uthman may Allah be pleased with him adn it was adjoined to Baqi and he was buried in this place as well.

Taj ul Uroos, 1/4245

This totally destroys the claim of Answering-Ansar that it was some Jewish toilet. The term Hush is also present in Sahih Muslim.

We read in Sahih Muslim Book 31, Number 5933

Mus’ab b. Sa’d reported on the authority of his father that many verses of the Qur’an had been revealed in connection with him … He further said: I came to a group of persons of the Ansir and Muhajirin and they said: Come, so that we may serve you wine, and it was before the use of wine had been prohibited. I went to them in a garden and there had been with them the roasted head of a camel and a small water-skin containing wine.

The Arabic term used for garden here is ‘Hush’ and it is also clearly mentioned in the Arabic text that hush means garden.

حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة وزهير بن حرب قالا حدثنا الحسن بن موسى حدثنا زهير حدثنا سماك بن حرب حدثني مصعب بن سعد عن أبيه أنه نزلت فيه آيات من القرآن … قال وأتيت على نفر من الأنصار والمهاجرين فقالوا تعال نطعمك ونسقك خمرا وذلك قبل أن تحرم الخمر قال فأتيتهم في حش والحش البستان فإذا رأس جزور مشوي عندهم وزق من خمر قال فأكلت وشربت معهم

Sahih Muslim, Kitab Fadhail al Sahaba

We read in Musnad Abu Daud al Tayalisi

حَدَّثَنَا هَمَّامٌ ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سِيرِينَ ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ الْحَنَفِيِّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ فِي حُشٍّ مِنْ حُشَّانِ الْمَدِينَةِ ، فَاسْتَأْذَنَ رَجُلٌ ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” ائْذَنْ لَهُ وَبَشِّرْهُ بِالْجَنَّةِ ” ، فَإِذَا هُوَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، فَأَذِنْتُ لَهُ وَبَشَّرْتُهُ بِالْجَنَّةِ ، فَقَرُبَ يَحْمَدُ اللَّهَ حَتَّى جَلَسَ ، ثُمَّ اسْتَأْذَنَ رَجُلٌ رَفِيعُ الصَّوْتِ ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” ائْذَنْ لَهُ وَبَشِّرْهُ بِالْجَنَّةِ ” فَإِذَا عُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، فَأَذِنْتُ لَهُ وَبَشَّرْتُهُ بِالْجَنَّةِ ، فَقَرُبَ يَحْمَدُ اللَّهَ ، ثُمَّ اسْتَأْذَنَ رَجُلٌ خَفِيضُ الصَّوْتِ ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” ائْذَنْ لَهُ وَبَشِّرْهُ بِالْجَنَّةِ عَلَى بَلْوَى تُصِيبُهُ ” فَإِذَا هُوَ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عَفَّانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، فَقَرُبَ يَحْمَدُ اللَّهَ حَتَّى جَلَسَ ، فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرٍو ، أَيْنَ أَنَا ؟ قَالَ : ” أَنْتَ مَعَ أَبِيكَ “

It has been narrated from Abdullah ibn Umru that he said :The Prophet was inside a garden from the gardens of Madinah when someone came and knocked on the gate. He said, ‘Let him in and  give him the glad tidings of Paradise.’ Lo and behold! It was Abu Bakr, I let him in and gave him the glad tidings of paradise. He praised Allah and sat down. Then another man came and knocked on the gate whereupon the Prophet said, ‘Let him in and give him the glad tidings of Paradise.’ Lo and behold! It was `Umar. I let him in and gave him the glad tidings of Paradise. He praised Almighty Allah. Then another man came ,  the Prophet said, ‘Let him in and give him the glad tidings of Paradise’ Lo and behold! It was `Uthman. I gave him the glad tidings of Paradise. He praised Allah till he sat down. Then Abdullah ibn Umru said : And where will I be? The Prophet (s) said: ‘You will be with your father’.

Musnad Abu Daud al Tayalisi

We have a report from Tarikh Tabari also.

 عن الحسن قال رأيت الزبير بن العوام بايع عليا في حش من حشان المدينة

It has been narrated from Hasan that he said : I saw Zubair rendering allegiance to Ali in a Hush from the Hishan (p. of Hush) of Madina.

Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 697

Of course, we can’t translate it as toilet, can we?

We read in Maraqi al-Falah

والحشوش جمع الحش بالفتح والضم بستان النخيل في الأصل ثم استعمل في موضع قضاء الحاجة

Hushush is the plural of hushsh and hashsh. The original meaning is ‘a garden of palm trees’. However, it began to be used to mean any place where a person excretes.

Maraqi al Falah, p. 27

We read in Nihayatul Athar by Ibn Athir that Hash Kawkab was a garden outside Baqi. Nihayat ul Athar 1/969

We read in Misbah Al Munir that Hush means garden. See Misbah al Munir 1/137. The same we read in Tahdheeb ul Lughah by Azhari, p. 540

Answering-Ansar.org should have tried to register the domain deceiving-ansar.org because it would have been a more suitable domain name for it.

Answering-Ansar and Mothers of believers

Answering-Ansar considers few wives of the Prophet as nasibi. And according to the traditions of imams in the shia books, nasibis are worse than dogs. Answering-Ansar wrote an article about Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and in this article, it says

Third Claim – Does the title of ‘Umahat ul Momineen’ given to the wives of the Holy Prophet (s) evidence Ayesha’s personal merit or guarantees her immunity from criticism?

Unable to identify a legitimate defence for the crimes committed by their Nasibi ancestors against Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) from the Quran and Sunnah, they turn to the fact that Allah (swt) declared the wives of the Prophet (s) to be the ‘mothers of the believers’ the exempts them from criticism.

The text clearly shows that Answering-Ansar accused the wife of the Prophet (s) i.e Ayesha, of being a nasibi, may Allah give the rafidha their due reward.

Answering-Ansar says:

Reply One: The actual reason for declaring them ‘mothers of the believers’ was to prevent Muslims from marrying them

We shall puncture this Nawasib ‘defence ball’ by pointing out that the sole reason for declaring the wives of the Prophet (s) as ‘the mothers of the believers’ was to prevent the Muslims from marrying them in the eventuality of their being divorced or widowed, it is not a merit on their part. That is why we read in the Holy Quran:

Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah’s Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. (33:53)

The first verse was revealed when Allah [swt] exposed the evil wish of Talha to marry Ayesha in the eventuality of the Prophet’s death. Allah [swt] sought to remove such an option by revealing this verse:

‘and his wives are their mothers’ (33:6)

The first verse was revealed to establish a new rule that Muslims could not marry the Prophet (s)’s and the second commandment was revealed to emphasize the very rule. It is similar to the case of the verses of Zakat.  Zakat was mentioned in the Quran several times, initially to establish a new rule with the remainder occasions emphasizing the requirement of Zakat.

We say, there was no need to call them mothers of the believers, the earlier verse was enough for forbidding the Muslims from marrying the wives of the Prophet. They have been specifically called the mothers of the believers to venerate them. Let us read the whole verse

The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. (Quran 33:6)

Anyone with common sense can realize that in this verse is present the veneration of the Prophet (s) also, and his wives also, and since they have been called the mothers of the believers, so it includes the prohibition to marry them also. But Answering-Ansar argues that this verse only shows the prohibition to marry the wives of the Prophet (s), and than using its old tactics of deception, tries to prove its point.

Answering-Ansar says:

Let us now substantiate our argument with the help of Sunni sources. We read in Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Volume 14 page 228:

رَوَى إِسْمَاعِيل بْن إِسْحَاق قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّد بْن عُبَيْد قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّد بْن ثَوْر عَنْ مَعْمَر عَنْ قَتَادَة أَنَّ رَجُلًا قَالَ : لَوْ قُبِضَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَزَوَّجْت عَائِشَة , فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّه تَعَالَى : ” وَمَا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تُؤْذُوا رَسُول اللَّه ” الْآيَة . وَنَزَلَتْ : ” وَأَزْوَاجه أُمَّهَاتهمْ “

Qatada said: ‘A man said: ‘If Allah’s messenger (s) died, I would marry Ayesha’. Hence Allah revealed ‘{ Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah’s Messenger}’ then revealed ‘{ and his wives are their mothers}’.

This narration is present under the verse 53 of Surah Ahzab, but we are  discussing the verse 6 of Surah Ahzab, i.e (النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم وأزواجه أمهاتهم). If we read its tafsir in Qurtabi’s tafsir, we read

وأزواجه أمهاتهم شرف الله تعالى أزواج نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم بأن جعلهن أمهات المؤمنين ; أي في وجوب التعظيم والمبرة والإجلال وحرمة النكاح على الرجال

And his wives (i.e wives of the Prophet) are their mothers (i.e mothers of believers). Allah venerated the wives of His Prophet (s) by giving them the status of mothers of believers, i.e to be respected and venerated and the prohibtion of marrying.

Tafsir Qurtubi 33:6

Answering-Ansar then cites Allama Shawkani’s Fathul Qadir to prove its point:

One of the beloved scholars of Salafies namely Shawkani records in Fatah al-Qadir, Volume 4 page 372 wrote:

فلا يحل لأحد أن يتزوج بواحدة منهن كما لا يحل له أن يتزوج بأمه فهذه الأمومة مختصة بتحريم النكاح لهن

“It is impermissible for anyone to marry any one of them as it is impermissible to marry his biological mother, thus this motherhood is about forbidding marriage with them”

This is one of the worst cases of deceptions of Answering-Ansar. If we read the whole sentence, it rips apart the claim of Answering-Ansar. If we take into account the following underlined text , which has not been mentioned by Answering-Ansar, we come to know that Allama Shawkani clearly says that this verse is about prohibition of marrying the  wives of the Prophet (s) as well as to show their veneration.

وأزواجه أمهاتهم أي : مثل أمهاتهم في الحكم بالتحريم ومنزلات منزلتهن في استحقاق التعظيم فلا يحل لأحد أن يتزوج بواحدة منهن كما لا يحل له أن يتزوج بأمه ، فهذه الأمومة مختصة بتحريم النكاح لهن وبالتعظيم لجنابهن

(And his wives are their mothers) means:  they are like their mothers in the ruling of prohibition of marriage, and they share the station of deserving treatment of grandeur, so it is not impermissible for anyone to marry anyone of them, just like it is impermissible for them to marry their mothers. Thus this motherhood is about forbidding marriage with them and about respecting/venerating them.

Fathul Qadir, Tafsir Surah Ahzab

Similarly we read in Tafsir ibn Kathir

وقوله : ( وأزواجه أمهاتهم ) أي : في الحرمة والاحترام ، والإكرام والتوقير والإعظام ، ولكن لا  تجوز الخلوة بهن ، ولا ينتشر التحريم إلى بناتهن وأخواتهن بالإجماع

(and his wives are their mothers.) i.e in terms of hurmah, and in  terms of honor, respect and veneration, it is not permissible for them to be alone with them, and the prohibition of marriage to them does not extend to their and sisters, according to scholarly consensus.

Tafsir ibn Kathir, 33:6

(To read more about the tafsir of this verse in Sunni books, click here)

So we come to know that this verse not only shows the prohibition of marrying the wives of the Prophet, but it also shows their veneration.

Now let us see what do Shia Tafasir say regarding this verse.

We read in Tafsir al Mizan by Tabatabai

وقوله: (وأزواجه أمهاتهم) جعل تشريعي أي انهن منهم بمنزلة أمهاتهم في وجوب تعظيمهن وحرمة نكاحهن بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

 (and his wives are their mothers). This is the Sharia ruling i.e. his wives are to the men like their mothers, and by necessity they (i.e the wives of the Prophet) have to be honoured and are not allowed to be taken as wives after Prophet(saw).

Tafsir al Mizan, Vol. 16, p. 288

It is mentioned in Tafsir Safi by Faiz Kashani

وأزوجه أمهاتهم منزلات منزلتهن في التحريم مطلقا وفي استحقاق التعظيم

(And his wives are their mothers) means they share the station of prohibition in marriage and deserving treatment of grandeur.

Tafsir Safi , Volume 4, p. 168

Ayatullah Makarim Shirazi has also concurred from this verse of Quran that it not only shows the prohibition of marrying the wives of the Prophet (s) but also it shows the veneration of the wives of the Prophet (s).

Tafsir Namoona, Vol. 17, p. 180

The following narration present in Shia tafasir also shows that this verse shows the veneration of the wives of the Prophet (s), though saying that the Prophet gave his right of divorce to Ali in case his wives do something wrong (just imagine the absurdity)

عن القائم (عليه السلام) انه سئل عن معنى الطلاق الذي فوض رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) حكمه إلى أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام)؟ قال: إن الله تقدس اسمه عظم شأن نساء النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) فخصهن بشرف الأمهات، فقال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): يا أبا الحسن إن هذا الشرف باق ما دمن على الطاعة فأيتهن عصت الله بعدي بالخروج عليك فأطلقها في الأزواج، وأسقطها من تشرف الأمهات ومن شرف أمومة المؤمنين

It is narrated from Imam Qaim that he was asked about the right of divorce,  That the Messenger of Allah (s) left it at the discretion of Amirul Momineen (i.e Ali)?” He replied: “The Almighty Allah, hallowed be His name, gave an exalted status to the wives of the Prophet and gave them the honor of being the mothers of the faithful. Thus the Messenger of Allah (s) told Amirul Momineen : O Abal Hasan, this status is valid for them till they remain in the obedience of the Almighty Allah. So whoever of them disobeys Allah and after that me, comes out in armed confrontation against you, remove her from my wifehood and take away her status of motherhood of faithful.”

Tafsir Safi, Vol. 4, p. 167

Tafsir Nur al thaqalayn, Vol. 5, p. 372

Tarjuma Maqbool, Para 21, p. 667

Hence, it is firmly established that this verse does show the veneration of the wives of the Prophet (s). Answering-Ansar clearly deceived the readers to hide the fact that this verse clearly venerates and exalts the wives of the Prophet (s).