PESHAWAR NIGHTS
Sultanu'l-Wa'izin Shirazi
Fifth Session, Part 3
SLANDERS BY ABU TAIMIYYA
One of your most irreligious ulema is Ahmad Bin Abdu'l-Halim Hanbali,
known as Ibn Taimiyya (died 728 A.H.). He had extreme malice toward
the Shias, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali, and the descendants
of the Prophet. His Minhaju's-Sunna is filled with his bitter
enmity against Ali and the progeny of the Holy Prophet. Anyone
who is even slightly acquainted with the facts would be astounded
to hear his lies. For example, he writes that "There is no
larger group of liars than the Shia sect, and it is for this reason
that the authors of Siha's did not include in their books hadith
narrated by them." In Volume X, page 23, he says that the
Shias believe in four fundamentals of religion - tauhid (Oneness
of God); adl (justice of Allah); nabuwat (prophethood); and imamate
(vicegerency). In fact, in Shia books of faith, available everywhere,
it is written that the Shia faith consists of three fundamentals:
tauhid, nabuwat, and ma'ad (the Day of Judgement); adl is part
of tawhid and the imamate is part of nabuwat.
In Volume I, page 131, he states that the Shias do not gather
in the mosques. They do not offer jum'a or congregational prayers.
If they ever offer prayer, they do it individually. (Laughter
among the Shias .) But of course we place great emphasis on congregational
prayers. In many cities of Iraq and Iran, which are centers of
the Shias, our mosques are crowded with worshippers offering congregational
prayers. On the same page, he writes that the Shias do not make
the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba. "Their Hajj (pilgrimage) consists
only in visiting the tombs, which they consider superior to the
Pilgrimage to Mecca. They condemn those who do not go for ziarat
to the tombs." (Laughter.) Shia books of prayer contain a
special Chapter for the Hajj prayer (Kitabu'l-Hajj). Shia theologians
have written many books prescribing the rituals for the Hajj,
wherein special instructions have been given to perform the Hajj
rites. Many hadith from our Imams insist that if a Muslim (Shia
or Sunni) has the means, and yet fails to perform the Hajj, he
is excommunicated from Islam. When he dies, he is told: "Die
whatever death you can, be it the death of a Jew, a Christian,
or a fire-worshiper." Can you believe that in the face of
such instructions Shias would refrain from performing the Hajj?
In addition to these misrepresentations, this wicked man has said
that a great Shia Scholar, Muhammad Bin Muhammad Bin Nu'man (Sheikh
Mufid), wrote Manasikhu'l-Hajj li'l-Mashahid. The correct title
is Mansikhu'z-Ziarat, which is available everywhere and which
contains instructions about the visit to the places of ziarat,
including the holy shrines of the most revered Imams. If you consult
these books of ziarat, you will find that a visit to the tombs
of the Holy Prophet and the Imams is commendable, not obligatory.
The best proof against the allegation of this irreligious man
is the practice followed by Shias, who make the pilgrimage by
the thousands every year. Another false accusation of this liar
can be found in Volume I, page 11, where he says that the Shias
call their dogs by the name of Abu Bakr and Umar and always curse
them (Abu Bakr and Umar). (Laughter among the Shias .) This is
ridiculous. According to the Shia belief, the dog is utterly polluted.
A Muslim house with a dog is deprived of Allah's blessings. Therefore,
Shia Muslims are strictly forbidden to domesticate dogs except
under certain conditions (hunting, protecting the house, or herding
sheep). One of the many reasons for discord between Yazid and
the grandson of the Prophet, Imam Husain, was that Yazid was fond
of dogs and domesticated them without good reason. Ibn Taimiyya
also writes that since the Shias are awaiting the reappearance
of the last of their Imams, in many places, particularly in the
sardab (underground hall) of Samarra (where the holy Imam disappeared),
they keep ready a horse. They call for their Imam to appear, saying
that they are fully armed to serve him. He also writes that the
Shias turn toward the East during the last days of Ramadhan and
call for the Imam to appear. Some of them even forego their ritual
prayers, thinking that if they were busy saying their prayers
and the Imam appeared, they might be deprived of their service
to him (laughter by the Sunnis and the Shias ). We are not so
much surprised at this wicked man's ridiculous stories. But we
are surprised at the behavior of the present ulema of Egypt and
Damascus who, without asking the Shias with whom they live, follow
the absurdities of men like Ibn Taimiyya. It would be tiring to
give a long list of the inaccurate reports of Ibn Hajar Makki,
Hafiz, and Qazi Ruzbahan. Their books are known, although from
the point of view of authenticity, they have no value.
For instance, the Milal wa'n-Nihal of Muhammad Ibn Abdu'l-Karim
Shahrastani (died 548 A.H.), in the eyes of scholars, has not
the least value. One will not find anything in it except utterly
false beliefs attributed to Shias, like the worship of Ali and
belief in the transmigration of the soul. Obviously he was not
a man of learning. Writing about Ithna Ashari Shias, he says that
the tomb of Ali Ibn Hadi Muhammad Naqi, who came after Imam Muhammad
Taqi, is in Qum. But even children know that the holy shrine of
Imam Ali Naqi is located adjacent to the shrine of his son, Imam
Hasan Askari, in Samarra. I don't think further references of
this nature are necessary to prove that the Sunni ulema have concocted
false reports concerning the Shias. And I am not alone in levelling
charges against the integrity of Abu Huraira. The Sunni ulema
have also exposed his bad character in their own books.
ABU HURAIRA'S CHARACTER AND HADITH CALLING FOR HIS CONDEMNATION
Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, in his commentary on the Nahju'l-Balagha,
Volume I, page 358, and in Volume IV, reports from his Sheikh
and teacher, Imam Abu Ja'far Asqalani, that Mu'awiya Bin Abu Sufyan
organized a group of companions of the Holy Prophet and the children
of the companions for the purpose of fabricating hadith. Among
those who concocted filthy hadith against Ali were Abu Huraira,
Amir Bin As, and Mughira Ibn Shaba. Giving details of these stories,
Ibn Abi'l-Hadid narrates that Abu Huraira once entered the Kufa
mosque and saw a huge gathering of people who had come to welcome
Mu'awiya. He shouted to the crowd: "O people of Iraq. Do
you think that I would tell a lie in opposing Allah and His Prophet
and buy Hellfire for myself? Hear from me what I have heard from
the Prophet. 'Every Prophet has a Haram (sacred dwelling place)
and my Haram is Medina. One who is responsible for innovation
in Medina is cursed by Allah, by His angels, and by all humanity.'
I swear by Allah that Ali was responsible for an innovation."
(That is, Ali incited dissension among the people and so, according
to the Prophet, should be cursed). When Mu'awiya learned of this
(that Abu Huraira did such a thing for him and did it in Ali's
capital, Kufa), he sent for him, gave him a reward, and made him
the governor of Medina. Aren't his misdeeds sufficient to prove
that he deserves condemnation? Is it proper that a man who mistreats
the most noble of the caliphs should be regarded as pious simply
because he had once been a companion of the Prophet?
Sheikh: On what grounds do Shias
consider him accursed?
Well-Wisher: There are many
arguments in support of our view. One of them is that one who
abuses the Prophet is, according to both sects, condemned. According
to the hadith which I mentioned earlier, the Holy Prophet said,
"One who abuses Ali, abuses me; one who abuses me, abuses
Allah." It is clear that Abu Huraira was one of those who
not only abused Ali Bin Abu Talib, but who fabricated hadith to
incite others to abuse him.
ABU HURAIRA'S COLLUSION WITH BUSR IBN ARTAT IN THE MASSACRE OF MUSLIMS
We also condemn Abu Huraira for his collusion with Busr Ibn Artat
in the massacre of thousands of Muslims. It has been reported
by your own historians, including Tabari, Ibn Athir, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid,
Allama Samhudi, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khallikan, and others that Mu'awiya
Ibn Abu Sufyan sent the cruel Busr Ibn Artat with 4,000 Syrian
soldiers to Yemen via Medina to crush the people of Yemen and
the Shias of Ali. The assailants murdered thousands of Muslims
in Medina, Mecca, Ta'if, Tabala' (a city of Tihama), Najran, Safa,
and its suburbs. They did not spare the young or old of the Bani
Hashim or the Shias of Ali. They even murdered the two small sons
of the Holy Prophet's cousin, Ubaidullah Bin Abbas, the governor
of Yemen, who had been appointed by Ali. It is said that more
than 30,000 Muslims were killed on the order of this tyrant. The
Bani Umayya and their followers committed these insane atrocities.
Your beloved Abu Huraira witnessed this slaughter and was not
only silent but actively supported it. Innocent people, like Jabir
bin Abdullah Ansari, and Abu Ayyub Ansari sought refuge. Even
the house of Abu Ayyub Ansari, who was one of the Prophet's chief
companions, was set on fire. When this army turned towards Mecca,
Abu Huraira remained in Medina. Now I ask you to tell us, in the
name of Allah, whether this deceitful man who had been in the
company of the Holy Prophet for three years, and who narrated
more than 5,000 hadith from the Prophet, had not heard those famous
hadith regarding Medina. The ulema of both the sects (like Allama
Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina, Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad, Sibt
Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira, page 163) have quoted from the Holy Prophet,
who said repeatedly: "He who threatens the people of Medina
with oppression will be threatened by Allah and will be cursed
by Allah, by His angels, and by humanity. Allah will not accept
anything from him. May he be cursed who threatens the people of
Medina. If anyone harms the people of Medina, Allah will melt
him like lead in fire." So why did Abu Huraira join the army
which devastated Medina? Why did he fabricate hadith in opposition
to the rightful successor to the Prophet? And why did he incite
people to revile the man about whom the Prophet had said: "To
abuse him is to abuse me"? You decide whether a man who fabricated
hadith in the name of the Prophet was not cursed.
Sheikh: It is unkind of you
to call the most reliable companion of the Holy Prophet an irreligious
fabricator. CONDEMNATION OF ABU HURAIRA AND UMAR'S BEATING HIM
Well-Wisher: It is not I alone
who am "unkind" to Abu Huraira. The first man who was
unkind to him was the second Caliph, Umar Bin Khattab. Ibn Athir
and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharhe-Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume III,
page 104 (printed in Egypt), and several others have reported
that after Caliph Umar appointed Abu Huraira governor of Bahrain
in 21 A.H., the people informed the Caliph that Abu Huraira had
amassed great wealth and had purchased many horses. Umar therefore
deposed him in 23 A.H. As soon as Abu Huraira entered the court,
the Caliph said: "O enemy of Allah and enemy of His Book!
Have you stolen Allah's
property?" He replied, "I never committed theft, but
the people have given me gifts." Ibn Sa'ad in Tabaqat, Volume
IV, page 90, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, and Ibn Abd-e-Rabbih
in Iqdu'l-Farid, Volume I, write that the Caliph said: "'When
I made you the governor of Bahrain, you had not even shoes on
your feet, but now I have heard that you have purchased horses
for 1,600 dinars. How did you acquire this wealth?' He replied,
'These were men's gifts which profit has multiplied much.' The
Caliph's face grew red with anger, and he lashed him so violently
that his back bled. Then he ordered the 10,000 dinars which Abu
Huraira had collected in Bahrain be taken from him and deposited
in the account of the Baitu'-Mal."
This was not the first time that Umar beat Abu Huraira. Muslim
writes in his Sahih, Volume I, page 34, that during the time of
the Prophet, Umar Bin Khattab beat Abu Huraira so severely that
the latter fell down on the ground. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes in
his commentary on Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 360: "Abu
Ja'far Asqalani has said: 'According to our great men, Abu Huraira
was a wicked fellow. The hadith narrated by him were not acceptable.
Umar beat him with a lash and told him that he had changed hadith
and had attributed false sayings to the Holy Prophet.'" Ibn
Asakir in his Ta'rikh Kabir and Muttaqi in his Kanzu'l-Umma report
that Caliph Umar lashed him, rebuked him, and forbade him to narrate
hadith from the Holy Prophet. Umar said: "Because you narrate
hadith in large numbers from the Holy Prophet, you are fit only
for attributing lies to him. (That is, one expects a wicked man
like you to utter only lies about the Holy Prophet.) So you must
stop narrating hadith from the Prophet; otherwise, I will send
you to the land of Dus." (A clan in Yemen, to which Abu Huraira
belonged.) Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his commentary on Nahju'l-Balagha,
Volume I, page 360 (printed in Egypt) reports from his teacher,
Imam Abu Ja'far Asqalani, that Ali said, "Beware of the greatest
liar among the people, Abu Huraira Dusi." Ibn Qutayba, in
Ta'wil-e-Mukhtalifu'l-Hadith, and Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume III,
and Dhahabi in Talkhisu'l-Mustadrak and Muslim in his Sahih, Volume
II, reporting about the characteristics of Abu Huraira, all say
that A'yesha repeatedly contradicted him and said, "Abu Huraira
is a great liar who fabricates hadith and attributes them to the
Holy Prophet." In short, it is not we alone who have rejected
Abu Huraira. According to Caliph Umar, the Commander of the Faithful,
Ali, Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha, and other companions and followers
of the Prophet said that he was completely unreliable. Accordingly,
the Sheikhs of the Mu'tazilites and their Imams and the Hanafi
ulema generally reject the hadith narrated by Abu Huraira. Moreover,
in his commentary on Muslim's Sahih, Volume IV, Nadwi emphasizes
this point: "Imam Abu Hanifa said, 'The companions of the
Prophet were generally pious and just. I accept every hadith with
evidence narrated by them, but I do not accept the hadith whose
source is Abu Huraira, Anas Ibn Malik, or Samra Bin Jundab."
We reject the same Abu Huraira, whom Caliph Umar lashed and called
a thief and a liar. He was rejected by Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha,
Imam Abu Hanifa, and by many companions and followers of the Holy
Prophet. We reject the same Abu Huraira who was rejected and called
a liar by our master, the chief of the monotheists, Ali, and by
the holy Imams and descendants of the Prophet. We reject Abu Huraira
who was a belly-worshiper, who, despite knowing the superiority
of Ali, ignored him. He preferred his patron, the damned Mu'awiya,
sat at his table to relish dainty dishes, and concocted hadith
in opposition to Ali. In view of our discussion so far, you and
I are obliged to see to it that when a hadith from the holy Prophet
is under consideration, we should first refer it to the Holy Qur'an.
If the hadith agrees with the Qur'an, we should accept it, otherwise
not.
REPLY TO THE SUPPOSED HADITH THAT ALLAH SAID "I AM PLEASED WITH ABU BAKR - IS HE ALSO PLEASED WITH ME?"
The hadith which you narrated earlier (although it is one-sided)
may be referred to the Holy Qur'an. If there is no hindrance,
we will surely accept it. One ayat of the Qur'an, however, says:
"And certainly We created man and know what his mind suggests.
We are nearer to him than his jugular vein." (50:16) You
are aware that hablu'l-warid (jugular vein) is a common expression
used to express extreme nearness. The meaning of this verse is
that Allah is All-Knowing. Nothing is hidden from Him, however
deep it may be in man's breast. Allah knows the secrets of our
hearts. And in the Chapter of "Yunus" He says: "And
you are not (engaged) in any affair, nor do you recite concerning
it any portion of the Qur'an, nor do you do any work but We are
witnesses over you when you enter into it. And there does not
lie concealed from your Lord the weight of an atom in the earth
or in heaven, nor anything less than that nor greater, but it
is in a clear book." (10:61) According to these verses, and
according to common sense, nothing is hidden from Allah. He knows
what man does or thinks. Now compare this hadith with these two
verses and see whether they can be reconciled. How is it possible
that Allah Almighty would not be aware of the pleasure of Abu
Bakr, so that He Himself might be obligated to ask him whether
he was pleased with Him or not? Common sense and the Holy Qur'an
indicate that this "hadith" is false.
AHADITH IN PRAISE OF ABU BAKR AND UMAR AND THEIR DISQUALIFICATION
Sheikh: There is no doubt that
the Holy Prophet said: "Allah will show Himself to all the
people in general and to Abu Bakr in particular." He also
said, "Allah did not put anything into my breast that He
did not put into Abu Bakr's breast." He also said: "I
and Abu Bakr are like two horses who are equal to each other in
a race." Again he said: "In the sky there are 80,000
angels who pray for blessings for him who is a friend of Abu Bakr
and Umar. And in the next level of the sky there are 80,000 angels
who curse him who is an enemy of Abu Bakr and Umar." The
Holy Prophet also said: "Abu Bakr and Umar are the best of
all mankind from beginning to end." Abu Bakr's and Umar's
rank can be assessed from the hadith in which the Holy Prophet
said: "Allah made me from His light, Abu Bakr from my light,
and Umar from Abu Bakr's light, and my followers from Umar's light.
Umar is the lamp of the People of Paradise." There are many
such hadith recorded in our authentic books. I have narrated only
a few so that you may know the real position of the caliphs.
Well-Wisher: The meaning of
these hadith leads to heresy and infidelity, which clearly proves
that the Holy Prophet could not have said such things. The first
hadith implies that Allah has a body and it is infidelity to believe
that Allah has a body. The second hadith indicates that Abu Bakr
shared in what was revealed to the Holy Prophet. The third hadith
implies that the Holy Prophet was in no way superior to Abu Bakr.
The other hadith conflict with innumerable hadith, which are accepted
by both sects, that the best people of the world are the Prophet
Muhammad and his descendants.
Apart from these clear facts, your own distinguished ulema, like
Muqaddasi in his Tadhkiratu'l-Muzu'a, Firuzabadi Shafi'i in his
Safaru's-Sa'adat, Hasan Bin Athir Dhahabi in Mizanu'l-I'tidal,
Abu Bakr Ahmad Bin Ali Khatib Baghdadi in his Ta'rikh, Abu'l-Faraj
Ibn Jauzi in Kitabu'l-Muzu'a, and Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in Al-Lu'ali'l-Masnu'a
fi'l-Abadusi'l-Muzu'a - all concluded that these hadith are fabricated.
They all insisted that these hadith are forged. They conflict
with The Holy Qur'an and with common sense.
Sheikh: But consider another
hadith, which surely is authentic. The Holy Prophet said: "Abu
Bakr and Umar are the masters of the old men of Paradise."
Well-Wisher: If you would examine
this supposed hadith more closely, you might find that, apart
from the fact that your own ulema have rejected it, this hadith
cannot possibly be from the Holy Prophet. Everyone knows that
Paradise will not be inhabited by old people. There are no gradual
changes there. There are many reports accepted by both sects which
relate to this matter. One of them is the affair of Ashja'iyya,
an old woman who came to the Prophet. In the course of his talk,
the Prophet said: "Old women will not enter Paradise."
The woman was deeply saddened and she said, weeping, "O Prophet
of Allah, this means I shall not enter Paradise." Saying
this, she departed. The Prophet said: "Tell her that on that
day she will be young and will enter Paradise." Then he recited
the following verse of the Holy Qur'an: "Surely We have made
them to grow into a (new) growth, then We have made them virgins,
loving, equals in age, for the sake of the companions of the right
hand." (56:35-38)
In another hadith accepted by both you and us, the Holy Prophet
said: "When the inhabitants of Paradise enter Heaven, they
will be youthful with pure clean faces, curly hair, charming eyes,
33 years of age."
Sheikh: Your statements are
true as they are, but this is a specific hadith.
Well-Wisher: I don't understand.
What do you mean by a "specific hadith"? Do you mean
that Allah will send a group of old men to Paradise so that Abu
Bakr and Umar may be their masters? Besides, your own prominent
ulema regard this hadith as fabricated. The Prophet gave us a
procedure for validating hadith. I stated earlier that any hadith
which is not consistent with the Holy Qur'an is to be rejected.
Our own scholars reject several hadith purported to have originated
with the Prophet or with the holy Imams on the basis of the principle
enunciated by the Prophet: "Whenever a hadith is reported
as having come from me, refer it to the Holy Qur'an; if it is
consistent with it, accept it; otherwise, reject it." Accordingly,
our scholars do not accept hadith which are inconsistent with
the Holy Qur'an. I stated earlier that your own ulema have written
treatises on the rejection of fabricated hadith. For example,
Sheikh Majdu'd-Din Muhammad bin Yaqub Firuzabadi in Safaru's-Sa'ada
(p. 142), Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in Kitabu'l-Lu'ali, Ibn Jauzi in
Muzu'a, Muqaddasi in Tadhkiratu'l-Muzu'a, and Sheikh Muhammad
bin Darwish (Mashhur be Hut-e-Beiruti) in Asna'l-Talib - all have
said that the chain of narrators of the hadith stating that Abu
Bakr and Umar are the masters of the old men of Paradise includes
Yahya bin 'Anbasa. Dhahabi says that this Yahya is an unreliable
narrator, and Ibn Jan held that Yahya used to fabricate hadith.
Thus, apart from my previous arguments, even your own ulema consider
it a false hadith. In fact, it is probable that it was fabricated
by the followers of Abu Bakr, the Umayya family. In order to humiliate
the Bani Hashim and the progeny of the Holy Prophet, they used
to fabricate hadith parallel to those authentically narrated in
praise of the family of the Prophet. Men like Abu Huraira, in
order to gain access to the ruling coterie of the Bani Umayya,
often fabricated hadith. Because of their hostility to the descendants
of the Prophet, they concocted hadith parallel to those accepted
by both Shia and Sunni ulema.
Nawab: Which is the accepted
hadith in this case?
HADITH THAT BOTH HASAN AND HUSAIN ARE THE FOREMOST OF YOUTH OF PARADISE
Well-Wisher: The authentic hadith
is that the Prophet said: "Hasan and Husain are the foremost
of the youth of Paradise and their father is superior to them."
Many ulema have narrated this hadith. For example, Khatib Khawarizmi
in Manaqib, Mir Seyyed Ali Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in Khasa'is-il-Alawi
(three hadith), Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in Fusulu'l-Muhimma, page 159,
Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 54, Sibt
Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira, quoting from Tirmidhi, Ibn Maja and Imam
Ahmad bin Hanbal, Sibt Ibn Jauzi on p. 133 of Tadhkiratu'l-Mawadda,
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in Musnad, Tirmidhi in Sunan, and Muhammad
bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 97, recorded
this hadith and the latter added that the great narrator of hadith,
Imam Abdu'l-Qasim Tibrani, also recorded this hadith in Mu'ajamu'l-Kabir
and listed all its various narrators, such as the Commander of
the Faithful, Ali, Umar bin Khattab (the second Caliph), Hudhaifa
Yamani, Abu Sa'id Khadri, Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, Abu Huraira,
Usama bin Zaid, and Abdullah bin Umar. Thereafter, Muhammad bin
Yusuf has commented that it is an unquestionably genuine hadith.
The unbroken continuity of the chain of narrators of this hadith
is a proof of its being authentic. Further, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani
in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Ibn Asakir in Ta'rikh Kabir, Volume IV, page
206, Hikam in Mustadrak, Ibn Hajar Makki in Sawa'iq Muhriqa -
in short, all of your eminent scholars have confirmed the authenticity
of this hadith.
Sheikh: But consider this hadith,
the authenticity of which no one will deny. The Holy Prophet said:
"In whatever nation Abu Bakr lives, it is not proper that
any other person be preferred to him." This hadith proves
that Abu Bakr is superior to the whole umma.
Well-Wisher: I regret that you
accept a hadith so uncritically. Had this hadith been narrated
by the Prophet, he himself would have acted upon it. But he gave
preference to Ali in the presence of Abu Bakr. Was Abu Bakr not
present at the time of Mubahala when Ali was chosen as the Prophet's
self? In the Battle of Tabuk, when the older and more experienced
Abu Bakr was there, why did the Prophet make Hazrat Ali his deputy
and Caliph? Why was Abu Bakr deposed by divine command in favor
of Ali when the older man had been sent to Mecca to preach Islam
and to recite verses from the ninth Chapter of the Qur'an, "The
Immunity"? While Abu Bakr was present, why did the Prophet
take Ali with him to Mecca to break the idols, letting him mount
his own shoulders, ordering him to smash the idol Hubal? Why,
in the presence of Abu Baker, did the Prophet send Ali to preach
among the people of Yemen? Finally, why did the Prophet make Ali
his successor and Vicegerent instead of Abu Bakr?
Sheikh: There is a very strong
hadith from the Holy Prophet which cannot be contradicted. It
is related by Amr bin As who said: "One day I asked the Prophet:
'O Prophet of Allah! Whom do you love most among the women?' He
replied, 'A'yesha.' I said: 'Whom do you love best among the men?'
He replied, 'A'yesha's father, Abu Bakr.'" Since the Prophet
preferred Abu Bakr over all other men, he was superior to the
whole community. This fact in itself is the most compelling proof
of the legitimacy of Abu Bakr's caliphate.
[ PREVIOUS ] [
INDEX ] [
NEXT ]
|