|
Sometimes, it is the Method of Deduction Most conclusions reached in the book are good and accurate, but there are some statements in it where the deduction is not sound at all. They could have been strong and sound had hey been replaced by elements making them more precise and effective. The statements which caught our attention are the following:
1. Cursing and Condemning A combination of cursing and condemning exists in the book which claims it is permissible to curse the sahabi who deviates from the right path. But he uses proofs justifying condemning, not cursing; so, refer to pp. 47-48. It is obvious that Ali (A.S.), during the Battle of Siffeen, prohibited the cursing of Mu`awiyah and his followers, asking them instead of cursing them to describe their abominable deeds. Also, Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) ordered his followers not to curse and not to be a cursing people so that it would be said, “May Allah have mercy on Ja`fer! He disciplined his followers, doing so very well.” As for condemning, which means supplicating to Allah to distance a certain person from His mercy, it is something else. Allah Almighty has condemned, in His Book, many groups. He, Glory is His, also expressed His pleasure with the believers who condemn certain groups of people, saying, “These it is whom Allah shall condemn, and those who condemn shall condemn them (too)” (Qur’an, 2:159). Perhaps the reason is that condemning implies dissociation from and indictment of the deviation which they chose and of any aggressive conduct or a criminal act they committed. It does not aim at personally belittling them, as is the case with cursing.
2. The Prophet’s Doubt of His Own Prophethood! He also says on p. 91: “The Sunnis say that the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) was in doubt about his own Prophethood.” He supports his statement by what they have narrated saying that the Prophet (A.S.) said, “Every time Gabriel was slow in visiting me, I thought that he descended upon the son of al-Khattab.” The writer could have added that the Qur’anic text proves that he is the Seal of all Prophets, and the hadith clearly states that there will be no prophet after him, so that the argument will thus be complete. Without it, he may be rebutted by saying that there is no harm in the presence of two prophets at the same time as was the case with Moses and Aaron, peace be upon both of them, and other prophets.
3. Sunnis And the “Distortion” of the Qur’an On pp. 51-52 as well as 92, “As for the Sunnis, they say that there is addition to and deletion from the Qur’an.” He also says on pp. 72, 76,
“What is well known about you, Sunnis, is that you claim that the Qur’an is distorted.” Al-`Abbasi said, “This is clearly a lie.” The `Alawide said, “Have you not narrated in your books that verses about the crane idols were revealed to the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) then they were abrogated and deleted from the Qur’an?”
Here, we would like to say, for the record, the following:
A. Members of the Islamic nation are unanimously in agreement with each other that there is no addition to (nor any deletion from) the Holy Qur’an.
B. Attributing the claim of addition to or deletion from the Qur’an to the Sunnis, or to those famous among them, under the label of “a group among them,” is also not precise at all. Had the writer said that there are some narratives reported by Sunnis in their Six Sihah books and other respected references which, had the Sunnis upheld their contexts, would have concluded that there is distortion in the Qur’an which is attested to by definite proofs and glorious evidences that there is no such thing at all, his statement would have been accurate and solid.
C. The narrative talking about praising the idols in the shape of crane birds is rejected and refuted by many Sunni scholars although it seems that al-Bukhari does not refuse to accept it.
D. The story of crane idols does not say that the expression “The cranes! How sublime! Their intercession is earnestly anticipated” is a Qur’anic verse, nor does it claim that it used to be part of the Qur’an then it was abrogated and deleted from it! But this false narrative claims that Satan was the one who made the Prophet (A.S.) pronounce it, then Gabriel went to him to acquaint him with the truth in its regard.
4. “He frowned and turned his back away” Regarding the verse 1 of Chapter 80 (`Abas), he says on p. 97, “Authentic traditions transmitted by the Family of the Prophet (A.S.), in whose homes the Qur’an was revealed, indicate that this Chapter was revealed about `Othman ibn `Affan.” This statement is not precisely accurate. The narrative is mentioned by al-Qummi in his Tafsir, and it is mentioned by al-Tibrisi in Mujma` al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an. There are no traditions (thus, plural, more than one); rather, al-Tibrisi’s narrative transmitted from Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) does not even mention `Othman by name. Instead, it says, “It was revealed about a man from Bani Umayyah.” Describing this narrative as authentic, by saying that its isnad seems to be accurate, may be regarded as a loose expression. Let us keep in mind that the lack of an accurate isnad in the common way does not mean that the context of the narrative is not true. No matter what, this subject was researched by our Brother, `allama Shaikh Ridwan Shararah in a separate book titled Abasa wa Tawalla; Fiman Nazalat? (The Chapter starting with “He frowned and turned his back away”: Regarding whom was it revealed?); so, reference should be made to it.
5. Convictions of the Three Caliphs On pp. 98-99, the book claims that “The Shi`as believe that they (the three caliphs) were not inwardly believers in their heart although they pretended, with their tongue and superficially, that they believed in Islam.” Regarding this statement and others, we have many objections some of which are here recorded:
A. This “belief” is not recorded by the Shi`a, as a sect, in their books which deal with beliefs, nor did they contemplate upon it while discussing one’s doctrine and the crystallization of its particularities.
B. The Prophet (A.S.) marrying their daughters is based on these daughters’ conviction, and it is not linked to their conviction or to the lack of it, or to that of each daughter’s father. There is no harm in a Muslim, including the Prophet (A.S.), marrying the daughter of someone who does not strongly believe in Islam. So, what would you say about someone who pretends to be adhering to Islam and to be convinced of it?!
C. As regarding `Othman being the “son-in-law” of the Prophet (A.S.), this is not proven at all because I have shown how `Othman married the Prophet’s step-daughters, not his biological daughters.”[1]
6. How do You Prove the Betrayal of Abu Bakr? The author of the book provides a “proof” for Abu Bakr’s betrayal of the Prophet (A.S.) from:
FIRST: the Qur’anic verse saying, “They do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them” (Qur’an, 4:65).
SECOND: The Prophet (A.S.) cursed all those who did not enlist in Usamah’s army, and Abu Bakr was one of them. Refer to p. 99. This “proof” does not hit the mark because this sacred verse is not relevant to their betrayal of the Prophet (A.S.). Yes, it does mean that those who did not accept the Prophet’s judgment are not true believers except if they pretend to accept it, then, when they get together, they cast doubt about such a judgment. Also, the Prophet (A.S.) cursing those who did not enlist does not prove the betrayal of those who did not enlist. Rather, it proves that such an individual is guilty of mutiny and of disobeying the Prophet’s order. It also proves that anyone who is cursed by the Prophet (A.S.) is not a believer. Perhaps the writer wants to say that when they refused to abide by the Prophet’s decision, thus disobeying his order, they did not do so openly. Rather, they did it in a cunning way wherein there is circumventing, evasion and trickery, pretending what was the opposite of their real intentions. They pretended that they were believers, obedient to the Prophet (A.S.), concerned about him during his sickness, which was all not true at all.
7. `Omer Doubting Prophethood He concludes on p. 100 that `Omer [ibn al-Khattab] was always doubtful of the Prophet’s prophethood, providing evidence for that by quoting him saying the following during the incident of the Hudaybiya (treaty): “I have never doubted the Pophethood of Muhammed more than I doubted it on the day of the Hudaybiya.” We say that this statement of `Omer does not prove that he was always doubtful of the Prophethood of our Prophet Muhammed (A.S.). Rather, it proves that he was quite doubtful of Prophethood, and that this happened to him many times, but that his doubt on the day of the Hudaybiya was the strongest and the most deep.
8. “My Nation’s Consensus Will Never be Wrong” and `Othman’s Murder
It needs no argument that people’s consensus
to kill someone who committed a crime for which the punishment is execution
does not mean that everyone agreed to strip him of his attribute of being a
believer in Islam. Belief is something, while committing crimes punishable
by death is something else. They may agree with each other, or they may not.
The sacred hadith indicates that one may be worthy of punishment but
does not prove that it was the consensus of everyone that he was not a
believer. His disbelief may be proven through other proofs which have to be
tangible and taken into consideration. Add to this the fact that Ali (A.S.)
and many others with him did not take part in killing `Othman. This is a
well known fact, although Ali (A.S.) was neither pleased nor displeased with
`Othman being killed as he himself is quoted as having said.
9. Tradition of the Ten Men Given the Glad
Tiding of Going to Paradise The `Alawide decided that the hadith about the ten men who were (supposedly) brought the good news of going to Paradise is false, basing his judgment on many proofs such as:
Talhah hurt the Prophet’s feelings when he said that he would marry his wife (`a’isha) after his demise, so the following verse was revealed: “It does not behoove you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor should you marry his wives after him ever; surely this is grievous in the sight of Allah” (Qur’an, 33:53). Another occurs on p. 107 where he says that Talhah and al-Zubayr conspired to get `Othman killed, and that the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) had said, “The killer and the one killed are both in hell.” We support his claim that the said verse was revealed with regard to Talhah, and that the latter did hurt the feelings of the Prophet (A.S.). We also rebut what some people claim, that is, that Talhah repented thereafter and did good deeds, then the hadith of the ten men given the glad tidings of going to Paradise came to be, so he was given such a glad tiding, by saying that to prove that Talhah repented is impossible. Also, his supposedly going to Paradise contrasts his disobedience of the Imam of his time, namely Ali (A.S.), after that. Anyone who disobeys the Imam of his time goes to hell. It also contradicts his reneging from the oath of allegiance which he had sworn to the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.). Yes, although we support it, we say that to use the hadith relevant to the killer and the one killed going to hell is not applicable in every place. It does not apply to Talhah declaring mutiny against the Imam of his time whose Imamate was announced by the Messenger of Allah (A.S.). As regarding his disobedience of `Othman, one may claim that it is justifiable since `Othman’s caliphate was dependent on the “correctness” of the caliphate of `Omer, and `Omer’s caliphate was dependent for its “correctness” on that of Abu Bakr. The latter was not legitimate because it came against the final Divine Decision which decreed that both Imamate and caliphate were relegated to Ali (A.S.) and to nobody else. So, his disobedience of `Othman, when the latter introduced so many new things in Islam, follows a verdict, whereas his mutiny against Ali (A.S.), who was nominated through texts as the Imam and the caliph, follows another.
10. Mut`a For the Sake of Getting Money We are very surprised at a statement which he makes on p. 124. He says, “Do not they through mut`a receive an amount of money to spend on themselves and on their orphaned children?” Such a statement may give the wrong impression that the Shara`a legislated mut`a in order it would be a source of income and to trade in one’s honor. This is neither reasonable nor acceptable. The dower in mut`a is just like it is in a permanent marriage. Mut`a has its noble objectives and subjective justifications, as is the case with permanent marriage. It involves a solution, permitted by the Shara`a, a healthy one, too, for problems faced by mankind; so, refer to my book about the temporary marriage in Islam.
11. “Let Me Resign, For I Am Not Your Best!” Then we find him saying the following on p. 119: “He [Ali (A.S.) ] was independent of others, whereas others depended on him. Did not Abu Bakr say, `Let me resign, for I am not good enough for you so long as Ali (A.S.) is among you’?” What attracts our attention is the following:
FIRST: The circulated and well known text says, “Let me resign, for I am not the best of you so long as Ali (A.S.) is among you” which carries a different meaning than the phrase “not good enough for you.”
SECOND: Abu Bakr’s statement “Let me resign..., etc.” has nothing to do with Ali (A.S.) being independent or not. The most knowledgeable scholar may not be the very best among public because what is the best is one thing, while dependence or independence is something else. [1]Refer to my book titled Banat al-Nabi am Raba’ibih? (Daughters of the Prophet or his step-daughters?). |