Post by Mahtab on Jan 5, 2015 16:32:15 GMT
One of the main points of contention between Shiite Muslims and other sects which claim to belong to the fold of Islam is the position taken towards the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
Shiites say that the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) are just like any other companions of previous Prophets (Peace be upon Them) among whom are pious believers who are to be respected, and evil hypocrites whom we must hate and to whom we must not show any respect.
We can distinguish between the two groups by reviewing their roles in history. We respect and pray for mercy for those who were loyal to the Prophet and His pure Family (Peace be upon Them) and did not commit crimes or mortal sins. But in turn, as an expression of our rejection of their principles and morality, we loathe and curse those who were hostile to the Prophet and His Pure Family (Peace be Upon Them) and committed crimes and mortal sins. This is what Shiites say on the matter. This position is consistent with the rules contained in the Holy Quran and the Prophet's Noble Sunna, into which time does not permit us to go now.
In contrast, the Bakri sect insists on closing the door on researching this matter and steps back from studying the history of these companions claiming that it is our duty to believe that they were all sincere people and [true] believers, and that is our duty to be silent and turn a blind eye to their life story – to what Mortal Sins and heinous crimes there are in their career because they have all been forgiven.
This is one of the fundamental differences between Shiite Muslim beliefs and Bakri beliefs. For whereas Shiites are open to history and to studying renowned individuals with scientific impartiality in order to separate the good from the bad, Bakris prohibit what they consider to be digging up the past and close their minds with faith that is ped on from generation to generation, faith that dictates belief in all those old figures and in a duty to respect them without any scientific basis [for doing so].
The position on Omar Ibn al-Khattab is an example of the doctrinal division between Shiites and others.
Shiites have studied the history of this man and found him to be a hypocrite, criminal and killer. One of his most heinous crimes was his involvement in a plot to inate the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) and later, his direct involvement in killing his only daughter who survived him – Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) because of her stand against the coup which was set up by him and his companion Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Qahafa following the martyrdom of her father.
However, the Bakri community refrain from in-depth study of the history of this man. Their leaders deny historical facts, which expose his crimes and mortal sins. They insist on denying them and use various tricks. But that is no longer good enough for the mes, for many members of this sect as a result of recent changes have become more open-minded. They have begun to study history in a scientific manner and reach conclusions which have led them to become Shiites.
One of the things most often denied by the leaders of the sect is the fact that Omar Ibn l-Khattab carried out a brutal attack on Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) which led to the miscarriage of her baby Mohsin (Peace and Blessings upon Him), one of her ribs' being broken and her remaining sick until she died as a martyr after a period not exceeding three months after the death of her father the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
Leaders of the Bakri sect deny this even though many of their historical sources make specific mention of it. By way of example, all three of Shahristani, Safadi and al-Natham report that: "On the day of allegiance, Omar struck Fatima's stomach causing her to lose her baby! He shouted: “Burn the house no matter who is inside! There was in the house no other than Han, Hussain, Ali and Fatima"
After Abu Bakr and Omar seized power, the position taken by the Family of the Prophet (Allah's Blessings upon all of Them) was to reject this unlawful coup. For this reason, they and a group of their supporters refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and to recognise him as Caliph.
As an expression of protest, the Family of the Prophet shut themselves off from the world inside their house and did not go out. This prompted Omar Ibn al-Khattab to lead a mob of mercenaries from the tribe of lam to attack the rebels and drag them by force to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr.
That day became known as the Day of Allegiance. On that day, Omar and his gang attacked the House of Prophecy where the rightful Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Peace and Blessings upon both of Them) was engaged in worship and compilation of the Qur'an, while Our Lady Fattima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) was behind the door of the house because she had tried to confront the attackers and remind them that what they were doing was unlawful.
Nevertheless, Omar took advantage of the opportunity to persecute her by attacking, once the door had been set alight. He stormed the house and beat the Greatest Lady of All Worlds, whom the Prophet had praised time and again and given repeated warnings against doing her wrong.
At this point Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her) cried out. Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Peace and Blessings upon Them) heard her voice and rushed to her aid. He took Omar, threw him to the ground, stepped on his nose and was about to kill him but for the fact of his thinking back to the order given to Him by the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to be patient in the face of tyranny so long as his supporters were too few in number.
The leaders of the Bakri sect try to sow seeds of doubt in this historical fact as recounted by al-Natham and allege that he had been influenced by Shiite culture. The truth is that this man cannot be further from the Shiites – he was one of their staunchest opponents! Thus, there is no possibility that he was lying or that he had been influenced by Shiite culture in reporting this.
Who was al-Natham? He was Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Sayyar His pupil Aljahidh says about him: "He was one of the fiercest people in condemning the Rafidis (Shiites) because of their vilification of the companions!" He also says about him: "al-Natham believed that Abu Bakr was superior to Ali, and that the correct order of succession for the four was as follows: Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali"!
So, al-Natham reported this event without giving any indication that it should be treated as a black mark on Omar's record! This is a normal occurrence. The Bakri sect has from the very beginning sought to justify Omar's actions no matter how repugnant they were with various excuses, including saying that such extremism was to protect Islam and maintain unity between Muslims – united behind a single Caliph!
This is why they do not feel any shame in narrating these accounts, which contain indications that Omar hit women. For this reason, we find that Bukhari mentions in his Sahih an account of Omar's hitting Abu Bakr's sister (Umme Farwa) and hitting the women who came to mourn his companion Abu Bakr. He does not consider this to be a black mark on his record for which Omar deserves to be condemned or to be something which ought to be hidden and not included in his Sahih.
al-Natham was also like Bukhari. He related this account, of Omar's beating Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) without feeling any embarrment to prompt him to cover it up. However, with the page of time, leaders of the Bakri sect tried to cover it up because Fatima al-Zahra is not like any other woman.
Attacking her is one of the biggest sins. Moreover, it is Kufr and abandonment of the religion of Islam.
There are of course the statements of other Bakri scholars who confirm the fact that Omar carried out an attack on Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her). Among them is Ibn Abi Darm who said: "Omar kicked Fatima causing her to lose Mohsin"!
This statement is reported by the most prominent Bakri scholars such as Al Thahabi and Ibn Hajjar. Who is Ibn Abi Darm? He is Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Al Sirri bin Yahya ibn Abi Darm. Al Thahabi describes him as follows: "upstanding; scholar of hadith; from Kufa. So Ibn Abi Darm, considered by the Bakri sect to be an upstanding hadith teaching Imam admit that Omar committed this heinous crime against the daughter of the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
What do the Bakris do to get themselves out of this predicament? They claim that even though Ibn Abi Darm was a learned and upstanding man he began to lean towards the Shia towards the end of his life. For this reason we cannot accept this report of his.
Al Thahabi reports that Mohammed bin Ahmed bin Hamad Al Kufi described Ibn Abi Darm as follows: "He was generally upstanding but then towards the end of his life, most of what was transmitted by him was slander!" i.e. that Ibn Abi Darm was a man who followed Bakri beliefs but became a Shiite at the end of his lifetime and began to teach people about the shortcomings of the companions in his cles. In other words, he would reveal their true crimes. For this reason Al Thahabi says: "He was known for memory and knowledge but he was a Shiite"!
It really is reverse logic! Instead of examining themselves when they find one of their own scholars moving over to Shiism and speaking out and revealing the truth about Omar's crime, they ignore him and ignore the reasons that prompted him to reject Abu Bakr and Omar! Then they say: “He was an eminent scholar and Imam but at the end of his life, he became a Shiite” because of his realisation about Omar's crime against Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her)!
If the man was an eminent scholar and Imam, this means that he would not recklessly abandon his faith towards the end of his life and change to another religion unless he was confident that this other religion was the correct one.
In any event, Bakris insist on denying the truth of the brutal attack carried out by Omar against Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings be upon Her) and on casting doubt on these hadith, which we have just been through by claiming that their chain of transmission is weak.
That way, they expect the Shia to give up their hostile attitude towards Omar Ibn al-Khattab, even though the Shia are satisfied that the fact that the sinful attack took place has been proven to the level of Tawatur, i.e. that many hadith have been transmitted by a huge number of narrators from the Infallible Imams (Peace and Blessings upon Them), who are the descendants of Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) and they know best what happened to their oppressed and martyred mother.
The problem is that the Bakris boycott the hadith of the Infallible Imams (Peace and Blessings upon Them). They do not recognize them as authoritative. Through challenging the weakness of the chain of transmission, the Bakris imagine they can escape from the above hadith to prove that Omar hit Our Lady Fatima (Peace be upon Her) causing her to lose her baby but even if we were to give up on those explicit hadith, the hostile position taken by the Shia towards Omar Ibn al-Khattab remains the correct and lawful position.
The Shia can still prove it with Bakri hadith "ped down through sound chains of transmission", the authenticity of which cannot be challenged. We will provide an example here of one of those hadith. Ibn Abi shaiba al-Kufi reported that Omar Ibn al-Khattab said to Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her): "I swear by Allah, if that group [who refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr] gathered together that would not stop me from ordering them [meaning the attackers] to burn down their home!"
This hadith is authentic, according to the criteria set by the scholars of the Bakri sect, i.e. all the narrators are honest and reliable. It is related on the authority of Muhammed bin Bashir, on the authority of Ubaidullah bin Omar, on the authority of Zaid bin aslam on the authority of his father Aslam (Omar's Mawla) on the authority of Omar bin al-Khattab.
The hadith contains explicit reference to Omar's threatening and terrorising The Greatest Lady of All the Worlds (Peace be upon Her), so that no one, not even the Bakris, can deny that Omar threatened Fatima al-Zahra that he would burn the house down along with all those embled in it who were refusing to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, such as Imam Ali (Peace be upon Him ), Miqdad, Salman and Zubayr.
They just deny that the burning and attack actually took place. Well... Let us go no further than the threat made by Omar to terrorise the Daughter of the Greatest of Prophets (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) and weigh it against the rules of law as contained in other Bakri hadith.
firstly - This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as a criminal and as a sinner. This is because Abu Dawood reports that the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: "It is not permissible for a Muslim to terrorise another Muslim."
Secondly - This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as a great tyrant. This is because al-Tabaraani reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) had said: "No Muslim should terrorise another Muslim. Terrorising a Muslim is grand tyranny"
Thirdly - This act alone is enough for Omar to be considered cursed, cursed by the Angels. This is because Muslim reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: Whoever points a weapon at his brother – and terrifies him – is cursed by the Angels. "
Instead of pointing a weapon, Omar brandished a flaming torch.
Fourthly - This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as among those who perish on the Day of Resurrection those whom Allah will punish with terror and by throwing them in the Hellfire. This is because al-Tabaraani reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: "It is Allah's right not to protect from the terrors of the Day of Resurrection whoever makes a Muslim afraid without just cause."
So, based on these hadith, Omar is a cursed, criminal tyrant who will perish in the Hellfire! This is because he carried out threats and intimidation which the Messenger of Allah forbade (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). How can those who call themselves "ahlu Sunnah" ignore this "Sunnah" i.e. hadith and cling stubbornly to their love and respect for the tyrant Omar Ibn al-Khattab?!
We note that these hadith talk about terrorising an ordinary Muslim. Just imagine if that "Muslim" is the Best of all Ladies in Heaven and Daughter of the Seal of the Prophets?! There is no doubt that the sin would be many times greater. I wonder, how we would expect the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to react to Omar after seeing what he had done – threatening and terrorising his daughter whom he had described her as “Part of me” i.e. an inseparable part of His Holy Self?!
Bkhari reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: "Fatima is a part of me. Whoever angers her angers me" Based on this hadith, Fatima al-Zahra's anger leads to the wrath of the Messenger of Allah, and the wrath of the Messenger of Allah clearly leads to the wrath of Allah. The result is that Omar angered Almighty Allah, because he angered Fatima al-Zahra and angered her father the Messenger (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
Whoever angers Allah is damned to Hell, because Allah (May He be praised and exalted) said: "the Wrath of Allah is on them: He has cursed them and got Hell ready for them: and evil is it for a destination." Allah has warned us against turning for friendship to those with whom He is angry, and said: "O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah, of the Hereafter they are already in despair, just as the Unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in graves."
We do not have the time now to go through a huge volume of texts out of the many books which the Bakris have, such as Bukhari, Musnad ahmed ibn hanbal, Sunan al-Nisa'i, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and other approved texts, which are overflowing with accounts and pages, which show the truth of the position taken by Fatima al-Zahra (Allah's Blessings upon Her) towards Abu Bakr and Omar, and what that dictates by way of Lord of the Worlds' wrath upon them.
Let us go no further than mentioning this account reported by ibn qutayba: "Abu Bakr and Omar walked in on Fatima and when they sat down she turned and faced the wall...:" She said: “Can you see yourselves acknowledging a hadith of the Messenger of Allah and acting upon it” They said: “Yes.”
She said: "I implore you by Allah … Did you not hear the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) say: “Fatima's contentment is my contentment. Fatima's anger is my anger; whoever loves Fatima, my daughter, loves me; whoever makes her happy makes me happy and whoever makes her angry makes me angry?”" They Said: “Yes … We heard that from the Messenger of Allah.”
She said: "With Allah and the Angels as my witnesses, you have made me angry and have not made me happy. When I see the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) I will complain to him about the two of you and will supplicate against you both in every prayer I pray." The meaning of this last hadith which says that Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her) is that she will supplicate against Abu Bakr and Omar in every prayer, or curse them.
This is exactly what Shiites do because they believe it to be a lawful and moral stance which expresses their rejection of whoever did monstrous injustice to her who has no parallel, the Daughter of the Greatest of all Prophets (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
Omar's crimes were not just limited to this one. There are dozens of other brutal crimes recorded by history as having been committed by this tyrant, including killing people without lawful cause, such as what he did to Sabigh bin Asal and such as the genocide of (Arab al-Saus) city in the Levant, in addition to his corruption of the Islamic religion and violation of many of its religious laws.
For these reasons, Shiites hate and curse Omar Ibn al-Khattab. In fact, anyone who does not hate this vicious terrorist is not really a Muslim, because he rejects the teachings of Muhammad, the Messenger of Islam (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
www.shiachat.com
Shiites say that the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) are just like any other companions of previous Prophets (Peace be upon Them) among whom are pious believers who are to be respected, and evil hypocrites whom we must hate and to whom we must not show any respect.
We can distinguish between the two groups by reviewing their roles in history. We respect and pray for mercy for those who were loyal to the Prophet and His pure Family (Peace be upon Them) and did not commit crimes or mortal sins. But in turn, as an expression of our rejection of their principles and morality, we loathe and curse those who were hostile to the Prophet and His Pure Family (Peace be Upon Them) and committed crimes and mortal sins. This is what Shiites say on the matter. This position is consistent with the rules contained in the Holy Quran and the Prophet's Noble Sunna, into which time does not permit us to go now.
In contrast, the Bakri sect insists on closing the door on researching this matter and steps back from studying the history of these companions claiming that it is our duty to believe that they were all sincere people and [true] believers, and that is our duty to be silent and turn a blind eye to their life story – to what Mortal Sins and heinous crimes there are in their career because they have all been forgiven.
This is one of the fundamental differences between Shiite Muslim beliefs and Bakri beliefs. For whereas Shiites are open to history and to studying renowned individuals with scientific impartiality in order to separate the good from the bad, Bakris prohibit what they consider to be digging up the past and close their minds with faith that is ped on from generation to generation, faith that dictates belief in all those old figures and in a duty to respect them without any scientific basis [for doing so].
The position on Omar Ibn al-Khattab is an example of the doctrinal division between Shiites and others.
Shiites have studied the history of this man and found him to be a hypocrite, criminal and killer. One of his most heinous crimes was his involvement in a plot to inate the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) and later, his direct involvement in killing his only daughter who survived him – Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) because of her stand against the coup which was set up by him and his companion Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Qahafa following the martyrdom of her father.
However, the Bakri community refrain from in-depth study of the history of this man. Their leaders deny historical facts, which expose his crimes and mortal sins. They insist on denying them and use various tricks. But that is no longer good enough for the mes, for many members of this sect as a result of recent changes have become more open-minded. They have begun to study history in a scientific manner and reach conclusions which have led them to become Shiites.
One of the things most often denied by the leaders of the sect is the fact that Omar Ibn l-Khattab carried out a brutal attack on Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) which led to the miscarriage of her baby Mohsin (Peace and Blessings upon Him), one of her ribs' being broken and her remaining sick until she died as a martyr after a period not exceeding three months after the death of her father the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
Leaders of the Bakri sect deny this even though many of their historical sources make specific mention of it. By way of example, all three of Shahristani, Safadi and al-Natham report that: "On the day of allegiance, Omar struck Fatima's stomach causing her to lose her baby! He shouted: “Burn the house no matter who is inside! There was in the house no other than Han, Hussain, Ali and Fatima"
After Abu Bakr and Omar seized power, the position taken by the Family of the Prophet (Allah's Blessings upon all of Them) was to reject this unlawful coup. For this reason, they and a group of their supporters refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and to recognise him as Caliph.
As an expression of protest, the Family of the Prophet shut themselves off from the world inside their house and did not go out. This prompted Omar Ibn al-Khattab to lead a mob of mercenaries from the tribe of lam to attack the rebels and drag them by force to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr.
That day became known as the Day of Allegiance. On that day, Omar and his gang attacked the House of Prophecy where the rightful Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Peace and Blessings upon both of Them) was engaged in worship and compilation of the Qur'an, while Our Lady Fattima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) was behind the door of the house because she had tried to confront the attackers and remind them that what they were doing was unlawful.
Nevertheless, Omar took advantage of the opportunity to persecute her by attacking, once the door had been set alight. He stormed the house and beat the Greatest Lady of All Worlds, whom the Prophet had praised time and again and given repeated warnings against doing her wrong.
At this point Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her) cried out. Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Peace and Blessings upon Them) heard her voice and rushed to her aid. He took Omar, threw him to the ground, stepped on his nose and was about to kill him but for the fact of his thinking back to the order given to Him by the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to be patient in the face of tyranny so long as his supporters were too few in number.
The leaders of the Bakri sect try to sow seeds of doubt in this historical fact as recounted by al-Natham and allege that he had been influenced by Shiite culture. The truth is that this man cannot be further from the Shiites – he was one of their staunchest opponents! Thus, there is no possibility that he was lying or that he had been influenced by Shiite culture in reporting this.
Who was al-Natham? He was Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Sayyar His pupil Aljahidh says about him: "He was one of the fiercest people in condemning the Rafidis (Shiites) because of their vilification of the companions!" He also says about him: "al-Natham believed that Abu Bakr was superior to Ali, and that the correct order of succession for the four was as follows: Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali"!
So, al-Natham reported this event without giving any indication that it should be treated as a black mark on Omar's record! This is a normal occurrence. The Bakri sect has from the very beginning sought to justify Omar's actions no matter how repugnant they were with various excuses, including saying that such extremism was to protect Islam and maintain unity between Muslims – united behind a single Caliph!
This is why they do not feel any shame in narrating these accounts, which contain indications that Omar hit women. For this reason, we find that Bukhari mentions in his Sahih an account of Omar's hitting Abu Bakr's sister (Umme Farwa) and hitting the women who came to mourn his companion Abu Bakr. He does not consider this to be a black mark on his record for which Omar deserves to be condemned or to be something which ought to be hidden and not included in his Sahih.
al-Natham was also like Bukhari. He related this account, of Omar's beating Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) without feeling any embarrment to prompt him to cover it up. However, with the page of time, leaders of the Bakri sect tried to cover it up because Fatima al-Zahra is not like any other woman.
Attacking her is one of the biggest sins. Moreover, it is Kufr and abandonment of the religion of Islam.
There are of course the statements of other Bakri scholars who confirm the fact that Omar carried out an attack on Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her). Among them is Ibn Abi Darm who said: "Omar kicked Fatima causing her to lose Mohsin"!
This statement is reported by the most prominent Bakri scholars such as Al Thahabi and Ibn Hajjar. Who is Ibn Abi Darm? He is Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Al Sirri bin Yahya ibn Abi Darm. Al Thahabi describes him as follows: "upstanding; scholar of hadith; from Kufa. So Ibn Abi Darm, considered by the Bakri sect to be an upstanding hadith teaching Imam admit that Omar committed this heinous crime against the daughter of the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
What do the Bakris do to get themselves out of this predicament? They claim that even though Ibn Abi Darm was a learned and upstanding man he began to lean towards the Shia towards the end of his life. For this reason we cannot accept this report of his.
Al Thahabi reports that Mohammed bin Ahmed bin Hamad Al Kufi described Ibn Abi Darm as follows: "He was generally upstanding but then towards the end of his life, most of what was transmitted by him was slander!" i.e. that Ibn Abi Darm was a man who followed Bakri beliefs but became a Shiite at the end of his lifetime and began to teach people about the shortcomings of the companions in his cles. In other words, he would reveal their true crimes. For this reason Al Thahabi says: "He was known for memory and knowledge but he was a Shiite"!
It really is reverse logic! Instead of examining themselves when they find one of their own scholars moving over to Shiism and speaking out and revealing the truth about Omar's crime, they ignore him and ignore the reasons that prompted him to reject Abu Bakr and Omar! Then they say: “He was an eminent scholar and Imam but at the end of his life, he became a Shiite” because of his realisation about Omar's crime against Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her)!
If the man was an eminent scholar and Imam, this means that he would not recklessly abandon his faith towards the end of his life and change to another religion unless he was confident that this other religion was the correct one.
In any event, Bakris insist on denying the truth of the brutal attack carried out by Omar against Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings be upon Her) and on casting doubt on these hadith, which we have just been through by claiming that their chain of transmission is weak.
That way, they expect the Shia to give up their hostile attitude towards Omar Ibn al-Khattab, even though the Shia are satisfied that the fact that the sinful attack took place has been proven to the level of Tawatur, i.e. that many hadith have been transmitted by a huge number of narrators from the Infallible Imams (Peace and Blessings upon Them), who are the descendants of Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) and they know best what happened to their oppressed and martyred mother.
The problem is that the Bakris boycott the hadith of the Infallible Imams (Peace and Blessings upon Them). They do not recognize them as authoritative. Through challenging the weakness of the chain of transmission, the Bakris imagine they can escape from the above hadith to prove that Omar hit Our Lady Fatima (Peace be upon Her) causing her to lose her baby but even if we were to give up on those explicit hadith, the hostile position taken by the Shia towards Omar Ibn al-Khattab remains the correct and lawful position.
The Shia can still prove it with Bakri hadith "ped down through sound chains of transmission", the authenticity of which cannot be challenged. We will provide an example here of one of those hadith. Ibn Abi shaiba al-Kufi reported that Omar Ibn al-Khattab said to Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her): "I swear by Allah, if that group [who refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr] gathered together that would not stop me from ordering them [meaning the attackers] to burn down their home!"
This hadith is authentic, according to the criteria set by the scholars of the Bakri sect, i.e. all the narrators are honest and reliable. It is related on the authority of Muhammed bin Bashir, on the authority of Ubaidullah bin Omar, on the authority of Zaid bin aslam on the authority of his father Aslam (Omar's Mawla) on the authority of Omar bin al-Khattab.
The hadith contains explicit reference to Omar's threatening and terrorising The Greatest Lady of All the Worlds (Peace be upon Her), so that no one, not even the Bakris, can deny that Omar threatened Fatima al-Zahra that he would burn the house down along with all those embled in it who were refusing to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, such as Imam Ali (Peace be upon Him ), Miqdad, Salman and Zubayr.
They just deny that the burning and attack actually took place. Well... Let us go no further than the threat made by Omar to terrorise the Daughter of the Greatest of Prophets (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) and weigh it against the rules of law as contained in other Bakri hadith.
firstly - This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as a criminal and as a sinner. This is because Abu Dawood reports that the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: "It is not permissible for a Muslim to terrorise another Muslim."
Secondly - This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as a great tyrant. This is because al-Tabaraani reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) had said: "No Muslim should terrorise another Muslim. Terrorising a Muslim is grand tyranny"
Thirdly - This act alone is enough for Omar to be considered cursed, cursed by the Angels. This is because Muslim reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: Whoever points a weapon at his brother – and terrifies him – is cursed by the Angels. "
Instead of pointing a weapon, Omar brandished a flaming torch.
Fourthly - This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as among those who perish on the Day of Resurrection those whom Allah will punish with terror and by throwing them in the Hellfire. This is because al-Tabaraani reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: "It is Allah's right not to protect from the terrors of the Day of Resurrection whoever makes a Muslim afraid without just cause."
So, based on these hadith, Omar is a cursed, criminal tyrant who will perish in the Hellfire! This is because he carried out threats and intimidation which the Messenger of Allah forbade (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). How can those who call themselves "ahlu Sunnah" ignore this "Sunnah" i.e. hadith and cling stubbornly to their love and respect for the tyrant Omar Ibn al-Khattab?!
We note that these hadith talk about terrorising an ordinary Muslim. Just imagine if that "Muslim" is the Best of all Ladies in Heaven and Daughter of the Seal of the Prophets?! There is no doubt that the sin would be many times greater. I wonder, how we would expect the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to react to Omar after seeing what he had done – threatening and terrorising his daughter whom he had described her as “Part of me” i.e. an inseparable part of His Holy Self?!
Bkhari reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: "Fatima is a part of me. Whoever angers her angers me" Based on this hadith, Fatima al-Zahra's anger leads to the wrath of the Messenger of Allah, and the wrath of the Messenger of Allah clearly leads to the wrath of Allah. The result is that Omar angered Almighty Allah, because he angered Fatima al-Zahra and angered her father the Messenger (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
Whoever angers Allah is damned to Hell, because Allah (May He be praised and exalted) said: "the Wrath of Allah is on them: He has cursed them and got Hell ready for them: and evil is it for a destination." Allah has warned us against turning for friendship to those with whom He is angry, and said: "O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah, of the Hereafter they are already in despair, just as the Unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in graves."
We do not have the time now to go through a huge volume of texts out of the many books which the Bakris have, such as Bukhari, Musnad ahmed ibn hanbal, Sunan al-Nisa'i, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and other approved texts, which are overflowing with accounts and pages, which show the truth of the position taken by Fatima al-Zahra (Allah's Blessings upon Her) towards Abu Bakr and Omar, and what that dictates by way of Lord of the Worlds' wrath upon them.
Let us go no further than mentioning this account reported by ibn qutayba: "Abu Bakr and Omar walked in on Fatima and when they sat down she turned and faced the wall...:" She said: “Can you see yourselves acknowledging a hadith of the Messenger of Allah and acting upon it” They said: “Yes.”
She said: "I implore you by Allah … Did you not hear the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) say: “Fatima's contentment is my contentment. Fatima's anger is my anger; whoever loves Fatima, my daughter, loves me; whoever makes her happy makes me happy and whoever makes her angry makes me angry?”" They Said: “Yes … We heard that from the Messenger of Allah.”
She said: "With Allah and the Angels as my witnesses, you have made me angry and have not made me happy. When I see the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) I will complain to him about the two of you and will supplicate against you both in every prayer I pray." The meaning of this last hadith which says that Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her) is that she will supplicate against Abu Bakr and Omar in every prayer, or curse them.
This is exactly what Shiites do because they believe it to be a lawful and moral stance which expresses their rejection of whoever did monstrous injustice to her who has no parallel, the Daughter of the Greatest of all Prophets (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
Omar's crimes were not just limited to this one. There are dozens of other brutal crimes recorded by history as having been committed by this tyrant, including killing people without lawful cause, such as what he did to Sabigh bin Asal and such as the genocide of (Arab al-Saus) city in the Levant, in addition to his corruption of the Islamic religion and violation of many of its religious laws.
For these reasons, Shiites hate and curse Omar Ibn al-Khattab. In fact, anyone who does not hate this vicious terrorist is not really a Muslim, because he rejects the teachings of Muhammad, the Messenger of Islam (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).
www.shiachat.com
Happy Nowrooz
