part 1st is here: click here
Here is the sahih isnad but mursal hadith from ahlesunnah used by shia’s to deceive layman sunni’s, from mosanif ibn abi sheebah, vol 13,book maghazi, page 201,hadeeth 38061
حدثنا : محمد بن بشر ، نا : عبيد الله بن عمر ، حدثنا : زيد بن أسلم ، عن أبيه أسلم : أنه حين بويع لأبي بكر بعد رسول الله (ص) كان علي والزبير يدخلان على فاطمة بنت رسول الله (ص) فيشاورونها ويرتجعون في أمرهم ، فلما بلغ ذلك عمر بن الخطاب خرج حتى دخل على فاطمة ، فقال : يا بنت رسول الله (ص) ، والله ما من أحد أحب إلينا من أبيك ، وما من أحد أحب إلينا بعد أبيك منك ، وأيم الله ما ذاك بمانعي إن إجتمع هؤلاء النفر عندك ، أن أمرتهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت ، قال : فلما خرج عمر جاءوها فقالت : تعلمون أن عمر قد جاءني وقد حلف بالله لئن عدتم ليحرقن عليكم البيت وأيم الله ليمضين لما حلف عليه ، فإنصرفوا راشدين ، فروا رأيكم ولا ترجعوا إلي ، فإنصرفوا عنها فلم يرجعوا إليها حتى بايعوا لأبي بكر
This arabic statement ” أن يحرق عليهم البيت ” is the biggest shia trick to deceive the non-arabic members:
Muhammad ibn Bishr from Ubaydullah ibn Umar from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father Aslam [the mawla of Umar.]
When Abu Bakr received the pledges of allegiance after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and al-Zubayr used to enter the presence of Fatima the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and consult with her and hesitate in their allegiance. When news of this reached Umar ibn al-Khattab, he came out until he entered Fatima’s presence and said: “Daughter of the Messenger of Allah, none in all creation was more dearly beloved to me than your father, and none is more beloved to us after him than you. However, by Allah, this shall not prevent me, if that group gathers in your house, to order that their house be set afire!” When Umar went out, they came and she said: “Do you know that `Umar came to me and swore by Allah that if you were to come back, he shall surely burn the door with you inside! By Allah, he shall certainly fulfill what he swore, so go away in peace, flee from your opinion, and do not come back to see me.” They left her and did not return to see her until they pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr.”
Shia says: This hadith proves Umar[ra] threatened Fatima[ra], about burning the house.
But one of our brother discussed this issue: let me share some stuff I got (from brothers):
If Rafidi shia believe in this narration, then they have successfully destroyed the myth of the house burning and confirmed Ali’s direct Bay’ah to Abu Bakr.
If not, the whole narration becomes useless – for neither the Sunnis nor the Rafidah seem to believe in it (and for Rafidah quoting it makes no sense whataoever for the matn goes against what THEY believe (Omar burned the house, gave some side-kicks (perheps even a sho-ryu-ken and what not to Fatimah radhiyallahu anhaa i.e. the typical fairy-tales. They want to establish a hujja on us from OUR books since we DON’T believe in their jewish books, yet how can this be a Hujja on us if it is refuting the myth of burning-house-of-fatima-slapping-her etc. by its very content, i.e. even IF a Sunni would believe in this narration then this would be the only “Sahih” one, still contradicting the lies and ghuluw of the Rafidah)
This is how we could deal with the narration IF we consider it a HADITH SAHIH (which is different to a Hadith with a sahih isnaad)
أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : والذي نفسي بيده ، لقد هممت أن آمر بحطب فيحطب ، ثم آمر بالصلاة فيؤذن لها ، ثم آمر رجلا فيؤم الناس ، ثم أخالف إلى رجال فأحرق عليهم بيوتهم ، والذي نفسي بيده ، لو يعلم أحدهم : أنه يجد عرقا سمينا ، أو مرماتين حسنتين لشهد العشاء .
Authenticated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim
The famous narration where the Prophet (saws) threatend to burn down the house of a believer (Muslims), in regards of neglecting Salah…
and here:
Oh, and the Prophet also “threatened” to cut the hand of Fatima if she stole:
( أما بعد ، فإنما أهلك الناس قبلكم : أنهم كانوا إذا سرق فيهم الشريف تركوه ، وإذا سرق فيهم الضعيف أقاموا عليه الحد ، والذي نفس محمد بيده ، لو أن فاطمة بنت محمد سرقت لقطعت يدها )
Authenticated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
I suppose this makes him unjust, ill-mannered, and psychotic too, am I right. Since even IF we take the narration as Sahih, then it is not much different than the way of the Prophet (saws).
Even the Prophet would be punished by Allah if he were to fabricate against Allah (swt):
Quran 69:44 – 47: وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الاٌّقَاوِيلِ – لأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ – ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ – فَمَا مِنكُم مِّنْ أَحَدٍ عَنْهُ حَـجِزِينَ
And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand And then severed his life-artery, And not one of you could have held Us off from him.
This is supported by the view of Al-Tabtaba’ee as well:
والمعنى: { ولو تقوَّل علينا } هذا الرسول الكريم الذي حمَّلناه رسالتنا وأرسلناه إليكم بقرآن نزَّلناه فيؤخذ بيده أو المراد قطعنا منه يده اليمنى أو المراد لانتقمنا منه بالقوة كما في رواية القمي { ثم لقطعنا منه الوتين } وقتلناه لتقوُّله علينا { فما منكم من أحد عنه حاجزين } تحجبونه عنا وتنجونه من عقوبتنا وإهلاكنا.
وهذا تهديد للنبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم على تقدير أن يفتري على الله كذباً وينسب إليه شيئاً لم يقله وهو رسول من عنده أكرمه بنبوّته واختاره لرسالته.
If we take the narration as Sahih then it could be said that:
1. Omar (ra) stated a threat just as the Prophet (saws) did (he didn’t threat Fatimah anyway, he said THEM)
2. Omar (ra) had to act since we got following narrations too:
من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة الجاهلية
Al-Saheeh Al-Musanad by Muqbil Al-Wadi’ee (declared Hasan)
.
- من نزع يدا من طاعة أو فارق الجماعة مات ميتة الجاهلية
Musnad Ahmad revised by Ahmed Shakir (declared Authentic)
-
من راَى من اَميره شَيئا فَكَرهه فَلْيَصبر، فَاِنّهُ لَيس اَحد يفارِق الجماعةَ شبْرا فيمُوت اِلاّ مات ميتَة جاهليّة
Saheeh Al-Bukhari
All condemning the death of Jahiliya by not giving bay3a to the Muslim ruler.
But every Hadith with an Sahih Isnad does not make a HADITH SAHIH automatically, especially if it contradicts other reports which are stronger etc. So Wallahu a3lam but even this narration MUST be rejected due to following reasons:
There are other hadiths that go against this narration regardless of the authenticity of the chain. This is because Aslam wasn’t around during this incident, so there is room for him to be mistaken about certain events.
Since when is the chain the only criterion for the authenticity of a narration?
Anyway, first of all, it is extremely strange that such a matter would only be narrated by a single narrator from Ubaydullah namely Muhammad bin Bishr Al-’abdi.
And also Ubaydullah was the only narrator to transmit it from Zayd ibn Aslam’s companions.
Moreover, Zayd ibn Aslam was definitely not in Madina at that time, simply because he was from the war booty of Yemen and Umar got him in Makkah in the year 11.
Now one may argue, that possibly he heard it from Umar , however due to the matn being munkar, the above mentioned defects are considered sufficient to disregard the whole narration.
So Ahl ul Sunnah prefers to stick to what is a thousand times more authentic and leave such a doubtful narration while on the other hand, the Rafidah love to do the opposite: To forget about all the authentic narrations that praise the Sahabah and to stick to any dubious story that possibly shows the best generation ever raised for mankind in a bad manner.
And note: Not every narration can be strengthened by others, there are rules for that. In particular, lies don’t strengthen each other, even if they are found in thousands of books.
Also as we said before the MATN is Munkar. That specific part about BAY3AH is confirmed by SAHIH authentic narrations. So definitely it’s not that. Rather it is the claim that Ali conspired against Abu Bakr and after a single threat he gave the bayah, needless to say, this is not the brave character of Ali we believe in.
To sum it up: Isnaad Sahih -> weakened through because:
1. The matter of fact that Aslam definitely couldn’t have witnessed the event. So we simply don’t know who told him about it in order to determine who has invented this story.
2. and that due to the matn being munkar this defect is weakening
As was pointed out Aslam could definitely not have witnessed the event. So the only possibility is that he had heard it from someone else.
We don’t know for sure who this was, so because the content of the narration is munkar, this defect becomes “active” and the narration is rejected.
Hence the one who invented the narration is simply unknown and not included in the given chain of narrators.
Also remember the Nifaq of the Rawafidh, the last way out whenever they say: “isnad does not matter in riwayaat that have to do with history, if it is a well established fact, then we believe in it.”
It is wrong that the isnaad doesn’t matter in history. Rather the point is that we take notice of weak narrations when they deal with some historical issues but we don’t use them to establish any argument. So if someone tried to show that Al-Farooq was bad using this narration, his argument is rejected since the narration is weak to begin with. Moreover if the weak narration even contradicts a basis in Islam like the rightousness of the Sahabah, then we don’t pay any heed to it.
This is the double standard of the Rawafid. Since many contemporary Rafidah deny the existence of Ibn Saba’ if Isnaad in history doesn’t matter and claim that Ibn Saba’ was invented by Sayf (although there are chains that don’t include Sayf but that’s another topic) why do they reject the existence of their jewish inventor who is FILLED in history books?
contributed by brother Al-daylami
Like this:
Like Loading...
Read Full Post »
![[Ihtiyar marifatul rijal p.170]](http://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/laan_zurarah.jpg){kind=link}
![[Ihtiyar marifatul rijal p.168]](http://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/laan_zurarah-3.jpg){kind=link}
![[Scan 1]](http://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ihtiyar_cover.jpg){kind=link}
![[Ikhtiyar Ma’arifatur-Rijaal – Shaykh Abu Ja`far at-Tusi]](http://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/zurarah_ala_imam-2.jpg){kind=link}