Shiites consider that curse to be a way of gaining Allah’s pleasure!

Some Shi’i sources report from Ja’far al-Sadiq that one day a woman came and asked him whether it is permissible for her to express her loyalty to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar? He said to her: “Be loyal to them”.  She said: ‘Should I say to my Lord on the day of Judgement that you commanded me to be loyal to them?’ He said: “Yes”[1].

They also report that a man among the companions of al-Baqir was astonished when he heard al-Baqir describing Abu Bakrradiyallahu ‘anhu as al-Siddiq, and he said to him: ‘Do you call him al-Siddiq?’ Al-Baqir said: “Of course, al-Siddiq he is, and may Allah, on the day of Judgement, not accept the statement of whoever does not address him so”[2].

What is the Shi’ites’ opinion about Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu?[3].

The Shi’ite scholars, Abu al-Faraj al-Asfahani in his ‘Maqalat at-Talibiyyin’[4], al-Arbali in his ‘Kashf al-Ghummah’[5] and al-Majlisi in his ‘Jala’ al-‘Uyun’[6], all mentioned that Abu Bakr the son of ‘Ali ibn abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu was also killed at Karbala together with his brother al-Husain radiyallahu ‘anhu.  Also killed on that day was the son of al-Husain himself and his name was Abu Bakr, (together with another son of ‘Ali, Muhammad al-Asghar, also nick-named Abu Bakr).

Why do the Shi’ites conceal this matter and only concentrate on the issue of al-Husain?

The most apparent reason behind that is surely the fact that al-Husain’s brother and son were both bearing the name Abu Bakr! And this is something the Shi’ites would not like the Muslims or their gullible followers to know, because that will expose their deceit and lie in claiming that there was bitter enmity between the Ahl al-Bait and the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, more especially Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu.  For, had he been an unbeliever and apostate who usurped the right of the caliphate from ‘Ali and his progeny – as claimed by the Shi’ites – the Ahl al-Bait wouldn’t have named their beloved sons with his noble name. Rather, this is a sign of strong and enduring love, recognizable by anyone who reasons.

Moreover, why would the Shi’ites not emulate the good example of ‘Ali and al-Husain radiyallahu ‘anhuma by naming their sons Abu Bakr?

The Shi’ites cannot deny the fact that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) had given the Prophetsallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam their pledge of allegiance under the tree (i.e. at Hudaibiyah), and that Allah had mentioned in the Qur’an that He was pleased with them and knew what was in their minds[7].  How unbecoming is it for the Shi’ites, after all this, to reject Allah’s own view about these people and accept its opposite.  It is as if they are saying to Allah: ‘Our Lord, you do not know what we know about them’ – God forbid.

67 While we find the Shi’ites cursing the most senior of the companions especially the three rightly-guided caliphs: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, and consider that curse to be a way of gaining Allah’s pleasure, we don’t find one single person among the followers of the Sunnah to have taken to that cause on any of the Ahl al-Bait. Rather all Ahl as-Sunnah seek Allah’s pleasure and closeness through their love for Ahl al-Bait, and this is one thing none of the Shi’ites can deny, not even by their usual way of cheap slander[1].

73 The Shi’ites claim that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman were after nothing but political leadership and that they oppressed its eligible owners and usurped it from them.

Ironically, we find that none of those three caliphs ever fought a Muslim over the issue of the caliphate.  Rather they only fought the apostates and the unbelievers.  They were the ones who brought the end of the Persian dynasty, quashed the Byzantine empire and by that conquered their lands and peoples and made them lands of Islam and their peoples Muslims.  They strengthened and fortified Islam and the Muslims, and debased disbelief and the unbelievers.

Rebels came to kill ‘Uthman – who was surely lower in status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar – .  But despite the fact that he was the incumbent and eligible caliph at the time, he did not fight any Muslim for that, nor did he kill one single Muslim in the name of preserving the caliphate to himself.

So, if the Shi’ites will strengthen the probability of those three being power-greedy and oppressors, they must also say the same in the case of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu[2].

76 Again, how could the Messenger of Allah be buried between Abu Bakr and ‘Umar who according to the Shi’ites were unbelievers? It is not lawful to bury a Muslim between unbelievers, and how bad if that Muslim is the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam himself? This implies that Allah did not preserve His Prophet from the company of unbelievers even after his death.

Another important question here is, what was ‘Ali’s stance from all of this?  Why didn’t he oppose these ‘dangerous’ measures?

One of two options here must be true and the other false.  Either that Abu Bakr

and ‘Umar were Muslims whom Allah had granted the honour of being close to

the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam for their status with Allah and

His Messenger – and this is surely the truth -, or that ‘Ali was deceitfully

fawning on people at the expense of his religion[3] – far be he from that.

Otherwise, how can the best of all people on earth, the esteemed Messenger

of Allah, be buried only steps away from wrongdoers and unbelievers, as the

Shi’ites would like us to believe?

[1] One can search through the vast Islamic literature, especially the books of Aqa’id (Theology and ideological views), never will he find a single statement alluding to any sort of curse or vilification from the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah toward any member of the Prophet’s household (may Allah be pleased with them). But a mere glance through the main and most reliable Shi’i sources will unfold an enormous amount of narratives speaking ill of the sahabah. Nay, there are others in which they vilify even some of the Ahl al-Bait like al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib for ceding the caliphate in favour of Mu’awiyah, and others like ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas and his father (may Allah be pleased with all).(Translator).

[2] The point here is that in the days of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu fierce conflicts occurred over the caliphate itself, and a number of Muslims were killed in that cause, even though, no one among the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah ever accused ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu of being power-greedy.  So, if the Shi’ites will accuse Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman in whose reign there were no conflict on the caliphate and no Muslim was killed, nor did they fight anyone to gain power, It would be very unfair to accuse them without accusing ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhum.(Translator).

[3] That is, if ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu would allow Abu Bakr and ‘Umar to be buried near the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, having known perfectly that they were non-Muslims – as the Shi’ites claim – that will amount to his being an accomplice to harm the Prophet.  And this is definitely what ‘Ali never did.  So, by allowing their bodies to be buried there, ‘Ali must have believed them to be Muslims, nay the best of Muslims after the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam.

[1] Al-Kulaini, Raudat al-Kafi (8/101).

[2] Al-Arbali, Kashf al-Ghummah Fi Ma’rifat al-A’immah (2/360). The author here somewhat summarized the narrative.  In the original source, the man questioning the imam was asking whether it is permissible to decorate swords.  Al-Baqir rahimahullah said: “There is nothing bad in that, because Abu Bakr as-Siddiq also used to decorate his sword”.  The man said: ‘Do you call him as-Siddiq?’. Al-Baqir jumped to his feet and faced the Qiblah and said: Yes, as-Siddiq, Yes, as-Siddiq, Yes, as-Siddiq!!! May Allah, on the day of Judgement, not accept the statement of whoever does not address him so “.

It is clear from the narrative that al-Baqir rahimahullah not only attested to the fact that a Muslim must address those pious companions of the Prophet with respect, especially the best of them Abu Bakr, and that he must be addressed with the epithet given him by the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam himself, that is, as-Siddiq.  Furthermore, al-Baqir also used to regard the actions of the companions as models to be emulated, as is evident clearly from this narrative when he stressed his opinion on decorating swords with the fact that Abu Bakr used to do that, just like someone will use the Qur’an or the Sunnah as proofs. (Translator).

[3] That is, in marked contrast to the stance of their imam Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husain (al-Baqir).

[4] (p. 88; 142; 188) Beirut edition.

[5] (2/66).

[6] (p. 582).

[7] Allah says: {Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest} [Al-Fath: 18].

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s