Before everything else, my sincere apologies go for those whose hearts will thaw out after reading this post. They may find it disrespectful, filled with hatred and what not. But when the honor of the man who struggled the most for Islam has no more value to some, then why should I or anyone else honor the some? May it be a person on truth or one still seeking it.
What astonishes me though is that when it is said that you Imamis do nothing but waste your time slandering the Companions (ra), you retaliate and cry: “all we do is reveal the truth!”
For all truth seeking unity-mongering Imamis:
How is `Umar (ra) being a sexist molester an established truth for you?
Was it transferred along with the *divine* knowledge of the infallibles that you’re forced to derive from the manuscripts at Qum because the last one is a failure at his job?
Or are you like Christian missionaries who stick to ad hominems when it comes to decent and intellectual polemics?
Whatever it maybe, you surely leave no effort to make a fool out of yourselves. Exposing your poor grasps not only of Islamic sciences, but also of Arabic language and literature.
Let us have a laugh (again):
Now i will quote shia statements in quote & reply after each quote.
So lets start:
For those willing to know more about Umar, I think these will help!
Imam al-Beyhaqi records in ‘Al-Sunnan al-Kubra’ Volume 2 page 227:
عن جده أنس بن مالك قال كن إماء عمر رضي الله عنه يخدمننا كاشفات عن شعورهن تضطرب ثديهن
قال الشيخ والآثار عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه في ذلك صحيحة
Anas bin Malik said: ‘The slave-girls of Umar were serving us with uncovered hair and their breasts shaking”
This is how the narration is in both Sunan al-Kubra [2:227 (Dar al-Fikr) = 2:227 (Dar al-Baz)] and Ma`rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar [2:94 (Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyya)] of al-Bayhaqi:
وأخبرنا أبو القاسم عبد الرحمن بن عبيد الله الحرفي ببغداد أنبأ علي بن محمد بن الزبير الكوفي ثنا الحسن بن علي بن عفان ثنا زيد بن الحباب عن حماد بن سلمة قال حدثني ثمامة بن عبد الله بن أنس عن جده أنس بن مالك قال كن إماء عمر رضي الله عنه يخدمننا كاشفات عن شعورهن تضرب ثديهن
Few points to note here:
· Since the narration starts with “kunna,” it would send the sentence to the farther past, and “serve” is used as a present-future tense [mudari`] verb so that would make it “used to serve us” not “were serving us.”
· The “tadrabu” here refers to the hair but not to the breasts. So the hair hit the breasts, the breasts do not hit each other! So the correct translation of the text [matn] would be:
“The slaves of `Umar (ra) used to serve us with their hair uncovered and hitting their breast.”
· Let us for arguments sake believe that the hair was uncovered and their breasts were hitting each other. How on earth does that necessitate being nude? The conjectures of your Imami imaginations are worth pondering over, but moving breasts can symbolize loose cloths, silk, or even the swiftness of the service mentioned in the Hadith.
Al-Bayhaqi graded the tradition as ‘Sahih’ while Al-Albani the Wahabi in his book ‘Erwa al-Ghalil’ volume 6 page 204 said: ‘The chain of narration is perfect’.
Umar let his slave-girls go naked, even among his guests, because he did not consider them ‘full’ human beings.
· al-Albani did not say it is “the chain of narration is perfect.” Rather the word he used was “good” [jayyid]. He said after quoting it in Irwa [6:204]:
قلت وإسناده جيد
“I say: its chain of transmission is good [jayyid].”
· What al-Bayhaqi said actually clears the misconception you try to create. Perhaps that is the reason you choose to quote al-Albani but no al-Bayhaqi? What al-Bayhaqi said in Sunan al-Kubra after narrating this narration is:
والآثار عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه في ذلك صحيحة وانها تدل على أن رأسها ورقبتها وما يظهر منها في حال المحنة ليس بعورة
“and the reports from `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) concerning that (issue) are rigorously authentic [sahiha] and they serve as a proof that her head, neck and whatever was revealed from it in the state of endurance is not considered the `awra.”
This is sufficient to show that the “serve” part in the Hadith is the reason behind the revelation. What any unbiased person would understand from this is that disclosures during service take place and this narration provides proof that such revelation is not from the `awra. That is a it, an issue of jurisprudence.
Not that a naked part where “breasts shaking” and other things used to happen as TruthSeeker1 and his colleagues envisage. Perhaps they should save their thought and utilize it next time they visit some-some Imam’s some-some shrine where temporary marriages are easy to execute and everybody is a winner. Pay some dates and the date is yours.
Anas reported: ‘Umar once saw a slave-girl that belonged to us (to Anas) wearing a scarf, so Umar hit her and told her: ‘Don’t assume the manners of free woman.”
Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Volume 2 page 41 Tradition 6236
Imam Ibn Hajar in ‘al-Deraya’ Volume 1 page 124 and Al-Albani the Salafi in ‘Irwa al-Ghalil’ Volume 6 page 203 have graded this hadith as ‘Sahih’.
Few things to note here again:
The word “darab” can mean anything from “flap” to “poke” to “hit.” The narration here does not anyhow suggest that `Umar (ra) hit her inhumanely. Rather it simply tells us that he disallowed her to cover her head like free women do.
There is an old saying about stones and glass houses. Perhaps some excerpts from Imami texts would remind you of it:
It is also narrated by Shahid al-Awwal in Dhikra [3:10] and al-Barqi in al-Mahasin [2:318]:
سألت أبا عبد الله (ع) عن المملوكة تقنع رأسها إذا صلت؟ قال لا قد كان أبى إذا رأى الخادمة تصلى في مقنعة ضربها لتعرف الحرة من المملوكة
“I asked Aba `Abd Allah [al-Sadiq] (as) concerning the possession’s covering of her head when she prayed? He replied: ‘No! For when my father saw the female servant *praying* with a scarf on, he *hit* her; so that the free can be known from the possession.”
And it is in Man La Yahduruh al-Faqih – the book considered all authentic by its author al-Saduq – [1:373] and al-Kafi [5:525] that Imam al-Baqir said:
ليس على الأمة قناع في الصلاة
“There is no cover for the slave girl during pray.”
This report is declared “Sahih” by the Grand Ayatullah al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Ruhani in Fiqh al-Sadiq [4:228]
In fact, it is narrated in Qadi Nu`man al-Maghribi’s Da`a’im al-Islam [1:177] and al-Nuri’s Mustadrak al-Wasa’il [3:217] that Ja`far al-Sadiq was asked about the permissibility for a slave girl to cover her head during prayers and he replied:
لا كان أبى رضوان الله عليه إذا رأى أمة تصلى وعليها مقنعة ضربها وقال يا لكع لا تتشبهي بالحرائر
“No, When my father, `alayh as-salam, saw a slave girl praying and she had a scarf on her, he hit her! And he said: ‘You rascal! Do not resemble the free ones!’”
Jumping Imams on praying girls to remove their scarfs? `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) definitely could not have beaten that.
عن المسيب بن دارم قال : رأيت عمر وفي يده درة فضرب رأس أمة حتى سقط القناع عن رأسها ، قال : فيم الأمة تشبه بالحرة
Al-Musaiab bin Darum said: ‘I saw Umar holding a stick in his hand and striking a slave-girl’s head until her scarf same off, he the said: ‘Why does the slave assume the manners of free woman?’
1. Tabaqat ibn Saad, Volume 7 page 127
2. Kanz al-Umal, Volume 15 page 486 Hadith 41928
3. Tarikh Damishq, Volume 58 page 191
Firstly, it is al-Musayyab ibn Darim not “Musaiab ibn Darum.” And secondly, it does not matter what he saw or heard, for he himself and his credibility are both unknown. Which makes this narration unauthentic.
His son was no better. Apparently, he taught his manners to his dear Abdullah. We read in Sunan al-Kubra by Imam Beyhaqi:
عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ” أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها و على عجزها
Nafe’e narrated that whenever Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl, he would inspect her by analysing her legs and placing his hands between her breasts and on her buttocks”
Sunnan Al-Kubra, Volume 5 page 329
His son may be whatever, but he wasn’t a liar.
The word used here is “jariya.” Jariya refers to a very young girl that has the ability to run around, not even a girl who attained puberty. These are the very same words that were used for the Mother of the Believers `A’isha (ra) five years before the hijra.
Perhaps the Shi`is would now say that she was a slave-girl too? For it is well known that for their lies to be considered true, they even belie the truth!
What is wrong in looking at a little girl or even checking her body to assure her faultlessness as a girl that would work as a servant?
This wasn’t simply the act of Ibn `Umar (ra), rather the Shi`is should check their works as well.
It is narrated in the authoritative Shi`i text Qurb al-Isnad  concerning Imam `Ali (ra):
أنه كان إذا أراد أن يشتري الجارية يكشف عن ساقيها فينظر إليها
“Whenever he [`Ali] intended to buy a jariya, he used to uncover her legs and look at them.”
And this report is declared reliable [mu`tabira] by Grand Ayatullah Abu al-Qasim al-Khu’i in Kitab al-Nikah [1:33]
What should the “appeal to justice” be now? Are you going to make fun of your own Imam and portray him as “no better” than a person who defame the most?
The act of Ibn `Umar (ra) has no aphrodisiacal side to it as our Imami Shi`i friends love to believe. A jariya or a little girl was checked not so one can fulfil their desires right in front of hundreds of marketers, but to see whether the girl suffers through any deficiencies and injuries or not, so she could serve with proficiency and be a good working servant.
This is further cleared from another Sahih narration right before the one you quoted from in Irwa al-Ghalil [6:201]:
أن ابن عمر كان يضع يده بين ثدييها ( يعني الجارية ) وعلى عجزها من فوق الثياب ويكشف عن ساقها
“Ibn `Umar (ra) used to put his hand between her [meaning the jariya’s] breasts and on her haunch from above (her) clothes and used to unveil her leg.”
Now the question is, if Ibn `Umar (ra) really was doing what the Shi`is think he was doing, then why did he choose to unveil her leg and not her chest and haunch?
The answer is simple. Because the bones and muscle between the breasts [sternum, ribs, etc.] and the haunch [pelvis, etc.] can be checked with the clothes on, but the disfigurement of legs or anything related to it would require the uncovering of the legs since women in those days wore long coverings, not pants.
The purpose for procuring such women was not molestation or enjoyment [mut`a] with them in marketplaces. Rather to free them from the trade market and provide them with an Islamic atmosphere, so they could understand the wisdom behind Islam and accept it.
The issue of slavery is a sensitive one. Normally, the view in an average secularist’s eyes is nothing but a fragment of imagination; such as chains, ill-treatment, hostility, discrimination, or even nudity. But when we say “slave” we mean bond servants, not the slaves kept by the English.
Who are treated in the same manner others are. As stated in the Qur’an:
“Worship Allah, and do not associate with Him anything, and be good to parents and to kinsmen and orphans and the needy and the close neighbor and the distant neighbor and the companion at your side and the wayfarer and to those (slaves who are) owned by you. Surely, Allah does not like those who are arrogant, proud, those who are miserly and bid people to be miserly, and conceal what Allah has given them of His grace – and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment, and (for) those who spend their wealth only to show people, and do not believe in Allah and the Last Day. Anyone for whom Satan is companion, evil he is as a companion.” [4:36-38]
This is why one would find examples where servants or slaves were either married or freed after being purchased.
The only difference is of the rights; not conduct. And that difference too is scrupulously just in light of theism and religious conventialites.
Anyhow, the discussion at hand is not slavery. So I will continue with the Imamis and their mischief.
We also read:
‘Mujahid reported that ibn Umar placed his hand between (a slave-girl’s) breasts and shook them’
Musnaf Abdur Razak, Volume 7 page 286 Tradition 13204
Inauthentic. Narrated by Mu`ammar from Ibn Abi Najih. While Ibn Abi Najih never narrated traditions to Mu`ammar.
In conclusion, more can be written and shown from the hidden jewels of Twelever Imamism for readers to know that Shi`is have more dirt in their closets than they assume is in our books. But for now, I hope this suffices.