During his journey to Egypt Shaikh Bahai got acquainted with a Sunni
scholar who was antagonistic towards the Ahle Bait (a.s). Given the
environment of Egypt and its hostility towards Shias and the Ahle Bait
(a.s.), this was not altogether surprising and it only made the Shaikh
careful about protecting his own identity as a Shia.
The Sunni scholar got close to Shaikh Bahai and among other subjects they discussed the Shias, who the Sunni scholar referred to as Raafizis (deniers of the Sunni caliphs). Shaikh Bahai, who for all practical purposes posed as a person following the Sunnah (Sunni) used to tell the Sunni scholar that in Mecca he had opportunities of interacting with the Shia Raafizis. On this the Sunni scholar told him that the faith of the Raafizis was absolutely wrong and that they didn’t have any proof for the veracity of their beliefs. He asked Shaikh Bahai if he was able to convince any of the Raafizis.
Shaikh Bahai informed him that he tried hard to convince them, but in the end they would pose a question to him that overturned all his arguments. The Sunni scholar asked in surprise that being such a learned scholar why he wasn’t able to suitably answer their question. To this Shaikh Bahai replied:
During our debates they would challenge that in Sahih-e-Bukhari there is a tradition where the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had said:
Fatima (s.a.) is a part of me, one who troubles her has troubled me!
Shaikh Bahai told the Sunni scholar that the Shias in Mecca told him that there were certain personalities on whom there is Allah’s curse as they had troubled Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and she departed from the world unhappy with these persons. There was a tradition to this effect in the Sahih-e-Bukhari five pages after the previous tradition. Due to this argument Shaikh Bahai was helpless in countering the Shias in Mecca.
The Sunni scholar countered – They are liars! There is nothing like this in Sahih-e-Bukhari! Tonight I will read the book and rebut their objection by the morning
The next morning the Sunni scholar approached Shaikh Bahai and said – I told you the Shia Raafizis are blatant liars. They said that the second tradition is after five pages from the first tradition. They are wrong; it is after seven pages from the first tradition. Saying he left as if he had scored a victory over the Shias!
(Both the traditions are sourced from Sahih-e-Bukhari, vol. 4, Book of Initiation of Creation, Chapter of the Excellence of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) Relatives, Chapter of Fatima’s (s.a.) Virtues)
Now there will be some who will deny this debate accusing the Shias of concocting it. While the debate is real, even if one were to treat it as a fabrication, the two traditions under question from Sahih-e-Bukhari are very real and by no means a fabrication.
Again these scholars are trapped by their ignorance of Sahih-e-Bukhari underscoring that Sunni scholars themselves haven’t studied the book in detail else they would not be making such fundamental errors in interpretations of laws.
In the 3rd volume of Sahih Bukhari pg 143 there is an incident wherein the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) concluded a matter on the lone testimony of Abdullah b. Umar.
Are the scholars going all out to defend Abu Bakr implying that Abu Bakr was more cautious than the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Abdullah b. Umar was a more reliable witness than Fatima Zahra (s.a.)?
Why was it not important to tread the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in this regard and accept the lone testimony of Fatima (s.a.) or Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.)?
Is following the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) an option that one exercises depending on what suits his own interests?
1. Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was displeased with the Shaikhain (Abu Bakr and Umar) and never spoke to them ever again after the talks on Fadak failed. Therefore to conclude everything was hunky dory between Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and Shaikhain is false. The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) household of which Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was the most important member along with Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) did not have a good rapport with the companions and were displeased with them.
2. Not only Fatima, even the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was displeased with the Shaikhain as the tradition clearly states one who displeases Fatima Zahra (s.a.) has incurred the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) displeasure.
3. Allah Himself is displeased with the Shaikhain as the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was displeased with them both as Allah declares in the 57th verse of Surah Ahzaab (33):
It is clear that Abu Bakr and Umar had displeased the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by virtue of displeasing Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and in this way also incurred Allah’s Displeasure according to the aforementioned verse.
4. Some have erroneously, rather deliberately, concluded that in the matter of Fadak, Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) was not upset with Abu Bakr and Umar and remained silent out of respect for Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and patched up relations with them after her demise. This mischievous interpretation is another attempt to distort the truth and is wrong on several counts the most important one being that when Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) both of who are superior to Ali (a.s.) are displeased on a matter (Abu Bakr and Umar), it does not behove even a common Muslim to take a contrarian stand, let alone Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) whose sense of judgement between truth and falsehood was a benchmark for the nation.
Also, these Muslims conceal the fact that Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) was the foremost witness to testify that Fadak was Fatima’s (a.s.) property and his testimony was summarily rejected on the ground that he was Fatima’s (s.a.) husband. Likewise, Hasan b. Ali’s (a.s.) testimony was rejected as also of course Fatima’s (s.a.) testimony on one ground or another. Under the circumstances, it is absurd to suggest that Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) was pleased with Abu Bakr and Umar when the two had branded his entire family including him as liars unfit to provide a simple testimony in a property dispute in contravention of Ayat-e-Tatheer (Surah Ahzaab (33): Verse 33.
Ali b. Abi Taalib’s (a.s.) silence on Fadak and other issues was akin to the silence of Haroon (a.s.), brother of Moosa (a.s.), in the matter of the calf-worship, as he was afraid it would lead to divisions in the community (Surah Taahaa (20): Verse 94). Rather it was more crucial for Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) to observe silence in the face of falsehood since the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had departed from the nation for good, unlike Hazrat Moosa (a.s.) who had departed only for a few days and was expected to re-join Haroon (a.s.) and counter the falsehood of the calf-worshippers.
THIS ARTICLE IS TAKEN FROM SERATONLINE.COM
The Sunni scholar got close to Shaikh Bahai and among other subjects they discussed the Shias, who the Sunni scholar referred to as Raafizis (deniers of the Sunni caliphs). Shaikh Bahai, who for all practical purposes posed as a person following the Sunnah (Sunni) used to tell the Sunni scholar that in Mecca he had opportunities of interacting with the Shia Raafizis. On this the Sunni scholar told him that the faith of the Raafizis was absolutely wrong and that they didn’t have any proof for the veracity of their beliefs. He asked Shaikh Bahai if he was able to convince any of the Raafizis.
Shaikh Bahai informed him that he tried hard to convince them, but in the end they would pose a question to him that overturned all his arguments. The Sunni scholar asked in surprise that being such a learned scholar why he wasn’t able to suitably answer their question. To this Shaikh Bahai replied:
During our debates they would challenge that in Sahih-e-Bukhari there is a tradition where the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had said:
Fatima (s.a.) is a part of me, one who troubles her has troubled me!
Shaikh Bahai told the Sunni scholar that the Shias in Mecca told him that there were certain personalities on whom there is Allah’s curse as they had troubled Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and she departed from the world unhappy with these persons. There was a tradition to this effect in the Sahih-e-Bukhari five pages after the previous tradition. Due to this argument Shaikh Bahai was helpless in countering the Shias in Mecca.
The Sunni scholar countered – They are liars! There is nothing like this in Sahih-e-Bukhari! Tonight I will read the book and rebut their objection by the morning
The next morning the Sunni scholar approached Shaikh Bahai and said – I told you the Shia Raafizis are blatant liars. They said that the second tradition is after five pages from the first tradition. They are wrong; it is after seven pages from the first tradition. Saying he left as if he had scored a victory over the Shias!
(Both the traditions are sourced from Sahih-e-Bukhari, vol. 4, Book of Initiation of Creation, Chapter of the Excellence of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) Relatives, Chapter of Fatima’s (s.a.) Virtues)
Now there will be some who will deny this debate accusing the Shias of concocting it. While the debate is real, even if one were to treat it as a fabrication, the two traditions under question from Sahih-e-Bukhari are very real and by no means a fabrication.
Defending Abu Bakr in a lost cause
Of course not all Sunni scholars are like the Egyptian counterpart of Shaikh Bahai, who rejected the tradition of Sahih-e-Bukhari outright. These Sunni scholars know that Abu Bakr is in a corner by rejecting the claim of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and incurring her displeasure and in this way being the subject of Allah’s and the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) eternal displeasure. They have tried to defend Abu Bakr by countering that Abu Bakr did not want to conclude the matter on the testimony of a lone individual although he was personally convinced about the witness’s honesty in this regard. (Sharh al-Mawaaqif vol 8, pg 356 by Al-Jurjani).Again these scholars are trapped by their ignorance of Sahih-e-Bukhari underscoring that Sunni scholars themselves haven’t studied the book in detail else they would not be making such fundamental errors in interpretations of laws.
In the 3rd volume of Sahih Bukhari pg 143 there is an incident wherein the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) concluded a matter on the lone testimony of Abdullah b. Umar.
Are the scholars going all out to defend Abu Bakr implying that Abu Bakr was more cautious than the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Abdullah b. Umar was a more reliable witness than Fatima Zahra (s.a.)?
Why was it not important to tread the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in this regard and accept the lone testimony of Fatima (s.a.) or Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.)?
Is following the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) an option that one exercises depending on what suits his own interests?
In conclusion
The aforementioned traditions highlight some important points most conclusive in nature since no less a book than Sahih-e-Bukhari has recorded them:1. Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was displeased with the Shaikhain (Abu Bakr and Umar) and never spoke to them ever again after the talks on Fadak failed. Therefore to conclude everything was hunky dory between Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and Shaikhain is false. The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) household of which Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was the most important member along with Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) did not have a good rapport with the companions and were displeased with them.
2. Not only Fatima, even the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was displeased with the Shaikhain as the tradition clearly states one who displeases Fatima Zahra (s.a.) has incurred the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) displeasure.
3. Allah Himself is displeased with the Shaikhain as the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was displeased with them both as Allah declares in the 57th verse of Surah Ahzaab (33):
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا
Surely (as for) those who displease Allah and His Apostle, Allah has
cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and He has prepared for
them a chastisement bringing disgrace.It is clear that Abu Bakr and Umar had displeased the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by virtue of displeasing Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and in this way also incurred Allah’s Displeasure according to the aforementioned verse.
4. Some have erroneously, rather deliberately, concluded that in the matter of Fadak, Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) was not upset with Abu Bakr and Umar and remained silent out of respect for Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and patched up relations with them after her demise. This mischievous interpretation is another attempt to distort the truth and is wrong on several counts the most important one being that when Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) both of who are superior to Ali (a.s.) are displeased on a matter (Abu Bakr and Umar), it does not behove even a common Muslim to take a contrarian stand, let alone Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) whose sense of judgement between truth and falsehood was a benchmark for the nation.
Also, these Muslims conceal the fact that Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) was the foremost witness to testify that Fadak was Fatima’s (a.s.) property and his testimony was summarily rejected on the ground that he was Fatima’s (s.a.) husband. Likewise, Hasan b. Ali’s (a.s.) testimony was rejected as also of course Fatima’s (s.a.) testimony on one ground or another. Under the circumstances, it is absurd to suggest that Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) was pleased with Abu Bakr and Umar when the two had branded his entire family including him as liars unfit to provide a simple testimony in a property dispute in contravention of Ayat-e-Tatheer (Surah Ahzaab (33): Verse 33.
Ali b. Abi Taalib’s (a.s.) silence on Fadak and other issues was akin to the silence of Haroon (a.s.), brother of Moosa (a.s.), in the matter of the calf-worship, as he was afraid it would lead to divisions in the community (Surah Taahaa (20): Verse 94). Rather it was more crucial for Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) to observe silence in the face of falsehood since the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had departed from the nation for good, unlike Hazrat Moosa (a.s.) who had departed only for a few days and was expected to re-join Haroon (a.s.) and counter the falsehood of the calf-worshippers.
THIS ARTICLE IS TAKEN FROM SERATONLINE.COM
