1. THE EPISODE OF THE QIRTAAS (PAPER AND PEN REQUESTED BY RASULULAH- sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

Among the fabrications and slander of the Shiahs against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) is their claim that he (Hadhrat Umar) had prevented Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from writing a last Testament which he had desired to write during his last illness.

THE EPISODE

During his Maradhul Maut (last illness), on a Thursday, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked the Sahaabah who were present to bring pen and paper to enable him to write something which will save them from going astray. Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) said that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in pain (it being his Maradhul Maut) and the Kitaab of Allah was sufficient. Difference of opinion arose among the group present. When voices were raised, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered them all to leave.

On the basis of this episode, the Shiahs charge Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) with the following crimes:

(1) That he prevented Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from writing out his last Testament in which he wanted to specify the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

(2) In having prevented Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Umar (according to the Shiahs) is guilty of preventing the delivery of Wahi which Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) wanted to have written.

If the Ahaadith relevant to this episode are examined with a clear and unbiased mind, the falsity of the Shiah charges will be manifest.

REFUTATION OF THE SHIAH CLAIMS

(1) The request or order for pen and paper made by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was not made directly and exclusively to Hadhrat Umar ( radhiallahu anhu). A group of Sahaabah was present. In some narrations, the term (Bring for me) is used by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This is a plural verb directed to the group. In a narration in Musnad-e-Ahmad, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) mentions that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered him (i.e. Hadhrat Ali) to bring the writing materials.

Why should the charge of refusal to bring the writing materials now be leveled against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu)? He was not specifically singled out for this task. In fact, if anyone was specifically deputed to bring the writing materials, it was a Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). Why then do the Shiahs refrain from criticizing Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for having failed to comply with Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instruction? Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) himself narrates that on account of the severity of Nabi-e-Kareem’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) illness, he did not comply. He did not want to leave the presence of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) whose demise, according to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was imminent. So the Shiah charge of disobeying Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should be directed by them against Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), not against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu).

(2) Secondly, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had merely presented his opinion on the matter. He felt that it was unjust and an imposition of a burden on Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to have him dictate a testament in his state of extreme pain which he experienced during his Maradhul Maut. When Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) presented his opinion, two groups formed. One group agreeing and the other dissenting. As a result of this difference, voices were raised, and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered them all out.

(3) If Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was guilty as the Shiahs allege, why did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) order the whole group to leave? This group included Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhuma). It is quite obvious from the tenor of the Hadith that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked them to leave because of their mutual argument, not because Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) or anyone else had prevented him from writing or having the testament written.

(4) If whatever Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) wanted to write was Wahi (Divine Revelation), then it is inconceivable that anyone or anything could have prevented him from proclaiming the Wahi which is obviously part of the Qur`aan. How is it possible for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to have concealed (Nauthubillah!) the Wahi of Allah Ta`ala when throughout his life he propagated the Truth and the Qur`aan in the face of the greatest dangers, persecution, tortures and hardships? Even in the initial stages of his mission when he was all alone and weak, he never desisted from proclaiming the Wahi of Allah Ta`ala. When he and the Sahaabah were suffering brutal tortures and hardships under the Kuffaar of Makkah and when they wanted him to cease his Message, he fearlessly proclaimed: “If you put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand, I shall not desist from proclaiming the Truth.”

How can people of Imaan ever accept that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had withheld revelation or vital information of the Deen merely because of an argument between the two groups of Sahaabah? How can this be imagined when the Qur`aan says:

“O Rasool! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Rabb. If you do not, then you have not delivered (fulfilled) your mission.”

Several months prior to Rasulullah’s demise the following Aayat was revealed:

“This day have I perfected for you your Deen and I have completed for you My favour and have chosen for you Islam as (your) Deen.”

When the Deen was already perfected, it is inconceivable that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)desired to write something in addition to the perfected Message of Allah Ta`ala. If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had withheld vital information of the Deen, he would come within the purview of the aforementioned verse in which it is said that ‘then you would not have delivered your Mission.’ But, it is unanimous in the Ummah and crystal clear that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had delivered every aspect of the Deen. Not an iota of Allah’s Wahi was concealed as the Shiah contention implies.

Which Mu`min is prepared to believe that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had concealed any part of the Deen simply because Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had opined that there was no need for writing anything during this state of illness of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? When Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) with all his hatred for Islam during his pre-Islam days, together with the might and venom of the entire Quraish were unable to deter Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from proclaiming the Deen, how can it be intelligently accepted that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) withheld and concealed the Truth and the Deen when there was absolutely no threat from any quarter confronting him?

(5) This episode transpired on Thursday. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) lived another four days after this incident. If he had vital Deeni information or Wahi to deliver, why did he not execute this task during the four days succeeding this episode? What was there to prevent him? And, if there was anything to prevent him and he succumbed to the pressure, it will lead to the kufr conclusion that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was guilty of Kitmaanul Haqq - Kitmaan-e-Deen (concealing the Truth and concealing the Deen) - Nauthubillah! Only Shiahs possess the capacity for entertaining such kufr and formulating such slander which blemish the concept of Divine Nubuwwah.

During the four days after this episode, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was not in the constant company of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) nor was there any impediment to prevent him from writing or proclaiming verbally what he had wished to have written on that particular day (Thursday). Then what precluded him from revealing to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) or Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) or to any other Sahaabi in the group which was in favour of the testament whatever he wanted to have written. There was sufficient time and opportunity in the four days prior to his demise for recording whatever he wanted to say. But, on the contrary, he simply left the subject. This indicates that whatever he had wanted to have written was advice in general-such naseehat which existed in the Qur`aan and Sunnah. It is precisely for this reason that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) initially said “The Kitaab of Allah is by us.”

(6) If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was constrained to abstain from having his Message recorded, he could have proclaimed the Message verbally at any other time subsequent to this incident when Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was not around. But, it is kufr, clear and conspicuous, to even imagine that Hadhrat Umar’s presence or anyone else’s presence could deter Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from proclaiming Wahi of Allah Ta`ala.

(7) On the occasion of the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah, our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), on the insistence of the Kuffaar, to erase the word, “Rasulullah”, from the treaty document. However, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) emphatically refused and Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) then erased the word with his own hands. But no Shiah criticizes Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for an act which superficially appears to be disobedience. (NB. It is not our claim that Hadhrat Ali’s refusal was disobedience nor did Rasulullah -sallallahu alayhi wasallam-construe his refusal as disobedience). The point in mentioning this incident is simply to present an analogy. If the Shiahs assert, as they do, that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had opposed the wishes of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) , then to a greater degree should they charge Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) with disobedience because he had not only ignored a wish of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), but refused a command.

(8) In the unanimous view of all the authorities of the Shariah, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is Ma`soom, i.e. he is Divinely guarded against all sin and disobedience. It is inconceivable that the soul chosen by Allah Ta`ala to deliver the Qur`aan had concealed or withheld any part of the Deen. As far as the Shariah is concerned, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had delivered it in entirety and perfection.

(9) It is quite obvious that whatever Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) wanted to have recorded pertained to general advice, hence later on he did not even deem it necessary to pursue the matter.

(10) Even after having cancelled his initial proposal of having the advice recorded, he instructed the Sahaabah during the very same episode to:

1) Expel the Mushrikeen from the Arabian peninsula.

2) To be hospitable to foreign delegations as was his practice.

3) Despatch the army of Usaamah.

Although he ordered the Sahaabah to leave, he nevertheless, issued these last very important instructions. It is quite probable that these were the very things he wanted to have written down. He regarded these acts as vital, hence he made this order during his Maradhul Maut immediately after the episode out of which the Shiahs endeavour to eke substantiation for their fabricated slanders and charges against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu).

(11) When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked them to leave, he said :

“ It is not appropriate for you to argue in my presence.”

It is abundantly clear that he asked them to leave because of their mutual argument. He did not make any reference to the issue of the dispute between the two groups. When the Sahaabah sought further clarification from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he commented:

“ The state in which I am (presently) is better than what you are inviting me to.”

Immediately after this comment, he commanded the expulsion of the Mushrikeen from Arabia. All this indicates that he did not attach importance to whatever he had initially wanted to have written or that he had changed his mind.

(12) The logical conclusion of the Shiah accusation is that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had either withheld or concealed information pertaining to the Deen as a result of an argument among the Sahaabah. In a Hadith in Bukhaari Shareef, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha) said:

“Whoever says that Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had concealed anything from what has been revealed to him, has most certainly spoken a lie. Allah Ta`ala says (in the Qur`aan): ‘O Rasool ! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Rabb...’”

It should now be clear that the charges of the Shiahs against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) are baseless and pure slander. By implication they are also accusing Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) of having concealed the Haqq on account of fear for Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) But the absurdity of this implication is manifest. Furthermore, whatever charge they have leveled against the Umar in this issue rebounds on their greatest Imaam, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) as well, because the instruction to bring the writing material was initially issued to him. May Allah Ta`ala save us from the vile slander and kufr of the Shiahs.

2. HADHRAT UMAR BURNT HADHRAT FAATIMAH’S HOME

The falsity of this fabrication is so glaring that the majority of the Shiah sects refutes it. It is a brazen and a conspicuous slander.

Although they themselves refute this concoction, they claim that it was Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiallahu anhu) intention to burn down Hadhrat Faatimah’s (radhiallahu anha) house, but he did not implement it. Intentions are related to the heart and mind. Only Allah Ta`ala is aware thereof. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) too had issued a threat to burn down the houses of those who absented themselves from the Jamaat Salaat. But, he never implemented the threat. It is therefore correct to conclude that the threat was merely to serve the purpose of deterring people from performing the Fardh Salaat in their homes. In order to convey the gravity of the crime of neglecting Jamaat Salaat, the threat of burning down homes was made by Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). There is thus no surprise in the threat of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) which was made in similar vein.

Furthermore, his senior rank in the Ummah fully entitled him to issue such stern warnings and reprimands of this nature. Besides Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), all the Sahaabah were his juniors. He was the Man about whom Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“If after me there had to be a Nabi, it would have been Umar.”

If by “intention” the Shiahs mean that he had threatened to do so, then it should be understood that mischief-mongers had made Hadhrat Faatimah’ s house a haven for their conspiracies. The threat was directed at the plotters who had made a sanctuary of Hadhrat Faatimah’s house where they assembled to conspire against the first Khalifah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). They conspired to destabilise the Khilaafat and to spread their mischief and anarchy.

In fact, Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) too had become highly perturbed over this development. However, owing to the tenderness of her nature and excellence of character she was unable to restrain the conspirators. As a warning for this group of anarchists Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) issued his warning. Being a senior in every aspect, he was fully entitled to address any juniors in this manner, more so when they were engaging in mischief.

After the assassination of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu), Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was installed as the new Khalifah. The kinsman of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) demanded the apprehension and execution of the murderers. Political expediency did not allow Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) to comply with their demands. In consequence there developed a great conflict. The opponents of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) fled from Madinah and took refuge in Makkah and sought asylum under the shadow of Ummul Mu`mineen Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha).

From this sanctuary they issued their demand for the apprehension of the murderers and entered into a confrontation with Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), the Khalifah of the time. Ignoring the lofty rank of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha) and the fact that she was his mother-in-law, spiritual mother and the mother of the Mu`mineen in terms of the categoric proclamation of the Qur`aan, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) rejected the asylum offered to his opposition by Hadhrat Aisha (radhiallahu anha), and slayed those whom he held to be anarchists and sowing discord and strife. Hadhrat Ali’s action brought tremendous grief to Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha), but the Ahlus Sunnah do not criticize him for his action. He was the righteous Khalifah and he was fully entitled to act in the way he had chosen to suppress what he had believed to be anarchy in the making.

In important issues affecting the entire Ummah the particular virtues and excellences of individuals are set aside when consideration thereof leads to anarchy and strife. Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) acted correctly in taking stern action against those whom he had deemed to be a danger to the maintenance of law and order in the Ummah. He thus ignored the sanctity of the home of Hadhrat Aishah Siddiqah (radhiallahu anha), the mother of the Mu`mineen, and apprehended very sternly his opponents. Her home was not of lesser sanctity than the home of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha).

The home of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha), the beloved wife of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was a sanctuary for which honour and respect were incumbent just as these were incumbent for the home of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha). While Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) merely uttered a verbal threat, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) on the contrary went the whole way to physically violate the sanctuary in his justifiable action to apprehend and punish his opponents. But, Shiahs have neither condemnation nor criticism for Hadhrat Ali’s action while they venomously gorge out vituperation against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) for a threat which he never implemented. Yet his verbal statement was of lesser gravity than Hadhrat Ali’s physical action. It is abundantly clear that the Shiah condemnation of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) is a product of their intense malice.

It should now be quite manifest that the threat made by Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was never directed to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha). On the contrary, the warning was for those who, in his opinion, were sowing the seeds of dissension, discord and anarchy which threatened the security of the Islamic state.

3. HADHRAT UMAR DENIED THE DEATH OF RASULULLAH (SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM)

On the occasion of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) demise. Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had declared under oath that Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had not died. It was only when

Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) recited the Qur`aanic Aayat:

“ Verily, you will die and they will die”, that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) became conscious of his statements.

Indeed, this criticism is extremely childish and stupid. Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was, after all, a human being. On this occasion of extreme grief his profound love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had emotionally overwhelmed him. His intelligence was momentarily blinded. Such utterances in times of extreme love and grief are natural.

Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) did not propagate a belief or teaching. It was merely an emotional outburst in a state of extreme grief, constrained by his profound love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

There is no need to prolong discussion on this silly criticism.

4. HADHRAT UMAR LACKED KNOWLEDGE OF THE SHARIAH

Shiahs stupidly claim that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was unaware of certain Shar`i laws, hence he was unqualified for the Khilaafat. Their claims on this issue are as follows:

(1) Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had ordered a pregnant adulteress to be stoned to death. However, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) apprized him of his error. Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) commented:

“If it was not for Ali, Umar would have been destroyed.”

As usual, this Shi`i criticism is also based on distortion and concealment of the facts. When Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) ordered the punishment, he was unaware of the woman’s pregnancy. It is not required by the Shariah that the Qaadhi enquires of the woman’s pregnancy when ordering her punishment. The onus is on her to declare her state. Since Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was aware of the woman’s pregnancy, he apprized Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). In gratitude Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) said:

“If it was not for Ali, Umar would have been destroyed.”

In other words, if the information of the woman’s pregnancy was given to him after the punishment was meted out, it would have been cause for considerable regret.

If it is momentarily assumed that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was at the time unaware of the particular law, it would not detract from his greatness and his qualifications for Khilaafat. Great men, rulers, judges, etc. also err in their judgements. But, in this particular episode, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) simply was unaware of the woman’s pregnancy.

A similar episode concerning Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is recorded in Tirmizi. A woman came out of her home. She was accosted in a lane and raped. She screamed and wailed. The man fled after having raped her. The woman mistakenly identified another man as her assailant. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered the man to be stoned to death. When the stoning was about to commence, the true assailant overcome with remorse, confessed his crime. He was then stoned and the innocent man was saved.

Shall it now be said that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was unaware of the Shariah’s law pertaining to punishment for adulterers?

The error in judgement was due to misinformation, not ignorance. The following Hadith is recorded in Bukhaari and Muslim:

“Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and ordered Ali to lash a woman who had recently given birth. However, he did not mete out the punishment because he feared she will die. He (Ali) mentioned this to Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He said: ‘ you had done good. Leave her until the ending of her nifaas (post-natal bleeding).”

Will Shiahs now argue that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had greater knowledge of the Shariah than Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? Will they claim that on the basis of this episode, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) lacked the qualifications for Nubuwwat? Nauthubillah! It will not at all be surprising if Shiahs do in fact make such a preposterous claim of kufr. After all, they do believe in the superiority of their “infallible” Imaams over the Ambiyaa.

(2) Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had ordered a mad woman to be stoned and it was, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) who informed him that insane persons are absolved of guilt.

The same answer explained above, applies to this Shi`i charge. Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was not aware of her insanity. In the Hadith recorded by Imaam Ahmad, the following explanation is given:

‘People were taking a woman whom Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had ordered to be stoned for having committed adultery. When Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) saw the crowd in the street he made enquiries. After being informed, he released the woman and took her to Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). He (Ali) explained that the woman was of the certain tribe and that he was well aware of her insanity which absolves her of guilt according to a Hadith which he recited. Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) then rescinded his judgement. Thus, his judgement was based on unawareness of the woman’s insanity. She did not display signs of insanity during the trial-and this is quite possible. Even in the present day, courts send people for long periods for mental observation to ascertain their sanity.

Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had erred in his Ijtihaad regarding punishment for Murtaddeen (renegades).

The following Hadith is recorded in Tirmizi:

“ Ikramah narrates: ‘ Verily, Ali had burned out a group of people, who had reneged from Islam. This reached Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu). He said: ‘ If it was me, I would have executed them (with the sword) because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Whoever changes his Deen, kill him (i.e. with the sword). I would not have burnt them because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah (i.e. with fire).’ This reached Ali. He said: ‘ Ibn Abbaas has spoken the truth.’”

Now what are the comments of the Shiah denigrators and vilifiers of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu)? Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) had corrected the error of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). In terms of Shiah logic, he should fall from the pedestal of Imaamat. But, he is the first “infallible” Imaam in the Shiah conception of religion and Prophethood!

Regarding the insane woman who was sentenced to be stoned, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had narrated the following Hadith:

“ I heard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying: ‘The pen has been lifted from three persons-one who is sleeping as long as he sleeps; a child as long as he has not attained puberty, and an insane person as long as he has not attained sanity.”

Yet Shiahs report as follows:

“ Verily, Ali had ordered the punishment of theft (severing the hand) for boys before they attained puberty. Muhammad Bin Baabawayh Qummi narrated this in(the book), ‘Man Laa Yahdhuruhul Faqeeh.”

This alleged fatwa is in diametric conflict with Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) statement which Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) himself had narrated.

In defence of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) the Ahlus Sunnah claim that this narration too is false and fabricated.

(3) Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had ordered that the balance of the lashes be flogged on the dead body of his son, Abu Shuhmah, who had succumbed and died while the punishment was being meted out.

This Shi`i accusation is false. It is a Shi`i fabrication like their numerous fabricated lies. According to authentic narrations, Abu Shuhmah was still alive, but unconscious, after he was given his punishment for having consumed liquor.

(4) They say that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was unaware of the Shar`i punishment for liquor-consumption and that he had to consult others to decide the issue.

Total knowledge-knowledge of the entire Shariah-is not is requisite for Imaamat, Khilaafat or for Ijtihaad. If an expert lacks this degree of knowledge-and all experts do, in fact, lack this degree of knowledge-it is not a defect or a disqualification. Assuming that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) lacked this specific knowledge, it does not disqualify him from Khilaafat just as Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) is not disqualified by Shiahs for his lack of awareness of certain Shar`i masaa`il. Every sensible person who harbours no malicious axe to grind understands and accepts this. Of course, the rabid malice of Shiahs precludes them from rational perception and understanding of self-evident realities.

The reality of this baseless charge is that punishment for consuming liquor was not fixed during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). During the early period, a few lashes would be inflicted or the person would be struck with shoes, etc. During the time of Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) the number of lashes had reached 40.

During the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) the incidence of liquor-consumption increased. Consequently, he assembled the Sahaabah. This process of Shuraa was perfectly in conformity with the Sunnah and the well-known Qur`aanic principle of deciding affairs by consultation. At this gathering of the Sahaabah, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was present. According to one version it was Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), and according to another version it was Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf (radhiallahu anhu) who proposed that the punishment should be the same as the punishment for slander, viz. eighty lashes.

All the Sahaabah present concurred with this proposal, and Ijma (consensus) on eighty lashes was enacted. Thus, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was in reality the promulgator of the punishment of eighty lashes for consuming liquor. It is manifest ignorance to accuse him of ignorance on this question. Shar`i issues were generally decided by consultation of the Sahaabah during the age of Khilaafat.

Even Shiah records narrate this episode. The Shi`i Sheikh, Muttahhir Hilli narrates it in Minhaajul Karaamah. This should also answer another criticism of the Shiahs who accuse Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) of having increased the number of the lashes entirely on the basis of his personal opinion. Shi`i accounts acknowledge the formulation of the eighty lash punishment by way of the Ijma of the Sahaabah enacted on the proposal submitted by Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

It now follows that according to Shiah logic, the criticism is not restricted to Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). It assails also Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), their “infallible” Imaam.

Some Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) of having ordered more than eighty lashes for the crime of liquor. Firstly ,this claim is false. Secondly, Shiah records claim that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had once ordered a man to be flogged 100 lashes for having consumed liquor during the month of Ramadaan. The Shi`i, Muhammad Bin Baabawayh narrates this in ‘Man Laa Yahdhuruhul Faqeeh. But Shiahs do not criticise Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for this action.

In defence of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) it is asserted that the Khalifah is entitled to increase a punishment if he deems it expedient. Thus the accusation against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) besides being false, is invalid-i.e. even if he had sometimes increased the number of lashes.

5. HADHRAT UMAR HAD ADMINISTERED PUNISHMENT FOR ZINA INCORRECTLY

Shiahs claim that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had acted in conflict with the Qur`aan because he had once ordered the 100 lashes for fornication to be inflicted with a stick to which was attached 100 twigs.

The charge against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) is baseless since it is raised on distortion. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered this type of punishment for physically deformed persons. Mishkaat and Sharhus Sunnah record the narration of Saeed Ibn Sa`d Bin Ubaadah (radhiallahu anhu) on this issue. A sickly, physically deformed man who had committed fornication was brought to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that he be struck once with a long branch on which there were 100 little branches. This is the law according to the Ahlus Sunnah. The charge against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) is, therefore, devoid of substance.

6. HADHRAT UMAR SAVED MUGHEERAH BIN SHU`BAH FROM PUNISHMENT

Shiahs charge and accuse Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) of mis-manipulating the Shar`i system of justice to save Hadhrat Mugheerah bin Shubah (radhiallahu anhu) from being stoned for allegedly having committed adultery. Shiahs claim that the crime of zina by this Sahaabi was proven by the testimony of four witnesses. However, to save HadhratMugheerah (radhiallahu anhu) from this punishment Hadhrat

Umar (radhiallahu anhu) by implication constrained the fourth witness to discharge testimony defectively.

It is asserted that when the fourth witness was about to testify Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) said:

“I am seeing a face of a man through whom Allah will not disgrace another Muslim”.

In response to this accusation it should be understood the Hadd (i.e. the Shar`i punishment) comes into force only after the crime has been proven by Shar`i evidence. Deficiency in the testimony of a witness or evidence compulsorily brings about the acquittal of the accused. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)said: “ Hudood (plural of Hadd) fall away with doubts”. Since zina was not proven in terms of the Shariah ,the accusation against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) has no validity. The charge of having influenced the witness is a pure fabrication and slander against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) . Ibn Jareer Tabari, Imaam Bukhaari, Hafiz Imaduddin Ibn Kathir, Hafiz Jamaluddin Abul Farj Ibnul Jauzi, Shaikh Shamshuddin Muzaffar Sabt Ibnul Jauzi and other reliable historians narrate that Hadhrat Mugheerah Bin Shubah (radhiallahu anhu) was the governor of Basrah. The inhabitants conspired to have him dismissed. They therefore trumped up a charge of adultery. False witnesses were sent to testify in the court of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). The slander against Hadhrat Mugheerah (radhiallahu anhu) was widely publicised.

When this rumour reached Madinah, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) summoned the various parties to appear in front of him. Hadhrat Mugheerah (radhiallahu anhu) and witnesses presented themselves in a gathering of Sahaabah among whom was Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) as well. After the three witnesses testified, the fourth presented his testimony ambiguously. When Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) asked him to testify clearly as his colleagues had testified, he replied: “NO!”

In terms of the Shariah, adultery is not proven by such defective evidence. The fourth witness in this case had refused to testify in the exact way the Shariah requires. Senior Sahaabah, including Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), were present at the trial. Why did any among them not object if a miscarriage of Shar`i justice was being enacted? Why did Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) maintain silence? It is inconceivable that such a large assembly of Sahaabah, including Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) would have tolerated mis-manipulation of the Shariah process of justice. Proclamation of the truth was the ingrained nature of the Sahaabah. Do the Shiahs deny this attribute of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) whom they proclaim to be their first “infallible” Imaam?

Even Shiahs say that Umar (radhiallahu anhu) would retract his view and accept the view and admonition of an “ignorant” woman in Deeni matters. How is it possible for such a cautious, Allah-fearing Sahaabi to defeat Shar`i justice in the presence of a large assembly of senior Sahaabah?

The statement attributed to Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu), ,viz., “ I see the face of a Muslim...” is an evil slander and pure falsehood lobbed against him by vile Shiahs. This statement was the utterance of Hadhrat Mugheerah (radhiallahu anhu) who was on trial for his life. His concern, fear and desperation are understandable. He made this statement on this occasion in a state of sheer desperation. But, he was the accused-and falsely accused.

If a witness refrains from testifying in a case of this nature for any reason whatsoever, no one has the right to compel him to testify. In the first instance the Shariah emphasises that the crime of Zina be concealed. A man who witnesses Zina being committed is not required by the Shariah to testify. In fact, if the criminal confesses his sin, then too the Qaadhi will attempt to coax him into a retraction. Thus, Hadhrat Mugheerah (radhiallahu anhu) did not commit a crime when he made the utterance in sheer desperation nor did the witness sin by discharging his testimony defectively even if he had done so deliberately to save Hadhrat Mugheerah (radhiallahu anhu). But, to attribute this statement to Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) is a vile falsehood-falsehood and slander in which Shiahs are adepts.

If it is momentarily assumed that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) did in fact make this statement, what evidence is there to prove that he said it at the trial or in the presence of the witnesses? It can be argued, that he had made this statement discreetly to the Sahaabah when he saw the witness. Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) is famous for his firaasat (intuition- Noor of wisdom). He could have discerned from the man’s appearance that by virtue of the latter`s action, the truth will become manifest. Even on the basis of this supposition there is no evidence for the averment that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had made this statement to the witness in an attempt to influence his testimony.

According to Shiah records Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had also waived the Hadd punishment in spite of it having become incumbent according to the Shariah. The Shi`i, Shaikh Ibn Baabawayh Qummi narrates in Faqeeh:

“A man came to Ameerul Mu`mineen (alayhis salaam) and confessed that he had committed theft. The confession was of a nature which made cutting (of the hand) incumbent. But, he (Hadhrat Ali) did not cut off his hand.”

Now Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) is the first, the highest “infallible” Imaam of the Shiahs. If waiving of the Shar`i Hadd is sinful according to the Shiahs, they should direct their charge against Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) and disqualify him from Imaamat as they attempt to do to Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). On the other hand, if they have an appropriate interpretation for Hadhrat Ali’s decision, they may direct that explanation to Hadhrat Umar’s assumed waiving of the Hadd in relation to Hadhrat Mugheerah (radhiallahu anhu).

7. HADHRAT UMAR WAS SILENCED BY A WOMAN

It is the Shiah claim that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was silenced by a woman on a particular question. Since he was unable to answer her, he is unfit for the Khilaafat. This is another typical Shi`i absurdity and stupid claim which has no substance.

Once Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) in a Khutbah (lecture) criticized the high mehr (dowry) which had come into vogue. He warned that if women will persist in this practice, he would confiscate the excessive amounts and deposit it in the Baitul Maal. A woman objecting to this proclamation of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu), said:

“O Umar! Allah Ta`ala says (in the Qur`aan):

‘Whatever abundant (wealth) you had given to any of them (women), do not take (back) from it anything.’”

Hearing this, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu)commented:

“All people are more knowledgeable than Umar, even the Purdah-Nasheen women.”

On the basis of this statement of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) the Shiahs allege that he was unfit for the Khilaafat.

The silence of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was not on account of any inability to respond. He maintained silence because the woman had recited a Qur`aanic verse which to her understanding refuted the ruling of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). A great man of piety deems it disrespectful to argue in opposition to an Aayatof the Qur`aan-e-Kareem. Furthermore, he was aware that disputing with the woman will be of no avail. She had not understood the Qur`aanic Aayat fully.

On the other hand, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had made his announcement in the light of Rasulullah’s discouragement of fixing high dowries. In this regard Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said:

“Be lenient in regard to dowry.....” (Khattaabi)

In another narration, Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) said that Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said:

“Among the best of woman is the one who is most lenient in dowry (mehr) -[i.e. the one whose mehr is the least]” (Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh)

Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)said:

“Blessed is the woman in whose affair regarding her dowry is leniency.”

Imaam Ahmad and Baihaqi narrated the following Marfoo` Hadith. Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said:

“The woman who will achieve the greatest barkat (blessing) is she whose mehr is the lowest.”

From these Hadith narrations of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) as well as from his practical example, it is abundantly clear that the emphasis of his Sunnah is on keeping the mehr low. Thus, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was merely giving practical expression to the teaching and encouragement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

As far as the Qur`aanic verse cited by the woman is concerned, it is not a categoric reference to mehr. It refers to dowry as well as to all gifts which the husband gave his wife during the subsistence of the marriage. The Aayat prohibits the man from repossessing whatever gifts he had given to his wife. Some men behave spitefully in the event divorce takes place. They repossess all the gifts which they had presented to the woman in better days. Such repossession is cruel and the Qur`aan Majeed forbids it.

The Shiahs further claim that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had on this occasion conceded his error. This claim is baseless. The claim made by the Shiahs in this regard is a fabrication. Nowhere in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah will it be found that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had conceded that he had erred. He merely did not pursue the argument with the woman.

For a moment if we have to assume that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had erred in this specific mas`alah then too it will be absurd to say that he is not fit for the Khilaafat simply on account of having been corrected on a particular rule by a woman. If a mistake is sufficient grounds for disqualification from Khilaafat, then to a greater degree should it be a disqualification from Imaamat.

Ibn Jareer and Ibn Abdul Birr narrated from Muhammad Bin K`ab:

“A man asked Ali a mas`ala. He (Ali) replied to it. The man said that it is not so. But it is like this (and he explained to Ali). Ali said: ‘You are correct, and I have erred. Indeed above every man of knowledge is one who knows more.’”

Shall it now be said that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) lacked the qualification for Khilaafat or Imaamat (according to Shi`ism)?

Have the Shiahs ever thought of stripping Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) of his Imaamat and infallibility on account of him having conceded that another person had more knowledge than him? Indeed Shiahs are bereft of all vestiges of understanding.

It is significant to note that Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) of tyranny, oppression, usurpation and of all the major sins and crimes which human beings are capable of committing. They accuse him of having threatened to burn down the house of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) and some even go as far as to allege that he had actually burnt it down. Is it now conceivable that a man of this description would have tolerated a woman interjecting while he was delivering his Khutbah? Is it logical that a man of so many ‘evils’ as attributed by the Shiahs, would have allowed the woman to ‘insult’ him in public? Is it possible that such a man would have acted so admirably, tenderly and humbly by conceding his error and declaring the superiority of the knowledge of even a woman?

The absurdity of the Shiah accusation should be self-evident.

The humility which Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) displayed on this particular occasion and at all other times are on the contrary indication of his qualities of excellence and of his qualification for the Khilaafat. A man bereft of humility is unfit for Khilaafat.

Again, on the assumption that he had erred in his ruling, it does not follow that an error of judgement disqualifies the Khalifah from his post.

Only people mentally deranged by malice are capable of interpreting the noble characteristic of tawaadhu` (humility) as a disqualification for Khilaafat.

Hadhrat Nabi Musa (alaihi salaam) who is next in rank to Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) was sent by Allah Ta`ala to Hadhrat Khidr (alaihi salaam) to gain some knowledge about issues which were not in the ambit of his knowledge. Did the specialized knowledge of Hadhrat Khidr (alaihi salaam) reduce Hadhrat Musa (alaihi salaam) to a lesser rank? Did Hadhrat Musa’s lack of this specific type of knowledge disqualify him from Nubuwwat? In terms of Shi`i logic this should be the case. But it is kufr to believe that Hadhrat Musa (alaihi salaam) was unfit for Nubuwwat because he did not know what Hadhrat Khidr (alaihi salaam) knew. Thus, there is absolutely no substance in the absurd claim of the Shiahs.

8. HADHRAT UMAR DENIED THE KHUMS SHARE OF THE AHL-E-BAIT

According to Qur`aan Majeed the Ahl-e-Bait is entitled to one fifth (Khums) of the spoils of war (booty). In conflict with this Qur`anic command, Shiahs claim Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) denied the Ahl-e-Bait its rightful share.

The relevant Qur`anic Aayat is:

“ Know that whatever spoils of war you acquire-verily one fifth is for Allah, for the Rasool, for the Family, orphans, the poor and the wayfarer.”

According to Shiah jurisprudence if a Fifth of the booty is set aside for distribution, then it should be distributed to any of the categories mentioned in the Aayat. The Aayat, in terms of Shiah teaching, does not make incumbent distribution of the fifth of the booty to these categories mentioned in the Aayat. Furthermore, the Aayat does not obligate the Khalifah /Imaam to distribute the fifth share to each and every group mentioned in the Aayat. If the distribution is effected to only one class of persons, the obligation would be discharged. This is exactly the same as the distribution of Zakaat. The Qur`aan mentions eight categories of people to whom Zakaat can be given. But, it is not obligatory to distribute Zakaat to every class of the eight categories. If Zakaat is distributed to only one class, the obligation is discharged.

If the Khalifah effects the distribution of the fifth share according to his discretion to only one of the groups mentioned in the Aayat, the obligation is discharged. Hence, if Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had for some time withheld distribution of the Khums from the Ahl-e-Bait for whatever reason, he did not act in violation of the Shariah. Perhaps the Ahl-e-Bait during his time were not in need of such charity due to their affluence or perhaps the number of Masaakeen (poor) had substantially increased, necessitating the whole distribution to them.

Even Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) during his Khilaafat had refrained from appropriating the Khums for himself, but distributed it to the Fuqaraa and the Masaakeen of Banu Haashim. Whatever remained of the Khums he distributed to the other poor in general. Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had followed the method of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) in the distribution of the Khums. Shiahs should, therefore, refer their charge first to their “ infallible” Imaam.

Tahaawi and Daarul Qutni record:

“Muhammad Bin Ishaaq narrates : ‘I asked Abu Ja`far Muhammad Bin Ali Bin Hussain: ‘When Ameerul Mu`mineen, Ali Bin Abi Taalib became the Khalifah of the people, how did he actregarding the share of the Family (of Rasulullah-sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?’ He (i.e. Abu Ja`far) said: ‘He followed the path (method) of Abu Bakr and Umar in this matter.”

The method of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was that he would first give to the orphans and poor of the Ahl-e-Bait. He then deposited the remainder in the Baitul Maal to be used as occasion and circumstances dictated.

The narrations regarding Hadhrat Umar’s distribution to the Ahl-e-Bait are numerous and have reached the category of Tawaatur (i.e. such abundance which precludes denial). Abu Daaud records the following Hadith:

“Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa narrates that Ali said:’ Verily, Abu Bakr and Umar distributed the share of the Zawil Qurbaa (Ahl-e-Bait) to them.”

“Jubair Ibn Mut`im narrates: ‘ Verily, Umar used to give to the Zawil Qurbaa from their fifth.”

In fact, the distribution of the Khums among the poor of the Ahl-e-Bait, not among their wealthy ones, has been the practice of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This same practice was followed by Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhum). In fact, it is the view of most Shiahs is well. Their charge against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) is, therefore, utterly baseless.

Until his demise, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had ensured that the Ahl-e-Bait obtained their share of the Khums. He would give their share in a lump-sum to Hadhrat Abbaas and Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhuma ) for distribution to the poor and needy members of the Ahl-e- Bait.

9. UMAR INTRODUCED NEW PRACTICES INTO THE DEEN

Shiahs, referring to Taraaweeh Salaat by Jamaat, accuse Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) of Bid`ah (innovation) whereas Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has cursed Bid`ah.

This charge is baseless. It has no validity against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). In all authentic books of Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah there is an abundance of Ahaadith to confirm that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had performed Taraaweeh Salaat with Jamaat for three days. He did not perform this Salaat alone as is the case with Nafl in general.

While he had also refrained from performing Taraaweeh, he clearly explained the reason for his abstention. He said:

“ I fear that this Salaat may become Fardh on you.”

Hence, the only reason for abstention from regular observance of this Salaat was the fear of it becoming obligatory on the Ummah.

After the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) during his Khilaafat instituted this Sunnah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on a formal and organised basis. Since the cause of abstention, viz. The fear (stated above), no longer existed, there was no need now to abstain from Taraaweeh with Jamaat as Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had performed on three nights.

Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu ) had praised Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu ) for having instituted Taraaweeh in the form Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had done for three nights in Ramadaan. Supplicating for Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) said:

“May Allah brighten the grave of Umar just as He has brightened our Musjid (with Taraaweeh).”

Furthermore, in terms of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) command the Khulafa-e-Raashideen were invested with authority to introduce acts after his departure. In this regard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“ Whoever will live after me would see great conflict. Therefore, adhere firmly to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of my Khulafa-e-Raashideen. Grab hold of it with (your) jaws.”

No one, therefore, has any entitlement to brand the introductions of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen as acts of evil Bid`ah. The aforementioned Hadith grants the Khulafa the authority to act in the interests of the Deen and Ummah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not restrict obedience to only his Sunnah. He specifically mentioned the Sunnah of his Khulafa-e-Raashideen and applied the command of obedience to it as well. The Hadith clarifies that the Sunnah of the Khulafa is synonymous with the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

While Shiahs stupidly criticise Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) on the question of Taraaweeh, they conveniently and deceptively overlook their own evil acts of Bid`ah. Among their acts of Bid`ah are:

· The Shiah Eid of Ghadeer.

· The celebration of Nourooz.

· Salaat of Shukr on the 9th Rabiul Awwal in gratitude of the killing of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu).

· Depriving some heirs from certain assets of the deceased.

· Reciting Hadhrat Ali’s name in the Athaan.

· Their concept of infallible Imaams.

· The belief that Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) brings Wahi (Revelation) to their Imaams.

· And many other baseless acts and practices.

All these are new acts innovated by Shiahs. Such acts and practices did not exist during the age of either Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, including Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

10. UMAR ABROGATED MUT`AH

Mut`ah is the practice of temporary marriage. A marriage is arranged for a specific time-limit. Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) of abrogating Mut`ah. In so doing, they claim that he prohibited a practice which Allah Ta`ala had made lawful.

According to the authentic narrations of the Ahlus Sunnah, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had declared Mut`ah Haraam. After this initial prohibition, Mut`ah was made lawful for only three days. Thereafter it was declared Haraam until the Day of Qiyaamah. The concession of three days was given in the battle of Autaas.

According to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) there exists copious narrations for the prohibition of Mut`ah. Even the children of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiallahu or anhu) and the children of Muhammad Bin Hanfiyyah (radhiallahu anhu)-both Shi`i “infallible” Imaams-narrated this prohibition. The narrations of prohibition are recorded in a variety of ways in Muatta, Bukhaari, Muslim and other well-known Kitaabs of Hadith.

Muhammad Bin Hanfiyyah narrates from his father who in turn narrates from Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) who said:

“Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded me to announce the prohibition of Mut`ah.”

It is thus clear that the prohibition of Mut`ah was enacted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Since the news of the prohibition had not thoroughly reached everyone, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) publicised and enforced it during his Khilaafat. Thus, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) simply enforced the command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The Qur`aan too categorically prohibited Mut`ah. Shiahs have perpetrated gross distortion of these verses for the sake of legalizing Mut`ah. The Qur`aan says:

“ Besides this, lawful has been made for you that you search in lieu of your wealth (wives) for bringing into your custody, not for isfaah (i.e. not for illicit lust).”

(Surah Nisaa, Aayat 24)

And, Muhsinaat (chaste women) from the Mu`minaat and Muh`sinaat from those who were given the Kitaab before you, when you give them their dowries according to law, taking them into (permanent) custody, not for the sake of isfaah (i.e. carnal pleasure).”

(Surah Maa`idah, Aayat 5)

The object of Nikah is purity, reproduction and the endurance of a permanent bond between man and woman. The Nikah bond brings with it responsibilities-lasting obligations-while the aim of Mut`ah is nothing but sexual gratification.

The punishment of Rajm (stoning) for Zina applies only if the attribute of ihsaan exists in the person committing the crime. A married woman is termed muhsinah. Thus, if a married woman commits Zina, the Hadd of Rajm applies. If an unmarried woman fornicates, the Hadd of 100 lashes applies. If a woman who was a partner in a Mut`ah union fornicates, even Shiahs do not apply Rajm to her since they agree that Mut`ah does not confer to her the attribute of ihsaan which Nikah does. This proves that even according to Shiahs, the purpose of Mut`ah is isfaah (sexual gratification) and the Mut`ah union lacks the Qur`aanic requirement of ihsaan , hence this isfah them is Haraam according to the prohibition stated in the aforementioned verses.

Shiahs claim that Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) ruled the permissibility of Mut`ah. In this regard, the following narration is recorded in Tirmizi:

“ Ibn Abbaas said: ’ Mut`ah was in the beginning of Islam. A man would settle (temporarily) in a city where he knew no one. He would marry a woman for the period he thought he would stay there. The woman would protect his belongings and tend to him. (This practice continued) until was revealed the Aayat: ‘ except their wives and what their right-hands possessed.’ Said Ibn Abbaas: ‘ (henceforth) all women besides these two classes are Haraam.”

Saeed Bin Jubair (radhiallahu anhu) narrates that when he questioned Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) regarding Mut`ah, he said:

“ Subhaanallah! I have not given such a fatwa (i.e. Mut`ah is lawful). In fact, I say that it is like carrion, blood and pork.”

Shiahs claim that the Aayat:

“Whatever benefit you derive from them (women),then give them their dowries which is obligatory”,

is recited by Abdullah Bin Abbaas and Abdullah Bin Mas`ood (radhiallahu anhuma) as follows:

“Thus whatever benefit you derive from them (women) until the fixed time....”

By the Ijma of the Ummah the words (Until a fixed time) are not part of the Qur`aan. This is another Shiah fabrication and fraud. Any layman can ascertain this falsehood. Refer to any of the millions of Qur`aans available all over the world. These words will not be found. Perhaps the words exist in some forged version of the Shiahs.

Allah Ta`ala says in the Qur`aan:

“ Whoever searches (sexual gratification) in ways other than these (wives and bondswomen), they are indeed the transgressors.” [Surah Al-Mu`minoon, Aayat 7]

Thus, only wives and bondswomen are permissible. Women in the union known as Mut`ah are Haraam in terms of this Aayat as well.

(See also discussion on Mut`ah on page 13).