Response to Chapter 7 Entitled “Burial of the Prophet”
Response to Chapter 7 Entitled “Burial of the Prophet”
Answering-Ansar says
The Saqifa meeting was given preference to the Prophet (saaws)’s funeral
This is an attested fact.
Perhaps this is an attested fact in opposite world or in Alice and Wonderland. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) did not at all miss the Prophet’s funeral, not even one single moment of it. Although our Shia brothers imply that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) missed out on the Prophet’s funeral, this is actually not true at all. After he saved the Ummah at Saqifah, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) rushed back to help with the Prophet’s funeral. In fact, the only thing that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) missed out on was washing the Prophet’s body, something which is anyways done by the near relatives according to Islamic custom. So we ask our Shia brothers: what exactly did Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) miss out on?
We read:
“The dead body should preferably be washed by a relative.”
(Everyday Fiqh, Vol.1, by Abdul Aziz Kamal http://muslim-canada.org/fiqhch29.html)
Furthermore, only a small handful of people should be present, no more than is absolutely necessary. The reason for this is to maintain the Haya of the body. We read:
“At the washing, only people whose presence is needed may stay.”
(Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Vol.4, Sayyid Saabiq)
And we read further:
The majority of jurists are of the opinion that washing the body of a dead Muslim is a fard kifayah or a collective obligation. If some people attend to it, it is done on behalf of all, as commanded by Allah’s Messenger, peace be upon him, and practiced by the Muslim community.
(Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Vol.4, Sayyid Saabiq)
In other words:
1. The Prophet’s body should have been washed by his close relatives.
2. No other extra person should be present except those absolutely necessary from amongst his relatives.
3. The obligation to wash the Prophet’s body is a communal obligation; the Prophet’s relatives removed any obligation from the shoulders of the rest of the community, including Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) .
Had Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) or Umar (رضّى الله عنه) insisted upon washing the body, then this would have been wrong, as is clear from one who knows Fiqh. As for the Prophet’s funeral, not only did Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) help out with the burial, he was actually the one who is credited with deciding where the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was to be buried. We read:
The task of washing the body being over, the Companions were divided over the place of burial. Abu Bakr then said: “I have heard from the Messenger of Allah that every Prophet is buried at the spot where he has breathed his last.” The Prophet’s bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the spot.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.246)
And so we wonder: what part of the Prophet’s funeral did Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) or Umar (رضّى الله عنه) miss out on? We see clearly from Tareekh al-Islam and other credible history books that it was only “the task of washing the body” that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) missed out on, something which he would not have taken part in anyways due to the fact that it is a task given to near relatives only.
Answering-Ansar says
Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet’s to guide mankind. Is there any evidence that when these Prophets’ died; their companions failed to attend their funerals, and instead chose to participate in the selection of their immediate successors? If no such precedent exists then why did the Seal of Prophet (saaws)’s companions adopt this approach?
It is all too easy to make such grandiose claims when we do not have any stories or narrations about the funerals of any of these 124,000 Prophets.
Answering-Ansar says
Lest there remain any doubt over the events as described by us we will shall quote the words of the Hanafi scholar, Allamah Shibli Numani:
“It is apparently surprising that no sooner did the Prophet die than the struggle for Caliphate commenced and even the burial of the body of the Founder of Islam became a matter of secondary consideration in the quarrels that arose over the question of succession. Who can for a moment conceive the spectacle of the Prophet lying dead, while those who asserted their love and attachment towards him in his lifetime, without even waiting to look to his remains being suitably interred, were hurrying away to see that others did not secure the headship of the state for themselves!
It is still more surprising that this act is attributed to the persons (Abu Bakr and Omar) who are the brightest stars of the Islamic firmament and the unpleasantness of the act becomes still more poignant when it is remembered that those persons who were connected with the Prophet by ties of blood and kinsmanship (’Ali and the Banu Hashim) were naturally affected by his death and the sad bereavement prostrated them with grief, which, coupled with their anxiety to perform the last offices to the dead, hardly left the room for ulterior considerations”.
Al Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, translated by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan Vol 1 p 85-86
In the end what transpired at the Saqifa is astounding, even to the casual observer. Even Shibli Numani, a die-hard defender of the institution, has written of the event with much astonishment based upon his pre-suppositions of the character of those involved at the Saqifa.
The deception of the Shia knows no bounds! Here, we see one common tactic used by the lovers of Taqiyyah, namely quoting only half of the text dramatically out of context. Allamah Shibli Numani’s book “Al-Farooq” is about the life of Umar ibn al-Khattab (رضّى الله عنه) . In it, Allamah Numani refutes much of the propaganda levied against Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , particularly by Shia and Orientalists. Here, Allamah Numani is reproducing the Shia arguments and accusations against Umar (رضّى الله عنه) in order that he may then refute them. What Answering-Ansar has done is to quote the first part in which Allamah Numani is quoting the Shia arguments and then claiming that this is what Allamah Numani believed! In fact, what Answering-Ansar has quoted is not at all what Allamah Numani believed, but rather it is what he refuted.
The very next line which comes after what Answering-Ansar quoted, reads as follows:
We admit that works on Tradition and Biography seemingly impress one’s mind with the same notion, but such is not the case if facts are inquired into.
(Al-Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol.1, p.86)
When Allamah Numani was reproducing the Shia argument, he started it off with “it is apparently surprising that…” And then he goes on to say that “it is still more surprising that this act is attributed to the persons (Abu Bakr and Omar) who are the brightest stars of the Islamic firmament.” Perhaps it is easy to get confused but we kindly ask the reader to refer to the original Urdu text; it is clear to the Urdu reader that these are not the views of Allamah Numani but rather he is merely stating that this is what it may seem at first but rather the truth of the matter is such-and-such.
Indeed, Allamah Numani then refutes the Shia argument by bringing up four points, as follows:
1. Whether the question of the Caliphate was raised by Umar and his Companions?
2. Whether these personages went to the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah of their own accord?
3. Whether Ali and Banu Hashim were not anxious to (likewise) secure the Caliphate for themselves?
4. Whether or not the action taken by Umar and Abu Bakr was justifiable under the circumstances?
(Al-Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol.1, p.86)
1. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) did not raise the question of the Caliphate. In fact, it was the Ansars who rushed to Saqifah in order to elect Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. As for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , when he heard the news, the first thing he did was rush towards the Prophet’s house, not rush towards the Caliphate! We read:
Abu Bakr came from his house at As-Sunh on a horse. He dismounted and entered the (Prophet’s) Mosque, but did not speak to the people till he entered upon Aisha and went straight to Allah’s Apostle who was covered with Hibra cloth (i.e. a kind of Yemeni cloth). He then uncovered the Prophet’s face and bowed over him and kissed him and wept, saying, “Let my father and mother be sacrificed for you…”
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733)
As for Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , the first thing he did was collapse in a state of grief and despair. We read:
The tragic news (of the Prophet’s death) was soon known by everybody in Medinah. Dark grief spread on all areas and horizons of Medinah…Umar was so stunned (by grief) that he almost loss consciousness.
(Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.559)
2. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) did not want to go to Saqifah at all; they did not want to be disturbed whilst they were with the Prophet’s body. In fact, they had to be cajoled into going by a man named Mughirah bin Shubah (رضّى الله عنه) who approached Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and notified him of an impending emergency. We read:
It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house, a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: “O Son of Khattab (i.e. Umar), pray step out for a moment.” Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and–as the situation was grave–it was necessary that he (Umar) should go and look into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a (civil) war. On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Let us go.”
(Al-Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1, p.87)
Based on what the Shia have quoted on their very own website, we see that the matter was not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) were devastated by the Prophet’s death and they wanted very much to stay with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). In fact, “Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet.” Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was only convinced when the man said that the Ansar were about to do something that would lead to a civil war. Likewise, when Umar (رضّى الله عنه) first informed Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) that they must head out towards Saqifah, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) refused to come out and disregarded Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ; it was only when Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was convinced of the dire situation that he was able to pull himself away from the Prophet’s side. We read:
Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who was in the building…[Umar] sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr sent back (a message) that he was occupied (i.e. with caring for the Prophet’s body), but Umar sent him another message, saying: “Something (terrible) has happened that you must attend to personally.” So he (Abu Bakr) came out to him…
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)
The Shaikhayn very much wanted to stay with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) throughout his funeral, and they were only persuaded to come out because of the warnings of a third man who implored upon them to save the Ummah from civil war.
4. Before resorting to highly emotional arguments, we must realize that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) were more than justified in setting out for Saqifah due to the outstanding circumstances. Answering-Ansar has made many claims about how missing a funeral is not proper, but they have not at all taken into consideration the state of national emergency, in which the ordinary rules cannot apply. Had the two not left the Prophet’s house for Saqifah, it would have been nothing short of irresponsibility on their part.
Sometimes our Shia brothers fail to realize (or rather, insist on not understanding) how volatile the situation was: the Ansars were ready to elect their own man and declare war on any tribe which rejected their leader, and some of the Ansars were even ready to wage war on the Muhajirs. The Ansars had adopted a very belligerent attitude, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) therefore went as peace-makers and conflict resolvers, to prevent the Ansars from placing themselves at loggerheads with the rest of Arabia.
If the Ansars declared their own Caliphate, then nothing would prevent other tribes from similarly declaring their own leaders, which would result in a civil war between all the rivaling claimants to the Caliphate. When Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) set out for Saqifah, they did so with no intention of seeking the Caliphate for themselves but rather only to prevent the Ansars from doing so by force of arms. The Shaikhayn went as peace-keepers in order to soften the militant attitude adopted by some of the Ansars. The Ansars were pushing the Ummah towards a civil war that could rip apart the nascent Ummah to shreds and lay waste to all the hard work of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who had spent his sweat and blood to unify the ranks of the Muslims.
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) took along with them Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) , another Muhajir. These three Sahabah were from amongst the Ashara Mubash Shararah (i.e. the Ten Companions promised Paradise by the Prophet), and it was hoped that the influence of these three great personalities could avert a civil war and disaster. In times of national crisis, the leaders of a country must become strong and steadfast in order to deal with pressing matters of state, and they cannot allow personal woes and feelings to hamper or hinder their effectiveness; if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were alive, he would not have wanted Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) to dilly-dally but rather he would indeed have wanted them to act swiftly to save the Muslim Ummah, which would be the best way to honor the memory of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).
3. We have discussed Allamah Numani’s first, second, and fourth point; now let us discuss the third point: it would be incorrect to criticize other parties for rushing for the Caliphate when we know that Banu Hashim, including Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , were a group that aggressively sought the Caliphate themselves. In fact, neither Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) nor Umar (رضّى الله عنه) sought the Caliphate, something which was a dramatic difference between the first two Caliphs and the second two Caliphs: both Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) actively sought out the Caliphate. The reason for this is no doubt the rivalry between Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim, in which each clan sought power over the other. At every turn, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) sought out the Caliphate; admittedly, he cannot be blamed for this because most of this pressure came from his fellow tribesmen who wished to see their clan excel others.
Meanwhile, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) never sought out the Caliphate and they went to extreme lengths to ensure that their clan and family did not benefit from their rise to power. The Shaikhayn were painstakingly scrupulous about the public funds and state expenditure, never using it for the benefits of their own living or family. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) refused to allow their relatives to succeed them.
In conclusion, the Shia cannot at all portray that the Shaikhayn wished to have the Caliphate for themselves. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) offered the Caliphate to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) , and this is proof that he himself did not care for it. As for Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he refused the Caliphate when it was offered to him! On the other hand, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) sought out the Caliphate for himself. So how then can the Shia lay any blame on the Shaikhayn who by their actions did not seek out the Caliphate for themselves but were rather given the Caliphate by others? If the Shia would like to blame someone for being power hungry, then this would only work against them by implicating the good character of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . (Having said this, we cannot criticize Ali, the Lion of Allah, because he was no doubt simply being pressured by his clan and relatives.)
Answering-Ansar says
Even Shibli Numani, a die-hard defender of the institution, has written of the event with much astonishment based upon his pre-suppositions of the character of those involved at the Saqifa.
What utter deception by the lovers of Taqiyyah! Allamah Numani was not at all surprised by anything but rather he was saying “it may seem surprising, but…”
Answering-Ansar says
The contemporary Saqifi’ites par excellence are Hizb ut-tahrir, a political group dedicated since the 1950s to reviving the now dead institution of the khlilafath of man in the presence of Allah’s Khalifa in the form of the Twelfth Imam of the Shi’i. With this sole objective in mind this group have sought to underplay the political dissensions to the authority of the Khalifa of man as well as to rewrite history, this is what they state in their key document ‘The Khilafah’:
“The Ijma’a of the Sahaba to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet (saw) (sic) after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard, and that is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet (saw) (sic), instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet (saw) (sic). So this was an Ijma’a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead.”
The Khilafah, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Al-Khilafah Publications, London, pp.3-4
First of all, the group known as Hizb ut-Tahrir cannot at all be used as an authoratative source since they are a group which has been criticized by the Sunni mainstream for certain views of theirs. Having said that, they are correct on the point that appointing a Caliph takes priority over everything else. The reason for this is fairly obvious, namely that a country without a leader will fall into anarchy and chaos. Not a single moment can go by in which a country does not have a leader. The United States, for example, makes sure that if the President were to die, the Vice President immediately replaces him, and if the Vice President then dies, then someone else replaces him, etc. There is a careful pecking order selected so that anarchy and chaos does not ensue, because the masses are known to enter a state of panic without a leader to guide them. In fact, the person who first informs the American people that the President has died is in fact the Vice President himself who declares himself the new President. In this way, any public pandemonium is diverted.
Answering-Ansar says
The point made is that the meeting at the Saqifa was haram, undoubtedly haram since the priority incumbent by the ordinances of Islam are to bury the dead as fast as possible. This is the Seal of all Prophets!
The priority in Islam is to select the leader, as the Muslim Ummah must never be leaderless. Please see the discussion above for this. The meeting at Saqifah was troublesome not because the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was needing to be burried, but rather it was wrong because not all of the prominent Sahabah were invited. Yet, as we have discussed thoroughly, this was the fault of the Ansars and the Muhajirs were absolved of all blame in this matter.
In regards to the “Seal of the Prophets”, this is pretentious and sanctimonious coming from the Shia, who have themselves created a mockery over the idea of the word “khatm” (i.e. seal of finality). Is it not the Shia who–like the Qadianis–play word games with this word “khatm”? Is it not the Shia who extend the Prophethood by believing their Imams continue Prophethood and that these Imams are in fact superior to Prophets? By creating a position higher than Prophethood, the Shia obviate the need for the final seal of Prophethood.
Answering-Ansar says
The second point made is that the Saqifa was a shameful meeting as it was occurring while the Seal of Prophets was being buried.
The meeting at Saqifah did not at all take place when the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was being buried but rather it was taking place when the Prophet’s body was being washed by the near relatives, a matter which others were not privy to anyways. In any case, it was the Ansars who caused the meeting at Saqifah, not the Shaikhayn.
Answering-Ansar says
The third point is that the Holy Prophet would not leave the Muslims in such a dilemma - one that the authors would have us believe took the Muslims to the level of committing a sin - he left a successor.
The Shia barrage the Sunnis with the question: How could the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) not have left a successor or even a means to nominate a successor? And then they point to the fact that there are very few instructions in the Quran and Sunni Hadith in regards to how to nominate a successor. But this line of reasoning is completely invalid, because the Arabs already had a system of electing successors! The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had no need to instruct the Arabs in the way of nominating their leaders, because they already had a working system in this regard. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Fred McGraw Donner of the University of Chicago writes in his book “The Early Islamic Conquests” that the standard Arabian practice even before the advent of Islam was for the prominent men of a group or tribe was to gather after a leader’s death and elect a leader from amongst themselves.
We read:
Tribal custom…the Caliphate originated from the ancient practise of the Arab tribes to select their chiefs.
(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.361)
The historian, Thomas Arnold, wrote in his book “Caliphate”:
“When a chief of a tribe died, his office passed to that member of the tribe who enjoyed the greatest influence, the leading members of the tribe selecting to fill the vacant place with someone among themselves who was respected on account of age or influence, or for his services to the common weal; there was no complicated or formal method of election, nor within such small social groups would any elaborate procedure be necessary, and when teh choice of a successor had been made, those present swore allegiance to him one after another, clasping him by the hand.”
(Caliphate, by Thomas Arnold, p.361)
We read further:
It also explains, as (Thomas) Arnold says, why the Prophet did not nominate anyone as his successor. He realized that the Arabs had no liking for the hereditary principle in their choice of their chiefs, but left the members of the tribe entirely free to select their own leader. The truth of this view is demonstrated by the procedure of election followed in both cases (i.e. before and after Islam). The tribal Shaykh (i.e. head of state) was elected in two stages: firstly, a restricted group of leading heads of the families in the tribe chose a prospective chief. Then the ordinary members of the tribe confirmed this choice by expressing their consent in the Arab fashion of taking the Bayt, or the oath of allegiance at his hands by holding them in his hands. Exactly the same procedure was followed in the election of all four Orthodox Caliphs…In fact, it is these two features (Shura and Ijma) that made the Orthodox Caliphate a democratic and republican institution. But its democratic nature was merely a continuation of the democratic spirit of Arabian tribalism. Tribalism is essentially a direct democratic, collective way of life.
(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.362)
Had the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) imposed his own leader upon the people, then this would have been denying the rights of the people. Having said that, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) gave his indication that he favored Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for this position, but he did so in the indirect manner of nominating him as the Imam of the prayers. In this manner, the people knew the choice of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) but they did not feel as if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was imposing his will on the people as a tyrant would.
Answering-Ansar says
The fourth point made is that what gave the companions the right to appoint a Khalifa when that was not their prerogative, and still more since the man who was Allah’s Khalifa was duped and was not kept informed while he shouldered the burden of burying the Holy Prophet?
Shia fairy-tales and nothing more. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not at all nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor.
Answering-Ansar says
The excuse is that the opinion of the companion overrides the Qur’an and the Sunnah since Ijma’a (of a handful of Muhajirs) is given as the excuse. But Ijma’a came after the Qur’an and Muhammad (saws). And Ijma’a is a belief of the followers of the institution, and we the Shi’i who follow the family can here point out that the Qur’an and Sunnah override Ijma’a when the opinion of the companions overrides the Qur’an
When did the Sunnis ever claim the “excuse” that the opinion of the Companions overrides the Quran and the Sunnah? Never have we claimed such a thing! Not even if the entire world got together could they override the Quran and Sunnah. The Companions did not at all go against the Quran and Sunnah, so this is a moot point.
Answering-Ansar says
At no point did the companions say that the Khilafath of Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr came about via ijma. On the contrary as we have stated earlier Hadhrath Umar had stated that it was a mistake, no consultation took place, meaning the ijma of the companions was not sought.
Answering-Ansar is conflating Ijma with Shurah. What was done at Saqifah was Shurah, and what was done the day after at the Prophet’s mosque was Ijma (i.e. when 33,000 Sahabah took the oath of allegiance at the hand of Abu Bakr).
Answering-Ansar says
The Shi’i follow Allah, the Holy Prophet and the Khalifas of Allah.
The Shia follow Shaytan, their own desires, and misguidance.
Answering-Ansar says
The Shi’i were with Imam Ali when he buried the Holy Prophet. Some who were not involved in the burial as they were more distant and thus their absence would not be missed were defending the cause of the Khalifa of Allah by plotting how to take on the subversion of the Muhajir’s, when the three Muhajirs interrupted their meeting and made Hadhrath Abu Bakr the Khalifa, in so doing not attending the funeral!
With Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were only a handful of people, no more than ten in number. So according to Answering-Ansar, the rest were at Saqifah? Does Answering-Ansar understand the implications of what they are cogitating? They are hereby saying that it was the Shia who were the cause of the gathering at Saqifah! And so all blame for the event lies on their shoulders! This entire article was one big diatribe against Saqifah, and yet here Answering-Ansar is saying that the Shia were the cause of it! Subhan-Allah! Well then, the debate is over and we can all safely say that all the blame lies on the shoulders of the Shia.
Answering-Ansar says
The Shi’i do not follow the companions when the companions humiliate the decorum that exists at the funeral of the Seal of prophets. What an insult. Terms are broken off between families, and understandably, when due respect is not shown at a funeral - this was the funeral of Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) himself.
And yet Answering-Ansar was just claiming that it was the Shia who orchestrated Saqifah! So is it not these Shia, the cause of Saqifah, the ones guilty of “humiliating the decorum [sic]” and aren’t these the ones who have caused the insult?
Answering-Ansar says
The group, a political party, finally ease the sense of outrage they have acknowledged as being due to the companions, by presenting the burial - its actual timing - as a fact - while 2 sets of traditions which contradict each other exist. We believe that the Holy prophet was buried on time. This group believes otherwise, and blatantly does so that Hadhrath Abu Bakr is made attendant at the burial if not in the actual funeral proceedings.
Some say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was buried on Tuesday, whereas others say Wednesday. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) died on Monday, and the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was also given on Monday. So whether or not the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was buried on a Tuesday or Wednesday is immaterial, since the event of Saqifah took place on Monday, and even if we take the earlier day (Tuesday), this does not at all contradict the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was present for the funeral. In fact, Answering-Ansar has put forward a deceitful argument: yes, we readily accept that one opinion states that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was buried on Tuesday while the other is opinion that he was buried on Wednesday. And yet, both opinions place Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) at the scene!
Answering-Ansar says
Was the burial delayed?
If for arguments sake we accept the contention that the desire was to hold up proceedings so that a Khalifa could be appointed would the better approach not have been to delay the funeral? It is alleged that this was done intentionally so that a Khalifa would be appointed
Huh? The burial was not at all delayed due to the events at Saqifah. Who alleges that this (i.e. delaying the burial) was done so that a Caliph could be appointed? We Sunnis do not claim this!
Answering-Ansar says
There was no reason for any type of delay the Prophet (saaws) was dead and in accordance with Islamic rites he was to be buried forthwith. There were no reasons to hold up proceedings. Why should the funeral of the Seal of Prophets be delayed for Hadhrath Abu Bakr to get there on time? It was Abu Bakr’s job to get to the dead person of the Holy Prophet (saaws), and not the job of the deceased person of Hadhrath Muhammad (saws) to wait for Hadhrath Abu Bakr!
And yet not a single report says that the Prophet’s burial was delayed so that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) could be there. Neither have we claimed such a thing, and neither is it true!
Answering-Ansar says
The reports that suddenly place Hadhrath Abu Bakr at the scene cannot be true.
And yet, this–the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was present at the Prophet’s burial–is recorded in Tareekh al-Islam, the History of al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah Rasool-Allah, and pretty much every classical work of history, along with the numerous contemporary biographies of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). If, however, we were to live in imaginary land or opposite world, then perhaps we could entertain the Shia tall tales.
Answering-Ansar says
Whilst Ibn Ishaq continues the narratives stating that discussion then took place as to the burial site and that Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr suggested the Prophet (saaws)’s burial place this does not tally up with the fact that ‘Abdullah ibne Abbas had arranged for grave diggers. It is common sense you select an area and then bring a gravedigger not the other way round!
Common sense perhaps in bizarro world. It is obvious that one gets the advice of a grave-digger as to where to bury the body. He is one of the best persons to consult as to what would be an ideal place to lay the body to rest.
Answering-Ansar says
Sunni Islam is suggesting that the person of Hadhrath Abu Bakr was superior to a Holy Prophet no longer in this Earthly domain.
Let the Shia produce even one Sunni narration that says Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was superior to Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). And yet, let us then show the Shia many of their own narrations which do this with Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ! Was it not historically the Shia who had sects from within their ranks that claimed that Angel Jibraeel (عليه السلام) made a mistake and should’ve come to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) instead of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)?
Answering-Ansar says
Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) passed away on the Monday, the discussions at the Saqifa were from Sunday until Tuesday.
Are we playing make-believe? The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) died on Monday and it was on that same day that the event of Saqifah was finalized with the Baya’ah given to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . We read:
Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”
“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community (jama’ah).”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)
Answering-Ansar says
The Shi’i will not add insult to injury by suggesting, as this group does, that the funeral was delayed for a further 2 days (in a desert climate) just to provide Hadhrath Abu Bakr with some cursory dignity in the supposed capacity that he was at the funeral as well as at the Saqifa as the funeral got delayed for 2 days, when it is fard (obligatory) to bury the dead immediately.
The Sunnis do not claim that the burial was delayed so that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) could be there. On Monday, the Prophet’s body was being washed, and then on Tuesday people came into pray the Janazah prayers for the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). However, the room was very small and so the people prayed in small groups, and this was the cause for the delay in the Prophet’s burial. We read:
The Funeral Prayer and Burial
The task of washing the body being over, the Companions were divided over the place of burial. Abu Bakr then said: “I have heard the Messenger of Allah that every Prophet is to be buried on the spot where he has breathed his last.” The Prophet’s bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the same spot. The grave being completed, the people came to perform the funeral prayer in groups one after another. The women came in after the men and after them the chidlren, all of whom prayed over him. Nobody acted as an Imam for the funeral prayers of the Prophet.
On receiving the sad news of the Prophet’s illness and then of his final departure (to the Afterlife), Usamah bin Zayd and his men moved back to Al-Medinah and the military standard was placed upright at the door of the Prophet’s room. The funeral prayer was performed in the room of Aisha, where his burial was to take place. Obviously, it was impossible for the men, women, and children of the entire city to perform the prayer together. Moreover, the prayer was not to be led by an Imam. Thus it was natural that all took some time in performing the prayers in separate small batches in the small room. The Prophet passed away on Monday and was buried the next day, on Tuesday.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.246-247)
Therefore, the delay in the Prophet’s burial was for the reason that all the thousands of Muslims wanted a chance to be able to pray for him. The Shia should be the last ones to complain about such a delay: should we remind them of the great delay in the burial of their Ayatollah Khomeini? We read:
The death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini on June 4 was mourned by millions of his followers with an extravagance that surprised even the Iranian authorities. Time and again, funeral plans were disrupted by gigantic mobs unwilling to give way either to schedules or politicians. The scene in Tehran was one of unrelieved chaos. In the traditional Shi`i manner, men pounded their chests and flagellated themselves with chains. Some sacrificed sheep and some shouted, “We wish we were dead, so not to see our beloved imam dead.” Others ran 25 miles to the cemetery. The grave dug for Khomeini’s body was occupied by mourners who refused to leave. The authorities appealed to citizens to stay away from Khomeini’s house and from the cemetery, but to no avail.
Fire trucks sprayed water on mourners in an effort to keep them from fainting in the intensity of the June heat and the press of humanity. According to official sources, 10,879 people were injured and received on-the-spot medical attention, 438 were taken to hospitals, and eight died in the crush to view Khomeini’s body. In the cemetery, mourners climbed on buses the better to catch a glimpse of the body, and in one case the roof of a bus collapsed, injuring those sitting inside. `Ali Khamene’i, the president of the republic, could not even reach the special stand set up for dignitaries. The special stand for state officials and foreign dignitaries almost collapsed under pressure of the crowd.
The height of frenzy occurred at the gravesite itself. Bringing the body by land vehicle was out of the question, so it arrived by helicopter. The first time the helicopter landed, the crowd swarmed in and grabbed pieces of the shroud, causing the corpse actually to fall to the ground. After fifteen frantic minutes, the coffin was put back on the helicopter, which then bore the body away. In an attempt to thin out the crowd, it was announced that the funeral had been postponed by a day. The trick worked, as many went home. Then, six hours after the first attempt, a second effort at a helicopter landing was made. This time more guards were around and the body was placed in a metal casket. Still, it was not easy. As the Iranian news agency described it: “The grave was only ten meters away but the pushing and shoving of thousands made it seem like kilometers. It took ten terrible minutes to be able to put the casket down near the grave.” Once the body had finally been buried, concrete blocks were placed on top of it.
(Daniel Pipes, http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/366)
Time Magazine said about Khomeini’s funeral:
The funeral of the Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini ignited an emotional outpouring from his fanatical followers that Westerners found as bizarre, frightening–and ultimately incomprehensible.
While the Ayatullah’s body lay in state inside a refrigerated glass box, the crowd of mourners in Tehran became so thick that eight were reportedly crushed to death. The next day, as a helicopter brought the open wooden coffin containing Khomeini’s remains to the city’s Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, nearly a million mourners thrust forward in the blistering heat and choking dust, many wailing and pounding their heads as they groped to touch the body and snatch a piece of the linen burial shroud.
Some managed to surge past a force of Revolutionary Guards, clambering into the casket to plant kisses on the Imam’s face. The corpse spilled to the ground, bare feet protruding from beneath the white shroud. As the Guards beat back the crowds, firing shots in the air and spraying fire hoses, other soldiers shoved the body and coffin back into the chopper. It lifted off with the casket hanging precariously out the door.
Some five hours passed before there was another, successful attempt to deliver the body to its final resting place, this time encased in a metal coffin. Again arms flailed and chants of “Death to America!” filled the air as the helicopter touched down. Although barricades held most of the crowd at bay, the Guards were forced to make a frantic push past the outstretched hands to deliver the coffin to the grave site. At the last instant, the metal lid of the casket was ripped off, and the body was rolled into the grave, in keeping with an Islamic tradition that requires that the dead be interred in only a shroud. The grave was quickly covered with concrete slabs and a large freight container to prevent delirious mourners from exhuming the corpse. By the end of the ceremony, more than 440 people had been hospitalized and an additional 10,800 had been treated for injuries.
(Time Magazine, 6/19/89)
So we see that Ayatollah Khomeini’s funeral was delayed due to the outpouring of grief of the Shia masses. Why then would the Shia have any problem with the grief shown by the Sahabah over the Prophet’s death? Each and every person wanted a chance to pray for the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), and even an entire army headed back for this very purpose. So there is therefore no question as to why any delay occurred, and it had nothing at all to do with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) .
On another unrelated matter, it is a blessing that the Sahabah did not defile the Prophet’s body like the Shia defiled the body of their great Ayatollah Khomeini, who–due to the chaos of the Shia masses–fell out from his bier and hit the ground! Is this the respect that the Shia are trying to preach to us about?
Answering-Ansar says
There were two gravediggers during that period in time the Muhajireen ‘Abu Ubayda and the Ansar ‘Abu Talha Zayd bin Sahl. Al Abbas sent two men to find either of them, only ‘Abu Talha was located 1. Where was ‘Abu Ubaydah? Had he been there do you not think that he would have insisted that as a prominent companion he undertake the task? Would he have not want to participate in this honor? Any man would have been proud to do this, would ‘Abu Ubaydah had declined if he had been there? Would any man decline such an honor? We think not, clearly ‘Abu Ubaydah was nowhere to be seen at the time of the burial he was with Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar at the Saqifa.
Both Abu Ubaidah and Abu Talhah were present in Medinah, as is clearly mentioned in the narration quoted by Answering-Ansar. Therefore, it is an invalid question to ask “where was Abu Ubaidah” when it is clearly stated that he was in Medinah. The issue of the two grave-diggers revolved around the fact that Abu Ubaidah was a Muhajir and Abu Talhah was an Ansar. Once again, the Ansars sought to outdo the Muhajirs, and it was in this vein that they rushed to bring forth Abu Talhah, the grave-digger of Medinah, as opposed to the grave-digger of Mecca. We read:
When they wanted to dig a grave for the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, there were two persons in al-Medinah–Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah who used to dig flat graves after the pattern of the people of Mecca, and Abu Talhah al-Ansari who used to dig vaulted graves for the people of al-Medinah. Al-Abbas called two persons and said to one of them to go to Abu Ubaydah and to the other to go to Abu Talhah.
…They differed in digging a flat grave or a vaulted grave for the Prophet, may Allah bless him.
(Ibn Saad, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol.2, p.372)
So it was not at all that Abu Ubaidah was “nowhere to be found”, but rather that the Ansars rushed to their own man of the Ansar. There is absolutely no indication in any authentic text that Abu Ubaidah was “nowhere to be found” and this is the guess-work of Answering-Ansar.
Answering-Ansar says
“(The body of the) Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, remained on the bier from Monday when the sun was declining, till Tuesday when the sun was declining. The people said funeral prayers over him when the body was on the bier close to (the site of) his grave…
Tabaqat by Ibn Sa’d,Volume 2 page 372 English translation by S.Moinul Haq, Kitab Bahavan publishers
…
2. The body was close to the burial “site of the grave” - this proves that a grave had already been dug on the Monday.
No, it does not. Had that been the case, the body would have been placed in the grave instead of resting in the bier! This is just common sense! All it means–and what the author clearly meant–was that the bier was placed near the site that the actual grave would be dug, and this is fairly obvious considering the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) is the one who recommended that the grave be dug at the same spot. It was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) himself who said:
“I have heard from the Messenger of Allah that every Prophet is buried at the spot where he has breathed his last.”
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.246)
Answering-Ansar says
Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar both wanted to attend the funeral and yet they also wanted to participate in the Saqifa discussions. The best way to achieve this would be to seek to delay the funeral prayers, what better way could there be to do it than take the gravedigger of Makka away from the locality. This might cause delay as a search would be conducted to find him, stalling enough time for them to wind up proceedings at Saqifa and then return triumphantly in time for ‘Abu Ubaydah to dig the grave and for them to attend the funeral.
Sometimes it is impressive how creative the Shia can be with their arguments and how they can improvise on the spot with such imaginative explanations. Unfortunately, their “argument” is rejected by the fact that Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) was the grave-digger of Mecca, and yet the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) died in Medinah; it is therefore common sense that Abu Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) , the grave-digger of Medinah, would be the more likely candidate for this task. Hence, had this been the intention of the Shaikhayn then they should have taken Abu Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) along with them!
To this argument, the Shia will improvize and argue that there was no need to take along Abu Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) since he was an Ansar and thefore was already at Saqifah. Really? How amusing it is that the Shia gets caught up in the web of his own lies! If Abu Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) was at Saqifah with the rest of the Ansars, then this debunks the entire argument put forward by Answering-Ansar, which is that Abu Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) was present at the Prophet’s funeral but that the three Muhajirs were not! If Abu Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) was both at Saqifah and also at the Prophet’s funeral, then this necessitates that the meeting of Saqifah ended and then after this was the Prophet’s funeral!
Answering-Ansar says
This thinking of course did not materialize as discussions went on far longer than was expected and by that time the grave had been dug and the Prophet (saaws) had been buried.
Not according to every authentic historical source, including Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah Rasool-Allah, the History of al-Tabari, Tareekh al-Islam, Ibn Saad’s al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, etc! The Shia argument that the Saqifah meeting lasted from Saturday all the way to Tuesday is ridicolous and it is not indicated by any of the texts that even they themselves put foward in their article. If the meeting was really so many days long, where did all those people sleep? Where did the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) sleep when they were at Saqifah?
Answering-Ansar says
If Nasabi still wish to deny it, then allow us to round up the matter with a narration from Kanz al Ummal Volume 3 page 140, Bab Khala Fatha ma’al Amara:
“Urwa narrates that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present at the time of burial, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was buried before they had returned”
Urwa was not even alive during that time! This narration is inauthentic and the chain is Muntaqi (broken).
Answering-Ansar says
If any doubt remains with regards to the non attendance of Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah at the funeral of the Prophet ( صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), then allow us cite the following Sunni commentaries of Saheeh al Bukharee:
1. Umdahthul Qaree Volume 11 page 167 Bab Rajm
2. Saheeh al Bukharee, Sharh Kirmanee, Volume 23 page 219
3. Irshad al Saree Volume 10 page 35
All three contain the proud admission of Umar:
“By Allah, when matters that we were faced with following the death of the Prophet, namely his Ghusl, shrouding and funeral, we deemed the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr to be of greater importance”
…
Rather than feel ashamed at this fact, The Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema feel proud at the actions of their leaders, Mull Ali Qari in Sharra Fiqa Akbar, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi ) as follows in his discussion on Imamate
“ .the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet’s funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented”.
We have already discussed this fact before: the appointment of a leader for the Ummah takes precedence over all else, even the Prophet’s burial. The reason is that a nation without a leader turns to civil disorder, public pandemonium and utter chaos. For example, when Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was stabbed to death, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) instructed the Muslims to deliberate for three days as to who would be the next Caliph. However, he ordered that an interim Caliph be installed in those three days in between, so that the Ummah would not be left leaderless. And so it was that Suhaib (رضّى الله عنه) became the interim Caliph and Imam of the Muslims in those three days. This is a strong proof for the sheer necessity of having a leader at all times, and not even for a single day can the state survive without a leader. What is interesting is that almost no country in the world today allows a single day to go by without having immediately installed a new leader, so why in the world should the Shia find anything peculiar about this?
Perhaps something that would completely impotentiate the Shia argument altogether is the fact that this is the case in Iran as well! According to the Iranian legal system, the country cannot go one day without a Supreme Leader. When Ayatollah Khomeini died, his successor–Ali Khamenei–was nominated as his successor before Khomeini’s funeral! Khomeini died on June 4 of 1989 and Khameini was nominated as his successor on the very same day. How two-faced are the Shia that they accept this “behavior” with their Ayatollahs but they choose to insult and berrate the Sahabah for the very same actions. Such is the hypocrisy of the Shia.
Answering-Ansar says
Some final points to ponder over
In this section, Answering-Ansar says absolutely nothing new and we’ve already addressed all of these points repeatedly in our article. Perhaps these same exact questions and taunts can be applied to their Supreme Leader Khameini who brought himself to power even before his predecessor was put to rest! Points 1-7 do not reveal anything new but simply play on emotional rhetoric. It should be noted that none of these people Answering-Ansar mention (i.e. a son, a student, etc) have the burden of the entire Ummah on their shoulders; none of them had to deal with the fate of Islam. This is a major difference between the situation of the Shaikhayn and that of these insignificant people that Answering-Ansar mentions. If the US President’s daughter dies, but the Russian’s are about to launch a nuclear strike on America, the President will have to put his personal feelings aside in order to deal with the crisis.
Answering-Ansar says
The books of the Ahl’ul Sunnah attest to the fact that when Abu died, his funeral took place first and the baya to Umar occurred afterwards.
Even before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) died, the people had already agreed to take the oath of allegiance to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . We read:
(Uthman said): “Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter?
The people said: “Yes.” …All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.
(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200)
Therefore, the Ummah was not at all leaderless after the death of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had become the leader based on this acceptance of the people, and it was only formality sake that the Baya’ah was repeated again. Because the people en masse had already accepted Umar (رضّى الله عنه) before Abu Bakr’s death, there was therefore no fear of civil disorder.
Answering-Ansar says
Similarly when Umar died, he was buried firs and the baya to Uthman took place afterwards.
Once again, the Ummah was not left leaderless during those three to four days before Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) was sworn into office. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had ordered that an interim Caliph be installed in those three days in between, so that the Ummah would not be left leaderless. And so it was that Suhaib (رضّى الله عنه) became the interim Caliph and Imam of the Muslims in those three days. This is a strong proof for the sheer necessity of having a leader at all times, and not even for a single day can the state survive without a leader.
Answering-Ansar says
# Hafsa and Ayesha had become widowed at the death of the Prophet. Would any reasonable women find it acceptable that her father failefd tp participated in her deceased husband’s funeral? The Shaykhayn were so cold hearted that they did not even have any care for the feelings of their widowed daughters. Daughters are in a state of shick and distress and the father’s are squabbling over leadership.
What pretentious concern Answering-Ansar has shown for Umm al Mu’mineen Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها)! Are these not the same two people that the Shia send curses upon? Read: Shia Du’a Curses Two of Prophet’s Wives
Answering-Ansar says
The Shari’ah is clear that the deceased needs to be buried as a matter of urgency, as such Abu Bakr and Umar also violated this Ismalic edict, since the delay in burial was on account of them.
Is it not strange that Answering-Ansar can put forth so many contradictory claims? Here, they are claiming that the burial was delayed on account of the Shaikhayn, and yet just a few lines earlier they had claimed that in fact the burial was not at all delayed but rather that funeral took place without them! In any case, the reality is that the funeral was not at all delayed because of the events of Saqifah which were wrapped up on the same day of the Prophet’s death. The Prophet’s burial was delayed up until Tuesday or Wednesday only because so many thousands of people wished to perform Janazah prayer for the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). Similar was the case for the burial of Ayatollah Khomeini, whose funeral was delayed and postponed due to the hordes of Shia who wished to mourn over him.
Answering-Ansar says
Little wonder that Ghazali himself, passed his fatwa of censorship, deeming discussion of the events surrounding the death of the Holy Prophet and the event of the Saqifa one of the 4 that were banned and made haram (forbidden) to discuss because they had the potential to create hatred of the companions (bughs as Sahaba)
The Ahlus Sunnah finds it blasphemous and disrespectful to dig up “dirt” on the Ahlel Bayt or the Sahabah. Yes, this is what distinguishes the Ahlus Sunnah from the Shia, namely that the Shia feel no qualms in reviling the dead. Meanwhile, the Ahlus Sunnah forbids reviling the dead and does not wish to discuss such topics when the people in question are no longer alive to defend themselves. It is all too easy for the Shia to criticize the great heroes of Islam hiding behind computer screens, but it would be an altogether different matter had they to actually face these Sahabah in person and look them in the eyes.
Answering-Ansar says
This was a conspiracy, often called the greatest conspiracy in history
Exactly by whom is it called the “greatest conspiracy in history”? Such a ludicrous exaggeration. We would challenge the Shia to bring forth one historical book which claims such a thing. It is these outlandish and grandiose claims that make a mockery of objective historical analysis, and bring to question the academic honesty of the Shia.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
|
|