QUESTION:
I have heard several false claims made by an English man who converted to Shi’a Islam. The person claimed:
1 – ‘Sunnis’ rank Umar above the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him and his purified progeny)
2 – The ‘Sunnis’ sanctify Umar.
3 – You said that the Sunnis rarely mention Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) even though they pray upon them during their prayers five times a day and do not pray upon the companions during their prayers. Surely this means that they do not give the ‘Sahaba’ a higher rank.
Do you not know that Allah will judge you for your lies? And if you are not purposefully making false claims, you must surely be ignorant of our beliefs. Our beliefs state that religion was completed before the death of Muhammad (may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him); there was no need either for Abu Bakr or Ali (may peace be upon him).
ANSWER:
In the Name of Allah, the All-Beneficent, the All-Merciful.
May Allah bless Muhammad and his Family and damn their enemies.
We seek refuge in Allah from lying to anybody. What the English brother said was true – he spoke from the perspective of someone who lived with followers of the ‘Sunni’ sect, describing his very own journey from darkness to the light (of Ahl al-Bayt
Among the proofs that the ‘Sunni’ sect give Umar, ibn al-Khattab, a higher position than that of the Seal of the Prophets (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his pure family) is that they believe – according to their fabricated narrations – that the Prophet used to make mistakes and that Umar used to correct them for him.
For example, the ‘Sunni’ sect narrates of the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) that he supposedly made a mistake in accepting ransom from the captives that were captured in Badr, while rejecting Umar’s opinion that he should not have. They claim that after the incident, the Qur’an revealed that Umar’s position, not that of the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family), to be right.
Musnad Ahmed, vol 1, page 32
They also narrated that the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) allowed his companions to slaughter their camels in Tabuk due to the lack of food. Umar, however, objected saying that it would be wrong to do so and that he should pray for them instead. The Prophet did as Umar suggested, and Allah accepted his prayer in approval of Umar.
Sahih Muslim, vol 1, page 42
They also narrated that Umar prevented the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) from praying upon the body of the hypocrite Son of Salul. However, the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) insisted on doing so, and the Qur’an was then revealed in condemnation of the Messenger of Allah and in praise of Umar.
Sahih al-Bukhari, vol 2, page 76
They also narrate that the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) used to sleep until the time for prayer was about to pass and that Umar cried out loud to remind him and awake him from sleep because Umar cared more for performing prayer on time than the Prophet himself.
Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, page 88
They also narrated that Umar had a greater sense of honour than the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) and that he used to say to him: “Cover your women”, but the Prophet refused! Thereupon the Qur’an was revealed and commanded the Prophet to cover his women, in agreement with Umar’s opinion.
Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, page 45
There are plenty of other examples that give no other picture to the reader except that Umar had a higher position than the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family), as well as that he had a greater sense of honour, more wisdom, and intelligence than him. Knowing that, can you still claim that the ‘Sunni’ sect does not give higher regard to Umar than the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family)? This is a strange claim not supported by reality.
Among the pieces of evidence concerning the sanctification of Umar in the ‘Sunni’ sect is their acknowledgment that the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) forbade the Taraweeh-prayer and that Umar re-introduced it. To this very day, ‘Sunnis’ follow the view of Umar and abandon the command of the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family). This could only mean that the ‘Sunni’ sect greatly sanctifies the sayings and acts of Umar.
Moreover, they have extreme respect for Umar despite being the one who accused the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) of hallucination, irrational talk, and mental disturbance. They do not side with the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) when he expelled Umar and his companions during the Calamity of Thursday, instead, they side with Umar who accused the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) of losing his mind.
The ‘Sunni’ sect’s sanctification of Umar has even reached the degree of fabricating narrations of the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) where he supposedly says that if there were to be a Prophet after him, it would have been Umar, and that the truth speaks through the tongue and heart of Umar, and that an angel speaks on behalf of Umar’s tongue! And plenty of other ridiculous narrations.
After reading this, it would be strange to claim that this sect doesn’t sanctify Umar. If this is not sanctification, then what is?
As for the English brother saying that they don’t mention Ahl al-Bayt (may peace and blessings be upon them) as much as they mention the so-called ‘Sahaba’, is in reference to that fact that day and night there is no mention of any but Umar, Abu Bakr, A’isha, Abi-Huraira, and their kinds on their pulpits and their mass media platforms. As for Ahl al-Bayt (may peace and blessings be upon them), they only pray upon them during their prayers.
The most significant evidence that the ‘Sunni’ sect has given more importance, throughout the ages, to the so-called ‘Sahaba’ than Ahl al-Bayt (may peace be upon them) is that they’ve narrated thousands of narrations of people such as A’isha, Umar, and Abi-Huraira, Anas, ibn Malik, and others. In contrast, they’ve not narrated anything of Fatima al-Zahra, Imam Ali, and the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (may peace and blessings be upon them) except for what can be counted with your fingers.
This is proof that they place more importance on mentioning the Companions than mentioning Ahl al-Bayt (may peace and blessings be upon them). They practically give these people a higher position than Ahl al-Bayt (may peace be upon them). If not, then can you claim that Imam Ali (may peace and blessings be upon him) is better than Abu Bakr, and Omar, and Uthman, according to you? If you say yes, you would be lying, according to your doctrine. And if you say no, you would be confirming that the ‘Sahaba’ rank, according to you, is higher than that of Ahl al-Bayt (may peace and blessings be upon them).
As for your claim that the religion was completed and did not require anyone after the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) is wrong. Why? Because if you say that there is no need for anyone to interpret the religion and explain its judgments after the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family), then you have to reject all your scholars because they are taking this role. Go and tell them:
Stay within your homes, because the religion has been completed and does not need you, nor is it in need of anyone after Muhammad!
However, if you say that the religion has been completed, meaning that the revelation has been made, the pillars of the law have been established, and that its laws and judgments have been legislated – if it is a true claim – then why criticise the Shi’as? The Shi’as do say that the faith is completed. However, they say that the Imamate is a part of the religion and that there is a need for an Imam after the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) to take his place in interpreting the religion, clarifying it, differentiating truth from falsehood, and leading the nation to salvation. In this regard, Imam Ali (may peace and blessings be upon him), for example, is a part of the religion – because he is an Imam. It does not mean that religion is in need of him; he is a part of the religion.
It is a weird statement to claim such a thing as you did, because if the religion was not in need of someone, such as Abu Bakr, then why did you make him the ‘caliph’ after the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family)? And why do you force people to believe that he is “the first rightly-guided caliph”? And why do you say that whoever doesn’t believe in this is going astray? The meaning of going astray is to be in on the contrary of the religion. Therefore, Abu Bakr’s possession of the caliphate must be a part of your faith, otherwise – if it is not – then rejecting his caliphate is not to go astray.
Moreover, your accusation against the Shi’a of the pure Ahl al-Bayt (may peace and blessings be upon them) for making lies is very odd. It is no secret that the ‘Sunni’ sect is well-known for creating lies; in the past and present. If you would like an existing example, you may refer to the countless material available online that spout lies about Sheikh al-Habib and his beliefs. You can easily tell the lies by viewing uncut and unaltered statements of Shiekh. Mind you, Sheikh al-Habib is still alive and one of your clerics, the so-called ‘Abdul-Rahman al-Dimashqiyah’, lied about him. So how do you think they won’t lie about those who are already dead?
Do they not lie about the Shi’as by claiming that Shi’as say the following phrase thrice at the end of their prayers: “Khaan al-Ameen” (meaning: The Trustee – i.e. Jibra’eel – failed)? Do they not lie about the Shi’as by claiming that they believe Jibra’eel made a mistake by sending the message to Muhammad (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) instead of Ali (may peace and blessings be upon him)? Do they not lie about the Shi’as by claiming that they believe that their Awaited Imam al-Mahdi (may peace and blessings be upon him) is absent and lives in his cellar? Do they not lie about the Shi’as by claiming that their men and women gather naked on the Night of Ashura to perform sexual intercourse in groups? Do they not lie about the Shi’as by claiming that they have tails similar to those of animals? The lies are endless.
It is no strange thing that they fabricate such lies because their predecessors used to lie even about the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family). For example, A’isha and Hafsa lied about the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) when they said to the daughter of Abil-Jaoun that he admires a woman if she approaches him and says the following word:
I seek refuge in Allah from you
Mustadrak written by Al-Hakem, vol. 4, page 37, and Fath-ul-Bari, by Ibn Hajar, vol. 9, page 295, and the Tabaqat written by Ibn Saad, vol. 8, page 146
Not to mention the narration concerning Al-Maghafeer, in which A’isha and Hafsa lie to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family).
Sahih al-Bukhari, vol 6, page 68
If this is how A’isha and Hafsa are – and they are among the most revered personalities in the ‘Sunni’ sect – how can you except the ‘Sunnis’ not to lie, by following their footsteps? May Allah guide you.
[1] An English teenager named Jason Biffi who announced his acceptance of Islam and Shiism after Sheikh al-Habib had finished his weekly lecture, in which the Sheikh recited the testimony of Islam for him.
I used to hear about the Shi’as that they insult the ‘Sahaba’, and that they are polytheists, and that they insult the Mothers of the Believers, and that they are crazy. However, I neither believed this, nor did I reject it; only through evidence can one separate truth from falsehood. They used to prevent us from speaking to the Shi’as or even approaching them because they say things that may affect a believer – according to their claim – but their warnings were nothing but fear from exposure of the truth. I did not have this great sanctification for the ‘Sahaba’, nor did I believe that all the were just, and this was one of the topics that I used to research. As an example: They sanctify Umar, and while researching his personality, I found that the Shi’as do not like Umar and that they’re right in their decision. Because this is an oppressive, tyrannical, and arrogant personality that hits, transgresses, oppresses women and weak people, and doubts the Prophethood of the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family). He usurped Fadak and attacked Al-Zahra (may Allah’s peace be upon her), and he usurped the caliphate. They have sanctified him to such a degree that they put him above the rank of the Noble Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family). And when I asked the ‘Sunnis’ about the crimes of Umar and others whom they call ‘Sahaba’, they say that there is no reason to research these conflicts and criticise them, because this history has gone and ended long ago. This did not convince me, as if it was an attempt to cover the truth behind these excuses that neither are correct nor upright. How can I forget history while the Noble Qur’an includes a lot of history? And praise is to Allah who graced me with hatred towards him and those who are like him, and dissociation from an oppressive personality such as Umar’s.
The Office of Sheikh al-Habib