The Characteristics of the Munafiqoon according to the world of Ibn al Hashimi
Having spun this web of lies as part of his deception, the shameless Ibn al Hashimi lets his imagination run away with him and as part of his closing submission seeks to point to a nexus between the Sabaites, Munafiqoon of the past and today’s Shia. Let us see his assertions:
First claim – The Munafiqoon casted aspersions on the Prophethood of Muhammad (s)
Ibn al Hashimi states:
It is the characteristic of the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) to accuse the believers of having alterior motives; in fact, the Quraish leaders accused the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of trying to gain materialistic wealth and they said this was the reason he claimed prophethood.
Reply One – Casting aspersions on the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) was the Sunnah of the esteemed Sunni caliphs
Ibn al Hashimi do you really believe that this is the definition of a hypocrite? If doubting the Prophethood of the Prophet (s) is indeed the characteristic of a hypocrite what opinion should we then hold of the second Sunni Khalifa Umar who at Hudaibiya said:
“I never doubted Prophethood as much as I did on this day”
1. Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 5 page 332
2. Sahih ibn Haban, Volume 11 page 224
3. Al-Mujam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 20 page 14
4. Zaad al-Maad by Ibn Qayim, Volume 3 page 257
Ponder over the words ‘as much as I did on this day’ meaning that doubts continually dogged Umar’s mind and reached there peak at Hudaibiya that occurred in 8 Hijri. And then we have Yazeed the sixth Sunni Khalifa who said following news of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as)
“Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies neither was there any revelation”
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 204
If those that doubt the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) fall within the definition of munafiqoon why are these two individuals afforded respect as caliphs in the eyes of Ibn al Hashimi?
Second claim – The Munafiqoon suggested that Uthman’s reign was dogged by nepotism and corruption
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Munafiqeen accused Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) of using the Caliphate to empower his family.
Who are these munafiqeen according to Ibn al Hashimi? Who else can it be than the Shia! This is what he claims at another point in his article:
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Uthman’s Assassination (رضّى الله عنه)
During the reign of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), the third Caliph, the Islamic state had expanded far and wide, but the empire was experiencing grave financial troubles. Many poor Beduins felt that Uthman’s policies (رضّى الله عنه) were tilted in favor of the Ummayad elite. This fact is trumpeted by the Shia scholars today, who love to slander Uthman (رضّى الله عنه); they accuse him of nepotism and mismanagement.
Reply – The Sunni Ulema have accepted that Uthman’s reign was dogged by nepotism and corruption
The legal definition of slander is:
A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.
The crucial thing is the word ‘false’. Tell us Ibn al Hashimi do you really expect your Sunni readers to accept that there was no nepotism and mismanagement during the reign of Uthman? Was this merely a Sabaite concoction that was cascaded through the Shia generations?? This is just a further example of the intellectual dishonesty of Ibn al Hashimi, nepotism and mismanagement was a sad reality associated with the reign of Uthman something recorded in the annals of Sunni history and likewise accepted by the Sunni Ulema. We have in fact cited examples of his mismanagement here:
His nepotism is a historical fact, and one can pick up any book of Sunni history to see blatant examples of it. This has been acknowledged by modern day Sunni Ulema like Syed Qutub Shaheed who said:
“Even apart from money, there were also the governorships which Uthman scattered profusely among his relatives. Among these was Muawiyah, whose power Uthman expanded considerably, giving him control of Palestine and the district of Hums he granted to him a single control of four armies and thus made it easier for Muawiyah later to aspire royal power during the caliphate of Ali by which time he had acquired money and built up armies.”
It is also interesting that he in the same article showered the term Imam on a scholar that happened to be a severe Uthman critic, Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi. Ibn al Hashimi states:
Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)
‘Imam’ Maudoodi whilst discussing the third khalifa’s reign leads into the discussion by citing the advice the outgoing Khalifa (Umar) gave to Uthman:
“If after me you become the khalifa, do not let your relatives ride over the necks of the Muslims’, but when Uthman subsequently became the Khalifa he gradually ignored the policy and gave high posts, one after the other to his relatives, and gave them concessions that normal people did not have. This invited objections from other”.
Ibn al Hashimi, if this Imam’s opinion is being advanced by you to defend Ayesha, then that same Imam’s severe critique of the nepotism and mismanagement of Uthman in his famed work ‘Khilafat aur Mulukiyat’ should likewise be accepted by you. As you can see the highlighting of Uthman’s corruption is not the exclusive domain of the Shia scholars, rather the very individual that Ibn al Hashimi deems an Imam was uncompromising in his criticism of Uthman’s corruption! Imam Maudoodi’s book courted much criticism and was the subjected to refutations and counter refutations. One such counter refutation is a book called ‘Khilafat aur Mulukiyat aur Ulema Ahle-Sunnat’ wherein the author seeks to corroborate Maudoodi’s comments on Uthman’s corruption as follows:
Maulana Ahmed Ali Lahori (rh) further states under the topic of ‘A tragic incident regarding the martyrdom of Uthman (ra)’:
“Ibn Asakir says that Zuhri asked Saeed bin Musayib of Uthman’s martyrdom, [he replied] ‘the situation was this, some Sahaba deemed Uthman’s Caliphate unacceptable as everybody was aware that he was aiding his relatives. He was the Khalifa for twelve years, during that time he helped many Banu Ummayya, they were not Sahaba of the Prophet (s), they were those that the Sahaba did not like, they sought to advise him for six years, but he failed to remove them. He was for the next six years favorable to his uncle’s family, showing them kindness and support he appointed Abdullah bin Sharh as the Governor of Egypt, the Egyptians complained of his injustices” [Khudaamudeen, 19 July 1957]
No comments:
Post a Comment