Response to: Was Aboo Lu’lu’ah A Zoroastrian?

Share

The following is a response to the article on RevisitingtheSalaf.org entitled:Was Aboo Lu’lu’ah A Zoroastrian?, which was published on the 10th of December, 2012, and can be found here.

Firstly RTS himself admits that abu Luluah killed `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) unjustly, he writes:

Whilst serving for ‘Mughirah,’ Aboo Lu’lu’ah complained to Umar that he had become physically shattered through his labour and was hopeful that the matter may be resolved by either an increase in salary, or a reduction in his work hours. Thus, the case was not resolved which attracted the ire of Aboo-Lu’lu’ah who then decided to kill Umar Ibn Al-Khattab.

We all know that this excuse is not valid to kill any Muslim. Secondly, Abu Luluah was a slave, and he was not an employee of Mughira. If he indeed had grievances, it should have been against Mughira and not `Umar. Why did he kill `Umar instead of Mughira? The reason is obvious. He wanted to destroy Islam and the Muslims. He had no respect of the mosque in which he carried out this heinous act of killing the rightful caliph of the Muslims, along with killing and injuring other Muslims in the mosque while they were praying. How can there be any sympathy for such a person!? Only the Rafidha have the guts to show love and affection to this person.

What the readers must know, is that the hatred of the Shia towards `Umar (ra) always leads them to be blinded, and to go out of their way to accuse him of anything.

RTS then goes on to defend the Safavid rule with the following lame words:

As Aboo Lu’lu’ah was Persian, Nawasib propagandists have argued that the Shi’ee are the descendants of Aboo Lu’lu’ah as this was the faith ascribed to be the Safavids that propagated Shi’ism through their dominion. Their success in spreading the teachings of the Ahlulbayt (a.s) resulted in many Zoroastrians reverting to the path of the Ahlulbayt (a.s).

This is one of the most ridiculous defences of the Safavids by any of their lovers. The historical fact is that the Safavids massacred the ahlus sunnah and tortured them and exiled them to spread Shi’ism in Iran, not as RTS would have its readers believe. The Safavid era is filled with the brutal use of force against the Ahlus Sunnah and the state sponsorship of the Shia religion in order to separate Iran from the Muslim world. The Safavid era was the kind of government you would expect if an extremist Shia scholar like Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi becomes the ruler. Hamid Algar, Ph.D. (University of Cambridge, 1965), Professor of Persian and Islamic Studies. Near Eastern Studies and Persian Literature. He says in ‘Encyclopedia Iranica’:

“It was, however, nothing less than a reign of terror that inaugurated the new dispensation. On capturing Tabriz in 907/1501, a city two-thirds Sunnite in population, Shah Esmāʿil threatened with death all who might resist the adoption of Shiʿite prayer ritual in the main congregational mosque, and he had Qezelbāš soldiers patrol the congregation to ensure that none raise his voice against the cursing of the first three caliphs, viewed as enemies of the Prophet’s family. In Tabriz and elsewhere, gangs of professional execrators known as the tabarrāʾiān would accost the townsfolk at random, forcing them to curse the objectionable personages on pain of death. Selective killings of prominent Sunnites occurred in a large number of places, notably Qazvin and Isfahan, and in Shiraz and Yazd, outright massacres took place. Sunnite mosques were desecrated, and the tombs of eminent Sunnite scholars destroyed (Aubin, 1970, pp. 237-38; idem, 1988, pp. 94-101).”

So we can easily conclude that the Safavid didn’t succeed in spreading the real teachings of Ahlul-Bayt as found in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah. Instead, they spread the fake teachings of Ahlul-Bayt from the books of the Shia, teachings such as: All non-Shia are sons of adultery, the non-Shia are as filthy as Jews and Christians, and teachings that talk about the desecration of the graves of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his wives after the appearance of their 12th Imam who shall revive them and torture them.

We seek refuge in Allah from these teachings!

RTS’s next goal is to prove that abu Luluah is a Muslim, he quotes the following narrations:

Aboo Abid Qatn Ibn Nasir Al-Ghabry narrated from Jaffar Ibn Suleiman narrated from Thabit Al-Benanai narrating Abi Rafi’ who said, “Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a slave for Mughira ibn Shu’ba and he used to make millstones and Mughira used to exploit him [his working power] everyday for four dirhams. Then Aboo Lu’lu’ah met Umar ibn Al-Khattab and addressed him; ‘O commander of the faithful, Mughira made heavier the burden of my livelihood so ask him to ease me.’ Therefore Umar told him; ‘Fear God and do good to your master,’ with Umar having in his will to meet Mughira and talk to him so that he eases (Aboo Lu’lu’ah case). The slave therefore got angry and said, ‘Your righteousness contained all other people [but not me]!’ Therefore he made up his mind to kill him and he made a dagger with two heads and poisoned it and came to Al-Hormuzan (Persian King) and said, ‘How do you see this?’ Then he said, ‘You do not hit anyone by it but you kill him.’ Aboo Lu’lu’ah awaited for Umar and he came at the fajr prayer (morning prayers)until he stood behind Umar. And whenever the prayer was established, Umar used to speak and say; ‘Establish your rows’ and he said what he used [always] to say and when he said takbeer, Aboo Lu’lu’ah hit him in his shoulder and hit him in his side, then Umar fell down and he hit by his dagger thirteen men. Among them seven died and six survived and Umar was carried and taken to his house and people shouted until the sun was about to rise. Then Abdul-rahman ibn Awf said, ‘O people! The prayer! The prayer!’ He said [Abi Rafi’]; And they [people] rushed to the prayer, then Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf took the lead and prayed, leading them, with the shortest two Surahs of the Qur’aan. And when he accomplished his prayer they headed to Umar, and he called for a drink to know the intensity of his wound, so wine was brought, and he drank it and it came out of his wound and he did not know whether it was wine or blood. Then he called for yoghurt, and he drank it and it came out of his wound, then they said; ‘O commander of the faithful, there is no harm [to you]!’ He said; ‘If being killed had a harm aspect, then I am killed.” Then people started to say compliments for him. They said; ‘O commander of the faithful, may Allah reward you. The good, you were…’ [many things]. Then they left, and other people came in and said compliments for him, then Umar said; ‘I swear to God, instead of what you are saying, I would have preferred that I departed this world as a poor man, with nothing on my burden and nothing for my [property] and the companionship of the Messenger of Allah (saw) has been saved for me.’

As the reader can see, abu Luluah is a really evil man, he got about 12$ daily and didn’t like his working hours, so he went and plotted with his companion, the Persian king al-Hormuzan, and he assassinated the leader of the Muslims during prayer with a poisoned two headed dagger, then he stabbed random Muslims in the mosque with the dagger killing seven of them. Even though the calamity was great, yet the Muslims continued their prayer quickly so as to not miss the obligatory duty.

Then RTS quotes another similar narration:

Ahmad Ibn Alee b. Al-Muthanna narrated, Qutun Ibn Nasir Al-Ghabry narrated from Jaffar son of Suleiman Al-Deb’y narrated to us Thabit Al-Nanany narrating from Abi Rafi’ who said; Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a slave for Mughira ibn Shu’ba and he used to make millstones and Al-Mughira used to to manipulate his labour by giving him four dirhams every day. Then Aboo Lu’lu’ah met Umar ibn Al-Khattab (to complain about his exhaustion) and addressed him; ‘O commander of the faithful, Al-Mughira made heavier the burden of my livelihood so ask him to ease me.” Therefore Umar told him; ‘Fear God and do good to your master.’ Therefore the slave got angry and said; ‘Your righteousness contained all other people [but not me!]’ Therefore he made up his mind to kill him. He made a dagger with two heads and poisoned it and came to Al-Hormuzan (Persian King) and said; ‘How do you see this?’ Then he said; ‘You do not hit anyone by it but you kill him!’ He said [Abi Rafi’]; and Aboo Lu’lu’ah awaited for Umar, therefore he came to him at the fajr (morning prayers) until he stood behind him. And Umar, whenever the prayers commended, used to say; ‘Establish your rows’ and he said what he used to always say and when he said takbeer, Aboo Lu’lu’ah hit him in his shoulder and hit him in his side, then Umar fell down and he hit by his dagger thirteen men. Among them seven were killed and Umar was carried and took to his house and people shouted until the sun was about to rise, then Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf said, ‘O people! The prayer! The prayer!’ He said [Abi Rafi’]; Then they [people] rushed to the prayer, then Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf took the lead and prayed leading them with the shortest two Surah’s of the Qur’aan. And when he accomplished his prayer, they headed to Umar and he called for a drink to know the intensity of his wound. So wine was brought and he drank it, and it came out of his wound, and he did not know if it was wine or blood. Then he called for yoghurt, and he drank it and it came out of his wound then they said; ‘O commander of the faithful, there is no harm [to you]!’ He said; ‘If being killed is a harm then I am killed.”

And another similar one:

From Aboo Rafi, who said; Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a slave of Mughira ibn Shu’ba. He used to manipulate his labour by giving him four dirhams every day. One day Aboo Lu’lu’ah met Umar and he said to him, “O commander of the faithful! Surely, Mughira has made me tired of his cheating labour on me. Kindly speak to him so that he might make it easy for me.’ Umar said to him, “Fear Allah and continue to do good to your master (Al-Mughira’).” Umar had an intention of speaking to Mughira on this matter so that he might ease some labour to his slave (Aboo Lu’lu’ah). But the slave became angry and said, ‘All people are benefited from his justice except me!’ And then he intended to kill him, and so he made a knife which had two splitting ends and sharpened it and poisoned it. And he (Aboo Lu’lu’ah) went to Hormuzan (king of Persia) saying, ‘How did you see this knife?’ He said, ‘I see that you will never stab with it any one except you will kill him!’ He then said, Aboo Lu’lu’ah  prepared for his action and he came at the Fajr (morning prayer) until he stood behind Umar. When prayer commended, Umar used to say, ‘Establish your lines,’ and when he did his takbeer, Aboo Lu’lu’ah stabbed him on his chest and hit his side. Umar fell down. Aboo Lu’lu’ah hit his Dagger thirteen times. In the process seven men died and six got injured. Then he ran to his house, and people stayed till the sun had almost risen. Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf took the lead and prayed leading them with the shortest two Surahs of the Qur’aan. And when he accomplished his prayer, they headed to Umar and he called for a drink to know the intensity of his wound, so wine was brought and he drank it and it came out of his wound and he did not know if it was wine or blood. Then he called for yoghurt, and he drank it, and it came out of his wound. Then they said, ‘O commander of the faithful, there is no harm [to you]!’ He said, ‘If being killed is a harm then I am killed.”

And another:

Aboo Rafi’ said that Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a servant of Mughira Ibn Shu’ba and he used to make millstones. He said (narrator), Mughira used to exploit him every day for four dirhams. He said then Aboo Lu’lu’ah met Umar, so he said, ‘O commander of the faithful, Mughira has burdened me, so speak to him so that he can ease me!’ Umar said: ‘Fear Allah and enjoin goodness to your Master.’ He said: From the intention of Umar is to meet Mughira and speak to him about taking it easy [about Aboo Lu’lu’ah]. So he said: Aboo Lu’lu’ah became angry and said: ‘His justice is vast enough to fill in everyone except me!’ So he became angry and pre-planned to murder him [Umar]. He [narrator] said: So he constructed a dagger with two heads. He said: He unsheathed it and Umar prepared himself and Umar used to not make Takbeer if the prayers were established until he says, “establish your rows.” He said: So he [Aboo Lu’lu’ah] stood on the first row with his shoes while Umar was in front of him.

And another:

Narrated Amr bin Maimun: I saw Umar bin Al-Khattab a few days before he was stabbed in Madinah. He was standing with Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman and Uthman bin Hunaif to whom he said, “What have you done? Do you think that you have imposed more taxation on the land (of As-Swad i.e. Iraq) than it can bear?” They replied, “We have imposed on it what it can bear because of its great yield.” Umar again said, “Check whether you have imposed on the land what it can not bear.” They said, “No, (we haven’t).” Umar added, “If Allah should keep me alive I will let the widows of Iraq need no men to support them after me.” But only four days had elapsed when he was stabbed (to death ). The day he was stabbed, I was standing and there was nobody between me and him (i.e. Umar) except Abdullah bin Abbas. Whenever Umar passed between the two rows, he would say, “Stand in straight lines.” When he saw no defect (in the rows), he would go forward and start the prayer with Takbir. He would recite Surat Yusuf or An-Nahl or the like in the first rak`a so that the people may have the time to join the prayer. As soon as he said Takbir, I heard him saying, “The dog has killed or eaten me,” at the time he (i.e. the murderer) stabbed him. A non-Arab infidel proceeded on carrying a double-edged knife and stabbing all the persons he passed by on the right and left (till) he stabbed thirteen persons out of whom seven died. When one of the Muslims saw that, he threw a cloak on him. Realizing that he had been captured, the non-Arab infidel killed himself. Umar held the hand of Abdur-Rahman bin Auf and let him lead the prayer. Those who were standing by the side of Umar saw what I saw, but the people who were in the other parts of the Mosque did not see anything, but they lost the voice of Umar and they were saying, “Subhan Allah! Subhan Allah! (i.e. Glorified be Allah).” Abdur-Rahman bin Auf led the people a short prayer. When they finished the prayer, Umar said, “O Ibn Abbas! Find out who attacked me.” Ibn Abbas kept on looking here and there for a short time and came to say. “The slave of Al-Mughira.” On that Umar said, “The craftsman?” Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.” Umar said, “May Allah curse him. I did not treat him unjustly. All the Praises are for Allah Who has not caused me to die at the hand of a man who claims himself to be a Muslim. No doubt, you and your father (Abbas) used to love to have more non-Arab infidels in Madinah.” Al-Abbas had the greatest number of slaves. Ibn Abbas said to `Umar. “If you wish, we will do.” He meant, “If you wish we will kill them.” Umar said, “You are mistaken (for you can’t kill them) after they have spoken your language, prayed towards your Qibla, and performed Hajj like yours.” Then Umar was carried to his house, and we went along with him, and the people were as if they had never suffered a calamity before. Some said, “Do not worry (he will be alright soon).” Some said, “We are afraid (that he will die).” Then an infusion of dates was brought to him and he drank it but it came out (of the wound) of his belly. Then milk was brought to him and he drank it, and it also came out of his belly. The people realized that he would die. We went to him, and the people came, praising him. A young man came saying, “O chief of the believers! Receive the glad tidings from Allah to you due to your company with Allah’s Messenger (saw) and your superiority in Islam which you know. Then you became the ruler (i.e. Caliph) and you ruled with justice and finally you have been martyred.” Umar said, “I wish that all these privileges will counterbalance (my shortcomings) so that I will neither lose nor gain anything.” When the young man turned back to leave, his clothes seemed to be touching the ground. Umar said, “Call the young man back to me.” (When he came back) Umar said, “O son of my brother! Lift your clothes, for this will keep your clothes clean and save you from the Punishment of your Lord.” Umar further said, “O Abdullah bin Umar! See how much I am in debt to others.” When the debt was checked, it amounted to approximately eighty-six thousand. Umar said, “If the property of Umar’s family covers the debt, then pay the debt thereof; otherwise request it from Bani Adi bin Ka`b, and if that too is not sufficient, ask for it from Quraish tribe, and do not ask for it from any one else, and pay this debt on my behalf.” Umar then said (to Abdullah), “Go to A’isha (the mother of the believers) and say: “Umar is paying his salutation to you. But don’t say: ‘The chief of the believers,’ because today I am not the chief of the believers. And say: “Umar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission to be buried with his two companions (i.e. the Prophet (saw) and Aboo Bakr).” Abdullah greeted A’isha and asked for the permission for entering, and then entered to her and found her sitting and weeping. He said to her, “Umar bin Al-Khattab is paying his salutations to you, and asks the permission to be buried with his two companions.” She said, “I had the idea of having this place for myself, but today I prefer Umar to myself.” When he returned it was said (to `Umar), “Abdullah bin Umar has come.” Umar said, “Make me sit up.” Somebody supported him against his body and Umar asked (Abdullah), “What news do you have?” He said, “O chief of the believers! It is as you wish. She has given the permission.” Umar said, “Praise be to Allah, there was nothing more important to me than this. So when I die, take me, and greet A’isha and say: “Umar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission (to be buried with the Prophet (saw), and if she gives the permission, bury me there, and if she refuses, then take me to the graveyard of the Muslims.” Then Hafsa came with many other women walking with her. When we saw her, we went away. She went in (to Umar) and wept there for sometime. When the men asked for permission to enter, she went into another place, and we heard her weeping inside. The people said (to Umar), “O chief of the believers! Appoint a successor.” Umar said, “I do not find anyone more suitable for the job than the following persons or group whom Allah’s Messenger (saw) had been pleased with before he died.” Then Umar mentioned Alee, Uthman, Az-Zubair, Talha, Sa`d and Abdur-Rahman (bin Auf) and said, “Abdullah bin Umar will be a witness to you, but he will have no share in the rule. His being a witness will compensate him for not sharing the right of ruling. If Sa`d becomes the ruler, it will be alright: Otherwise, whoever becomes the ruler should seek his help, as I have not dismissed him because of disability or dishonesty.” Umar added, “I recommend that my successor takes care of the early emigrants; to know their rights and protect their honor and sacred things. I also recommend that he be kind to the Ansar who had lived in Madinah before the emigrants and belief had entered their hearts before them. I recommend that the (ruler) should accept the good of the righteous among them and excuse their wrong-doers, and I recommend that he should do good to all the people of the towns (Al-Ansar), as they are the protectors of Islam and the source of wealth and the source of annoyance to the enemy. I also recommend that nothing be taken from them except from their surplus with their consent. I also recommend that he do good to the Arab bedouin, as they are the origin of the Arabs and the material of Islam. He should take from what is inferior, amongst their properties and distribute that to the poor amongst them. I also recommend him concerning Allah’s and His Apostle’s protectees (i.e. Dhimmis) to fulfill their contracts and to fight for them and not to overburden them with what is beyond their ability.” So when Umar expired, we carried him out and set out walking. Abdullah bin Umar greeted (A’isha) and said, “Umar bin Al-Khattab asks for the permission.” A’isha said, “Bring him in.” He was brought in and buried beside his two companions. When he was buried, the group (recommended by Umar) held a meeting. Then Abdur-Rahman said, “Reduce the candidates for rulership to three of you.” Az-Zubair said, “I give up my right to Alee.” Talha said, “I give up my right to Uthman.” Sa`d said, ‘I give up my right to Abdur-Rahman bin Auf.” Abdur-Rahman then said (to Uthman and Ali), “Now which of you is willing to give up his right of candidacy to that he may choose the better of the (remaining) two, bearing in mind that Allah and Islam will be his witnesses.” So both the sheiks (i.e. Uthman and Alee) kept silent. Abdur-Rahman said, “Will you both leave this matter to me, and I take Allah as my Witness that I will not choose but the better of you?” They said, “Yes.” So Abdur-Rahman took the hand of one of them (i.e. Alee) and said, “You are related to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and one of the earliest Muslims as you know well. So I ask you by Allah to promise that if I select you as a ruler you will do justice, and if I select Uthman as a ruler you will listen to him and obey him.” Then he took the other (i.e. Uthman) aside and said the same to him. When `Abdur-Rahman secured (their agreement to) this covenant, he said, “O Uthman! Raise your hand.” So he (i.e. Abdur-Rahman) gave him (i.e. Uthman) the solemn pledge, and then Alee gave him the pledge of allegiance and then all the (Madinah) people gave him the pledge of allegiance.

The reply to the above narrations is as follows..

If you have time, you can spend it on reading these narrations. But if you ask us, these are not “unambiguous reports”, according to RTS itself.

RTS says in his article:

“There is no ambiguous evidence to establish whether or not he was a Muslim, Christian or even a Zoroastrian.”

Perhaps RTS wanted to say unambiguous, and erred, because ambiguous evidence doesn’t establish anything.

The main point which RTS highlighted in these narrations were only those lines which mentioned that Abu Luluah was present in the mosque, but it doesn’t prove anything. Just because a person claims to be a Muslim, doesn’t mean that he becomes a Muslim, and we know very well that a Muslim never attacks 30 Muslims in a mosque, and if he is still a Muslim, than the people attacking the mosques nowadays must be considered Muslims by the Shia.

Abu Luluah didn’t just attack `Umar, who had done no harm to the Majoosi, he attacked 30 other Muslims, and seven of whom died, and that too in the Mosque of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Even the accursed one, Ibn Muljim didn’t attack `Ali in prayers, nor killed other Muslims randomly after attacking him. When a Khariji doesn’t attack the Caliph in the masjid, how come a Muslim attack the Caliph in the masjid? Ibn Muljim didn’t commit suicide but Abu Luluah committed suicide, for he didn’t care a bit about what Islam says regarding suicide. If the Shia want to conjecture from one ‘ambiguous’ evidence, which is just ridiculous, the Sunnis have many valid reasons to believe that he was not a Muslim, and the words of `Umar when he became happy after coming to know about his killer that the one who killed him was not a Muslim is more than enough that even he didn’t consider Abu Luluah to be a Muslim.

I add that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t even allow people to cut the trees of Madinah, let alone kill another Muslim, in his own mosque!

The Prophet (peace be upon him) described it as a “Sacred Precinct” in many of the Prophetical Hadith. One of them was narrated by Imam Muslim that the Messenger of Allah(PBUH)said: “Abraham sanctified Mecca and made it a sacred precinct, and I have sanctified Al Madinah as a sacred precinct between its two mountains, and that no blood may be shed therein and no weapon to be carried therein for combating, and no trees but to be cut but for feeding.”

Even `Amr bin Maymun who narrated that last big narration said that he’s an infidel:

“A non-Arab infidel proceeded on carrying a double-edged knife and stabbing all the persons he passed by on the right and left (till) he stabbed thirteen persons out of whom seven died.”

 Twelver Shia versus Imam `Ali (ra):

RTS says:

The literal meaning of ‘Ijtihad’ is to strive with one’s total ability and efforts to reach a goal in order to deduce certain rulings from Qur’aan and Hadeeth. One of the conditions of Ijtihad is to refer to these two primary sources in order to determine if the act is deemed lawful or not. One can’t simply conjure a ruling from thin air or they would be opposing the very foundations of it. Despite these very principals the so called ‘Ahl Sunnah’ believe all those who cursed, fought and even murdered Imam Alee (a.s) had been practicing Tawil and Ijithad and thus will receive a reward from Allah (swt) for their efforts.

Killer of `Umar (ra) versus killer of `Ali (ra), and the facts: 

RTS then says:

Al Haythami gives a different rule for the companions as he does with the Khawarijes even though he admits they are enemies of Imam Alee (a.s).  In reality the actions of the Kharjies and the Sahahbah are of one and the same. Both parties fought the rightly guided Khalifah of the time and committed numerous atrocities. Ibn Hazim implies the companions intentions were sincere, and they only wished to uphold the laws of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). Ibn Taymiyyah offers the same excuse for the murderer of Imam Alee (a.s) when comparing him to the killer of Umar.

Ibn Taymiyyah:

And therefore the person who killed Umar was an unbeliever, hating the religion of Islam. And he hated the Prophet (saw) and his nation and his religion. So he killed him (Umar) out of hate of the Prophet (saw) and his religion. And the one who killed Alee, used to pray, fast and recite the Qur’aan. And he killed him believing that Allah (swt) and his Prophet (saw) would love him to kill Alee. He did this, out of love for Allah (swt) and his Prophet (saw) according to him. Even though he was misguided (in this act) and a deviant.

And RTS  again quotes ibn Taymiyyah:

Ibn Taymiyyah:

His (i.e. ‘Alee’s) murderer is one of them (i.e. the Khawarij), and he was ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Muljam al-Muradi’, despite that he was one of the best of mankind in worship, and one of the people of knowledge.

RTS again attacks ibn Taymiyyah:

What form of Ijtihad was Ibn Muljam  trying to implement by killing Imam Alee (a.s)?. According to Sheikh al Shatain Ibn Muljam was misguided in his actions though it would receive him good reward. The option of Tawil and Ijtihad are available to those who killed Imam ‘Alee (a.s) and fought against him. Yet Qu’raan and Hadeeth has declared such people in violation of Islam . Ibn Taymiyyah declared the murderer of Imam Alee (a.s) as “One of the best of mankind in worship, and one of the people of knowledge” based on what exactly?. How would any knowledgeable person not know Imam Alee (a.s) relationship to the Prophet Muhammad (saw)?. Is there anyone that can say the person who killed Umar Ibn Khataab was a disbelieving hypocrite, but the killer of Imam Alee was one of the most upright person in worship and knowledge?. Even the Kharjites never made such a bold claim.

First of all, ibn Muljam was a Khariji, and the Khawarij in general were known as being very religious and they would recite the Qur’an day and night, they were called “al-Qurra'” meaning “The reciters” because they would recite the Qur’an.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself described the Khawarij as being extreme worshipers, he said to his companion in Sahih al-Bukhari:

“If you compare their prayers and fasting to that of yours, you yourself will feel ashamed. These are the people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats.”

Abu Sa`eed al-Khudari (ra) said about them:

“I testify to the fact that I heard it from RasulAllah (saw), and I testify to the fact that Ali b. Abi Talib fought against them and I was with him.”

So it’s not Ibn Taymiyya’s opinion, it is the Prophet (peace be upon him) that described them as such.

As for `Ali bin abi Talib (ra), he was asked about the Khawarij:

`Alqamah b. `Amir asked `Ali: “Where the people of Nahrawan Mushrikun (polytheists)?” He replied, “They escaped from Shirk (polytheism).”

He asked: “Where they Munafiqun (hypocrites)?” He (`Ali) said, “Indeed, the Munafiqin (hypocrites) do not remember Allah, except little.”

He asked, “So what are they O Amir al-Mu’minin (Leader of the Believers)?”He said, “They’re our brothers who transgressed against us, so we fought them for transgressing us.”

Source: al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah (Vol. 7, Pg. 321)

Even `Ali himself considered the Khawarij to be the seekers of truth, but to have gone astray. If this is something objectionable, then the Shia should first object at their first Imam when he said in Nahjul-Balagha pg.96:

لا تقتلوا الخوارج بعدي فليس من طلب الحق فاخطاه كمن طلب الباطل فادركه

“Don’t kill Khawarij after me, for those who seek truth but go astray are not like those who seek falsehood and then find it.”

Ayatullah Muhammad Hussain al-Shirazi says regarding these words of Caliph Ali

فان الخوارج كانوا قد طلبوا الحق لكنهم اخطأوه بخلاف معاوية وأصحابه الذين أرادوا الباطل فأصابوه

“The Khawarij intended to reach the truth but they erred,  in contrast to Mu`awiyah and his companions who intended the falsehood and found it.”

nahj96

Ubaidullah ibn Umar versus the Killers of Uthman:

RTS says:

Ubaidullah Ibn Umar had been advised by Abdur Rahman ibn Awf and Hafsah bint Umar to seek justice for His fathers murder. Ubaidullah took his sword, and rushed out of his house to take revenge. He first went to the house of Aboo Lu’lu’ah, and killed his daughter. Later He sought to murder of Jafina (a Christian who had been brought to Madina after the conquest of Iraq), and last but not least Hurmuzan ( a Persian General who had been captured during the Persian conquest). When the Muslims came to know about what had happened, Ubaidullah ibn Umar was apprehended. With the acceptation of Abdur Rahman ibn Aboo Bakr no other person supported the theory of any conspiracy. Adequate evidence was thus not forthcoming to support the theory of the involvement of Jafina, Hurmuzan and the daughter of Aboo Lu’lu’ah in any alleged conspiracy. Even if it was established that these persons had entered into a conspiracy, there was no grounds for justification for the killing of these personalities. Ubaidullah ibn Umar had no right or justification to take the law in his own hand and murder four persons without affording them an opportunity for defense. That was the Arab practice of the days of ignorance which was in violation of the injunctions of Islam. The case was tried by Uthman with the help of a jury which included Imam Alee (a.s), Amr b Al A’as (a staunch opponent of Imam Alee during the tribulation of Muawiyah) and some other prominent companions. Imam Alee (a.s) and other notable companions were of the opinion that the dictates of justice demanded that Ubaidullah ibn Umar should be executed for taking the law in his hand, and murdering the citizens without cause. Imam Alee (a.s) was emphatically of the view that in Islam, law was no respecter of persons, and Ubaidullah Ibn Umar could not be saved from the penalty of law merely on the ground that he was the son of the late tyrant. While other companions were of the view that they lost Umar ibn Khataab only recently, and it could not be that today his son should be killed. Instead Amr ibn al-As advised Uthman not to have him killed.  Thus the decision had been made to spare his life and instead Uthman decided to give blood money.

Firstly, I’m very happy that RTS admits that `Uthman (ra) used to consult `Ali (ra) and other companions in how he rules. This shows that `Ali’s (ra) opinions were heard and taken into consideration, he wasn’t oppressed and isolated as the Shia would usually claim.

Then RTS says that the son of `Umar (ra) committed a sin by killing the man, and he described him as “Son of the late tyrant.”

Although when `Umar (ra) learned what his son did, he ordered that Ubaidullah should be imprisoned and the next Caliph should decide his fate.

In al-Sunan al-Kubra of al-Bayhaqi 8/61, we read:

أخبرنا أبو الحسين بن بشران أنبأ أبو الحسن على بن محمد المصرى ثنا مالك بن يحيى أبو غسان ثنا على بن عاصم عن حميد عن عبد الله بن عبيد بن عمير قال لما طعن عمر رضى الله عنه وثب عبيد الله بن عمر على الهرمزان فقتله فقيل لعمر إن عبيد الله بن عمر قتل الهرمزان قال ولم قتله قال انه قتل أبى قيل وكيف ذاك قال رأيته قبل ذلك مستخليا بأبى لؤلؤة وهو امره بقتل أبى قال عمر ما ادرى ما هذا انظروا إذا انا مت فاسألوا عبيد الله البينة على الهرمزان هو قتلني فان اقام البينة فدمه بدمى وان لم يقم البينة فأقيدوا عبيد الله من الهرمزان فلما ولى عثمان رضى الله عنه قيل له ألا تمضى وصية عمر رضى الله عنه في عبيد الله قال ومن ولى الهرمزان قالوا انت يا أمير المؤمنين فقال فقد عفوت عن عبيد الله بن عمر

[(…) It was said to `Umar that `Ubaidullah killed al-Hormuzan, `Umar asked: “Why did he kill him?” They replied: “He said: He killed my father.” We asked him “How?” he said: “I saw him before it happened, he was alone with abu Lu’lu’ah, he ordered him to kill my father.” `Umar then said: “I don’t know what to make of this.. If I die, ask `Ubaidullah to present what proof he has for what he did, if he provides sufficient proof then his blood was for mine.. but if he doesn’t, then punish `Ubaidullah for al-Hormuzan.” When `Uthman may Allah be pleased with him later became the Caliph, they asked him: “Will you not fulfill the wish of `Umar may Allah be pleased with him in regards to `Ubaidullah?” He replied: “Who is the Wali of al-Hormuzan?” they replied: “You O Ameer al-Mu’mineen.” `Uthman said: “Then I have forgiven `Ubaidullah ibn `Umar.”]

Then RTS quotes two weak narrations by al-Waqidi:

Narrating al-muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn hantab he said; Alee told Ubaydullah bin Umar; ‘What was the crime of the daughter of Aboo Lu’lu’ah when you killed her ?’ He said; ‘And the opinion of Alee, when Uthman consulted Him, and the opinion of the seniors among the companions of the messenger of Allah (saw) was to kill him!’ But Amr ibn Al-‘As spoke to Uthman so he left him [without killing him] and Alee used to say; ‘If I could reach Ubaydullah bin Umar and I had authority, I would have reprimanded him [punish him]’….

and

Narrating Muhammed ibn Umar, narrated from Ibn Jurey told me that Uthman ibn Affan consulted muslims and they agreed about [paying] their blood money, and Ubaydullah bin Umar would not be killed for killing them, and they had converted to Islam, and Umar had imposed for them, and Alee ibn Aboo Talib ,when he was given allegiance, wanted to kill Ubaydullah bin Umar so he ran away from Him to Muawiyah ibn Aboo Sufyan and he remained with him until he was killed in Sifeen [the battle].

Instead, what is funny is that why didn’t Ali kill the killers of Uthman, when he could reach them, the excuse he gives regarding them as is mentioned in the books of Shias is that he has no authority over them.

We read in Nahjul Balagha vol.2 pg.80:

وقد قال له قوم من الصحابة لو عاقبت قوما ممن أجلب على عثمان؟ فقال عليه السلام: يا إخوتاه إني لست أجهل ما تعلمون، ولكن كيف لي بقوة والقوم المجلبون على حد شوكتهم، يملكوننا ولا نملكهم

“When a group of Sahaba said to him that he should punish the killers of Uthman. He said : O brothers, I am not ignorant of what you know. But where is power with me when the people (who killed Uthman) are at their prime. They rule over us and we don’t rule over them.”

So after `Umar (ra) died, `Uthman (ra) did not wish that his son would die the next day, it would be too much for their family to bear. He said that since the three who were killed had no Awliya, he would be their Wali and he decided as their Wali that `Ubaidullah only needs to pay blood-money.

Why Ubaidullah ibn Umar killed them?

RTS himself posts why:

He said, Yaqoob bin Ibraheem bin Saad bin Zuhri informed us from his father from Swaleh bin Kisan from Ibnu Shihaab who said, Saeed Ibnu Al-Musayyib told me that Abdul Rahman bin Aboo bakar as-Sidiq he said ‘When Umar was killed, I had passed by Aboo-Lu’lu’ah while he was with Hormuzan and Jafina, they were whispering; when I approached them, they got up quickly and the knife with two heads dropped down between them, therefore, see for which type of knife was Umar killed? And they found that Umar was stabbed by the same knife which Abdul Rahman had described it, then Ubaydullah ibn Umar when he heard that he got up with sword until he reached towards Hormozan, and he called upon him, when he came out, he said to him, ‘Let us go and see my horse over there’; thus, Ubaydullah stayed behind him and chopped his head, Ubaydullah bin Umar said, when he felt the heat of the sword he uttered “La ilaha illa llah” and then Ubaydullah said, I afterwards called upon Jafina….”Source: Tabqat Ibn Sa’ad, Vol. 3. Pg. # 329 – 330.

This narration very clearly shows that there was a plot to kill Umar, and Hurmuzan, Jafina and Abu Luluah were involved in this plot.

Aside from this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) also didn’t kill Usama ibn Zayd when he killed a Jew who uttered shahadah in the heat of the sword. We read in the Shia book ‘Bihar ul Anwar’ vol.65 pg.235:

وقال علي بن إبراهيم  وغيره: إنها نزلت لما رجع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله من غزوة خيبر، وبعث أسامة بن زيد في خيل إلى بعض اليهود في ناحية فدك ليدعوهم إلى الاسلام وكان رجل من اليهود يقال له: مرداس بن نهيك الفدكي في بعض القرى، فلما أحس بخيل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله جمع أهله وماله وصار في ناحية الجبل فأقبل يقول أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن محمدا رسول الله، فمر به أسامة بن زيد فطعنه فقتله فلما رجع إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أخبره بذلك، فقال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: أفلا شققت الغطاء عن قلبه، لاما قال بلسانه قبلت، ولا ما كان في نفسه علمت، فحلف أسامة بعد ذلك أن لا يقاتل أحدا شهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله، فتخلف عن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام في حروبه وأنزل الله في ذلك ” ولا تقولوا لمن ألقى إليكم السلام ” الآية “

Tafsir Ali ibn Ibrahim and others said : O ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: “Thou art not a believer,” seeking the chance profits of this life (4:94) It was revealed when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was returning from the battle of Khayber, and sent Usama ibn Zayd to few villages of the Jews near Fadak, to invite them to Islam. A man from the Jews, whose name was Mirdas ibn Naheek al fadaki gathered his family menmbers and his belongings and went to a hill, and said : I testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Usamah ibn Zayd killed him while passing by him. When he returned to the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to him : You killed  a man who testified that there is no god but Allah, and that I am the Messenger of Allah? He replied : O Messenger of Allah, he said this to protect himself from being killed. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said : You didn’t remove the covering from his heart, and you didn’t accept what he said with his tongue, and you don’t know what is in his heart. Usama ibn Zayd announced that he will not thereafter kill anyone who says “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And that is why he stayed away from the battles of Ali, and Allah revealed regarding this :  and say not to anyone who greets you  …  (4:94)

When the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t take Qisas from Usamah ibn Zayd, how can the RTS say that Qisas must have been taken from Ubaidullah ibn Umar?

Ali was disobeyed by his own sons according to Shia books:

It is mentioned in Nahjul balagha that Ali said :

انظروا إذا أنا متّ من ضربته هذه فاضربوه ضربة بضربة ، و لا يمثّل بالرّجل ، فإنّى سمعت رسول اللّه ، صلّى اللّه عليه و آله و سلّم ، يقول :  إيّاكم و المثلة ، و لو بالكلب العقور

Look, when I die, only my killer should be killed and when I kill because of his striking, than he should be killed with one strike only. And don’t cut his hands and feet, because I have heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) that beware, don’t cut hands and feet even if it is a biting dog.
Nahjul Balagha, letter # 47

It is mentioned in the Shia famous book ‘Jila ul Uyun’ that Ali said to his son :
Give him food and don’t chain him , rather be kind to him, when I die, kill him with one hit, and don’t cut him into pieces i.e don’t cut his hands, feet, nose, ear and the body parts. I have heard the Prophet that never cut anyone into pieces, even if it is a dog. And if I recovered, I have the choice to forgive him, because we ahlelbayt are forgiving (but we can curse people to hell for snatching our land e.g Fadak etc .. ahem)
Jila ul Uyun, Vol. 1, p. 307

The Shia scholar, Ibrahim al-thaqafi writes

  ولما أحضر ليقتل قال عبد الله بن جعفر الطيار ،: دعوني أشفي بعض ما في نفسي عليه، فدفع إليه فأمر بمسمار فأحمي بالنار ثم كحله به فجعل ابن ملجم – لعنه الله – يقول: تبارك الخالق الإنسان من علق، يا ابن أخي إنك لتكحل بمرود مض (1) ثم أمر بقطع يديه ورجليه فقطعتا، ولم يتكلم، ثم أمر بقطع لسانه فجزع فقال له بعض الناس: يا عدو الله كحلت عيناك بالنار وقطعت يداك ورجلاك فلم تجزع وجزعت من قطع لسانك؟! فقال له: يا جاهل أما والله ما جزعت لقطع لساني ولكني أكره أن أعيش في الدنيا فواقا لا أذكر الله فيه فلما قطع لسانه أحرق بالنار،

When he was presented for being killed, Abdullah ibn Jafar said : Let me relieve regarding some of what I have regarding him. So he asked for needles, which he made hot with fire, then he put them into his eys, Ibn Muljim, the accursed one said, Mighty is the Lord who created the human from alaq, o son of brother, you are putting hot needles into my eyes. Then he ordered to cut his hands and legs, which were cut, but Ibn Muljim didn’t complain. Then he ordered to cut his tongue, upon which he (i.e Ibn Muljim) started wailing. Some of the people said : O enemy of Allah, hot needles were put into your eyes, and your hands were cut, as well as your legs, but you didn’t wail, but now you wail when your tongue is cut. He said : O ignorant, by God, I don’t wail due to the cutting of my tongue, but I dislike that I live in this world, and I don’t remember Allah, so when his tongue was cut, he was burnt with fire.
al-Gharat, Vol. 2, p. 839

Is it a must to kill a Muslim if he kills a Dhimmi, according to Shia fiqh
Remember that Ubaidullah can’t be killed according to Shia fiqh. We read in ‘Man la yahdaruhul faqih’

روى الحسن بن محبوب، عن علي بن رئاب، عن محمد بن قيس عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: ” لا يقاد مسلم بذمي في القتل ولا في الجراحات، ولكن يؤخذ من المسلم في جنايته للذمي بقدر جنايته على الذمي على قدر دية الذمي ثمانمائة درهم

Imam Baqir said : A Muslim is not killed if he kills a Dhimmi, or injures him, but the compensation will be taken from the Muslim in return for the injustice with the Dhimmi, according to the Diyyah of the Dhimmi, which is 800 Dirhams.
Man la yahdaruhul faqih, Narration # 5248

Secondly, Ubaidullah was a free person, and the daughter of Abu Luluah was a slave, and in Shia fiqh, a Free Muslim can’t be killed for killing a slave.
We read in Man la yahdaruhul faqih:

وروى عثمان بن عيسى، عن سماعة عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: ” يقتل العبد بالحر، ولا يقتل الحر، بالعبد، ولكن يغرم قيمته ويضرب ضربا شديدا حتى لا يعود

Imam Jafar said : A slave will be killed for killing a free person, but a free person will not be killed for killing a slave, he will pay the compensation, and he will be hit hard so that he doesn’t repeat it.
Man la yahdaruhul faqih, Narration # 5260

Trying to prove the faith of Abu Lulu by his presence in the Mosque:

RTS says :

In summary we have evidenced that when the companions would stand in congregational prayer they would do so in an upright standing position. Umar Ibn Al-Khattab would inspect the rows so as to ensure that no gaps existed between worshippers, and would only then lead the congregation in prayer. With this in mind, was the presence of a Zoroastrian not a gap for Umar and the Companions? Wouldn’t anyone consider the presence of a Zoroastrian man in the ranks of worshippers as a defect in the congregational prayer? What is yet more perplexing is that Aboo Lu’lu’ah, a Zoroastrian came and stood within the ranks of the worshippers wearing his shoes whilst praying the dawn prayer. Would this not have attracted the ire of anyone? Or was it Sunnah for non Muslims to come inside the mosque wearing shoes? How was Aboo Lu’lu’ah able to place himself in the first line of prayers and read directly behind Umar without being challenged for it? Some may say that Aboo Lu’lu’ah entered the masjid in a clandestine manner, however, this would only be achieved had he entered with his face covered thus ensuring he was not recognisable. This however is completely implausible, any individual covering his face making his way towards the head of state would most likely arouse suspicion. Such a person would be challenged, searched or even arrested for the possibility of having been in possession of an offensive weapon. As a minimum, he would have been taken away from the scene.

Aboo Dawood:   Narrated Aboo Hurayrah: The Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade trailing garments during prayer and that a man should cover his mouth. Aboo Dawood said: This tradition has also been narrated by ‘Isi on the authority of ‘Ata’ from Abu Hurayra: The Prophet (saws) forbade trailing garments during prayer.
Footnote: Narration Hasan (Reliable).
Source: Saheeh Sunan Aboo Dawood. Vol. 1, Pg. # 2, H. 643

RTS must have a hard time believing all the complexities involved in the secret missions carried out by the spies around the world. Abu Luluah’s case is much simpler, he didn’t need an elaborate disguise nor did he require fake passports and a secret identity… all he needed was the Arabic head wear called “Taylasaan”, in which one can easily hide his face without covering it. Look at the image below.

150469423

The hadith that RTS has presented only talks about covering the face, which is a different thing. Look at the image below to have some idea.

123

The second picture does arouse suspician but the first one doesn’t arouse suspician in the Arab countries, for it is a norm over there. Secondly, Abu Luluah performed this heinous act in the Fajar (Dawn) prayer, and we know that it is difficult to recognize the faces at this time. Look at the following tradition from Sahih Bukhari

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ، حَدَّثَنَا فُلَيْحٌ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، رضى الله عنها أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ يُصَلِّي الصُّبْحَ بِغَلَسٍ فَيَنْصَرِفْنَ نِسَاءُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، لاَ يُعْرَفْنَ مِنَ الْغَلَسِ، أَوْ لاَ يَعْرِفُ بَعْضُهُنَّ بَعْضًا‏.‏

Narrated `Aisha: Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer when it was still dark and the believing women used to return (after finishing their prayer) and nobody could recognize them owing to darkness, or they could not recognize one another.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 872; Sahih Bukhari English translation: Vol. 1, Book 12, Hadith 831

This narration proves that the Muslims would pray when it was still dark, and the people couldn’t be recognized.

Thirdly, praying with shoes on is something on which there is difference of opinion, because there are reports in which it is proven that the early Muslims did pray with their shoes on. Hence this should not be a problem and just because Abu Luluah was praying with his shoes on, we can’t automatically come to the conclusion that he was a Kafir, so how can the Muslims present at that time have any problem with it? Fourthly, Umar would look at the feet of the people, and he would not look at the faces of the people praying behind him since he wanted ony to straighten the rows of the people just like the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to do. There are lots of other possibilities which I don’t care to mention because everyone can realize that was not difficult at all during that time, and what I have mentioned is already sufficient.

Was Abu Luluah a Christian or a Zaroastrian?

There are two narrations which RTS has posted on its website regarding whether Abu Luluah was a  Christian or Zaroastrian.

Abd al-Barr: narrated from Khalf Bin Qasim told us Hassan bin Rasheeq told Dolaabi told Muhammad ibn Hameed told us Alee bin Mujahid who said, “We had difference in regards to the personality of Aboo Lu’lu’ah, some claimed: He was a Majoosi (Zoroastrian). Others said: He was a Christian, so Aboo Sanan reported us on the authority of Saeeb Ibn Sinan on the authority of Aboo Ishaq Al-Hamdani on the authority of Amr Ibn Maymun Al-Awdi, who said: “Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a Christian who stabbed Umar with a dagger with two heads (to the blade), once he injured Umar he stabbed another thirteen men (companions) in the Masjid until he was captured, once he was capture he committed suicide.
Source: Al-Istiab. Vol. 3, Pg. # 1155

The other narration is from Mujam al Awsat

حدثنا أحمد قال حدثنا سعيد بن سليمان الواسطي قال حدثنا مبارك بن فضالة قال حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمر عن نافع عن بن عمر قال : لما طعن أبو لؤلؤة عمر طعنه طعنتين فظن عمر أن له ذنبا في الناس لا يعلمه فدعا بن عباس وكان يحبه ويدنيه ويستمع منه فقال له أحب أن نعلم عن ملأ من الناس كان هذا فخرج بن عباس فجعل لا يمر بملأ من الناس إلا وهم يبكون فرجع إليه فقال يا أمير المؤمنين ما أتيت على ملأ من المسلمين إلا وهم يبكون كأنما فقدوا اليوم أبكار أولادهم فقال من قتلني قال أبو لؤلؤة المجوسي عبد المغيرة بن شعبة قال بن عباس فرأيت البشر في وجهه فقال الحمد لله الذي لم يبتلني بقول أحد يحاجني بقول لا إله إلا الله

Abdullah Ibn Umar said: “When Aboo Lu’lu’ah stabbed Umar he stabbed him twice. Umar was thinking that maybe he done injustice to someone amongst the people – so he (Umar) called Ibn Abbas who loved, adored and listened to him, then he (Umar) said: “O Ibn ‘Abbas! Find out who attacked me.” Ibn Abbas kept on looking here and there and found no one but people crying, he then said to Umar, “O Amir Al-Mu’minin (commander of the faithful) I’ve seen no one except people crying as if they have lost their first born children today.” Umar asked: “Who killed me?” Ibn Abbas said: Aboo Lu’lu’ah the Majoosi (Zoroastrian), the slave of Al-Mughira.” Ibn Abbas said: “I saw happiness in the face of Umar.” On that Umar said: “‘Praise be to Allah Who did not make my decree of death to be at the hands of a man who claimed Islam.
Source: Mu’jam al-Awsat, Vol. 1, p. 151, Tradition # 579

This narration is hasan, Ahmad ibn Qasim is thiqah, Saeed ibn Sulayman is thiqah, Mubarak ibn Fudhala is Hasan ul hadith , Ubaidullah ibn Umar is thiqah, and Nafi is thiqah who narrates from Abdullah ibn Umar. al-Haythami has also declared this narration as Hasan in Majma ul Zawaid, Vol. 9, p. 51

According to the authentic hadith as is present in Mujam al Awsat, Abu Luluah was a Zaroastrian. The other hadith which ibn Abdul Barr has mentioned in his book ‘al-Istiab’ is weak because it contains a Liar, i.e Ali ibn Mujahid.

wal-Salamu `Aleykum,

 

2 Comments

  1. I am surprised by baseless faith and beliefs, on the one hand who disrespects ashabe rasool are rafdhi and on the other hand Muawiyah. and Ayesha despite fighting jange siffin and jange jamal respectively with caliph of the time Imam Ali a.s. who was also sahabi are addressed as raziallah more over muawiyah killed ayesha and conspired and got Imam Ali a.s. killed through ibne muljim is not kafir what a nonsense baseless faith is this?

    • What’s baseless is your claim that Mu`awiyah killed `A’ishah and that he ordered Ibn Muljam to assassinate `Ali. As for the Fitnah we say may Allah forgive them their mistake and reward them for their intentions. Abu Lu’lu’ah however was not a man with good intentions.

      We suggest you quit seeking knowledge from random blogs and forum posts, the writers are often unqualified.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*