A group of Muslims accuse the Shias of being misguided, as among
other so-called deviations, Shias reject the most authentic book of the
Sunnis – Sahih-e-Bukhari.
While we do not wish to delve on the reliability or lack thereof of
Sahih-e-Bukhari at this stage, we believe this is a perfect case of the
kettle calling the pot black.
The question these Muslims need to ask themselves is whether they
themselves believe in Sahih-e-Bukhari. If indeed the book is the most
authentic book of the Sunnis after the Holy Quran and among its
so-called ‘sisters’, then why do we find so many traditions of the
Sahih-e-Bukhari being summarily rejected by these Muslims. And yet they
have the audacity of accusing Shias of rejecting it. Maybe if they
themselves believed in Sahih-e-Bukhari, their accusations would have
some merit and make the Shias look at the book more closely. It is the
rejection of these Muslims of their own most reliable source that makes
the Shias reject Sahih-e-Bukhari.
كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِندَ اللَّهِ أَن تَقُولُوا مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ
It is most hateful to Allah that you should say that which you do not do.’ (Surah Saff (61): Verse 3)
Our claim that Sunnis reject Sahih-e-Bukhari might sound absurd to
some Muslims. After all, Sahih-e-Bukhari is the most authentic book of
the Sunnis and is widely quoted on matters of beliefs, jurisprudence
(fiqh), history and ethics.
The point over here is whether Muslims believe in all traditions of
Sahih-e-Bukhari or just carefully select the ones that suit their
objectives and gloss over the ones that go against their view. If indeed
Sahih-e-Bukhari is the sister of the Quran according to these Muslims,
all traditions of the book must be accepted regardless of whether they
go in their favour or against them. After all, we believe in the Quran
in toto and don’t take verses that suit our objectives and reject the
others. Likewise, its sister (Sahih-e-Bukhari) must be meted the same
level of acceptance by the Muslims.
An engaging debate between a great Shia scholar with a Sunni scholar will prove our point.
Debate between Shaikh Bahai and a Sunni scholar
During his journey to Egypt Shaikh Bahai got acquainted with a Sunni
scholar who was antagonistic towards the Ahle Bait (a.s). Given the
environment of Egypt and its hostility towards Shias and the Ahle Bait
(a.s.), this was not altogether surprising and it only made the Shaikh
careful about protecting his own identity as a Shia.
The Sunni scholar got close to Shaikh Bahai and among other subjects
they discussed the Shias, who the Sunni scholar referred to as Raafizis
(deniers of the Sunni caliphs). Shaikh Bahai, who for all practical
purposes posed as a person following the Sunnah (Sunni) used to tell the
Sunni scholar that in Mecca he had opportunities of interacting with
the Shia Raafizis. On this the Sunni scholar told him that the faith of
the Raafizis was absolutely wrong and that they didn’t have any proof
for the veracity of their beliefs. He asked Shaikh Bahai if he was able
to convince any of the Raafizis.
Shaikh Bahai informed him that he tried hard to convince them, but in
the end they would pose a question to him that overturned all his
arguments. The Sunni scholar asked in surprise that being such a learned
scholar why he wasn’t able to suitably answer their question. To this
Shaikh Bahai replied:
During our debates they would challenge that in Sahih-e-Bukhari there is a tradition where the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had said:
Fatima (s.a.) is a part of me, one who troubles her has troubled me!
Shaikh Bahai told the Sunni scholar that the Shias in Mecca told him
that there were certain personalities on whom there is Allah’s curse as
they had troubled Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and she departed from the world
unhappy with these persons. There was a tradition to this effect in the
Sahih-e-Bukhari five pages after the previous tradition. Due to this
argument Shaikh Bahai was helpless in countering the Shias in Mecca.
The Sunni scholar countered – They are liars! There is nothing like
this in Sahih-e-Bukhari! Tonight I will read the book and rebut their
objection by the morning
The next morning the Sunni scholar approached Shaikh Bahai and said –
I told you the Shia Raafizis are blatant liars. They said that the
second tradition is after five pages from the first tradition. They are
wrong; it is after seven pages from the first tradition. Saying he left
as if he had scored a victory over the Shias!
(Both the traditions are sourced from Sahih-e-Bukhari, vol. 4, Book
of Initiation of Creation, Chapter of the Excellence of the Prophet’s
(s.a.w.a.) Relatives, Chapter of Fatima’s (s.a.) Virtues)
Now there will be some who will deny this debate accusing the Shias
of concocting it. While the debate is real, even if one were to treat it
as a fabrication, the two traditions under question from
Sahih-e-Bukhari are very real and by no means a fabrication.
Defending Abu Bakr in a lost cause
Of course not all Sunni scholars are like the Egyptian counterpart of
Shaikh Bahai, who rejected the tradition of Sahih-e-Bukhari outright.
These Sunni scholars know that Abu Bakr is in a corner by rejecting the
claim of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and incurring her displeasure and in this
way being the subject of Allah’s and the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) eternal
displeasure. They have tried to defend Abu Bakr by countering that Abu
Bakr did not want to conclude the matter on the testimony of a lone
individual although he was personally convinced about the witness’s
honesty in this regard. (Sharh al-Mawaaqif vol 8, pg 356 by Al-Jurjani).
Again these scholars are trapped by their ignorance of
Sahih-e-Bukhari underscoring that Sunni scholars themselves haven’t
studied the book in detail else they would not be making such
fundamental errors in interpretations of laws.
In the 3rd volume of Sahih Bukhari pg 143 there is an incident
wherein the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) concluded a matter on the lone
testimony of Abdullah b. Umar.
Are the scholars going all out to defend Abu Bakr implying that Abu
Bakr was more cautious than the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Abdullah b.
Umar was a more reliable witness than Fatima Zahra (s.a.)?
Why was it not important to tread the Sunnah of the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) in this regard and accept the lone testimony of Fatima (s.a.)
or Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.)?
Is following the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) an option that one exercises depending on what suits his own interests?
In conclusion
The aforementioned traditions highlight some important points most
conclusive in nature since no less a book than Sahih-e-Bukhari has
recorded them:
1. Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was displeased with the Shaikhain (Abu Bakr
and Umar) and never spoke to them ever again after the talks on Fadak
failed. Therefore to conclude everything was hunky dory between Fatima
Zahra (s.a.) and Shaikhain is false. The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) household
of which Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was the most important member along with
Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) did not have a good rapport with the companions
and were displeased with them.
2. Not only Fatima, even the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was displeased with
the Shaikhain as the tradition clearly states one who displeases Fatima
Zahra (s.a.) has incurred the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) displeasure.
3. Allah Himself is displeased with the Shaikhain as the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) was displeased with them both as Allah declares in the 57th
verse of Surah Ahzaab (33):
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا
Surely (as for) those who displease Allah and His Apostle, Allah has
cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and He has prepared for
them a chastisement bringing disgrace.
It is clear that Abu Bakr and Umar had displeased the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) by virtue of displeasing Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and in this way
also incurred Allah’s Displeasure according to the aforementioned verse.
4. Some have erroneously, rather deliberately, concluded that in the
matter of Fadak, Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) was not upset with Abu Bakr
and Umar and remained silent out of respect for Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and
patched up relations with them after her demise. This mischievous
interpretation is another attempt to distort the truth and is wrong on
several counts the most important one being that when Allah and His
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) both of who are superior to Ali (a.s.) are displeased
on a matter (Abu Bakr and Umar), it does not behove even a common
Muslim to take a contrarian stand, let alone Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.)
whose sense of judgement between truth and falsehood was a benchmark for
the nation.
Also, these Muslims conceal the fact that Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.)
was the foremost witness to testify that Fadak was Fatima’s (a.s.)
property and his testimony was summarily rejected on the ground that he
was Fatima’s (s.a.) husband. Likewise, Hasan b. Ali’s (a.s.) testimony
was rejected as also of course Fatima’s (s.a.) testimony on one ground
or another. Under the circumstances, it is absurd to suggest that Ali b.
Abi Taalib (a.s.) was pleased with Abu Bakr and Umar when the two had
branded his entire family including him as liars unfit to provide a
simple testimony in a property dispute in contravention of
Ayat-e-Tatheer (Surah Ahzaab (33): Verse 33.
Ali b. Abi Taalib’s (a.s.) silence on Fadak and other issues was akin
to the silence of Haroon (a.s.), brother of Moosa (a.s.), in the matter
of the calf-worship, as he was afraid it would lead to divisions in the
community (Surah Taahaa (20): Verse 94). Rather it was more crucial for
Ali b. Abi Taalib (a.s.) to observe silence in the face of falsehood
since the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had departed from the nation for good,
unlike Hazrat Moosa (a.s.) who had departed only for a few days and was
expected to re-join Haroon (a.s.) and counter the falsehood of the
calf-worshippers.
Courtesy : http://www.seratonline.com/
