Sheikh Mumtaz-ul-Haqq was phoned for the second time publicly by a Shi'ah brother, this time discussing the topic of Adaalat-e-Sahaaba - Justice of the Companions. Sheikh Mumtaz as usual is worried, annoyed and left heartlessly bamboozled, when the Sh'iah asks him questions, and gives him references from important Sunni scriptures. Some of the main issues picked up in the debate was the discussion regarding the event of A'isha saying to Rasool-ul-Allah you smell of Maghafeer. This and the establishment of Surah Tahreem in the Quran too.
The Shi'ah goes on to discuss the virtues of the Companions in the based foundation that not all the 100000 companions of the Prophet (saws) would go to Heaven, rather are promised Heaven. In this article, we will see and analyse further points which were discussed, and in all honesty clearly see some of the key features which weren't examined fully and not even touched by our Shi'ah brother - in all honesty! There was a point in between the discussion which the Sheikh raised with great authority, he presented Surah Al-Fath's verse number 1 and 2, regarding the fact that this serves as a proof, that Rasool-ul-Allah (saws) once was a sinner, through the understanding of the verse.
Now obviously this isn't true at all, we true Shias believe that Prophet Muhammed (saws) was never a sinner, and was a Ma'soom (Innocent), and can never sin, but on this issue raised by the Sheikh, our brother Shia caller in all honesty did stutter. That is why once someone really clever said this;
Before letting the opponent talk, make sure there is nothing left for him to talk but to admit and admire. - Mao Tse Tsung
But anyway, we insh'allah, will now focus on this point raised by the Shi'ah caller of A'isha calling Prophet (saws) something untrue, rather, claiming something to him which isn't true at all. Before we go anywhere, we need to highlight this word Maghafeer, I hope everyone is aware of this word fully, otherwise notifying the Hadith is useless.
We read in Fath-ul-Baari Bi- Sharha Saheeh Bukhari - فتح لبآريي بشرح صحيح بخاري - Al-Barraak Edition, Tayba Institution, Volume 12:
"Maghafeer is the plural of Mughfoor, and the Mughfoor is a nasty smelling sweet gum...and it is collected from the bushes that are used to feed camels."
In another tradition, it's called Urfut, let's see in the same book what Urfut means;
"Urfut is the tree who's gum is known as Maghafeer."
So we should now practically know what this thing Maghafeer is, for more info on this, refer to the excellent article by RevisitingTheSalaf team here at Section 1.
Moving on, what would you do to a person if he/she calls your mother something unimaginable and horrible? Strike back with the same words? Attack physically? Insult back and crossing the limits? Or, ignore? What do you think? What do you think happens when the master of this world is called something which he truly doesn't deserve? You expect thunderous reply! And angry gesture! A ruthless slap! A kind and a thoughtful procession of ignoring such lunacy! What?!"""£$
In all honesty, it isn't nice to say to a person anyway, that you stink or smell of some sort! Does A'isha require some manners to be taught here or what? This is such a huge accusation, that even the Bible rejects the unbelieving wives of Rasool-ul-Allah's claims! We will look at this later on. But or right now, we have an established fact that Maghafeer doesn't smell nice, at all! And just in case anyone hesitates to even claim this whole event of A'isha and Hafsah calling Prophet (saws) something bad, lets see what Tafseer Ibn Katheer has for us regarding the Tafseer of Surah Tahreem (Ch. 66).
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
لِيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِن ذَنبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ وَيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَيَهْدِيَكَ صِرَاطًا مُّسْتَقِيمًا {2
048:002 Khan
These serve as a brilliant proof, that Prophet (saws) did not sin, as well as that fact that he is Ma'soom. This is obviously by the Shi'ah perspective, but for those Nawasib, whom degrade Rasool-ul-Allah (saws), there is a place in hell for them... This was a point which our Shi'ah caller seriously struggled on - in all honesty, just saying and reminding the Sheikh of staying on the line and path of the topic isn't enough - you need to debate at any angle if you can.
But even again, on this point, the Sheikh says that Allah will forgive Prophet's sins, but will Allah forgive the sins of his wives? Especially A'isha, for sure there is the mentioning of Rasool-ul-Allah's so called sins (Belief) forgiven, but will Allah forgive the sin which A'isha done? Come on man, you could have at least shed some light on that!! I would say to our brother Shi'ah caller;
"You're jumping the guns too much..."
The Sheikh even says the wrong chapter number, it's chapter 48 - Surah Al-Fath of Quran, not 49, 49 is Surah Hujraat.
Important concluding point:
I'm highly sorry if someone find my article a bit un-friendly, but hay, Guys! This was the reality which should have been the case in the discussed debate. And to this act of A'isha, there should have been the discussion of some of the actual acts of the Companions, what they did, before converting, what they did after converting to Islam (especially secretly under the watchful eye of Prophet Muhammed), what they did after Rasool-ul-Allah (saws) died, and what were their moral characteristics in regards to inspiration and ethics. For example, when you study the life of Umer ibn-Al-Kahattab, there were several cases, where he said some absolute rubbish, where he killed the daughter of the Prophet, where he and his friend Abu Bakr didn't do justice with Fatima Zahra (sa) in regards of Fadak... And much more... I believe this was an issue leading to many more, and probably the biggest one of this issues would have been the Fadak matter, where Fatima Zahra (sa) denied here property...
We can all learn from what we did not know - Mao Tse Tsung
Now obviously this isn't true at all, we true Shias believe that Prophet Muhammed (saws) was never a sinner, and was a Ma'soom (Innocent), and can never sin, but on this issue raised by the Sheikh, our brother Shia caller in all honesty did stutter. That is why once someone really clever said this;
Before letting the opponent talk, make sure there is nothing left for him to talk but to admit and admire. - Mao Tse Tsung
But anyway, we insh'allah, will now focus on this point raised by the Shi'ah caller of A'isha calling Prophet (saws) something untrue, rather, claiming something to him which isn't true at all. Before we go anywhere, we need to highlight this word Maghafeer, I hope everyone is aware of this word fully, otherwise notifying the Hadith is useless.
We read in Fath-ul-Baari Bi- Sharha Saheeh Bukhari - فتح لبآريي بشرح صحيح بخاري - Al-Barraak Edition, Tayba Institution, Volume 12:
"Maghafeer is the plural of Mughfoor, and the Mughfoor is a nasty smelling sweet gum...and it is collected from the bushes that are used to feed camels."
In another tradition, it's called Urfut, let's see in the same book what Urfut means;
"Urfut is the tree who's gum is known as Maghafeer."
So we should now practically know what this thing Maghafeer is, for more info on this, refer to the excellent article by RevisitingTheSalaf team here at Section 1.
Moving on, what would you do to a person if he/she calls your mother something unimaginable and horrible? Strike back with the same words? Attack physically? Insult back and crossing the limits? Or, ignore? What do you think? What do you think happens when the master of this world is called something which he truly doesn't deserve? You expect thunderous reply! And angry gesture! A ruthless slap! A kind and a thoughtful procession of ignoring such lunacy! What?!"""£$
In all honesty, it isn't nice to say to a person anyway, that you stink or smell of some sort! Does A'isha require some manners to be taught here or what? This is such a huge accusation, that even the Bible rejects the unbelieving wives of Rasool-ul-Allah's claims! We will look at this later on. But or right now, we have an established fact that Maghafeer doesn't smell nice, at all! And just in case anyone hesitates to even claim this whole event of A'isha and Hafsah calling Prophet (saws) something bad, lets see what Tafseer Ibn Katheer has for us regarding the Tafseer of Surah Tahreem (Ch. 66).
You can read the full Tafseer of this Surah on that website, and see for yourself the reality of this event. It'clear and explicit. Before we go any further, I want to ask a question, in that screenshot, at the very bottom it says;
﴿إِن تَتُوبَآ إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَدْ صَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُمَا﴾
(If you both turn in repentance to Allah, your hearts are indeed so inclined;) in reference to `A'ishah and Hafsah.
Did A'isha and Hafsah then repent? If they did, where is its mentioning in any authentic Hadith or even in the Quran?
This is something which should have been the victim or absolute concentration and questioning, this is not any issue, this is Rasool-ul-Allah and his respect which we are talking about. Anyway, as I mentioned, even the Bible, refutes A'isha' hideous claim, we read in the Old Testament Song of Solomon, Chapter 5, verse 16:
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
This verse is reasonably accepted as a clear proof for the evidence of the mentioning of Prophet Muhammed (saws) in the Bible. Now, I'm not here to discuss this with the Non-Muslim phase right now, but this certainly will be in another post. But just have a look at what the verse says, His mouth is most sweet! Unbelievable is it not dear readers? I'll leave all the comments of your's to be the value of utter dignity for the claim of A'isha regarding Rasool-ul-Allah rejected by even the Bible! This should have at least been a victim of hint all in all in the discussion with the Sheikh... At least...
Turn to precisely 3:40
At this point, the Sheikh makes a lunatic event to actually say that the smell wasn't coming from Rasool-ul-Allah, but from something he had eaten. Now that we and the Sheikh know that the Oder of Maghafeer is not nice, he defends his mother through making a hideous claim and purely performing Qiyaas by saying the thing he (saws) had consumed (i.e. what the wives thought) was bad, not Rasool-ul-Allah. But again, as we saw in Tafseer Ibn Katheer, how can this;
smell unpleasant?
It's a basic question to be asked and answered, how on earth does Honey smell bad, honey is superb! Isn't it? Unless the Sheikh's mother gives a radical Fatwa of course... I'm pretty sure someth
ing fishy is going about... Again, this was an unbelievably foolish act by the Sheikh, and this must have been a down town thunder blast by our Shi'ah caller, that's a peach! These two points mentioned here absolutely murder the Sheikh's defense, yet he still continues to bark about the smell not being from the Prophet, but something he had eaten. Now what the Prophet had eaten has been examined through the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer, Honey, who in the world thinks honey has a bad smell, only Sheikh Mumtaz and his mother A'isha, otherwise he would've been the first to break his fast quietly with a jar of honey in the toilet! Anyway, he says that, and is rebutted by the Sh'iah caller through the reference of Saheeh Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 63, Hadeeth no. 193, that in the start of the narration, A'isha says to Raool-ul-Allah what is this bad smell which I smell from you and later on in the same narration, it goes on to say pretty much the same thing; what is this bad smell which I detect on you. This is a fine objection raised by the Shi'ah caller, it's clear and explicit, that A'isha is stating to the Prophet (saws) of the bad smell, this refutes the Sheikh in 3 points;
- It was a bad smell.
- The smell isn't attributed to the thing which Rasool-ul-Allah had drank/eaten.
- Whatever he had drank/eaten which A'isha accused of making Rasool-ul-Allah smell, wasn't smelling at all, it was honey - and this point has been emphasized.
Turn to precisely 5:25
At this point, yet again, in all honesty, the Sheikh picks up a good point, for once in his debates we are publicly witnessed to, but this point is invalidated to humility later on by some fantastic weaponry Ahadith - which our Shi'ah caller, yet again in all honesty, utterly fails to respond and stutter. The Sheikh presents Surah Al-Fath's verses 1-2 to show, well, hang on Mr, you are saying A'isha and Hafsah made some sins and mistakes, so did Rasool-ul-Allah (God forbid), as in the Quran, Allah states;
لِيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِن ذَنبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ وَيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَيَهْدِيَكَ صِرَاطًا مُّسْتَقِيمًا {2
048:002 Khan
:
That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future, and complete His Favour on you, and guide you on the Straight Path;048:002 Maulana
:
That Allah may cover for thee thy (alleged) shortcomings in the past and those to come, and complete his favour to thee and guide thee on a right path,048:002 Pickthal
:
That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path,048:002 Rashad
:
Whereby GOD forgives your past sins, as well as future sins, and perfects His blessings upon you, and guides you in a straight path.048:002 Sarwar
:
so that God will redeem the sins (which the pagans think you have committed against them) in the past or (you will commit) in the future. He will complete His favors to you, guide you to the right path,048:002 Shakir
:
That Allah may forgive your community their past faults and those to follow and complete His favor to you and keep you on a right way,048:002 Sherali
:
That ALLAH may cover up for thee thy shortcomings, past and future, and that HE may complete HIS favour upon thee on a right path;048:002 Yusufali
:
That Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow; fulfil His favour to thee; and guide thee on the Straight Way;
The Sheikh at this point really highlights the word ذَنبِكَ and tries to bring the attention of the Shi'ah caller here. Though this is marginally out of the context of the debate, we can still shut anyone up, as we are the knowledgeable ones, and try to become even more knowledgeable! Anyhow, I would like you to play the video call further on, and see for yourselves that there was hardly any strong reply to this actually very good claim from a very stupid man, which obviously we will prove stupid after all...
Regarding this we have several Ahadith in authentic Shi'ah books, with Isnaad (chain of transmission). Let's see;
[4] مجمع البيان 9: 168.
و ذكر الحديث، إلى أن قال: «و قد قال النبي (صلى الله عليه و آله) لعلي (عليه السلام): يا علي، إن الله تبارك و تعالى حملني ذنوب شيعتك ثم غفرها لي، و ذلك قوله عز و جل: لِيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ ما تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِكَ وَ ما تَأَخَّرَ».
And mentioned the Hadeeth, until heasws said: ‘And the Prophetsawwsaid to Aliasws : ‘O Aliasws ! AllahazwjBlessed and High Burdened mesaww with the sins of yourasws Shias, then Forgave them for mesaww, and these are the Words of the Mighty and Majestic [48:2] That Allah may Forgive you what has preceded from your sins and what is to follow’.[1]
علي بن إبراهيم: حدثنا محمد بن جعفر، قال: حدثنا محمد بن أحمد، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن علي بن النعمان، عن علي بن أيوب، عن عمر بن يزيد بياع السابري، قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله (عليه السلام): قول الله في كتابه: لِيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ ما تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِكَ وَ ما تَأَخَّرَ، قال: «ما كان له ذنب، و لا هم بذنب، و لكن الله حمله ذنوب شيعته ثم غفرها له».
Ali Bin Ibrahim, from Muhammad Bin Ja’far, from Muhammad Bin Ahmad, from Muhammad Bin Al-Husayn, from Ali Bin Al-No’man, from Ali Bin Ayoub, from Umar Bin Yazeed who said,
‘I said to Abu Abdullahasws , ‘(What about) the Words of Allahazwjin Hisazwj Book [48:2] That Allah may Forgive you what has preceded from your sins and what is to follow. Heasws said: ‘There was no sin on himsaww, nor was hesawwwith a sin, but Allahazwj burdened himsaww with the sins of hissawwShias, then Forgave them for hissaww sake’.[2]
قال شرف الدين النجفي: و يؤيده ما روي مرفوعا عن أبي الحسن الثالث (عليه السلام): أنه سئل عن قول الله عز و جل: لِيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ ما تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِكَ وَ ما تَأَخَّرَ، فقال (عليه السلام): و أي ذنب كان لرسول الله (صلى الله عليه و آله) متقدما أو متأخرا؟ و إنما حمله الله ذنوب شيعة علي (عليه السلام)، من مضى منهم و من بقي، ثم غفرها له».
Sharaf Al-Deen Al-Najafi said,
‘And it is supported by what has been reported from Abu Al-Hassanasws the Third having said about the Words of Allahazwj Mighty and Majestic [48:2] That Allah may Forgive you what has preceded from your sins and what is to follow, so heasws said: ‘And which sin was committed by Rasool-Allahsaww, before or after?’But rather, Allahazwj Burdened himsaww with the sins of the Shias of Aliasws , from the past among them and the ones who remain, then Forgave them on hissawwbehalf’.[3]
الطبرسي: روى المفضل بن عمر، عن الصادق (عليه السلام)، قال: سأله رجل، عن هذه الآية، فقال:«و الله ما كان له ذنب، و لكن الله سبحانه ضمن له أن يغفر ذنوب شيعة علي (عليه السلام) ما تقدم من ذنبهم و ما تأخر».
Al-Tabarsy – It has been reported by Al-MufazzAl-Bin Umar,
‘A man asked Al-Sadiqasws about this Verse, so heasws said: ‘By Allahazwj,there was no sin for himsaww, but Allahazwj the Glorious, Guaranteed himsawwthat Heazwj would Forgive the sins of the Shias of Aliasws , whatever had preceded from their sins and whatever is to follow’.[4][4] مجمع البيان 9: 168.
These serve as a brilliant proof, that Prophet (saws) did not sin, as well as that fact that he is Ma'soom. This is obviously by the Shi'ah perspective, but for those Nawasib, whom degrade Rasool-ul-Allah (saws), there is a place in hell for them... This was a point which our Shi'ah caller seriously struggled on - in all honesty, just saying and reminding the Sheikh of staying on the line and path of the topic isn't enough - you need to debate at any angle if you can.
But even again, on this point, the Sheikh says that Allah will forgive Prophet's sins, but will Allah forgive the sins of his wives? Especially A'isha, for sure there is the mentioning of Rasool-ul-Allah's so called sins (Belief) forgiven, but will Allah forgive the sin which A'isha done? Come on man, you could have at least shed some light on that!! I would say to our brother Shi'ah caller;
"You're jumping the guns too much..."
The Sheikh even says the wrong chapter number, it's chapter 48 - Surah Al-Fath of Quran, not 49, 49 is Surah Hujraat.
Important concluding point:
I'm highly sorry if someone find my article a bit un-friendly, but hay, Guys! This was the reality which should have been the case in the discussed debate. And to this act of A'isha, there should have been the discussion of some of the actual acts of the Companions, what they did, before converting, what they did after converting to Islam (especially secretly under the watchful eye of Prophet Muhammed), what they did after Rasool-ul-Allah (saws) died, and what were their moral characteristics in regards to inspiration and ethics. For example, when you study the life of Umer ibn-Al-Kahattab, there were several cases, where he said some absolute rubbish, where he killed the daughter of the Prophet, where he and his friend Abu Bakr didn't do justice with Fatima Zahra (sa) in regards of Fadak... And much more... I believe this was an issue leading to many more, and probably the biggest one of this issues would have been the Fadak matter, where Fatima Zahra (sa) denied here property...
We can all learn from what we did not know - Mao Tse Tsung
