Documents of the Right Word

the Ahl as-Sunna. Furthermore, hadrat ’Umar knew that hadrat
Abû Bekr’s caliphate was rightful and no one was against his
caliphate. It was the earliest days of Islam yet and the young tree
of religion and faith was sprouting. Those who attempted to
impair this rightful caliphatic order and thus to raise fitna and
confusion deserved to be killed. And yet hadrat ’Umar only tried
to dissuade them by verbal threat. Why should he be blamed for
it? Another appalling paradox is some Shiite scholars’ stating that
Zubeyr bin Awwâm, the son of Rasûlullah’s paternal aunt, was
among those youngsters who were threatened by hadrat ’Umar.
Do not these people ever think? How could it be possible that
Zubeyr bin Awwâm, who was some time later killed on account
of the harsh talks he made concerning the retaliation he and his
friends demanded upon the martyrdom of hadrat ’Uthmân, not
be blamed for being among the mutineers? While his arousing
fitna and attempting instigation in hadrat Fâtima’s house is
tolerated, why is it considered a grave felony for him to complain
about hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers in the presence of hadrat
Âisha and to demand retaliation against them ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’? These inconsistencies are all results of
wrong beliefs.
Performing the namâz in jamâ’at is for one’s personal benefit.
A person’s not joining the jamâ’at will not harm any other
Muslim. However, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’
threatened those who would not join the jamâ’at with pulling their
houses down on them. Then, why should it not be permissible for
hadrat ’Umar to threaten with burning their houses those
instigators whose mutiny would have otherwise infected all
Muslims and damaged Islam thoroughly? Our master the
Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ did not honour
hadrat Fâtima’s house with his blessed presence till after the
curtains with pictures of living creatures on them had been
removed. In fact, he would not enter Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama unless
the statues which were said to be of hadrat Ibrâhîm and hadrat
Ismâ’îl were taken out. Why should hadrat ’Umar be blamed for
threatening the instigators with “pulling the house down on them”
in order to dissuade them from arousing a strife near hadrat
Fâtima’s blessed and sacred thouse? If it should be said that he
should have observed the rules of manner and should not have
done this threat; no one can observe the rules of manner at times
of very important problems and serious dangers. For instance,
hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ did not observe the rules of manner
– 224 –