Monday, October 23, 2017
Back to Mr. Qaddama’s Historical Confusion Before it’s Too Late. PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 09 January 2017 14:54

By Nasir Hashim
In his article entitled “Absolving Ahlulbayt” appeared 18th and 25th November, 2016 editions of Daily Trust Newspaper, Qaddama Sidq Isa blatantly and lopsidedly narrated a historical antecedent. I think Mr. Qaddama is motivated by the saying “if you want to hide your important secret from a Nigerians put it in a book”

This same Qaddama in 2015 wrote “The Foreign Dynamics of Zaria Crisis”. I sent my rejoinder to Daily Trust that carried his article, alas! It was not published. I had to send to him via his Email address and longed to see his reply in fiasco. For me, At best, Mr. Qaddama could be considered a bigot - at worst a mere bunkum writer. You can easily see his psychology even if you don’t have telescopic eyes. At any point, I cannot hesitate to say he is a pathological enemy of Shia and Shiism. From every indication he can do everything at his own capacity to harm Shiite in keeping with the demand of his Wahhabi ideology which guarantees that if you kill Shiites or Christian Allah will provide a place for you in the paradise.
Anyway, I don’t intend to present anything additional. Suffice to him Mr. Mahdi Garba’s rejoinder. I am only interested in correcting some misconceptions this way: It seems Mr. Qaddama and people like him believe that Shiites are saying: there was enmity between members of Ahlulbayt and some companions. This is wrong, for if you as a good Muslim cannot dare keep malice against any fellow Muslim, how do you expect such from the members of infallible household. Malice? No! In recorded history Imam Ali kept malice against none of the companions, instead, as the most educated he kept assisting them spiritually, politically, administratively, legally etc.
On several occasion, Hadrat Abubakar, Hadrat Umar, Hadrat Othman etc. used to consult him for answers to some difficult and obscure religious questions. For that reason, Caliph Umar was quoted saying “if not for Ali the son of Kattab would have gone astray”. However, I don’t mean to say they didn’t offend him. Of course they did; they took his right of succession (as per designation) to the throne of his brother Prophet Muhammad (SAW),but naturally, Ali would not want what could lead to chaos and disunity among Muslim community, especially, at that time when Islam was at a crescent stage. Thus, he tolerated them all although he knew they were wrong in their decisions and actions. Did Qaddama expect Ali to react like Mu’awutayya bn Abu Sufyan? Please, imagine what would have happened at that time when the religion was in dire need of fatherly and motherly care as an infant.
At this point in time, I wish to implore Mr. Qaddama and everybody that share his mindset to cast prejudice and bias behavior. “Qur’an says Hatred against people should not deprive from doing justice to them…………” Remember, as a sequel to the death of Caliph Othman bn Affan, at least two major battles took place each involving one group of companions against another. In opinion of most Sunni Scholars, both the groups were right. In fact, they said it was “ijtihad.”Logically, this means right + wrong = right. This is the point of divergence. While the Sunni Muslims say wrong is right and right is wrong the Shia Muslims say right is right and wrong is wrong (period). Please, look at the scenario here, A and B have a fight and both of them are right, is this possible? If this can be possible it can also be possible to say A is B and B is A. This is a logical fallacy and Shiites are not part of it. Whenever they are talking about companions of the holy prophet, the kind of picture that some Sunni mullahs try to create in the minds of people is indeed beyond human capacity. They say all the companions are perfect, impeccable and just. Human being is yet to produce a community in which all members are faultless. Such community can better exist in the world of fantasy. Unfortunately, even when common sense tells you something goes wrong; they go to any great length to give it a twisted justification. For example, when the holy prophet sent Abdullahi ibn Abbass to summon Mu’awuyya bn Abu-Sufyan, ibn Abass went and delivered the message but Mu’awuyya’s response was that he was having his lunch. The prophet sent ibn Abass again; Mu’awuyya repeated that he was having his lunch. Then the prophet uttered a praying saying, “may his belly never be full” Some Sunni Scholars offered a defence on behalf of Mu’awuyya, by saying probably, the sender, ibn Abass did not deliver the message. They failed to realise that any attempt to defend the wrong of one companion may lead to offending another, in most cases the prophet himself. Look at the above case carefully. If you said “Probably the sender did not deliver the message”, it meant ibn Abass was a liar. Again, it meant the prophet was not clever enough to realise that maybe ibn Abass did not deliver the message. In another incident, the prophet asked Imam Ali, “do you know the worst of people?” Ali replied yes – the killer of the she-camel of prophet Salih”. The prophet said, ‘you are right but there is another one – your killer” It happened Abdulrahman bn Muljam killed Ali at dawn in his mosque. Some Sunni scholars such as Imran bn Hittan countered the prophet’s word saying, “Abdulrahman bn Muljam was among the few God’s chosen righteous and pious Muslims by all standards”. Again, it was reported by many companions including Hadrat Aisha the prophet’s wife that holy prophet cursed and expelled Marwan and his father, Hakam thereby warning them never to make a comeback to the city of Medina. Shamelessly, some scholars such as ibn Taymiyya, ibn Abubakar Al-Makky etc. said that the prophet made that pronouncement in a state of anger, thus it has no validity in Sharia. Imam Bukhari did not hesitate to accept Hadith from this personality, Marwn bn Hakam. Yet, in opinion of the majority of Sunni Muslims, all Hadiths contained in Sahih Bukhari are un-questionable and authentic. For references, see the following books: [1] Ahmad bn Hambal: “Musnad”, [2] Ali ibn Abubakar Al-Hindi: “Kanzul Ummal”, [3] Ibn Abdulbarr: “Al-Istiab Fima’ariful Sahaba”, [4] Hythami: “Majma” , [5] Tabarani: “Mu’jam” [6] Imam Bukhari: “Sahih Bukhari”.
This is neither a folk tale nor opinion; it a historical fact backed by myriad of evidences as contained in the books of history written by Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims and some Christian historians.
The thing is that Shiites read every book that comes their way and as much as humanly possible give it a careful assessment with their minds open. They learn knowledge and respect and teach knowledge and respect devoid of any restriction since, there is no book on the planet earth written to be hidden in the bedroom or kept to add colour to the shelf of your library. The Sunni Sheikhs deny their followers reading Shiite books; conversely, the Shia Sheikhs encourage their followers to read all Sunni books on any subject-matter. I suppose the very instinct that triggers writing a book should trigger reading it. If Sunni brothers decide to read some books at the expense of others or read every book but give it a bias analysis, it their own problem, but it’s high time the propaganda that Shiites are insulting the prophet’s companions stopped. A little do i expect Mr. Qaddama to do me any “Gaddama” if he reads his books with his mind full of bias, prejudice and hatred against the people that share with him virtually everything save for issues of minor consideration? If as a graduate or holder of master degree in history or political science; you leave your books at home and run to Juma’at Mosque only to listen to a half- educated or glorified Mallam to give you an update of the global politics and analysis of the historical past just to be applauded “Allah Akbar!”, it is your own cup of tea. There is no thing I can do for you else than to say:
Peace and protection of Allah be upon the rightly guided.
Nasir Hashim Kawo Kaduna (08135295865)