As we stated in the previous chapter, Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have made a big mistake by attempting to argue that Shi’ite hadeeth literature legitimises immorality. All that we have discussed leaves no doubt that Mut’ah is in no way immoral, and that it was sanctioned by Allah (swt) and His Prophet (s). Conversely, the Sunni hadeeth literature abounds with some of the most lurid and disgusting tales. The Sunni fiqh is, at times, even worse. Some notable examples of the public immorality of some companions and Sunni ‘ulama are given below, as well as some of the blasphemous stories attributed to the Holy Prophet (s) himself. For the sake of taste, we would normally not bring such issues up; but Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have uttered words of utter blasphemy against Allah, His Prophet, and His Religion, as well as forging numerous hadeeths against them. Since Dr. Salamah has decided to make a moral argument, than we will see how “moral” the Sunni belief system, hadeeth literature, and law is:
Shamsuddin Ibn Qayyim al Jawziya who is one of the only scholars that the Wahabis do not reject and who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya. Let us quote what he writes in his Bada’i al-Fuwa’id, page 129:
“Ibn ‘Aqeel, and many of our scholars, and our Shaykh [Ibn Taymiyya] have ruled that masturbation is makruh (disliked), and never explicitly said he that it was haram”.
Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 129
He then presents his own discussion on the conditions that make masturbation halaal:
“If a man is torn between continued desire or releasing it, and if this man does not have a wife or he has a slave-girl but he does not marry, then if a man is overwhelmed by desire, and he fears that he will suffer because of this (someone like a prisoner, or a traveller, or a pauper), then it is permissible for him to masturbate, and Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) is explicit on this. Furthermore, it is narrated that the Companions of the Prophet (s) used to masturbate while they were on military expeditions or travelling”.
The polytheists at the dawn of Islam must have been terrified by that scene: an army of pious companions, their pants nice and short, their beards stretching down to their wastes, their swords held high with one hand while they heartily masturbate with the other. If this was the type of scene going on, we might be able to understand why so many companions refused to go on jihad. Would Dr. Salamah march off to battle with only an army of masturbators to protect him? Or was this tactic of masturbatory jihad supposed to be some sort of an offensive stratagem, to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy? Indeed, these companions were masters at the art of war!
We appeal for justice: who is promoting debauchery, the Sunnis or the Shi’a? There are a lot of Ahkam surrounding travelling mentioned by the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as): the obligation to pray two rakaat for zuhr instead of four, or the obligation to break one’s fast. This Sunni ‘alim, who is one of the singularly most distinguished Sunni’ ulama and is adored by the Wahabis, has offered another hukm for travelling the permissibility of masturbating. And yet when a Shi’a says that a man is allowed to contract temporary marriage in order to satisfy his desires, Dr. Salamah passes a hukm of takfir. One is allowed to masturbate but not contract a temporary marriage? Is this not the peak of insanity?
After this ingenious fatwa, Ibn Qayyim then goes on to make permissible the use of a dildoe by women. It is only logical; when the husbands leave to go masturbate and spread Islam by the sword, they need something to do with themselves. On the same page as quoted above, Ibn Qayyim writes:
“If a woman does not have a husband, and her lust becomes strong, then some of our scholars say: It is permissible for the woman to take an akranbij, which is a piece of leather worked until it becomes shaped like a penis, and insert it in herself. She may also use a cucumber”.
Now, according to Dr. Salamah’s logic, the Saudi government should therefore purchase a large number of such dildoes, and distribute them to old widows or otherwise unattractive women who cannot marry. Since anything that is permissible, according to Dr. Salamah, requires stand sanction and support, than clearly a dildoe distribution office needs to be immediately established in the great Islamic state of Saudi Arabia.
Maybe this is another reason why ‘Umar the Khalifa never went on jihad: somebody had to stay behind and organize the cucumber distribution.
That was not a typographical error. Ibn Qayyim continues this discussion, which exemplifies the morals espoused by Sunni Islam:
“If a man makes a hole in a watermelon, or a piece of dough, or a leather skin, or a statue, and has sex with it, then this is the same as what we have said about other types of masturbation [i.e., that it is halaal in the same circumstances given before, such as being on a journey]. In fact, it is easier than masturbating with one’s hand”.
All the Muslims should certainly be grateful that Ibn Qayyim has offered this advice on the easiest way to masturbate, and clearly Ibn Qayyim has done a lot of personal research on this issue. This is the ruling of the “saved sect”: Contracting temporary marriage with a woman is haram, but contracting temporary marriage with a watermelon is halaal. In his defence, perhaps Ibn Qayyim only meant that it is allowed to marry a watermelon with the intent of divorcing it, for doing Mut’ah with a watermelon would clearly be an act of fornication.
Let us remember the words of Dr. Salamah quoted at the beginning of this book:
Mut’ah, on the other hand, is an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford. The women who engage in Mut’ah are hired women; thus, it can be performed with all women irrespective of their age, character, conduct or religion. It requires no witnesses, nor is there any obligation on the man’s part to provide food and shelter to the woman.
Really, we have to ask all reasonable Muslims: would you rather follow ‘ulama that rule on the permissibility of having sex with fruits and vegetables, or follow the pious path of the Holy Imams (as), of whom Allah (swt) has said:
We intend, O Family of the Prophet, to remove from you all impurity, and to give you a through purification.
Al-Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 33
Does somebody who spends his time thinking about whether or not it is permissible to have sex with watermelons really sound like somebody who has been removed of all impurity? Why is Ibn Qayyim even thinking about such things? What kind of personal life does such a person have that would lead him to debate such issues in his mind? What happened in Ibn Qayyim’s life that one day he woke up and said: “I really need to find out if its halaal to have sex with watermelons.” Is the type of clergymen who openly rules for the permissibility of having sex with watermelons (with conditions, of course, such as that one is on a journey) be the kind of person you would want to meet in a dark alley, much less do taqlid of?
We read in Sahih Muslim Hadith Number 3426:
Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. ‘Amr came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.
Whilst we note today's advocates of Aisha insisting that this entitlement was just limited to that of Sahl and a precedent for adult precedent wasn't set, ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya sets the record straight in Zaad Al-Mi'aad, Volume 5 page 527:
The third opinion:
Hadith of Sahla is neither abrogated nor it is exclusive, nor general for every individual. It is rather a permission for when the need arises for someone who cannot leave when visiting a woman, and it is hard for the woman to always cover herself from that man, as was the case between Salim and the wife of Abi Hudhaifah, so when such an adult is breastfed by the woman for that, the need for Radha'a (i.e. becoming Mahram by breastfeeding) is valid, but in circumstances other than this case, it is not valid with the exception of the breastfeeding of a minor. And this is the opinion of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyya, may Allah be pleased with him, and the narrations that negate the breastfeeding of adults are either absolute which would become conditional with the narration of Sahla, or are general in certain situations, so making them exclusive for this case would be amongst them, and this opinion is better than believing in its abrogation, or believing in its exclusivity for a particular individual, and this opinion is nearer to act upon all these narrations from both sides, and the rules of Islamic law bears witness to it, and Allah is the bestower of success.
Aisha deemed this as a subject close to her heart and impressed on her adherents to believe in it and offer up their bosoms to facilitate this noble cause. In this regards we have ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya in Zaad Al-Mi'aad, pages 521-522 expounding on her obsession with this subject matter opined as follows:
the 4th proof: verily Aisha was heavily involved with this subject matter, she used to act upon it and would debate people on it and would invite her female companions to do it, Aisha was very interested in this topic, so how could this verdict (i.e. suckling an adult) have become abrogated so that it was completely removed from the religion? Was she ignorant of this? Why didn't those from amongst the wives of the Prophet(saw) notify her of this abrogation?"
so we learn the following from this text
1. Aisha was an open advocate of adult breast feeding
2. Aisha debated people on its legitimacy
3. Aisha acted upon it (implemented it herself) and encouraged other women to do likewise
How Aisha acted upon it when she never attained motherhood is something that can be discussed by her advocates, what we do know is such was her support for this practice she encouraged women to partake in it. In this regards, Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Malik records this narration in his Muwatta Book 30, Hadith 12:
حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، أَنَّهُ سُئِلَ عَنْ رَضَاعَةِ الْكَبِيرِ، فَقَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ أَبَا حُذَيْفَةَ بْنَ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ رَبِيعَةَ، وَكَانَ، مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَكَانَ قَدْ شَهِدَ بَدْرًا وَكَانَ تَبَنَّى سَالِمًا الَّذِي يُقَالُ لَهُ سَالِمٌ مَوْلَى أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ كَمَا تَبَنَّى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم زَيْدَ بْنَ حَارِثَةَ وَأَنْكَحَ أَبُو حُذَيْفَةَ سَالِمًا وَهُوَ يَرَى أَنَّهُ ابْنُهُ أَنْكَحَهُ بِنْتَ أَخِيهِ فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتَ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ رَبِيعَةَ وَهِيَ يَوْمَئِذٍ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرَاتِ الأُوَلِ وَهِيَ مِنْ أَفْضَلِ أَيَامَى قُرَيْشٍ فَلَمَّا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فِي كِتَابِهِ فِي زَيْدِ بْنِ حَارِثَةَ مَا أَنْزَلَ فَقَالَ {ادْعُوهُمْ لآبَائِهِمْ هُوَ أَقْسَطُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَعْلَمُوا آبَاءَهُمْ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَمَوَالِيكُمْ} رُدَّ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ أُولَئِكَ إِلَى أَبِيهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يُعْلَمْ أَبُوهُ رُدَّ إِلَى مَوْلاَهُ فَجَاءَتْ سَهْلَةُ بِنْتُ سُهَيْلٍ وَهِيَ امْرَأَةُ أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ وَهِيَ مِنْ بَنِي عَامِرِ بْنِ لُؤَىٍّ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَتْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كُنَّا نَرَى سَالِمًا وَلَدًا وَكَانَ يَدْخُلُ عَلَىَّ وَأَنَا فُضُلٌ وَلَيْسَ لَنَا إِلاَّ بَيْتٌ وَاحِدٌ فَمَاذَا تَرَى فِي شَأْنِهِ فَقَالَ لَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " أَرْضِعِيهِ خَمْسَ رَضَعَاتٍ فَيَحْرُمُ بِلَبَنِهَا " . وَكَانَتْ تَرَاهُ ابْنًا مِنَ الرَّضَاعَةِ فَأَخَذَتْ بِذَلِكَ عَائِشَةُ أُمُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فِيمَنْ كَانَتْ تُحِبُّ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ عَلَيْهَا مِنَ الرِّجَالِ فَكَانَتْ تَأْمُرُ أُخْتَهَا أُمَّ كُلْثُومٍ بِنْتَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقِ وَبَنَاتِ أَخِيهَا أَنْ يُرْضِعْنَ مَنْ أَحَبَّتْ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ عَلَيْهَا مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَأَبَى سَائِرُ أَزْوَاجِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ يَدْخُلَ عَلَيْهِنَّ بِتِلْكَ الرَّضَاعَةِ أَحَدٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَقُلْنَ لاَ وَاللَّهِ مَا نَرَى الَّذِي أَمَرَ بِهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم سَهْلَةَ بِنْتَ سُهَيْلٍ إِلاَّ رُخْصَةً مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي رَضَاعَةِ سَالِمٍ وَحْدَهُ لاَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ يَدْخُلُ عَلَيْنَا بِهَذِهِ الرَّضَاعَةِ أَحَدٌ فَعَلَى هَذَا كَانَ أَزْوَاجُ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي رَضَاعَةِ الْكَبِيرِ
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that he was asked about the suckling of an older person. He said, ''Urwa ibn az-Zubayr informed me that Abu Hudhayfa ibn Utba ibn Rabia, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who was present at Badr, adopted Salim (who is called Salim, the mawla of Abu Hudhayfa) as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, adopted Zayd ibn Haritha. He thought of him as his son, and Abu Hudhayfa married him to his brother's sister, Fatima bint al-Walid ibn Utba ibn Rabia, who was at that time among the first emigrants. She was one of the best unmarried women of the Quraysh. When Allah the Exalted sent down in His Book what He sent down about Zayd ibn Haritha, 'Call them after their true fathers. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah. If you do not know who their fathers were then they are your brothers in the deen and your mawali,' (Sura 33 ayat 5) people in this position were traced back to their fathers. When the father was not known, they were traced to their mawla.
"Sahla bint Suhayl who was the wife of Abu Hudhayfa, and one of the tribe of Amr ibn Luayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, 'Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me while I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram by it.' She then saw him as a foster son. A'isha umm al-muminin took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see her. She ordered her sister, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and the daughters of her brother to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her. The rest of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, 'No! By Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No! By Allah! No one will come in upon us by such nursing!'
"This is what the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, thought about the suckling of an older person."
These references are a special gift for Dr Salamah who has accused the Shi’a of being filthy proponents of Mut’ah, what right do you have to attack us when have the above Fatwa of Ayesha allowing your women to suckle men with beards so as to make them mahram? Whatever criticisms the Shia have towards Aisha, one thing we cannot deny is on this issue of adult breast feeding, so firm was her belief in it, she exhibited a notable determination, so no one could accuse her of hypocrisy since (as per Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya) she and her relations quite literally led and fed by example. Whilst most people would feel reluctant to implement this, Aisha encouraged her own sister and nieces to suckle men, as a means via which they could thereafter visit Aisha and converse with her.
Dr Salamah, how many pubescent Salafi men has your mother suckled so that they can enter your house? When your madhab allows your mothers / daughters to breast feed men with beards what gives you the right to attack the practise of Mut’ah? If today any Nasibi tries to suggest that this practice no longer exists in their school and it was only Ayesha who had issued the fatwa then we shall present the thoughts of their Imam Ibn Tamiyah as quoted by one of the revered scholars of Salafies Ibn Uthaimeen:
“Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymia (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) chosed to explain in details and said that if the breast suckling by an adult was necessary and he suckled, then the prohibition (of marriage) is established.”
Fatawa Nur Ala Aldarb, Volume 10 page 204
Imam Ibn Hazm records:
“The breast suckling by an adult prohibits (marriage) even if he is an old man just like it prohibits (marriage) in the case of suckling by a child”
Al-Muhala, Volume 10 page 17
Now compare this morality to the comments of a contemporary Salafi scholar from “Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women” compiled by Muhammed al-Musnad and translated by Jamal Zarabozo. In Chapter 19, Questions of a Miscellaneous Nature under the sub heading Ruling Concerning Women Driving Automobiles’, Imam of the Salafi Nasibi Shaykh bin Baz stated:
There have been numerous questions concerning the ruling of women driving automobiles. The response is the following:
There is no doubt that such is not allowed. Women driving leads to many evils and negative consequences. Included among these is her mixing with men without her being on her guard. It also leads to the evil sins due to which such an action is forbidden. The Pure Law forbids those acts that lead to forbidden acts and considers those means to be forbidden also. Allah has ordered the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the women of the believers to remain in their houses, to wear hijab and not to display their adornments to non-mahram males as that leads to promiscuity that overruns a society.
Now on the one side these moralistic Salafi have this kind of fatawa prohibiting their women from (Allah forbid) driving a car as this may cause promiscuity, and on the other hand they deem it permissible for their women to suckle men with beards! Women driving ‘leads to many evils and negative consequences’, but if the same women were to remain at home suckling men with beards, that’s fine!
Sunni Imam Abu Bakar al-Kashani (d. 587 H) records in his authority work ‘Badaye al-Sanae’ Volume 2 page 216:
“If he had sexual intercourse with an animal, that will not make his hajj void”
In Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603:
“It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: “What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an “Ammah” whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible”.
Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603
Not to be hard done by, the Hanafi’s follow suit. In Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820, the learned Hanafi scholar Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan sets out those acts that do not invalidate one’s fast, and he includes:
“Sex with animals, dead people and masturbation, does not invalidate one’s fast provided ejaculation does not occur”
What can we say about such Fatwas of morality? Fasting in Islam, is viewed as a means via which a believer purifies himself, via self-discipline, he dedicates that time to the remembrance of Allah (swt) and keeps aloof from sinful thoughts and acts. That is the theory, but the Hanbali and Hanafi madhab allows a man (whilst fasting) to have sex with kaffir women, animals, and dead people, the only proviso being that no ejaculation takes place! Ibn Hanbal was however more considerate to his adherents allowing for a man to ejaculate whilst fasting, providing the deed is achieved via masturbation, and to this end he can do it himself, or seek the help of his wife or a small child! Is this is not evidence that Ibn Hanbal was endorsing paedophilia? Would any decent man (Muslim or Non Muslim) find it appropriate to use a child for sexual stimulation? If we put together these type of fatwas one shudders to think of the image of these great Salaf, entering the war whilst fasting, their buttocks exposed, having sex with melons at the ready. This image would have terrified the opposition!
Imam Fakhruddin Hasan Bin Mansoor al-Uzjandi al-Farghani, commonly known as Qazi Khan, was a Hanafi Mufti and scholar; compiler of a large number of essential juristic works and commentaries of Hanafi Fiqh. In his famous work Al-Fatawa Al-Hindiyyah Volume 1, page 15 states the following ruling:
“And penetrating an animal or a dead body and a child that cannot bear penetration does not make Ghusl obligatory if he does not ejaculate as mentioned in Al-Muhit, but the correct opinion is that if he is able to penetrate the small child in the place of intercourse and does not cause her ifdhaa (i.e. tearing the tissue between vagina and anus and making them one canal), then she counts as a woman that can bear intercourse as it is mentioned in Al-Siraj Al-Wahhaj”.
Along the same lines let us introduce the Hanafi scholar Allamah Abdul Shakoor Farooqi Luknawi who penned a book called Uloom al Fiqha. On the very front of the book, its importance to common folk is stressed as :
"a complete six parts of the Islamic principles and challenges that every Muslim encounters during the day and night this book brings together the authoritative works and has been presented in simple Urdu"
Now this in mind ponder over these edicts that appear in the chapter "Those scenarios wherein an obligatory bath is not required at page 119:
4. If a man inserts his penis into the sexual organ or anus of a corpse or an animal or if he inserts their penises into his own anus there is no obligation on him to perform the compulsary bath PROVIDED he doesn't orgasm. Similarly if a woman inserts into her vagina or anus the penis of a corpse or an animal, a dead body, a stick, fingers or any other foreign object there is no obligation on her to perform the compulsary bath PROVIDED she doesn't orgasm
5. If an underage boy has intercourse with a woman, the obligatory bath won't be required from either of them, provided the woman is mature (has attained puberty)
6.If a man inserts his penis into his own anus he does not have to perform the obligatory bath
7.If a man has sex with an underaged girl there is no obligation to perform the compulsary bath provided he doesn't orgasm and the girl is so young that intercourse doesn't cause her vaginal and anal canal to merge into one
Ashraf 'Ali Thanwi was an Indian scholar of the Deobandi Hanafi sect. Though this is a generally Hanafi ruling in his works he has issued this fatwa;
1.aforementioned fear in a very minor, then mere insertion of the penis does not render Ghusul obligatory.
5. If person has sexual intercourse with a minor girl, Ghusul (Bath) will not become obligatory on her. But in order to get her into the habit, she should be made to bath.
Bahishti Zewar (Heavenely Ornaments) pages 59 and 41
Ibn Najim Al-Hanafi recorded:
If a man enters his penis into the vagina of a complex neutral (hermaphrodite/kusrah), Ghusl is not obligatory upon them, because it is possible the neutral (hermaphrodite/kusrah) is actually a man and that vagina could be like a cut in his body.
Al-Bahr Al-Rahiq Sharh Kanzul Daqahi. Vol. 1, page 112
According to the great Salafi Ibn Taymiyyah, it is entirely permissible to pray behind a drunkard. We read in the his Majmu’ al-Fatawa, p. 271
The Companions would pray behind people whom they knew to be open transgressors, such as when Abd ‘Allah ibn Mas’ud and other Companions would pray behind Walid ibn ‘Uqba ibn Abi Mu’it, who may have recently drunken alcohol (when he was praying) and would wind up praying four rakaats.
The salat is the pillar of the religion, and yet here we see it being stated that it is permissible to pray behind someone who is drunk at the time, and who is so intoxicated that he prays four rakaats for the morning prayer. Yet let us remember that, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, it is entirely impermissible to pray behind a Shi’a!
We read in Dur al-Mukhthar, Volume 2, Page 474 (a compilation of the great Fatwas of Imam Abu Hanifa) as follows:
We read in Fathul Qadeer that if a man informs a woman that he is paying her for sex then he cannot be subject to any manner of Islamic penalty.
Dur al-Mukhtar, Volume 2, page 474
It is indeed sad to say that the Hanafi madhab whilst catering for a man’s sexual appetite is very prejudicial to monkeys. In Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188 we read the very sad plight of this immoral, promiscuous monkey:
Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
If this Hanafi had paid this she monkey for sex he would have been absolved of any Islamic penalty, whilst this poor she monkey who releases her animal instincts is stoned to death!
Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan writes in his book of fatwa, Volume 4, p. 820:
Of things which are haram but for which there is no Islamic penalty, these include… marrying your wife’s sister, or her mother, or a woman who is already married.
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, page 820
On the very next page Qadhi Khan records a classic Fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa
“if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty”.
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, Ppage 821
We read in another authortiy Hanafi work, Fatwa Alamgiri:
“If someone marries five women at a time or marries a fifth woman while already having four wives or marries his sister in law or mother in law and then performs intercourse with her and then says that I knew that it is haram for me or performs nikah al mutah with a woman then there will be no plenty of adultery on him in all of these situations though he confessed that he knew it was haram on him”
Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 3 page 264
Let us understand this then: in accordance with the fatwa of ‘Umar, the Sunni position is that anybody who contract Mut’ah should be executed. However, if somebody marries his mother, not just commits incest, but actually pronounces a formal marriage, there is no penalty for that person.
This should demonstrate the degree to which Sunni Islam is nothing but an artificial construction, designed solely to be a bulwark against the mission of the Ahl al-Bayt (as). When a sincere reader sees that these individuals have ruled that there is no Islamic penalty for marrying one’s mother, but that there is for doing Mut’ah, does not reason dictate that such fatwas about Mut’ah are motivated only by bigotry and hatred of the Shi’a? When a Sunni rules that it is permissible to pray behind a drunk person who is so intoxicated he can’t even keep track of the number of rakaats he has prayed, but then says that it is not permissible to pray behind a sober Shi’a, what should one think? Does this seem like the religion of the Prophet (s), or the religion of a group of hate-filled scholars?
As we are intending on highlighting the morals presented by a favourite of the Salafi and Nasibi we have chosen to rely on the following authentic Sunni sources:
We read in al Bidaya:
“One day ‘Ali attacked Amr ibn Aas, he threw a spear and Amr fell to the ground, Amr fell to the ground and he then exposed his buttocks. ‘Ali then turned away his face [people said] this was Amr bin Aas. ‘Ali replied he showed me his anus and this made me merciful to him. When Amr ibn Aas returned, Mu’awiya said ‘You should praise Allah and your anus”.
Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 293
Allamah Abu Hanifa Ahmed bin Dawud Dinori in ‘Akhbar al Tawaal’ has reported the flashing incident in the same manner, with the words of Mu’awiya to his beloved Commander as follows:
“You should shower praises on Allah (swt) and that black anus that saved your life today”
Islam has a code of ethics for all scenarios, including behaviour during Jihad, we are yet to find any code wherein Rasulullah (s) authorised the Sahaba to expose their buttocks as a means of sickening the opposition! In Karachi a Nasibi scholar said to his blind followers ‘Had Mu’awiya not entered on the plains of Sifeen the entire continent of Europe would have been conquered’. We agree with this conclusion but it would have been achieved through the battle tactics of Amr ibn Aas, since not even the greatest military tactitioner would not have accounted for this ‘shock and awe’ tactic! Our appeal to our Rafidi brethren is to control the illiterates in our community from throwing mud at Amr ibn Aas for this immoral act: after all had Amr not survived that day, who would have been enlightened enough to place the Qur’an on spears? Who would have dishonestly made Mu’awiya the khalifa during the negotiations? The Salafi are no doubt ever indebted to Amr bin Aas, for all future events such the rise to power of their fifth Khalifa Mu’awiya as Khalifa was all through the Sadaqa of the anus of Amr ibn Aas.
We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s recognised masterpiece ‘Maqamath Badhaya al Zaman’, page 26, Maqama 8, by Abu Fadhl Ahmad bin Husayn bin Yahya bin Saeed al Madani:
“Abu Fathah narrates ‘On one occasion I had the opportunity to see a dead body and I said ‘He is not dead but alive’. People asked ‘How do you know?’ I replied ‘When a man dies his anus goes cold, and I have made this comment in light of this fact, verily he is alive’. Upon saying this all of those present placed their fingers in the body’s anus and concluded he is not dead but is alive”.
Dr Salamah is very lucky, when he dies an immediate inquiry shall be conducted as to whether he is alive or dead and all of his Hanafi adherents will converge upon him and insert their fingers into his ‘blessed’ anus to determine this fact. The normal practice to ascertain death is checking a person’s pulse, but the Deobandi are so immoral that they even seek sexual gratification by fondling the deceased’s anus under the false pretence that they are checking for signs of life. Now let us cite some of the moral depictions of Rasulullah (s) from the great Sunni works…
We read Sahih Muslim Book 3, Number 0684:
Abu Musa reported:
There cropped up a difference of opinion between a group of Muhajirs (Emigrants and a group of Ansar (Helpers) (and the point of dispute was) that the Ansar said: The bath (because of sexual intercourse) becomes obligatory only-when the semen spurts out or ejaculates. But the Muhajirs said: When a man has sexual intercourse (with the woman), a bath becomes obligatory (no matter whether or not there is seminal emission or ejaculation). Abu Musa said: Well, I satisfy you on this (issue). He (Abu Musa, the narrator) said: I got up (and went) to ‘A’isha and sought her permission and it was granted, and I said to her: 0 Mother, or Mother of the Faithful, I want to ask you about a matter on which I feel shy. She said : Don’t feel shy of asking me about a thing which you can ask your mother, who gave you birth, for I am too your mother. Upon this I said: What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory.
This has been reported similarly in Kashaf al Ghumma Volume 1 page 56.
Just look at how little self respect these Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) had, leaving Rasulullah’s elderly wives they would seek the opinion of his young wife on this sensitive matter. Could Dr Salamah inform us whether he would ask his mother such a sensitive question? Is it morally correct to query one’s mother about sexual penetration? These Nasibi should take note of these filthy traditions that they take pride of. We would urge Salafi’s and Deobandi’s to approach their Shaykh’s wives and learn the rules of Ghusl directly from them. These wives should also follow the Sunnah of Ayesha and provide a commentary as to when the organs meet.
Sahih Muslim Book Haid 003, Number 0685:
“‘A’isha the wife of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) reported. A person asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about one who has sexual intercourse with his wife and parts away (without orgasm) whether bathing is obligatory for him. ‘A’isha was sitting by him. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I and she (the Mother of the Faithful) do it and then take a bath”.
Here we see that Rasulullah (s) whilst sitting with Ayesha stated “I and she (the Mother of the Faithful) do it and then take a bath”. Will Dr. Salamah reinstate this Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) by opening ‘drop in’ sex advice sessions explaining sexual matters whilst sitting with their wives. The behaviour this tradition ascribes to the Holy Prophet (saws) is extremely uncivil, and out of context with the Islamic Ahkam according to which the Holy Prophet (saws) would conduct his behaviour. Does this hadeeth really fit with the verse of Qur’an where Allah (swt):
“Indeed, you have in the Prophet a beautiful pattern of conduct”
Al-Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 21
It is the kind of behaviour that may be expected of a drugged out hippie couple, yet here it is falsely attributed to the Holy prophet (saws) in a clear attempt to slander his character.
We read the following absolutely bizarre hadeeth in Sahih Muslim – Book 009, Number 3506:
Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came ‘Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrath ‘Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and ‘Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:” Prophet: Say to thy wives… for a mighty reward” (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, ‘A’isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.
What kind of bizarre circus is this? Everybody coming together to smack their daughters around for supposedly asking for money, while the Prophet (s) laughs? What Sunni can justify such talk about the Prophet (s) and his wives, as well as the companions? We would ask anybody who has doubt to imagine how they would feel if they went to visit their local ‘alim, and him there with his two father-in-laws engaged in this slap-stick behaviour. This hadeeth is a slur on the wives, the Prophet (s), and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. We can only quote the Qur’an again, where Allah (swt) says:
Indeed, you have in the Prophet a beautiful pattern of conduct.
Does this insane behaviour seem like a beautiful pattern of conduct? This narration is almost comical, but a more sad and disturbing one is that which Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Abdul Hammed Ghazzali records the following in his classic Ihya Ulum-id-din:
“Once there was an altercation between the Prophet and Hazrat Ayesha when they found Hazrat Abu Bakr as judge. Hazrat Ayesha said to the Prophet: You speak but don’t speak except truth. At once Hazrat Abu Bakr gave her such a slap that blood began to ooze out from her mouth”.
Here we see a great companion hitting his young daughter so hard she began to bleed. Islamic law requires at least an equal punishment, i.e., that Abu Bakr be punched in the mouth so hard that he begins to bleed as well. And yet Dr. Salamah claims that the Shi’a hadeeth literature is immoral?
We have already quoted this disgraceful act of Mu’awiya, and in this connection the comments in Tarikh Kamil Volume 3 page 225 are interesting:
“Mu’awiya’s declaring that Ziyad was his brother, was the first act that was in open contradiction to the laws of Shari’ah because Rasulullah (s) said that the legitimate child is one born from wedlock”
Moreover Al Hafidh Jalaluddeen Suyuti also acknowledges this in Tareekh ul Khulafa page 175:
“Mu’awiya’s declaring Ziyad to be the son of Abu Sufyan was the first act that contradicted an order of Rasulullah”.
Here we see the most incredible behaviour on the part of the “Companions.” Mu’awiyah openly allowed the adultery of his father to be acknowledged, and then instead of defending his family honour, rather used it as an excuse to justify his father’s illegitimate off-spring, Ziyad.
It was, of course, not merely Ziyad that was illegitimate, but Mu’awiyah as well. Other Sunni ‘ulama have not only acknowledged this but praised the illegitimacy of such individuals. Allamah Ragihb Asfahani quoted the words of Allamah Qadamah in his book ‘Al Muhazraat’:
Qadamah stated: ‘A child born out of fornication is exalted due to the fact that a man does so with lust and effort hence birth is more complete, whilst what a man does by Halal means, a man will be doing so just with an affectation in front of a woman.’
Al Muhazraat, Volume 1 page 356
Worthy of note is the content of the letter which Muawiya had written to Ziyad as recorded by Ibn Abi al-Hadeed in Sharah Nahjul Balagha, Volume 4 page 94. Muawiya addressed Ziyad with the words ‘O son of Sumayya’. Amongst the Arabs there was a tradition that if one’s ancestry was questionable, then that individual would be called by his mother’s name. In the same way that Imam Hasan referred to Marwan as ‘Ibn Zurqa’- Mu’awiya sought to mock Ziyad by calling him the son of Sumayya. Ziyad replied to Mu’awiya with these words: ‘If I am Ibn Sumayya then you are Ibn Jamaat [son of a group]‘.
How can such a belief system claim that Shi’ism is immoral, when it legitimises and acknowledges the most nefarious fornication acts their Imams (the Companions).
We learn in Sahih al Bukhari Bab il Haidh Volume 1, Book 6, Number 295:
Narrated ‘A’isha:
The Prophet used to lean on my lap and recite Qur’an while I was in menses.
Just look at they way that these Nasibi disrespect Rasulullah (s). We believe that in the same way that place the Qur’an next to something impure is disrespect, Rasulullah’s placing his blessed head next to impurity also constitutes disrespect. The Banu Ummaya Nasibi’s in their efforts to praise Ayesha sought to defame Rasulullah (s) and their Nasibi adherents embraced such as traditions as a part of their Deen. Do these Nasibi Mullah’s follow this Sunnah? Do you see them taking their wives with them to the Mosque and using them as head rests whilst they recite the Qur’an? If you saw a Mullah behaving in such a manner would you not seem this to be an act of disgrace? If so, then why do you believe that Rasulullah (s) would act in such a manner?
Such is the desire of the frustrated Wahabi scholars (it says more about the relations these dirty old men had with their own wives) that they start loosing the plot totally, and shoot themselves in the foot: note the following tradition, designed to elevate Ayesha as the holder of some kind of secret carnal knowledge, which actually has the Holy Prophet (saws) thereby sinning and breaking the explicit injunctions of the Qur’an (may God forbid!)
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Bab ai Ghusl Volume 1, Book 5, Number 261:
Narrated A’isha:
The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot of water and our hands used to go in the pot after each other in turn.
What was the need for Ayesha to report such a private matter to a male Sahaba Urwa? Even the most obscene daughter of a man would state such matter to another man in a manner that Ayesha is alleged to have done. In short, there is no need to mention to any individual matter to another man. What knowledge was Ayesha seeking to convey by leaking such information? If a woman sleeps with her husband, she doesn’t go and tell the whole world about it. If this is not immoral then what on earth is?
We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Bab Ghusl Volume 1, Book 5, Number 251:
Narrated Abu Salama: ‘Ayesha’s brother and I went to ‘A’isha and he asked her about the bath of the Prophet. She brought a pot containing about a Sa’ of water and took a bath and poured it over her head and at what time there was a screen between her and us.
The author of Fath al-Bari Volume 1 page 356, Bab Ghusl then comments upon this hadeeth, writing:
Qadi Ayad says: It is apparent that they could see her actions from her head and the top half of her body, because they were allowed to do as she was a milk-aunt to Abu Salamah and his brother from her sister Umm Kulthum. As for the lower part of her body, this was covered.
Here we have it: The Prophet (s)’s wife stood up before Abu Salamah and exposed the entire upper half of her body, hair, breasts, and all. The author says that this is permissible because the sister of ‘A’isha had nursed Abu Salamah and his brother. Let us ask Dr. Salamah then: how would you feel if your mother always walked around the house without a shirt on, exposing her breasts? Would this seem normal to you? Would you be happy if she did this while your cousins (her nephews) were over?
These Nasibi who always insist that Ayesha should act as a role model for women should take heed of this alleged tradition. If you believe in this filth then we suggest that you visit the homes of Bilal Philips, Shaykh Faisal, Azam Tariq and request that their wives strip down and perform Ghusl-e-Janaba in front of other men. The wives of these scholars should not feel any shame, after all if these Nasibi are to be believed such actions would constitute adherence to the Sunnah of Ayesha. We ask Dr. Salamah this question:
‘If you were to return home one day your wife demonstrating the performance of Ghusl before two men would you tolerate it? If you have an ounce of honesty and self respect we are sure that you would not. This being the case do you not have an ounce of shame when you believe that Ayesha the wife of Rasulullah (s) had done just that?
May be some of them may not sieze to look at some parts of their family women which needs to be covered since they believe:
“There is no problem for a man to look at the hair, chest, curl, breast, arm and leg of his mother, adult daughter, sister and every Mahram female like the grandmother, child, grandchild and aunt. He should not look at her back, belly and what is between her navel and knee and so with every mahram through suckling or affinity…. The Sahih is whatever is touch and stare without a cover, whetever you can touch and look at”
Online Fatawa Alamgiri
From the traditions attributed to Rasulullah (s) and Ayesha we can see clearly that the Nasibi are individuals that have slandered Rasulullah (s) and Ayesha and portrayed them as immoral.
Furthermore, one can see that these Sahaba were so disgraceful that rather than seek the advice of the elderly wives of Rasulullah (s) they sought it more appropriate to turn to the young wife of Rasulullah (s). Why the needs for Ayesha to perform a full re-run? Why did the two Sahaba present not refrain her?
Whilst Mut’ah carries some conditions / rules, the Ahl as-Sunnah have presented our Holy Prophet (s) in such a disgraceful manner, that destroys the idea that Rasulullah (s) was a paragon of moral virtue, or possessed of any morality at all. This is evidenced by the episode of Jauniyya in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 7, hadith number 182:
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, “Sit here,” and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu’man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, “Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift.” She said, “Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?” The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” He said, “You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, “O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family.” Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen dresses.
Here, we see the Final Prophet of Islam asking this woman to marry him without a dowry (hence use of the phrase “as a gift”). She refuses and gets angry, and he tries to touch her on her back, even though they are not even married. This is Sunni Islam: it is halaal to touch woman on the back whom you are not married to, but haram to contract a temporary marriage.
We read this outrageous tradition in the Muwatta of Imam Malik “Section: Wudu on Account of Touching the Genitals”. Book 2, Number 2.16.60:
Yahya related to me from Malik that Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazim heard Urwa ibn az-Zubayr saying, “I went to see Marwan ibn al-Hakam and we talked about what you had to do Wudu for, and Marwan said, ‘You have to do Wudu if you touch your penis.’ Urwa said, ‘I didn’t know that.’ Marwan ibn al-Hakam said that Busra bint Safwan had told him that she heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, ‘If any of you touches his penis he should do Wudu.’ “
Now why on earth would Rasulullah (s) convey a sensitive matter concerning a man touching his genitalia to a non mahram woman / a matter that would bear no relevance to her life whatsoever? Why would he say to a non mahram woman ‘If any of you touches his penis he should do Wudu.’ – didn’t Rasulullah (s) know that he was chatting to a woman? This is the perfect example of how Ahl’ul Sunnah have depicted Rasulullah (s) in such a shameless manner that he would even discuss the male sexual organ with a woman!
Imam Dhahabi records the following words from the sermon of Abdul Malik bin Marwan in ‘Tarkeeh Islam’ Volume 1 page 634:
“I am not weak like Uthman and I am not cunning like Mu’awiya and I am not a homosexual like Yazid”
The tradition is also recorded in old transcripts of ‘Al Bidayah wal Niahayh’ while in the present transcripts available on the internet, the filthy Nawasib have done Tahreef in the word Ma’bun (homosexual) and have made it Ma’un (secure).
We also read in Tabaqath al Kabeera Volume 5 page 66 Dhikr Abdullah bin Hanzala and Volume 4 page 283:
“Abdullah bin Hanzala the Sahaba stated ‘By Allah we opposed Yazeed at the point when we feared that stones would reign down on us from the skies. He was a fasiq who copulated with his mother, sister and daughters, who drank alcohol and did not offer Salat”
Now how do you think Dr Salamah’s madhab would grade such an individual? After all the moralistic Dr Salamah is a man so outraged by the Shi’a practise of Mut’ah that he has graded it as debauchery. Surely his view of an incestuous homosexual will be even more extreme, wouldn’t it? Curiously not in Sharh fiqh Akbar page 70 ‘Dhikr Fadail Uns Bad un Nabi’ we read:
“Rasulullah (s) said that the Deen shall remain strong as long as these twelve Khalifas are at the helm, and the twelve are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, ‘Ali, Mu’awiya, Yazid, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan”
If this is not bad enough, we read in Sharh Qaseeda Amali, Page 16:
“Other than a kaffir, it is not permissible to curse a Muslim and Yazeed was not a kaffir but was a Sunni Muslim”
Dr Salamah must be proud of himself; after all he adheres to an esteemed moralistic madhab that has described an incestuous, homosexual to be the Sixth Sunni Khalifa of Rasulullah (s).
Let us now turn to some of the examples of morality that had been set by Umar…
We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Al-Tabaqat Al Kubra by Ibn Sa’d – Part Three Page 286.
Umar ibn al Khattab placed his hand inside a camel’s anus and commented ‘I’m afraid that someone might ask me what is wrong with you.’
Al-Tabaqat Al Kubra by Ibn Sa’d, Part 3, Page 286
This is indeed a fascinating narration! We would like to ask the Dr Salamah, the moralistic defender of Umar, what on earth was your al Farooq seeking to achieve by inserting his hand up a camel’s back passage? Since the Salafi love mentioning Umar’s immense acumen and intelligence, what was meant from this great comment ‘I’m afraid that someone might ask me what is wrong with you’. What was ‘Umar afraid of? Had he done something to this camel that he didn’t want people finding out about? What was he hoping to keep people from discovering by inserting his hand into this camel’s anus?
Well, in any case it remains to be seen what ‘Umar did to this camel, and what action he had done to it that he was attempting to cover up. Perhaps he was attempting to apply the anal medication that he famously used on himself quite often, as we read in the following information on medicines as found in ‘Ahlaaj al Mureez page’ 309 by Hakeem Ajmul Khan Dehlavi Part 8, Dialogue 14:
“The medicine that is needed to treat anal diseases was used extensively by the second khalifa, this medicine is prepared by grinding certain chemicals and then preparing a solution in either vinegar or wine and is then inserted into the anus of the patient”
One can only guess as to where Umar learnt this great medicinal technique, this skill may have been passed to him via the effeminate men that lived with, that according to Sahih al Bukhari Volume 8 hadith 815 he eventually removed from his home. Perhaps he had learned something from his maternal uncle Abu Jahl, and was applying it to this camel. We read in ‘Majma al-Amthaal’ page 250 – Chapter 7 “fi ma aula al kha” by Allamah Madani:
Abu Jahl had an addiction to the anus. His anus had white spots and he used to paint it with saffron so that customers would not be repulsed”.
Abu Jahl had learned how to cover up certain things involving his anus; perhaps ‘Umar was doing Qiyas and applying the same technique towards this camel!
In any case, let us get Dr. Salamah’s point straight: having sexual relations with as many women as a man can afford is haram, but putting one’s hand (and apparently other things) into as many camel anuses as one wants is entirely permissible.
Al-Baihaqi records in Sunan Al-Kubrah Volume 1 page 179.:
Narrated to us Abu Muhammad Abdullah ibn Yahya Ibn Abdul-Jabbar Al-Sukri in Baghdad saying: narrated to us Isma'il Ibn Muhammad As-Saffar saying: narrated to us Abbas Ibn Abdullah Taqufi saying: narrated to us Yahya Ibn Ya'la saying: narrated to us my father from Ghaylan from Abi Is'haq from Yasar Ibn Numayr, a servant of Umar who said: "When Umar would urinate he would call out to me saying: 'bring me something to clean myself!', I would bring him a piece of wood or a stone, *he would then rub his penis against a wall or on the ground and he would not wash it*.
Al-Baihaqi: *This is the most authentic (Sahih)* tradition in this chapter and the highest chain.
If this is the way that Umar would clean himself, then we poor Shi’a have every right to ask how a simple man who hasn’t got an understanding of urinating and cleaning his backside would be able to go to his wives at night for more complex matters? Would he also keep his Servants at his side to aid him on these occasions? What can we say about this great Khalifa, who would even turn to his Servants to clean him, we ask for forgiveness with regards to the level of immorality that exists in this narration – one wherein a Servant would watch whilst Umar rubs up his penis against a wall.
We read in History of the Khalifas who took the right way (the partial translation of Tareekh ul Khulafa by Suyuti) page 142 that Umar went to his daughter…
“…’I want to ask you about a matter which concerns me, dispel it for me. How long does a woman long for her husband?’ She lowered her head and was shy. He said, ‘Truly Allah is not shy of the truth’. She gestured her hand indicating three months, and if that was not possible then four months”
History of the Khalifas who took the right way, page 142
If today’s Muslims are shocked by liberal Western Society where attitudes to sex are so casual, that parents have no shame in discussing this topic with their children, then our Sunni brethren should know that there should be no reason to feel outraged, for such frankness is in accordance with the Sunnah of Umar, whose morals were such that he could even discuss the topic of female sexual desire with his daughter. We wonder if Dr Salamah also adheres the standard set by his Khalifa, preferring to discuss sexual matters with his daughter rather than his wife, after all as Umar has said – ‘Allah is not shy of the truth’
We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Hadith Number 148: book of Ablutions (Wudu’)
Narrated ‘A’isha:
The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).
The Ahl as-Sunnah clearly are a people devoid of sense. This incident demonstrates how shameless Umar was, and yet the Ahl as-Sunnah cite this as an example of his esteemed rank. If shouting at the wife of Rasulullah (s) is a virtue then the terms ‘shameless’ and ‘immoral’ are merely words that carry no meaning. If this is a virtue then we would urge the Sipah-e-Sahaba ‘ulama in Pakistan to implement this act of worship, when the women of your village leave for the field to answer the call of nature, you should shout and scream at them, the Deen will be illuminated by such a noble moral act
Let us now present the following gift to Dr Salmah, Nawasib belonging to Sipah-e- Sahabah (Kr-hcy.com) & those of www.ahlelbayt.com. Renowened Shafiyee scholar Shakyh Kamaluddin Muhammad bin Musa Damiri (742 – 808 H) in his esteemed work ‘Hayat ul Hewan’ records the following method:
“If a man wants to know whether it’s a boy or a girl in the womb of a pregnant woman then a man should capture and place a lice over his palm and the pregnant woman shall take out a drop of her milk and put it there (means over the plam of the man where he had put the lice). Thus, if the lice is successful to come out of the drop of the milk then the gender is female but if it is unsuccessful to come out of the drop of milk then it’s a male.”
Hayat al Hewan (Urdu), Volume 2 page 567
The list of such obscenities is quite long, and we have only narrated a small percentage. What more needs to be said about the immorality of Sunni Islam? Every manner of immorality is justified and accepted, and even attributed to the Holy Prophet (s). The Nasibi Dr. Salamah should not have opened the door to this debate. He attempted to prove that Mut’ah was immoral, but being unable to establish this on the basis of actual Shi’ite hadeeths, he had to resort to falsification and lies. These hadeeths and fatwa, however, are all well known, and any reader may peruse the relevant narrations in the English versions of Bukhari and Muslim that are widely available. The sincere reader must now ask himself: which madhab is preaching immorality, Sunni or Shi’a?
According to these illustrious Sunni ‘ulama, it is permissible for women to wash themselves in front of outside men, to masturbate, and to have sex with fruits and vegetables. Does this really sound like the words of the “saved sect,” or the words of the people following the Sunnah of the Prophet (s)?
