Shia Islam and the Controversy Surrounding Umar

What is the root of the controversy between Iranian Shia and Sunni Muslims regarding Umar, the second caliph of the Rashidun? Should Umar be cursed or praised? Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Hedayati, Secretary General of the Contemporary Traditional Clergy Association of Iran, and Abdul Qadir Turshabi, an Islamic researcher from the Sunni community, have discussed this issue in this week's taboo. Mr. Turshabi, let's start the discussion with you and the question of how much the controversy surrounding Umar, the second caliph of the Muslims, still exists today. Abdul Qadir Turshabi: Of course, it is not absolute that Iranian Shia have animosity towards Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph of Muslims. There are many intellectuals among Iranians, many free thinkers who do not accept extreme religious biases and Shia extremism. However, on one hand, we can say that among the extremist Shia, led by the ruling clerics in Iran, there is enmity, and for the past thirty-seven years, significant efforts have been made to fuel this enmity to achieve specific political goals that the Islamic Republic is pursuing. We must definitely discuss the goals you mentioned and the political aspect of the issue. Therefore, I will return to this question, but let’s see what Mr. Hedayati thinks. Mr. Hedayati, you lead a group of Shia in America. What do you think? Mohammad Hedayati: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. There is no conflict or war among us, nor has there been. Yes, the surroundings from both sides, and in my opinion, more from the Sunni side, have led this difference of opinion and belief and historical disagreement to physical confrontation and violent clashes. The fact that from each side, especially the Takfiri Wahhabi scholars issue decrees that those who express or have certain views should be killed, burned, or looted is unacceptable. Mr. Hedayati, in your statements, you said that if there is a conflict or issue, it is more from the Sunni perspective, but events like 'Umar Koushan'—since you said such a conflict has neither existed nor exists—have traditionally existed in Iran, and this issue is not from the Sunnis but from the Shia. Hedayati: Even if you consider the 'Umar Koushan' event, it is a ceremony that some take correctly or incorrectly— a private gathering among themselves. This talk of attacking others, killing, beheading, burning, issuing fatwas, and declaring someone deserving of bloodshed is a calamity that has befallen the Islamic community and humanity. Cursing is different from insulting. Cursing is the opposite of praying. We say, 'O God, grant goodness to so-and-so'; this is a prayer. 'O God, do not grant goodness to so-and-so'; this is a curse. The curse is not an insult. So the curse that is directed at Umar is not insulting in your view? Hedayati: Insulting Umar may be the case, but insulting Umar's followers should not be. Shia believe that Umar ibn al-Khattab has committed injustice. The Quran also states that the unjust should be cursed. A Quranic instruction is being followed by Shia. For example, in Christianity—they also have various sects—the Mormons held a gathering and mocked the Catholics; does this justify Catholics and their scholars to decree that all Mormons should be exterminated? Let’s pose this question to Mr. Turshabi. Turshabi: He says cursing is not an insult; I say from an Islamic perspective, the worst and highest insult that exists is cursing. Sunnis have been in power for 1,400 years, and Shia have lived in all countries, more or less, and they were neither killed nor burned nor faced physical confrontation. None of the Sunni scholars and religious centers, whether they are considered Wahhabi or not, have issued a fatwa to kill, burn, or set fire to Shia. Not only do they not have such a fatwa, but when some extremist groups that are attributed to Sunnis, like ISIS, commit such acts, Sunni scholarly centers have condemned such movements. Contrary to what Hezbollah in Lebanon does, with the fatwas of Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Khamenei, where Iranian people's money is used to kill people in Syria and Iraq for being Sunni. In the past 38 years, more than 100 Sunni scholars and thinkers have been assassinated in various ways, executed, and imprisoned. In Tehran, a city this large, Sunnis do not have a mosque to pray in, so I think this violence is more incited by religious Shia. The very slogan that exists among extremist Shia, 'Ya Latharat al-Husayn,' meaning we will take revenge for the blood of Husayn, implies revenge against Sunnis. You see, Mr. Hedayati, holding a sword and a big knife, bloodied all over his body. If this does not promote violence, what could it be? In fact, one of the questions raised in this program is whether [the act of self-harm] is a blood revenge for the Shia Imam. Hedayati: The founder of violence and racial discrimination in Islam is Umar ibn al-Khattab. When Umar comes to power, he expels all Iranians from Medina; he was strongly opposed to women and beat them. All Sunni scholars acknowledge this whip of Umar ibn al-Khattab; he always had it and behaved violently with those around him in the streets and markets during his rule and caliphate. The reason you say why Umar is more criticized by Shia is because of his very violent and harsh nature; all Sunni scholars unanimously write that the attack on the tribe of Malik ibn Nuwayra and the plundering of that tribe occurred. That night, Khalid ibn al-Walid raped Malik ibn Nuwayra's wife. They cut off the hands of all the men and took the women captive. Why? Because they did not pay zakat. What Islamic law do we have that allows such violent behavior just because of not paying taxes? So the founder of the violence we see today in ISIS is Abu Bakr, and this violence was executed by Umar. I do not want to address the attack on the house of Fatimah (peace be upon her) now; I will bring it up in a separate question to highlight its fundamental importance. Mr. Turshabi, he considers Umar the founder of today's ISIS violence. Do you think this is a sufficient reason for the phenomenon of Umar hatred? Turshabi: Sunnis see that Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman—these great figures—had no problem with each other. A political disagreement arose at the end of Uthman's era and during Ali's era. The Qarmatians emerged in the third century and killed thirty thousand people next to the Kaaba—this is written in the books of Ibn Kathir and other historical texts—and they raped Muslim women, just like what is happening today in Syria and Iraq. They stole the Black Stone and took it to another area and did not return it for 22 years. But Mr. Turshabi, you are not answering my question. Hedayati: I have a question, Mr. Turshabi. I must ask each of you to speak individually; if you speak together, our listeners will not be able to distinguish your voices. Hedayati: The evidence and source of this issue that women were raped next to the Kaaba is… what is the name of the book and the author? Turshabi: The history of Ibn Kathir in the events of the year three hundred and something you can refer to. But that he said Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) is at the head of violence and institutionalized violence, in response to him, I must say that the enemies of Islam described him as a just and capable person before Islam. That someone whipped or punished someone; we love Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) as much as Umar, but if Mr. Hedayati is going to accuse in this way, Ali ibn Abi Talib burned those who claimed Ali has divinity in the fire he lit. This can be found in the history books of 'Umam wa al-Muluk' by Tabari and in the book of Ibn Kathir. Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) was alongside them during the time of Abu Bakr and during the time of Umar and advised them, and according to Shia and Sunni sources, he married his daughter Umm Kulthum to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Hassan and Husayn named their children Umar and Uthman. Mr. Hedayati, your discussion about the attack on the house of the Prophet Muhammad's daughter Fatimah is a very contentious issue; for example, there are many contradictory reports about whether Umar attacked the daughter of the Prophet and broke into her house or whether some say the architecture of the houses at that time did not have doors. Is part of this hatred related to the reports that exist about this attack? Hedayati: Mr. Turshabi's statements are completely impractical. Turshabi: You mean that Mr. Hedayati, you have a sword in your hand and you struck your head with it, and your image is on the internet, is not real? Hedayati: I will get to that. The issue of self-harm, I consider it a manifestation of love, sacrifice, and courage and a sign of Shia bravery against tyrannical rulers. Turshabi: Why did the Ahl al-Bayt not perform such an act of love towards the Prophet and Ali? Self-harm is not the topic of today’s program, but it may relate to our discussion, and we might be able to talk about it briefly. Hedayati: The fact that Mr. is so upset is evidence of the truth and justification of self-harm. This is a symbol of sacrifice and a symbol of love. Turshabi: Because it is a symbol of violence… Hedayati: Mr. Turshabi brings evidence from Sunni scholars against Shia. In these historical books, you find a lot of nonsense and lies written. Regarding the burning of the house of Fatimah (peace be upon her), read the books of 'Al-Muraja'at' and 'Al-Ghadir'; all the documents are from Sunni sources, and there it is proven by Sunni scholars that they attacked the house of Fatimah (peace be upon her). Turshabi: First of all, he says they bring narratives that the attack on the house of Fatimah took place, and you should provide evidence that the attack did not take place. Denying a matter does not always require evidence; proving a matter requires evidence. We do not need to bring narratives that the attack did not happen. Today, if someone is accused of murder, their past is examined to see what enmity they had with the victim. We see no disagreement between Umar ibn al-Khattab and Fatimah al-Zahra (may Allah be pleased with her) and Ali ibn Abi Talib; they were all friends and companions, all part of one family. Abu Bakr and Umar were the fathers of the Prophet Muhammad's wives, and Ali and Uthman were also the sons-in-law of the Prophet. Let’s turn to the event itself. These [Shia] say that Hassan and Husayn and Ali were sitting inside the house. When Umar approached the house with his entourage, they themselves sat down and told Fatimah to go open the door, and they say Umar or his servant kicked the door and broke it, and Fatimah's side was broken, and her child was also miscarried. Neither Ali moved from his place nor Hassan nor Husayn. In my opinion, the greatest insult to Ali and Hassan and Husayn is this very insult that they believe that in the face of an attack on the honor and daughter of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), these three remained silent. We know who Husayn is. Can it be that Ali remained silent in the face of such great oppression? And more than that, he would go and marry his daughter Umm Kulthum to Umar ibn al-Khattab? No intellect accepts that Hassan and Husayn and Ali would name their children Abu Bakr and Umar—just as today no Shia would name their child Shamir, who we all know is the killer of Husayn ibn Ali—what Shia, what Muslim would name their child Shamir? Mr. Turshabi, thank you for your explanations. Mr. Hedayati, the statements made by Mr. Turshabi contradict your statements, and the marriage of Umar with Umm Kulthum is one of the issues that is raised as one of the contradictions. What is your response to this issue? Hedayati: Look, dozens of people during the time of Ali ibn Abi Talib had names like Umar and Uthman; they asked Ali ibn Abi Talib why he named his son Uthman. He said because of my brother Uthman ibn Madh'un. Even if he did name her, this is a great sign of Ali ibn Abi Talib's nobility that the dispute was not a personal dispute, and the conflict and quarrel were a divine disagreement and were mandated by God. But that you said [for houses] there were no doors. No, there were wooden doors, and the houses had doors. Could it be that when there are so many wild animals in that desert and Medina is very small, they only hung a curtain? This is not reasonable at all. In another document regarding the attack on the house of Fatimah, Ibn Abi Shaiba, who is a pillar of Sunni sources, says when people pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, Ali and Zubair were in the house of Fatimah (peace be upon her) discussing and consulting. Umar came to the door of the house, knocked, Fatimah opened the door. He said, 'I heard that inside this house, Ali and Zubair are consulting against the government; let them know that I will burn this house with its inhabitants.' Mas'udi in 'Muruj al-Dhahab' says: 'Umar came with a torch of fire in his hand.' But this marriage of Umm Kulthum, which many have emphasized, must be said to be a very big lie. Turshabi: I mentioned it from Shia sources. Hedayati: I will bring Shia sources too. Allameh Baqir al-Qurashi from Shia scholars, Allameh Muqarram from Shia scholars say that the Commander of the Faithful did not have a daughter named Umm Kulthum.