1. THE essential Hadith about the coward Majoosi Kafir who stabbed Omar Al-Farooq during the morning prayer

Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun (Sahabi):

I saw Omar bin Al-Khattab a few days before he was stabbed in Medina. He was standing with Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman and Othman bin Hunaif to whom he said, “What have you done? Do you think that you have imposed more taxation on the land (of As-Swad i.e. ‘Iraq) than it can bear?” They replied,

“We have imposed on it what it can bear because of its great yield.” Omar again said, “Check whether you have imposed on the land what it can not bear.”They said, “No, (we haven’t).” Omar added, “If Allah should keep me alive I will let the widows of Iraq need no men to support them after me.” But only four days had elapsed when he was stabbed (to death ).
The day he was stabbed, I was standing and there was nobody between me and him (i.e. Omar) except Abdullah bin ‘Abbas. Whenever Omar passed between the two rows, he would say, “Stand in straight lines.” When he saw no defect (in the rows), he would go forward and start the prayer with Takbir. He would recite SuratYusuf or An-Nahl or the like in the first Rak’a so that the people may have the time to Join the prayer.
As soon as he said Takbir, I heard him saying, “The dog has killed or eaten me,” at the time he (i.e. the murderer) stabbed him. A non-Arab infidel proceeded on carrying a double-edged knife and stabbing all the persons he passed by on the right and left (till) he stabbed thirteen persons out of whom seven died.
When one of the Muslims saw that, he threw a cloak on him. Realizing that he had been captured, the non-Arab infidel killed himself, Omar held the hand of ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Auf and let him lead the prayer (!). Those who were standing by the side of Omar saw what I saw, but the people who were in the other parts of the Mosque did not see anything, but they lost the voice of Omar and they were saying, “Subhan Allah! Subhan Allah!(i.e. Glorified be Allah).” Abdur-Rahman bin Auf led thepeople a short prayer.
When they finished the prayer, Omar said, “O Ibn ‘Abbas! Find out who attacked me.” Ibn ‘Abbas kept on looking here and there for a short time and came to say. “The slave of Al Mughira.” On that Omar said, “The craftsman?” Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.” Omar said, “May Allah curse him. I did not treat him unjustly. All the Praises are for Allah Who has not caused me to die at the hand of a man who claims himself to be a Muslim. No doubt, you and your father (Abbas) used to love to have more non-Arab infidels in Medina.” Al-Abbas had the greatest number of slaves. Ibn ‘Abbas said to Omar. “If you wish, we will do.” He meant, “If you wish we will kill them all.” Omar said, “You are mistaken (for you can’t just randomly kill people, especially not Muslims) after they have spoken your language, prayed towards your Qibla,and performed Hajj like yours.” [i.e. Omar opposed the killing of Persians and other non-Arabs just because of the crime of one Persian Mushrik. A Persian Muslims was Omar’s brother just as Salman the Persian was whom Omar made his Wazir of Al-Mada’in, the former capital of Persia!]
Then Omar was carried to his house, and we went along with him, and the people were as if they had never suffered a calamity before. Some said, “Do not worry (he will be alright soon).” Some said, “We are afraid (that he will die).” Then an infusion of dates was brought to him and he drank it but it came out (of the wound) of his belly. Then milk was brought to him and he drank it, and it also came out of his belly. The people realized that he would die. We went to him, and the people came, praising him.
A young man came saying, “O chief of the believers! Receive the glad tidings from Allah to you due to your company with Allah’s Apostle and your superiority in Islam which you know. Then you became the ruler (i.e. Caliph) and you ruled with justice and finally you have been martyred.” Omar said, “I wish that all these privileges will counterbalance (my shortcomings) so that I will neither lose nor gain anything.” When the young man turned back to leave, his clothes seemed to be touching the ground. Omar said, “Call the young man back to me.” (When he came back) Omar said, “O son of my brother! Lift your clothes, for this will keep your clothes clean and save you from the Punishment of your Lord.” Omar further said, “O ‘Abdullah bin Omar! See how much I am indebt to others.” When the debt was checked, it amounted to approximately eighty-six thousand. Omar said, “If the property of Omar’s family covers the debt, then pay the debt thereof; otherwise request it from Bani ‘Adi bin Ka’b,and if that too is not sufficient, ask for it from Quraish tribe, and do not ask for it from any one else, and pay this debt on my behalf.”
Omar then said (to ‘Abdullah), “Go to ‘Aisha (the mother of the believers) and say: “Omar is paying his salutation to you. But don’t say: ‘The chief of the believers,’ because today I am not the chief of the believers. And say: “Omar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission to be buried with his two companions (i.e. the Prophet, and Abu Bakr).”
Abdullah greeted ‘Aisha and asked for the permission for entering, and then entered to her and found her sitting and weeping. He said to her, “Omar bin Al-Khattab is paying his salutations to you, and asks the permission to be buried with his two companions.” She said, “I had the idea of having this place for myself, but today I prefer Omar to myself.” When he returned it was said (to Omar), “‘Abdullah bin Omar has come.” Omar said, “Make me situp.” Somebody supported him against his body and Omar asked (‘Abdullah), “What news do you have?” He said, “O chief of the believers! It is as you wish. She has given the permission.” Omar said, “Praise be to Allah, there was nothing more important to me than this. So when I die, take me, and greet ‘Aisha and say: “Omar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission (to be buried with the Prophet ), and if she gives the permission, bury me there, and if she refuses, then take me to the grave-yard of the Muslims.”
Then Hafsa (the mother of the believers) came with many other women walking with her. When we saw her, we went away. She went in (to Omar) and wept there for sometime.When the men asked for permission to enter, she went into another place, and we heard her weeping inside.
The people said (to Omar), “O chief of the believers! Appoint a successor.” Omar said, “I do not find anyone more suitable for the job than the following persons or group whom Allah’s Apostle had been pleased with before he died.” Then Omar mentioned ‘Ali, ‘Othman, AzZubair, Talha, Sa’ad and ‘Abdur-Rahman (bin Auf) and said,”Abdullah bin Omar will be a witness to you, but he will have no share in the rule. His being awitness will compensate him for not sharing the right of ruling. If Sa’ad becomes the ruler, it will be alright: otherwise, whoever becomes the ruler should seek his help, as I have not dismissed him because of disability or dishonesty.”
Omar added, “I recommend that my successor takes care of the early emigrants; to know their rights and protect their honor and sacred things. I also recommend that he be kind to the Ansar who had lived in Medina before the emigrants and Belief had entered their hearts before them. I recommend that the (ruler) should accept the good of the righteous among them and excuse their wrong-doers, and I recommend that he should do good to all the people of the towns (Al-Ansar),as they are the protectors of Islam and the source of wealth and the source of annoyance to the enemy. I also recommend that nothing be taken from them except from their surplus with their consent. I also recommend that he do good to the ‘Arab bedouin, as they are the origin of the ‘Arabs and the material of Islam. He should take from what is inferior, amongst their properties and distribute that to the poor amongst them. I also recommend him concerning Allah’s and His Apostle’s protectees (i.e. Dhimmis) to fulfill their contracts and to fight for them and not to overburden them with what is beyond their ability.”
So when Omar died, we carried him out and set out walking. ‘Abdullah bin Omar greeted (‘Aisha) and said, “Omar bin Al-Khattab asks for the permission.” ‘Aisha said, “Bring him in.” He was brought in and buried beside his two companions.

(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 57, Number 50)

NOTE: Omar was stabbed, rather ripped apart, yet he completed his Salah! Now imagine: Fajr prayer in the Masjid and the Khalifa is lying on the floor in a pool of blood. One narration says that even then, at that time, Omar said, ‘finish the Salah, finish the Salah’ –because sunrise was coming. Subhanallah, priorities!

Miswar ibn Makhramah said, “I went to Omar ibn al Khattab while he was shrouded (just before his death after he has been stabbed by the Majoosi) I Asked, ‘How is he?’ The people replied ‘As you can see’. Then I said: ‘Wake him up because you will not wake him up for anything more important to him than prayer.’ They woke him up saying: ‘Prayers, prayers, O leader of the believers!’ Omar awoke and said: ‘What? Is that so? By Allah, anyone who neglects prayers has no right in Islam.’ He offered his prayers even though his wound was dripping with Blood.” (Tabarani)

2. The plot of the Majoos (Sassanian Zoroastrians who tried to destroy Islam from within) to kill Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and the stance of Othman and his justice

The martyrdom of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab came to answer for the venomous rancours that filled the hearts of the Mushrik Persian and Byzantine slaves (those who did not convert to Islam or used to fight against the Muslims). It is always related that Abu Lu’lu’ah” used to stroke  with his hand the heads of any Persian captives whenever he met them, and say: “These Arabs have devoured my liver.  This statement shows the bitter hatred that Magian dog bore against Islam and the Muslims. Some ignorant Iranian nationalists view him as a hero, simply because he MURDERED the Muslim Caliph then stabbed over a dozen of other worshippers and finally killed himself, what a pathetic hero indeed. At least some open minded researchers (even among Iranian Shias) admit that this person is anything but to be proud about, he did not even kill Omar because of his ‘hurted feelings for his conquered Persian nation’, that’s nothing but a fairy tale, he simply killed Omar because of some Dirhams, because of a sallary.

Anyways, Abu Lu’lu’ah made his enmity to Islam clear and no wonder that he frequented the dwelling-places of “Al-Hormozan” the ex-governor of “Al-Ahwaz” who was conquered by the Muslims, and “Jufainah Al-‘ Anbari”, so that the three of them might take revenge from the Commander of the Faithful under the banner of whose religion, and within the scope of whose justice, they were living in safety.

One of the charges they brought against the caliph was that he did not operate Islamic law in a case of unlawful killing when the killer was well known. The victim was a Persian called Al-Hurmuzan, killed by Ubaydellah ibn Umar after his father was killed by another Persian known as Abu Lu’luah. The rebels accused Uthman of “refusing to put Ubaydellah ibn Umar to death for killing Al-Hurmuzan.” They maintained that by so doing Uthman thwarted Islamic law when he had no right to do so.There is no doubt that no ruler may pardon a killer unless the relatives of the victim forgo their right for equal punishment (i.e. a death sentence against the offender) and accept blood money in compensation for their loss. However, this case was exceptional in more ways than one.

Let us first of all look at what Justice Abu Bakr ibn Al-Arabi has to say on this case.
“As for his refusal to kill Ubaydellah ibn Umar ibn Al-Khattab in punishment for his killing of Al-Hurmuzan, the whole accusation is baseless. He could not have done so when the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were present in large numbers and the case was so fresh. It has been said that Al-Hurmuzan was active in the plot to kill Umar and that he carried the knife used for the killing and it was seen under his clothes. Besides, he was killed before Uthman was elected caliph. It might have been the case that Uthman considered that Ubaydellah had no case to answer after having ascertained the case against Al-Hurmuzan. Moreover, no one sought punishment for Al-Hurmuzan’s killing. Bearing all this in mind, how could Uthman look into a case that was not made in the first place?”
The first point Ibn Al-Arabi makes in defense of Uthman relates to the presence of the Prophet’s companions in large numbers in Madinah. In fact most of them were still there, because Umar had asked him to stay in Madinah during his reign. All the Prophet’s companions were keen to see Islam implemented fully, because they were the ones who experienced life before Islam and knew the high level to which Islam had raised them. They were not prepared to compromise any Islamic principle or ruling. To them, this was a matter of faith for which they were answerable to God. Thus, if they felt that the caliph was lax in implementing the law, they would have been outspoken against him. In this case, none of them spoke. It is inconceivable that all of them would be complacent in a case of this magnitude.
In his annotation of Ibn Al-Arabi’s book, Al-Khateeb mentions a report attributed to Al-Qumabadhan ibn Al-Hurmuzan, who was at the center of this affair. He is quoted as saying: “When Uthman took office, he called me in and gave me full authority over Ubaydellah ibn Umar, saying: ‘Son, this is the man who killed your father. You have more authority over him. Take him and kill him if you wish.’ As I took him away, every one in the city came out with me, appealing to me to let him go. I asked them: ‘Am I free to kill him?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ I asked: ‘Can you stop me if I want to kill him?’ They answered: ‘No.’ And they hurled verbal abuse at him. Therefore, I let him go for God’s sake and for their sake. They were so pleased that they carried me over their shoulders until I reached home.”
Another report mentioned by Al-Tabari in his voluminous history shows Uthman making his decision after consultations with the Prophet’s companions. The report states that Uthman invited their views and Ali suggested that Ubaydellah should be put to death for killing someone who had no proven case against him. Several others from among the Muhajireen and the Ansar said: “Umar was killed a few days ago. Is his son to be killed today? How could this be?” Amr ibn Al-Aas said to Uthman: “God has been kind to you as this event took place when you had no authority over the Muslim community. Indeed you were not in power when it happened.” At the end of the consultation, Uthman said: “I am their guardian and I rule for the payment of blood money, and I will undertake payment from my own purse.” Together these two reports give us the full story. It might have been that Uthman spoke to Al-Hurmuzan’s son first and let him have the power to exact revenge killing, but the people in Madinah tried to persuade him to let Ubaydellah go, which he did when he saw practically all the people in Madinah begging him to do so. Uthman might have then felt that the man was unduly pressurized to forgo his right. As a caliph, he felt that he needed to consult the Prophet’s companions. This accounts for the view expressed by several companions of the Prophet about Umar’s son being killed a few days after his father’s assassination. But this could not have been a consideration unless the circumstances made the punishment of Ubaydellah ibn Umar exceedingly terrible. Besides, Amr ibn Al-Aas’ view that Uthman did not need to take action in this question since it took place prior to his taking office does not carry much weight. If a crime is committed in the short period between the death of one caliph and the election of another, the offender must be punished by the new caliph. He cannot allow God’s law to be sidelined, under the pretext that the crime occurred when he had no authority. Certainly his new authority requires him to take action to ensure that the criminal is punished.
These reports show that there was much confusion in Madinah after the assassination of Umar, with people trying to find grounds to reduce tension and tragedy. It may have been that some, if not many, of the Prophet’s companions had their suspicions concerning the role of the murdered man, Al-Hurmuzan, in Umar’s assassination but did not have hard evidence to confirm them. Al-Tabari mentions a third report quoting Abd Al-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr who said on the day of Umar’s assassination: “I passed by Abu Lu’luah last night and found him deep in consultation with Jufaynah (a Christian from Al-Heerah in the Persian Empire) and Al-Hurmuzan. When I approached them, they were startled and rose. They dropped a dagger with two blades, and a handle in the middle. I suppose we should determine the type of weapon used in the murder.” Al-Tabari adds that a man from the Tameem tribe went after him and then came back. He had chased Abu Lu’luah after he had stabbed Umar until he was able to take him. Now he brought the dagger Abd Al-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr had described. When Ubaydellah ibn Umar heard of this, he held back until his father, Umar, died. He then went out and killed Al-Hurmuzan.
This means that suspicion that Al-Hurmuzan was heavily involved in the plot to assassinate Umar was very strong and held by a number of the Prophet’s companions. Hence, they felt that Ubaydellah ibn Umar was fully justified in killing him. To allow him to be executed as a result would have been an act of injustice. Since they lacked the firm evidence to confirm their suspicions, they could only appeal to Al-Hurmuzan’s son. When the man responded to their pleas, Uthman generously satisfied Al-Hurmuzan’s family by paying them blood money. He was most caring, compassionate and generous.

So the case of Hurmuzan is not very clear, it was the justice of Islam that prevented the Prophet’s companions to condemn Hormozan as Abu Lu’lu’ah’s partner in crime, they had some evidence, but not clear-cut proof, and clear-cut proof is what is needed to condemn a Muslim of a crime. The doubt (about the true connection of Hormozan and most probably other Sassanians) still remains, especially if we take into account what the heretical Shia religion, the religion that was started by a Jew and supported by all those who were conquered by the Muslims (East Rome-Christians, the Jews) and especially the  Majoos/Zoroastrian-Sassanian Persia.

مهدي الرافضة من سلالة كسرى فارس يزدجرد بن شهريار

روى ابن عياش في المقتضب، عن الحسين بن علي بن سفيان البزوفري ، عن محمد بن علي بن الحسن البوشنجاني، عن أبيه، عن محمد بن سليمان، عن أبيه، عن النوشجان بن البودمردان، قال: لما جلى الفرس عن القادسية وبلغ يزدجرد بن شهريار ما كان من رستم وإدالة العرب عليه وظن أن رستم قد هلك والفرس جميعا وجاء مبادر وأخبره بيوم القادسية وانجلائها عن خمسين ألف قتيل، خرج يزدجرد هاربا في أهل بيته ووقف بباب الايوان، وقال:السلام عليك أيها الايوان ! ها أنا ذا منصرف عنك وراجع إليك، أنا أو رجل من ولدي لم يدن زمانه ولا آن أوانه.قال سليمان الديلمي: فدخلت على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام فسألته عن ذلك وقلت له: ما قوله: ” أو رجل من ولدي “فقال: “ذلك صاحبكم القائم بأمر الله عز وجل السادس من ولدي قد ولده يزدجرد فهو ولده”

. انتهىكتاب بحار الأنوار للمجلسي – الجزء 51 – الصفحة 164 – طبعة مؤسسة الوفاء – بيروت لبنان- الطبعة الثانية 1403هـ – 1983م

TRANSLATION:

When the Persians were defeated at Al-Qadisiyyah (Iraq) and Yazdgerd Ibn Shahryar (the Kisra i.e. king of the Sassanian Majoosi/Zoroastrian evil and oppressive empire) was informed about that and that Rustum (his general) was captured, he thought that Rustum and the Persians are all perished until someone informed him about (the battle) of Al-Qadisiyyah and about the loss of 50.000 (Majoosi soldiers, against a handful Sahaba!!!). Upon that, Yazgerd fled to his household and stood infront of the gates of Al-Iwan (his palace) and said:

“Peace be upon you, o Iwan! This is where I am going to leave you and where I will met you again, me or a man of my progeny […]. Sulayman Al-Dulaimi entered upon Abi Abdillah (Imam Al-Sadiq) and asked him about that. I asked him: ‘What does he (Yazdgerd III) mean with “a man of my progeny”? He (Imam Al-Sadiq) said: ‘It is none other but one who is the arising (Shia Mahdi) by the will of Allah, the sixth (from the progeny) of my father, Yazgerd has given him birth, he is his father’. (Bihar Al-Anwar, vol. 51, p. 164)

Now the following shouldn’t be quite shocking, namely that one of the titles of the Shia Mahdi according to their own scholars IS Khosrow (Khosrow/Kisra are various forms of the titles of the Sassanian Majoosi kings!):

Yes, this is their true belief in regards to their Mahdi. They can claim day and night that their Mahdi is going to be from the progeny of Fatimah (عليها السلام), no sane Muslim will ever believe them, especially once we have analysed his Jewish-Masonic-Magi (Majoosi) and mass-murdering nature. Keep in mind that their narrations (always ascribing heresies and innovations and praise of pre-Persian customs to the Ahl Al-Bayt!), like the one above or not simply stating that their 12th Imam will have Persian blood (which is not the problem, even if it was Yazgerd’s), the shocking thing is that they fabricated narrations, ascribed it to the Ahl Al-Bayt, how the DEFEATED Sassanians, in the narration embodied by the Kisra of that time (King of that time, Yazgerd the third) swears to take REVENGE against the Arabs (i.e. the Sahaba) who conquered Persia (by the way, the aggressor was Persia, since before the Muslims attacked Persia, the Sassanian Empire occupied many Arab lands, including the mother of all Arab lands i.e. Yemen! Sassanian Persia tried even to assassinate the Prophet as been stated in authentic narrations) and put an end to the oppressive Sassanian thugs and their caste system (the Zorostrian clerical caste which is similar to the Shia one).

Also note that although some historical accounts mention that Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (who ALWAYS preferred the Ahl Al-Bayt over himself and even his own children) gave the daughter of the defeated tyrant and king Yazdgerd III to Al-Hussein Ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib (and thus the lineage of the fourth Imam Zayn Al-Abidin i.e. the son of Al-Hussein carries royal Persian blood)  yet how on earth could the Rafidha have the audacity to fabricate narrations where Al-Sadiq refers to the lineage of the Mahdi from his alleged Sassanian (Yazdgerd III) mother side?! Worse than that, the narration clearly states that Yazdgerd III (who was defeated by the Sahabah  and was eventually killed by a Persian i.e. his own people while he tried to save his miserable life!) swore that someone from HIS lineage will take revenge from the Muslim! This someone is no one but the Shia Mahdi, the Kisra (King) of the Sassanian Majoos that is why it is actually not quite shocking that the Rafidha have went so far to attribute Zoroastrian titles to the Mahdi!

Khosro, he basically carries the title of his great grandfather, the Kafir Sassanian-Majoosi Yazdgerd!

BOOK TITLE:

‘Al-Najmu Al-Thāqib‘ by the Hussein Noori Al-Tabrissi. Apart from the (never in the Qur’an, Sunnah or ANYWHERE authentically proven) 182 (!) names and titles that the Rafidhi Mahdi has (among them Abu Bakr and ‘Friday’, ‘The Clock’, ‘The Owner Of The White Ball’ etc!), there are a number of ancient Persian-Zoroastrian titles such as:

#4: Izad Shenās (‘The one who has knowledge about Izad). Izad is the new Persian form ofYazata. Yazata is originially an Avestan (Majoosi) language adjective derived from the verbal root yaz- “to worship, to honor, to venerate”. From the same root comes Avestan yasna “worship, sacrifice, oblation, prayer”. A yazata is accordingly “a being worthy of worship” or “a holy being”.)

#5: Izad Neshān (‘The one who illustrates God’. The Shiite author mentions that the 4th and 5th nickname are special titles of the Majoos/Zoroastrians! He says that according to the Shia scholar Shaykh Al-Baha’i  they – the Majoos -will call him by these names!)

#6: Istāde (‘The Risen One’. Another title that was given to him by the Majoos, according to the Shiite author!)

#23: Bahrām (the Zoroastrian divinity that is the hypostasis of victory. So Rafidha can not only call upon their 12th Imam by yelling “Ya Mahdi adriknaa, Ya Sahib Al-Zaman” etc. now they can add “Ya Bahram adriknaa”!)

#24: Bandeh Yazdān (‘the slave of Yazdan’. Yazdan is the plural of the word ‘Yazd’ which is related to the Avestan word Izad meaning divine)

#25: Parviz (a Persian male given name, meaning ‘fortunate’)

#26: Khajasteh (another Persian name , meaning benedict/happy)

#27: Khosro (Majoos) (Persian form of the Arabised word ‘Kisra’ i.e. King of the Zoroastrians!)

#28: Khodā Shenās (a Persian title, meaning the one who has knowledge about God)

Mind-boggling isn’t it? The Shiism has ascribed pre-Islamic Zoroastrian (Majoosi) titles to their Mahdi. The same Mahdi who according to them is the descendant of of Yazdgerd III the last defeated (by Omar Ibn Al-Khattab) Sassanian Majoosi Kisra (King of Persia). In fact they even ascribed the title of Kisra (title of the Kings of Persia) to their Mahdi! Some of the Arab Shia forums try to desperately explain these ZOROASTRIAN titles by suggesting that since the Mahdi will be sent for manking, then it is normal for him having titles in different languages. The response to this lame excuse is the following:

1. Why doesn’t he have Turkish, Latin or any other title? Why has he got NINE (!) not just Persian but even religious Zoroastrian titles?!

2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was also sent to mankind, yet where in the authentic Sunnah has he ever been called by Zoroastrian titles?!

3. Where in the authentic Sunnah has anyone of the Ahl Al-Bayt told their followers that the Mahdi will carry such titles? It’s not only that these titles are in a forgeign language, the scary part is that most of these titles are purely Zoroastrian (Majoosi)!

It should be clear by now that the Rafidhi Mahdi is nothing but the spawn of the defeated Sassanian empire who infiltrated Islam, slowly but steadily, of course not just under the banner of Islam, but under the banner of the so called ‘school of Ahl Al-Bayt’, under the banner of ‘following and loving the Ahl Al-Bayt’. They knew that with this sweet from the outside but toxic from within slogan they can win the hearts of many ignorant and gullible individuals (even among the Arabs) and often just hateful and filled with grudge individuals among all those who lost not just power in Arabia (the Jews) but the Sassanian Empire itself (i.e. a minority of Persian heretics who to this day use the Tashayyu’/Shiism as a tool to destroy Islam from within with all sorts of heresies. Note, a minority of Persians, since Persias history is mostly Sunni and Persia produced many great Sunni scholars right up to the 16th AD when the Safavids took over Persia and infested it with the cancer of Rafidhi Shiism). The Rafidhi Shia Mahdi is hence the Frankenstein, the revenger and the manifestation of all Sassanian (and of course Jewish) grudge that you can imagine. The evidence will prove that without a shred of doubt, In sha Allah.

This article is neither in support of the Arab race nor in support of Persian bashing. A Muslim should always seek the truth even if he finds out that (a small number) of his own people have fooled the massess in the name of ‘Ahl Al-Bayt’ while in reality they are nothing but pagan Majoos who aim to destroy Islam from within. As for our beloved Muslim Persians (including Shias who are sick of the heresies of Shiism), then there is no doubt that the majority of Persians (especially before the Safavids) were sincere and wonderful Muslims, after all Iran was 900 years majority Sunni (and only 500 years Shiite!) and produced a HUGE number of major Islamic personalities (including many of the Salaf themselves!).

The majority of the Persian people were never forced to Islam (It took Persia over three hundred years after the Islamic conquest to become a majority Muslims SUNNI nation)  and were sincere Sunni Muslims for most of Iran’s Islamic history in fact they made one of  the greatest contributions to Islam, so the issue here is not an “Arabs VS Persian” issue, rather it is a truth VS falsehood issue.

Nevertheless there is no doubt that the supporters of Yazdgerd III and the former ruling class did not just vanish, they were furious and wanted to harm Islam as much as they could, just as the defeated Jews (Ibn Saba’) and Romans (Christians) wanted to weaken the new faith, and is there any better way to weaken a faith but from within, through distortion? Certainly the Jews (Ibn Saba) did their part by turning Tashayyu’ (Shiism) from a political party into a sect with alien beliefs such as Imamah/’Isma/Takfeer of  Sahaba etc., the Majoos, the deafeted Sassanians on the other hand (with the emerge of the Safavid era) turned the already innovated religion of Tashayyu’ into the dream of Yazdgerd III i.e. a Persian cult with a Khosro Majoos 12th saviour. It is hence not suprising that according to Shiism their Mahdi will appear on the Zoroastrian holiday of Nowrooz (a sanctified holiday by Shia scholars!)

3. Omar’s martyrdom, foretold by the Prophet (صل الله عليه و سلم) and wished by Omar himself

It has been narraeted that the Prophet, Allah’s Peace and Blessings be upon him, one day seeing Omar with a shirt on, asked him: “Is your shirt a new one or has it been previously worn?” When `Omar said, “It has been previously worn, o Messenger of Allah,” the Prophet said, “Wear the new, live benignly  and die a martyr. And may Allah offer you happiness in this world and in the Hereafter.”

And Omar died a martyr reciting these words from the Glorious Qur’an:
{ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ قَدَراً مَّقْدُوراً}  الأحزاب38

“And the Command of Allah is a decree determined.” (Al Ahzab:33:38)

Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab said: When Omar returned from Mina (to Makkah), he made his camel kneel down in the watercourse, then he threw himself down, raised his hands to the sky and said, ‘O Allah! I am advanced in years, my strength has weakened, and my subjects have increased, so take me to You without (my) being wasteful or falling short.’ Dhu’l-Hijjah had not gone before he was killed. Al-Hakim narrated it.

Aslam said: ‘Omar said, ‘O Allah provide me with martyrdom in Your way, and make my death to be in the city of Your Messenger.’ Al-Bukhari narrated it.

Ma‘dan ibn Abi Talhah: ‘Omar gave a khutbah and said, ‘I saw (in a dream) as if a cock pecked at me once or twice, and I can only believe that it means that my term has come. There are people who tell me to appoint a successor, and Allah will not cause His deen to go to waste nor His khilafah. If the matter is hastened for me, then the khilafah is a matter of consultation between these six whom the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was pleased with when he died.’ Al-Hakim narrated it.

4. The Sahabah and the Mother of the Believers testified that Omar was not from amongst the hypocrites

Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman – The Keeper of the Secret of the Messenger of Allah – رضي الله عنه و أرضاه

Ibn Hajar on the great companion Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman

وحذيفة أحد أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الأربعة عشر النجباء، كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أسر إليه أسماء المنافقين، وحفظ عنه الفتن التي تكون بين يدي الساعة، وناشده عمر بالله: أنا من المنافقين اللهم لا، ولا أزكى أحداً بعدك

Hudhayfah is one of the 14 noble companions of the Messenger of Allah (صلی الله و علیه و على آله وسلم). The Messenger of Allah (صلی الله و علیه و على آله وسلم) revealed to him the names of hypocrites, and protected him from the difficulties of the Hour, and Omar was swearing him by Allah: “Am I among these hypocrites?” in which he Hudhayfah replied, “By Allah, no! I will never tell anyone after you.”

وقال مسدد : ثنا يحيى ، عن الأعمش ، عن زيد بن وهب ، قال : سمعت حذيفة رضي الله عنه ، يقول : ” مات رجل من المنافقين فلم أصل عليه ، فقال عمر رضي الله عنه : ما منعك أن تصلي عليه ؟ قلت : إنه منهم ، فقال : أبالله منهم أنا ؟ قلت : لا . قال : فبكى عمر رضي الله عنه ” إسناده صحيح ، وقد استنكره يعقوب بن سفيان من حديث زيد بن وهب

Musaddad said: Narrated Yahya from Al-A’mash from Zaid ibn Wahab who said: I heard Hudhaifah (may Allah be pleased with him), saying: “Another man of Munafiqeen died, and I will not pray on his funeral, Omar then said: what prevents you to pray on him? I said: Because he was one of them, (Omar) said: By Allah am I also one of them?! I said: ‘No.’ Then Omar cried.’ The chain of this Hadeeth is Saheeh.

(Source: Matalib Al-A’lia. Vol. 14, Pg # 702. and Tarikh Al-Islam of Al-Dhahabi. Vol. 3, Pg # 494.)

Now the hateful Shia object (as usual), although the narration is narrated by one of the very few companions Shias claim to respect (Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman). The Rafidah Shia bring forward the following excuse (taken from a Rafidi blog):

Umar was asking a rather foolish question, and unintentionally revealed his true color’s by doing so. In response, Hudhaifah said: “No you are not!”. Did Umar not know if he was at Uqbah that night? Didn’t Umar know If He was a Munafiq or not ? Hudhaifah concealed this fact from him but more importantly why?. The answer is very clear, he was concealing the truth to spare his life. Suppose Hudhayfah would have said to Umar “That you are one of the Munafiqs” would Umar had speared his life?

Answer to their false argument>>>

5. Omar was the gate that prevented the Fitnah (history testifies)

أنَّ عمرَ بنَ الخطابِ رَضِيَ اللهُ عنهُ قال : أيُّكم يحفظُ قولَ رسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ في الفتنةِ ؟ فقال حذيفةُ : أنا أحفظُ كما قال ، قال : هاتِ ، إنكَ لجريءٌ ، قال رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ : ( فتنةُ الرجلِ في أهلِهِ ومالِهِ وجارِهِ ، تُكَفِّرُهَا الصلاةُ والصدقةُ ، والأمرُ بالمعروفِ والنهيُ عن المنكرِ ) . قال : ليست هذهِ ، ولكن التي تموجُ كموجِ البحرِ ، قال : يا أميرَ المؤمنينَ ، لابأسَ عليكَ منها ، إنَّ بينكَ وبينها بابًا مغلقًا ، قال : يُفْتَحُ البابُ أو يُكْسَرُ ؟ قال : لا ، بل يُكْسَرُ ، قال : ذاك أَحْرَى أن لا يُغْلَقَ ، قلنا : عَلِمَ البابَ ؟ قال : نعم ، كما أنَّ دون غدٍ الليلةَ ، إني حدَّثتُهُ حديثًا ليس بالأغاليظِ ، فهَبْنَا أن نسألَهُ ، وأمرنا مسروقًا فسألَهُ فقال : من البابُ ؟ قال : عمرُ . الراوي: حذيفة بن اليمان المحدث:البخاري – المصدر: صحيح البخاري – الصفحة أو الرقم: 3586 خلاصة حكم المحدث: [صحيح]

Narrated Hudhayfa Ibn Al-Yaman: Once ‘Omar bin Al-Khattab said, said, “Who amongst you remembers the statement of Allah’s Apostle regarding the afflictions?” Hudhayfa replied, “I remember what he said exactly.” ‘Omar said. “Tell (us), you are really a daring man!” Hudhayfa said, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘A man’s afflictions (i.e. wrong deeds) concerning his relation to his family, his property and his neighbors are expiated by his prayers, giving in charity and enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil.’ ” ‘Omar said, “I don’t mean these afflictions but the afflictions that will be heaving up and down like waves of the sea.” Hudhayfa replied, “O chief of the believers! You need not fear those (afflictions) as there is a closed door between you and them.” ‘Omar asked, “Will that door be opened or broken?” Hudhayfa replied, “No, it will be broken.” ‘Omar said, “Then it is very likely that the door will not be closed again.” Later on the people asked Hudhayfa, “Did ‘Omar know what that door meant?” He said. “Yes, ‘Omar knew it as everyone knows that there will be night before the tomorrow morning. I narrated to ‘Omar an authentic narration, not lies.” We dared not ask Hudhayfa; therefore we requested Masruq who asked him, “What does the door stand for?” He said, “Omar.” (Bukhari, Book #56, Hadith #786)

Comment: Does any sane person, whether Muslim or Kafir doubt that the door of Fitnah was certainly closed up until the end of the Caliphate of Al-Farooq, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه)? Under Omar the Islamic empire expanded at an unprecedented rate ruling the whole Sassanian Persian Empire (Ali supported Omar’s opening of Persia, see Nahj Al-Balagha) and more than two thirds of the Eastern Roman Empire. His attacks against the Sassanian Persian Empire (which started the war by trying to murder the Prophet of Islam years before!) resulted in the conquest of the Persian empire in less than two years. More importanly, over ten years (!) of Khilafah, and not a single civil war occured during his reign, the Persians and Romans were brought to their knees, the Fitnah started indeed after his death, when he got cowardly murdered by a Zoroastrian (Shia saint aka Abu Lo’lo’ah) lowlife, who stabbed Omar to death, while Omar was leading the Sahabah and Ahl Al-Bayt in the morning prayer. The gates of Fitnah are open since then (Othman go brutaly murdered, Jamal and Siffeen Fitnah under Ali’s regin and the Fitnah up to our very age and time).

Hudhayfah, furthermore, praises Omar in more than one occasion after his death.

We find in Fadha’il Al-Sahaba by Ahmad bin Hanbal 2/404 (Dar Ibn Al-Jawzi, 1430, 4thedition) the following:

حدثنا عبد الله : قثنا هارون بن سفيان ، نا معاوية بن عمرو قثنا زائدة قثنا منصور ، عن ربعي بن حراش ، عن حذيفة قال : إن عمر لما استخلف كان الإسلام كالرجل المقبل ؛ لا يزداد إلا قربا ، فلما قتل عمر كان الإسلام كالرجل المدبر ؛ لا يزداد إلا بعدا .

Abdullah narrated to us, that Harun bin Sufyan narrated to us, that Mu’awiya bin Amr, that Za’idah narrated to us, that Mansour narrated from Rib’ee bin Hirash, from Hudhayfah, he said: When Omar received the caliphate, Islam was like a man that was approaching, who would continuously come closer, but when Omar was killed, Islam was like a man that was walking away, who continuously kept getting farther.

We also find in the Musannaf Abdelrazzaq 11/105 (Dar Ihya’ Al-Turath Al-’Arabi, 1423, first edition) the following:

أخبرنا عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن ابن سيرين قال : سئل حذيفة عن شئ ، فقال : إنما يفتي أحد ثلاثة : من عرف الناسخ والمنسوخ ، قالوا : ومن يعرف ذلك ؟ قال : عمر ، أو رجل ولى سلطانا فلا يجد بدا من ذلك ، أو متكلف (2).

Abdelrazzaq told us, from Ma’ammar from Ayyoub, from Ibn Sireen, that Hudhayfah was asked something, he replied: ‘Only three people can give out religious rulings, 1- Those that knew the abrogated laws, they asked: Who’d know that? He replied: Omar, 2- Or a man given a position that has no other choice but to, 3- Or a Mutakallif (one who acts greater than he actually is).

Both narrations are authentic.

Umm Al-Mu’mineen (The Mother Of The Believer) Ummu Salamah رضي الله عنها و أرضاها:

This time a testimony from the Mother of the Believers Ummu Salamah (whom the Shia claim to respect, but will certainly reject when reading the following):

NOTE: This narration and similar ones (like the one about twelve hypocrites amongst the companions of the Prophet) do not contract  the beliefs of the Ahl Al-Sunnah. For first of all the companions mentioned are not any of the companions held in high regard by Ahl Al-Sunnah. One can’t pick and choose from Sunni books (the SAME books that have narrated the merits of Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, ALI, FATIMAH etc.) and then use his own criteria to judge them. Either one accepts all the Hadiths or not. According to the Ahl Al-Sunnah and the Qur’an the REAL companions are those who accepted Islam and DIED upon Islam. These companions are the ones the Ahl Al-Sunnah refer to as Sahaba, the thing is that among them you will certainly find the likes of Abu Bakr, Omar, Ibn Masoud etc. and as for the hypocrites then you will have Ibn Salool etc. whereas according to Shiism the hypocrites were the most loyal followers of the Prophet such as Abu Bakr, Omar, Ibn Masoud (you will barely hear them mentioning the TRUE hypocrites such as Ibn Salool etc.), so logically those narrations where the Prophet (صل الله عليه و سلم) calls anyone who surrounded him as a ‘Sahabi/companion’ are to be taken in the linguistic sense, for linguistically everyone who surrounds you can be reffered to as a Sahabi/companion, even if he is in real a hypocrite, but in the theological/Sharia sense, there has been made a distinction between the true Sahaba and the fake ones, accordingly a hypocrite like Ibn Salool can’t be a companion by defination (linguistically he was a companions, just as the twelve where who will never enter paradise, or those whom the Prophet will meet at the font who will be dragged to hell. The point is, one can’t include the likes of Abu Bakr and Omar etc. into these hypocrites since their sound belief has been established by the same SAHIH narrations as the Iman/belief of the Ahl Al-Bayt!). Plus, the hypocrites were killed in the wars against the apostates. A war that was started by Abu Bakr against the REAL hypocrites and apostates, a war where Ali Ibn Abi Talib AIDED his brother Abu Bakr (unlike Shia claims that have been refuted HERE).

Now Ponder over the following facts:

– The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) gave glad tidings to Omar about his martyrdom:

The Prophet once climbed the mountain of Uhud with Abu Bakr, ‘Omar and ‘Othman. The mountain shook with them. The Prophet said (to the mountain), “Be firm, O uhud! For on you there are no more than a Prophet, a Siddiq and two martyrs.  (Book #57, Hadith #24)

Subhanallah! The two martyrs are the two Caliphs Omar AND Othman who were both killed! One during prayer (Omar) and one during the his recitation of the Qur’an (Othman).

– Omar dreamed about his death (‘I saw (in a dream) as if a cock pecked at me once or twice, and I can only believe that it means that my term has come.)

– Based on the glad tidings of the Prophet and his love for Shahada Omar used to ask for Shahada in Madinah (!), something apparently crazy to ask for, in fact Omar’s daughter Hafsa told him, “how would you ask Allah to bring you Martyrdom in Al Madina? How the Caliph of Muslims get killed in Al Madina that is the safest place on earth for Muslims?”, so Omar replied “If Allah well’s, this will happen”. He always made one du’a, publicly and privately, throughout his khilafah: “Allahumma ruziqniy shahaadah,” “O Allah, provide me with martyrdom.”

– Omar was finally granted what he ASKED for, in the CITY of Madinah, so no wonder that the following was Ali’s FINAL judgment over Omar:

– Ibn Omar  reports that the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam said: Allah made truth on the tongue and heart of Omar. (Tirmidhi)

– The Prophet told a few Sahaba (especially Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman) about the identity of the hypocrites, Omar was certainly not among them

– Omar was the gate that prevented the Fitnah (history testifies)

CONCLUSION:

Omar was a martyr of Islam, assassinated by a group of hateful coward Majoos who killed him (Omar) and themselves in a pathetic manner. And the only sect that carries this kind of hatred towars Omar is the Rafidi sect. The only difference is that the Rafidi sect has given their Sassanian grudge a ‘Islamic’ favour:

Finally: Want to follow Ali (عليه السلام)? Follow his final verdict and send salam on Omar (صلوات الله عليه)