As for curse of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) on Hakam and his son, it would not
harm the two of them, because the Prophet has compensated for this curse in his
another statement; indeed the Prophet is a human being, who becomes angry like
other human beings and he supplicated God, that whoever he has abused or
cursed that He should make it a source of mercy, purification and forgiveness of
their sins.
What Damiri has quoted from Ibne Zafar does not have interpretation and
justification regarding the quotation about Hakam, because he is a companion
and it is very bad for a companion to be involved in such a calamity; if from this
aspect this tradition is correct, it should be interpreted that they were involved in
that calamity before Islam.”
I don’t know what Ibne Hajar was thinking when he issued these statements?
Whether he is serious or was joking? As for his reasoning that: “And as for the
curse of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) on Hakam and his son, it would not harm the two
of them…” he has taken some words and omitted some words from the
traditional report, which Bukhari and Muslim have mentioned in their Sahih
quoting from Abu Huraira.1
The tradition is as follows: O God, Muhammad is a
human being, who is angry like other people; and You made an oath to me that
You will not do contrary with me regarding that; thus every believer that I have
distressed, or abused or cursed him, or beaten him, make these curses as their
expiation and a source of his proximity to You.
This is reducing the position of the Prophet for the sake of a useless
Umayyad and he has thought that this invoker of curse is like an ordinary man,
that what instigates others instigates him and he is angry at what is not worthy of
anger and is opposed to the following verse of the Holy Quran:
وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى
“Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed,”2
Yes, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) is a human being; but he is as such that it is mentioned in the Holy Quran:
قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ مِثْلُكُمْ يُوحَى إِلَى
“Say: I am only a mortal like you; it is revealed to me…”3
Thus, if the Prophet, on the basis of divine revelation, cursed that banished
man and his descendants, what would save him from the curse?
As for what Ibne Hajar has thought that revelation also follows personal
desires! What a great word has come out of his mouth. And how the curse becomes mercy, purification and expiation, whereas according to command of
Allah, the Mighty and the High he has attacked his position of prophethood and
the curse was appropriate?
What does Ibne Hajar say about the authentic report of Mutazafri that:
“Abusing a Muslim is a transgression.”?4
How does he consider his faith valid that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)
should be the abuser or curser or tormentor and should lash a Muslim without any
fault? And all this contradicts infallibility. Whereas Allah, the Mighty and the
High says:
وَتَعَاوَنُوا۟ عَلَى ٱلْبِرِّ وَٱلتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا۟ عَلَى ٱلْإِثْمِ وَٱلْعُدْوَٰنِ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ (٢)
“And those who speak evil things of the believing men and the
believing women without their having earned (it), they are guilty
indeed of a false accusation and a manifest sin.”5
And it is mentioned in an authentic tradition that: “Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
was not one, who abused, cursed or resorted to vulgarity.”
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) refrained from cursing even the polytheists
and said: “I have not been sent to invoke curses, and I am sent only as a mercy.”6
Thus, His Eminence (s.a.w.a.) hoped that those polytheists would be guided
and he did not curse them, but he had no hope regarding Hakam and his
descendants and he cursed them in such a way that perpetual degradation may
remain for them.
Yes, a report, which is mentioned in two Sahih books and which is opposed
to infallibility of Prophet, was fabricated during the time of Muawiyah, for the
sake of gaining his proximity and for greed for his bestowals, and expression of
affection for progeny of Abul Aas, who were proximate to Muawiyah. Whoever
wants to learn more about this may refer to the book of Abu Huraira, by Sayyid
Abdul Husain Sharafuddin Amili.7
Supposing we – refuge of Allah – agree to the fiction of Ibne Hajar
regarding infallibility and sanctity, but what plan does he have for this
foolishness regarding verses revealed about Hakam and his sons. Do these verses
contain any harm to him or he regards these verses also as mercy, purification
and atonement?
How much is the difference between the viewpoint of Ibne Hajar regarding Hakam and between statement of Abu Bakr to Uthman, regarding Hakam, which
would be mentioned and the statement of Umar to Uthman.
Abu Bakr said: “Your uncle will go to Hell.”
And Umar said: “Woe upon you, O Uthman, will you associate with one,
who is cursed and driven away by Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and is the enemy
of God and His Prophet?”