Supposing the degraded reporters had fabricated this tradition for a specific
purpose, but what is the justification of these two persons that they regarded it
authentic and mentioned it like a valid tradition in their Sahih books?
Do they think that this debased act is from the implications of authentic
traditions, which they have narrated about him, that the modesty of His Eminence
was more than that of a virgin.1 Can you find anyone among the virgins, who
regard this shamelessness lawful? By God, no! By God, no!
Or come with me, so that we can compare what is mentioned in the two
books regarding Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and between what Ahmad has
narrated in his Musnad,2 from Hasan Basri. Hasan Basri has mentioned Uthman
and his excessive modesty and said:
“If he was in his house, and the door of the house was closed, he did not
remove his clothes even while taking a bath as his modesty prevented him from
that.”3
Look at the modesty of the Prophet of infallibility and devotedness and
compare it to the child of the accursed family tree mentioned in Quran; how
much difference is there between them! Is this Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) not the
same whom Muawiyah bin Haida asked: “O Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), to
whom can I show my privies and from whom should I conceal them?”
He replied: “Conceal your privies, except from your wife and slave-girl.”
He asked: “If I am in a group of people?”
He replied: “If you can you should not make anyone see that.”
He asked: “If one of us is alone?”
He replied: “Allah, the Mighty and the High is more worthy to be ashamed
of.”4
His Eminence (s.a.w.a.) has so much stressed regarding concealing the
privies that due to modesty for Almighty Allah that even a person, who is alone,
should not be naked and those, who have said that being naked even alone is not
lawful in any instance have reasoned through this report.5 What excuse can the
writers of the two Sahihs give that His Eminence made his privies open in public. Almighty Allah is seeing them from above.
More amazing is the fact that Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) believed in concealing
the privies of children, as is mentioned in authentic tradition, which Hakim has
mentioned in his Mustadrak, quoting from Muhammad Ayaz.6
I was taken to Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) when I was a child. I had a cloth on
me, but my genitals were exposed. He said: “Observe the sanctity of his privies,
and keep them covered; indeed the sanctity of the private parts of children is like
the sanctity of private parts of the elders. Almighty Allah does not look at the
privies of one, who exposes his privies.”
If the report narrated by Hisham is authentic – that is the story of His
Eminence playing games with children and exposing his privies and placing his
garments on his shoulders; and after that someone punched him, which caused
pain to him, and called: Wrap your garments around yourself – then how can the
tradition of Bukhari and Muslim be right?
After being punched and scolded, would he repeat the same thing when
grown up? How can the tradition of Bukhari and Muslim be compatible with the
traditional report of Bazzar from Ibne Abbas that:
“Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to bathe behind the rooms, and no one ever
saw his nakedness.”
Bazzar has said that: The chain of narrators of this report is good.7 And more
expressive than this is the report, which Qadi Ayaz has narrated from Ayesha in
As-Shifa that:8
“I have never seen the nakedness of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.).”
Mother of believers, judge between us and narrators of these valueless
traditional reports, and deliver a just judgment regarding those, who attribute
things to your holy husband things that even a degraded person regards himself
pure of and who say: A man, whom no one, even his wife, who is most familiar
with his secluded and private issues, had seen his nakedness, whereas he was
naked and his wrap was placed on his shoulders, and he carried rocks among
workers!
O mother of believers, which of these two reports from you is correct? Is
this tradition of yours correct? Or the tradition about modesty of Uthman – if you
had narrated it – at the side of what your husband had narrated that: “The thigh is
a part of privies?”
Attention: A close look at history and traditions informs us that the usual
habit of fabricators and liars in exaggerating excellence was that they exaggerate
about a special characteristic that the person is absolutely bereft of and nature,
which is opposed to his life history and proven biography.