Neither Abu Bakr Nor Umar Was a “Liar, Sinful, Treacherous, and Dishonest”

Shia Propaganda

The Shia propagandists–-including the Answering Ansar website–-will oftentimes show us a Hadith from Sahih Muslim in which it appears that Ali thought of Abu Bakr and Umar as being a “liar, treacherous, and dishonest.” Of course–-as is usually the case–-the Shia propagandists are making use of a technique we like to call “Half Hadith-ing.” They post only half of the Hadith and thereby take it completely out of context.

Shia says

“ In Sahih Muslim, we see that Umar said: “He (referring to Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr said: ‘The Messenger of Allah had said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.’ So both of you (Ali and Abbas) thought him (Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest…When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr, you (Ali and Abbas) thought of me (Umar) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.” (Sahih Muslim)

”

However, the Shia propagandist has purposefully withheld information here, and he neglected to show the entire Hadith, including the first half of it. And there is a very good reason that he has neglected to show this, because if he did, it would completely debunk his own claims!

Authenticity of Hadith

But before we analyze the entire Hadith, we must first establish the authenticity of this narration. This same narration appears in Sahih Bukhari, but in that version, we do not find the words “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” In Sahih Bukhari, it merely states:

…فقال عباس يا أمير المؤمنين اقض بيني وبين هذا وهما يختصمان فيما أفاء الله على رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مال بني النضير …
ثم توفى الله نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال أبو بكر أنا ولي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقبضها أبو بكر فعمل فيها بما عمل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والله يعلم إنه فيها لصادق بار راشد تابع للحق ثم توفى الله أبا بكر فكنت أنا ولي أبي بكر فقبضتها سنتين من إمارتي أعمل فيها بما عمل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وما عمل فيها أبو بكر والله يعلم إني فيها لصادق بار راشد تابع للحق

without the use of the phrase “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.”

As the student of Hadith knows, the most authentic Hadith are those present in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim (meaning: both of them agreed on a Hadith and both mentioned it in their books). If this is not the case, then the greatest authenticity is considered Sahih Bukhari and then after that Sahih Muslim. Thus, as a rule, the Ahlus Sunnah believes that the narrations from Sahih Bukhari take precedence over Sahih Muslim. In case of dispute between the two, the Sahih Bukhari version is accepted over the Sahih Muslim version. This is the case with not only this particular Hadith but all other Hadith as well.

There are many lay people who erroneously believe that every word in Sahih Muslim is considered authentic by the Ahlus Sunnah. This is incorrect. A Hadith can be Sahih overall, but contain Shadh (an anomaly). As for the Hadith that the Shia propagandists quote from Sahih Muslim, it is considered a sound Hadith overall but the words “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” are Shadh (an anomaly).

Shadh (Anomaly) in the Sahih Muslim Version

It should be noted that those present at the scene of this argument did not remember exactly word for word what was said. In fact, even in the Sahih Muslim version we see that it said about the narrator:

“The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not.”

(Sahih Muslim)

If he was unsure about one part, then clearly he could be unclear about another. The exact wording was not remembered, and there were various versions other than the words “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.”

Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Hajar stated in his Sharh of Sahih Bukhari (i.e. Fath al-Bari) that there are variant versions of this narration:

زاد شعيب ويونس ‏”‏ فاستب علي وعباس ‏‏

Shuayb and Yunus added that Ali and Abbas called each other names without mentioning exactly what those names were.

وفي رواية عقيل عن ابن شهاب في الفرائض ‏ اقض بيني وبين هذا الظالم؛

In the version of Uqayl from Ibn Shihab (Zuhri) in “The Shares of Inheritance”, it says: “Decide between me (Abbas) and this unjust one (Ali).”

وفي رواية جويرية ‏”‏ وبين هذا الكاذب الآثم الغادر الخائن ‏”

In the version of Juwariyya, it says: “Between this perfidious, deceitful, wrongdoing liar (Ali).”

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said regarding this Hadith:

وكأن الزهري كان يحدث به تارة فيصرح،

meaning, the narrator of the Hadith Zuhri would sometimes not mention it (i.e. the phrase “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest”) and sometimes he would.

Thus, there are numerous versions of the Hadith, and the only thing which is absolutely clear is that Ali and Abbas were in disagreement, and so too were they at one point in time in disagreement with Abu Bakr and Umar. The details of these arguments (i.e. what words were used) is an unclear matter.

Sahih Bukhari Version is More Authentic

Again, in cases of dispute between two narrations–-one from Sahih Bukhari and one from Sahih Muslim-–preference is given to Sahih Bukhari. This is a general rule. Furthermore, the Sahih Muslim version of this narration is merely an Ahaad (single narrator) Hadith, which is another factor giving greater weight to the version in Sahih Bukhari.

Thus, for the Sunni believer, this Hadith brought up by Shia propagandists is a non-issue, because we take the version of Sahih Bukhari in which the words in question were not said.

Hadith in its Entirety

As for the Shia propagandists who simply want to debate with us, let us entertain them. Even if we were to accept the Hadith of Sahih Muslim over that of Sahih Bukhari, let us at least be honest about it and post the entire Hadith and not simply half of it. The Shia propagandists will post only the second part of this Hadith in which Umar says that Ali/Abbas said that Abu Bakr/Umar are liars, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. However, the Shia willfully neglects to post the first part of the Hadith in which Abbas first calls Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.”

The entire Hadith is a bit lengthy so after producing the entire Hadith, we shall bold the relevant parts as well as reproduce them afterwards:

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349:

It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said: Umar b. al-Khattab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): “Malik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them.” I said: “I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job.” He said: “Malik, take it (and do what you have been told).” At this moment (his man-servant) Yarfa’ came in and said: “Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. ‘Auf, Zubair and Sa’d (who have come to seek an audience with you)?” He said: “Yes, and permitted them.” So they entered. Then he (Yarfa’) came again and said: “What do you say about ‘Ali and Abbas (who are present at the door)?” He said: “Yes,” and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: “Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar (Ali).” The people (who were present) also said: “Yes, Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them.” Malik b. Aus said: “I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by ‘Ali and Abbas).” ‘Umar said: “Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?’” They said: “Yes.” Then he turned to Abbas and ‘Ali and said: “I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?’” They (too) said: “Yes.” (Then) Umar said: “Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger (may peace be upon him) a special favor that He has not done to anyone else except him.” He quoted the Quranic verse: “What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger.” The narrator said: “I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not.” Umar continued: “The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) distributed among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over.

“The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bait-ul-Mal.” (Continuing further) he said: “I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know this?” They said: “Yes.” Then he adjured Abbas and ‘All as he had adjured the other persons and asked: “Do you both know this?” They said: “Yes.” He said: “When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said: ‘I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).’ Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah).” (Referring to Hadrat ‘Abbas), he said: “You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.’ So both of you (Ali and Abbas) thought him (Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you (Ali and Abbas) thought me (Umar) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. So both of you got it.” He said: “Wasn’t it like this?” They said: “Yes.” He said: “Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.”

The Hadith can thus be broken down into relevant parts:

1) Abbas calls Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest”

2) Umar repeats the words of Abbas and says that Ali and Abbas thought of Abu Bakr and Umar to be “liar[s], sinful, treacherous, and dishonest”

If the Shia propagandists are going to accept this Hadith and use it against the Ahlus Sunnah, then they must accept the entire narration. In order to accept the second part, they must accept the first part in which Abbas-–who is revered by the Shia and comes from the House of Muhammad-–called Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Of course, the Shia will never accept this!

The Shia are thus left with two options: either they accept the Sahih Bukhari version of this Hadith as the Ahlus Sunnah does (in which case their claims that Ali called Umar such-and-such are no longer valid), or else they accept the fact that Abbas accused Ali of being a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.”

Context of the Hadith

The truth is that oftentimes Shia propagandists who post this Hadith on various forums have absolutely no idea what this Hadith is about. This is a narration of a story in which Ali and Abbas come to seek Caliph Umar’s arbitration in a dispute. In this dispute, Abbas was of the opinion that he should be given a portion of Fadak and the Prophet’s property as inheritance, whereas Ali thought that the property should be his based on his relation to Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter. This is mentioned in the above Hadith:

(Referring to Hadrat ‘Abbas), he said: “You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father.”

While presenting his case to the Caliph, Abbas referred to Ali as “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Firstly, Umar knew that both of them were wrong, and that neither inherits from the Prophet because of a Hadith which says that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Secondly, Umar did not approve of Abbas’s accusation against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point.

Umar was making use of rhetoric. The problem is that these Shia propagandists have no hold of Arabic Balagha. If they did, they would know that direct translation in English would not give the proper understanding. If we apply the Arabic Balagha, the phrase actually means: “So you both thought Abu Bakr was a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest?” This is an example of reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result. The following dialogue is an example of reductio ad absurdum:

Father- Why did you start smoking?
Daughter – All my friends were doing it.
Father- You’re saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?

In this case, Umar used the exact same words (i.e. verbatim) that Abbas used for Ali in order to make a point. Umar was basically saying: “If you think Ali is such-and-such, then you must also think that Abu Bakr and Umar are also that?”

Another analogy of this is a mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.

Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shia propagandists ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context.

Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality that it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.

Regardless of whether we accept the Sahih Muslim version or the Sahih Bukhari version, this Hadith actually makes Umar look good, not bad. Abbas disagreed fervently with Ali; in one narration, he supposedly called Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” In the more accurate narration of Sahih Bukhari, Abbas simply disagreed with Ali. Whatever the case, it was Umar who then repeated the same logic and questioned if both Abbas and Ali thought of Abu Bakr and Umar that way. This was in a way correcting Abbas and telling him to refrain from accusing Ali of such things.

In conclusion, the Shia can never use this Hadith against the Ahlus Sunnah; acceptance of this Hadith dooms the Shia case because then we could easily question the integrity of Ali who was accused by Abbas of being a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” And the Shia can never accept this, because they revere Abbas and believe him to be part of the House of Muhammad.

The Shia-–if they accept the Sahih Muslim version-–would have to agree that Abbas, the senior member of Ahlel Bayt and the uncle of the Prophet, called Ali these things. So then why condemn Abu Bakr for what Ali thought when Abbas thought the same of Ali? Was it because Ali was “actually” a liar or simply that Abbas said this in an emotional disagreement and with heated emotions? The Shia can answer this for themselves.

Nobody is Infallible

In any case, it is worthwhile to mention that unlike the Shia–-who have (Ghullat) tendencies of exaggeration in religion-–the Ahlus Sunnah does not consider anyone to be infallible. Thus, whatever errors may be attributed to Ali, Abbas, Abu Bakr, or Umar are a result of what arises due to being human. The truth is that everyone gets into arguments, and we find disagreements between Abu Bakr and Umar, and even between two members of the Ahlel Bayt!

An argument between two pious people does not negate our religion nor does it affect our basic beliefs. We already accept that there were disagreements after the Prophet’s death. There were disagreements between who would be the Caliph, and not just between Abu Bakr and Ali, but also between others. There were arguments about Fadak, and other such matters. These arguments may have historical meaning but they have no religious significance. Even if we accept the Shia propaganda that Umar and Ali hated each other, this does not change the belief system of Islam. Unlike the Shia, the Ahlus Sunnah does not allow civil and political arguments to change religious fundamentals.

In any case, although Umar and Ali were in disagreement on the matter of Fadak, this was a singular issue. The Shia cannot possibly bring up an Ahaad (single-chained) Hadith to somehow invalidate the plethora of Hadith which show that Ali and Umar were friends; Ali even gave his own daughter, Umm Kulthoom, to Umar in marriage!

Conclusion

In conclusion, this Hadith brought up by Shia propagandists in Sahih Muslim is considered authentic, but it contains Shadh (anomaly) and the words “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” do not appear in the more authentic version of Sahih Bukhari. Even still, if the Shia insist on us accepting the Sahih Muslim version in its entirety, then they must also accept that Abbas, whom they revere, thought of Ali as a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” In such a case, if the Shia can disregard Abbas’s words to Ali, then what prevents the Ahlus Sunnah from disregarding Ali’s words to Abu Bakr and Umar? As is usually the case, the Shia propagandist is debunked with just a little bit of analysis and common sense. After the Shia is forced to either accept Ali as being a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” or of rejecting this Hadith, he will no doubt choose the latter option, in which case the entire argument of the Shia is lost and this Hadith becomes a non-issue.

Love between Ali RA and the companions of Allah’s messenger (SAW) part 2

Bismillah

This is the second part of the article.

Who are the companions?

They are those who gave their very lives for the sake of Allah. Yes, they gave up everything, to be alongside the one they loved so dearly in the paradises Allah created. And they by Allah made it to their goal. How can I illustrate the love someone whose heart beats for the sake of his Lord, has for these people that pleased their Lord so much?

To be honest, it does not require for me to compose poetry, or write a book, or volumes or for me show it with my limbs and tongue. For who better than the Lord of the heavens, the Lord of all that exists, the King of kings, the Eternal, the Ever-living, the Irresistible, can illustrate the status of these giants amongst men, formed and tutored and taught by the most beloved (saw), may my parents be sacrificed for them!

For indeed yes! He has spoken about them! Not once or twice, but many times! Who amongst man has this honour? Who amongst man has been forgiven eternally other than the Prophets? Subhanallah, I shiver as I think about it! Indeed wasn’t it Abu Bakr RA, who was mentioned from above the skies? And wasn’t he who asked the messenger (saw) ‘did He (tabarakahu wa ta’ala) mention me, Ya Rasul Allah?’ And when the response came in the affirmative, he burst into tears and could not be stopped or controlled. For he was a man with a soft heart, as his daughter As-siddiqah bint as-siddiq  said. My heart yearns to see these people wallahi.

So now, let us see what Allah said about these people… and what their enemies said about them, and my answer.

 

“You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred. Those – He has decreed within their hearts faith and supported them with spirit from Him. And We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally. Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him – those are the party of Allah. Unquestionably, the party of Allah – they are the successful.”

Al Mujadilah(58):22

This ayah seems familiar, those who fought their own brothers and fathers…

“In the company of the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) we used to fight our parents, sons, brothers and uncles, and this continued us in our faith, in submission, in our following the right path, in endurance over the pangs of pain and in our fight against the enemy.”

NAHJUL BALAGHA ( http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/55.htm)

Ali RA was truly eloquent, his words were beautiful. Allahu Akbar!

Imam Ali, described to us who these people who were ‘supported with a spirit from Him(!)’ Allah decreed in their hearts faith! Ali told us who the party of Allah were. And he witnessed them and was alongside them! And they are successful… Indeed Allah speaks nothing but the truth, and the siddiqun are those who affirm what He and His messengers say. May Allah us amongst them.

 

 

“[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”’

Before I go into this verse, a shi’i maybe thinking, ‘Aha! Well this should prove the kufr of the companions as they fled the battlefield! So Allah stuck terror in their hearts!’ (Wal ‘iyaadu billah) But let us see when this verse was revealed.

Tabataba’i, one of the most famous and recent mufassirun for the shi’a said this verse was revealed regarding Badr!

تشير الآيات إلى قصة بدر، وهي أول غزوة في الإِسلام، وظاهر سياق الآيات أنها نزلت بعد انقضائها على ما سيتَّضح.

So who ran away at Badr? No-one! The companions were firm! So the companions are those who believed, the participants of Badr are declared believers by Allah!

So then the usual argument comes, they became hypocrites after! It was after the death of the Prophet (SAW) that the companions became munafiqun. So let us see how far this claim goes with the Qur’an. Thus far I have only been showing ayaat in which the companions are praised. Let us see the ayaat in which they are ‘condemned with’ and the claims against them.

So let’s start with the foundations of this claim (other than jahl).

 

‘When the hypocrites come to you, [O Muhammad], they say, “We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah.” And Allah knows that you are His Messenger, and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars.’

 

‘They have taken their oaths as a cover, so they averted [people] from the way of Allah. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.’

‘That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand.’

 

‘And when you see them, their forms please you, and if they speak, you listen to their speech. [They are] as if they were pieces of wood propped up – they think that every shout is against them. They are the enemy, so beware of them. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?’

It is usually these ayaat that are brought, to say ‘why couldn’t they be munafiqun? Is it really that impossible?’ Then whoever says this, should know, that after someone dies they cannot change to munafiq or mushrik. It is only within their lives. So first I say study the lives of the ones you claim things in a way that shows your humility in front of the Eyes of Allah (SWT). Because be warned! You claim things which go against Allah’s word! So be warned Ya akhi!

The reason why the that runs amongst the people regarding these ayaat being ‘proof’ that the companions were munafiqun is such. Allah Glory be to Him, and we only Praise Him refutes this always. Throughout the Qur’an. And surprisingly next ayah reads this:

 

‘It is all the same for them whether you ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them; never will Allah forgive them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.’

Fit this characteristic of arrogance to any of the companions. See how far you go. How many times have we read the companions used to seek Allah’s pleasure by the du’aa of His messenger? Everytime Allah’s messenger (SAW) mentioned something to do with akhirah, regarding jannah or jahannam, or even judgment, the companions were seen racing to the forgiveness of their Lord. The best and relatively well-known narrations/incidents is the incident of Ukasha bin Mihsin (RA), after the Prophet SAW mentioned seeing his nation on the plains on the day of judgment, (may Allah save us from His ghadab on that day… Glory be to You, Ya Rahman!) One of the companions RA asked the Prophet ‘am I among them?’ The Prophet affirmed it, then another companion asked the same as Ukasha(!) Doesn’t this show eagerness? And wouldn’t any wise person do the same? This is narrated in Bukhari, Muslim and many others with sahih isnaad obviously.

Another incident which really deserves to be mentioned and highlights the fear the companions had of paths that lead to hellfire. The famous hadith which is almost always deformed by everyone else except those that love and follow the companions, the hadith is the famous hadith when the Prophet SAW mentioned to us about the 73 sects in Islam, I skipped most of the narration for I only wanted to point out a benefit. In this hadith the Prophet SAW mentions that there will be 73 sects in Islam, and that only one of them will be in jannah, the rest will be destroyed. Now logically, what would you ask the person who says this knowing his trustworthiness? You would ask what group is that and seek to be amongst them! Did the companions do any different? No! They asked ‘what group is that?’ What did the Prophet SAW reply with? ‘The one I am upon and YOU ARE UPON!’

Anyone who claims that the companions didn’t ask what group, is mad. The one who thinks the companions are misguided is equally or even madder as this in some way is a great blaspheme against the messenger that was sent to us. Why? Because this is effectively saying that the Prophet SAW did not even convey his message and did not teach those who were with him, or didn’t teach them well. It effectively destroys or goes against the honour of the messenger, his friends and family, and the Ummah at large, for it is saying he trusted the wrong people, and did not convey the message.

Anyways, there are many other narrations which show their fear of misguidance.

To further the point of refuting this disgusting claim, and to put it where it belongs, I will further use ayaat where Allah describes the munafiqun. I dare anyone to show an incident where they showed hypocrisy!

 

‘And when they meet those who believe, they say, “We believe”; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, “Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers.”’

 

‘Those who wait [and watch] you. Then if you gain a victory from Allah , they say, “Were we not with you?” But if the disbelievers have a success, they say [to them], “Did we not gain the advantage over you, but we protected you from the believers?” Allah will judge between [all of] you on the Day of Resurrection, and never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them].’

 

‘So you see those in whose hearts is disease hastening into [association with] them, saying, “We are afraid a misfortune may strike us.” But perhaps Allah will bring conquest or a decision from Him, and they will become, over what they have been concealing within themselves, regretful.’

 

‘And those who believe will say, “Are these the ones who swore by Allah their strongest oaths that indeed they were with you?” Their deeds have become worthless, and they have become losers.’

 

‘Had it been an easy gain and a moderate trip, the hypocrites would have followed you, but distant to them was the journey. And they will swear by Allah, “If we were able, we would have gone forth with you,” destroying themselves [through false oaths], and Allah knows that indeed they are liars.’

 

‘May Allah pardon you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them permission [to remain behind]? [You should not have] until it was evident to you who were truthful and you knew [who were] the liars.’

 

‘Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask permission of you to be excused from striving with their wealth and their lives. And Allah is Knowing of those who fear Him.’

And many more which show the qualities of hypocrites, I challenge anyone to show me any ayah like these which fit for the companions? The only one I can think of is the ayah about Hunain when some companions fled, but Allah said He forgave them. So is there any more?

I wish to continue in the next part, and go through the major ayaat and what people say regarding them. And who can argue with the words of Allah the Sublime?

May Allah forgive me for any evil I have done and reward me for any good I have done.

Wa salaamun alaykum wa rahma

Poor responses regarding the minute

Answer of the office of Ayatullah Fadlullah:

ج) لعل ذلك يشير إلى الوصية التي يتحملها الإمام (ع) من سلفه والعهد الذي يعهد به إليه، والله تعالى أعلم، إضافة إلى أن الروايات غير تامة سنداً، فلا تكون موثوقة بالنظر إلى مضمونها وسندها

Maybe it is the Wasiyah or the promise which the Imam PBUH gives to the Imam which comes after him, Allah knows best. Keep in mind that the narrations are incomplete in Sanad and they(narrations) are not Mawthouqah(Trusted) based on the Matn and the Sanad.

– end –

comment: No one said anything about the Sanad, the point was if these were inserted later, don’t change the topic to the Sanad because for all I care Most of your Main Book is Garbage in terms of Sanad.

Answer of Ayatullah Ali Sistani:

From Imam-US (it’s basically the U.S liason office for Ayatullah al-Sistani):
السلام عليكم
مصطلح (دقيقة) وارد في اللغة العربية حتى قبل الاسلام. كما كلمة (ساعة)
ايضا. وهذه الكلمات لا يراد بها المعنى المتخذ اليوم وهو ان الدقيقة تعادل
ستين ثانية. بل بمعناها العام، مثلا (بقي الحسين يجود بنفسه ساعة) وتفاصيل
الحوادث لا تشير الى انها كانت ستين دقيقة، فالمعنى هو (فترة) و(وقت) محدد
وقليل. اما احتمال وضع الاحاديث بعد الائمة فهذا احتمال غير وارد، لان
الشيخ الكليني هو ثقة الاسلام وجميع الفقهاء يوثقونه ويعتمدون كتابه
الكافي، وهو كتاب ورد فيه اشادة من الامام المنتظر عجل الله تعالى فرجه.
لكن يبقى هو خاضع للتقيم ومعرفة الرواة والسند والدلالة. فهو ليس قرانا.
ودمتم.

The Term “Daqiqah” is found in the Arabic language even before Islam. Like the word “Sa’ah”(Hour) also. And these words are not understood like they’re understood today as in 1 min is 60 sec. But they are understood in a General sense for example (Hussein remained at home for one hour) and the details of the narrations do not prove that it is 60 minutes, but it means a short amount of time.
As for the possibility of inserting these Hadiths after the Imams, this is not possible because Kulayni is thiqat-al-Islam(trustworthy in islam) and all Faqihs adopt his book al Kafi and this is a book Which the Awaited Imam (Mahdi) has praised, but still there is room to study the Sanad of the narrations and the narrators of such hadith because it is not a Quran.

– end –

comment: We all All Know the term hour was used back then, It’s in The Quran even and this is common knowledge and it means a short amount of time. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT MINUTE!!!

Firstly this Guy admits that Daqiqah(minute) is used in the narration to specify time and he is a LIAR! and I challenge him to bring me one Arabic dictionary which says that The word Daqiqah was used to specify time in the era of the Imams (And if he could he would have done so).

Secondly, He changes the topic Again to the Sanad, I don’t care about the Sanad, whether it is weak or strong doesn’t matter with me, Which Arab would understand the term minute in 140 hijri? this is unheard of, Who inserted this narration later into al Kafi?

Thirdly Notice That Ayatullah Sistani says that the Book al Kafi was PRAISED BY the Mahdi himself!!! Does anyone know what this means? it means that this book which is FULL of narrations of tahreef al Quran and full of the dumbest most ridiculous nonsense is praised by Mahdi, thus we can use any Hadith in this Book al Kafi as a Hujjah on the Twelvers and they can’t use the excuse of the Sanad being weak or not BECAUSE THE INFALLIBLE MAHDI PRAISED THIS BOOK!

here are a few examples:

اصول الكافي ج1 ص414
علي بن إبراهيم، عن أحمد بن محمد البرقي، عن أبيه، عن محمد بن سنان عن عمار بن مروان، عن منخل، عن جابر عن ابي جعفر عليه السلام قال: نزل جبرئيل عليه السلام بهذه الآية على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله هكذا: ” بئسما اشتروا به أنفسهم أن يكفروا بما أنزل الله (في علي) بغيا(2) “.

Usool al Kafi 1/417
Ali bin Ibrahim from Ahmad bin Muhammad al burqi from his Father, from Muhammad bin Sinan, from Ammar bin Marwan from Mankhal from Jabir from Abu Ja’afar PBUH that he said: Gabriel PBUH revealed this verse for the prophet PBUH like this: {{They bartered their lives ill denying the revelation of God in ALI out of spite}} Surat 2 Verse 90.

الحسين بن محمد، عن معلى بن محمد، عن علي بن أسباط، عن علي بن أبي حمزة، عن أبي بصير، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام في قول الله عزوجل: ” ومن يطع الله ورسوله (في ولاية علي [وولاية] الائمة من بعده) فقد فاز فوزا عظيما(1) ” هكذا نزلت.

Usool al Kafi 1/414
Hussein bin Muhammad, from Ma’ala bin Muhammad, from Ali bin Asbat, from Ali bin Abi Hamza, from Abu Baseer, from Abu Abdullah PBUH about the saying of Allah: {{and he who obeys God and His Prophet in the Wilayah of Ali and the Wilayah of the Imams after him will be successful.}} Surat 33 Verse 71, This is How it was revealed.

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن خالد، عن محمد بن سليمان عن أبيه، عن أبي بصير، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام في قول الله تعالى: ” سأل سائل بعذاب واقع * للكافرين (بولاية علي) ليس له دافع(1) ” ثم قال: هكذا والله نزل بها جبرئيل عليه السلام على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله.
المصدر السابق ص422

Usool al Kafi 1/422
Ali bin Ibrahim from Ahmad bin Muhammad from Muhammad bin Khalid from Muhammad bin Suleiman from his Father from Abu Baseer from Abu Abdullah PBUH about the saying of Allah: {{AN INQUIRER ASKED for the affliction that is to come (1) Upon the Kouffar In The Wilayah of Ali — which none would be able to repel –}} Surat 70 Verses 1 & 2, Then he said: By Allah it was revealed like this, this is how Gabriel PBUH revealed it to the Prophet PBUH.

Now the Question is, Did the Imam al Mahdi miss those and the hundreds of others by any chance? How can this “creature” praise such God awful disgusting kufri book!?

Al Salamu Aleykum,

My hadith is hadith of my father (weak!)

Whenever we ask shias why do their books contain so few ahadeth from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), they answer: Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (alaihi salam) says: “My hadith is the hadith of my father, the hadith of my father is that of my grandfather, the hadith of my grandfather is that of al-Husayn [bin ‘Ali], the hadith of al-Husayn is that of al-Hasan [bin ‘Ali], the hadith of al-Hasan is that of Amiru ‘l-mu’mimin [‘Ali bin Abi Talib] (a.s.), the hadith of Amiru’l-mu’minin is that of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w), and the hadith of the Messenger is a statement of Allah, the Almighty, the Great.”

And now just see, how dajal Kamal Haydari use this weak hadith to proof his false mazhab!

 

This hadith was narrated by Kulayni “Kafi” (1/53):

But, it’s not saheeh even per their norms.

Majlisi in “Mirat” (1/128) said it’s weak ala mash`hur. Bahbude also said it’s weak.

In the chain of this hadith Sahl ibn Ziyad, he’s weak in accordance to agreed opinion between shia scholars. (Najashi “Rijal” p 185; Ibn Dawud al-Hilli “Rijal” p 249; Sheikh Hasan ibn Zaynutdin “Tahrir at-tawusi” p 199; Tifrashi “Rijal” 2/89 and others).

In it also Umar ibn Abdulazeez (not the righteous Caliph, but someone with the same name).

The only one I found with that name in their books is: Abu hafs ibn Abi Bashar, Umar ibn Abdulazeez, known as Zuhal.

عمر بن عبد العزيز، أبو حفص بن ابي بشار، المعروف بزحل – بالزاي والحاء المهملة. قال الكشي: قال محمد بن مسعود: حدثني عبد الله بن حمدويه البيهقي، قال: سمعت الفضل بن شاذان يقول: زحل أبو حفص يروي المناكير وليس بغال. وقال النجاشي: انه مختلط (2)

So as Al-Hili said in his book: “Umar ibn Abdulaziz, Abu hafs ibn Abi Bshar, who is known as Zuhal. Al-Kishi said: …. He narrates Manakeer (Rejected traditions) … and Al-Naghashi said: He is Mukhtalat”

And he is the one that Abu Ja’far ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Eisa narrates from (as Al-Tusi said in Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat Al-Rijaal), which is the case in this tradition.

So unless they can show that is someone else (and I could be wrong here) then it is another weakness that can be added to “My hadith is hadith of my father” tradition … well, if we apply their rules on them that is …

Kulayni also narrated (1/51):

وعنه، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن الحسين بن سعيد، عن القاسم بن محمد، عن علي بن أبي حمزة، عن أبي بصير قال: قلت لابي عبدالله (عليه السلام): الحديث أسمعه منك أرويه عن أبيك أو أسمعه من أبيك أرويه عنك؟ قال: سواء إلا أنك ترويه عن أبي أحب إلي: وقال أبوعبدالله (عليه السلام) لجميل: ما سمعت مني فاروه عن أبي.

It is narrated from him from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn abu Hamza from abu Basir who has said the following. “Abu ‘Abdallah (alaihi salam) said to Jamil, ‘What you hear from me narrate it from my father.’”

Both Majlisi and Bahbude shared view that this hadith is weak. In the chain Ali ibn Abi Hamza, pillar of waqife mazhab, and that followers of that mazhab are kuffar in the view of shias. Imam said to this man: “You and your friends look like donkey”. (Ibn Dawud “Rijal” p 259). Also in the chain al-Qaseem ibn Muhammad, and he was also waqife.

Majlisi narrated similar hadith in “Bihar” (volume 2, bab 19, #21)

جا، ]المجالس للمفيد[ ابن قولويه عن ابن عيسى عن هارون بن مسلم عن ابن أسباط عن ابن عميرة عن عمرو بن شمر عن جابر قال قلت لأبي جعفر ع إذا حدثتني بحديث فأسنده لي فقال حدثني أبي عن جده عن رسول الله ص عن جبرئيل ع عن الله عز و جل و كل ما أحدثك بهذا الإسناد و قال يا جابر لحديث واحد تأخذه عن صادق خير لك من الدنيا و ما فيها

Via chain: Amr ibn Shimr – Jabir – Abu Jafar (alaihi salam).

Amr ibn Shimr extremely weak. (Tifrashi “Rijal” 3/336; Ibn Dawud al-Hilli “Rijal” p 235, 264; Najashi “Rijal” p 128, 287; Allama Amili “Khulasat” p 94, 95, 378).

Shias free to show us single authentic hadith with such meaning from their books. Hadith PLUS chain PLUS direct reference in the shia book PLUS translation.

re-Refutation of ‘Moses and the stone’.

I have seen many shias mocking our books where written story about Moses (alaihi salam) and stone.

That story is saheeh without doubt, and it has been narrated in many shia books.

First I’d like to quote shia commentary “The light of the Holy Quran” which was compiled by: Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of  Scholars.  In the commentary to surah al-Ahzab (verse 69) it says:

Some of the ignorant people of the Children of Israel accused Moses (a.s.) that he had some bodily defects such as: leprosy, and the like, because when he wanted to wash himself he never stripped himself of clothing in front of others. But one day, when he wanted to perform a total ablution in a corner far from people, he put his clothes on a piece of stone, then the stone moved and took Moses’ clothes with it and some of the Children of Israel saw his body that it had no defect.

This story was narrated with slight difference in the wording by many classical shia scholars.

1) Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his commentary (2/197):

حدثني أبي عن النضر بن سويد عن صفوان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام إن بني إسرائيل كانوا يقولون ليس لموسى ما للرجال وكان موسى إذا أراد الاغتسال يذهب إلى موضع لا يراه فيه أحد من الناس وكان يوما يغتسل على شط نهر وقد وضع ثيابه على صخرة فأمر الله الصخرة فتباعدت عنه حتى نظر بنو إسرائيل إليه فعلموا انه ليس كما قالوا فأنزل الله ( يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تكونوا . . . الخ ) أخبرنا الحسين بن محمد عن المعلى بن محمد عن أحمد بن النضر عن محمد بن مروان رفعه إليهم عليه السلام فقال يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تؤذوا رسول الله في علي عليه السلام والأئمة عليهم السلام كما آذوا موسى فبرأه الله مما قالوا

2) Tabarsi in “Majmaul bayan”:

ثم خاطب سبحانه المظهرين للإِيمان فقال { يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تكونوا كالذين آذوا موسى فبرَّأه الله مما قالوا } أي لا تؤذوا محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم كما آذى بنو إسرائيل موسى فإن حق النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يعظمّ ويبجّل لا أن يؤذى واختلفوا فيما أوذي به موسى على أقوال:

أحدها: أن موسى وهارون صعدوا الجبل فمات هارون فقالت بنو إسرائيل أنت قتلته فأمر الله الملائكة فحملته حتى مرّوا به على بني إسرائيل وتكلمت الملائكة بموته حتى عرفوا أنه قد مات وبرَّأه الله من ذلك عن علي (ع) وابن عباس واختاره الجبائي.
وثانيها: أن موسى كان حيياً ستيراً يغتسل وحده فقالوا ما يستتر منا إلا لعيب بجلده إما برص وإما ادْرَة فذهب مرّة يغتسل فوضع ثوبه على حجر فمر الحجر بثوبه فطلبه موسى فرآه بنو إسرائيل عرياناً كأحسن الرجال خلقاً فبرأه الله مما قالوا رواه أبو هريرة مرفوعاً. وقال قوم: إن ذلك لا يجوز لأن فيه إشهار النبي وإبداء سوأته على رؤوس الأشهاد وذلك ينفر عنه.

3) Mirza an-Noore in “Mustadrak al-Wasail” (1/486):

1236 / 5 علي بن إبراهيم في تفسيره عن أبيه عن النضر عن صفوان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله ( ع ) إن بني إسرائيل كانوا يقولون ليس لموسى (ع) ما للرجال وكان إذا أراد الاغتسال ذهب إلى موضع لا يراه فيه أحد من الناس فكان يوما يغتسل على شط نهر وقد وضع ثيابه على صخرة فأمر الله الصخرة فتباعدت عنه حتى نظر بنو إسرائيل إليه فعلموا انه ليس كما قالوا فانزل الله ( يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تكونوا كالذين آذوا . . موسى ) الآية

4) Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi in “Biharul anwar” (13/8):

10 – تفسير علي بن إبراهيم: أبي عن النضر عن صفوان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام إن بني إسرائيل كانوا يقولون: ليس لموسى ما للرجال وكان موسى إذا أراد الاغتسال ذهب إلى موضع لا يراه فيه أحد من الناس وكان يوما يغتسل على شط نهر وقد وضع ثيابه على صخرة فأمر الله الصخرة فتباعدت عنه حتى نظر بنو إسرائيل إليه فعلموا أنه ليس ‹صفحة9› كما قالوا فأنزل الله: “يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تكونوا كالذين آذوا موسى فبرأه الله مما قالوا” إلى قوله : “وجيها” .

5) Faydh al-Kashani in “Tafseer as-Safe” (4/205):

69 ) يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تكونوا كالذين آذوا موسى فبرأه الله مما قالوا فأظهر براءته من مقولهم وكان عند الله وجيها ذا قربة ووجاهة القمي عن الصادق عليه السلام إن بني إسرائيل كانوا يقولون ليس لموسى ما للرجال وكان موسى إذا أراد الاغتسال ذهب إلى موضع لا يراه فيه أحد من الناس فكان يوما يغتسل على شط نهر وقد وضع ثيابه على صخرة فأمر الله عز وجل الصخرة فتباعدت عنه عليه السلام حتى نظر بنو إسرائيل إليه فعلموا أن ليس كما قالوا فأنزل الله الآية

6) Huwayzi in “Tafseer nurus saqalain” (4/308):

250 – في تفسير علي بن إبراهيم حدثني أبي عن النضر بن سويد عن صفوان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام ان بني إسرائيل كانوا يقولون ليس لموسى ما للرجال ، وكان موسى إذا أراد الاغتسال ذهب إلى موضع لا يراه فيه أحد ، فكان يوما يغتسل على شط نهر وقد وضع ثيابه على صخرة ، فأمر الله عز وجل الصخرة فتباعدت عنه حتى نظر بنو إسرائيل إليهفعلموا ان ليس كما قالوا ، فأنزل الله : يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تكونوا كالذين آذوا موسى لاية .

7) Tabatabai in “Mizan” (16/353):

وفى تفسير القمي بإسناده عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام أن بني إسرائيل كانوا يقولون: ليس لموسى ما للرجال وكان موسى إذا أراد الاغتسال ذهب إلى موضع لا يراه فيه أحد فكان يوما يغتسل على شط نهر وقد وضع ثيابه على صخرة فأمر الله الصخرة فتباعدت عنه حتى نظر بنو إسرائيل إليه فعلموا أن ليس كما قالوا فأنزل الله ( يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تكونوا كالذين آذوا موسى ) الآية .

Then ‘(mis)guided’ attempted to refute this work done by brother Effendi, may Allah reward him well by this article on their website named: wilayat.com

‘Is It True That the Prophet Musa Ran NAKED in the Shi’a Sources?!

In this article he makes many errors, which not only show his desperate attempt to find an argument against these proofs, but show further contradiction in supposedly scholarly work.

‘Tafsir Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi is the ONLY original Shiite source of this fable! It has not been “narrated” by many classical Shiite scholars or books!‘

So he states that Tafsir Al-Qummi is the only source with this narration. So what would be wrong with that? Let’s see…

‘What is the authenticity of the al-Qummi report? For rijal believers, the words of Sayyid al-Khui (رحمه الله تعالى) should be enough.‘

Yes it should be, and let’s see what Kho’i said about this tafsir:

Al-Kho’i, authenticated ALL of the narrations in Al-Qummi, in mu’jam rijaal al hadeeth lil kho’i, vol.1 page 63.

So how can he argue with that? Here is his argument:

Mu’jam al-Rijal, 22/55, he declares the chain weak because Safwan never met Abu Basir (رضي الله عنه), from whom he is said to be reporting in the chain

Subhannallah… must be confusing for shias, is his tafsir authentic? Or not? I wish to hear an explanation for that.

the rest of the argument in this article he made, just talks about the matn (text) and goes on about how humiliating a Prophet makes it weak and so on. Thing is, I don’t even want to talk about humiliation making a  narration weak, that makes many of your so-called history incidents becoming weak immediately, forget about the narrations in your books. So this topic becomes sour and disgusting if I quote all the things which the shi’a scholars classical and contemporary found authentic, which not only humiliate Prophets, but the Imams as well. So I would rather steer clear of talking about this unless need be.

Then he talks about Abu Hurayrah RA, about him being a fabricator who takes narrations from the israelites. And this would be an easy claim by those who hate the companions anyways, but inshaallah I will devote many articles on defending this noble companion. As well as all the others the shi’a hate and defame, whilst Allah spoke highly about them. But this will be in another section.

But then the cream on top, he states a narration which not only contradict many actions they take, but also expose them and their creed. So I really don’t know what to make of this, I leave this with the reader, I urge you to read to the end of this narration and the conclusions made from it, which are explicit and clear for the shi’a.

Muhammad ubn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Safwan ibn Yahya from Dawud ibn al-Husayn from ‘Umar ibn Hanzala who has saod the following:

“I asked Imam abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) about the two people with a dispute between them on the issue of debts or inheritance and they go to the king or the judges for a decision is it permissible to seek such decisions?” The Imam replied, “Whoever would go to them for a judgement in a right or wrongful matter it is like seeking the judgment of the devil. Anything received through such judgment would like consuming filth even if it would one’s established right. It is because of receiving through the judgment of the devil and Allah has commanded to reject the devil, “yet choose to take their affairs to Satan for judgment even though they are commanded to deny him. Satan wants to lead them far away from the right path. (4:60)”

I said, “What should then they do?” The Imam replied, “They must look for one among you who have narrated our Hadith and have studied what is lawful and unlawful in our teachings and have learned our laws they must agree to settle their dispute according to his judgment because I have made him over you a ruler. When he may judge according to our commands and then it is not accepted from him the dissenting this judgment has ignored the commands of Allah and it is rejection of us. Rejecting us is rejecting Allah and that is up to the level of paganism and considering things equal to Allah.”

I said, “What if each one of such disputing parties would chose a man from among our people and agree to accept their judgment but these two men would come up with different judgments and they would have differences in your Hadith?”

The Imam replied, “The judgment will be the judgment of the one who has a more just, having more better understanding of the law, Fiqh, the more truthful in Hadith and the more pious of the two. The judgment of the other one will be disregarded.” So by this who are we supposed to take? Ya Ahlul Shi’a? The companions, or those who narrated (fabricated) the hatred between the ahlul bayt and the sahabah? Should we take their actions and their teachings, or the people who were evidently and factually more pious and god-fearing than anyone after them?

I said, “What if both (of such judges) would be just and accepted among our people and none of them would have been any preference over the other?”
The Imam replied, “One must consider and study the hadith that each one of them would narrate from us as to which has received the acceptance of all of your people. Such Hadith must be followed and the one, which rarely accepted and is not popular in your people, must be disregarded because the one popularly accepted is free of doubts. The nature of cases are of three kinds: (a) A case that is a well-known and true to follow. (b) A case that is well known to be false to stay away from. (c) And a confusing case the knowledge of which must be left to Allah and His Prophet for an answer. The holy Prophet has said, ‘There is the clearly lawful and the clearly unlawful and the confusing cases. One who stays away from the confusing ones he has protected himself against the unlawful ones. (I want to examine this further later inshaallah, because if this narration is taken, and this is what it seems as he is using this narration as proof, then there are issues in this narration which must be studied and surveyed inshallah) Those who follow the confusing matters they indulge in unlawful matters and will be destroyed unexpectedly.”j

I said, “What if both Hadith from you would be popular and narrated by the trustworthy people from you?”

The Imam replied, “One must study to find out WHICH ONE AGREES WITH THE LAWS OF THE QURAN AND THE SUNNAH AND IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE LAWS OF THE THOSE WHO OPPOSE US. Such Hadith must be accepted and the one that disagree with the laws of the Quran and the Sunnah and coincides the masses must be disregarded.”

I said, “May Allah take my soul in the service of your cause, What if both Faqih, scholars of the law would have deduced and learned their judgment from the book and the Sunnah and found that one of the Hadith agrees with the masses and the other disagrees with the masses which one must be followed?”

The Imam replied, “The one which DISAGREES with the masses must be followed because in it there is guidance.”

This narration speaks for itself. Let’s see further:

[Kitab al-Kafi, Book on the Virtues of Knowledge, Chapter 21, Hadith 9]

In other words, whenever there are differences of opinion on any issue within Shi’ism, whichever of the opinion agrees with Sunnis should be rejected because in it is misguidance! Whatever agrees with Sunnism among varied opinions will always contradict the Qur’an and Sunnah!

Even Efendi al-Nasibi himself cites this from Tabarsi’s (رحمه الله تعالى) Majmu’ al-Bayan:

واختلفوا فيما أوذي به موسى على أقوال

There are different opinions as to how Musa was annoyed….

Then a shi’i may turn around and say, ‘but you sunnis believe everything we say is lies, because of ‘taqqiyyah’.’ Now that is different. The shi’a scholars and Imams taught the shi’a to not show their beliefs and to lie to us and to deceive us, and there is even contemporary fatawa, saying don’t tell people about our beliefs if it affects da’wah, and to lie if it helps da’wah. So what are we supposed to say? Just pretend they don’t say these things? But you will never find ahlul sunnah scholars saying everything that agrees with the shi’a way is misguidance. Rather, wasn’t it Abdul-Hussain Al Musawi in his book al-muraji’at who showed 100 shi’a narrators in ‘bukhari’?

‘Now, in line with the instructions of our Imam (عليه السلام), it is APPARENT that the weakest opinion is that of Musa (عليه السلام) pursuing a stone naked because it is the only one that agrees with Sunnis!’

Clear?

So he concludes with:

Thus, the story of Musa (عليه السلام) pursuing a stone is unacceptable by Shiite standards from many angles:

1. It has a weak, disconnected chain. This has already been questioned… Al-Kho’i’s contradiction.

2. It is only one of many opinions on the verse and it supports the Sunni view. For this reason alone it becomes absolutely unacceptable. Madness if used as an argument

3. It contradicts authentic narrations on the same subject.

“Allamah al-Majlisi (رحمه الله تعالى) has recorded this particular opinion with a hasan chain in his Hayat al-Qulub, Urdu version, vol. 1, p. 542.

Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Shahrashub (رحمه الله تعالى) also states in Mutashabihah al-Qur’an vol. 1, p. 246

Is it just me, or did he not quote a ‘authentic – sahih’ reference? I though he said it is hasan by majlisi? So where is the one more authentic than the one in question? The contradiction of Al-kho’i makes the situation confusing for shias. He made all narrations in Al-Qummi as authentic, so by common sense, it is more authentic and the only reason they weaken it is due to matn and agreeing with Ahlul sunnah…

4. Its matn is unacceptable, since it defames a noble prophet of Allah. – Contradictions

So the problems that remain are the narrator being Abu Hurayrah RA, and it agrees with ahlul sunnah. Because if we agree with the argument about matn,

And Allah knows best.

KHOMEINI SAYING IRANIAN YOUTH ARE BETTER THAN SAHABA!

Allaahs’ praise of the Companions is widely mentioned in The Qur’an. And their virtue and excellence is part of the creed of any Muslims. Surely we love what Allaah loves , and we give precedence to whom Allaah gave precedence.

For example :

Allah (عز و جل) says in the Noble Qur’an :

“And the former, the first from amongst the muhajirun and the ansar, and those who followed them in righteousness, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. And He has prepared for them gardens of which rivers flow below, abiding therein forever, that is great success.”

[Suratu At-Tawbah: 100]

And The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وسلّم) said :

“The best of my nation is my generation then those who follow them and then those who follow them.”  [Saheeh Bukhari]

And more on the excellence of the companions, please see our link section where there is a must-read book on the creed a Muslim has concerning the Companions.

Now, lets look at what the rawaafidha believe of the Companions (رضّى الله عنهم) :

The destructed Ayatush-Shaytaan Khomenie  says [in the book : al-wasiyyah siyasiya] :

‘ I completely presume that the Iranian youth -in their millions of numbers- in this current time : they are better than the people of al-Hijaaz [Makkah & Madina and sorrounding areas] during the time of The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وسلّم) !!!…

And they are better than the people of Koofah in Iraaq during the time of the prince of believers [Alee] , and Husayn [may Allaah be pleased with both of them] … ’

End of his words:

So who do you believe , Allaah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala) and then The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وسلّم) who said the Companions (رضّى الله عنهم) are the best of people, or this Human+

who says such repungent words ?!!

And for you is the text :

فهذا هو الذي أردت أن أنبه إليه ، فإن أصبت فمن الله. وإن أخطأت فمن نفسي، والله تعالى أسأل أن يعصمنا وإياكم من الزلل ومن كل ما لا

70 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS A Challenge to the Shi’ites

By Muhammad Mansur Ibrahim – Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto

Rendered To English By –  Barrister Muhammad Nasiru Sidi

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most merciful

 

EULOGY BY

LATE SHEIKH JA’AFAR MAHMUD ADAM

(May Allah have mercy on his soul)

The following are the direct statements of late Sheikh Ja’afar Mahmud Adam after he finished delivering the translation and meanings of the Qur’an (tafseer) at the routine time in the jumu’ah Mosque of Uthman bin Affan located at Gadon Kaya, on jumu’ah 15^th Muharram (1428AH), equivalent to 2^nd February 2007. It was exactly ten weeks (10wks),which is equality to Seventy days (70days) before what Allah destined would happened to him. May Allah reward him abundantly and accept him as a martyr, ameen.

They are as follows;

“There is a tape of Mallam Mansur, Seventy questions that have no answers; all are directed to the Shi’ites. I listened to the whole of the tapes on my way from Sokoto to Kano.

Frankly speaking, I have never heard a convincing lecture in Hausa language that discussed Shiism as those tapes. It is nothing but an inspiration from Allah; it will be a great loss if it happened that you have never listened to the tapes.

However, it instigates me personally to present it to brothers in Islam for them to distribute it, whoever records tapes should have them for distribution amoung the populace. I gave my words of advice to the author i.e. Mallam Mansur, that the tapes/lecture should be converted to a book for easy accessibility.

On a serious note, the tapes are really convincing, and May Allah reward him abundantly. Further more, I’m not marketing the tapes on behalf of those that are responsible (tape recorders), but if a student of knowledge missed it, then he has incurred a great loss.

I admit that I learnt a lot, and by this Allah is my witness. There are some things I knew and he reaffirms them to me, and there are others that I never knew of, I heard them.

Conclusively, the tapes are of utmost importance, Look for them! Look for them!! Look for them!!! I am re-attesting this to you.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful

 

Introduction

These questions were delivered and presented in the masjid of Sultan Bello situated at Sokoto town, on Friday 14^th Dhul Qidah 1427(AH) equivalent to 2^nd December 2006. I challenge the shi’ites with these questions, giving them assurance that if they answer only 7 out of  them I will declare myself as a shi’ite.

The program was organized by “Ahlul baiti & Sahabah  foundation, Nigeria” the foundation which pledge to create awareness to the public of the part that exited between the students/companions of  the propet sallahu alaihi wassalam and his household ( Ahlul baiti).  Because this two parties as Allah described them are one and the same, they have the same life style, they are their brothers’ keeper, and they have affection for one another and help one another. They live and practiced the same doctrine, they have one leader, and their objective in life is single, I.e. following the footsteps of our leader, the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam.

The following questions and those that are akin to them are as a result of a long research conducted by Sunni scholars on the Religion of Shi’ah, and their gripping arguments/challenges among the Shiite from time immemorial. This could be evident looking at the history of Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taimiyyah during his life time, so also late Sheikh Ihsan Ilahi a Pakistani among others.

However, this kind of challenge was also directed to Shi’ite in a program stationed by “Al-Mustaqillah” channel, conducted during the month of Ramadhan 1418(AH). It was a live transmission of two hours daily from the beginning to the end of the mouth, and was transmitted to different parts of the world. The Sunni scholars like Sheikh Usman Al-Khamis, Saudies, Sheikh Abdurrahman Dimashqiyyah, Iraqis  and Sheikh Abul Muntasir Al-Balushi, Iranian, are among those that hade this kind of sessions with “Ayats” of shi’ah, and they challenged them with similar questions like mine. These kinds of questions can be viewed in the Sunni web pages, especially the pages of alburhan.com, wylsh.com, and fnoor.net. e.t.c.

I came across a book written by Sheikh Sulaiman bn Salihu Al-kharashi titled “As’ilatun Qadat shababas Shi’ati Ilal haqqi”. It was a week after I delivered my lecture. We also share the same doctrine, and we use the same authority i.e. following research on shi’ite books and the statements of their scholars of the past and the present.

One other reason that influenced me to present these challenging questions is the fact that, the state and some local government representatives attended a workshop of six month at Iran. They are presently back in the country with what they thought is real knowledge. These questions are presented to them for it may lead them to the fact about the devilish doctrines that were introduced to them.

Our hope is that piety should be their yardstick in response to these questions. We have no doubt that they are seekers of truth and were misguided. However, if they reason well, with Allah’s Mercy, they are then pressed to return to the truth i.e. the footpath of Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam (Sunnah).

In conclusion, I must thank Allah the Almighty that eased my task. And also, must extend my appreciation to Barrister Muhammad Nasiru Sidi who transcribed the presented lecture into English. I followed the whole of the work and chaptarised it, I also add seven (7) additional questions to the first seventy (70), the question ever chapterised into ten (10) chapters all with the intention of simplifying it for the shi’ite to understand the truth.

May Allah help us.

Abu Ramlah,

Muhammad Mansur Ibrahim

At Sokoto, 01/06/1429AH-06/06/2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

 

Shi’ism and Islam

Question one:

This question is underlined under the saying of Allah (Subhanahu Wata’ala) in Suratul Ma’idah verse 3 where he says;

“… this day, I have perfected your Religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your Religion…”.

 

The above verse was revealed on the 10^th year after migration (Hijra), ninety seven (97) days before the demise of the Noble prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam. This is an automatic indication. that the Noble prophet has spent twenty-three years preaching the Religion of Islam. However, it is also ten years after the establishment of Islamic state.

The Religion of Shi’ism, its doctrines and politics, attempted rebellion of the Religion all happened after the demise of the Noble prophet.

The question here is Shi’ism part of the Religion that was perfected on the day of Arafah or not? If it is part of that Religion, then why didn’t the Noble prophet mention it? Why didn’t he establish his Religion on it? Why didn’t he teach his students about it? An if it was after the Religion has been perfected that the Religion (Shi’ism) emerged, then what is its need?

 

Question two:

It is a known fact that when Sayyidina Uthman was martyred, the whole of the Muslims paid homage to Aliyu bin Abu dalib Radiyallahu Anhu . The mantle of authority and leadership was given to him unanimously. It was after he decided to change one of the Governors he met in power, and that Governor has a massive support of his citizens, further more, the blood compensation of one of the Governors household that was murdered i.e. Sayyidina Uthman, and that was the point that triggered disagreement between them. That was the motive the terrorist used to ignite their temper and caused war.

The question here is, when Sayyidina Ali Radiyallahu Anhu was in position of authority, why didn’t he proclaim Shi’ism? Why didn’t he produce a new Qur’an? Why didn’t he decree temporary marriage (mut’ah) and perform it? Why didn’t he give the acclaimed farm of Fatima   radiyyahu anha that you always claim (fadaq) and hand it over to her heirs? Why didn’t he abrogate “Assalatu Khairun Minan Naumi” that you said is an innovation of the companions? Why didn’t he also add “Ashhadu Anna Aliyyan Waliyullah” in the Adhan proclamation, since doing so is part of Religion in your doctrines? Why didn’t he deviate from any of the things that the three Khalifs (successors) did?

Is this not a clear indication that Aliyu  is a Sunni and not shi’ite? And he has a complete loyalty and affection to those successors that preceded him against your insinuations?

 

Question three:

Kulaini in Al-Kafi (1/397) has a chapter that he titled: “ the rise of Imam (establishing an authority) will lead by the laws of the Jews”. He proceed by saying; “…they will never request for an evidence nor witness (in dealing with issues regarding evidence)” (then the murder of who ever is not a shi’ite will be rampant whether he is the one with convincing argument or not in any lawsuit).

In the book “Biharul Anwar”(52/354) Majlisi said; “when Mahdi appears, he will come with a new Religion, a new book (scripture) and new laws/decrees”. Nu’umain also corroborated this in the book of “kitabul Ghaibati” pp 154

It was reported in the a fore mentioned book that Ja’afar As-Sadiq said; “I can forecast/prophesize Mahdi when he will appear in the Ka’abah between Ruknul Yamani and Maqamu Ibrahim, he will be pledging to people on an authority to follow a new scripture and not the Qur’an”. The above was reported in the book; “Biharul Anwar” (52/135)

However, Majlisi in the above book (Biharul Anwar) said; “when Mahdi appears, by the time people notice how he will commit murder, they will have wished he had never appeared.” He continued; “… Majority of citizens will doubt him as a blood relation to the Prophet, sallahu alaihi wassam because if he is a member of the (Prophet) household, he is bound to be merciful.

My question here is, why is it that if your Mahdi appears he will be governed by the laws/decrees of the Jews? Is it not that prophet Muhammad; sallahu alaihi wassalam decree has abrogated all laws before it? Why should they leave the Qur’an aside? Is this not a pointer that the origin of your Religion is from Jewish Religion joined with Magus (paganism), wrapped with Paganism and named Islam?

 

Question four:

What is the relationship between your Religion (Shi’ism) and the parsian  language? This is because you disregard Arabic language completely, and you give high esteem to Parisian and their language above any language or person. Before you disconcour let me give an example that will clarify my intent.

Your books revealed that if your Mahdi appears, he will murder the Quraysh, and murder the Arabs, Further more, among his names is “Kisrul Magus” The king of pagans! You already confess that “Choesroes” the King of Persia that tore the letter of the Prophet sallahu alaihi wassallam as you say out of disrespect will dwell in the hell fire but hell fire is prohibited against him. However, your books also gave more priority to Salmanul Farisy over almost all the companions of the Prophet, Abu Lu’luata, a pagan that kill Umar is earning great respect in your doctrines, you also visit his grave yard.[1] Al-Gharithi in the introduction/preface of his book “Aqdud durar fi Baqri Badri Umar” said; Abu-Lu’luata is entitled to Allah’s mercy even though he is not a Muslim. Visiting his graveyard and praying for him is among the great deeds that earn rewards, because of the great act he deed for the murder of Umar, the in-law of the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam !!!!

Don’t you see how Al-Ahqaqi in his book “Risalatul Islam” pp 324, he protested against what people that are filthy, devils and thoroughly bad “as he said” did to sanctified woman of Paris (Pagans) when it was conquered. He is referring to the compaions of the Prophet sallaju alaihi wassalm !!.

The place of Karbala located at Iraq (Persia) is better than Makkah and Madinah under your doctrines. This reached to the extent that the degree of Ka’abah in comparison with Karbala is like what a needle will carry of the water from an ocean; this is the assertion of Majlisi in Biharul Anwar (98/106).

Indeed, today Iranian nation has adopted Parisian language as an official language as provided under the provision of Iranian constitution P³. This shouldn’t be a surprise looking at the fact that, most of the recognized and authorized scholars of shi’ite, that are allowed to give their respective opinions in religious matters are foreigners (Ajami) i.e. they don’t speak Arabic language. Scholars like Khumaini, Khamna’ei, Rafsanjani, and Khatame, even Sistani “Sayyidul Muhaqqiq” the real leader of the shi’ate scholars of this time. All of them do not speak Arabic!  Just some year’s back, Al-jazeerah channel has an interactive session with the leader of Nigerian shi’ite, but Arabic was translated to him and he responded in English language! Don’t you notice that? !!!  before then, he confessed that he could not not read Arabic text without vowel singns !!!.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2

Questions On (Imamah) Leadership

 

The Religion of Shi’ism is based on the doctrine that Aliyu bin Abi Xalib Radiyallahu Anhu is the first successor or rather leader (Khalif), This is how the name, Imamiyyah, was derived and attributed to them. They insinuate that the Prophet sallahu alaihi wa sallam willed the succession of leadership to Ali Radiyallahu Anhu, and the progeny of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu should be the train of the Will.

This doctrine was the main reason why the shi’ites viewed the companions especially those that succeeded the Prophet before Ali as leaderships taken by force, tyrants’ unfaithful to the Prophet and his will/bequest. This issue regarding leadership is of utmost importance to the Shi’ite, because they take it as the greatest pillar of Islam which the other pillars can’t stand if it is not established, they reached to the extent of saying that it is even more than prophet hood in importance.[2]

 

Question 5:

Why is this great pillar of Religion not mentioned in the Qur’an jus like the other pillars whom you think they are not as important as it (Imamah). Allah has mentioned so many things in His detailed book (Qur’an). Lets take prayer as an example, not even the prayer it self , purity, ablution, ceremonial ablution, qibla & even excrement were discussed in the Qur’an.

Further more, what is prohibited or otherwise were mentioned and discussed in the Qur’an the blessed book, as Allah says;

“When he hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you – Except      under compulsion of necessity…” Q6: 119.

However, not even things that are compulsory or otherwise even those that are recommended and discouraged are discussed in the Qur’an. Things like loan, hunting, have almost four verses revealed.[3]

Why is it that a verse wasn’t revealed to declare the leadership of Aliyu, this is evident because there is no verse that shows Aliyu to be the first leader of Muslim Community after the demise of the prophet. Why is the name of Aliyu not mentioned in the Qur’an but the name of Zaidu is very clear in Suratul Ahzab?

It’s a known fact that Shi’ite scholars had a consensus that Aliyu’s name is provided in hundred of Qur’anic verses but the companions removed it. This is clear in their holy book; Alkafi. A million-dollar question here is where is the safety and guard Allah has promised regarding the Qur’an?

 

 

Question 6:

On the day of conquest of Makkah, the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalm borrowed the key to the door Ka’abah from the tribe of Banu Dalhatu who are the custodians to the keys; this was an inherited custom from time immemorial.

When the prophet conquered Makkah, he requested the key to open the door of Ka’abah, this was a very tragic event to Banu Dalhah that the end of their custody to the key has come, and this led them to crying. Immediately Qur’an was revealed on the issue where Allah says;

“Allah doth command you to render back your Trusts To those to whom they are due; And when ye judge Between people That ye judge with justice: verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He who heareth and seeth all things.”

In response to above verse, the Noble prophet took back the keys to Banu Dalhah, he further make a pronouncement that re-affirm their custody of the key till the day of resurrection and said;

“Take the keys O Banu Dalhah, it stays with you forever, and no one will take it away from you except a tyrant.”

Our question here is, if an issue of just the keys to Ka’abah the prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam was so direct and clear for establishing the trust of the custodians, and the trust is just for custody and not ownership, then why is there no any bequest or pronouncement regarding the leadership of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu that you always claim? Why didn’t the Prophet make such a pronouncement and say; “take this leadership o the family of Ali, forever and no one will take it away from you except a tyrant” why didn’t the prophet sallahu alaihi wa sallam do this? Is the concept of leadership more important than any thing as your insinuation asserts?

 

Question 7:

You always claim that your twelve leaders are infallible. If you are asked to give  proof /authority,   you would say the reason of their  leader ship as well asa being infallible that the Noble Prophet clothed Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain and said; “Oh Allah! These are my household, and then remove all abomination from them, make them pure and spotless”

However, since Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala purifies them then they are regarded as infallibles (ma’asum).

Our question here is, why didn’t you call Fatima as (ma’asumah), we didn’t see her name among your leaders because that Prophetic tradition is the evidence of leadership in your doctrine!! Further more, where are the cremaining nine leaders in that verse or the Prophetic tradition?

 

Question 8:

During the life of Muhammad sallahu alaihi wassalam many people from different cities did come and convert to Islam at Madinah, After that, they returned to there various cities. Many of them met the Noble Prophet once, twice or thrice. These kinds of people have never heard of anything as regard the leadership of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu as the one the prophet bequeath leadership to as you always claim.

Our question here is, is their Islam complete or is yet to be completed? Are they having a mini-Islam? !!! If you say there is reduction and is a mini Religion, then why didn’t the Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam complete it for them and explain this important pillar? But if you believe their Religion is complete, then what is the essence of the statement that Religion is incomplete without attesting to the leadership of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu.

Is this an affirmation that the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam has shorten his message as Khumaini profess in his book “Kashful Asrar” he believed that “The Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam has not completed the message of Allah regarding Aliyu as he completed Allah’s message of his Prophet hood”?

Question 9:

It is a known fact that the Shi’ites claim that Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu is the person who own the right of leadership, and those successors before him are tyrants that were in power by force, then why was he a member in a constituted six man committee during the demise of Umar Radiyallahu Anhu, and from among them, a successor would be selected.

The detail is as follows; when Umar Radiyallahu Anhu was in the process of demise after he was stabbed while praying, he became optimistic that he will die, Umar Radiyallahu Anhu then announce six names, and from among them a new leader shall emerge. He testified that all of them are equal to the task and qualified, and that their relationship with the Noble Prophet was cordial.

These six people are; Uthman bin Affan, Aliyu bin Abi Dalib, Abdurrahman bin Auf, Dalhatu bin Ubaidullah, Zubair bin Auwan, Sa’ad bin Waqqas. They were given the ultimatum of three days to announce who shall be the next leader, and an interim government was constituted.

During the first sitting of that committee (Shurah), they agreed that three should step down and let the contest be between the three others. However, one of them i.e. (contesting three) stepped with the consensus that he shall choose between the remaining two i.e. Uthman and Ali Radiyallahu Anhu. Abdurrahman bin Auf was now the one that was given three more days to decide who shall be the new leader, after various consultations with the Muslim ummah, he nominated Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu who emerge as the new leader (Khalif) of the Muslims.

Our question here is, why didn’t Ali Radiyallahu Anhu told them that he was the initial chosen person by Allah , Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala and the rest shall automatically withdraw? Why then did he accept the membership of the Shurah if he knew that his right would be taken away from him? If he knew the initial bequest of the Noble prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam, then what is the essence of contesting for the office?

 

Question 10:

If what you are claiming is a fact, that the Noble prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam wished Ali Radiyallahu Anhu to be his successor, he even made an effort to inform his companions. But it is a known fact that under Islamic doctrine, a leader is the one who supposes to lead prayers. Why didn’t the Noble prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam instruct Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu to lead prayers even if it was just once before the demise of the Prophet.

Either from our books or yours, our source of history or yours, is their any source that established Ali Radiyallahu Anhu to have led prayers even if it once? From both our books and yours we knew that Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu led prayers. But there is no any source that informed us Ali Radiyallahu Anhu has led prayers, why? And you say he is the leader by bequest/will!!!

 

Question 11:

Why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu accept so many offers of appointment on different occasions during the reign of Umar Radiyallahu Anhu? Example; when Umar Radiyallahu Anhu was to leave for Qudus to collect the keys to the third 3^rd most important and sacred masjid after was conquered under the leadership army of Khalid bin Walid. During that time Umar Radiyallahu Anhu appointed Ali Radiyallahu Anhu as the acting Khalif of Madinah (Governor), at that time, the office was like the office of Vice-President. Because he will be an automatic President (Amirul Muminin) of the interim administration i.e. de facto president before the new president is elected as de jure.

Why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu take the office of a Special Adviser, and Governorship office under the reign and administration that the Shiite termed it as an Unislamic and tyrant? See Nahjul Balagah pp 325 & 340.

Further more, when Umar Radiyallahu Anhu was on his way to wage war against Iraq and later changed position and returned to Madinah, he appointed a representative who was Ali Radiyallahu Anhu as Governor of Madinah (Vice-President). Salmanul Farisy also was once a Governor at Madinah under the reign of Umar, Ammar bin Yasir was the Governor at Kufah under the same administration, and these two companions are close associates of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu. See Siyaru A’alamin Nubala’I (1&547, & 422).

Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu was also a Judge during the same reign, why didn’t he claim and profess his leadership, and for that reason he should have denied to serve under the administration of Umar?

 

Question 12:

Why didn’t Ali bin Abi dalib Radiyallahu Anhu climb the (mimbar) of the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam even once just to inform the Ummah about his right? For example; to say; “Oh people;! Remember the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam instructed me to lead you, so go against these tyrant?” and this could be done if the three successors that came before him are really tyrants as you claim?

 

Question 13:

Is Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu not a warrior? Where is the warrior ship? Why didn’t he fight those that took away his sacred right? In the books of Shi’ah, it was written that the leadership of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu was a divine revelation from heaven, and Allah subhanahu wata’ala referred to him as Amirul Muminin as it came in their popular book “Al-kafi” authored by “Kulaini.” Then why didn’t Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu declare a religious war against them to protect his sacred revealed right? Or is there any evidence that there was a war between him and those that succeeded the Prophet before him? Or did he request for any aid from the Ummah as the position of his son Hussain when he made effort to fight Yazid as a tyrant?

 

Question 14:

In the book of “Nahjul Balagah” pp 136 one of the most outstanding book to Shi’ites, it was said that; Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu has requested that the leadership should not be given to him after Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu died, this was because of the misfortune and calamity the Ummah was facing. A “Coup d’etat” was successful and the plotters came from Kufah, they were very few, not more than two thousand (2000) men.

But they were left to actualize their mission because Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu disallowed the  people to counter their attack. Finally, they lunched their attack against Amirul Muminin (President) and murdered him in his residence, in the sacred city of the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam. The following was the reported request of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu as it came in Nahjul Balagha;

“Leave me alone and look for someone else, for me to be a minister to help the president is better for you than I become the President (Ameer).”

Our question to the Shi’ites here is why didn’t he accept his right that was revealed by Allah subhanahu wata’ala? Is he afraid? Then who is he afraid of after Allah subhanahu wata’ala? If he was defeated and bullied at the initial stage, now that chance was clear to establish Allah’s command has come, he should have use this opportunity? Or is it a fallacy on what you always claim about Allah’s instruction?

 

Question 15:

Why did you exclude the family of Al- Hassan from leadership? But you establish it to the family of Hussain? The following is the list of your leaders (imams) as recorded in your books; none came from the family of Al-Hassan except him;

1, Aliyu bn Abi dalib

2, Hassan bn Ali

3, Hussain bn Ali

4, Ali bn Hussain (Zainul Abidun)

5, Muhammad bn Aliyu bn Hussain (Al-Baqir)

6, Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussein (As-Sadiq)

7, Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (Al-Kazim)

8, Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (Ar-Ridha)

9, Muhammad bn Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (At-Taqiyyu)

10, Aliyu bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (Naqiyyu)

11, Alhassan bn Ali bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (Al-Askari)

12, Muhammad bn Hassan bn Ali bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (Mahdi)

Why is it that all your (Imams) leaders are Hussain’s lineage? Why was the family of Al-Hassan not included? Is it not establishing the fact of the accusation against you that,  it is because Hussain is an in-law to Choesroes the king of Persia  you give him and his lineage high esteem because they have blood relation with Choesroes, who was the leader and King of fire worshippers?

Historical source show that when Persia was conquered during the reign of Umar Radiyallahu Anhu and the daughter of Choesroes the King of Persia was taken as a captive name “Shaharbanu”, Umar Radiyallahu Anhu then showered his favour and gave Hussain Radiyallahu Anhu that Princess as a gift, all the children of Hussain are from his union with this slave girl, the daughter of the King of present (Iran).  Looking at the fact on how paganism and pagans were against Islam, coupled with the fact that Islam succeeded to conquer and destroy their Religion (paganism), and their kingdom that was built by their fore fathers, this triggered them to establish Shi’ism. The Religion was  built by their fore farthers, this triggered them to establish Shi’ism. The Religion was however establish on household ship, connecting it to the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam but although the real image connected with for their yardstick, the king of Persia. If you disconcur with this assertion, then we need an explanation of what distinguish and make the image of Al-Hussain higher than Al-Hassan, as reported in your books. Among others are;“Tanqihul Maqal” by Mamaqani  (3/142) A’ayunus shi’ah (1/26), Biharul Anwar (27/212), Kitabus Sulaimi ibn Qais pp 288.

 

Question 16:

It is a fact that your 12^th leader (Mahdi) has hidden himself in a cave for over a thousand years, then what is the reason? In Iraq there is a special day that the Shi’ites gather to cry and seek for his quick emergence, this will make him to save the Ummah, he is a Messiah that will save the Ummah against tyrants!!! There some new scholastic opinions that are mostly found in the Internet establishing that spread of vices should be encouraged because it will quickly ease the emerge of Mahdi.

From the first instance why did he hide himself? It’s a fact that fear of tyrant leaders during the Abbasids was the reason for his disappears. Then why didn’t he appear after the downfall of that empire? The Shi’ites later established new governments/Kingdoms of “Ubaidiyyah” and the later authorities after that like “fatimiyyah”, “Buwaihiyya”, “Safawiyya? Even at our Present time we have Iranian Republic, which has in her possession the “Nuclear weapon of mass destruction” how can we believe the Mahdi that fears tyrants can fight against tyranny for the Ummah?

 

Question 17:

It was reported that during the birth of your acclaimed Mahdi, some birds came from heavens and were playing with their feathers and surpassing on him, they were touching his face and head and flying away, this was their routine acts. When his father was told, he smiled and replied; it was the Angels that came to have good fortune with him, and when he will acquire leadership, they are his helpers.

Our question here is if the Angels are his helpmates then why should he disappear and hide, who then dose he fear?

 

Question 18:

It was reported in your books that the life lf Mahdi was prolonged because of the immense need the Ummah has for him, as it was reported in the book of Minhajul-Karamah of bin Mudahhir.

Our question here is if there is any being whose prestige could reach that his life is prolonged, then why wasn’t the life of the Noble Prophet prolonged? Or is it that in your creed Mahdi is more valuable and important than the Prophet, or is it that the Ummah needs him more?

 

Question 19:

It is your (Shi’ites) creed that your 12 Imams including Hassan and Hussein all have the knowledge of the unseen and they don’t die until they so wish to die, This was what was reported in your most authentic book Al-Kafi. Then why did Hussain take himself to death? Why did Al-Hassan eat the poisoned food? He has the knowledge of the unseen and will eat a poisoned food? Did he commit suicide? We know that the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wa sallam said; “whoever commit suicide will dwell hell fire.” Are you trying to say Al Hassan has committed suicide after he knew there was poisoned and eat the poisoned food?

 

Question 20:

You also acclaim the infallibility of Al Hassan & Al Hussain, this also goes to the rest of your 12 leaders. This is the consensus of your scholars, it is evidence in your books among which; Ikmaluddeen by Saduq, Aqidatul Imamiyyah by Muzaffar and Hukumatul Islamiyyah by Khumaini. One of your musicians from Kano (Gadon Qaya) has added the 13^th in his hausa  poem where he said :

Zazzakiyyu is a Religion reformer

The only infallible

Every Emir is also a follower

Oh the restless should understand

Is not an abuse to Emirs?

Our question is between these two infallible who is right? Is it Al-Hassan or Al-Hussain? Al-Hassan without any duress gave Banu Umayyad the mantle of authority given to him; he passed it over to Muawiyah. Al-Hussain made an attempt to bring back that leadership which led to his assassination. Who among them acted right?

We should be aware of the fact that when Al Hassan gave out this authority, thousands of followers are answerable to him, and were ready to surrender their lives for his safety, he was already the leader. Al Hussain has in his camp only his household and some of his blood relatives that are not more than seventy, mainly women and children. Some of them that notice their weakness left and run away. Those that face the army and fight with him are not up to 50. But he still insisted to accomplish his aim.

Who is on the right path between them? Is it the one who has thousands of army and willingly surrender the mantle of authority to Banu Umayyad? Or the one who insisted on fighting Banu Umayyad without any strong army, who is right between them?

According to Sunni creed, they are not infallible, and Al Hassan is more right because the Noble  prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam praised him and what he did, this was when the Prophet was giving good news of the happenings. He said; “this my grandson is a leader, and one day he will be an arbiter between two Muslims though they fight each other, this is because is a war of a misunderstanding not a war against belief (creed). Hussain was wrong in disregarding the advice given to him by observers, destiny led him to miscalculations, because fighting an established government (incumbent) by trusting the shi’ites, whom never stand by their words, is just an act of destiny. The Shi’ites before this incident assassinated Ali and Al Hassan Radiyallahu Anhu.

Before Hussain Radiyallahu Anhu was assassinated, he has given up, and noticed really that the Shi’ites had planned against him. He then gave three options i.e. to go back to Madinah, or proceed and fight together with muslim warriors or the last option to surrender himself to Yazid and pledge his allegiance to him. Some Muslims including some of his household and some companion concur with the last option. They denied him access to any of these options as an individual. This led him to fight the government but not as a rebel. Our wish and hope was he being a martyr, and his assassins should expect and wait for Allah’s anger and wrath if they didn’t repent.

Martyrdom of Hussain is a blessing that Allah bestowed on him as he bestowed on his brother Al Hassan, this is for the elevation of their honor to enable them attain their established destiny of the saying of our Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam, ; they are the youth leaders of paradise. Before the death of the Noble Prophet they were kids, none of them witnessed any religious war, but by their assassination, Allah has gave them the honor that slipped them.

This is our creed we Sunni, and we await your answers you the Shi’ites, who is right and wrong between them?

 

Question 21:

In the book of Al-Kafi (1/252) it was narrated; “the 12 leaders knew the day they will die and none will die unless by will.” further, more in the book of Biharul Anwar (43/366) Al- Majlisi narrated “none of the Leaders has died a natural death, its either he is assassinated or he is poisoned”.

It is an established fact in our creed that who ever commits suicide will dwell in hell fire, by the narrations reported from the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam. Then when your leaders were poisoned, are they aware of it and ate the poison, is this not a suicide? Or were they ignorant of it? Or are all these stories fallacies? i.e. the narrations by Kulaini and Majlisi.

 

Question 22

You persistently acclaim that Hussain died with thirst and narrated that he said; “whenever you drink water remember me” in the states that shi’ah is established, there are special places set for drinking water and written boldly; “drink and remember the thirst of Hussain”[4]

Our question is that doesn’t he has the knowledge of the unseen? Isn’t he aware of his thirst? Why didn’t he come with enough water? Allah instructs us to carry weapons when embarking on war; how can we travel with weapons and forget of food. Go to Suratul Anfal verse 60, Allah says we should make provision if we are to go for a war. Is there any good provision of some one to take than water if he is liable to death on the journey?

Our creed is that Hussain is ignorant of what is about to happen to him, but he followed his destiny as decreed by Allah, but you that said he has the knowledge of unseen we await your explanations.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3

Shi’ah And Qur’an

 

Question 23:

The Shi’ites you accuse the companions of changing the Qur’an, and  many of your narrations from your authentic books confirm that. You believe that our Qur’an is fake, because you accuse the companions of hiding the original Qur’an, for example, in the book of Biharul Anwar (24/305) it was reported from Abu Abdullah, Ja’afarus Sadiq alaihis vsalam he said: “The Qur’an was revealed in four different categories; the first category was revealed on us (household of the Prophet), the second category was revealed against our enemies (companions), the third category are combination of tradition and proverbs, the fourth is the composition of compulsory duties, and some rules of authority. All the honors and dignity of the Qur’an is revealed on us”.

Imagine!!! A quarter of the Qur’an is bunch of proverbs; this is the base of their argument against the companions, that they hide the first two categories of the Qur’an. But if you read the whole of the Noble Qur’an from beginning to end, there is no place where the companions were dishonored and accused but vice versa.

Our question here is if the companions hide some portion of the Qur’an where is Aliyu? Why didn’t he unfold it? Or are they the only ones under obligation and Ali Radiyallahu Anhu is not under that obligation? If he unfold it, then where? What did he revealed? Where is the new Qur’an? Produce your proof if you are truthful.

 

Question 24:

If the companions hid half or the provisions of the Qur’an because they hate the honor of the Prophet’s household, then why didn’t they hide the Prophetic traditions that revealed their honor? They are evidenced in both your books and ours. At this juncture, I will not give example with your books (Shi’ites), I will use our (Sunni) books that are our pride.

After the Qur’an, there is no any book of high esteem and authenticity than the books of Bukhari and Muslim. Let us bring some example from them as regards the honor of the Prophet household. E.g. “ Whoever I am his close inmate then Aliyu is also his close inmate.”

We can deduce that the whole Shi’ites creed is based on this tradition. It was reported in Bukhari by more than 20 companions, in the science of hadith it reach the peak of authenticity i.e. (tawatir), the companions reported it and we believe in it but our argument is the misinterpretations given by you the Shi’ites.

The Noble prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam make this pronouncement on his way back from the farewell pilgrimage at “Ghadir Khum” the Shi’ites refer to this place as a junction where people disperse and follow their routes to their various town/cities, and they claim it to be the reason that the Noble Prophet choose this location to inform the Ummah that Ali Radiyallahu Anhu is his successor.

To authenticate this story; I traced the source and origin of this particular place and asked resource persons in Saudi Arabia, it led me to know the particular place (Ghadir Khum). It was established that the distance from Makkah to this place is 250 kilometers on your way to Madinah.

Lets use our reasoning and see whether it comprehends that pilgrim will take 250 kilometers before each will take his route? The people of da’ifa as an example, their town is not more than 40 kilometers from Makkah, those from Iraq follow a different route back nothing will connect them to Madinah. The people of Kufah, and Basrah will not reach “Ghadir Khum” for them to take their routes. This also re-affirms that Ghadir Khum is not junctions for disperse by pilgrims.

The fact of the story was that the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi qWassalam made the pronouncement after all have dispersed, and warn the people going to Madinah against what he was hearing against Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu. The main reason was that Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu led an army, after the war, some of the companions wanted to exhaust some booties and he denied them until they reached Madinah. The Noble Prophet makes this pronouncement for them to identify the dignity and honor of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu and whoever dishonors him will dwell hell fire.

We the Sunni’s believe that whoever dishonor Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu will dwell hell fire, and there is no any Sunni who dishonor him. Go to places that Sunni are dominants you will have many of their children named Ali, if we dishonor him how can we name our children with his name?

Our question is why didn’t the companions hide the above tradition? And more than 20 twenty of them narrated the tradition, it clearly shows the honor and dignity of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu, how possible it is to believe that they hide some Qur’anic verses on his honor and the Prophetic household at large?

 

2^nd example:

The hadith of “Kisa” (cloth) is another base of the Shi’ites creed. The hadith shows that the Noble Prophet covered Fatima, her husband and two of her sons Al Hassan & Al Hussain and said;

“Oh Allah!! These are my household, remove evil deeds and sins from them and purify them with thorough purification.”

The Mother of believers, Aisha Radiyallahu Anha and Ummu Salamah Radiyallahu Anha, narrated the above hadith.

 

3^rd example:

The hadith that portray the honor of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu and his position, it says;

“Your position to me is like Harun’s position to Musa.”

Harun is a junior brother to Musa likewise Ali a junior brother to the Noble Prophet, but the first category are Prophets while in the second category Ali is not a Prophet.

Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas was the narrator of the above hadith while the shi’ites refer to him as an apostate because they claim he dishonor Ali Radiyallahu Anhu. The Hadith was  reported in Bukhari (3505).

 

4^th example;

On the night of Khaybar, the Noble Prophet said; “tomorrow I will give a flag to someone that loves Allah and his Prophet, also, Allah and his Prophet loves him & we will be victorious”

Because of the above good fortune, all the companions wished to be in possession of the flag. Umar Radiyallahu Anhu said; I leaped on that day for the Noble Prophet to see me and call me, at that moment; the Noble Prophet called on Ali and gave him the flag.

Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas & Salamah bin Akwa were the narrators of the hadith, and reported also in Bukhari. Why didn’t these companions hide this honor but they hide some portions of the Qur’an on Ali’s honor and dignity?

 

5^th example:

A hadith that show the honor of Fatima and her children, are many. Among them was her position of the First lady in the Paradise, and her children as the youth leaders in Paradise.

Further more, Al-Hassan was referred as a born leader and arbiter of two Muslim camp/factions. So many narrations on how the Prophet cherishes them and his saying; “Oh Allah I really love them so please love them also.”

The above traditions were narrated by Usamah bin Zaid, Barra’u bin Azib, Anas bin Malik & Abdullah bin Umar among others and all are reported in Bukhari, why did they unfold these traditions?

The tradition on the honor and dignity of Prophet household as regard their love as obligation and hatred as great torment were all narrated by the companions. Why should they hide the Qur’anic verses on that and reveal the prophetic traditions? Or does Allah not guard the Qur’an? Why did he (Allah) guard the hadith and didn’t give the Qur’an such guard? Lets think!!!

 

Question 25:

It an established fact, that the companions of the Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasalam narrated and reported the Qur’an directly from the Prophet. And the chain of narration for Qur’an is (Mutawatir) i.e. peak of all chains in the study of  transmission. We have ten different narration of the Qur’anic rondos having two schools from each rondo, all the narrators are Sunnis.

In the present world, three rondos are the most exposed, i.e. Nafi’u, Asim and Abu Amrul Basri. The rondo of Nafi’u is well exposed by two of his schools of Warsh and Qalun; the rondo of Asim is exposed through the school of Hafs while the rondo of Abu Amrul Basri is exposed through the school of Duri. All the printed copies of Qur’an even in Iran are one of these rondos, but is mostly published and printed with the school of Hafs, which he narrated it from Asim, from Abu Abdurrahman As-Sulami, from Uthman bin Affan, Ali bin Abi Dalib, Zaid bin Thabit, Ubayy bin Ka’ab.

Our question is where does the Prophetic household narrate the Qur’an? Where is your chain from Ali bin Abi Dalib? What of the chain of Al Hassan, Al Hussain & Zainul Abidin?

Where is the chain of Ridha from Kazim, from Sadiq & Baqir?

What of Askari from Naqiyyu & Taqiyyu?

Are they not your claim as natural born leaders and Allah’s plea against his creatures?

Did they teach everything with the omission of the Qur’an? Why should you refer to unbelievers’ narration (as you claim)? Researched proved that there is only one Qur’anic narration of rondo from the prophetic household which is the rondo of Hamza Az-Zayyat (Sunni) narrated from Sadiq, from Baqir and from Zainul Abidin, where is the shi’ites narration of this rondo? Why is it that Zayyat a Sunni scholar is the only narrator and reporter? Why didn’t Kazim narrate from Sadiq? Or Askari from Naqiyyu? From Taqiyyu from Kazim & from Sadiq? And this narration is very rare to find, why don’t you publish and recite that rondo since is the only household narration?

We await your claim of Qur’anic rondo narration either (mutawattir or shadh) from the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi WAssalam.

 

Question 26:

The Qur’an of Fatima that you always make reference to, was mentioned in your book “Al-Kafi” (1/239); a stranger came to the house of Abu Ja’afar and say; I want to ask you a question but confirm weather there is secrecy in the house, he opened through a curtain and replied; ask what ever you wish, the infallible Imam said; we really have a Qur’an called the Qur’an of Fatima, is a Qur’an that triple your Qur’an, in the content of our Qur’an, there is no any word which you have in your Qur’an.

What an amazing situation, a Qur’an without Bismillah? !!! Is the Prophet Sallahu Alaihi WAssalam aware of the Qur’an or not? If he is aware, why did he not inform his companions? Why did he hide it for the Ummah? While Allah says;

“Oh messenger of Allah! Proclaim (the message) which has been sent down to you by your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed his message…”

But if you say he is not aware of it then how do you come across it? The fact is, a Shi’ites scholar Dabrisi has revealed the secrete where he published a book titled; “comprehensive explanation in confirming the changes of Allah’s book”.

He brought more than two thousand narrations of Shi’ites that confirmed that this Qur’an is pirated/fake, he brought views of Shi’ites jurists, Shi’ites hadith scholars and all that Shi’ites see them as the most highly respected scholars of their creed. He concluded by saying; “it is imperative to believe that the present Qur’an of the Ummah is fake”

However, sayyid Hashimul Bahrani the author of Al-Burhan said in the introduction pp “49!” is my opinion that as this issue has been well researched and confirmed, it is imperating to authorize every Shi’ite to believe as pillar of faith that this Qur’an is not authentic. This was the aim of the tyrant leaders that rule before Ali Radiyallahu Anhu, lets reason more and judge their actions”. Yes we reason, think and confirm your fallacies.

Ni’imatullahi Jaza’iri, a Shi’ite scholar was giving a reply and challenge to those that believe the Qur’an is original, he replied as follows;

“ Who ever believes that the whole of this Qur’an that is with the Ummah is the original Qur’an revealed through Jibril has contradicted the narrations of our leaders, and friends, because their narrations are (Mutawatir). But by believing in that, he is automatically not a Shi’ite” (Al-Anwarun Nu’umaniyyah 2/357)

Further more, the following was reported from Al-kafi; “who ever thinks there is an original complete Qur’an in possession of any being is a great liar. This is because no one memorized it how it was revealed from Allah only Aliyu and the leaders that came from his progeny”

Al-Khu’i, a great Shi’ite scholar of the contemporary time,  as coated in the book titled “Lillahi Summa lit Tarikh” pp 80 he said the following; “I urge you to use this Qur’an of our present time before the Qur’an of Fatima is revealed”.

What a surprise!!! The Qur’an should be used for occasional purpose? When and where is the original Qur’an? They are not in possession of Fatima’s Qur’an nor Is it in their memory, we know there is no any special Qur’an left for Fatima.

The Shi’ites claim to have more than Fatima’s Qur’an, they have among others, Al-Jami’ah, its details is found in Al-Kafi (1/239), Biharul Anwar (26/25).

They have another Qur’an called “An Namus”, it was mentioned in “Biharul Anwar” (25/117). There is also another book/manuscripts which they claim was revealed, it is called Al-Abitah, it was mentioned in Biharul Anwar (26/37), another one is called “Zu’abatus Saifi” Biharul Anwar (25/56)

Lastly, they also have Al-jafar which they believed is a revealed book from Allah, “Usulul Kafi” (1/24).”

 

Question 27:

It is a known fact that your books are filled with establishing that companions because of their selfish desire faked the Qur’an. Then do you have any narration that shows the Qur’an is complete and has originality? I reply by saying you haven’t any narration that says this in your books, but if you challenge me you can bring your proofs.

 

Question 28:

During the reign of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu why didn’t he produce those books? If during the reigns of Abubakar, Umar, Uthman he is not in power, during his reign he has absolute authority not to fear anything or anyone. Why didn’t he produce it to put the Ummah in the right path?

You also claim that Ali Radiyallahu Anhu has the Qur’an as it was revealed i.e. from Suratul Alaq to “alyauma akmaltu lakum …” which is different from the Qur’an and the prophet and the companions arranged it, but his own is chronologically, then why didn’t he produce it during his reign?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4

Other Leaders Before Ali

Radiyallahu Anhum

 

 

Question 29:

It is an established fact and a peak of narrations (Mutawatir) that Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu makes so many public pronouncements in the Prophet mosque as follows; the best of this generation after the Noble Prophet is Abubakar, then Umar.

Why did he (Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu) praise them? You can reply by saying is dissimulation. Then why don’t you all practice it? If you will engage in practicing dissimulation, it would have been better!!!

 

Question 30:

Why was the Noble prophet buried in the room of an unbeliever in your creed/doctrine and together with whom you regard as unbelievers? Under your creed, Pharaoh is better than these two persons (Abubakar & Umar). Why was the Prophet not protected against this evil? In this world they were his most intimate friends, and presently they are still the closest and most intimate to him, but you believe they are not together on the day of resurrection, why should Allah make them this close?

Why and where was Ali Radiyallahu Anhu when the Prophet was buried in Aisha’s room?  He should have discouraged it and never let it happened! Or was his bravery at decline during the death of the Noble Prophet?

 

Question 31:

The shi’ites believed that the first three successors of the Noble Prophet were unbelievers, why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu pledge his allegiance to them? Fought religious war with them during their reign?

Some of your scholars answer the above questions with the reason for not to have a violence breakout (fitna), but why did he engage in the battle of the camel, were he fought against Aisha, & Dalha &  Zubairu Radiyallahu Anhu, and the battle of siffin, where he founght MA’awuya and his Muslim followers of Syria (Shams),  the two led to the massacre of over 70,000 seventy thousand Muslim from both sides.

The Sunni doctrine never see any fault in these battles he engaged himself, because it was a destined violence breakout (fitna), which if it breaks out you have no chance to escape. As a result of this breakout, the companions were of there different opinions, some were with Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu because he is a legal Muslim leader, some with Muawiyya for the argument and fight he claim against those responsible for the murder of Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu to be brought to book. Lastly the category those hang on the fence without taking side but busy trying to reconcile the two parties. This third category was the opinion of the majority of the Prophet’s companions join and later many shared the same view, even Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu. But the shi’ites never have this opinion as tangible, all that occur is nothing but Allah’s destiny[5] we await your response to the above question, and his reason that made him not to fight those before him.

Question 32:

The shi’ites believed that the leaders before Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu were tyrant and force themselves to power because of worldly benefits; they denied the revealed leader as the Prophet pronounced because of selfish interest.

What did they accumulate during their reign? Who was rich among them? When Umar died, there was debt of which the whole of his family and tribe men cannot settle, but was only settled after some of the Quraish extend there helping hands. Abubakar & Uthman were initially known as rich and clergy; their riches were disbursed for the uplift of Islam during their life time. Who among them nominated his son as a successor? If really there is a selfish interest, it should have been extended to their siblings? You the shi’ites claim and say Ali Radiyallahu Anhu bequeath the leadership to his son Al Hassan? Why didn’t Abubakar bequeath to his son Abdurrahman? Why didn’t Umar bequeath to his son Abdullah? Why didn’t Uthman bequeath to his son Abanu?

 

Question 33:

What & which interest the rest the companions have for disobeying the will of the Noble Prophet? What did Abubakar gave them (companions) or promised them that led them follow him against Allah & Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wassaam commands? Initially, they left everything and every one because of Allah, this action was mentioned in the Qur’an 5:100 among others.

How can you reply a member of Khawarij creed and doctrine if he accuses Aliyu’s Radiyallahu Anhu reign for a massive blood shed of innocent Muslims, while the other three leaders before him establish the root of Islam, conquer Unislamic countries & kingdoms and Islamatize them. During the reign of Uthman and the occasion of his death, coup plotters came to Madinah and he denied any counter attack against them with the reason for discouraging blood shed of Muslims, they attacked his house and massacre him. While during the reign of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu he traveled as far as Kufah & Basra to fight those that didn’t fight him but only presented a request prior, this will make them give their allegiance & pledge, and this reason was what led to the battle. What then shall be your response?

Further more, if he\ (Khawarij) poses the following again how will you respond to him; the three leaders were aid’ed by Allah during their reigns, they fought the greates dynasties on eath by that period and they were victorious. They past the message of Islam to various nations successfully. While Allah didn’t aid Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu during his reign,  because he never fight an enemy, nor did he extend the Islamic land with a  meter they were on the right path while Ali isn’t,  that’s why his assassinators were from his discifles who rebelled against him lastly. What shall be your response?.

The actual fact is that Sunni’s are the only ones that can defend Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu from all these accusations. We the Sunni’s that believe with the leadership of the three successors, and that all their victories Ali Radiyallahu Anhu was part of it. And what occurred during his reign was only what Allah destined but not his will & wish as the leader.  Almost all the accusations the Shi’ite accuse the leaders before Ali were the same accusations the Khawarij point fingers against Ali Radiyallahu Anhu in the eyes of a reasonable man, all the honor and dignity the Shi’ite elevate Ali is more doubtful than if such elevation are positioned to the leaders before him.

 

Question 34:

Shi’ites accuse Umar of denying the Noble Prophet write what he said will be the path to faith and that the Ummah will not go astray if they stick to it after his death, you claim that it was his will for leadership but Umar denied bringing any paper.

In the narration of your books, you said that Umar even say that the Prophet was demented, but our authentic books have no such added narration. What was narrated in Bukhari and other Sunni books was; “Depression accruing to the illness of the Noble Prophet is much, don’t increase his depression/illness. The book of Allah (Qur’an) is enough.”

This was according  to you the instruction of the prophet that he destroyed  and for that reason he is an unbeliever. He was responsible for the evil deeds of the Ummah because he led them astray by living  the Prophet died with sadness, displeasure and sorrow of not delivering the last message.

Where was Ali Radiyallahu Anhu at that time? Why didn’t he follow the Prophet’s instruction? Or was the instruction directed to Umar alone? Is Umar stronger than Aliyu? Or is he more influential? Why didn’t he fight him or fight his opinion against the Prophet’s opinion and make sure that the mission of the prophet was fulfilled?

The reported narration in “Musnad” of Ahmad, it was Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu that replied and say; I can memorized it, say whatever you wish, the Prophet  Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam replied; I urge you to be firm in prayers, Zakah should be given out as commanded and explained, I also urge you to be kind to your slaves.[6]

If the paper was not brought, who actually denied the paper to be presented? Is it the one who said he can memorized or the one who said that depression is much let us give him time to rest?

 

Question 35:

The above happened on Friday morning, why didn’t he request for the paper during the whole daytime? After that, he has Saturday, Sunday and Monday noon before he died, he never mentioned it again, he should have request for it again?

 

Question 36:

This sorrow that you said the Prophet died of which he wants to pronounce, is it part of the Religion or not? If your answer is, “it is part of the Religion,” are you insinuating that the Prophet died and the Religion was not complete because he didn’t make the pronouncement? If it is not part of the Religion, what then is the need for all these?

 

Question 37:

 

Must this message be in writing? Why shouldn’t it be pronounced for the public that will serve as a reference?

 

Question 38:

Who on earth inform you of the content of what was somebody’s intention, which he didn’t mention? You claim it was the name of a successor that was the will, have you the knowledge of the unseen/unknown? Or are your leaders who were blessed with such knowledge (unseen) your source?

 

Question 39:

Since Umar Radiyallahu Anhu is an apostate because he disobeys Prophet instructions, then what shall be the status of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu, when he was instructed to clean the Prophet’s name of Prophet hood, and replace it with his real name and surname, during hudaibiyyah (treaty) which he didn’t?  What was the action of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu here?

Under Sunni doctrine both were right, Umar was kind to the Prophet and discourage any stress or depression against him, and the Noble Prophet affirm it by not requesting it again. While Ali Radiyallahu Anhu on the other hand showed how high & respect he has with Prophet hood, the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam respected his opinion and clean the name himself. If Umar apostate by not producing paper to the Prophet and disobeying him, then Ali Radiyallahu Anhu also was disobedient by not cleaning what he was told  to clean ?

 

Question 40:

The doctrine of Shi’ite accuse Uthman for giving his relation special regard and priority in terms of appointment, and special assignment, this make them Nike named him lover of relatives.

Our question is why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu appointed  also his relatives during his reign?

During the reign of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu he appointed Abdullah bin Abbas bin Abdul- Muxxalib as the Governor of Basra. (Abu Xalib and Abbas are germane brothers). His Governor of Yemen was Ubaidullah bin Abbas, a brother to Governor of Basra. At Makkah he appointed Quthamu bin Abbas, a brother to the above Governors. At Madinah he appointed Ma’abad bin Abbas, a brother to the above three Governors. What a surprise!!! To have four Governors from the same family? They are all first cousins to the president?

Further more, they are not the only relation of his that were part of his administration, his Governor at Khurasan was his Nephew, Ja’adatu bin Hubairah, his mother is the daughter of Abu Dalib. The Governor he appointed at Egypt was Muhammad bin Abubakar Siddiq, don’t think he is not related to Ali the mother to this Governor is Asma’u bint Umais whom was married to Ali Radiyallahu Anhu when he was appointed as Governor. Ali Radiyallahu Anhu married her after the death of her husband Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu. What!!! If is wrong to appoint a relative, then how comes? !!!

We want to bring to your notice that we the Sunni do not accuse Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu and what he did. he was right. Because public office should be entrusted to whoever qualify to occupy it without regard to his family background or his origin, all that is needed is his Islam and competency. But you that accuse Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu for appointing his relations, then what answer will you give in favour of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu on the same allegation for we to see and ponder, it might aid us to use the same defense for Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu. But Uthman has powerful reasons than Ali Radiyallahu Anhu for many  grounds. Among which is that he was not the one that appointed them  at the initial stage, he assume office while they were serving the office they held, and he didn’t change them.

However, the families of Banu Umayyad were those that the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam appointed more during his life time as his official staffs. He rarely appoints the family of Banu-Hashim i.e. his family together with Ali in position of authority, but during Ali they even have four Governors at a time.

 

Question 41;

 

In most of your books among which, “Kashful Gummah” by Arbali, “Biharul Anwar” of Majlisi, “Manaqib” of Khuwarizmi all narrated that Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu helped Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu with the dowry of his wife Fatima Radiyallahu Anhu why should he accept such a kind gesture from an unbeliever or apostate and an enemy of Allah? As you always claim.

 

Question 42;

Why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu sent his children Alhassan and Alhussain to counter attack the rebels that came to assassinate Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu?

This is evidence in both Sunni & Shi’ite books refer to “Tarikhul Umam” by Dabari, the topic on what happened between thirty- second year of hijra. Also, “Muruz Dhahab” by Masudi (2/344).

Why should Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu send his children to defend and apostate/unbeliever, and a tyrant that denied the Prophet household their right (power). He should have allowed the coup de-tat for him to claim his right easily. If you disconcur with this story and that he did nothing during the attack against Uthman, what will you give the Khawarij answer to their allegation that he (Ali) was responsible for the coup for him to attain leadership of the Ummah.

 

Question 43;

You believe that Mu’awiyah Radiyallahu Anhu is an unbeliever, why then did Alhassan give him the leadership of Muslim Ummah? He appointed him as a successor to the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam. After the assassination of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu the Muslim Ummah especially those at Kufah had a consensus that Alhassan shall be the new leader, and they pledged their allegiance to him. But Shi’ite disconcur to this. There believe is that it is an appointment by the out gone leader, who appointed his son as his successor, i.e. Ali. This is against the backdrop of the action of Abubakar, Umar & Uthman. Alhassan assume the mantle of authority, and after six month, he invited Mu’awiyya and gave him the leadership by stepping down willingly, this is just for peace to reign. He compels his people (Alhassan) i.e. the people of Kufah to obey the new leader.

Alhassan an infallible as you claim, has now stepped aside for an unbeliever to lead the Muslim Ummah? Or is it that Mu’awiyya Radiyallahu Anhu is a Muslim but you charge him with false accusation?

 

 

Chapter 5

The Companions Of Muhammad

Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam

 

It is part of the Shi’ite doctrine that all the companions of the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam apostate after his life time but they exclude very few. Some are of the opinion of only three or four, the maximum opinion they have is thirteen companions, in these thirteen the in-laws o the Prophet, his wives and his other relatives were all not included.

 

Question 44:

If one apostate he has to change from a Religion to another. If the companions apostate, from which Religion have they changed? Is it from the Religion of Shi’ite? Were they initially Shi’ite and apostate to Sunni? If the Religion of Shi’ism was not in existence during their time, then from what Religion do they apostate? But if you claim that they change from Islam, what then was the new Religion they embrace?

Question 45:

What shall be your response to a man that challenge the practicability of Islam, because the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam failed to have those that will be firm in practicing the Religion during their life time. Since Islam wasn’t practicable during his time, how on earth can the present or future generation practise it?

Remember!! These are the ones that Allah praise their actions, cure their hearts from any dirt of evil, He proclaimed His trust in them in His Glorious Book, if they are found wanting, whom on earth could be firm?

 

Question 46

the Shi’ite accuse the companions of disrespecting Prophet’s command and opinion during the treaty of hudaibiyyah, he has the opinion to embark on a treaty while none of them share same with him, they all believed that they are on the right opinion, and they are powerful, even the Glorious Qur’an revealed to them promise of entering  Makkah, peacefully and  perform Umrah a lesser hajj, while they came and were not able to even enter Makkah. The Noble Prophet consented to the treaty which the terms were completely unfavorable to Muslims & Islam, part the terms were; whoever is a Quraish that embrace Islam and came to Madinah, the Noble Prophet shall return him back to Makkah, while if among his companions one will apostate, he has no right against him and he should allow him return to Makkah safely.

The companions were never certain for the possibility of this treaty they all believed that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala will make a revelation that will disconcur with the treaty, that was the motive when the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam instructed them to sacrifice their animals and remove their “Ihram” they kept silent and sat waiting for a divine intervention, the Prophet following the advise of his wife led by example,  this establish the fact that automatically this interding rite is impossible, they later obeyed him and do as he did.

The Shi’ite interprets this action as amounting to apostasy by all of the companions.

Our question is on those days were was Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu? Or was he at home didn’t attend the treaty? Both our Books & yours establish his presence, what happened then? He should have obeyed instructions alone for him not to be among the apostates?

Whatever shall be your response for his reason(s), will be the same for Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu, Umar Radiyallahu Anhu, Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu and the whole of the companions.

 

Question 47:

You always accuse Zubair bin Awwam for fighting Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu during the battle of camel, you claim that it was because he hates Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu.

It seems you have forgotten, or assume not to remember that when the Shurah committee was set up by Umar Radiyallahu Anhu among which the new leader shall emerge Zubair was the first to step down in favour of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu, Dalhatu Radiyallahu Anhu stepped down for Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu, while Sa’ad bin Abi Wakkas in favour of Abdurrahman bin Auf. If Zubair Radiyallahu Anhu hates Aliyu why shall he step-down in his favour ?

 

Question 48:

The wives of the Noble Prophet were not excluded from your false accusations, Hafsah & Aisha Radiyallahu Anha were attacked of so many allegation from your creed/doctrine. They are the prophet beloved wives while without fear or favour in your books they were openly accused, among which are; “Tafsirus Safi” (2/720), “Biharul Anwar” (22/33), Siradul Mustaqim by Bayadi (3/165), “Aqaidul-Imamiyyah” by Zanjini (3/85) and almost all the Shi’ite books claim that these wives of the Noble Prophet are unbelievers. While Allah says; Q24:26

“Bad women are for bad men, and bad men are for bad women, Good women are for Good men, Good men are for good women: Such (good people) are innocent of (every) bad statement which they say; for them is forgiveness, and generous provision i.e. (paradise)”

Shiite should be reasonable for discussion, if one will come to you and say that your in-laws are bad people, your wife is an unbeliever, those you gave out your daughters in marriage to are bad people. You are a scholar and all your students are bad people, with the exclusion of very few. Imagine, you spent 23years with them, they never gained anything but disobedience on Allah’s command, automatically whom is he trying to refer as bad man?

Chapter 6

Wives And Children Of The Prophet

Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam.

Question 49:

Why did you exclude all the children of Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam expect Fatima as members of the household? What offence have they committed? You excluded Zainab, Ruqayya, Ummukulthum, Abdullah, Ibrahim and their eldest brother Alqasim; dose their father hate them? Or is he the one that excluded them from his household?

 

Question 50:

 

Why did you exclude the wives of the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam as part of his household?

Lets be frank and shame the devil, if you are invited to bring your family, and you brought everyone but you left your wife, are you just to the union and your wife? Why wouldn’t you be just to the wives of the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam ?

Referring back to the Qur’an, the verse that discussed the issue of “Ahlulbait” household of the Prophet was discussing the wives of Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam , the verse that discussed the household of Ibrahim was referring to the wife of Ibrahim  alais salam the household of Lut is referring to his wife, and the family of Prophet Musa (Moses) gave reference to his wife as his household. Then why on earth the wives of the Noble Prophet should be excluded? for what hatred? What envy and enmity? Please let it subside!

 

Chapter 7

Relationship Between Prophet’s Household

(Ahlulbait) & the Companions

Question 51:

It is a trite law that Islam commands us to choose the right and conscious person in marriage, either to marry or to give out in marriage, That is the reason that our Noble Prophet advises us to have good in-laws.

Why should the Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam marry from a house and daughter of personalities that are of questionable character? He married the daughter of Umar Radiyallahu Anhu whom you regard him as a bastard (an illegitimate child). This was the opinion of Bahrani in his book titled “Al-kaskul” (3/212). Furthermore, in the book of Aljazairi (Shiite) titled “Al-Anwarum Nu’umaniyyah” (1/63) he said; Umar has a mental illness (lunatic) that only subside with homosexuality!!! If narrating an issue of disbelief is not amounting to disbelief, this story couldn’t be narrated, but this story is there in your books.

Why should the Noble Prophet marry his daughter if what you are saying is a fact? How could you feel if your in-law is being referred to as bastard, fornicator and a homosexual?

 

Question 52:

Why did “Ahlulbait” marry the daughters of the companions? how should they (companions) & “Ahlulbait” become in-laws while they are enemies? The creeds of Shi’ites always insinuate that the companions circumscribed the Prophet’s household. They held them hostile etc. All that Shi’ites are after is proclaiming the denied freedom. This led them to be visiting their tomb and praying for them against their enemies i.e. (companions)? But why were they in-laws in the first place? Let’s give some illustrations;

From the beginning, “The Noble Prophet” has in laws, who then were his in-laws? His eleven wives were whose daughters? If you will disagree that not the whole of the in-laws were companions, then what of Aisha and Hafsah?

However, whom did he marry his daughters to? It is surprising that most of us are ignorant that the Prophet has four  daughters whom he gave out for marriage, We all knew of his last daughter (Fatima). But the entire three daughters were married to the family of Banu Umayyad. Abu Asim bin Rabi’ah was his first son in-law that married his eldest daughter Zainab; he is a member of the Umayyad clan. The Noble Prophet praised him as follows; “We became in-laws with him, we were happy of his gesture, he promised us and fulfilled his promise.”

The next two daughters i.e. Rukayya & Ummu Kulthum were married to Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu separately. In the history of mankind, there is no any being that was privileged to marry two daughters of a Prophet but Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu a member of Umayyad. This gave him the name “Dhun Nurain” “Owner of two illuminate lights.” This is Because whoever married the daughter of a Prophet is blessed with “illuminate light” (Albarkated light) and Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu was blessed with two.

For us to have a thesis on this let’s only use the house of Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu alone.[7] The eldest son of Uthman, Abanu bin Uthman married Ummu Kulthum bint Abdullah bin Ja’afar bin Abu Dalib.

Furthermore, Musa bin Abanu i.e. grandson to Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu married Ummul-Kasim bint Al Hassan, i.e. granddaughter, of Al- Hassan bin Aliyu bin Abi Dalib.

Additionally, another grandson of Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu i.e. Zaid bin Asim bin Uthman, married Sukainatu bint Hussain bin Ali. In the history of Arabia, narration proved that there was never a beautiful Arabian lady like her (Sukainatu) and her mate in beauty was Aishatu bint Dalha bin Ubaidadullah.

Again, Abdullah bin Abanu bin Uthman married Fatima bint Hussain bin Abu Dalib, a junior sister to Sukainatu.

All these marital relationship/unions are with between only one of the companions a clergyman of Banu Umayyads.

All the above aside, are you aware of the fact that Yazidu bin Mu’awiyya, who the Shi’ites accuse him of assassinating Hussain is married to “Ahlulbait” i.e. Ummu kultum bint Abdullah bin Abbas bin Abdul-Mudalib, they had two issues i.e. namely  Amru & Abdullahi?

Wow!!! How true are  your stories in trying to establish hatred between Ahlulbait and  companions? Or are they myths without source?

Question 53:

Why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu give his daughter for marriage to Umar bin Khaddab? Are you not the ones that said he killed her mother while she was seeking for her right on inheritance? Or is that his reward of his evil deed?

Is your doctrine that Umar Radiyallahu Anhu is a bastard/ illegitimate child true? Every Muslim detastes this accusation against him during discussion and writings, you refer to him as an unbeliever and he is more devilish than the devil. Your scholar Ni’imatullahil Jazairi reported that on the day of resurrection the devil shall gaze at the painful torment of Umar Radiyallahu Anhu!! But why did Ali Radiyallahu Anhu give him his daughter for marriage?  Was it because her mother (Fatima) died? This union was reported in both your books and our book, Ummu Kulthum, daughter to Ali Radiyallahu Anhu has two issues with Umar Radiyallahu Anhu i.e. Zaid bin Umar & Ruqayyah, bint  Umar, these kids are always proud of their origin i.e. being descendandts  of two khalifs; their father Umar was a khalif their grand father is Ali who is also a Khalif.

If Ali Radiyallahu Anhu is an infallible why did he give his daughter for marriage to an unbeliever? You just have to go with either of these options, i.e. to believe that he is a believer, this has unraveled the bases of your creed. The second option is that Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu is not infallible which will also unravel your creed.

 

Question 54:

After the demise of Fatima Radiyallahu Anha Aliyu married many wives and he had a lot of issues with them. My question will come after a very long detailed explanation from Shi’ite books. I will not give the names of his wives and children from the Shi’at sources : “ Kashful Ghummah” “ Binarul Anwar” by Majlisi. They as follws :

He first married Ummul Banina, the daughter of Haramul Kalbi, her issues with him were Abbas, Ja’afar, Abdullah & Uthman.

He then married Laila from Mas’udut- Tamimi, their issues were Abdullah & Abubakar. All these issues died with their brother Hussain at Karbala.

He married Asma’u bint Umais one of the widows of Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu after her window retirement. Further more, when Fatima Radiyallahu Anha the wife Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu died, she was the one that engineered her ritual bath. Asma’u married two warriors before Ali, she first  marry Ja’afar bin Abi Talib Radiyallahu Anhu brother to Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu. In each of these three houses she has “Muhammad” but with Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu she has only Yahya and Aunu. But unfortunately all her issues were not opportuned to have families.

Furthermore, Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu also marred Ummu Habiba from the family of Zam’atu this union was a result of a jihad he fought under the leadership of Khalid bin Walid during the reign of Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu, she was party of his booties, he freed her & marry her. Their issues were Ruqayya and Umar. This Umar lived for 35 yrs.

He also married Ummu Sa’idu bint Urwatu bin Masudus Saqafi the companion of the Noble Prophet, their issues were Ummul Hassan and Ramlatul Kubra.

He also married Umamatu bint Abu Asim bin Rabi’u, she is a granddaughter to the Noble Prophet through the lineage of his eldest daughter Zainab, it was narrated that Fatima Radiyallahu Anha before her death gave him a will to marry her.

Umamatu is the young lady/pupil that the Noble Prophet normally carry while praying, if he goes on prostration he sat her down on the ground and while raising he carry her again. Their issue was “Muhammad Al – Ausat the middle.” He is the second of the three Muhammad, Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu name his children.

Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu also married Khaulatu bint Ja’afar Al- Hanafiyyah, this union was during the reign of Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu and she was part of his booty of the “Ridda war.” Unfortunately, the Shiite disconcur the situation as apostasy (Ridda) during that time they always believe that it was just a rebellion against the established authority. Whatever may be the case Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu sacrifice his life for the success of this war, it was in this process he was privilege to own Khaulah and their issue was Muhammadul-Akbar the big, popularly known as ibnul Hanafiyyah, some sects of Shi’ite classify him among the infallible Imams.

During the demise of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu he left behind four wives, nineteen concubines. Among his female issues not part of those mentioned above are; Ummu Hani’in, Maimunah, Zainabul, Kubra, Ramlatus Sugra, Fatimah, Ummu Khadijah, Ummul Kiram, Ummu Ja’afar, Ummu Salamah & Jumanatu. He has fourteen 14 males, and seventeen female children Most of them were martyred at Karbala.

His progeny became dispersed & exposed through the families of Al-Hassan & Al-Hussain, and Al-Hussain’s lineage is through Zainul Abidin, the only surviving son of Hussain those who attended Karbala, he has no weapon because of his ill health. The terrorist speared him for that. Muhammad ibnul Hanafiyyah, Abbas & Umar were the privilege to have families that became dispersed in the world.

 

Question 54:

Why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu after the death of Fatima, and during the reign of Abubakar, Umar & Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu named his children with their names? All these names were reported in your books mentioned earlier.

If you area reasonable enough, you can reason by the following; have you ever heard a Jew named his child Muhammad? Or a Muslim named his child Jacob? In this country (Nigeria) many of the Shi’ites have changed their names from Abubakar, Umar & Uthman, just not to associate themselves with bad names. Yesterday a lady came to me confessing her repentance from Shi’ite to Islam, she even change her initial name Aisha during her Shi’ite days, she is now using her actual name Aisha, a Sokoto indigene for that matter.

Why should Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu name his children with the names of enemies of Allah? Between all the Quraish Aliyu was the only person that named his children after these great companions. (Abubakar, Umar & Uthman). Is it because he loved them or otherwise?

The Nigerian Shi’ites, you always change your names following the advise from your holy land (Iran), this was evident after the return journey of Nigerian Shi’ites that came back from Iran, they were told that there is nothing good of whoever is named Abubakar or Umar.

 

Question 55:

Why, when and where was the origin of this your innovation of changing names while your earlier scholars have those names and they didn’t change them?

Lets analyze your most holy book i.e. “Al-Kafi,” the introduction can suffice to see the narrators of the acclaimed knowledge of “Ahlulbait.”

The names of some scholars are as follows; Mufaddal bin Umar, Ahmad bin Umar Al-Halabi, Umar bin Aban, Umar bin Uzainah, Umar bin Hanzalah, Musa bin Umar, Abbas bin Umar.

Why didn’t your earlier scholars change their names? But you change yours? From the initial stage, these names were they because of love or hatred of Umar?

 

Question 56:

Why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu make sexual union with the women prisoners that were part of his booties as a result of your acclaimed tyrant and brutal war? All the religious war that was fought during Abubakar, Umar & Uthman were regarded as brutality and tyranny by the Shi’ites. Why should he then have sexual relation with them?

 

Question 57:

You the Shi’ites accuse Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu for denying Fatima Radiyallahu Anha her inheritance, your musician of Gadon qaya said;

“Remember of those before you

even among the companions there were your Akins

those that are more evil than you

they committed heinous offence against Imam Ali

Fatima was also not left alone.”

“They meted a false charge/accusation against her husband

Her father’s inheritance also

Was denied to her

They fight with her husband

Because he refuses pledging allegiance”.

You claim that she was denied her right to inheritance by Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu, she always cry by the grave of the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam and saying; “Oh the Prophet of Allah, I forward my grievances to you”!! Further more, she went to the market and disgraced Abubakar & Umar Radiyallahu Anhu. Umar Radiyallahu Anhu kicked her, she felt and it led to her miscarriage!!

The Shi’ites named this miscarriage “Muhsinu”. But we knew that “Muhsinu” was her child that died after he has started dragging himself.

Our question here is, Abubakar denied whose wife her inheritance? Is Aliyu not nick named as the king of the lions? Is he not the leader of the warriors and bravery? Why didn’t he do something for her favor? If what you claim is true of the miscarriage, how can one comprehend?

 

Question 58:

 

Or is it a revenge that Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu did by later marrying the widow of Abubakar and they even have an issue with Abubakar i.e. Muhammad whom was nursed & brought up by Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu, he was even appointed as Governor by Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu?

 

Question 59:

 

The garden of fadaq, is it a gift or inheritance? If it is a gift, why was Zainab denied? Ummu Kulthum was also alive? She survived up to three years after Khaybar i.e. nineth years 9yrs after Hijra, almost close to the death of the Prophet, she was still alive. Why was Fatima given alone? Was it not the Noble Prophet that told Bushair bin Sa’ed when he wanted the Prophet to bear witness of gift to his son, he asked; “have you other children?” he replied “yes”, “have you given them the same type of gift?” he replied  “No” the Prophet said “I don’t bear unjust witness(evidence)” (Sahihul Bukhari 2456 & Muslim 3058).

 

Question 60:

If your answer to the above question is that the garden is a gift, then was it taken away from her possession? Or was not in her possession & she wants it to be given to her? Because the Islamic principle of “hiba”(gift) most be under possession of the donee before the death of the donor, if there is no possession and the donor died the gift automatically revert back to the donor, the gift become’s void.

But if it is an inheritance not a gift, he has other heirs that have right to inheritance? Have you forgotten Abbas, a paternal uncle who is a residual heir to the Noble Prophet and will exclude Ali Radiyallahu Anhu as a paternal uncle’s son under the rules of exclusion?

According to the jurist, the Prophets are not to be inherited by their heirs; this is an authentic Prophetic narration. Among the narrators of this tradition are Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu, Abbas Radiyallahu Anhu and the 6 six of the 10 ten companions that were giving glad tidings of paradise i.e. Abubakar, Umar, Uthman, Abdurrahman bn Auf, Zubayr, bn Awwam, Sa’ad bn Abi waqqas. They all narrated that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam said; “we the Prophets are not been inheritable by our heirs of our properties, what we left is a (sadaqah) charity to the Muslim Ummah”

We are quiet aware that Fatima Radiyallahu Anha requested for her inheritance from Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu because she was not aware of the above tradition . It is not something wrong: Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu denied her share of her inheritance because her father the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam denied her. He also did nothing wrong, it was narrated and reported of her unhappy situation of that. Was it not explained to her or was she not convinced with the explanation? We the Sunni feels she has an excuse for her action but what Abubakar did was right and not wrong. What you claim of her action toward him in the market, whom are you trying to disgrace, dishonor and refer as a bastard? Even if Fati food seller in the motor park will not fight with Market  authority and go free with her honor and dignity? Have you forgotten that Abubakar is the intimate friend of her father since childhood? Is he not the first person outside his households that embrace the Religion and affirm the trustworthiness of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was he not his friend and escort during migration to Madinah? Is he not his in-law, the father of his wife? But with all these, Fatima Radiyallahu Anhu will disgrace him in the market?

In the book of “Bidayah wan Nihayah” by ibn Kathir, it was reported that Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu went home to make her understand the situation because of how he noticed her bad feelings, with the permission of her husband, he entered her room and apologized to her, she responded accepting the apology. He handed over the garden to Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu and Abbas Radiyallahu Anhu to oversee its activities, as them been the closest to the Prophet family as overseers not as an inheritable property.

 

Question 61:

What then was the story of this garden during the reign of the three leaders? If it was Fatima’s right (inheritance), during the time/reign of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu he should have executed the property to the real owners, i.e. himself and his issues with her as inheritance. But nothing as such was narrated, and then what is the origin of your myth?

 

Question 62:

It was narrated in your books that females don’t inherit landed properties or land in general. In the book of Al-kafi fil furu’I (7/127) there is a chapter titled; “females are not entitle to inheriting any landed property”. He brought a narration from Abu Abdullah whom was asked; “what are women/females entitled as inheritance? He replied; they are given the monetary worth of sand, building and trees but land, farm etc they have nothing to inherit”.

our question is why did Fatima Radiyallahu Anha requested for a void right? Tusi also reported this narration in “Al-Tahzib” (9/254)

 

Question 63:

In your narrations you said; “whatever belongs to a Prophet, after his demise has become the property of an (Imam) leader. It was narrated in “Al-Kafi” kitabul hujja (1/476) why did Fatima also claim Imam’s property? Abubakar was the Imam, you will respond in the negative, then why didn’t Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu claim and request for his property?

Chapter 8

Some Verses from the Qur’an

 

Question 64:

Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala says in the Noble Qur’an;

“Indeed Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave the (pledge) to you [O Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam] under the tree: he knew what was in their heart, and he send down As-Sakina (calmness and tranquility) upon them, and he rewarded with a near victory” (Q48/18).

By the above pronouncement of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala to whom was He referring to? Are they dwellers of hellfire or paradise? The whole world concurs that the three leaders (Abubakar, Umar, and Uthman) are inclusive of the above statement. Is it right to castigate those that help in the up liftment of Islam as a Religion, those that Allah are pleased with and all the good tidings one can think of were directed to them? By Allah’s confirmation of what is in their hearts, is it faith or hypocrisy? Are calmness and tranquility coupled with victory  for or against the Religion?

 

Question 65:

Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala says;

“And know that among you there is a Messenger of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. If   he were to obey you (i.e. follow your opinions & desires) in much of the matter, you would surely be in trouble. But Allah has endeared the faith to you and has beautified it in your hearts, and has made disbelief, wickedness and disobedience (to Allah and his Messenger Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) hateful to you. Such are they who are the rightly guided.” Q 49:7

We have only one question for the above verse, Allah Subhanahu wa ta’ala m is informing us of their inner belief and faith in their hearts, while in the contrary you are saying is it is hypocrisy, Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala confirmed how he built in them love of trust & hatred of falsehood but you totally disconcur. Are you more knowledgeable than Allah?

Chapter 9

Wail Of Hussain

Question 66:

Who assassinated Hussain Radiyallahu Anhu? I know your response will be “Yazid”!! I will say;  what if your proof?

Let us refer to your books as our arbiter on this issue, because your books have shown the innocence of Yazid from this evil deed!!! In the book of “A’ayanush- Shi’ah” part 1 pp 34, Sayyid Muhsinu Al-Amin said; “20,000 people pledged to Hussain and they are all Iraqi indigenes” who are they? “They are the Shi’ites” “…. They were deceitful and they deceived him, They fought against him while they offered him their pledged and later assassinated him”

It is now clear that the Shi’ites assassinated him, then why all the accusations?

Imam Zainul Abidin[8] remarked as follows to the Shi’ites of Kufah; “Al-Ihtijaj” (2/32) “Have you forgotten  letter you wrote to my father? You were deceitful, you gave him your full and complete pledge, and you later on fight him, and disgraced him with all his honor?” With what will you face the Noble Prophet when he will be saying; “you waged war against my family, you dishonored my household, you are not part of my people (Ummah)!!”

In another narration in the same book above, (2/29) he says, “the Shi’ites wail because of the assassination of my parents who massacre them if not the Shi’ites?”

One surprising thing is if you go through the names of people that participated in this massacre and those 20,000 that wrote the letter of pledge to him, with even the Governor that gave the command were all under Aliyu’s Radiyallahu Anhu army during “the battle of siffin” the Shi’ites indeed!!!

One of the Shi’ite scholars that confirmed the story of how the Shi’ites assassinated Hussain were; Kazim Al-Ahsa’i in the book “Ashura” pp 89, Abbas Al-Qummi in “Nafathul Mamuni” pp 365, Al-Tusi in “Muntahal A’amal” (1/485), Murtadhal Muxxahhari in “Malhamatul Hussainiyyah ” (4/94)

Now that we prove that the sycophants & hypocrites Shi’ites are those that assassinated Hussain, they are now pretending to be wailing for this action, we will proceed in giving the full detail of how it occurs.

The people of Kufah after realizing their actions, form a host of multiple of “Repentants” called “the battalion of Repentants.” They now repent & realize what they did against Allah. Hussain was peacefully living in the sacred town of Makkah, they sent him a letter signed by 15,000-20,000 citizens. Realizing how committed they are waiting for his arrival to actualize the coup de tat, he automatically arranged and followed them, he never gave a hearing ear for the advise he was given against their deceitful attitude. He only sent his paternal uncle son Muslim bin Aqil, he was warmly welcomed and he signaled Hussain to continue with his attempt.

When the messenger left, they automatically changed and they pierced him and murdered him, Hussain was unaware, he came and reached a place close to Kufah called Karbala, his thought was thousands of people to come and welcome him, but he saw the faces that were with his father’s army whom he could recognize claiming to be those welcoming him!! They really came to assassinate him after all the peaceful alternative he tendered before them.

 

Question 67:

Why do you wail for the death of Hussain on the day Ashura? Why don’t you remember the death of Al- Hassan? You said he has more value and honor than Hussain? Why don’t you wail the death of their father Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu? Why don’t you even wail the death of the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam? Who ever heard the Shi’ites wail for the death of the Noble Prophet? But why are you annually wailing for Hussain?

 

Question 68:

Why is that your books, lectures, websites when you are discussing the issues of wailing for the death of Hussain you don’t mentioned his brothers and relations that were martyred in Karbala?

In your books you also confirmed that he was not the only one martyred. In “Al-Irshad” by Mufid pp 194, and “Muntahal A’amal” (1/240), “Jalalul Uyun” by Majlisi, pp 528. It was reported that Abubakar bn Ali bn Abi-Dalib, Umar bn Ali bn Abi-Dalib, and Uthman bn Ali bn Abi-Dalib, and Abubakar bn Hassan bn Ali bn Abi-Dalib and Umar bn Hussain bn Ali bn Abi-Dalib were all martyred at Karbala. Why don’t you mention their names?  Is it because of their name or what?

 

 

Question 69:

If all the wails and the bloodshed you do in the process of wailing is part of Religion, why don’t you do it for the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam? Why didn’t Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu do such wail during the death of his wife? Why didn’t he also do it during the death of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam?

 

Question 70:

The annual wailing on the day of Ashura, is it a Prophetic narration or an innovation? But before your answer, lets go through some of your books.

In the book of “Mustadrakul wasa’il” and “Nahjul Balagha” there is a saying of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu as follows; it was during the death of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam.

“By Allah!!! Oh the prophet of Allah! If not you were the person that command for endurance and patience, you discourage wailing, we would have shed out all our tears because of your death. You discouraged it and we will not do it” in the book of “khisal” by Saduq pp 621 &, the book of “Wasa’ilus Shi’ah” Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu remarked as follows; “if any one slaps himself (wail), because of a calamity that befalls him, he has destroyed all his goods deeds” so we can deduce that the act of the Shi’ites has destroyed their deeds.

In “Muntahal A’amal” pp 248, Alhussain told his consanguine sister Zainab; “If I am murdered, don’t wail to even tear up your clothes, to tear your face, don’t cry saying Oh!! Allah” You the Shi’ites why are you doing all these?

In the book of “Furu’ul Kafi” by Kulaini (5/557) the Prophet told his daughter Fatima the following as a will; “please by Allah if I died don’t tear your face (wailing). Don’t unweave your hair (ladies do it before if their father, son or husband died), don’t say Oh!! Allah, and lastly don’t invite any professional wailer”

Why are you doing all such things? If the wailing and slapping is Religion why don’t those scholars with turban remove it and do as other fellow do? Are they not deceitful by giving “fatwa” verdict against their own actions?

The Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam said; “wailing is among the practise of Jahiliyyah”

Majlisi and Dabrisi (Shiite scholars) narrated; the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam said; “there are to sounds that Allah detasted and hate, whoever does them is cursed by Allah; wailing during a calamity and music when there is joy”

So what shall be your fates?

Chapter 10

Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah)

Dissimulation & Hyprocracy

Evil & Heinous Habit Of Shiites

Question 71:

If you will go through Shi’ite books, you will see wonders in the virtue of temporary marriage. They have much and unquantifiable reward by whoever practise it. They are classified as part of the practise of the “Imams” leaders, you the Shi’ites further by equating the virtue of whoever practise it one to the virtue of Hussain Radiyallahu Anhu if it practiced twice, one has a virtue like Al-Hassan Radiyallahu Anhu, if it is twice, one has Ali’s Radiyallahu Anhu virtue while by practicing it the fourth, one has the virtue of the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. Fathulllahil Kashani reported this tradition in the book “Tafsiru Manhajis Sadiqina” (2/198).

In the book “Man La Yahduruhul Faqih” one of the four most authentic books to Shi’ites, it was reported; Abu Abdullah Ja’afar Sadiq said; “temporary marriage is my Religion, it is also the Religion of my fore fathers. Whoever practise it has embrace and follow our Religion.”

In the above book (3/356) He was asked of the reward for who practise temporary marriage whether it is certain? He replied; “if he embark on a temporary marriage anticipating reward from Allah, what so ever he say to her is a reward” “… if he come closer to her, his sins will be forgiven. If he satisfied his emotion and proceed to have a ritual bath, any drop of water amounts to his forgiveness.”

Don’t be deceived with their notion/opinion that “Mut’ah” as temporary marriage is a cure/alternative for bachelors, because Khumaini in his book “Tahrirul Wasilah” he said one can practise it with a baby that still breastfeed from her mum’s breast. One can hug her, put his penis between her laps, kiss her and satisfying his emotion with her!!! If she is up to seven 7 years, you can do anything and everything with her!!! Majlisi in his book “Biharul Anwar” (100/312) in the process of this marriage there is no need of witnesses!!! A marriage for ten minutes!! From the first union you just proceed to pay dowry, then seclusion and later having sexual relation. This automatically signifies a conclusion of a marital union, no witness, no announcement, nor the gathering to validate the hook. No inheritance between them, no divorce, no mourning after death? What then is the difference with the actionl of epithets/cramps?

Imagine a society with this attitude!! How can one have full confidence in the morality of his children, brother’s even wife/wives? To be frank as a Shi’ite, will you be comfortable your daughter to practise it? Or to be practiced with your mother, or your sister?

In the same book (3/366) they reported a claim Prophetic narration as follows; “whoever practise a temporary marriage one is free from Allah’s wrath, if is twice he will be raised on the day of resurrection among the righteous, if is thrice we will be together racing to enter paradise.”

Our 72^nd question is the meaning of the hadith reported in “Biharul Anwar” (100/308) when Abu Abdullah was asked on temporary marriage, he said; “Don’t filth yourself with it.” Furthermore, what is the meaning of Aliyu’s Radiyallahu Anhu saying that was reported in “Wasa’ilus Shi’ah” (21/12) when he heard Abdullah bin Abbas giving his opinion and verdict for practicing “Mut’ah” he said to him; “you gone astray.” Because the Noble prophet has prohibited it and the consummation of the meat of donkey on the day of Khaybar”[9]

 

Question 73:

To the best of our knowledge, all the virtues and reward that one will have by practicing “mut’ah” temporary marriage has slipped all your Imams (leaders), the same way, as Fatima Radiyallahu Anhu hasn’t have such an opportunity. So we can’t ask you how many times have they engaged in a temporary marriage? And with whom has this marriage occurred? How many issues have they from these unions? But if you have any remark on these, we will be glad to share with you.

 

Question 74:

Is a practise of the Shi’ites prostrating on “turba” i.e. the sand of Karbala, They believed that there is nothing in this earth is as pure as that sand (turba). Is even more pure than the sand, which the Noble Prophet was buried, is even more pure than the throne of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala (Al-Arsh)!!!!!!!

Our question is whether the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam has once used it to prostrate? If you answer is in the affirmative, we know is a fabrication. But the answer is in the negative, we say are you better than the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam?. In your narrations it was reported that Angel Gabriel (Jibril) brought the sand to the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam and told him that his grandson Hussain will be assassinated on it. It furthered that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam cried when it was presented to him. You claim it to be the purest, why didn’t the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam prostrate on it? It was present to him, isn’t it?

 

Question 75:

In the book of “Wasa’ilus Shi’ah” (3/598) it was narrated; “is imperative when prostrating to use eight joints; forehead, nose, two palms, knees, toes. Why don’t you use eight of the “turba”? Have you neglected this tradition? Or is it a selfish and baseless interests and arguments?

 

Question 76:

Why do males & females of you wear black clothes? This question shouldn’t surprise any one because, Abu Ja’afar Al-qummi in his book “Man La Yahduruhul faqih” (1/232), & “Wasa’lus-Shi’ah” (2/136) Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu has gave a will to his followers; “don’t you ever wear black clothes because is the clothes of Pharaoh (Fira’un)”

In the book “Tafsirus Safi” the author in giving the meaning of the verse Q60:12 “…and t hat they will not disobey you in “Ma’aruf” (Islamic monotheism and all that which Islam ordains)”

He relates that the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam accept the pledge of women “not to wear black clothes, not to also tear and wound themselves during calamity (death), and not to cry and say Oh Allah” this I think should be related to the Shi’ite scholars to stop putting those black “burnous” and wear white!! However, the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam love white clothes more than any color, why do your scholars wear black?

Remember, the above is from your book, even in the introduction he said, the book is called “Safi” because it was well researched, scrutinized and has no any narration of Sunni in the book. He said the above against black clothes!!

Please in the world, who wear black clothes other than the sisters/wives of the Shi’ites? Why do they wear black clothes?

 

Question 77:

You always claim and say dissimulation is your Religion and the Religion of your Imams. Neglecting it is like neglecting prayers, Biharul Anwar (75/421). Here in Sokoto, we have witnessed dissimulation, because all those that came and took oaths for changing from shi’ah in the mosque of Sultan Bello here were later on confirmed as untrue, automatic dissimulation.

I need an answer to the following provision; “Nahjus Sa’adati” (2/339) Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu came with sorrow saying; “how will you do when the time will come in a near future?” At that time, the laws of Allah will be neglected, the public treasury will be squandered, hatred will be shown to whoever loves Allah, while who hates Allah & his laws will be loved? They asked him; what then shall we do? “You should act like the companions of Isah, (Jesus son of Mary). Their flesh was been cut with saw, they were crucified.” But they never retract. He further by saying to be killed for obeying Allah is better than to live in a sinful situation.

Our question is, if this should be true, and it is, then what is the reason and need for dissimulation?

 

Conclusion:

In conclusion, these seventy-seven 77 questions are few among the questions that the answers would be needed from Shi’ism. I swear by Allah, all I did from these questions has no any intention to dishonor anyone, or disregard someone. It is with a clear mind & intention. Our aim is for Shi’ites to ponder and reason, this will lead us to follow the same path i.e. of the Noble Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam as Allah says; Q 3:64

“Say (O Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam): O people of the scripture (Jews & Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none-but Allah (Alone), and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: “bear witness that we are Muslims.”

---

[1]. The cemetery that they visit in the town of Kashana of Iraqis not the real place that he was buried. Because Abu Lu’luata was killed the day he murdered Umar. How on earth could his grave become situated at Iraqi while he was killed at Madinah? How can one even detect the grave of such a criminal? He is not a Muslim and wasn’t buried in the Muslims graveyard? But the Shiite have their fables that led him back to Kashana.

[2] Usulul Khafi (1/227), its commentary As-Shafi Sharhul Khafi (5/28), Biharul Anwar (26/82), Wadi’un Nubuwwah pp114, Aslush Shari’ah wa Usuluha pp 58.

[3] Q5:1, 94, 95, 96

[4] it is funny to know that in Lebanon Hizbullah  deny Ahlussunnah drinking from that water, especially areas that Shiite are dominant, the Sunni there don’t know of this Hussein and the thirst (story). The Sunni once claim the compensation of Hussein’s death.

[5] For detailed explanation, the book titled “kadara ta riga fata” “Allah’s destiny against the wish of shi’ite,” 2006

[6] There are things to ponder in this bequest, it shows the foresightedness of the prophet, the reason for kindness to slaves can be for the future happenings of attairing leader ship. If their children were not well trained, the next Ummah will suffer a lot.

[7] For detailed expiation, read our book “Alaka tsakanin Ahlulbait da sahabbai” by sheikh Saleh Ad-Daruish, translated by Muh’d Mansur  Ibrahim. “su wane ne masoya Ahlulbait” same another translated by Aliyu Rufa’I Gusau

[8] He is a son to Hussain, he attended Karbala, he didn’t fight then because of his health, the terrorist space his life as it was his lack.

[9] This hadith is reported in Bukhari and Muslim, but we reported from the book of “Wasai’lus Shi’ah” to give Shiite & Shiism an authority against their act from their books. The fact still remain on the prohibition of temporary forever, but why all the legends that we narrated from their books? What they always claim that it was and later permitted, prohibited again & later permitted. This was explain of the falsehood of this assertion by bin Taimiyyah in “Minhajus”

100 questions asked from the shi’a

100 Questions ask by shias

Bismillahi Wassalatu Wassalamu ala Rasulillah.

Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.

Introduction:

In its introduction to the 100 questions , the shia website answering-ansar says:

These one hundred questions are from the pen of Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq, a name that needs no introduction for Urdu readers. A former Sunni scholar that converted to Shi’a Islam in the late 1960′s, he dedicated his entire life to defending the path of truth. Author of over thirty books, the vast bulk of his works were rebuttals to Nasibi texts attacking the Shi’a, and he managed to silence many leading lights of Mu’awiya’s cause, such as Dost Muhammad Qurayshi and Qadhi Mazhar Husayn. A continual thorn in the flabby sides of the Nasibi, the inability of the Marwani Mullah’s to refute his books, led to them seeking to ban his books through Court on the grounds that they constituted ‘disrespect of the Sahaba’. Despite such efforts, he continued his mission undeterred by Nasibi hate mail and death threats. Some of his most notable books include Furu-e-Deen, wherein he presented one thousand questions for the Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema to refute and Chodha Masalai (replies to 14 questions typically raised against the Shi’a). A great orator as well as a prolific writer thousands of people in Pakistan converted to the path of truth, through him.

Indeed, this person needs no introduction. How can he need introduction when he considers Quran incomplete on the basis that Pakistan is not mentioned in it.

Allama Mushtaq

the guru of answering-ansar in his book, “hazar tumhari das hamari”:

The guru says , Quran is corrupt because there is no mentioning of Pakistan in it.

Scanned Image, Page 553 , Page 554

Now God knows well whether people can convert to the path of truth , through him, or the path of the shia cult.

His book was well refuted by Hafiz Muhammad Meher and you can read that book by clicking here.

As far as the 100 questions put by answering-ansar in their website, we will answer each one of them one by one inshaAllah. Just like the absurd questions in “hazar tumhari das hamari”  ”e.g when was Abu Bakar (may Allah be pleased with him) circumcised? (Question 319) , shia books are filled with such absurd questions , you will also find many absurd questions here which doesn’t prove anything. That is why many a times, Sunnis don’t even like to answer such absurd questions. Here also, these 100 questions doesn’t prove anything. It would have been better if the answering-ansar had put some questions which had some meaning, but you will find here a list of garbage which even if unanswered, doesn’t prove anything.

Questions 1-10:

1. It is an established fact that all things are recognized by their name, even Allah (swt) first taught names to the father of Mankind Adam (as). Your sect also has names such as Sunni, Ahl’ ul Sunnah or Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. Direct us towards any such verse of the Qur’an wherein any of these names have been indicated.

Proof of the importance of the Sunnah from the Qur’an itself:

1. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah…” [4:80] Allah described obedience to the Prophet (peace be upon him) as being a part of obedience to Him. Then He made a connection between obedience to Him and obedience to the Prophet (peace be upon him): “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger…” [4:59]
2. Allah warns us not to go against the Prophet (peace be upon him), and states that whoever disobeys him will be doomed to eternal Hell. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “…And let those who oppose the Messenger’s commandment beware, lest some fitnah (trial, affliction, etc.) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them.” [24:63]
3. Allah has made obedience to His Prophet a religious duty; resisting or opposing it is a sign of hypocrisy: ”But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you [Muhammad] judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them)with full submission.” [4:65]
4. Allah commands His slaves to respond to Him and His Messenger: “O you who believe! Answer Allah (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he calls you to that which will give you life…” [8:24]
5. Allah also commands His slaves to refer all disputes to him: “… (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger…” [4:59]
6. Allah also calls all people who accept Allah but refute the Messenger as ‘Real Kafirs’: “Verily, those who deny Allâh and His Messengers and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His Messengers (by believing in Allâh and disbelieving in His Messengers), saying: “We believe in some but reject others”: and (those who) wish to adopt a way in between. They are in truth (equally) Unbelievers; and We have prepared for Unbelievers a humiliating Punishment. To those who believe in Allah and His Messengers and make no distinction between any of the Messengers, We shall soon give their(due) rewards: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.” [4:150-153]

If you want to follow Quran only , and not hadith , than you will find that Quran tells us to follow the sunnah of the Prophet, there is no mentioning of following the ahlel bayt or the 12 imams in Quran at all, but what Quran mentions is following the sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). So now how would the shia like to respond if we ask them to prove from Quran that it is the Quran and ahlelbayt that we have to follow and not Quran and sunnah as we believe! In fact, if we have to see Quran only, than our belief is indeed the one which looks the better of the two. Thus a Muslim must be sunni or in other words,  ahle sunnah (i.e follower of the sunnah) and if a person is not sunni or ahle sunnah, he is not a Muslim according to Quran. So it is proven that it is the Quran which tells us to be sunni.

So being a sunni is what Quran requires every Muslim to be.

[030:031]  … and be not ye among those who join gods with God,-

[030:032]  Those who split up their Religion, and become  Sects (shias) …

Transliteration:

[030:031]  … wala takoonoo mina almushrikeena

[030:032]  Mina allatheena farraqoo deenahum wakanoo shiyaAAan ….

Arabic (from right to left):

‏30:31… ولاتكونوا من المشركين

…‏30:32 من الذين فرقوا دينهم وكانوا شيعا

It seems Quran wants us to be sunni and not shias. A big confusion for shias? But we will not mislead you like answering-ansar! Keep reading and you will know the truth.

Al-Kafi

H 202, Ch. 22, h 6

It is narrated through the same chain of narrators from ibn abu ‘Umayr from certain persons

of his people who has said the following.

“Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said, ‘Whoever disagrees with the book of Allah and the

Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.) he has certainly become a unbeliever.’”

H 204, Ch. 22, h 8

“A man asked a question from Imam abu Ja‘far (a.s.) who replied to it and then the man said,

“The Fuqaha, scholars of law, do not say this.”

The Imam then said, “It is a pity. Have you ever seen a Faqih, a scholar of law? The real

Faqih, scholar of law is one who maintains restraint from the worldly matters, who is deeply

interested in the life hereafter and holds firmly to the Sunnah, noble tradition of the holy

prophet (s.a.)”

H 203, Ch. 22, h 7

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubayd from Yunus in a marfu’

manner from Ali ibn al-Husayn (a.s.) who has said the following.

“The best deed in the sight of Allah is the one that is performed according to the Sunnah, the

noble tradition of the holy Prophet (s.a.) even if it would be in small degree.”

H 199, Ch. 22, h 3

A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from his father

from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halab from Ayyub ibn al-Hurr who has said the

following.

“Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) has said, ‘Everything must be referred to the holy Quran and the

Sunnah, the noble traditions of the holy Prophet (s.a.)”

Nahjul Balagha , Sermon 127

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land. With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah’s hand (of protection) is on al jama’ah ( الجماعة ). You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/127.htm

Someone may say why have I replaced the word “keeping unity” with (al-jama’ah), the thing is the actual arabic word here is (al-jama’ah) which has been translated by the shias as “keeping unity”.

The actual sentence in Arabic here is

الزموا السواد الأعظم، فإنّ يدالله مع الجماعة

be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah’s hand (of protection) is on al jama’ah

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, only one sect will go to heaven, People asked, which sect? The Prophet said (three times)

الجماعة, الجماعة ,  الجماعة

Book : Khisal, Page 375

Author : Shaikh Sadooq

So we understand from this , that ahle sunnah wal jama’ah  are the people who are on the right path.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said “The Ummah will be divided into 73 sects , all of them will go to hell except one”. He was asked “Which sect is that one”. Prophet (peace be upon him) said “That is the one on which I and my companions (ashaab) are”

Book : Maani Al Akhbar, Page 370

Author : Shaikh Sadooq

As far as the word shia is concerned, first of all the hadith is unauthentic, after that, we know that the ahlelbayt hated the shias, e.g

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“O’ Kufa, if this is your condition that whirlwinds [of deciet] continue blowing through you, then Allah may destroy you…Your disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their [the Syrian’s] obedience to their leader [Muawiyyah] in matters of wrong, their [the Syrian’s] fulfilment of the trust in favor of their master [Muawiyyah] and your betrayal, their good work in their cities and your mischief. Even if I give you charge of a wooden bowl I fear you would run away with its handle.”

Ali invokes Allah against his Shia:

“O my Allah, they are disgusted of me and I am disgusted of them. They are weary of me and I am weary of them. Change them for me with better ones”

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/25.htm

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) want to change his shias because of their bad behaviour. So how can you claim that Shias of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) will be successful, when the ahlelbayt were fed up of them in their own lives?

So certainly, the right group is ahle sunnah wal jama’ah, i.e follow sunnah and remain with the jama’ah , the great majority, rather than living as ten percent which by no means can be the great majority and the jama’ah.

So the present shias should start thinking now.

2. If these titles cannot be located in the Qur’an could you produce this title from any hadith of the holy prophet (s)? Produce any such ‘mutawatir’ ‘marfuu’ or ‘saheeh’ narration from your books with a complete source (meaning the name of the book, version number, page number, edition etc) wherein the names Sunni, Ahl’ul Sunnah and Ahlul Sunnah wa al Jamaah have been mentioned by the holy prophet (saww) as a sect of Islam.

As we proved from Quran, “He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah…” [4:80] so sunni is indeed what Quran wants every Muslim to be, i.e the follower of the sunnah (the way) of the Prophet  (peace be upon him)

As far as ahadith are concerned, the majority of the shia and sunni ahadith state, Quran and sunnah, and not Quran and ahlel-bayt.

To mention a few:

H 187, Ch. 20, h 10

A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from ‘Isma’il

ibn Mihran from Sayf ibn ‘Umayra from abu al-Maghra from Sama‘a from abu al-Hassan

Musa (a.s.) who has said the following.

“I asked the Imam, ‘Is everything in the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger or

you have a say in it?’ The Imam replied, “As a matter of fact, everything is in the book of

Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger (s.a.)’”

For example:

H 199, Ch. 22, h 3

A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from his father

from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halab from Ayyub ibn al-Hurr who has said the

following.

“Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) has said, ‘Everything must be referred to the holy Quran and the

Sunnah, the noble traditions of the holy Prophet (s.a.)”

H 202, Ch. 22, h 6

It is narrated through the same chain of narrators from ibn abu ‘Umayr from certain persons

of his people who has said the following.

“Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said, ‘Whoever disagrees with the book of Allah and the

Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.) he has certainly become a unbeliever.’”

H 181, Ch. 20, h 4

Ali has narrated from Muhammad ibn “isa from Yunus from Hammad from abu ‘Abdallah (a. s.) who has said the following.

“There is no case for which there is not a law in the book or the Sunnah, the noble tradition of  the holy Prophet (s.a.)”

H 203, Ch. 22, h 7

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubayd from Yunus in a marfu’  manner from Ali ibn al-Husayn (a.s.) who has said the following.

“The best deed in the sight of Allah is the one that is performed according to the Sunnah, the noble tradition of the holy Prophet (s.a.) even if it would be in small degree.”

You can download Al Kafi from the shia website by clicking here

Apart from this , many many ahadith can be quoted from other shia hadith books, which says we should follow Quran and sunnah.

You can definitely see the importance of being a sunni, i.e the follower of sunnah and if you don’t agree to follow the sunnah, this can make you unbeliever according to the shia ahadith.

3. If these are not to be found in the hadeeth, then at least come up with an exact date, month and year of hijrah from the history of Islam when these names were adopted as your identity.

Doesn’t need to be answered when the above questions have been answered.

4. What were you famously known as before adopting these names?

Muslims , just like now, till the shias separated and became ahlel bidah (followers of innovations). For the readers, the person who is asking these questions, his sect’s real name is shia imamiya ithna ashariya or twelver shia which is one of the many of the sects of shias. The same sect also calls itself Jafri, and amongst its other names are Usooli.

A better understanding of this sect can be understood from the website of its rival shia sect, which is akhbari.

http://www.akhbari.org/English/index.htm

5. Why have you forsaken your previous title?

We have not forsaken our title, i.e Muslims, we are still known as Muslims unlike shias, apart from this , kindly let us know why you were forced to write not just one but so much more terms with your names, Shia Ithna Ashariya, Imamiya, Usooli, Jafriyah etc etc?

6. According to your sect, an introduction of any new thing to Islam constitutes bid’a, therefore to effectuate such an introduction is also a bid’a, so who was the person responsible for introducing this bid’a?

The ancestors of Shias, the people of kufa, who started mourning on tenth of Muharram, after deceiving Imam Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him)

7. Could you provide decisive evidence with regards to the meanings of Sunni, Ahl Sunnah and Ahl’ul Sunnah wal Jamaah?

Followers of the Sunnah

8. Which one is the most ancient of the three titles?

Which one amongst shia, shia imamiyah, shia imamiyah ithna ashariya , or twelver shia is the most ancient one?

9. Which one of the three titles do you consider the best?

Which one amongst shia, shia imamiyah, shia imamiyah ithna ashariya ,  twelver shia, millat-e-jafriyah or shia imamiyah ithna ashariya usooli, or ithna ashariyah imamiyah jafriyah etc etc etc do you consider the best?

10. Why are the remaining two of lesser merit? Which one of those two is the least and what is the reason behind it?

Same question goes for you.

Questions 11-20:

11.The title ‘Shia’ is present in the Qur’an and the hadeeth and Hardhat Ibraheem (as) has also been named a Shia. Do you accept this?

Yes, e.g Quran 30:31-32, 6:159 and for more details, http://www.discoveringislam.org/shia_in_quran.htm

12.If you do accept this, then what you do mean by ‘Millat e Ibraheem’ in your sect? And if you don’t accept this then please give us a reason as to why the word Shi’a has been used with reference to Prophet Ibraheem (as)?

Now let us end all the drama and clear it all for once. The word shia means three things “sect” or “party/group” or “follower”. This word can have both positive and negative meanings as clear from Quran.

The word shia has been used with reference to the friends and followers of Pharaoh too, perhaps that can broaden your knowledge a bit more , an

13.Does opposition to the title ‘Shia’ not constitute opposition to the Qur’an and the sayings of the holy prophet (s) when this title has been related to Ali (as), Fatima (as) and the Ahlul Bayt (as)?

Please see our article “To know the Shia’a”

On the basis of Quran 30:31-32 , opposition to shia is exactly what Quran wants from every Muslim. Can you disagree with that?

14.If it is then what is the punishment for opposing Allah (swt) and His Messenger? If it is not, then present an explicit narration with evidence to support your position?

Indeed it is not. You can read Quran 30:31-32, that is enough to explain that shia can be used in both positive and negative terms. Just because a cult is known as shia, it doesn’t prove anything, the shia word has been used for the followers of Pharaoh also, so can anyone say that they are the righteous ones? Indeed not. So just because shia has been used for the millat-e-Ibraheem, it doesn’t prove that everyone who labels himself or is known as shia , is the righteous one. It is very simple to understand. Nowadays, the word shia is used for a cult, and we use this term to refer to that cult.

15.The religion of Islam is established and its continual existence through every generation is a necessity. Hence, during the period of the Sahaba and the Tabe’een what titles were used?

During the period of sahaba, the title of the Muslims was Muslims. It was later when political groups started, they were named shia of this , shia of that, e.g  shia of Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), shia of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in the sense of party or group. The title that Muslims as general used for themselves was Muslims. The term shia was used in the political sense. It had nothing to do with religion. The term ahle sunnah was adopted by the mainstream Muslims when certain group of people started innovations, hence they were termed ahlul bidah. The shias (when became a cult with the beliefs as you have) were called originally called Rafidhis (literally: the rejectors , the people who rejected the normal islamic ways and started their own ways) by the mainstream Muslims, it was later that the term shia became the particular title of their sect, hence there is a shia hadith that a man comes to imam and asks, why people call us rafidhis? He answers, people have not named us Rafidhis but God himself.

16.Which one of these titles was the oldest? Narrate with evidence.

Muslim. Doesn’t need any evidence as it is well known and commonly accepted by all.

17. If it is Shi’a that was in use as has been confirmed by Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddas Dahlavi in Taufa Ithna Ashriyya, then all the Sahabah, Tabe’een and Taba Tabe’een were Shia’a. Does your hatred to a title used by these great personalities not discredit their name?

We do not hate this title , as the word “group or party” is not something that anyone would hate, but the shias of today are a cult, not a political group, this cult has become famous as shias as with the passage of time, this political group started becoming a cult, with specific religious beliefs, different from Muslims, while other political parties vanished with the passage of time without becoming a cult. The shias of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) started saying things about Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) which were not present in him. The beliefs of shias as in the present age were established much later. The ahadith books of shias were written much later after the hadith books of Muslims.

18. With questions 17 in mind, why do you say that the Shi’s martyred Imam Husayn (as)?

This is what your own scholars have written that he was a shia of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him).

19. What is the definition of Shi’a in your sect? Mention it with a lexical reference.

Already answered

20. Define Nasibi and Rafidhi in detail with lexical reference.

Nasibi are the people who had hatred towards Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) , and the rafidhi are the people who rejected the norms of the Muslims, and started saying things about Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) which were not present in him, ultimately they started saying that it was Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who should have been the first caliph.

Questions 21-30:

21. Do you believe in the ‘Tawheed’ of Allah (swt)? If you do, then is the essence of Allah (swt) Wajibul Wujood or Mumkinul Wujood?

Wajibul Wujood:

Belief in: Allah has always been, will always be, has no boundaries or limitations

Mumkinul Wujood:

Belief in: May be Allah has not always been (in existance), may be He might not be forever, and he has boundaries.

We believe in that the existence of Allah Most High is independent, complete, eternal and beginningless whatever name you give to it.

22. If Allah (swt) is Wajibul Wujood then what is your belief with regards to Hulool like Maulana Room has written in relation to Bayazeed Bistami:

Baa Mureedaan Aan Fakeere Muhtasham,

Baayazeed aamad ke yek Yazdaal Manam

Give us a detailed account of it.

Hulool: Meaning, a belief that God can descend in any living being’s body, and so communicate spiritually with the being.

Such belief is to be rejected.

23. Do you regard Allah as Aalam (knowledgeable) or Aleem (possessor of infinite knowledge)? If Aalam, then your greatest book after the Qur’an, “Sahih al Bukhari” Volume 6 hadith number 371:

“The Prophet (saws) said, “The people will be thrown into the (Hell) Fire and it will say: ‘Are there any more (to come)? (50:30) till Allah puts his foot over it and it will say ‘Qat! Qat!” (Enough! Enough!)” [Sahih Bokhari, Vol. 6, Hadeeth 371]

I ask, while creating Hell, did Allah under estimate its size to such an extent that he deemed it necessary to place his leg in to expand it at a later date?

24. Is Allah not the possessor of the power of ‘Kun Fayakun (everything)? If He is, then why can’t he just limit hell with a simple command?

[038:075]  He said: O Iblis! What hindereth thee from falling prostrate before that which I have created with both My hands ? Art thou too proud or art thou of the high exalted ?

I ask was the making of Adam so difficult for God (nauzobillah) that He had to use both of His hands to create Adam? According to your own dumb logic, does this verse mean that the creation of Adam for God was so difficult that he had to use His own hands?  Isn’t God the possessor of the power of ‘kun fayakoon’ (Be and It is) ? If He is than why He said that He created Adam with His own hands?

Lets come to the shia ahadith now

Narration:1

In Kamel al-ziyarat we read by Jaffar bin Muhammad Koloway: (page 141-142)

Narrated Abi Rahmanullah, from Sa’ad bin Abdullah, from Muhammad bin Issa bin Abeed al-Yaqteen, from Muhammad bin Sinan, from Abi Saeed al-Qammat, from Abi Yaqoob, from Abi Abdullah (as) who said: “While messenger of Aallah (saw) in house of Fatima’s (as) and Hussein was in the room, all of a sudden he (messenger) cried and felt on the ground in prostration then said: O Fatimah daughter of Muhammad verily the high the exalted (Allah) was seen in your house, in this hour, in best of image and shape and told me: O Muhammad do you love Hussein (as), I said: Yes he is coolness of my eyes, my sweet scent, fruit of my heart and the skin between my eyes, so He told me: “O Muhammad, and then He placed His Hand on Hussein’s head (as), blessed he to whom he was born, My Blessings, My Prayers, My Mercy and My Pleasure. And My Curse, My displeasure, My Torment, My disgrace and My Punishment upon who Kills him or hate him or who stand in hostility towards him or fight him. Verily he is the leader of Martyrs from among the first and last in this world and hereafter.

(كامل الزيارات- جعفر بن محمد بن قولويه
ص 141 :
[ 166 ] 1 – حدثني ابي رحمه الله ، عن سعد بن عبد الله ، عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد اليقطيني ، عن محمد بن سنان ، عن ابي سعيد القماط ، عن ابن ابي يعفور ، عن ابي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) ، قال :
/ صفحة 142 /
بينما رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) في منزل فاطمة ( عليها السلام ) والحسين في حجره إذ بكى وخر ساجدا ثم قال : يا فاطمة يا بنت محمد ان العلي الاعلى تراءى لي في بيتك هذا في ساعتي هذه في أحسن صورة وأهيا هيئة ، وقال لي : يا محمد أتحب الحسين ( عليه السلام ) ، فقلت : نعم قرة عيني وريحانتي وثمرة فؤادي وجلدة ما بين عيني ، فقال لي : يا محمد – ووضع يده على رأس الحسين ( عليه السلام ) – بورك من مولود عليه بركاتي وصلواتي ورحمتي ورضواني ، ولعنتي وسخطي وعذابي وخزيي ونكالي على من قتله وناصبه وناواه ونازعه ، اما انه سيد الشهداء من الاولين والاخرين في الدنيا والاخرة – وذكر الحديث .)

————————————————————–

Narration:2

Allama Mirza Muhammad, nicknamed as Hujjat al-Islam narrated this narration from Medinat al-Ma’ajiz from Dla’al al-Tabari:
He said narrated…….then he (Hussein) comes to Mountain of Ridhwan and there will remain none from among believers except that he comes to him on bed made of nor (light), already Ibrahim (as), Musa (as) and Isa (as) have surrounded him! And all the messengers! And behind them believers, and behind the believers Angels, all waiting what Hussein (as) will say, while they are in this state, Al-Qaem will appear, even Karbala will come and there remain none from the inhabitants of heaven or earth except that they surround al-Hussein, even Allah visit al-Hussein (as) and shakes his hand and sits beside him on the bed.

روى شيخهم العالم العلاّم ميرزا محمد تقي الملّقب بحجة الاسلام هذه الرواية نقلا من مدينة المعاجز عن دلائل الطبري : قال أخبرني أبو الحسين محمد بن هارون عن أبيه عن أبي علي محمد بن همام عن أحمد بن الحسين المعروف بابن أبي القاسم عن أبيه عن الحسين بن علي عن محمد بن سنان عن المفضل بن عمر قال: قال أبو عبدالله (ع) لما منع الحسين(ع) وأصحابه الماء نادى فيهم من كان ظمآن فليجئ فأتاه رجل رجل فيجعل أبهامه في راحة واحدهم فلم يزل يشرب الرجل حتى ارتووا فقال بعضهم والله لقد شربت شرابا ما شربه أحد من العالمين في دار الدنيا فلما قاتلوا الحسين(ع) فكان في اليوم الثالث عند المغرب أعقد الحسين رجلا رجلا منهم يسميهم بأسماء آبائهم فيجيبه الرجل بعد الرجل فيقعد من حوله ثم يدعو بالمائدة فيطعمهم ويأكل معهم من طعام الجنة ويسقيهم من شرابها ثم قال أبو عبدالله (ع) والله لقد رآهم عدة من الكوفيين ولقد كرّر عليهم لو عقلوا قال ثم خرجوا لرسلهم فعاد كل واحد منهم إلى بلادهم ثم أتى لجبال رضوي فلا يبقى أحد من المؤمنين إلاّ أتاه وهو على سرير من نور قد حفّ به ابراهيم وموسى وعيسى ! وجميع الانبياء ! ومن ورائهم المؤمنون ومن ورائهم الملائكة ينظرون ما يقول الحسين(ع) قل فهم بهذه الحال إلى أن يقوم القائم و إذا قام القائم(ع) وافو فيها بينهم الحسين(ع) حتى يأتي كربلاء فلا يبقى أحد سماوي ولا أرضي من المؤمنين إلاّ حفّوا بالحسين(ع) حتى أن الله تعالى يزورالحسين(ع) ويصافحه ويقعد معه على سرير,

كتاب الأصول الستة عشر ص47 ـ 62

25. Among your beliefs is the fact that good and evil comes from Allah[swt], mean that Allah[swt] is the source of evil as well (astaghfirullah)? Prove this belief intellectually.

Yusuf Ali:

[004:078]  “Wherever ye are, death will find you out, even if ye are in towers built up strong and high!” If some good befalls them, they say, “This is from God”; but if evil, they say, “This is from thee” (O Prophet). Say: “All things are from God.” But what hath come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact?

Astaghfirullah now the idiots will say that this Quran is corrupt.

But now read this verse too!

[004:079]  Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from God; but whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy (own) soul. and We have sent thee as an apostle to (instruct) mankind. And enough is God for a witness.

Astaghfirullah now the idiots will firmly believe that the present Quran is corrupt.

Now the answer from Ahle Sunnah is here.

Praise be to Allaah.

Understanding this aayah is easy for the one whom Allaah enables to understand it. It is one of the unambiguous aayahs in the clear Book of Allaah, and there is no contradiction in it, except in the minds of some of the haters, who are aided by their ignorance of Arabic and of the meanings of the Holy Qur’aan, so they think that the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself” [al-Nisa’ 4:79] mean that calamities, which are referred to here as “evil”, are created by man himself. This is obvious ignorance which no one falls into but someone who has no knowledge of the Arabic language, or an Arabic-speaker who is misled and overwhelmed by his whims and desires. That is because the preposition min (from) here, in the phrase min nafsika (“from yourself”), refers to the cause, i.e., it is because of you yourself, O man, because of your disobedience and your going against the command of Allaah, that calamities befall you, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much” [al-Shoora 42:30].

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked:

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And if some good reaches them, they say, ‘This is from Allaah,’ but if some evil befalls them, they say, ‘This is from you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم).’ Say: ‘All things are from Allaah’” [al-Nisa’ 4:78], then in the next verse He says (interpretation of the meaning): “Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allaah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself”. How can we reconcile between them?

He replied:

They may be reconciled by noting that the first verse refers to the decree of Allaah, i.e., it is from Allah; He is the one who decrees it. The second verse refers to the cause i.e., whatever of evil befalls you, you are the cause, and the One Who decrees evil and decrees the punishment for it is Allaah. End quote.

Liqaa’aat al-baab il-Maftooh (no. 15, question no. 15).

For more details:

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/124504

26. You have six Kalimas, the sixth of which is called ‘Radde Kufr’ wherein you do tabarra. Like in:

Fatabarra’tu Minal Kufri wash Shirki wal Kidhb.

I disassociate myself from Kufr and Shirk.

Do you regard the doing of tabarra as permissible?

27. If you deem it permissible then why do you object to the Shi’a? And if you consider it forbidden then why not terminate your sixth kalima wherein you disassociate from Kufr? Would it not be better to simply accept that Tabarra is a means of dissociating oneself from Kufr?

Tabarra is permissible when it is against kufr. But the shia gatherings just to curse the wives and the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet, and not a single gathering for dissociation from kufar , not a single gathering for dissociation from Abu Lahab, Firoun etc? This is the point where you should start using your brain.

28. ‘Laa tudrukuhul absaar’ are Qur’anic words, translate them and clarify the meaning of ‘Lan Taraani’.

لاتدركه الابصار وهو يدرك الابصار وهو اللطيف الخبير

[006:103]  No visions can encompass Him, but He encompasses all visions. He is the Compassionate, the Cognizant.

ولما جاء موسى لميقاتنا وكلمه ربه قال رب ارني انظر اليك قال لن تراني ولكن انظر الى الجبل فان استقر مكانه فسوف تراني فلما تجلى ربه للجبل جعله دكا وخر موسى صعقا فلما افاق قال سبحانك تبت اليك وانا اول المؤمنين

[007:143]  And when Moses came at the time and place appointed by Us, and his Lord spoke to him, he said: “O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon You.” Allah said: “You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me.” So when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it collapse to dust, and Moosa (Moses) fell down unconscious. Then when he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to You, I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.”

Now the explanation. Indeed no vision can see God in this world, but if God wills, than we can see Him. And if that is not the case, than what the believers are looking at in this verse?

29. When the holy prophet went on Mi’raj, was he blessed with the sight of Allah (swt)? If he was, provide us with a hadeeth with a complete source and reference wherein the holy prophet describes the appearance of Allah (swt).

30. If Allah was behind the veil and the holy prophet had just heard His voice then why was the holy prophet deprived of seeing the beautiful appearance of Allah (swt)?

Questions 31-40:

31. What is the basis of your doctrine of God’s visibility, the Qur’an or Hadeeth? If it is the Qur’an, then provide us with the verse and justify the contradiction as God’s words are devoid of any contradiction. If it is hadeeth, then present it in relation to the Qur’an.

Two questions need to be answered: Can Allah be Seen and Did Muhammad see his lord.

Lets answer the first question.

Can Allah be seen? Is it possible for him to be seen? The answer is yes, it is possible. However, is it possible to see him in this life with our very eyes? The answer is no.

The commentary of the verse that states that no vision can grasp God (6:103) says this….

Source: http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?nType=1&bm=&nSeg=0&l=arb&nSora=6&nAya=103&taf=KATHEER&tashkeel=0

Ibn A’lba said regarding this verse, it is in this life, narrated by Abi Hatim

This shows that it is not possible for vision (from our eyes) to grasp God in this life.

Source: http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KORTOBY&nType=1&nSora=6&nAya=103

And Ibn Abbas said: “No vision can grasp him” in this life, and that the believers will see Him in the next life because Allah said so  “That day will faces be resplendent, Looking toward their Lord”

وجوه يومئذ ناضرة‏ الى ربها ناظرة (Surah 75:22-23)

Reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas as well and he said: The meaning that the vision of the hearts cannot grasp Him, is that a person’s mind cannot grasp Him in order to comprehend Him. “There is none like unto him” (Surah 42:11) and he said: The meaning is that the visions created here on earth, however he can create for those who want his generosity a vision and comprehension in order to see Him just like he did for Muhammad peace be upon him.

Source: http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?nType=1&bm=&nSeg=0&l=arb&nSora=53&nAya=11&taf=TABARY&tashkeel=0

Some of them said: The heart (of the Prophet) has seen the Lord of The Worlds and they said that He (God) made his vision in his heart so he saw him with his heart and he did not see him with his eyes.

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0347:

Suhaib reported the Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: When those deserving of Paradise would enter Paradise, the Blessed and the Exalted would ask: Do you wish Me to give you anything more? They would say: Hast Thou not brightened our faces? Hast Thou not made us enter Paradise and saved us from Fire? He (the narrator) said: He (God) would lift the veil, and of things given to them nothing would he dearer to them than the sight of their Lord, the Mighty and the Glorious.

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0349:

Abu Haraira reported: The people said to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Messenger of Allah, shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Do you feel any trouble in seeing the moon on the night when it is full? They said: Messenger of Allah, no. He (the Messenger) further said: Do you feel any trouble in seeing the sun, when there is no cloud over it? They said: Messenger of Allah. no. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily you would see Him like this (as you see the sun and the moon)…

So basically as we can see, it is possible to see God but it is impossible that our vision could encompass him.

Book 001, Number 0337:

It is narrated on the authority of Masruq that he said: I was resting at (the house of) ‘A’isha that she said: O Abu ‘A’isha (kunya of Masruq), there are three things, and he who affirmed even one of them fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I asked that they were. She said: He who presumed that Muhammad (may peace be upon him) saw his Lord (with his ocular vision) fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I was reclining but then sat up and said: Mother of the Faithful, wait a bit and do not be in a haste. Has not Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said:” And truly he saw him on the clear horizon” (al-Qur’an, lxxxi. 23) and” he saw Him in another descent” (al-Qur’an, iiii. 13)? She said: I am the first of this Ummah who asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said: Verily he is Gabriel. I have never seen him in his original form in which he was created except on those two occasions (to which these verses refer) ; I saw him descending from the heaven and filling (the space) from the sky to the earth with the greatness of his bodily structure. She said: Have you not heard Allah saying.” Eyes comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. and He is Subtle, and All-Aware” (al-Qur’an, v. 104)? (She, i. e. ‘A’isha, further said): Have you not heard that, verily, Allah says:” And it is not vouchsafed to a human being that Allah should speak unto him otherwise than by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sendeth a messenger (angel), so that he revealth whatsoever He wills. Verily He is Exalted. Wise” (al. Qur’an, xii. 51) She said: He who presumes that the Messengerof Allah (may peace be upon him) concealed anything, from the Book, of Allah fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. Allah says:” O Messenger! deliver that which has been revealed to thee from thy Lord, and if thou do (it) not, thou hast not delivered His message” (al-Qur’an, v. 67). She said: He who presumes that he would inform about what was going to happen tomorrow fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. And Allah says” Say thou (Muhammad): None in the heavens and the earth knoweth the unseen save Allah” (al-Qur’an, xxvii 65).

Ibn Hajr answers the claim that ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about the meaning of the verse, upon which he asserted that he saw Jibrael. He writes that ‘Aisha asked about the verse ‘And surely he saw him on the bright horizon’. This verse is undoubtedly referring to the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) vision of Jibrael. This is because this actual verse is from Surah Takvir , verse 19-23, which does refer to Jibrael. Allah says in the Qur’an,

^{‘This [Qur’an] is the word (brought) by an honoured Messenger- who is powerful and dignified with the Lord of the Mighty Throne- There he is the obeyed one (of the angels) and trustworthy. And this companion of yours is not mad. And surely he saw the messenger on the bright horizon.’ (Takvir 19-23)}

So Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) thought, due to this, that it was Gabriel whom the Prophet saw during the night of miraj. She didn’t got the knowledge that the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw Allah Almighty also.

Book 001, Number 0341:

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr: I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Did you see thy Lord? He said: He is a Light;. how could I see Him?

Book 001, Number 0342:

Abdullah b. Shaqiq reported: I said to Abu Dharr: Had I seen the Messenger of Allah, I would have asked him. He (Abu Dharr) said: What is that thing that you wanted to inquire of him? He said: I wanted to ask him whether he had seen his Lord. Abu Dharr said: I, in fact, inquired of him, and he replied: I saw Light.

The thing is , our vision can indeed not encompass God, but it doesn’t mean that we will not be able to even see God at all. The whole story lies in the word , encompass. Everyone agrees that eyes can’t encompass Him, i.e Allah Almighty. If someone understands it, than he will understand that there is no difference between Quran and hadith.

Thanks to http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/can_allah_be_seen_rebuttal.htm

32. Despite the fact that you do not regard the companions as infallible and accept the notion of them committing sins, you consider it wrong to criticise them due to the respect you afford them. You regard their holiness to be in keeping evil off them, which proves the fact that, for the honour of a respectable and dignified personality it is necessary that he is kept away from sins and treated as immune from defects. This concept is infallibility in all but name. Then what objection do you have in considering the holy prophet as infallible when you consider it a sin to call his companions as sinners and reject the infallibility of the holy prophet himself?

A good Muslim will respect his father and mother, knowing fully well that they are not infallibles, and knowing fully well that they do commit mistake every day. If someone tells him that his mother is fat, he will dislike such person even though what he said was a matter of fact. The reason is that guy does’t know how much the mother has sacrificed for that person. He will not tolerate such guys. Does that mean the person is considering her mother infallible? Know that it is not necessary to give respect to a person that he should be infallible.

You don’t know anything about the sacrifices of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). You think that it was only Prophet (peace be upon him) and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who defeated an army of 1000 kuffar in Badar, 3000 in Uhud, 10000 in Khandaq, and more 100000 in the latter fights. You think that the person who had to keep hungry for many days because of being Muslims were hypocrites, you think that the people who were torchered and humiliated in the streets of Mecca everyday were hypocrites, you think that the people who were stoned and whipped and laid on burning sand in the deserts of Arabia in summer at full noon and huge stones were placed on them so that they leave Islam were a bunch of hypocrites who later apostated, and only three of all those people remained Muslims after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), i.e Miqdad ,Salman and Abu Dhar (may Allah be pleased with him) , amongst whom Salman (may Allah be pleased with him) hadn’t even face these torchers at the hands of the people of Mecca because he embraced Islam later. Don’t you know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t leave these companions till his death and even he died in the residence of Aisha and the companions didn’t leave him even after his death and now they are buried near eachother?

Their sacrifices for Islam , you can’t even imagine, because your heart if filled with their hatred, and you have been blinded by this hatred. Which of the sacrifices of the companions will you ignore? Know that two persons alone can’t fight an army of 1000, 3000 or 10000 or 100000, if your mind is working , you will realize that the other companions who were with the Prophet (peace be upon him) at this harsh times had faith thousands of times more than you and your forefathers, the shias of Kufa, Iraq,  who ran away, leaving ahlelbayt at the mercy of the 4000 soldiers of ibn ziyad, even though they were four times more than them.

Infallibility unlimited for shia scholars:

Translation:

4. Doctrine Concerning the Position of mujtahid

We believe that a fully qualified mujtahid is a representative of the Imam, in the case of the latter’s absence. Thus he is an authority over Muslims and he performs the functions of the Imam as regards judgement and administration among the people. Because of this, Imam Ja’far as Sadiq said:

To deny the authority of a mujtahid is to deny the authority of the Imam, and to deny tile authority of the Imam is to make an objection to the authority of Allah. and this is tantamount to polytheism (shirk).

Therefore the qualified mujtahid is not only one who issues fatwas, but he also has general authority over Muslims who must consult him if they require judgement, this being obtainable only from him. It is correspondingly wrong for anyone to give judgement except him or one who is appointed by him, as no-one can pass sentence without his permission. Also, all that which belongs to the Imam should be given to the mujtahid.

Such authority has been bestowed upon the qualified mujtahid by the Imam so that he may represent him in his absence; hence he is known as the representative of the Imam (na’ ib al-imam).

33. To you it is not God that nominates people for the post of Imamah or Khilafah but it is based on the choice of human beings that is why the doctrine of Imamah does not form part of your Islamic doctrine. When Khilafah does not have a religious place to you at all, but you regard it as something outside of the Deen then why do you constantly engage in debates with the Shi’a on this? Is this not a contradiction? Why do you not confine political issues to politics only?

We are not interested in engaging in debates with shias, but these are shias whose whole basis is based on proving the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as non Muslims and than to say things about Ali which were not in him, so that somehow he could be given the title of infallible. Stop talking ill about the wives and other companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) , but how can you do this? Your whole faith lies on it.

34. If Khilafah or Imamah is a matter of religion then as per the Qur’an, the Sunnah of God does not change. Therefore, beginning with Adam (as) through to the prophet Isa (as), name any prophet after whom one of his companions had been chosen as his vicegerent without gap, depriving the members of that prophet’s household of the same right.

35. If none of the prophets preceding the holy prophet had a vicegerent who wasn’t from his near of kin then why was the Sunnah of Allah (swt) changed in relation to Rasulullah (s)? Refer us to the verse and a hadith of commentary to prove such a change.

36. The slogans “Naara Takbeer Allahu Akbar, Naara Risaalat Ya Rasoolullah and Naara Hayderi Ya Ali” have been in practice for centuries but just recently you have introduced a new one “Naara Khilafat Haq Chaar Yaar” which signifies that only those four personalities have the right over the post of Khilafat. Mulla Ali Qari in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, Page 176, considers Yazeed Bin Muawiyah as the sixth Khalifah of the holy prophet. What about the rest of khalifahs of Khilafah? Did the holy prophet not state that there will be twelve khalifahs? Mention their names.

Please see our article “Imamate; The perfection of Deen”

Forget about the slogans, there are thousands of slogans and if someone say that “Pakistan zindabad” it doesn’t mean that he says only Pakistan zindabad and the rest murdabad. Don’t get so childish. And I have not

37. Our mothers and sisters will proclaim their God is Allah, their apostle the holy Prophet and their Maula, Ali (as) but none of them would dare proclaim ‘Our Four Rightful Men’ out of modesty considering it as an abuse. Then tell us, is this slogan for men only or for both men and women?

Note: The original slogan in Urdu, uses the work “Yaar”, which can also be used as “very close friends”. In India & Pakistan, therefore women hesitate to use this slogan.

The slogan is Haq chaar yaar, that is “the right of the four friends” , it doesn’t mean our friends, but the four people who were friends of one another.

Anyhow, the funny thing is that shias also think of the hesitation of the women. Lol can you or any Pakistani or Indian shia publish a single mutah card of their daughter or sister like they publish marriage cards? I am asking you to publish only one such mutah card for your sister or daughter and distribute it. Dude mutah is a fundamental part of your faith and in your faith, it has huge reward, but you Pakistani and Indian shias feel so much ashamed of doing it that you can’t publish a single mutah card of your sister or daughter or mother?

38. It is reported in the traditions that a sword was brought for Ali (as) from heaven, angels came down to earth to assist Hadhrath Fatima (as) in revolving the grinding stones (chakki) in cookery, Ridhwan had appeared in the form of a tailor and brought clothes for Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as), could you please refer to any hadeeth wherein even one sock is reported to have been revealed for Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like.

39. What is your position regarding the faith of Hadhrath Fatima (sa)?

MashaAllah we respect both the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Ahlelbayt (may Allah be pleased with them) and don’t doubt their faith. They were great Muslims and no Muslim from the present age can claim to have better faith than them.

40. If she was a Mu’menah then is it permissible to obey her or not? When every companion is Adil ( Just ), is following one of them a way of salvation?

Indeed, it is permissible to obey her, if her claim was correct. But as far as Fadak is concerned, her claim was not correct and this is the thing she herself accepted.

Questions 41-50:

41. If not then tell us why did the holy prophet say, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”

Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61

Actually this was said when Ali [ra] angered Fatima [ra] according to the shia ahadith.

Details here:

http://shiacult.webnode.com/news/fadak-ii/

42. If it is permissible to obey her then it is reported in Saheeh Bukhari that Hadhrath Sayyedah Fatima was displeased with the two shaykhs. She had even instructed (in her will) that they should not participate in her funeral procession.

Please see our article “Burning the house of Fatima[sa]“

43. If Hadhrath Fatima’s displeasure towards the two shaykhs was not against Islam then why is it important upon the general mass to love them? Allah[swt] deemed His anger and Fatima’s to be the same, and Syeda Fatima left the earth angry with the 2 Shaykhs.

Her claim was wrong, so on which basis should we dislike Abu Bakar [ra]? Refer to our article , Fadak.

Ali also angered Fatima on many instances according to shia books , Click here.

Prophet (peace be upon him) himself got angry at Fatima , Jilal ul Ayoon, by Baqir Majlisi.

Again, Ali angered Fatima , Ilalul Sharaie by Shaikh Sadooq.

Once again, Ilalul Sharaie by Shaikh Sadooq.

If you are blind in blaming Abu Bakar , than open your eyes today. You have to look whether her claim was correct or not. If her claim was not correct, than on what basis can you blame Abu Bakr?

44. You are of the opinion that there had been no opposition between Hadhrath Ali (as) and the three companions. Suppose I accept that, but let me tell you, I have a very deep respect and honour for the pure lady Fatima (as) who was part of the flesh of the holy prophet (saww) and she has this esteem to her credit that whenever she appeared in the presence of the holy prophet (saww) he used to stand up as a welcoming gesture of honour to her. Therefore, will following such a respectful personality be a cause of salvation or not? Decide by keeping Bukhari and Muslim before your sight.

Yup if you truly follow her.

Shia records confirm that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) became pleased with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). The Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states:

“Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: ‘Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasool-Allah distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers.’ She then said: ‘Do with it as my father, Rasool-Allah had done.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘I take an oath by Allah for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it.’ Fatima said: ‘ By Allah! You should most certainly do so.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘ By Allah! I shall most certainly do so.’ Fatima said: ‘O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them (Fatima and others of the Ahlel Bayt) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

In the very reliable narration of Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, we read:

“When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi)

This Hadith is narrated by Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (volume 2, page 517-518)  click here ,  who said: “It is narrated with a good (hasan) chain.” Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.

Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) said :

Instruct your folks to speak only good wording near the corpse. As the harem of Bani Hashim asked her to poetize near her father’s corpse, Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), said, “Leave mourning and supplicate to God.”

Tuhaf ul Aqool (تحف العقول عن آل الرسول) : You can download from http://shia-online.com/books.php

45. While departing from this world, did the holy prophet (saww) leave the Qur’an with the ummah or not?

No, as proven from shia books also, Ali [ra] says that Prophet [peace be upon him] told him to collect Quran.

46. If he did then why did the need for the collection of the Qur’an arise? And why were the Ummah kept without the Qur’an till the period of Uthman?

He didn’t , Quran was indeed revealed completely, but it was not in arranged form, but it was written on different pieces, the Quran was arranged in the form of book by the Caliphs.

47. If the holy prophet (saww) did not leave the Qur’an with the Ummah prior to his departure then the task of Risallah was not accomplished because the purpose of his arrival was to convey the message of Allah to the ummah. How then is the religion complete?

The message was conveyed, to convey the message, it is not necessary that it must be in the form of a book , i can convey my message to anyone without writing a book, but in the form of letters too. The message was indeed conveyed, but Quran in itself was not in an arranged form. This great work was done by the Caliphs as proven from lots of your books.

48. You make a long list of Muslims who compiled the revelations which proves the fact that the holy prophet (saww) had himself been causing the Qur’an being written and preserved it. But to our surprise, after the holy prophet (saww) up until the period of Uthman, people could not get the Qur’an. Could you explain why this gap occurred?

Seems the scholar you are so fond of hasn’t read even the shia books very well. Anyhow, people had the Quran, but not in an arranged form, but in pieces. One chapter or some part written on one piece , another chapter or part on another piece.

49. You are proud of the memorizers of the Qur’an and even claim the fact that there had been many such people among the companions of the holy prophet. Then, tell us, from among Ali (as), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman who knew the Qur’an by heart? Give your answers with complete sources and refer to your books.

50. If none of the three companions had been Haafidh of the Qur’an then why scoff the Shias despite the presence of many Haafidh among them?

Indeed they knew Quran by heart, Uthman would recite the entire quran in one or two rakah.

References

Al bidaya wan nihaya , volume 7, page 214

Tabaqat ibn saad , volume 3, page 75

Tarikhul Khulufa, Imam Suyuti

Al Farooq, Shibli Numani

Tehzeeb Nowi

Hulyatul Awliya

Is it allowed to scoff shias now?

Questions 51-60:

51. In a reliable book of your sect, ‘Itteqaan’ by Suyuti, vol. 1 page 59, it is narrated that Ali (as) had once told Abu Bakr that an addition was being made to the Qur’an and that my heart tells me that apart from the salaam, I am not going to wear my robe up until I have collected the Qur’an, to which Abu Bakr said, you saw the right thing. This report has been received from Akramah who is a reliable leader of the Sunnis and every Sunni accepts this report as correct. Is this not a sufficient proof that after the departure of the holy prophet (saww), according to your sect efforts were made to interpolate the word of Allah (swt) and obviously the doers of that were Muslims themselves? What evidence can you then produce in support of the Qur’an being free from Tahreef (addition)?

This narration is unauthentic. Ibn Hajar said

“This narration is daeef “unauthentic as its sanad doesn’t reach Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)”

Read the authentic narrations in “Itteqaan”

قال علي – رضي الله عنه – “لا تقولوا في عثمان إلا خيرًا ، فوالله ما فعل الذي فعل في المصاحف إلا عن ملأ منا

Ali said – may Allah be pleased with him – “Do not say anything but good about Osman, by God what he did in the matter of Quran, he did with our consultation.

قال علی – رضي الله عنه – : “لو وليّت لعملت بالمصاحف التي عمل بها عثمان”

Ali said – may Allah be pleased with him – If it was my Rule , I would have done the same regarding Quran, what Uthman did.

52. It is narrated in saheeh Bukhari that the holy prophet used to forget the Qur’an? If the bearer of the book, the prophet himself forgets it then the word’s correctness becomes doubtful, which makes the Qur’an unreliable. Does such a narration not create doubts on the status of the Qur’an and Rasul’Allah? If Rasul’Allah (s) can err in relation to the Qur’an then does this not also mean he can forget on the Sunnah as well? When the authenticity of the Qur’an and Sunnah comes into question, how can your sect be the true one?

See also: Sunan Abu-Dawud, page 350

Joseph could also forget, does this make the sayings of Prophet Joseph unreliable?

[012:042]  And of the two, to that one whom he consider about to be saved, he said: “Mention me to thy lord.” But Satan made him forget to mention him to his lord: and (Joseph) lingered in prison a few (more) years.

But this forgetfullness was temporary

[Yusufali 87:6] By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget,

So even if he would have forgotten on few incidents, it doesn’t signify your claim, just like an ordinary person, who remembers a thing by heart, than just like other human beings, he may forget it , but when someone reminds him, he again remembers it by heart.

And here’s hadith sahih from al-kafi which agrees with what was narrated in bukhari about the man who asked the prophet if prayer was changed because rasool allah forgot the number of prayers !

الكليني عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن عثمان بن عيسى عن سماعة بن مهران قال : قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام : من حفظ سهوه فأتمه فليس عليه سجدتا السهو ، فإن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم صلى بالناس والظهر ركعتين ثم سها فسلم ، فقال له ذو الشمالين : يا رسول الله أنزل في الصلاة شيء ؟
فقال وما ذلك ؟
فقال : إنما صليت ركعتين ، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم : أتقولون مثل قوله ؟ قالوا : نعم فقام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فأتم بها الصلاة وسجد بهم سجدتي السهو قال : قلت : أرأيت من صلى ركعتين وظن أنهما أربعاً فسلم وانصرف ثم ذكر بعدما ذهب أنه صلى ركعتين ، قال : يستقبل الصلاة من أولها ، فقال : قلت : فما بال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لم يستقبل الصلاة وإنما أتم بهم ما بقي من صلاته ؟ فقال : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لم يبرح من مجلسه ، فإن كان لم يبرح من مجلسه فليتم ما نقص من صلاته إذا كان قد حفظ الركعتين الأوليتين

this hadith is extremely sahih see : al-kafi volume 3 page 355

The Messenger of Allah prayed “dhuhr prayer” two rakat only and did tasleem. A person named Dhu al shamalain said “O Messenger of Allah , has something happened to the Prayer? The Messenger of Allah said “What is that?” He answered : ” You prayed only two rakat”. Than the Messenger of Allah prayed two rakat of sahu “meaning forgetfulness”

53. In your innumerable books of hadeeth, there are various reports that the Qur’an has Tahreef in it. For instance it’s mentioned in al Itteqaan that Surah Ahzaab had two hundred verses before and now it has 73 verses. What happened to the rest? If they were abrogated then refer us to those verses that came down to abrogate them? Similarly in Itteqaan, vol. 2, page 25 Abdullah Ibn Umar states that none of you should ever claim to have received the whole Qur’an, rather what remains. The presence of such reports shows that according to your sect the Qur’an has been changed. Can you elaborate?

You take ahadith from the chapter of Nasikh wa mansookh (the abrogating and the abrogated verses) and than tell us that the they mean the Quran has been tampered? Sorry on the people who take Answering-Ansar as their guide.

Why don’t you include the text before the narration of 200 hundred verses too

قال ابوالحسن المنادی فی کتابہ الناسخ والمنسوخ

So it is talking about the abrogated verses. Don’t take things out of the context.

As far as the second narration is concerned

حدثنا إسماعيل بن إبراهيم، عن أيوب، عن نافع، عن ابن عمر، قال: لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله، وما يدريه ما كله؟ قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير، ولكن ليقل: قد أخذت منه ما ظهر

Again this narration has been taken from the chapter of Nasikh wa mansookh,

Read the sentence before it too.

“… And this type of abrogation has many examples. Abu Ubaid said, Ismail bin Ibrahim narrated from Ayoob from Nafi from Ibn Umar who said “you should not say that you have gathered all [whatever has been revealed as] Quran, since much of it has gone [by the way of abrogation] (the translation of ذهب is not lost, but gone, leave etc), rather he should say I took from it what appeared to me… “

Second thing is that this hadith has been translated poorly by the rafidhis.

Ibn Umar [May Allah be pleased with him] said: you should not say that you have gathered all [whatever has been revealed as] Quran, since much of it has gone [by the way of abrogation] (the translation of ذهب is not lost, but gone, leave etc), rather he should say I took from it what appeared to me.

An important point to note here is that it was the way of speech of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)

E.g he also said:

“No one should say that he keeps fast during the entire Ramadhan, as night is also included in Ramadhan, and no one keeps fast during night.”

[Ibn Abi Sheba]

54. Can the apostle forbid what has been allowed by Allah? Can you reply by relying on a Qur’anic verse?

The Prophet doesn’t forbid anything allowed by Allah on his own, without receiving any revelation from Allah regarding that.

55. Is anyone from among the ummah authorised to forbid what has been allowed by Allah and His messenger?

No.

56. Allamah Shibli Nu’mani in al Farooq page 217 narrates from Saheeh Muslim that Umar had said that two Mut’a were allowed during the time of the holy prophet but I disallow them from now and these are the Mut’a of Hajj and the Mut’a of Nisaa. On what religious authority did Umar forbid what the apostle and Allah (swt) allowed? Clarify this point.

Indeed, mutah of Nisaa was allowed during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), he did not say anything wrong. If someone says that wine was allowed during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), is it wrong? No, for we know very well that wine was allowed during the time of the Prophet (peace  be upon him). And it also doesn’t mean that wine was never disallowed later. Similarly, here also , it doesn’t mean that mutah was never disallowed. What he said was exactly correct, and when he forbade, that was not from his own, but in accordance with the command of the Prophet (peace be upon him). That is why when he said that if anyone claims that mutah is allowed (even now), than he should bring four witnesses (Ibne Majah) and no one brought four evidence , even Ali and the ahlelbayt did not bring four witnesses, if they considered mutah allowed even then, it was their duty to bring four witnesses. But the fact is that everyone , except a few sahaba who came to know later, knew that mutah was disallowed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) in his last days, and was never allowed thenceforth.

Also remember, that when a Prophet says that he forbids something, it doesn’t mean that he is doing it on his own, rather it means that he is doing so on the command of God Almighty.

This has been very beautifully explained in the very same book.

Al Farooq , By Shibli Numani, Page 334-335

Similarly it is well known to the Muhadditheen that when a sahabi says something in which he didn’t use his own opinion or ijtihad, than even if he doesn’t take the name of the Prophet (peace be upon him) , it will mean that he has listened that from the Prophet (peace be upon him). For example, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to all the states that zakat is fardh on this and this thing, and at this rate” Than it doesn’t mean that Umar said this on his own, and gave verdicts on his own, rather it will mean that Prophet (peace be upon him) had given orders regarding zakat.

[003:049]  “And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): “‘I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God’s leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

[003:050]  “‘(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.

Now here it doesn’t mean that Jesus was making lawful something which was forbidden by God , without the commandment of God, similarly when Umar said that I disallow it now, it doesn’t mean that he was doing it on his own, rather it means, in accordance with the command of Allah and his Prophet (peace be upon him).

And the ahadith about the prohibition of mutah has been narrated by so many companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

Here is a very short list of such ahadith on the prohibition of mutah by the Prophet (peace be upon him)

It was narrated from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that:

The Messenger of Allah forbade Mutah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade Mutah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by Bukhari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.]

It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhanithat his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allah who said:

“O people, I used to allow you to engage in Mutah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a Mutah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.” [Narrated by Muslim, 1406.]

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“O people, I had permitted you Mutah before, [but now] whoever of you has any part in it currently must part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them, as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of resurrection.” [Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, and Darimi]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the eating of the meat of domestic camels.” [Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafi’i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said to a man who was engaging in Mutah:

“You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of Khaybar.” [Muslim and Bayhaqy]

A man called Rabee’ Bin Sabra said to Umar bin Abdul Aziz:

“I testify that according to my father that it happened that the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it [Mutah] on the farewell pilgrimage.” [Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad]

According to Abu Huraira:

The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance. [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him and said:

“O people, the Messenger of Allah had permitted Mutah three times then forbade it. I swear by Allah, ready to fulfil my oath, that if I find any person who engages in temporary marriage without having ratified this with a proper marriage, I will have him lashed 100 stripes unless he can bring two witnesses to prove that the Messenger had permitted it after forbidding it.” [Ibn Majah]

57. The Qur’an says that ‘Qaala Mumin min aale firaun yukassim imaanahu’ a believer from the Aal of Firaun had concealed his belief and hence its shown that the concealment of belief out of fear is not disbelief or abhorrent on the part of a believer. Why then is the Taqiyyah of a Shia abhorrent to you?

Your imam is saying that Taqiyah is from the religion, and that is why Prophet Joseph (may Allah be pleased with him) called the people of the caravan  thieves though they had not stolen a thing.

I am asking what kind of taqiyah was it?

58. Saheeh Bukhari, vol. 4, page 123 Egyptian edition reports from Hassan Basri that ‘Al taqiyyah baaqiyata ila yawmil qiyaamat, (Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgement). When taqiyya is proved to be permissible from both the Qur’an and the Hadeeth, why then your sect attacks the Shi’a practice of taqiyyah?

Let us not worry about the Egyptian edition, here is the complete Bukhari,

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/

Tell me the hadith if you find there.

59. Fataawa Qaadhi Khan vol. 4, page 821 states, that 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. Can we really adhere to a Sect that issues such a fatwa? Give us a rational reply?

Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 98

Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 821

60. The Qur’an states that ‘Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun’ No one can touch it save the pure but in Fatmaada Aalamgeer vol. 5 page 134 and in Fatwa Siraajiya page 75, it is stated that Surah Fateha can be written with urine (astaghfirullah). Could you justify this claim?

Fatawa Siraajiya, Page 75

Don’t have access to these books but if it is really written as you said, than such fatawas are rejected. Lets see the fatwas of shia ayatullahs.

Bestiality Fatwa!

Name: Ali Akbar Mandni
Subject: Sex with animals

Question:

Salam alikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

Our master al-Sistani may Allah give you long age and may Allah sanctify your secret and may He make you provision for Islamic Ummah.
our Master I have a very embarrassing question. Our master I am unmarried and live in desert, I mean I am a shepherd and bachelor. Everything I need is available like mobile, computer.. but I have too much lust. And there is no one available to have muta’h marriage. With regret I have satanic thoughts in my mind. I had sex with two sheeps and a lamb and small calf. And right now I am very afraid because one of the sheep’s stomach became big, and I am afraid it might be pregnant. Is it permissible to have sex with animals our master?? Because I heard from people its halal. Thank you.

In his name

Sex with animals before the mission (Islam) was wide spread and many narrations are narrated that it is halal but makrooh (disliked). And on the compulsory precaution one should abandon this practice that may cause self harm. And you must admit this to the owner of the sheep and pay the owner.

Impregnant animals with rafidi sperms or renting animal wombs to hatch rafidis in them

Source: شبكة السراج في الطريق إلى الله

339 السؤال:
لو امكن التلقيح الصناعي علمياً في رحم صناعي أو رحم حيوان .. هل يجوز التقاء المني الحيمن مع بويضة الاجنبية :
إذا كانا : 1 معلومين 2 مجهولين 3 احدهما مسلما والأخر كافرا ؟
الفتوى:
يجوز .

Translation:Question 339:

If it was scientifically possible to artificially fertilize inside an artificial womb or womb of an animal… is it permissible to mix warm sperms with a foreign (non-mahram) woman’s egg:

If so happened that: 1. They (sperm owners) are known 2. They are unknown 3. One is muslim and the other is Kafir?

Fatwah:

It is permissible.

Wear Bikini Fatwa!

What are the parts of body which a man and a woman have to guard? Penis, Testicles, Anal Ring and Vagina!

Translation:

Question 371:

What is the limit of awra for a man infront of his mahrams, like his mother and his maternal aunts and paternal aunts except his wives?
What is the limit of awra for a woman infront of her mahrams, like her father and brother except her husband?
What is the limit of awra for a man in front of another man?
What is the limit of awra for a woman in front of another woman?

Fatwah:

Awra of a man is his penis and testicles and anus ring, and awra of a woman is her vagina and anus ring, and there is no difference if he is infront of same sex or opposite sex, stranger or others, yes a woman must cover parts tha arouse sexual desire from other than her husband?

watching Pornography Fatwa by Ayatullah Khoe

9	السؤال:	هل يجوز النظر إلى صور الخلاعة قصدا ، إذا لم يحدث أي شهوة ؟
	الفتوى:	إذا لم يكن مثيرا للشهوة كما هو المفروض في السؤال جاز، والله العالم.

Question (9): Is it permissible to look at Pornographic images intentionally if it does not arouse Lust?

Answer of Ayatullah al Khoe’i: If it does not as the question states then it’s permissible, Allah knows best.

Mutah or Adultery: Let the adulterers choose!

Translation:

Name: Hussein .A

Country: Iraqi living in Kuwait

Age: 23

Sex: Male

Subject: Mut’ah marriage…is it allowed to kill.

Question:

Master al-Sistani may Allah give you long age, I have little embarrassing question…I wish you reply to me as fast as possible because I am in a very bad mood. A week ago one night I went to my house, where I live along with my sister. And when I entered the house, heard some noise in one of the rooms where no one lives. And when I opened the door I saw my sister with a stranger whom I recognised to be a ‘Sayed’ (black turbaned aka Ayatullah), I shouted upon him and caught him and beat him severely. He told me “I am married to your sister in mut’ah, so what do you want”. I then beat my sister and locked her in room till this day, and as for that Sayed I wanted to slaughter him with knife, so I locked him in room and went to bring knife but when I returned, I found that he escaped from the window. And now I have his address, so can I kill him or what should I do?

Answer:

In his name the exalted.

You have no authority over your sister even if she comes with haram act (adultery). It is not permissible for you to beat or imprison her except if your Marj’i3 (religious authority a rafidi does taqleed of) gives you permission. Regarding the sayed as per his saying he did not do any haram, and even if he did haram you have no authority to implement ‘hadd’ upon him.

Comments:

For all the shias, what if some sayid entered your home and did this, and than said I am just doing Mutah, you shouldn’t complain, kindly think about your feelings that will be at that time.

Questions 61-70:

61. Every chapter of the Qur’an begins with Bismillah but Surah tawbah doesn’t begin with it, why?

62. When the start of every Surah of the Qur’an has been made with Bismillah, why then do you not start the Surahs in your salaat with Bismillah?

63. Prove ‘Thanaa’ Eulogy from the Qur’an.

64. Point out Assalaatu minan nawm to us from the Qur’an if not then at least from an authentic hadeeth.

65. Prove that these words had been used as part of the Adhan during Abu Bakr’s period.

As regards the matter of insertion of the words ‘come to the prayer’ in Azaan is concerned the claim is also unfounded. The reason being that the words of Azaan is part of the Sunnah of the prayer instituted by the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The practice has been in currency since the day the Holy Prophet (pbuh) instituted it as the Sunnah. The authenticity of the practice does not hinge upon individual reports rather it depends on the generation-to-generation transmission of the words uttered in the call in all the five prayers. It is also clear from various reports that any addition that is deemed appropriate with reference to the circumstance can also be made in the words of this call for prayer. Also there is a legion of narratives, which clearly mention that the practice has been in vogue during the Holy Prophet’s (pbuh) time. Let us study the report that is forwarded to prove the notion that Hazrat Umar (ra) inserted the words in the call to prayer.

Malik narrated that it was reported to him that the Mo`azzan approached Umar (ra) to call him to prayer. When he found Umar (ra) asleep he said: ‘Prayer is better than sleep’. Umar (ra) commanded him to place the saying in the call for the Morning Prayer.

As is obvious the narrator does not mention the source and the report is not traced back to the caliph Umar (ra). Moreover, the text of the report is in clear contradiction with many authentic reports. As I have already mentioned that a host of narratives recorded in other books of the hadith mention that it was the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself who had commanded his companions to add the sentence in the call for Morning Prayer. These reports which are mostly reported by more reliable and uninterrupted chains of reporters include Sahih of Ibn e Khuzaymah 385, 386; Sahih of Ibn e Habbaan 1682; Sunan of Abu Daud 500, 501, 504; Sunan Nisai 633, 647, 707; Sunan Ibn e Majah 716; Sunan Nisai al Kubra 1597, 1611; Sunan Bahaqi Al Kubraa 1617, 1824, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1835, 1731, 1834, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1840, 1845, and many others in Musnad Ahmad and other books.

Do you know that the sentence of “Prayer is better than sleeping” is also approved in some of the Shia ahadith:

Al-Tahzib by Al-Toosi, Vol. 2, No. 14: “Imam Jafar says: … Al-Taswib (i.e. the statement of ‘Al-Salat Khayron Min Al-Nawm’) in Iqama is part of the Sunnat.

Al-Tahzib by Al-Toosi, Vol. 2, No. 15: “Imam Baqir (RA) says: My father (i.e. Ali Ibn Alhusayn (RA) used to say ‘Al-Salat Khayron Min Al-Nawm,’ in his Azan at home…’

Wasa’el Al-Shia, No. 6998: “Imam Jafar (RA) says: When you are in morning prayer say ‘Al-Salat Khayron Min Al-Nawm’ after ‘Hayye Ala Khayr Al-Amal’[1] in Azan but don’t say it in Iqama.

According to the Shia scholar, Majlesi in his book Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 81 P. 150 certain Shia scholars of old times had allowed saying the sentence in the morning prayers. These are Ibn Al-Junayd and Al-Ju’fi.

66. Prove to us that the prayers of taraweeh had been said in congregation during the time of the holy Prophet[saww] and during the period of Abu Bakr.

Hadith fom Sahi Bukhari:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Allah’s Apostle made a small room (with a palm leaf mat). Allah’s Apostle came out (of his house) and prayed in it. Some men came and joined him in his prayer. Then again the next night they came for the prayer, but Allah’s Apostle delayed and did not come out to them. So they raised their voices and knocked the door with small stones (to draw his attention). He came out to them in a state of anger, saying, “You are still insisting (on your deed, i.e. tarawih prayer in the mosque) that I thought that this prayer (tarawih) might become obligatory on you. So you people, offer this prayer at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is the one which he offers at home, except the compulsory (congregational) prayer.” (Book #73, Hadith #134)

Hadith fom Sahi Bukhari:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: The Prophet took a room made of date palm leaves mats in the mosque. Allah’s Apostle prayed in it for a few nights till the people gathered (to pray the night prayer (tarawih) (behind him.) Then on the 4th night the people did not hear his voice and they thought he had slept, so some of them started humming in order that he might come out. The Prophet then said, “You continued doing what I saw you doing till I was afraid that this (tarawih prayer) might be enjoined on you, and if it were enjoined on you, you would not continue performing it. Therefore, O people! Perform your prayers at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is what is performed at his home except the compulsory congregational) prayer.” (See Hadith No. 229,Vol. 3) (See Hadith No. 134, Vol. (Book #92, Hadith #393)

67. You only have nine reports at your disposal as far as praying the salaat by folding your arms is concerned. On the principles of the transmitters of hadeeth, prove their chains as ‘Saheeh’ correct. And prove all the transmitters as reliable.

Actually the guru of Answering-Ansar , Abdul Kareem Mushtaq , seemed to have relied on few shias , because if he had himself researched in a good manner, he would not have missed these two ahadith in Abu Dawood and Sahih Muslim.

14 Maslay, Page 167 to 180

Sahih Muslim

Book 004, Number 0792:

Wa’il b. Hujr reported: He saw the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) raising his hands at the time of beginning the prayer and reciting takbir, and according to Hammam (the narrator), the hands were lifted opposite to ears. He (the Holy Prophet) then wrapped his hands in his cloth and placed his right hand over his left hand. And when he was about to bow down, he brought out his hands from the cloth, and then lifted them, and then recited takbir and bowed down and when (he came back to the erect position) he recited:” Allah listened to him who praised Him.” And when prostrates. He prostrated between the two palms.

Abu Dawood:

Book 3, Number 0725:

Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr:

I purposely looked at the prayer of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), how he offered it. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) stood up, faced the direction of the qiblah and uttered the takbir (Allah is most great) and then raised his hands in front of his ears, then placed his right hand on his left (catching each other).

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 12, Number 707:

Narrated Sahl bin Sa’d:

The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet .”

Indeed this hadith is from Imam Malik, because  because in  his Muwatta (48/159/1), Imam Malik recorded the hadith of the position of the hands in which the right is over the left. This shows his willingness to accept the hadith that are true. His reasons for not following it would have been anything else, God knows well. But there is no doubt that he considered this hadith correct so he included it in his book and the claim of the answering-ansar’s guru that how could this be from Imam Malik when he didn’t practice it, is wrong, as he himself recorded the hadith of the position of the hands in which the right is over the left.

Al-Nawawi said :  This Hadith is sahih

Ibn Hajar said this in Fath Al-Bari while commenting on this hadeeth. He said:

واعترض الداني في أطراف الموطأ فقال هذا معلول لأنه ظن من أبي حازم ورد بأن أبا حازم لو لم يقل لا أعلمه الخ لكان في حكم المرفوع لأن قول الصحابي كنا نؤمر بكذا يصرف بظاهره إلى من له الأمر وهو النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم لأن الصحابي في مقام تعريف الشرع فيحمل على من صدر عنه الشرع ومثله قول عائشة كنا نؤمر بقضاء الصوم فأنه محمول على أن الآمر بذلك هو النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم وأطلق البيهقي أنه لا خلاف في ذلك بين أهل النقل والله أعلم

He says this hadeeth is analogous to the Hadith of A’isha when she said that they (the women) were ordered to make up the days missed in Ramadan. Obviously the one who ordered her to make it up was RasoolAllah, as no one else has the authority to legislate besides Allah and his messenger. The same is the case with the hadeeth of Qabd. Al-Bayhaqi said that there is no dispute amongst the Ulama’ on this issue.

So he also considered it sahih. None of the scholars of hadith have criticized this hadith.

And this hadith can also be found in Musnad of Imam Ahmad (336/5)

68. From the period of Abu Bakr, present any example or a report to prove that Abu Bakr said his prayers by folding his arms. If you can, why do the Malikis keep their arms straight while saying their prayers?

69. The Qur’an instructs us to fast till night “thamar atmou alsiyamar ilaa Al-lail”, and night enters when darkness casts in. Why do you open your fasts early? Why were Umar and Uthman opening their fasts after Maghrib prayers?

Nuqaa’ Umar, Page 110, Hadeeth 351, by Shah Waliallah Dhelavi

Lol, I mean we open fasts when the sun sets, and you , in your historic opposition to us, open your fast just ten minutes after us, do you think ten minutes after sun set becomes night? Dude it is still evening after ten minutes of the sun set and according to your logic, you are still opening your fast in evening, the night has not yet settled. If you really want to follow your logic , open your fast after two one hour of sun set. Ten minutes after us is just a show piece.

The thing is, evening is the beginning part of night and morning is the beginning part of day,

Quran says:

35:13 يولج الليل في النهار ويولج النهار في الليل وسخر الشمس والقمر كل يجري لاجل مسمى ذلكم الله ربكم له الملك والذين تدعون من دونه مايملكون من قطمير

Yusuf Ali:

[035:013]  He merges Night into Day, and he merges Day into Night, and he has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law): each one runs its course for a term appointed. Such is God your Lord: to Him belongs all Dominion. And those whom ye invoke besides Him have not the least power.

Shakir:

[035:013]  He causes the night to enter in upon the day, and He causes the day to enter in upon the night, and He has made subservient (to you) the sun and the moon; each one follows its course to an appointed time; this is Allah, your Lord, His is the kingdom; and those whom you call upon besides Him do not control a straw.

Suppose if we reject it that evening is the beginning part of night, and morning is the beginning part of the day, than tell me , how would you explain this verse? Indeed morning and evening are the beginning parts of day and night. And we know that evening is the time when sun sets, so it is the time when we open our fast, you are in nowhere, because you open your fast ten minutes after us, if you think that evening is not the beginning part of night, and you think that night is when the darkness settles, than you open your fast neither when sun sets, nor when night settles, but you open your fast in the middle, which follows no logic, but only opposition to the mainstream Muslims.

70. You claim that the Shia’a Qur’an contains forty parts, prove its source from the four Shia key books (Kutub Al-’Arba’a).

Whatever the reason, your guru believes present Quran is corrupt. So what is the need of wasting time here. Anyhow , your most authentic hadith book , Al Kafi, says Quran consists of 14 parts, each part consisting of 1 thousand , 2 hundred and 4 verses so people can finish it two times every month. Enjoy your Quran of 17000 verses.

Questions 71-80:

71. If Mut’a is Haraam, why did Asma Bin Abu Bakr do it? For evidence, refer to Tafseer Mazhari Qadhi Thanaa Allah , page 577.

Lets see the exact narration first.

حدثنا يونس قال حدثنا أبو داود قال حدثنا شعبة عن مسلم القرشي قال دخلنا على أسماء بنت أبى بكر فسألناها عن متعة النساء فقالت فعلناها على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Narrated Yunos narrated Abu Dawood narrated Sho’ba from Muslim al-Qurashi he said : we visited Asma bint Abi Bakr and we asked her about MUTA OF WOMEN so she said : WE did it during the time of rasool Allah

First of all even from this text, it’s not clear that Asma (r.a) did mutah herself. For example if someone would ask: DOES MOSLEMS MAKING SACRIFICE? I would reply: YES WE DO THAT. But I personally never done it with my own hands.
So answer of Asma: We did it during the lifetime of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) doesn’t mean that she did it personally.

Also we should notice that there is other version of this hadith.

Tabarani in “Kabir”:

277 – حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل و محمد بن صالح بن الوليد النرسي قالا : ثنا أبو حفص عمرو بن علي قال : ثنا أبو داود ثنا شعبة عن مسلم القري قال :
: دخلنا على أسماء بنت أبي بكر فسألناها عن المتعة فقالت : فعلناها على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم

Muslim al-Qurashi said : we visited Asma bint Abi Bakr and we asked her about MUTA so she said : WE did it during the time of rasool Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa salam).

As you can see here, the talk wasn’t about mutah of women, but mutah in general, and that could mean mutah al-haj. Allah knows better.
And there is another great proof, that Moslem was asking about haj at-tamattu in sahih of imam Moslem:

Sahih Moslem.
Chapter 27: CONCERNING TAMATTU’ IN HAJJ

Book 007, Number 2854:

Muslim al-Qurri reported: I asked Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) about Tamattu’ in Hajj and he permitted it, whereas Ibn Zubair had forbidden it. He (Ibn ‘Abbas) said: This is the mother of Ibn Zubair who states that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) had permitted it, so you better go to her and ask her about it. He (Muslim al-Qurri said): So we went to her and she was a bulky blind lady and she said: Verily Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted it.

Book 007, Number 2855:

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu’ba with the same chain of transmitters, but with a slight variation of words.

To benefit more on this topic [ Taken from research done by sh. Faisal al-Jassim]:

All the routes of this hadeeth is reported from the way of Shu’ba from Muslim al-Qarri from Asmaa.
The following are the narrators who reported this Hadeeth from Shu’ba and they disputed over its text:

a. Yunus bin Habeeb and Mahmoud bin Ghilaan from Abu Dawd from Shu’ba with the text {Mu’ta of women}. [Musnad al-Tayalsi and Sunan Nasaie]
b. Amro bin Ali and Ibn Abdullah al-Saffar from Abu dawd from Shu’ba without the word “women”. So its text is: {We asked her about the Mu’taa}. [al-Mu’jam al-kabeer by Tabarani]
c. Abdurrhman bin Mahdi from Shu’ba without the word “women so the text of this route is {We asked her about the Mu’taa} [ Sahih Muslim and others]
d. Ghandar from Shu’aba who said: Muslim said: I do not know whether it was the Mu’taa of Hajj or the Mu’taa of women” [Sahih Muslim]
e. Rawh bin Ubadah from Shu’ba: {Mut’aa of Hajj} and in this report he mentioned the full story: he said: I asked Ibn Abbas about the Mu’taa of hajj so he allowed it while Ibn al-Zubair did not allow it. So Ibn abbas said: go to his mother as she narrate that the Prophet permits it as well and ask her about this matter. So we eneterd upon her and she was blind huge woman and said: The Prophet permitted it” [ Sahih Muslim]

The following can be noted:

The Mu’taa of women was only reported from Abu dawud. However, who reported it from his way disputed over it; one said it “Mut’aa of women” while others reporting from him that he said: “The Muta’aa” without the word women.

The rest of routes are clearly show that what is preserved that it is about Mu’taa of Hajj.

This what Shia imams say about Mutah in shia books

قال أمير المؤمنين صلوات الله عليه

( حرم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يوم خيبر لحوم الحمر الأهلية ونكاح المتعة) انظر (التهذيب 2/186)، (الاستبصار 2/142) ، (وسائل الشيعة 14/441).

Amirul Mua’minin (as) said: Prophet (s.a.w) forbidden on the day of khaiber the meat of donkeys and the mut’ah marriages.
(At-tahdheeb 2/186, Al-Istbsaar 2/142 & Wasael Al-Shia 14/144)

عن عبد الله بن سنان قال سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن المتعة فقال: (لا تدنس نفسك بـها) (بحار الأنوار 100/318).

It was narrated by Abdullah Bin Senan said : I asked Abu Abdullah about Mut’ah and he said: “Don’t filthy (defile) your self with it” (Bihaar Al-Anwar 100/318).

عن عمار قال: قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لي ولسليمان بن خالد: (قد حرمت عليكما المتعة) (فروع الكافي 2/48)، (وسائل الشيعة 14/450).

Narrated by A’maar: Abu Abdullah said to me and to Suliman Bin Khaled: “I made Mut’ah Haram on you”
(Furoo AlKafi 2/48 & Wasaeel Shia 14/450).

وكان عليه السلام يوبخ أصحابه ويحذرهم من المتعة فقال: أما يستحي أحدكم أن يرى موضع فيحمل ذلك على صالحي إخوانه وأصحابه؟ (الفروع 2/44)، (وسائل الشيعة 1/450).

Also he (Abu Abdullah) used to rebuke and warn his companions against mut’ah …… (Furoo 2/44), (Wasael Alshia 1/450)

ولما سأل علي بن يقطين أبا الحسن عليه السلام عن المتعة أجابه:

( ما أنت وذاك؟ قد أغناك الله عنها ) (الفروع 2/43)، الوسائل (14/449).

Ali bin Yaqteen asked Aba Hassan about Mut’ah and he answered : “What is that and You (In Arabic it means what has that got to do with you) Allah had compensated you with something much better” (he meant legal marraige) (Furoo 2/43), (Wasael Al-shia 14/449).

عبد الله بن عمير قال لأبي جعفر عليه السلام (يسرك أن نساءك وبناتك وأخواتك وبنات عمك يفعلن؟ -أي يتمتعن- فأعرض عنه أبو جعفر عليه السلام حين ذكر نساءه وبنات عمه) (الفروع 2/42)، (التهذيب 2/186)

Abdullah Bin Umair said to Abi Ja’far (as) :Is it acceptable to you that your women, daughters, sisters, daughters of your aunties do it (Mut’ah)? Abu Ja’far rebuked him when he mentioned his women and daughters of his aunties.
(Al-Furoo 2/42 & At-tahdheeb 2/186)

72. In Mishkat Shareef, it is reported that when Abu Bakr and Umar asked the holy Prophet[saww] for his daughter, Lady Fatima[sa]‘s hand the Prophet[saww] replied she is too young to marry, is this a correct report?

73. If it is wrong then prove it with full evidence both intellectual and textual.

74. If this is correct then think rationally over the fact that, Umme Kulthum[sa] whose mother was too young to marry these people, marries these same personalities, does this make sense?

Please see our article “Nikah of Lady Umme Kulthum[sa]“

Observe in the above lines the jump from the hadith “she is too young to marry” to the spin that she “was too young to marry these people”.

Rather, as Sharh al-Mishkaat states (Dar al-Fikr ed. 10:476-477), she had been asked at an early time and the Prophet waited, upon him blessings and peace, for specific heavenly revelation concerning Fatima, period.

This is confirmed by the other version of the proposal of the Two Shaykhs of Islam – Allah be well-pleased with them – Abu Bakr and `Umar, in which the Prophet replies, upon him and his Family and Companions blessings and peace: “The qada’ [concerning this decision] has not been revealed yet.”

As far as your article is concerned, why should we consult an article which includes blatant lies?

A common favourite is this tradition from Sahih al Bukhari “Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihad)” Volume 4, Book 52, Number 132:

Narrated Tha’laba bin Abi Malik:

‘Umar bin Al-Khattab distributed some garments amongst the women of Medina. One good garment remained, and one of those present with him said, “O chief of the believers! Give this garment to your wife, the (grand) daughter of Allah’s Apostle.” They meant Um Kalthum, the daughter of ‘Ali. ‘Umar said, Um Salit has more right (to have it).” Um Salit was amongst those Ansari women who had given the pledge of allegiance to Allah’s Apostle.’ ‘Umar said, “She (i.e. Um Salit) used to carry the water skins for us on the day ofUhud.”

Reply One:

This is the only time that we read anything of Umme Kalthum in the entire contents of al Bukhari; it does not even appear in the book of Nikah, but in the Book of Jihad. Dr Muhsin Khan in his translation has in fact used dishonesty after Um Kalthum he adds the words “the daughter of ‘Ali” when this is not present in the Arabic. The actual word that is used in the text that Khan interpreted as wife is “Undhuk” whilst we acknowledge Undhuk can indeed refer to one’s wife, its literal meaning in Arabic grammar is “Close”, “Next To” and “Near”.http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umme_kulthum/en/chap4.php

Actually this lie was also started by the same author of these 100 questions in his book, Mushtaq , the guru of answering-ansar , Afsana Aqd Umme Kulthum , Page 54

Here are four Arabic manuscripts of Sahih Bukhari, look at all of them with open eyes before blaming someone of dishonesty.

Al-Azhar Library manuscript

1849 Indian Edition

1894 Cairo Edition

1981 Beirut Edition

And as far as the word “Undhuk” is concerned , this demonstrates Answering-Ansar’s UTTER ignorance of the Arabic Language.

The “actual word” mentioned by the Answering-Ansar team as “Undhuk” is in reality “`indaka,” as you can see in the book scans, a compound word resulting from the attachment of “`ind” with the directive masculine personal pronoun “ka” [your]. `Ind is a preposition that refers to time, place or possession, and when directed towards a male with a woman of no blood relation mentioned in a possessive manner, it refers to a wife.

For further details about this blatant lie, Click here

And for further questions and answers about Umar’s marriage to Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Ali, click here.

75. Can your prayers be complete without darood? If yes then come up with full evidence and if not then how come the blessings are just sent upon Muhammad[saww] and his progeny and not upon his companions and wives? When the prayers can be complete without sending blessings to the wives and the companions, why does Ahl’ul Sunnah add the names of these groups to Darood in their religious gatherings?

76. Cite a saheeh and authoritative text hadeeth of the apostle with a complete source wherein it is reported that it is obligatory to send darood upon all the companions and wives of the holy prophet (saww). And also tell us if it is obligatory then how can the prayers be in order without them?

We send blessings of Allah upon all the righteous servants of Allah, not just limited to the progeny of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

السلام علینا وعلٰی عباد اللہ الصلحین

Peace be upon us and the righteous servants of Allah.

اللھم صل علی محمد وعلٰی اٰل  محمد کما صلیت علٰی ابراہیم وعلٰی اٰل  ابراہیم انک حمید مجید ۔
اللھم بارک علٰی  محمد وعلٰی اٰل محمد کما بارکت علٰی  ابراہیم وعلٰی ال  ابراہیم انک حمید مجید

The word here is Aal, the best translation of which here is followers. As we know that in the progeny of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) there are many people , on whom you would never send blessings. For example,

Imam clarified:” My grandfather narrated from Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said that when the birth of my son Jafar bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Husain bin Ali ibn Abu Talib takes places keep his name as ‘Sadiq’ because one person from his fifth generation will also bear the name of Jafar and will wrongly claim vicegerency. His name will be Jafar Kazzab. He will ascribe wrong things to Allah and will claim the position for which he is not entitled. He will not only oppose his father but will also bear jealousy towards his brother. This is the person who will strive to tear apart the veil of occupation of Imam.”

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=4870

Now you will never like to send blessings upon this person. So what Aal really means here? It is followers.

77. You believe that the Khilafat can either be established by public votes or the way of ijma (consensus). Could you verify this with evidence from the sayings of the apostle himself?

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) himself established his khilafat by Ijma [See Nahjul Balagha]

78. Did the holy prophet (saww) depart from this world without giving guidance on Khilafat? If yes, why then did the two shaykhs say ‘ilaaimatu minal quraysh’ (The Imams are from Quraysh) in saqeefa bani sa’da? Did they specifically lie for leadership? Also why oppose the holy prophet’s Sunnah, why did Abu Bakr candidate Umar?

They didn’t lie.

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4482:

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I went with my father to the Messenger of Allah (may peeace be upon him) and I heard him say: This religion would continue to remain powerful and dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then he added something which I couldn’t catch on account of the noise of the people. I asked my father: What did he say? My father said: He has said that all of them will be from the Quraish.

Now if you claim that it proves your 12 imams, than it is indeed not so, for if that was really the case, than first of all shias would not have been so disunited amongst themselves over who the 12 imams are. Various shia sects proposed their own 12 imams. Indeed this hadith has been used by various sects to prove their selves correct by presenting their own list of 12 imams. While the fact is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) just told us that there will be 12 caliphs who will be from Quraish. Now it is a must for someone to claim imamate that he be from the Quraish. And a non Quraish can’t claim to be one of these 12 caliphs. The ansar of Madinah when heard this hadith, they readily agreed. Afterwards all the Muslims including Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) paid allegiance to Abu Bakar (may Allah be pleased with him). Hasan and Hussain (may Allah be pleased with them) paid allegiance to Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). How can an imam appointed by God give allegiance to a person not entitled to it? If imams were divinely appointed, than their allegiance to others who were not entitled to it is disobediene to God. A prophet is divinely appointed, he will never accept another person who is not a prophet as a prophet and he will never give allegiance to him. So on which basis “divinely appointed imam” can disobey God?

79. In majmaul Bihar, Muhammad Tahir Gujrati writes that Abu Bakr confessed that ‘I am not a Khalifah but a Khalifah’ if you regard him truthful then why do you not deny his caliphate?

80. In Sawaiq Al-Muhriqah of Allamah Ibn Hajar Makki writes that there are three siddeeq ( truthful ), Habib an Najaar, Hazqeel and Ali (as), and that Ali (as) was better than the two. Why has Abu Bakr not been mentioned here?

See also: Tafseer e Kabir, Vol. 7, Page 317

Lets read the hadith with the chain of narr

حدثنا محمد قثنا الحسن بن عبد الرحمن الأنصاري قال : نا  عمرو بن جميع  ، عن إبن أبي ليلى ، عن أخيه عيسى ، عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى ، عن أبيه قال : قال رسول الله (ص) : الصديقون ثلاثة : حبيب بن مري النجار مؤمن آل ياسين ، وخرتيل مؤمن آل فرعون ، وعلي بن أبي طالب الثالث ، وهو أفضلهم

This hadith has been declared mawdu (Fabricated) by Shaikh Albani. Ibn Tayimmah says “It’s a lie” see Ahadith Daeefa by Allama Albani, Urdu translation by Sadiq Khaleel , Volume 3 , Page 65. The problem with it is Umru Bin Jamee’. Lets read what scholars say about him.

آفته عمرو بن جميع فقد كذبه ابن معين

و قال الدارقطني و جماعة :
” متروك ” .
و قال ابن عدي :
” كان يتهم بالوضع ” .
و قال البخاري :
“منكر الحديث

Questions 81-90:

81. Was Umar the heir of the holy Prophet[saww]‘s knowledge? If yes then why as is stipulated by Jalaludeen Suyuti ‘Umar used to seek refuge with Allah from every difficult question or case when there is no Abul Hassan (History of the Khalifahs who took the right way (English translation by Abdassamad Clarke page 178)? And why did he confess that ‘lau la Aliyyan lahalakal Umar’? If Ali (as) wasn’t there, Umar would have perished (Tadkhiratul Khawwas, by Sibt Ibne Jauzi, page 127). Note: The comments in Dhikr-e-Hussain by Maulana Kauthar Niyazi are also worthy of note.

He loved Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) , you will find similar statements of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) about Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them). They loved and respected eachother. They were not hate filled like you.

82. Did the two shaykhs of Ahl’ul Sunnah participate in the burial rituals of the holy Prophet[saww], if you claim they did, then why do we read that both Sharh mawaqif and Al Farooq Shibli Nu’mani confirm their absence? If they did not participate then what type of friends are these?

Al-Farooq, by Shibli Naumani, Page 40

Read your given scan of Al farooq by Shibli Naumani again, the word mentioned here is تجہیز و تکفین , but what about تدفین (the actual burial of the deceased)? In burial rituals, تدفین i.e the actual burial of the deceased is also included , and this is what the most important thing is? Or is it not the most important part of burial rituals to bury the deceased? What value تجہیز و تکفین (i.e the arrangements for the burial) has if you don’t do the main thing i.e تدفین (burial) of the deceased?

Regarding the same issue, the author says in the next few lines.

We give the following extract form the Musnad of Abul Yala, a work of unquestionable authority, which will throw fully light on the subject:

“It is related by Omar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: ‘O son of Khattab (Omar” pray step out for a moment’. Omar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred i.e., the Ansar were gathering in force in the Thaqifah Bani Sa’idah and, as the situation was grave, it was necessary that he (Omar) should go and look in to the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a war. On this Omar said to Abu Bakr, ‘Let us go’. [Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1 p 86, 87]

So why did the go? The answer is in the same book.

As far as the question, they did participate in the burial rituals after they returned. The place of burial of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was chosen after Abu Bakar (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that Prophets are buried where they die. So Prophet (peace be upon him) was buried in the house of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) where our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) had passed away.

Again, they did perform the funeral prayer of the Prophet (peace be upon him), as your own books [e.g Hayat ul Quloob] verify.

83. In Musnad Ahmed Hanbal and so on, it is mentioned that Ayesha had named Uthman as Nathal, who should be killed and Murtakib Kufr. If you regard Ayesha as the truthful then you will have to accept what she called Uthman. And if she did not tell the truth then why do you call her the truthful?

Please see our article “Ayesha”

Please see our Article

Accusing the Prophet’s Wife of Murder: “Kill this old fool (Na’thal)”

84. The soldiers that the holy prophet (saww) had prepared against Musailimah ibn kazzab were commanded by Usama and Abu Bakr and Umar were also instructed to be under him. Why did Abu Bakr and Umar not go? What legal dispensation did they have that entitled them to ignore the holy Prophet[saww]‘s commands? If they have such dispensation, why did the holy Prophet[saww] curse those who were appointed for participation but did not go?

See also: Milal wa Al-Nihal [English translation] page 18

The Prophet (peace be upon him) died at this time, which made them return. The whole burden of uniting the Muslims and protecting them from the enemies fell on him. Later he did meet up with the army of Usama.

Shortly before his death the Prophet had decided to despatch an expedition to Syria under Usama. The army had actually left Medina and bivouacked at Juraf, at a little distance from Medina when the Prophet breathed his last. Abu Bakr insisted on its departure to give effect to his master’s last wishes although [since] Medina [was] hemmed in on all sides in those days, anyone would have hardly dared taking this action. There was the danger of apostates attacking Medina or other unruly tribes taking advantage of the chaotic conditions prevailing around the capital of infant Islamic State.

Abu Huraira has correctly estimated the far-reaching effect of the decision taken by Abu Bakr. Abul ‘Araj relates from Abu Huraira : “I swear to God save whom no deity is there that God would not have been worshipped, if Abu Bakr had not ascended the caliphate.’ Abu Huraira repeated it thrice over and then related the incident of sending the expedition under Usama. He said, ‘Abu Bakr despatched the army under Usama, saying, 1 will riot allow the army to return already sent by the Prophet : I will not fold the flag unfurled by the Prophet !’ The result was that when Usama passed the tribes which were disposed to rebellion and apostasy, they said to one another; ‘Had these prople not been strong enough, they would not have ventured on this expedition. Let them go and face the Romans.’ Thus the army went forth, fought the Romans and returned after defeating the enemy. Thus the tribes prone to defection were reassured and continued to remain votaries of Islam.”

Than there was a great apostasy and there was a great danger of attack on Madinah. After defeating these people and making Madinah secure, the Caliph returned to Madinah. On arrival at Madinah he spent a few days in dealing with matters of state; then he moved to Zhu Qissa with the Army of Usama. But it had now ceased to be the Army of Usama, for Usama had completed his work and his army was now the Army of Islam-to be used by the Caliph as required.

85. In Muwatta of Imam malik, translated by Allamah Waheed al Zamaan, Page 147, hadeeth 603, Rasulullah (s) narrates that a companion had approached him, beating his chest and ripping his hair. If chest beating in the presence of Rasulullah (s) is allowed then why do you object to it?

86. Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddath Dehlavi in his book Midaaraj Nabaweeya, vol. 2, page 544 writes that the Mu’adhdhin of the apostle, Hadhrath Bilal Habashi (r.a) came to the Mosque of the Prophet[saww] beating his chest and complaining. What is your verdict regarding chest beating?

On your article about azadari, you gave the reference Madarij al Nubuwah, Volume 2 page 441 , see here , and here you give the page 544?

Anyhow we have read both the pages , here is book scan of both these pages, click here , you will see no mentioning of Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) at all. We also read under the other relevant places in volume two, but found nothing which supported your claim. Now its your duty to present the book scan if you really have it. Otherwise, many of your lies have been exposed [see here] and this will add to the list. Good luck.

87. In the Musnad of Imam Hanbal, Egyptian edition, Vol. 6, Page 274 it is written that upon the demise of the holy Prophet[saww], Ayesha beat her chest along with the other women, what is your opinion regarding this act of Ummul Mu’mineen?

مسند الإمام أحمد بن حنبل المؤلف : أحمد بن حنبل أبو عبدالله الشيباني الناشر : مؤسسة قرطبة – القاهرة عدد الأجزاء : 6 الأحاديث مذيلة بأحكام شعيب الأرنؤوط عليها [ جزء 6 – صفحة 274 ] ح26391( حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبى ثنا يعقوب قال ثنا أبى عن بن إسحاق قال حدثني يحيى بن عباد بن عبد الله بن الزبير عن أبيه عباد قال سمعت عائشة تقول : مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بين سحري ونحرى وفي دولتي لم أظلم فيه أحدا فمن سفهي وحداثة سني ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قبض وهو في حجري ثم وضعت رأسه على وسادة وقمت ألتدم مع النساء واضرب وجهي تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق )

“I heard Ayesha saying “The Messenger of God died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of God died while he was in my lap, and then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women”

The proper reading of Ahadith will protect you from such misguidance.

Matam is forbidden by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and your infallible imams too :

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said:

Allah hates two sounds. They are the noise of mourning when a misfortune falls and the sound of a pipe when a blessing falls.

Tuhaf ul Aqool (تحف العقول عن آل الرسول) : You can download from http://shia-online.com/books.php

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

He (i.e Ali) says thus in Nahjul Balagha: I remained patient while there was a thorn of sorrow in my eye and suffocation in the throat.

http://www.al-islam.org/akhlaq-aimma/14.htm

Imam Ali (peace be upon him) said:

Prayer is the offertory of the pious. Hajj is the jihad of the weak. Everything has its tax, and the tax of bodies is fasting. The best deed of a man is the expectation of the Relief. The instructors who do not apply their instructions to themselves are like those who try to shoot without having a string. He who is certain of the reward will give generously. Seek earnings through almsgiving. Protect your wealth by defraying the zakat. The moderate will never suffer neediness. Moderation is the half of livelihood. Amicability is the half of intelligence. Care is the half of senility. Fewness of dependants is one of the two facilities. To depress the parents is impiety to them. As for those who beat the hand on the thigh in misfortunes, their rewards will be cancelled.

Tuhaf ul Aqool (تحف العقول عن آل الرسول) : You can download from http://shia-online.com/books.php

Imam Al-Kadhim (peace be upon him) had said:

Fewness of the dependants is one of the two facilities.

To depress the parents is impiety to them.

As for those who beat the hand on the thigh or strike the hands together in misfortunes, their rewards will be cancelled.

Tuhaf ul Aqool (تحف العقول عن آل الرسول) : You can download from http://shia-online.com/books.php

Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) said :

Instruct your folks to speak only good wording near the corpse. As the harem of Bani Hashim asked her to poetize near her father’s corpse, Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), said, “Leave mourning and supplicate to God.”

Tuhaf ul Aqool (تحف العقول عن آل الرسول) : You can download from http://shia-online.com/books.php

More shia books verify:

Irshad, by Shaikh Mufeed , Imam Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) forbade his sister from mourning :

Hayat ul Quloob , the Prophet (peace be upon him) was carried to heaven one night, and he saw a woman in the form of dog because she was a mourner.

88. Hadhrath Ali Hajweeri Al Mash-huur Daata Ganj Bakhsh Lahori in his book Kashful Mahjoob, chapter 2, page 118, section 8 reports it from Umar, that the holy Prophet[saww] played as a camel for the then young Imam Hussain[as], meaning he made himself a replica of a camel. Following the Sunnah of the holy Prophet[saww] is it Sunnah (tradition) to make a replica of Imam Hussain[as]‘s horse or is it a bid’at (Innovation)?

That was the love of grand father for his grand child so that he could ride, this doesn’t mean that people should now fix a date and mourn on that day and make a drama, replicas of the horse of Imam Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), symbolic burials, and the strange things we see on the 10th of Muharram.

89. Kanzul A’mal, Hayder Aabad edition, vol. 5, in the Musnad of Ali karramallahu wajhu, page 147, hadeeth 2403 it is written that, the holy Prophet[saww] used to wipe his feet during wudhoo, why do you not regard wiping as permissible? If the feet will go to hell by being kept dry during wudhoo then how is the wiping over the socks correct?

Shia muhadith al-Haj Mirza Hussain an-Noore Tabarsi in his “Mustadrak al wasail” (1/305-306) narrated (you can load it HERE):

إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الثَّقَفِيُّ فِي كِتَابِ الْغَارَاتِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ عَبَايَةَ قَالَ كَتَبَ عَلِيٌّ ( ع ) إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَ أَهْلِ مِصْرَ أَمَّا بَعْدُ إِلَى أَنْ قَالَ ( ع ) ثُمَّ الْوُضُوءُ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ تَمَامِ الصَّلَاةِ اغْسِلْ كَفَّيْكَ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ وَ تَمَضْمَضْ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ وَ اسْتَنْشِقْ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ وَ اغْسِلْ وَجْهَكَ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ ثُمَّ يَدَكَ الْيُمْنَى ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ إِلَى الْمِرْفَقِ ثُمَّ يَدَكَ الشِّمَالَ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ إِلَى الْمِرْفَقِ ثُمَّ امْسَحْ رَأْسَكَ ثُمَّ اغْسِلْ رِجْلَكَ الْيُمْنَى ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ ثُمَّ اغْسِلْ رِجْلَكَ الْيُسْرَى ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ فَإِنِّي رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ (ص) هَكَذَا كَانَ يَتَوَضَّأُ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ ( ص ) الْوُضُوءُ نِصْفُ الْإِيمَانِ

Then ablution it’s from perfectness of pray. Wash your hands 3 times.Then make mazmazah 3 times. And make istinshaq 3 times. And wash your face 3 times. Then your right hand 3 times in the direction of elbow, and your left hand 3 times in the direction of elbow. Then wipe your head. Then wash your right leg 3 times, and then wash your left leg 3 times. And I seen prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) making ablution in this way.

90.In the Bai’at of Ridhwan, the Muslims took a covenant of not fleeing from the battle field. But the battle of Hunayn took place after the “bay’at of under the tree”. Of those people who went against their covenants, what is your verdict with regards to them?

The Muslims took a covenant of fleeing from the battle which may happen if the kuffar didn’t return Uthman and the Muslims have to fight with them. It was only for that battle. In the battle of Hunayn, some Muslims did run away from the battle due to the extreme severity of the battle but it was only temporary and afterwards they did return. Actually they had claimed that this time , they could not be defeated because they were in large numbers. So Allah showed upon them that it is not the large number that can do them any benefit but its only Allah who can give success and loss.

Questions 91-100:

91. The historian, Habib as Sayr writes regarding the battle of Hunayn that:

Purseed Abu Bakr wa Umar kujaa Budand? Guft aan neez dar goshe rafte budand.

Meaning when it was enquired where Abu Bakr and Umar were?, the narrator replied they had also fled to some corner. Contemplate over this narration, let it be very clear that in your Tafseer Qaweri, Tafseer Hussayni, Rawdhatus Safaa, Taareekhul Khamseen, Rawdhatul Ahbab, Ma’aarijun Nubuwwah, etc it is mentioned that the three gentlemen had fled from the battle of Hunayn. Why did they break the covenant of the Bay’at of Ridhwan? Reply after reading all these books.

The temporary defeats in the battle of Uhud and Hunayn carried a huge message for the ummah. On the battle of Uhud, the Muslims disobeyed the Prophet (peace be upon him) and so Allah showed them the result of disobedience to the Prophet (peace be upon him), on the battle of Hunayn, the Muslims said ‘Indeed we will not be defeated in this battle because today we outnumber the enemies’. So Allah showed them , that the large number will do them no good, rather it was Allah who gives success to whom he wills and defeat to whom he will. In both the battles, the Muslims came back after the temporary defeats, they got clear message for the Muslims, not to disobey the Prophet (peace be upon him) and not to boast, as everything is in the hands of Allah Almighty.Both times, Allah forgave them too, so its of no use to mention to mention these two battles, as temporary defeats in both of them carried a message for the Muslims, and both times, Allah forgave. We will not even go into books, once Allah has forgiven someone, how can you blame that person again? Or do you consider yourself superior to God?

Battle of Uhud

[003:152]  God did indeed fulfil His promise to you when ye with His permission Were about to annihilate your enemy,-until ye flinched and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed it after He brought you in sight (of the booty) which ye covet. Among you are some that hanker after this world and some that desire the Hereafter. Then did He divert you from your foes in order to test you but He forgave you: For God is full of grace to those who believe.

Battle of Hunayn

[009:025]  Assuredly God did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.

[009:026]  But God did pour His calm on the Apostle and on the Believers, and sent down forces which ye saw not: He punished the Unbelievers; thus doth He reward those without Faith.

[009:027]  Again will God, after this, turn (in mercy) to whom He will: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

92. If these three men had been brave then show us from your book Tafseer Qaweri the names of these three men from among those who did not flee in the battle of Hunayn. And prove it to us from all of your books, how many non-believers had been killed by these three men in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq and Hunayn. How many non-believers did they inflict with harm? And how much harm did themselves sustain in their bodies? And just mention five names with complete sources from among those whom these people killed.

Man you really seem to be mentally ill. What if they had killed people? Khalid Bin Waleed killed lots of people after embracing Islam in various battles, and defeated great armies. Why not mention him here? Who conquered Palestine, Egypt, Iran , Syria , oh man the list is so long. They were all conquered in the era of the first three caliphs. How can you call them cowards? Do we really have to count the number of persons killed by a person to know his bravery? Do we have to see the number of man killed by Napolean Bonaparte , Alexender, and the other great warriors in the little skirmishes around their cities to know their bravery? Why ignore the huge armies they defeated? Historians have not named people with complete sources who were killed by the sahabas, they only mentioned the armies they defeated, and yes, we don’t have the biodata of the people whom sahabas killed , but historians have indeed recorded the nine swords of Khalid bin Waleed which were broken during the fight while he defeated 2 hundred thousand roman army with just 3 thousand men in the battle of Mu’tah. That was the easier thing to count rather than counting all the men he killed.

Another of thee great 100 undefeated battles of Khalid Bin waleed was battle of Yarmuk.

http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-yarmuk-636.htm

The land Muslims conquered during the reign of First three caliphs and the Umayyads. Show a map of the places Ali may Allah be pleased with him conquered if you can.

Look at the victories of the people whom you call cowards. Look at their victories from an unbiased source and if you still consider these people cowards , there must be some fault in your brain.

Also read, Historical Role of Islam , Chapter The Causes of Triumphs of Muslims by a Hindu , M. N. Roy

93. If Umar has been brave then write the names of people who got killed at his hands in the battles of Uhud and Hunayn from historical sources compare Ali[sa] and Umar so that their doings in those two battles become known.

The bravery of the warriors is not proven from the people they killed, but the grand armies they defeated. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) defeated ,not just one , but two super powers of his time, Iran and Rome. How can you ignore that? Again, You accuse Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) of killing Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) in the presence of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), don’t you allege Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) of being more coward than a normal person? As every normal person is greatly enraged if his wife is beaten by someone and he can’t keep silence at this. Why Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), according to your beliefs , kept silent? Doesn’t your this belief puts a huge question mark on his bravery?

94. In the Tafseer of Dur Manthur Suyuti, vol. 54, and Izalatul Khifa of Shah Waliyyullaah Muhaddath Dahlavi, page 199 etc. it is written that the holy Prophet[saww] told Abu Bakr ‘The polytheism is moving in you like the moving of an ant’. Take notice of this hadeeth and tell us how then was he a siddeeq? And if he did not have shirk within himself then dare to belie like a disbeliever the truthfulness of the holy Prophet[saww].

Mistranslation, half quotation, blah blah blah, is that the way you preach your religion? That is indeed the way of the imams who themselves are misguided and who misguide others.

الشرك فيكم أخفى من دبيب النمل وسأدلك على شيء إذا فعلته أذهب عنك صغار الشرك وكباره تقول اللهم إني أعوذ بك أن أشرك بك وأنا أعلم وأستغفرك لما لا أعلم – تقولها ثلاث مرات

“The Shirk among you people is more hidden than the crawling of an ant, but I shall guide you to that which if you do it, will protect you from both minor shirk and the greater ones as well; to say three times:

Allahumma innee a’uthu bika an ushrika bika wa ana a’lam wa-astaghfiruka limaa laa a’lam

“O Allah, I seek refuge in You from that I ascribe partners to You knowingly and I seek forgiveness from You for those things which I do not know.”

More ahadith clearly tells us it was not about Abu Bakr but the ummah as a whole about whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) was talking about.

Abu Musa al-Ash’ari reported that Allah’s Messenger sall Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam delivered a sermon to them one day and said, “O People! Fear this Shirk (meaning riyaa’), for it is more inconspicuous than the crawling of an ant” ^{[Musnad Ahmad , Tabrani]}

Allah’s Messenger sall Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam said,

“The thing I fear the most for you is the minor shirk: Ar-Riyaa’” ^{[Musnad Ahmad vol. 5, p 428-429, Sharh As-Sunnah no. 4135]}

The following hadith explains Riya also

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri radiaAllahu Anhu reported that the Messenger of Allah sall Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam came to us while we were discussing about ad-Dajjal (the anti-Christ) and said, “Should I not inform you of that which I fear for you even more than the danger of ad-Dajjal? It is the hidden shirk: A person stands to pray and he beautifies his prayer because he sees the people looking at him.”

^{[Sahih Sunan ibn Majah vol.2, p. 410, no. 3389]}

عن أسماء بنت أبي بكر ‏(‏م‏)‏ عن عائشة‏.‏

7501- الشرك في أمتي أخفى من دبيب النمل على الصفا‏.‏

كنز العمال في سنن الأقوال والأفعال

عن جابر‏.‏

7521- أيها الناس اتقوا الشرك، فإنه أخفى من دبيب النمل، قالوا‏:‏ وكيف نتقيه يا رسول الله‏؟‏ قال قولوا‏:‏ اللهم إنا نعوذ بك أن نشرك بك شيئا نعلمه، ونستغفرك لما لا نعلمه‏.‏

كنز العمال في سنن الأقوال والأفعال

قال: إن أخوف ما أخاف عليكم الشرك الأصغر. قالوا: وما الشرك الأصغر يا رسول الله؟ قال: الرياء… مسند الإمام أحمد … وعن أبي موسى قال: خطبنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ذات يوم، فقال: يا أيها الناس اتقوا هذا الشرك، فإنه أخفى من دبيب النمل، فقال له من شاء الله أن يقول: وكيف نتقيه وهو أخفى من دبيب النمل يا رسول الله؟ قال: قولوا: اللهم إنا نعوذ بك من أن نشرك بك شيئاً نعلمه، ونستغفرك لما لا نعلمه. رواه أحمد والطبراني وغيرهما

Now read the shia hadith

Imam Jafar said

ان الریا مع المومن الشرک

“Riya with the believer is shirk.”

Aitqadat, page 112, by Shaikh Sadooq

This hadith is also narrated in the infamous shia book of lies and deceptions, Peshawar Nights.

The vain display of good deeds is minor polytheism, which negates our good actions. It has been reported that the holy Prophet said: “Abstain from minor Polytheism.” People asked him, “O, Prophet of Allah, what is minor polytheism?” He replied, “Al-riya wa’s-sama’” (i.e., to show people, or to let them hear of your worship of Allah). Also the holy Prophet said: “The worst thing which I fear for you is your hidden polytheism; so rise above it since among my followers polytheism is more secret than the creeping of the ant on a hard stone in the dark night.” Source

As proven from the ahadith above, that hadith was generally about the ummah , not directed towards any single individual. Riya is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) meant here, that it is very common amongst people, and that was what the Prophet (peace be upon him) feared that the ummah will fall into it. In the same hadith, the supplication is also given, which every Muslim should read, so as to protect himself from this minor shirk. May Allah protect us. Amin.

95. In your Fataawa Qaadhi Khan, vol. 1, page 64, it is written that if a person who is in a state of prayers kisses a woman without lust then his prayer is valid. Is the time for it too short except in prayers? Where is the need for such a thing in prayers?

96. Imam Ghazzali in sirrul Aalameen, Maqaalidul Ba’aa page 9, writes the desire for power had prevailed among the Sahaba and they first turned into opposition. They threw the holy Prophet[saww]‘s message onto their backs, they demanded some payment in return for the foundation and they did a very bad trade. Could you please elaborate on this?

Pseudo Works (Attributed to al-Ghazali): These works are questionable at best.

Sirr al-’Alamin (Secret of the two worlds)

http://www.ghazali.org/site/sitemap.htm

97. You oppose the halaal Mut’a and do not hesitate terming it as adultery. But in your book Sharh Wiqaaya, page 298, it is mentioned that to your Imam Abu Hanifa, stated the expenditure of an adulteress is halaal and there is not any jurisprudential limit on one who rewards a woman for zinah. Is Mut’ah worse than this?

98. By calling Marwan back from Medinah, Uthman bin Affan opposed the holy Prophet[saww]. Do you reproach this or support it?

Please see our article “Who really killed ‘Uthman”

Prophet (peace be upon him) had forgiven Marwan bin Hakam on the request of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) later on. ^{[Asaaba , Asadul Ghaba]}

Muhamed bin Sireen said, “Al-Hasan, Al-Hussain, Ibn Omar, Ibn Al-Zubair, and Marwan rushed to the house of Uthman raising their swords. Uthman told them. ‘I order you to go back home, put your swords in their shields, and stay at home.’” [Tareekh Khaleefah Al-Khayyat, p.174]

Kunanah, the slave of Safiyah, said, “I witnessed the murder of Uthman. Four young men from Quraysh were taken out from Uthman’s house. These young men were covered by blood, and they were defending Uthman may Allah be pleased at him; Al-Hasan bin Ali, Abdullah bin Al-Zubair, Muhamed bin Hatib, and Marwan bin Hakam.” [A’asr Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah by Akram Diya’a Al-Umari, p.390. Al-Umari said that the hadeeth was narrated in Al-Estia’ab with a good authentication]

99. It is an established fact in the books of Sunnis that Muawiyah had disputed with the Khalifah Rashid (the rightly guided caliph) and ordered the poisoning of Imam Hassan[sa] (check Mahram Naama, khwaja Hassan Nidhami) and why are the companions who made Ali[as] be abused on the pulpits considered as fair players? Give us intellectual and textual reasoning.

Please see our article “Mu’awiya”

It is an established fact that these are lies.

It is a lie that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya’s biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians presents these words about Mu’awiyah, they do not differentiate between true or false stories. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them. Among these historians is Al-Tabari, who lived in a time of Shia’s growing power. Al-Tabari says in the introduction to his history: “Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been told.” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13]

It is a lie also what al-Tijani says that Muslim narrated in his Saheeh a similar incident in “Ali’s Virtues” Chapter. The story that Al-Tijani is meaning is the story which is narrated by A’amir bin Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas who narrated from his father who says: (Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan ordered Sa’ad and asked him: “What prevented you from insulting Abu Turab (Ali bin Abi Talib)?” Sa’ad answered: “The prophet peace be upon him said three things to him (Ali bin Abi Talib), so I would not insult him because to have one of these three things is more beloved to me than Humr Al-Nni’am (a kind of best camels). I heard the prophet peace be upon him saying to appoint Ali as a leader when the prophet used to go to Jihad (Holy War). Ali then would say to him: “O’ Messenger of Allah, you left me with the women and children?” The prophet peace be upon him answered him: “Would not you be pleased if you were for me as Haroon was for Mousa? Except there is no prophecy after me.” And I heard the prophet saying at the day of Khaybar: “I would give this banner to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger and who Allah and His Messenger love him too.” He said: “Then we were looking for this honor.” Then the Prophet said: “Call Ali.” Ali was brought and he had sore eyes. So the prophet peace be upon him spitted in his eyes and gave him the banner. Then Allah granted victory to the Muslims by the hands of Ali. And when this verse revealed: “Come, let us gather together, our sons and your sons,” the messenger of Allah called Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain and said: “O’ Allah, they are my family.”) [Saheeh Muslim with Explanation, Book of “The Companions,” Chapter of “Virtues of Ali,” #2404]

This hadeeth does not mean that Mu’awiyah ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali. But, as it is obvious, Mu’awiyah wanted to know the reason that prevented Sa’ad from insulting Ali. Therefore, Sa’ad gave him the reason, and we do not know that when Mu’awiyah heard Sa’ad’s answer got angry with him or punished him. Mu’awiya’s silence is a correction for Sa’ad’s opinion. If Mu’awiyah was despotic; forcing people to insult Ali as Al-Tijani claims, then Mu’awiyah would not be quiet and would force Sa’ad to insult Ali, but nothing of that happened. Hence, it is known that Mu’awiyah did not order to insult Ali nor was pleased by that. Al-Nawawi says: “Mu’awiyah’s saying does not declare that he ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali, but asked him for the reason that prevented him from insulting. As if Mu’awiyah was saying to him: “Have you refrained from insulting Ali as a result of piety, fear or anything like that? If it was as a result of piety and veneration to refrain from insulting, then you are rightful and if it were other than that, then there would be another answer.” Or it might be that Sa’ad was in a group of people who insults Ali and he did not insult Ali with them, and could not prevent them and controverted them so Mu’awiyah asked him this question. They said: “And it may have another explanation, that what prevented you from making Ali wrong in his thought and opinion, and to show to people our good opinion and thought and that Ali was wrong?” [Ibid. p250-252]

100. How and with whose instructions did the incident of Harra transpire? What happened to Medina and Ahl Medinah during the same? Please give a detailed account of it.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we will present a shia hadith, which is enough to let you understand the whole story.

Imam Al-sajjad (as) said: If you see people of suspicion and innovation – other than shias or new shia – then show disownment from them and abuse them much, backbit them, make false accusations on them – that is, backbite them by attributing lies on them and make false accusations on them (‘Buhtaan’)[tanbiah al-khawatir v.2 p.162 – wasael al-shia v.11 p. 508 – Nahj al-intisaar p.152]

20 Questions asked by the Shi’a

Bismillahi Wassalatu Wassalamu ala Rasulillah.

Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.

A list of 20 Questions:

1. History testifies that when the Prophet (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Bani Hashim were to a boycott by the Quraysh . Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?

Answer: They were with the Prophet (peace be upon him) because when this event finished and the Muslims were again allowed than Abu Talib said .

وھم رجعوا سھل بن بیضا راضیا      فسر ابو بکر بھا و محمد

انہوں نے جب سہل بن بیضا کو نقض معاہدہ پر راضی کر کے بھیجا تو اس پر حضرت ابو بکر بھی خوش ہو گئے اور حضرت محمد بھی۔

This is present in shia books

^{Nasikh ut tawarikh 5/22 (تاریخ التوریخ)}

Also in sunni books with the above lines of Abu Talib

^{Al bidaya wan nihaya}

^{Ibn Hisham}

As far as Umar is concerned, the reason of this whole incident was his embracing Islam

^{Al bidaya 3/79}

^{Also in shia books : Rauzatus safa (روضۃ الصفا) , volume 2 , page 49}

Also , why not the shias talk about Hazrat Abu Asim bin Rabi’ah  in this case?

Abu Asim bin Rabi’ah  would bring food for the Muslims , The Noble Prophet praised him as follows; “We became in-laws with him, we were happy of his gesture, he promised us and fulfilled his promise.”

^{Shia book : Hayat ul Quloob , volume 2, Page 311}

He was the husband of Zainab, the eldest daughter of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It was the daughter of Abu Asim bin Rabi’ah , Omama bint Zainab whom later Ali married according to the will of Fatima.

2. Hadhrath Fatima Zahra died 6 months after her father (saaws), Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial? (see Sahih Bukhari Arabic – English Vol 5 hadith number 546).

Answer:

Sahih Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546 doesn’t say that Muslims prevented her burial next to the Prophet (peace be upon him), rather your own ahadith imply that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) buried her at night time , and made many graves around her grave so no one could locate her grave [See Jilalul Ayoon , Hayatul Quloob etc]. So how do you blame Muslims?

This is because Abu Bakar and Umar especially asked from her the place while there is no record in the history that Fatima asked her to give place in her home in which the Prophet peace be upon him was buried there. If the shia can bring the proof of Fatima asking place from Aisha and Aisha thenceforth rejecting it, they should present that first.

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

‘Umar then said (to ‘Abdullah), “Go to ‘Aisha (the mother of the believers) and say: “Umar 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: “Umar 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, “‘Umar 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 Umar to myself.” When he returned it was said (to ‘Umar), “‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar has come.” ‘Umar said, “Make me sit up.” Somebody supported him against his body and ‘Umar asked (‘Abdullah), “What news do you have?” He said, “O chief of the believers! It is as you wish. She has given the permission.” ‘Umar 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: “Umar 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.” …  So when ‘Umar expired, we carried him out and set out walking. ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar greeted (‘Aisha) and said, “‘Umar bin Al-Khattab asks for the permission.” ‘Aisha said, “Bring him in.” He was brought in and buried beside his two companions.

Abu Bakr was her father but he also got her permission to be buried near the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Again, the thing is the Prophet (peace be upon him) was buried in the residence of Aisha, and if anyone wanted to be buried there, he needed to get her permission. If you can tell us any narration which says Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) had got this permission from Aisha , or Ali had asked her, than indeed your question carries value but when your own belief is that Ali buried her alone at night so no one could find her grave , how do you blame other Muslims? And if you reject such beliefs, than we can talk over it but your own beliefs???? Anyhow!

3. Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior.If this is indeed the case then why did the Prophet (saaws) not select himto be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on theDay of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as)saying “You are my brother in this world and the next”3, so on what basisis Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?

Answer: First of all , the narrations which say that Prophet (peace be upon him) chose Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) his brother are not authentic, see Silsila Ahadees Zaeefa by Albani. Secondly, this brotherhood was between the Ansar and Muhajireen , both Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) were Muhajir , and this brotherhood was meant to be between Ansar and Muhajireen so you can see that logically also, this is not correct.

Again, All companions had different distinctions. Ali (r) had the distinction of being selected as his brother along with many other distinctions, but Abu Bakr also had his share of distinctions…for instance

· He was a good friend and neighbor of Prophet Muhammad (saw) before the revelation of Quran to Muhammad saw.

· He was the first adult man and the first one outside the family of Prophet Muhammad saw to accept Islam.

· He had the unique distinction of being given the titles of ‘Siddiq’ and ‘Atiq’ by the Holy Prophet.

· Of all the companions, Rasool Allah (s) chose Abu Bakr as his companion for his journey to Madina for the Hijrat and he was his companion in Ghar e Sour about which the ayat of the Quran was also revealed.

· The Holy Prophet appointed Abu Bakr as the first “Amirul Hajj” in the history of Islam.

· Holy Prophet also appointed Abu Bakr as the Imam of Masjid e Nabawi to lead the prayers in his lifetime.

· In his last address at Masjid-i-Nabvi, the Holy Prophet ordered that all doors opening into the mosque should be closed except the door leading to the house of Abu Bakr.

· The Prophet said, “If I were to take a Khalil, I would have taken Abu Bakr, but he is my brother and my companion (in Islam).” Bukhari

How can anybody say and decide themselves that because Ali (r) was selected as his brother – therefore he is the best and the closest and superior than the rest while it is a fact that Holy Prophet also declared Abu Bakr as his brother and companion in Islam. Moreover if seen without bias and prejudice what can be more superior than being the Amirul Hajj and the Imam of Masjid e Nabawi and that too during the life time of Rasool Allah and selected by him!!?

4. The books of Ahlul Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Aysha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narrations far exceed those relayed Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as)? Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared “I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it’s Gate”, did Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals?

Answer: Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali (r) all passed away soon after the demise of our Holy Prophet. Where as Aisha, Abu Huraira and Ibn Umar lived a long life…they had a longer time to interact with the next generation (Tabaeen) and pass on their knowledge to them. They had the time and the opportunity to establish hadith classes and teach hadiths to others. That is why there are few traditions related from Abu Bakr, Usman and Ali (r) while Ayesha, Abu Huraira and ibn umar have more narrations from them.

If you look at Shia books, they mostly have hadiths which do not even have a chain of narrators leading up to Prophet Muhammad  let alone being narrated by Ali or Fatima. They reject hadiths from Ayesha – the Umhatul Momineen as the wives are titled in the Quran .Their most authentic Hadith book called Al Kafi was written by Yaqoob al-Kulyanee  around 300 years after the death of Ali (r)!! and also after the death of their 11 imams.

Where as Sunii Hadith collection started during the life time of Rasool Allah and the first manuscript of hadiths was by ibn Habban who was the student of Abu Huraira and sunni hadiths books have narrations from all the companions including Ali (r) and Fatima and others…..

5. If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the three Khalifa’s why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kaffir’s is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath unsheath his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?

Answer: It is a historical fact which the shia seem to ignore that Ali (r) was an active member of the Khilafat during the reign of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman  and was in the Majlis e shora as he was expert in many fields and had a lot of knowledge. His opinion in court cases was sought which shows that he was busy in other matters and was not part of the army because his advice was needed more in the court then in the battle field.

Secondly, this is proof in itself that Ali (r) accepted the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar and Usman (r) as he did not rise against them and ask for his right of khilafat. If he was wronged and injustice was done against him, he being so brave, would definitely have risen against him as he did against the Caliphate of Muawiyah.

So if he accepted the caliphate of abu bakr n umar n uthman and never rose to do jihad against them and ask for his right to caliphate then why can’t the shias accept their caliphate??? Do they want to imply that Ali (r) was a coward (naauzobillah) during their reign? How come he suddenly became brave and fought against muawiyah? Was he brave or was he a coward!!!???

It is a well known fact that he was one of the bravest soldiers who fought many battles during the life time of Rasool Allah. He never  kept quit at any injustice and it is not at all possible that he kept quiet during the reign of Abu Bakr and Umar and Usman and did not wage any jihad against them.

6. If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi’as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahl’ul Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their postion at that time?

Answer:  Briefly stating Hasan (r) first of all he never expected this to happen and he never went to fight a war – as he went with very few men including his family with women and children. No one goes for Jihad with women and children!! He was traveling to Kufa on their invitations of support, not Jihad. So there is no question of other Muslims joining him for jihad as there really was no call for Jihad! and most of all at that time there was no media to inform others about what what happening as sending messages took time as journeys were on foot or camels or horses. Dont forget that the tragedy of kerbala happend in what is not Iraq and the Muslim mainland of Arabia was very very far off.The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

7. If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the `Qur’an is sufficient for us’ (Sahih Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense? (See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716)

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, “What is wrong with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state ).” So they went to the Prophet and asked him again. The Prophet said, “Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for.” Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, “Turn the pagans out of the ‘Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them.” (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, “I forgot it.”) (See Hadith No. 116 Vol. 1)

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 717:

Narrated Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:

Ibn Abbas said, “When Allah’s Apostle was on his deathbed and there were some men in the house, he said, ‘Come near, I will write for you something after which you will not go astray.’ Some of them ( i.e. his companions) said, ‘Allah’s Apostle is seriously ill and you have the (Holy) Quran. Allah’s Book is sufficient for us.’ So the people in the house differed and started disputing. Some of them said, ‘Give him writing material so that he may write for you something after which you will not go astray.’ while the others said the other way round. So when their talk and differences increased, Allah’s Apostle said, “Get up.” Ibn Abbas used to say, “No doubt, it was very unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from writing for them that writing because of their differences and noise.”

Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114:

Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:

Ibn ‘Abbas said, “When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, ‘Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.’ But ‘Umar said, ‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah’s Book with us and that is sufficient for us.’ But the companions of the Prophet differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet said to them, ‘Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” Ibn ‘Abbas came out saying, “It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise.

As you can see, your claim is totally wrong that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is speaking nonsense. The hadith says “Some of them” and there is no mentioning whether Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was included in them or not, and this you have added yourself, and we know the bigotry of shias very well.

Again, the companions didn’t say that he is delirious, read the words yourself

“Some said, “What is wrong with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state ).” So they went to the Prophet and asked him again.”

Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) doesn’t allow a person to talk to the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying he is ill and therefore can not talk to you.

Jilalulayoon volume 1 page 148

Again, we know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) lived for 3 to 4 days after this incident. He could have written down what he wanted afterwards too. But at that time, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) thought it better not to disturb him.

As far as the statement of  Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is concerned, that

‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah’s Book with us and that is sufficient for us.’

Shia commentary of Poya Mahdi (for the verse 2:2) says:

It makes no difference whether the termimamum mabin, in verse 12 of Ya Sin, is interpreted either as the Ahl ul Bayt or as the Quran, for these two are neither separate from each other nor will ever be separable, because one reflects the other.

I guess now it would be easier for the shias to understand the sunni point of view. Quran and Sunnah reflect one another, so if Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned only Quran, it is to be understood that he didn’t mean them separate but by mentioning only Quran, he meant both. Again, we know that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) never ignored sunnah in his life.

Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

I leave among you the book of God, which, if you properly regard, you will never go astray ; then hold it fast.

^{Hayat ul Quloob, Translated by James L. Merrick , Page 334}

Again, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was actually aggrieved at the hue and cry in the room, and that is why he told them to leave. The ahadith show that atlast, Prophet (peace be upon him) did tell them what he wanted, atleast verbally if not in written form.

Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, “Turn the pagans out of the ‘Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them.” (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, “I forgot it.”)

Shias also claim that in this event Prophet (s) wanted to give his will and select Ali (r) as the khaleefah, however they also claim that Ali (r) had been selected as the Khalifa at the Ghadir Khumm. – so why is this pen event so important.

So there is great discrepancy amongst the Shia version of facts!

8. Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet’s to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet’s his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)’s companions follow this approach?

Answer: What the shias claim is false and Abu Bakr and Umar (r) went to saqifa and then returned back to take part in the funeral preparations.It was Abu Bakar who informed the other companions that Prophets are buried where they die and this RasulAllah should be buried in the room of Aisha where he died.

Anyhow, here is the book scan of Jilal ul Ayoon by Mulla Baqir Majlisi, which testifies that all the people of Madinah and the surroundings indeed performed the funeral of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

 

9. Of the 124,000 Prophets’ that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did then why did the Prophet (saaws)’s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl’ul Sunnah consider the wives to be Ahlulbayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlulbayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions?

Answer: Your claim is that Fadak was inherited to Fatima, which is against the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as present in both shia and sunni books

Let us now examine Sunni Hadith on the topic of Prophets and inheritance. Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)

“We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs.” (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)

This is confirmed in Shia Hadith as well. Let us examine Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, on the same matter:

“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

This Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi has two separate narrations, and is considered Sahih by the Shia.

The authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayah al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith:

“The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators.”

(source: Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)

 

And why curse Abu Bakar (may Alllah be pleased with him) only when Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not restore Fadak during his own rule? (Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 16, Pg. 231) and no nonsense this time that Ibn Abil Hadeed is a sunni. He was a devout shia and Nahjul Balagha is a shia hadith book.

10. We read in the Qur’an “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God’s wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment” (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?

Answer: The fight of Jamal was ignited by those shias of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who didn’t want peace after the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) because if peace had been restored, than they would have been questioned because they were involved in the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and later they joined Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). So they ignited the fight to protect themselves, and we know very well that when the fight ended, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Aisha (may Allah be  pleased with her) understood the situation and reconciled and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) led her to her home in respect, not like the present shias who curse her.

Read what Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said to them :

You are not trustworthy to rely upon, nor are you holders of honour to be adhered to. You are very bad in kindling the fire of fighting. Woe to you! I had to bear a lot of worries from you.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/124.htm

Don’t the shias realize that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) would have said this on some basis? Don’t the shias even think?

That ‘s why Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

By Allah, I have begun thinking about these people that they would shortly snatch away the whole country through their unity on their wrong and your disunity (from your own right), and separation, your disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their obedience to their leader in matters of wrong, their fulfilment of the trust in favour of their master and your betrayal, their good work in their cities and your mischief. Even if I give you charge of a wooden bowl I fear you would run away with its handle.

O’ my Allah they are disgusted of me and I am disgusted of them. They are weary of me and I am weary of them. Change them for me with better ones and change me for them with worse one.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/25.htm

• Reasons of battle of Siffain

Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) demanded that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) find and prosecute Uthman’s killers, because it was well known that the killers were from amongst the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) was a blood-relative of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and he was very upset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه), then the governor of Syria, refused to recognize Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and he demanded the right to avenge Uthman’s death (رضّى الله عنه). In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Ali’s forces (رضّى الله عنه) met Muawiyyah’s (رضّى الله عنه) in the Battle of Siffin.

The Shia say that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) fought Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) for denying the Shia concept of the Imamah, and that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the first Infallible Imam. And yet the Shia’s own books say that this was not what the Battle of Siffin had to do with, but rather it was purely political as opposed to religious. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) clearly said in Nahjul Balagha:

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s forces] and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]

• The Battle of Siffin

So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran.

The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyah asked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), being the noble man that he was, agreed to vote (use Shurah) for who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) should use arbitration. The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. So they accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) of going against the Will of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there be negotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?

A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه). They declared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to be known as the Khawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or “those who secede.” For so long, these people had been the most ardent supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahlel Bayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them. They defected against the very man they had claimed to follow!

This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explain away. They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsity of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba’ites, were of the same belief of the Ithna Ashari Shia today, namely that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. And yet, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agreed to arbitration with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). The million-dollar question, asked of course by the Khawaarij: how could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?

How could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? So why would Ali (رضّى الله عنه) arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? In matters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, we cannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salat, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.

This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed to arbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be the Caliph. This proves that what the Ahlus Sunnah believes is correct: namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was selected.

The Shia belief system is diammetrically opposed to the very Ali (رضّى الله عنه) they claim to follow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), much like the Khawaarij [former Saba’ites] would turn against and face Ali (رضّى الله عنه); Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is he who denied all claims of divine appointment and of Infallible Imamah. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) denied this to the Saba’ites, the Khawaarij, and he will also deny this to the Shia of today, whose faces will be turned black on the Day of Judgement for their exaggeration and lies, where they will be grouped together with the people who defected against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), namely the Khawaarij. There is no plausible explanation that the Shia can give to the million-dollar question: why did Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to Shurah? It is indeed a slap to the face of the Shia faith.

• Ali (رضّى الله عنه) Murdered by Saba’ites

In any case, the Khawaarij turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and killed him. So it was that Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be lost that the Shia are the ones who killed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) allowing Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) to be the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) stealing the Caliphate! There can be no denying that the Saba’ites and the Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shi’ism, since the Shia today hold the same opinion that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. with Abu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.

11. Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur’an “And of the people of Medina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them”. (The Qur’an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws). After his (saaws)’s death where did they go? Historians refer to the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saaws) Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join? The official Sunni version is that there were no Shia, or if there were there were only 4, all of whom they respect and undeniably believe will be in Paradise, while they believe the nascent Sunni party to have formed the bulk of the Ummah.

Answer: The truth is that there were no hypocrites in Makkah, because the Muslims were in minority , and there were huge oppressions on the Muslims, we hope you know very well. So no one was stupid enough to join the Muslims because every one who claimed to be a Muslim was oppressed. The hypocrites joined the Muslims in Madinah, because in Madinah, Muslims were in large number, and there were no oppressions on them, so to gain favour from them, and to destroy them from inside, the hypocrites joined the Muslims. And this verse is testifying, remember that there were no hypocrites amongst the people of Makkah who embraced Islam and migrated with the Prophet (peace be upon him) , it should be very clear. They were the people who embraced Islam when there were huge oppressions on Muslims, every Muslim was oppressed by the Pagans. I hope the shias know the history of oppressions on Muslims in Makkah very well which forced them to migrate.

The official sunni version is that there were no shias at that time, it doesn’t include and ifs and buts. It is to be very clear. It is your version that only 3 people were shias and all others apostated after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

12. Ahl’ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijtihadand Qiyas. If one refers to the events of Saqifa, were any of these principles applied?

Answer: A complete confusion. First what the author is TRYING to refer to are principles of Fiqh and not governing a society. And there are more to it like Ijma and also including Ijtihad in the list shows that the author knows nothing about sources of Fiqh in Shia or Sunni discipline. If you read the history of Islam you will see that the holy prophet established a very democratic society in which many of the decisions ( of course except those revealed by God) were made through consulting with experienced people. What happened in Saqifah was in fact an approach that was established by the holy prophet himself. In this way you might say it was based on Sunnah and ijtehad. On the other hand there are absolutely no clear evidence for the doctrine of having 12 Imams in Quran and Sunnat. So the same question applies to Ithna Ashari themselves. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

13. If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy, what of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa?

Answer: They were not against his khilafat , but they wanted that the khalifa should punish the murderers of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). They were not against Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) being a khalifa.

14. It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right?

Answer: No dear, there is another possibility, both have a portion of right and wrong. As for Jamal and Sifeen, as I said it all goes back to the intentions of individuals. It is possible that some one with divine intention in Muawiyah’s army be considered as martyr and some one with wrong intentions in Ali’s army just wasted his life. By this however I do not mean to justify the Muawiyah’s act of fighting Ali.

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“Our martyrs and the martyrs of Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) will be in heaven” ^{[Tabrani , Majmua Zawaid]}

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was very sad at the martyrdom of Talha (may Allah be pleased with him) and he would tell his son , Muhammad , that I and your father will be in heaven.

It doesn’t mean that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had the knowledge of the unseen, rather he said this on the basis of the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

عن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال وقد نسب قوله الى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم
“أبو بكر في الجنة وعمر في الجنة وعثمان في الجنة وعلي في الجنة وطلحة في الجنة والزبير في الجنة وعبد الرحمن بن عوف في الجنة وسعد بن أبي وقاص في الجنة وسعيد بن زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل في الجنة وأبو عبيدة بن الجراح في الجنة” أخرجه أحمد والترمذي والبغوي في المصابيح في الحسان وأخرجه أبو حاتم وفيه تقديم وتأخير

[al-Tirmithi, Hadith 3747 & Volume 5, Page 605, Hadith 3748]
[Masnad Ahmad]

And we know that Shimr Zil Joshan was in the army of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in these battles, but does that mean he will be in heaven? No, as on the day of 10th Muharram, he was the one who killed Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him)

Similarly, when Umru bin Jarmuz killed Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) , Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said to him

“O the killer of the son of Safiyah, you will be in hell” Umru said “We kill your enemies and you tell us that we will go to hell?” [Akhbar-ut-tawal, page 149] Than he committed suicide.

Abu Salama asked Ali that tommorrow when we meet eachother in battle (of Jamal), what will be our end? Ali said “Whoever fought with pure intention, he will go to heaven”

^{[Tarikh Islam by Shah Muinuddin Nadwi , page 285]}

^{[Tarikh Tabri, Page 3127]}

And we know that on the day of Uhud, when Khalid Bin Waleed attacked Muslims from behind, this resulted in a great disorder in the Muslim army, and it was difficult to distinguish between friends and foes, many Muslims were killed by Muslims by mistake, but we know that this doesn’t mean that only one of the two will go to heaven. Rather both of them will go to heaven, because their intentions were pure.

Again we know that when the battles ended, Ali reconciled with them both times, and it was this reconciliation of Ali with them , which made many of his partisons, Kharijites. And they objected on Ali that why he didn’t enslave them (in the battle of Jamal) and why he reconciled with Muawiya.

So when Abdullah ibn Abbas went to them to debate with them, just before the battle between Ali and Kharijites began, he asked Kharijites to tell their objections on Ali.

So they said “There are three things, first of all, he made people arbitrators while Allah says “innal hukmu illallah” second thing is , he fought with people but neither enslaved them nor took their wealth as war booty. The third is that he removed his title “Amir ul Momineen” in arbitration.”

Abdullah ibn Abbas said “If I disprove you through the book of Allah, will you repent?” They said “Yes”

Than he presented the following verses of Quran in favour of arbitration , and proved to them, that arbitration is allowed by Allah.

[005:095]  O you who believe! do not kill game while you are on pilgrimage, and whoever among you shall kill it intentionally, the compensation (of it) is the like of what he killed, from the cattle, as two just persons among you shall judge, as an offering to be brought to the Kaaba or the expiation (of it) is the feeding of the poor or the equivalent of it in fasting, that he may taste the unwholesome result of his deed; Allah has pardoned what is gone by; and whoever returns (to it), Allah will inflict retribution on him; and Allah is Mighty, Lord of Retribution.

[004:035]  And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

Than Abdullah ibn Abbas said “Isn’t it better to appoint men as judges so as bloodshed can be avoided , when this is allowed in the matters of women and game (which are much smaller issues than bloodshed)?” They said “Indeed , its good to appoint men so as bloodshed can be avoided (and they accepted arbitration)”

Than Abdullah Ibn Abbas said “The second thing you say is that Ali fought with people but didn’t enslave them or take their wealth as war booty. I ask you, will you take the mother of believers [033:006] , Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) as your slave? By God, if you say that you can enslave her, you will get out of Islam. You are trapped between two ignorances , Allah says

[033:006]  The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers…

Now if you say that she is not your mother, than you are out of Islam (and the respect of mother is well defined in Quran)

They accepted their ignorance.

Than Abdullah ibn Abbas said “Your third objection is that Ali removed the title “Amir ul Momineen” from his name (during arbitration) than I will bring to you witnesses who will testify that while in the negotiations at Hudaibiya , when the peace treaty was being written with the leaders of the Mushrikeen i.e Abu Sufyan , Suhail bin Umru etc, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) told Ali to write

ھذا ما صالح علیہ محمد رسول اللہ

and the Mushrikeen said “By God, we don’t know that you are the Messenger of God, and if you were the Messenger of God, we would have never fought with you”

Than Prophet (peace be upon him) told Ali to remove the title “Messenger of God” from his name. Now look , by God, Messenger of Allah (i.e Muhammad) is better than Ali, and he removed the title “Messenger of God” from his name”, and this didn’t affected his being messenger of God (so if Ali removed the title Amir ul Momineen from his name during arbitration, this didn’t affect on his being Amir ul Momineen (leader of the believers)”

Two thousand Kharijites repented , and the rest remained on their ignorance.

^{[Excerpted from Devil’s Deception, by Ibn Jawzi]}

15. The Prophet (saaws) had said “I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shia shall secure deliverance on the day of ressurection” . Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had guaranted paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers?

Answer: The first thing is that this hadith is unauthentic. Secondly the person who is asking the question belongs to twelver sect. And we know that such hadith is not present for twelver sect too.

If you want to compare between shia and ahle sunnah wal jama’ah:

Al-Kafi

H 202, Ch. 22, h 6

It is narrated through the same chain of narrators from ibn abu ‘Umayr from certain persons

of his people who has said the following.

“Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said, ‘Whoever disagrees with the book of Allah and the

Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.) he has certainly become a unbeliever.’”

H 204, Ch. 22, h 8

“A man asked a question from Imam abu Ja‘far (a.s.) who replied to it and then the man said,

“The Fuqaha, scholars of law, do not say this.”

The Imam then said, “It is a pity. Have you ever seen a Faqih, a scholar of law? The real

Faqih, scholar of law is one who maintains restraint from the worldly matters, who is deeply

interested in the life hereafter and holds firmly to the Sunnah, noble tradition of the holy

prophet (s.a.)”

H 203, Ch. 22, h 7

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubayd from Yunus in a marfu’

manner from Ali ibn al-Husayn (a.s.) who has said the following.

“The best deed in the sight of Allah is the one that is performed according to the Sunnah, the

noble tradition of the holy Prophet (s.a.) even if it would be in small degree.”

H 199, Ch. 22, h 3

A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from his father

from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halab from Ayyub ibn al-Hurr who has said the

following.

“Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) has said, ‘Everything must be referred to the holy Quran and the

Sunnah, the noble traditions of the holy Prophet (s.a.)”

Nahjul Balagha , Sermon 127

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land. With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah’s hand (of protection) is on al jama’ah ( الجماعة ). You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/127.htm

Someone may say why have I replaced the word “keeping unity” with (al-jama’ah), the thing is the actual arabic word here is (al-jama’ah) which has been translated by the shias as “keeping unity”.

The actual sentence in Arabic here is

الزموا السواد الأعظم، فإنّ يدالله مع الجماعة

be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah’s hand (of protection) is on al jama’ah

So we understand from this , that ahle sunnah wal jama’ah  are the people who are on the right path.

As far as the word shia is concerned, first of all the hadith is unauthentic, after that, we know that the ahlelbayt hated the shias, e.g

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“O’ Kufa, if this is your condition that whirlwinds [of deciet] continue blowing through you, then Allah may destroy you…Your disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their [the Syrian’s] obedience to their leader [Muawiyyah] in matters of wrong, their [the Syrian’s] fulfilment of the trust in favor of their master [Muawiyyah] and your betrayal, their good work in their cities and your mischief. Even if I give you charge of a wooden bowl I fear you would run away with its handle.”

Ali invokes Allah against his Shia:

“O my Allah, they are disgusted of me and I am disgusted of them. They are weary of me and I am weary of them. Change them for me with better ones”

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/25.htm

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) want to change his shias because of their bad behaviour. So how can you claim that Shias of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) will be successful, when the ahlelbayt were fed up of them in their own lives?

So certainly, the right group is ahle sunnah wal jama’ah, i.e follow sunnah and remain with the jama’ah , the great majority, rather than living as ten percent which by no means can be the great majority and the jama’ah.

So the present shias should start thinking now.

16. During her lifetime Hadhrath Aysha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing . How is it that following his slaying she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise oppostion from Basrah. Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Imam Ali (as)?

Answer: Click here!

17. If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer? Hadhrath Ayesha was killed by Mu’awiya (Tarikh al Islam, by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44)   Answer: First of all, what is written there is Marwan , not Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). One more time Answering Ansar’s lies exposed. [For more , visit lies-of-answering-ansar.org] Secondly, if you can read , you will see that it is written down at the end of page , that this narration of Marwan killing Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) is not correct and is not proven from authentic sanad.

18. It is commonly conveyed that the Sahaba were brave, generous, knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir’s did the prominent Sahaba Hadhrath Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who refused to go the Kaffir’s prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no friends and instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of he relationship to the Ummayah clan – against the obligation placed on him by a direct command of the Holy Prophet.

Answer: How many did Salman or AbuDhar kill? How many did Miqdad or Ibn Abbas kill? Daft question! According to shia beliefs, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) didn’t work under the army of the 3 caliphs. But we know that the 3 caliphs defeated the super powers of their times , i.e Persia and Rome to which even shias testify. Why quarreling over how many men they killed, why ignore the super powers they defeated with an army lesser armed than the present Taliban of Afghanistan without the presence of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in their army as per your beliefs? If today, Taliban defeats America and Russia without the help of any foreign army, wouldn’t you call that person an idiot who will still say that Taliban are cowards? If it still doesn’t show that the sahaba were brave , than we recommend the shias to get admission in mad hospital. Muslims defeated Rome and Persia, two super powers of their times, and conquered Palestine for the first time under the leadership of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and this is more than enough to show that he was a very brave person and the sahaba in general were very brave people. And this is a historical fact, how much shias deny, that the victories of Muslims came to a halt under the leadership of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). In short, if it is not narrated how many enemies a person has killed in a war, it doesn’t mean that he has not even killed any enemy in the war. And if this is the case, than let the shias tell us how many enemies Ali, Salman, Abu Dhar , Miqdad , Ibn Abbas, and other people whom they respect, killed in each war. And if they can’t show the exact figures, which indeed they can’t, because no one except Allah and they themselves know how many enemies were killed  at their hands, so if the figure is lesser , than will it mean only those number of people were killed at their hands? Indeed no. So it is proven that it is not necessary that it must be in history books that how much people they killed or otherwise they would not have killed anyone. Those wars were extremely tough wars, because the enemies of Muslims were much larger in number than the muslims , and only presence in such wars was a matter of huge courage. Not like the 18000 shias who broke their pledge of allegiance to Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) and fled, running from an enemy which was more than 4 times lesser than they, i.e only 4000 men of Ibn Ziyad.

19. The Saha Sittah has traditions in which the Holy Prophet (saaws) foretold the coming of twelve khalifa’s after him(1). Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlul’bayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out the Hanafi interpretation of this hadith lists Yazid ibn Mu’awiya as the sixth Khalifa?(2) Was the Holy Prophet (saaws) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states ‘He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya’(3) then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa’s are. 1. “The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted as long as they are governed by 12 men, he then added from Quraish” (taken from Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui) 2. Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhummud Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi) 3. ibid, page 175

Answer: Wasn’t Yazeed the same person whom the fourth imam of Shias has paid allegiance to him, Roza Kafi, Page 246? Anyhow, Various scholars have furthered their own guesses as to who the twelve Caliphs must be, but these guesses cannot be taken with absolute certainty, and due to this fact, any contradiction in various lists is not a sign of weakness but rather it is a natural result of a doctrinal view that forbids speaking with certainty on such matters. Therefore, no scholar would say that these are definitely without a doubt the twelve Caliphs, but rather he will speculate as to whom he thinks it may refer to.

20. Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? Then why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, 4 takbirs for funeral prayers, 3 Talaq’s in one sitting and ban Mutah? What right did he have to substitute Allah (swt)’s orders in favour of his own?

Answer:

Your claims are totally wrong.

Tarawih:

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 134:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Allah’s Apostle made a small room (with a palm leaf mat). Allah’s Apostle came out (of his house) and prayed in it. Some men came and joined him in his prayer. Then again the next night they came for the prayer, but Allah’s Apostle delayed and did not come out to them. So they raised their voices and knocked the door with small stones (to draw his attention). He came out to them in a state of anger, saying, “You are still insisting (on your deed, i.e. Tarawih prayer in the mosque) that I thought that this prayer (Tarawih) might become obligatory on you. So you people, offer this prayer at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is the one which he offers at home, except the compulsory (congregational) prayer.”

Volume 9, Book 92, Number 393:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

The Prophet took a room made of date palm leaves mats in the mosque. Allah’s Apostle prayed in it for a few nights till the people gathered (to pray the night prayer (Tarawih) (behind him.) Then on the 4th night the people did not hear his voice and they thought he had slept, so some of them started humming in order that he might come out. The Prophet then said, “You continued doing what I saw you doing till I was afraid that this (Tarawih prayer) might be enjoined on you, and if it were enjoined on you, you would not continue performing it. Therefore, O people! Perform your prayers at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is what is performed at his home except the compulsory congregational) prayer.” (See Hadith No. 229,Vol. 3) (See Hadith No. 134, Vol. 8)

Mutah:

Sahih Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 59, Number 527:

Narrated ‘Ali bin Abi Talib:

On the day of Khaibar, Allah’s Apostle forbade the Mut’a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat”

In shia texts

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said : Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited from mutah.

(Al Istibsar 3/142)

Four Takbeer:

Bukhari , Volume 2, Book 23, Number 337:

Narrated Abu Huraira,

Allah’s Apostle informed (the people) about the death of An-Najashi on the very day he died. He went towards the Musalla (praying place) and the people stood behind him in rows. He said four Takbirs (i.e. offered the Funeral prayer).

Proven from your own authentic books

Ilalul Sharaie by Shaikh Sadooq:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to say five takbeer on some people and four takbeer on some people.

Ilalul Sharaie, Four Takbeer in Funeral Prayer

Its another thing that afterwards it says that four takbeer were for hypocrites, the thing is it is proven from your books that the Prophet (peace be upon him) also did this, so it was a part of sunnah as proven from your books.